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

, abbot of Peterborough in the twelfth century, was educated at Oxford, became a monk in the monastery of Christ’s church, Canterbury, and some time after was chosen prior by the members of that society. Though he had been a great admirer of archbishop Becket, and wrote a life of that prelate, he was so much esteemed by Henry II. that by the influence of that prince he was elected abbot of Peterborough, in 1177. He assisted at the coronation of Richard I. 1189, and was advanced to be keeper of the great seal in 1191, but he did not long enjoy this high dignity, as he died on Michaelmas day, 1193. He composed a history of Henry II. and Richard I. from 1170 to 1192, which has been esteemed by many of our antiquaries, as containing one of the best accounts of the transactions of those times. A beautiful edition of this work was published at Oxford by Hearne, 1735, 2 vols. 8vo. With respect to his life of Becket, Bale and Pits speak of two pieces, which probably are but one the first entitled “Vita Thomae Cantuariensis” the other, “Miracula Thomae Marty ris.” Leland, who mentions only “the Life of Becket” as written by our author, gives it the character of an elegant performance. But Bale treats it as a mere heap of lies and forgeries, in order to palm Becket on the multitude for a first-rate saint, and intercessor with God. Nor is this author’s zeal confined to Benedict, but extends itself to the monks of those times in general, whom he represents as a set of debauchees and impostors, concealing their vices under a mask of piety, and cheating the people with the most diabolical illusions. Dr. Cave tells us, that the author of the “Quadrilogus” transcribed a great part of Benedict’s Life of Becket into the third and fourth books of his work. This “Quadrilogus, or De Vita et Processu S. Thomse Cantuariensis et Martyris super Libertate ecelesiastica” (Nicolson tells us), is collected out of four historians, who were contemporary and conversant with Becket, in his height of glory, and lowest depression; namely, Herbert de Hoscham, Johannes Carnotensis, William of Canterbury, and Alan of Teuksbury; who are brought in us so many several relaters of matters of fact, interchangeably. Here is no mention of our Benedict in this list; so that either the doctor is mistaken in his assertion, or the bishop is not exact in his account of the authors from whence the Quadrilogus was compiled.

, whose name was Prosper Lambertini, was born in 1675, at Bologna. He was appointed canon of the Basilicon, or great church of St. Peter, then successively archbishop of Theodosia, and bishop of Ancona. He received the cardinal’s hat in 1728, was deputy of the congregation of the holy office the same year, became archbishop of Bologna in 1731, and succeeded pope Clement XII. August 17, 1740. He then took the name of Benedict XIV. zealously endeavoured to calm the dissensions which had arisen in the church, patronised arts and sciences, founded several academies at Rome, and declared openly in favour of the Thomists. This pope did justice to the memory of the celebrated cardinal Noris; published the bull “Omnium sollicitudinum” against certain ceremonies, and addressed a brief to cardinal Saldanha for the reformation of the Jesuits, which was the foundation of their destruction. He had also established a congregation to compose a body of doctrine, by which the troubles of the church might be calmed. This pontiff was a very able canonist, and well acquainted with ecclesiastical history and antiquities. Though he governed with great wisdom, and was very zealous for religion, he was lively in his conversation, and fond of saying bonmots. He died 1758, aged 83. His works were published before his death in 16 vols. 4to, by Azevedo. The four last contain his briefs, bulls, &c. The five first are, “A treatise on the Beatification and Canonization of haints,” in which the subject is exhausted; an abridgement of it was published in French, 1759, 12mo. The sixth contains the actions of the saints whom he canonized. The two next consist of supplements, and remarks on the preceding ones. The ninth treats on the “Sacrifice of the Mass,” and the tenth on the “Festivals instituted in honour of Jesus Christ and the Holy Virgin.” The eleventh is entitled “Ecclesiastical Institutions;” an excellent work, containing his instructions, mandates, letters, &c. while he was hishop of Ancona, and afterwards archbishop of Bologna. The twelfth is a “Treatise on Diocesan Synods.” All the above are in Latin. Caraccioli published his life at Paris, 1784, 12mo. It was begun in the life time of Benedict, and part of it submitted to him by the author, to whom the pope said, “If you were a historian, instead of a panegyrist, I should thank you for the picture you have drawn, and with which I am perfectly satisfied.”

, a famous doctor of the Sorbonne, and curate of St. Eustathius at Paris in the sixteenth century, was born at Sevenieres near Angers. He was a secret favourer of the protestant religion; and that his countrymen might be able to read the Bible in their own tongue, he published at Paris the French translation which had been made by the reformed ministers at Geneva. This translation was approved by several doctors of the Sorbonne before it went to the press; and king Charles IX. had granted a privilege for the printing of it, yet when published it was immediately condemned. In 1587 king Henry III. appointed Benedict to be reader and regius professor of divinity in the college of Navarre at Paris. He had been before that time confessor to the unhappy Mary queen of Scotland, during her stay in France, and attended her when she returned into Scotland. Some time before the death of Henry III. Benedict, or some of his friends with his assistance, published a book, entitled “Apologie Catholique,” to prove that the protestant religion, which Henry king -of Navarre professed, was not a sufficient reason to deprive him of his right of succeeding to the crown of France; first, because the Huguenots admitted the fundamental articles of the catholic faith, and that the ceremonies and practices which they exploded had been unknown to the primitive church. Secondly, because the council of Trent, in which they had been condemned, was neither general, nor lawful, nor acknowledged in France. After the murder of Henry III. a factious divine wrote an answer to that book, which obliged Benedict to publish a reply. When king Henry IV. was resolved to embrace the Roman Catholic religion, he wrote to Benedict, commanding him to meet him, The doctor on this consulted with the pope’s legate, who was then at Paris, and advised him to answer the king, that he could not go to him without the pope’s leave, which exasperated the people at Paris, because they understood by this advice, that he favoured the Spanish faction, and endeavoured only to protract the civil war. However, Benedict assisted some time after at the conference which was held at St. Dennis, and in which it was resolved, that the king, having given sufficient proofs of his fa^h and repentance, might be reconciled to the church, without waiting for the pope’s consent. Benedict also assisted at that assembly, in which king Henry abjured the reformed religion, and having embraced the Roman Catholic faith, was absolved by the archbishop of Bourges. The king promoted him afterwards, about 15^7, to the bishopric of Troyes in Champagne, but he could never obtain the pope’s bulls to be installed, and only enjoyed the temporalities till 1604, when he resigned it with the king’s leave to Renatus de Breslay, archdeacon of Angers, He died at Paris, March 7, 1608, and was buried near the great altar in his parish church of St. Eustathius. Dr. Victor Cayet made his funeral oration. Besides the books, which we have mentioned, he wrote three or four other pieces, the titles of which are mentioned by father le Long, but they are of little note, except perhaps his history of the coronation of king Henry III. “Le Sacre et Couronnement du roi Henry III. Pan 1575, par Rene Benoit, docteur en theologie,” Reims, 1575, 8vo, and inserted in Godefrey’s “Ceremonial de France,” Paris, 1619, 4to.

, archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, was the immediate successor of St. Patrick in that see, anno 455 though it must be confessed, that this is a point which lias afforded some controversy. Writers differ as to his name: some call him Stephen, some Beneneus, others Beona, and by an Irish termination of the word Benin, in Latin Benignus. It is probable that St. Patrick baptized him by the name of Stephen, and that he obtained the name of Benin from his sweet disposition, and his great affection to St. Patrick, the word bin, in the Irish language, signifying sweet; and that from thence the other names flowed. He was the son of Sesgnen, a man of wealth and power in Meath, who, in the war in 433, hospitably entertained St. Patrick in his journey from the port of Colp, where he landed, to the court of king Leogair at Tarah, and, with his whole family, embraced Christianity and received baptism. The youth grew so fond of his father’s guest, that he could not be separated from his company. St. Patrick took him away with him at his departure, and taught him his first rudiments of learning and religion: Benin profited greatly under such a master, and became afterwards a man eminent for piety and virtue, whom St. Patrick thought worthy to fill the see of Armagh, which he resigned to him in the year 455. Benin died in the year 468, on the ninth of November, having also resigned his see three years before his death. The writers of the dark ages, however different they are from one another in other particulars, yet in the main agree as to the succession of St. Benin in the government of the see of Armagh, but there is some discordance among them as to the place of his death and burial, which we shall not attempt to reconcile; some contending he died and was buried at Armagh, and others at Glastonbury. The following writings are ascribed to him 1 “A book partly in Latin, and partly in Irish, on the virtues and miracles of St. Patrick” to which Jocelin confesses he was indebted. 2. “An Irish Poem, written on the Conversion of the people of Dublin to the Christian Faith.” 3. “The Minister Book of reigns,” called by some Leabhar Bening, or Bening’s Book, and by others Leabhar na Geart, qu. d. the book of Genealogy, which is ascribed to him by Nicolson.

, knt. grandfather to the preceding, and second son of sir Richard Bennet, was created on the 6th of July, 1589, doctor of laws by the university of Oxford, having been one of the proctors there. He was afterwards vicar-general in spirituals to the archbishop of York, and prebendary of Langtoft in the church of York. In the 24th of ELz. bearing the title of doctor of laws, he was in commission with the lord-keeper Egerton, the lord-treasurer Buckhurst, and several other noblemen, for the suppression of heresy. He was also in that reign returned to parliament for the city of York, and was a leading member of the house of commons, as appears from several of his speeches in Townshend’s collections. He received the honour of knighthood from king James before his coronation, on the 23d of July 1603, at Whitehall, and was made in that reign chancellor to queen Anne (consort of king James), judge of the prerogative court of Canterbury, and chancellor to the archbishop of York. In the beginning of 1617, he was sent ambassador to Brussels to question the archduke, in behalf of his master the king of Great Britain, concerning a libel written and published, as it was supposed, by Erycius Puteanus, but he neither apprehended the author, nor suppressed the book, until he was solicited by the king’s agent there: he only interdicted it, and suffered the author to fly out of his dominions. In 1620, sir John Bennet being entitled judge of the prerogative court of Canterbury, was in a special commission with the archbishop of Canterbury, and other noblemen, to put in execution the laws against all heresies, great errors in matters of faith and religioH, &c. and the same year bearing the title of chancellor to the archbishop of York, he was commissioned with the archbishop of York, and others, to execute all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the province of York. He died in the parish of Christ church in London, in the beginning of 1627, having had issue by Anne his wife, daughter of Christopher Weekes of Salisbury, in the county of Wilts, esq. sir John lien net, his son and heir; sir Thomas Bennet, knt. second son, doctor of the civil law, and master in chancery; and Matthew, third son, who died unmarried. His eldest son, sir John Bennet of Dawley, received the honour of knighthood in the life-time of his father, at Theobalds, on the 15th of June, 1616. He married Dorothy, daughter of sir John Crofts of Saxham, in the county of Norfolk, knt. by whom he had issue six sons, the second of whom was afterwards created earl of Arlington. This account drawn up also by Dr. Campbell as a note to his life of Arlington, partakes of the partiality of that account by suppressing that in 1621, certain mal-practices were detected in the judicial conduct of sir John, and he was committed to the custody of the sheriffs of London, and afterwards to prison, fined 20,000l. and deprived of his offices. In consequence of this, according to Mr. Lodge, he died in indigence and obscurity, in the parish of Christ church, in Surrey, not in London, at the time mentioned above; but another account says that he was merely required to find security to that amount for his appearance to answer to the charges brought against him. If the fine was imposed, we may conclude it was remitted; for in a letter from lord Bacon to king James, we read these words, “Your majesty hath pardoned the like (corruption) to sir John Bennet, between whose case and mine (not being partial to myself, but speaking out of the general opinion), there was as much difference, I will not say, as between black and white, but as between black and grey or ash-coloured.”

, an eminent divine in the eighteenth century, was born at Salisbury, May 7, 1673, and educated in the free-school there; where he made so great a progress in learning, that he was sent to St. John’s college, Cambridge, in the beginning of 1688, before he was full fifteen years of age. He regularly took the degrees of bachelor and master of arts; the latter in 1694, when but twenty-one years old; and was chosen fellow of his college. In 1695, he wrote a copy of Hebrew verses on the death of queen Mary, printed in the collection of poems of the university of Cambridge upon that occasion. The first of his publications was “An answer to the dissenters pleas for Separation, or an abridgment of the London cases; wherein the substance of those books is digested into one short and plain discourse,” Lond. 1699, 8vo. About the end of 1700, he took a journey to Colchester, to visit his friend Mr. John Rayne, rector of St. James’s in Colchester; and finding him dead when he came, he undertook the office of preaching his funeral sermon, which was so highly approved of by the parishioners, that their recommendation was no small inducement to Dr. Compton, then bishop of London, to present him to that living. He had institution to it January 15, 1700-1, and applied himself with great diligence and success to the several duties of his function. Possessing great learning, a strong voice, and good elocution, he was extremely followed and admired; and the more, as most of the other livings were but indifferently provided for: so that he became minister, not only of his own two parishes, but in a manner of that whole town, and the subscriptions and presents he had from all parts, raised his income to nearly three hundred pounds a year. But that afterwards was very much reduced, as xvill appear in the sequel. In the beginning of 1701, he published “A confutation of Popery, in three parts,” Canibr. 8vo. About the same time, he was engaged in a controversy with some dissenters, which produced the following book of his, “A discourse of Schism shewing, 1 What is meant by schism. 2. That schism is a damnable sin. 3. That there is a schism between the established church of England and the dissenters. 4. That this schism is to be charged on the dissenters’ side. 5. That the modern pretences of toleration, agreement in fundamentals, &c. will m;t excuse the dissenters from being guilty of schism. Written by way of letter to three dissenting ministers in Essex, viz. Mr. Gilson and Mr. Gledhili ol Colchester, and Mr. Shepherd of Brain tree. To which is annexed, an answer to a book entitled” Thomas against Bennet, or the Protestant dissenters vindicated from the charge of schism,“Cambr. 1702, 8vo. This book being animadverted upon by Mr. Shepherd, our author published” A defence of the discourse of Schism; in answer to those objections which Mr. Shepherd has made in his three sermons of Separation, &c.“Cambr. 1703, 8vo. And, towards the end of the same year,” An answer to Mr. Shepherd’s considerations on the defence of the discourse of Scnism,“Cambr. 8vo. As also a treatise entitled” Devotions, viz. Confessions, Petitions, Intercessions, and Thanksgivings, for every day in the week and also before, at, and after, the Sacrament with occasional prayers for all persons whatsoever,“8vo. In 1705, he published” A confutation of Quakerism; or a plain proof of the falsehood of what the principal Quaker writers (especially Mr. R. Barclay, in his Apology and other works) do teach concerning the necessity of immediate revelation in order to a saving Christian faith, &c.“Cambr. 8vo. In 1707 he caused to be printed in a small pamphlet, 12mo,” A discourse on the necessity of being baptized with Water and receiving the Lord’s Supper, taken out of the confutation of Quakerism,“Cambr. For the sake of those who wanted either money to purchase, or time to peruse, the Confutation of Quakerism, the year following he published” A brief history of -the joint use of precomposed set forms of Prayer,“Cambr. 8vo. The same year he published likewise” A discourse of joint Prayer,“Cambr. 8vo. Towards the end of the same year he published” A paraphrase with annotations upon the book of Common Prayer, wherein the text is explained, objections are answered, and advice is humbly offered, both to the clergy and the laity, for promoting true devotion in the use of it,“Lond. 8vo. The next thing he printed was” Charity Schools recommended, in a sermon preached in St. James’s church in Colchester, on Sunday, March 26, 1710,“8vo. The same year he wrote” A letter to Mr. B. Robinson, occasioned by iiis * Review of the case of Liturgies, and their imposition';“and” A second letter to Mr. B. Robinson, &c. on the same subject,“Lond. 1710, 8vo. In 17 11 he published” The rights of the Clergy of the Christian church; or, a discourse shewing that God has given and appropriated to the clergy, authority to ordain, baptize, preach, preside in church-prayer, and consecrate the Lord’s supper. Wherein also the pretended divine right of the laity to elect either the persons to be ordained, or their own particular pastors, is examined and disproved,“London, 1711, 8vo. He had begun a second part of this work, but it was never published, in which he intended to shew, that the clergy are, under Christ, the sole spiritual governors of the Christian church, and that God has given and appropriated to them authority to enact laws, determine controversies, inflict censures, and absolve from them. The pre^­tended divine institution of lay elders was also disproved, and the succession of the present clergy of the established church vindicated. And to this was annexed a” Discourse of the Independency of the Church on the State, with an account of the sense of our English laws, and the judgment of archbishop Cranmer touching that point.“About this time he took the degree of D. D. In 1714 he published <c Directions for studying, I. A general system or body of divinity; II. The thirty-nine articles of religion. To which is added St. Jerom’s epistle to Nepotianus,” London, 8vo. The year following was published his “Essay on the thirty-nine articles of Religion, agreed on in 1562, and revised in 1571, wherein (the text being first exhibited in Latin and English, and the minutest variations of eighteen the most ancient and authentic copies carefully noted) an account is given of the proceedings of convocation in framing and settling the text of the articles, the controverted clause of the twentieth article is demonstrated to be genuine, and the case of subscription to the articles is considered in point of law, history, and conscience; with a prefatory epistle to Anthony Collins, esq. wherein the egregious falsehoods and calumnies of the author of ‘Priestcraft in perfection’ are exposed,” London, 1713, 8vo. Before the publication of this book, he found it necessary to leave Colchester; for, the other livings being filled up with persons of good reputation and learning, his large congregation and subscriptions fell off, and his income fell to threescore pounds a-­year, on which account, by the advice of his friends, he accepted the place oi' deputy-chaplain to Chelsea hospital, under Dr. Cannon. Soon after, preaching the funeral sermon of his friend Mr. Erington, lecturer of St. Olave’s in South wark, it was so highly approved of by that parish, that he was unanimously chosen lecturer in the next vestry, without the least canvassing. Upon that he entirely left Colchester, in January 1715-16, and fixed himself in London, where he was likewise appointed morning preacher at St. Lawrence Jewry, under Dr. Mapletoft. In 1716 he published a pamphlet entitled “The Non juror’s separation from the public assemblies of the church of England examined, and proved to be schismatical upon their own principles,” London, 8vo. And “The case of the Reformed Episcopal Churches in Great Poland and Polish Prussia, considered in a sermon preached on Sunday, November 18, 1716, at St. Lawrence-Jewry, London, in the morning, and St. Olave’s, Southwark, in the afternoon,” London, 8vo. Soon after, he was presented by the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s, to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, London, which afforded him a plentiful income of nearly five hundred pounds a-year. But he had little quiet enjoyment of it; for, endeavouring to recover some dues that unquestionably belonged to that church, he was obliged to engage in tedious law-suits, which, hesides the immense charges they were attended withal, gave him a great deal of vexation and uneasiness, and very much embittered his spirits; however, he recovered a hundred and fifty pounds a-year to that living. After he was settled in it, in 1717, he married Mrs. Elizabeth Hunt of Salisbury, a gentlewoman of great merit, and by her he had three daughters. The same year he published “A Spital sermon preached before the lord mayor, aldermen. &c. of London, in St. Bridget’s church, on April 24, 1717,” London, 8vo; and in 1718, “A discourse of the ever-blessed Trinity in Unity, with an examination of Dr. Clarke’s Scripture doctrine of the Trinity,” London, 8vo. But, from this time, the care of his large parish, and other affairs, so engrossed his thoughts, that he had no time to undertake any new work, except an Hebrew grammar, which was published at London in 1726, 8vo, a,ud is reckoned one of the best of the kind. He mentions, indeed, in one of his books written about 1716, that he had then “several tasks” in his hands, “which would find him full employment for many years;” but whatever they might be, none of them were ever finished or made public. He died of an apoplexy at London, October 9th, 1728, aged fifty-live years, five months, and two days, and was buried in his own church.

From the time of uis engaging in the ministry, he seems to have proposed to himself the “critical study of the Scriptures, and particularly of the New Testament, as a principal part of his business; and to have pursued the discovery of the sacred truths it contained, with uncommon diligence and fidelity. The first fruit of these studies which he presented to the public was,” A defence of the reasonableness of Prayer, with a translation of a discourse of Maximus Tyrius, containing some popular objections against prayer, and an answer to these.“Some time after this, he extracted from the” Memoirs of Literature,“and reprinted, Mr. dela Roche’s account of the persecution and burning of Servetus by Calvin, with reflections on the injustice and inconsistence of this conduct in that reformer. To this he afterwards added,” A defence of the account of Servetus; and a brief account of archbishop Laud’s cruel treatment of Dr. Leighton.“About the same time, to guard against the corruptions of popery, and to prevent their being urged by the deists as plausible objections against Christianity; he published” A dissertation on 2 Thess. ii. ver. 1 12.“Jn illustrating the observations of the learned Joseph Mede, he shewed these gross corruptions of the best religion to have been expressly foretold, and Christians strongly cautioned against them; and that, in this view, they were among the evidences of the divine authority of the scriptures; as they proved the sacred writers to have been inspired by a divine spirit, which could alone clearly foretel events so distant, contingent, and unlikely. The light which Mr. Locke had thrown on the obscurest parts of St. Paul’s epistles, by making him his own expositor, encouraged and determined Mr. Benson to attempt an illustration of the remaining epistles in the same manner. In 1731 he published” A paraphrase and notes on the epistle to Philemon.“4to, as a specimen. This was well received, and the author encouraged to proceed in his design. With the epistle to Philemon was pubJished” A short dissertation, to prove from the spirit and sentiments of the apostle, discovered in his epistles, that he was neither an enthusiast nor impostor; and consequently, that the religion which he asserted he received immediately from heaven, and confirmed by a variety of miracles, is indeed divine." This argument haih since been improved and illustrated, with great delicacy and strength, in a review of the apostle’s entire conduct and character, by lord Lyttelton. Mr. Benson proceeded with great diligence and reputation to publish paraphrases and notes on the two epistles to the Thessaloniaus, the first and second to Timothy, and the epistle to Titus; adding dissertations on several important subjects, particularly on inspiration.

, canon of Christ-church, Oxford, and king’s professor of divinity in that university, was born in the college at Ely, July 23, 1707. His father, Mr. Samuel Bentham, was a very worthy clergyman, and vicar of Witchford, a small living near that city; who having a numerous family, his son Edward, on the recommendation of Dr. Smalridge, dean of Christ-church, was sent in 1717 to the school of that college. Having there received the rudiments of classical education, he was in Lent term 1723, when nearly 16 years of age, admitted of the university of Oxford, and placed at Corpus-Christi college under his relation Dr. John Burton. In this situation, his serious and regular deportment, and his great proficiency in all kinds of academical learning, recommended him to the notice of several eminent men; and, among others, to the favour of Dr. Tanner, canon of Christ-church, by whose death he was disappointed of a nomination to a studentship in that society. At CorpusChristi college he formed a strict friendship with Robert Hoblyn, esq. of Nanswydden in Cornwall, afterwards representative for the city of Bristol, whose character, as a scholar and a member of parliament, rendered him deservedly esteemed by the lovers of literature and of their country. In company with this gentleman and another intimate friend, Dr. Ratcliff, afterwards master of Pembroke college, Mr. Bentham made, at different times, the tour of part of France, and other countries. Having taken the degree of B. A. he was invited by Dr. Cotes, principal of Magdalen-hall, to be his vice-principal; and was accordingly admitted to that society, March 6, 1730. Here he continued only a short time, for, on the 23d of April in the year following, he was elected fellow of Oriel college. In act term, 1732, he proceeded to the degree of M. A. and, about the same time, was appointed tutor in the college; in which capacity he discharged his duty, in the most laborious and conscientious manner, for more than twenty years. March 26, 1743, Mr. Bentham took the degree of B. D.; and April 22, in the same year, was collated to the prebend of Hundreton, in the cathedral church of Hereford. July 8, 1749, he proceeded to the degree of D. D.; and in April 1754 was promoted to the fifth stall in that cathedral. Here he continued the same active and useful course of life for which he had always been distinguished. He served the offices of sub-dean and treasurer, for himself and others, above twelve years. The affairs of the treasury, which Dr. Bentham found in great confusion, he entirely new modelled, and put into a train of business in which they have continued ever since, to the great ease of his successors, and benefit of the society. 80 intent was he upon the regulation and management of the concerns of the college, that he refused several preferments which were offered him, from a conscientious persuasion that the avocations they would produce were incompatible with the proper discharge of the offices he had voluntarily undertaken. Being appointed by the king to fill the divinity chair, vacant by the death of Dr. Fanshavve, Dr. Bentham was, with much reluctance, and after having repeatedly declined it, persuaded, by archbishop Seeker and his other learned friends, to accept of it; and, on the 9th of May, 1763, he was removed to the 8th stall in the cathedral. His unwillingness to appear in this station was increased by the business he had to transact in his former situation, and which he was afraid would be impeded by the accession of new duties: not to say that a life spent in his laborious and sedentary manner had produced some unfavourable effects on his constitution, and rendered a greater attention than he had hitherto shewn to private ease and health, absolutely necessary. Besides, as the duties, when properly discharged, were great and interesting, so the station itself was of that elevated and public nature to which his ambition never inclined him: 66 latere maluit atque prodesse.“The diffidence he had of his abilities had ever taught him to suspect his own sufficiency; and his inauguratory lecture breathed the same spirit, the text of which was,” Who is sufficient for these things?" But whatever objections Dr. Bentham might have to the professorship before he entered upon it, when once he had accepted of it, he never suffered them to discourage him in the least from exerting hi* most sincere endeavours to render it both useful and honourable to the university. He set himself immediately to draw out a course of lectures for the benefit of young students in divinity, which he constantly read at his house at Christ-church, gratis-^ three times a week during term-time, till his decease. The course took up a year; and he not only exhibited in it a complete system of divinity, but recommended proper books, some of which he generously distributed to his auditors. His intense application to the pursuit of the plan he had laid clown, together with those concerns in which his affection for his friends, and his zeal for the public good in every shape, involved him, proved more than a counterbalance for all the advantages of health and vigour that a strict and uniform temperance could procure. Jt is certain that he sunk under the rigorous exercise of that conduct he had proposed to himself: for though 6-; years are a considerable proportion in the strongest men’s lives, yet his remarkable abstemiousness and self-denial, added to a disposition of body naturally strong, promised, in the ordinary course of things, a longer period. Dr. Bentham was a very early riser, and had transacted half a day’s business before many others begin their day. His countenance was uncommonly mild and engaging, being strongly characteristic of the piety and benevolence of his mind; and at the same time it by no means wanted expression, but, upon proper occasions, could assume a very becoming and affecting authority. In his attendance upon the public duties of religion, he was exceedingly strict and constant; not suffering himself ever to be diverted from it by any motives, either of interest or pleasure. Whilst he was thus diligent in the discharge of his own duty, he was not severe upon those who were not equally so in theirs. He could scarcely ever be prevailed upon to deliver his opinion upon subjects that were to the disadvantage of other men; and when he could not avoid doing it, his sentiments were expressed with the utmost delicacy and candour. No one was more ready to discover, commend, and reward every meritorious endeavour. Of himself he never was he? rd to speak and if his own merits were touched upon in the slightest manner, he felt a real uneasiness. Though he was not fond of the formalities of visiting, he entered into the spirit of friendly society and intercourse with great pleasure. His constant engagements, indeed, of one kind or other, left him not much time to be devoted to company; and the greater part of his leisure hours he spent in the enjoyment of domestic pleasures, for which his amiable and peaceable disposition seemed most calculated.

After he had passed some years at Rome, where he made many friends, pope Paul V. appointed him his referendary, and sent him, with the title of archbishop of Rhodes, as apostolic nuncio, into Flanders, where he arrived in 1607. After remaining there nine years, he was, in 1617, appointed nuncio in France, and acted with so much dexterity with respect to the affairs of both courts, that when he was made cardinal, Jan. 11, 1621, Louis XIII. chose him to be the agent of France at the court of Rome. Here he soon became the confidential friend of pope Urban VIII. who, in 1641, bestowed on him the bishopric of Palestrina. On the death of this pope in 1644, it was generally thought that cardinal Bentivoglio would be his successor; but he had scarcely entered the conclave when the heat overpowered him, and brought on a fever, of which he died September 7, of that year. He was interred in the church of the Theatins of St. Silvester, in a private manner, agreeably to his own desire, owing to his affairs being deranged. He owed large sums at his death, in order to pay part of which he had been obliged, some time before, to sell his palace at Rome. A magnificent style of living was then one of the means by which the Romish ecclesiastics endeavoured to acquire the humble title of “Servant of servants,” and Bentivoglio had not neglected this or any other expedient. He was in truth a consummate politician, knew how to re^ concile clashing interests, and how to assume every necessary change of character; his historical memoirs partake of this character, being cautious, reserved, yet amusing and illustrative of the characters and events of the times in which he lived. His works are, 1. “Relazioni del card. Bentivoglio in tempo delle sue nunziature di Fiandra e di Francia, date in luce da Ericio Puteano (Henry Dupuy), Antwerp, 1629; Cologne, 1630; Paris, 1631; all in 4to; translated into English by Henry earl of Monmouth, London, 1652, folio. 2.” Delia guerra di Fiandra,“in six books, printed at various times, but all included in the edition of Cologne, 1639, 4to, which is considered as the best. This likewise was translated into English by the earl of Monmouth, 1654, folio. 3.” Kaccolta di lettere scritte in tempo delle sue nunziature di Fiandra et di Francia,“Cologne, 1631, 4to. A fine edition of this was lately published by M. Biagioli, at Didot’s press, Paris, 1807, 12mo, with French notes, grammatical and philosophical, and a literal translation was published at London, 1764, for the use of learners of the Italian tongue, but it was feebly executed. In 1727, an edition of the original was printed at Cambridge. 4.” Memorie^ owero diario del cardinal Bentivoglio,“Amst. 1648, 8vO. He wrote these memoirs in 1642, with a view, as he says in his preface, to please himself, and he relates what he would wish posterity to know of his history and character. The whole of his works, with the exception of his” Memoirs," were published together at Paris, 1645, folio, and apparently reprinted 1648, but this is the same publication with a new title-page. They were also printed, including the Memoirs, at Venice, 1668, 4to.

, of Arragon, a cardinal and poet, one of the sons of the preceding, was born at Ferrara, March 27, 1668, and in the course of his studies, distinguished himself by the progress he made in the belleslettres, philosophy, theology, and law, and was an able and successful supporter of the literary establishments of his country. Having afterwards gone to reside at Rome, he was promoted by Clement XI. to be his domestic prelate, and clerk of the apostolic chamber, and in 1712 was sent as nuncio to France, with the title of archbishop of Carthage. There, having discovered much zeal in the affair of the bull Unigenitus, he acquired high favour at the court of Louis XIV. vvhicii he did not preserve after the death of that monarch. The pope, on that event, recalled him from Paris, and at Ferrara he was made cardinal in November, 1719. He then settled at Rome, where many other dignities were conferred upon him, and where he died, December 30, 1732. Amidst his whole career of ecclesiastical promotions and duties, he found leisure to cultivate his taste for polite literature. There are extant several of his harangues pronounced on various occasions; that which he delivered at Rome, in the academy of design, in which he investigates the uses, to taste and morals, of the arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture, was printed under the title “Utile delle belle arti riconosciuto per l'accademia del disegno, orazione,” &c. liome, 1707, and reprinted in vol. II. of the “Prose degli A-rcadi.” The work, however, which entitles him to a place among the poets of Italy, is his beautiful translation of Statius, “La Tebaidadi Stazio tradotto in verso sciolto da Seivaggio Porpora,” (a fictitious name), Rome, 1729, 4to; Milan, 1731, 2 vols. 4to. There are besides some of his sonnets in the collections. His brother Louis and his sister Cornelia were also cultivators of poetry. The latter, who died in 1711, is highly spoken of by Crescembini in his history of the academy of the Arcadians of Rome.

This measure was, of course, the signal of resistance, and the count marshalling his associates, who had secretly furnished themselves with arms and ammunition by the treachery of the store-keepers, issued forth from the house to oppose, with greater advantage, another detachment who had been sent to arrest him. After levelling several soldiers to the ground, the count, by the mismanagement of their commander, seized their cannon, turned them with success against the fort itself, and, entering by means of the drawbridge, dispatched the twelve remaining guards who were then within it. “Madame Nilow and her children,” says the count, “at sight of me implored my protection to save their father and husband. I immediately hastened to his apartment, and begged him to go to his children’s room to preserve his life, but he answered that he would first take mine, and instantly fired a pistol, which wounded me. I was desirous nevertheless of preserving him, and continued to represent that all resistance would be useless, for which reason I entreated him to retire. His wife and children threw themselves on their knees, but nothing would avail he flew upon me, seized me by the throat, and left me no other alternative than either to give lip my own life, or run my sword through his body. At this period the petard, by which my associates attempted to make a breach, exploded, and burst the outer gate. The second was open, and I saw Mr. Panow enter at the head of a party. He entreated the governor to let me go, but not being able to prevail on him, he set me at liberty by splitting his skull.” The count by this event became complete master of the fort, and by the cannon and ammunition which he found on the rampart, was enabled, with the ready and active assistance of his now increased associates, to repel the attack which was made upon him by the cossacks; but flight, not resistance, was the ultimate object of this bold commander; and in order to obtain this opportunity, he dispatched a drum and a woman as a sign of parley to the cossacks, who had quitted the town and retired to the heights, with a resolution to invest the fort and starve the insurgents, informing them of his resolution to send a detachment of associates into the town to drive all the women and children into the church, and there to burn them all to death, unless they laid down their arms. While this embassy was sent, preparation was made for carrying the threat it contained into immediate execution; but by submitting to the proposal, the execution of this horrid measure was rendered unnecessary, and the count not only received into the fort fifty-two of the principal inhabitants of the town, as hostages for the fidelity of the rest, but procured the archbishop to preach a sermon in the church in favour of the revolution. The count was now complete governor of Kamschatka; and having time, without danger, to prepare every thing necessary for the intended departure, he amused himself with ransacking the archives of the town, where he found several manuscripts of voyages made to the eastward of Kamschatka. The count also formedt chart, with details, respecting Siberia and the sea-coast of Kamschatka, and a description of the Kurelles and Aleuthes islands. This chart has not survived the fate of its composer.

, archbishop of Upsal, was born in Sweden in 1642, at a village called Benzeby, whence he took his name. His parents were of mean condition, but an uncle enabled him to pursue his studies at Upsal, where he was appointed tutor to the children of the count de la Gardie, grand chancellor of the kingdom, He afterwards travelled in Germany, France, and England, and on his return to his country, was appointed professor of history and morals. Having also made great progress in theological studies, he was created doctor of that faculty and appointed professor. In 1677 he was promoted to the bishopric of Strengnes, and in 1700, to the archbishopric of Upsal, which he held until his death, Feb. 17, 1709. He was twice married, and by his first wife had thirteen children, of whom three of the sons became archbishops of Upsal. Benzelius instructed Charles XII. in theological studies, and that prince preserved always a high esteem for him. The archbishop wrote an “Abridgment of Ecclesiastical History,” several dissertations on subjects of theology and ecclesiastical history, and a Latin translation, with notes, of many of the homilies of St. Chrysostom, which he made from manuscripts in the Bodleian library. He had also the superintendance of the edition of the Bible, in the Swedish language, which Charles XII. ordered to be published in 1703, with engravings, and which still bears the name of that monarch. Very few alterations, however, were introduced in this edition, as the divines of the time could not agree on certain disputed passages, and an entire new translation was reserved for the reign of Gustavus III.

, archbishop of Upsal, and one of the sons of the preceding, was born at Upsal in 1675. When he had finished his studies, his father sent him on his travels to the principal countries of Europe, and on his return, he was made librarian to the university of Upsal. He was afterwards for many years, and with great reputation, professor of divinity, and became successively bishop “of Gotcenburgh and Linkseping, and archbishop of Upsal, where he died in 1743. He was not only an able theologian, but versed in languages, history, and antiquities, and in all his wn< ings displays erudition and critical acumen. He published, 1.” vicnun*snta historica vetera Ecclesiae Sueco-Gothicit,“Upsal, 1704, 4to. 2.” Johannis Vastovii Vitis Aquilonia. sive Yitae Sanctorum regni SueeoGothici,“ibid. 1708, 4to. 3.” Dissertatio de Alexandria Ægypti,“ibid. 1711, 8vo. 4.” Laudatio funebris Michael. Enemanni,“Upsal, 1715, 4to. 5.” Dissertatio de re litteraria Judaeorum,“ibid. 1716, 4to. 6.” Acta Litteraria Suecia-, ab 1720 usque ad 1753,“ibid. 3 vols. 4to. 7.” Periculum Runicum, sive de origine et antiquitate Runarum,“ibid. 1724, 8vo. 8.” Oratio funebris in memoriam Laurcntii Molini, theologi Upsaliensis," ibid. 4to. Thesfe learned and ingenious works procured him very great reputation, and the correspondence of the most eminent men of learning in every part of Europe. In 1720, when librarian to the university, he associated with some of the professors in founding the academy of sciences of Upsal, which was soon after established by government, and is the oldest institution of that kind in the north; and when the academy of Stockholm was founded in 1739, Benzelius was admitted one of its first members.

, archbishop of Upsal, and brother tc the preceding, was born at Strengnes in 1689, and studied at Upsal. During his subsequent travels he happened to arrive at Bender, where Charles XII. was. This prince, who had more taste for the pursuit of scientific knowledge than is generally supposed, was desirous at this tim to send some men of learning to the East, and Benzehus was one whom he applied to, and who accordingly began his travels in 1714, visiting Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and returning to Sweden through Italy, Germany, and Holland. The journal of this tour is preserved in manuscript at Upsal but a considerable part of Benzelius’s observations were printed in a Latin collection, under the title of “Syntagma dissertationum in Academia Lundensi habitarum,” Leipsic, 1745, 4to. Benzelius, after his return to Sweden, was made professor of theology, bishop of Lunden, and archbishop of Upsal, where he died in 1758. He was succeeded in the archbishopric by his brother Jacob, who wrote in Latin, an abridgment of theology, and a description of Palestine, and some other works. H. Jasper Benzelius, of the same learned family, who died about the end of the last century, bishop of Strengnes, had studied under Mosheim, and published in 1744 at Helmstadt, a Latin life or dissertation on John Dury, who in the seventeenth century, travelled over a considerable part of Europe, in hopes of reconciling the Lutherans and Calvinists.

, was born at Orleans in 1475, and died in 1550. According to the custom of that age, he Latinized his name into Beraldus Aurelius, and it is under that name that his friend Nicolas Bourbon celebrates him in one of his Latin poems. Berauld, according to Moreri, was preceptor to cardinal Coligni, his brother the admiral, and to Chatillon. Erasmus, in many parts of his works, acknowledges the kind hospitality of Berauld, when, in 1500, he was travelling by the way of Orleans into Italy, and highly praises the elegance of his style. In 1522, Erasmus dedicated to him his work “De conscribendis epistolis.” Berauld published various works in Latin, of which the principal are, 1. “Oratio de pace restituta et de fcedere sancito apud Cameracum,” Paris, 1528, 8vo. 2. “Metaphrasis in oeconomicon Aristotelis,” Paris, 4to, without date. In 1516, he edited the works of William bishop of Paris, in folio, and the same year an edition of Pliny’s natural history, with numerous corrections, yet Hardouin has not mentioned Berauld among the editors of Pliny. He also supplied notes to the Rusticus of Politian, and published a “Greek and Latin Dictionary,” that of Crafton, with additions, a preface, and notes. 3. “Syderalis /ibyssus,” Paris, 1514. 4. “Dialogus quo rationes explicantur quibus dicendi ex tempore facultas parari potest, &c.” Lyons, 1534. 5. “De jurisprudentia vetere ac novitia oratio,” Lyons, 1533. 6. “Enarratio in psalmos LXXI. et CXXX.” Paris, 1529, 4to. Berauld was greatly respected by Stephen Poucher, bishop of Paris, and afterwards archbishop of Sens, a celebrated patron of learning and learned men. Berauld’s son, Francis, born at Orleans, embraced the principles of Calvin he was esteemed a very learned man and a good Greek and Latin poet. He was particularly eminent for his knowledge of Greek, which he taught at Montbelliard, Lausanne, Geneva, Montargis, of which last college he was principal in 1571, and at Rochelle. Henry Stephens employed him to translate part of Appian, and preferred his translation to that of Coslius Secundus Curio.

, whose name we find disguised under Bercheure, Berchoire, Bercorius, Bercherius, &c. was born in the beginning of the fourteenth century, at St. Pierre-du-Chemin, near Mailiezais, in Poitou. He entered the order of the Beredictines, and became celebrated for his learning, and attached hi n self to cardinal Duprat, archbishop of Aix, whose advice was very useful to him in his writings. Among his other accomplishments, he is said to have been so well acquainted with his Bible, as to be able to quote texts and authorities on all subjects without any assistance but from memory. He died at Paris in 1362, prior of the monastery of St. Eloy, since occupied by the Barnabites, which has induced some biographers to think him a member of that order, but the Barnabites were not an order until a century after this period. Berchorius wrote several works which are lost those which remain are in 3 vols. fol. under the title of “Reductorium, Repertorium, et Dictionarium morale utriusque Testamenti, Strasburgh,” 1474; Nuremberg, 1499; and Cologne, 1631—1692. “Whoever,” says Warton, in his “History of Poetry,” “shall have the patience to turn over a few pages of this immense treasure of multifarious erudition, will be convinced beyond a doubt, from a general coincidence of the plan, manner, method, and execution, that the author of these volumes, and of the” Gesta Romanorum,“must be one and the same. The” Reductorium“contains all the stories and incidents in the Bible, reduced into allegories. The” Repertorium“is a dictionary of things, persons, and places all which are supposed to be mystical, and which are therefore explained in their moral or practical sense. The” Dictionarium Morale“is in two parts, and seems principally designed to be a moral repertory for students in theology.” Mr. Warton successfully pursues this argument in his” Dissertation on the Gesta Romanorum,“to which we refer the reader. He mentions also that Berchorius was author of a comment on a prosody called” Doctrinale metricum,“which was used as a schoolbook in France, till Despauter’s manual on that subject appeared. Some biographers mention his” Tropologia,“his” Cosmographia,“and his” Breviarium“but the” Tropologia“is nothing more than his” Reductorium“on the Bible, and probably the” Breviarium“is the same. The” Cosmographia“seems to be the fourteenth book -of his” Repefforiom Moraie.“He is said by his biographers to have written other smaller pieces, which they have not named nor described. Among these, Mr. Warton thinks his” Gesta" is comprehended which we may conceive to have been thus undistinguished, either as having been neglected or proscribed by graver writers, or rather as having been probably disclaimed by its author, who saw it at length in the light of a juvenile performance, abounding in fantastic and unedifying narrations, which he judged unsuitable to his character, studies, and station. Besides the works above-mentioned, Berchorius translated Livy, by order of king John, of which there was a beautiful ms. in the library of the oratory of Troyes, and other copies, not less beautiful, are in the imperial library at Paris. This translation was published in 1514 1515, at Paris, 3 vols. fol.

, or Berenger, the celebrated archdeacon of Angers, was born at Tours in the beginning of the eleventh century, of an opulent family, and became the disciple of the famous Fulbert of Chartres, under whom he made rapid progress in grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, and what were then called the liberal arts. On his return to his country in 1030, he was appointed scholastic, or master of the school of St. Martin. His reputation soon reaching foreign parts, the number of his scholars greatly increased, and many of them were afterwards advanced to high rank in the church; nor did he quit his school when made archdeacon of Angers in 1039. The opinions, which have given him a name in ecclesiastical history, were said to have been first occasioned by a pique. In a dispute with Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, on a very trivial question, he happened to be defeated, and what was worse, his scholars began to go over to that rival. Berengarius, on this, took Erigena for his model, and attacked the mystery of the eucharist, as the popish writers term it, but in plain language, the doctrine of transubstantiation. Bruno, bishop of Angers, Hugh, of Langres, and Adelman, of Brescia, in vain endeavoured to cure him of his heresy, and his writings, which were taken to Rome, were condemned in two councils held by pope Leo IX. in 1050, and himself excommunicated. He then went to the abbey of Preaux in Normandy, hoping to be protected by duke William, surnamed the Bastard, but that young prince summonsed a meeting of the ablest bishops and divines, who again condemned Berengarius, and the council of Paris, in Oct. 1050, deprived him of all his benefices. This loss he is said to have felt more severely than their spiritual inflictions, and it disposed him to retract his sentiments in the council of Tours, in 1055, in consequence of which he was received into church-communion. In 1059 he was cited to the council at Rome, by pope Nicholas II. and having been confuted by Abbo and Laniranc, he abjured his errors, burnt his books, yet had no sooner reached France, than he protested against his recantation, as extorted by fear, and returned to his studies with the same spirit of inquiry. At length, however, Gregory VII having called a new council at Rome in 1078, Berengei more seriously abjured his opinions, returned to France, and passed the remaining years of his life in privacy and penance. He died Jan. 6, 1088, aged ninety. There have been many disputes betwixt protestant and popish authors, as to the reality or sincerity of his final recantation. His sentiments, however, did not perish on his recantation, or his death, and he may be considered as having contributed to that great reformation in the church which afterwards was carried into lasting effect by his successors. The greater part of his works are lost, but some are preserved among the works of Lanfranc, in the collections of d'Acheri and Martenne; and, in 1770, Lessing discovered and published his answer to Lanfranc, “De corpore et sanguine Jesu Christi.”

, the author of a poem, in praise of printing, written in Latin hexameters and pentameters, has escaped tlfe researches of biographers as to much personal history. It is, however, conjectured, that his proper name was Arnold or Arnold i, and that he was called Bergellauus from his country. It is supposed also that he came to Mentz, and was employed there, either? as a workman, or as a corrector of the press. John Conrad Zeltner, who is of this last opinion, has accordingly asigned him a short article in his Latin history of the correctors of the press, p. 79, 80, where he calls him John Anthony, instead of John Arnold. Struvius (Introd. in not. rei litterariae, p. 892) considers Bergellanus as the first historian of printing, but in this he is mistaken. Mentel, in his “Paraenesis de vera origine Typographic, p. 52, says that Bergellanus’s poem was printed in 1510, which could not be the case, as mention is made in it of Charles V, who was not emperor until 1519. Walkius, who wrote in 1608, asserts that Bergellanus wrote or published his poem eighty years before, which brings us to 1528, but in tact it was not written or published until 1540 and 1541, as appears clearly by the author’s dedication to cardinal Albert, archbishop of Mentz and marquis of Brandebourg. There have been six editions of it, separate or joined to other works on the subject. The two last are by Prosper Marchand in his History of Printing, Hague, 1740, 4to, and by Woltius in his” Monumenta typographica."

The first public proof he gave of his literary abilities was his “Arithmetica absque Algebra aut Euclide demonstrata;” which, from the preface, he appears to have written before he was twenty years old, though he did not publish it till 1707. It is dedicated to Mr. Palliser, son to the archbishop of Cashel; and is followed by a mathematical miscellany, containing observations and theorems inscribed to his pupil Mr. Samuel Molineux, whose father was the friend and correspondent of Locke. This little piece is so far curious, as it shews his early and strong passion for the mathematics, his admiration of those great names in philosophy, Locke and Newton, some of whose positions he afterwards ventured to call in question, and the commencement of his application to those more subtile metaphysical studies, to which his genius was peculiarly adapted.

We have already related by what means, and upon what occasion, Dr. Berkeley had first the honour of being known to queen Caroline. This princess delighted much in attending to philosophical conversations between learned and ingenious men for which purpose she had, when princess of Wales, appointed a particular day in the week, when the most eminent for literary abilities at that time in England were invited to attend her royal highness in the evening a practice which she continued after her accession to the throne. Of this company were doctors Clarke,­Hoadly, Berkeley, and Sherlock.- Clarke and Berkeley were generally considered as principals in the debates that arose upon those occasions; and Hoadly adhered to the former, as Sherlock did to the latter. Hoadly was no friend to our author: he affected to consider his philosophy and his Bermuda project as the reveries of a visionary. Sherlock (who was afterwards bishop of London) on the other hand warmly espoused his cause and particularly, when the “Minute Philosopher” came out, he carried a copy of it to the queen, and left it to her majesty to determine, whether such a work could be the production of a disordered understanding. After dean Berkeley’s return from Rhode Island, the queen often commanded his attendance to discourse with him on what he had observed worthy of notice in America. His agreeable and instructive conversation, engaged that discerning princess so much in his favour, that the rich deanery of Down in Ireland falling vacant, he was at her desire named to it, and the king’s letter actually came over fqr his appointment. But his friend lord Burlington having neglected to notify the royal intentions in proper time to the duke of Dorset, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, his excellency was so offended at this disposal of the richest deanery in Ireland, without his concurrence, that it was thought proper not to press the matter any farther. Her -majesty upon this declared, that since they would not suffer Dr. Berkeley to be a dean in Ireland, he should be a bishop and accordingly, in 1733,­the bishopric of Cioyne becoming vacant, he was by letters patent, dated March 17, promoted to that see, and was consecrated at St. Paul’s church in Dublin, on the 19th of May following, byTheophilus archbishop of Cashel, assisted by the bishops of Raphoe and Killaloe. His lordship repaired immediately to his manse-house at Cioyne, where he constantly resided (except one winter that he attended the business of parliament in Dublin) and applied himself with vigour to the faithful discharge of all episcopal duties. He revived in his diocese the useful office of rural dean, which had gone into disuse visited frequently parochially and confirmed in several parts of his see.

But the bishop, ever, active and attentive to the public good, was continually sending forth something or o-ther in 1735, the “Querist;” in 1736, “A Discourse addressed to Magistrates,” occasioned by the enormous licence and irreligion of the times and many other things afterwards of a smaller kind. In 1744 came forth his celebrated and curious book, entitled, “Siris a chain of philosophical reflections and inquiries concerning the virtues of Tar Water” a medicine which had been useful to himself in a case of nervous colic. This work, he has been heard to declare, cost him more time and pains than any other he had ever been engaged in. It underwent a second impression, with additions and emendations, in 1747 and was followed by “Farther thoughts on Tar Water,” in 1752. In July, the same year, he removed with his lady and family to Oxford, partly to superintend the education of his son, the subject of the following article, but chiefly to indulge the passion for learned retirement, which had ever strongly possessed him, and was one of his motives to form the Bermuda project. But as none could be more sensible tban his lordship of the impropriety of a bishop’s nonresidence, he previously endeavoured to exchange his high preferment for some canonry or headship at Oxford. Failing of success in this, he actually wrote over to the secretary of state, to request that he might have permission to resign his bishopric, worth at that time at least 1400l. per annum. So uncommon a. petition excited his majesty’s curiosity to inquire who was the extraordinary man that preferred it: being told that it was his old acquaintance Dr. Berkeley, he declared that he should die a bishop in spite of himself, but gave him- full liberty to reside where he pleased. The bishop’s last act before he left Cloyne was to sign a lease of the demesne lands in that neighbourhood, to be renewed yearly at the rent of 200l. which sum he directed to be distributed every year, until his return, among poor house-keepers of Cloyne, Youghal, and Aghadtla. The author of his life in the Biog. Brit, magnifies his love for the beauties of Cloyne, but the fact was, that he had never any idea of Cloyne as a beautiful situation, and we are happy to draw from the same authority which corrects this error, some additional particulars of his disinterested spirit. He declared to Mrs. Berkeley, soon after he was advanced to the prelacy, that his resolution was never to change his see; because, as he afterwards confessed to the archbishop of Tuam, and the late earl of Shannon, he had very early in life got the world under his feet, and he hoped to trample on it to his latest moment. These two warm friends had been pressing him to think of a translation but he did not love episcopal translations. He thought that they were sometimes really hurtful to individuals, and that they often gave, though unjustly, a handle to suspect of mean views, an order to which that holy and humble man was himself an honour, and to which it may be said, without adulation, that he would have been an honour in any age of the church. Humble and unaspiring as was the bishop of Cloyne, the earl of Chesterfield sought him out and when, as a tribute to exalted merit, that nobleman offered to him tl e see of Clogher, where he was told he might immediately receive fines to the amount of ten thousand pounds, he consulted Mrs. Berkeley, as having a family, and, with her full approbation, not only declined the bishopric of Clogher, but the offer which accompanied that proposal, of any other translation which might become feasible during lord Chesterfield’s administration. The primacy was vacated before the expiration of that period. On that occasion, the bishop said to Mrs. Berkeley, “I desire to add one more to the list of churchmen, who are evidently dead to ambition and avarice.” Just before his embarkation for America, queen Caroline endeavoured to stagger his resolution, by the offer of an English mitre but, in reply, he assured her majesty, that he chose rather to be president of St. Paul’s college, than primate of all England.

At Oxford he lived highly respected, and collected and printed the same year all his smaller pieces in 8vo but he did not livelong for, on Sunday evening, Jan. 14, 1753, as he was in the midst of his family, listening to the lesson in the burial service which his lady was reading to him, he was seized with what was called a palsy in the heart, and instantly expired. The accident was so sudden, that his body was cold, and his joints stiff, before it was discovered as he lay upon a couch, and seemed to be asleep, till his daughter, on presenting him with a dish of tea, first perperceived his insensibility. His remains were interred at Christ church, Oxford, and there is an elegant marble monument over him, with an inscription by Dr. Markham, then master of Westminster school and late archbishop of York.

, second son of the preceding, by Anne, eldest daughter of the right hon. John Forster, a privy-counsellor and speaker of the Irish house of commons, by Anne, daughter to the right hon. John Monck, brother to the duke of Albemarle, was born on the 28th of September 1733, old style, in Grosvenor-street, Grosvenor-square. In his infancy he was removed with the family to Ireland, where he was instructed in the classics by his father only, the bishop taking that part of the education of his sons on himself. Instructed in every elegant and useful accomplishment, Mr. Berkeley was, at the age of nineteen, sent over to Oxford his father leaving it to his own choice to enter a gentleman commoner, either at Christ church or St. John’s college. But bishop Conybeare, then dean of Christ church, on his arrival offering him a studentship in that society, he accepted it, finding many of the students to be gentlemen of the first character for learning and rank in the kingdom. His first tutor was the late learned archbishop of York, Dr. Markham; on whose removal to Westminsterschool, he put himself under the tuition of Dr. Smallwell, afterwards bishop of Oxford. Having taken the degree of B. A. he served the office of collector in the university, and as he was allowed by his contemporaries to be an excellent Latin scholar, his collector’s speech was universally admired and applauded. In 1758 he took a small living from his society, the vicarage of East Garston, Berks, from which he was removed, in 1759, by archbishop Seeker, his sole patron, to the vicarage of Bray, Berks of which he was only the fifth vicar since the reformation. In 1759, also, he took the degree of M. A. The kindness of archbishop Seeker (who testified the highest respect for bishop Berkeley’s memory by his attention to his deserving son) did not rest here he gave him also the chancellorship of Brecknock, the rectory of Acton, Middlesex, and the sixth prebendal stall in the church of Canterbury. In 1768 he had taken the degree of LL. D. for which he went out grand compounder, and soon afterwards resigned the rectory of Acton. Some time after he had obtained the chancellorship of Brecknock, he put himself to very considerable expence in order to render permanent two ten pounds per annum, issuing out of the estate, to two poor Welch curacies. The vicarage of Bray he exchanged for that of Cookham near Maidenhead, and had afterwards from the church of Canterbury the vicarage of East-Peckham, Kent, which he relinquished on obtaining the rectory of St. Clement’s Danes which with the vicarage of Tyshurst, Sussex (to which he was presented by the church of Canterbury in 1792, when he vacated Cookham), and with the chancellorship of Brecknock, he; held till his death. His illness had been long and painful, but borne with exemplary resignation and his death was so calm and easy that no pang was observed, no groan was heard, by his attending wife and relations. He died Jan. 6, 1795, and was interred in his father’s vault in Christ church, Oxford. Not long before his death, he expressed his warmest gratitude to Mrs. Berkeley, of whose affection he was truly sensible, and of whom he took a most tender farewell. Dr. Berkeley’s qualifications and attainments were such as occasioned his death to be lamented by many. He was the charitable divine, the affectionate and active friend, the elegant scholar, the accomplished gentleman. He possessed an exquisite sensibility. To alleviate the sufferings of the sick and needy, and to patronize the friendless, were employments in which his heart and his hand ever co-operated. In the pulpit his manner was animated, and his matter forcible. His conversation always enlivened the social meetings where he was present; for he was equalled by few in affability of temper and address, in the happy recital of agreeable anecdote, in the ingenious discussion of literary subjects, or in the brilliant display of a lively imagination.

, a learned English divine of the seventeenth century, was educated in the university of Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. and was incorporated to the same degree at Oxford, July 15, 1628. He was probably created D. D. of the university of Dublin, but this has not been exactly ascertained. He was ordained by primate Usher, in 1626, in St. Peter’s church, Drogheda, while he was only B. A. and made his chaplain, and soon after, by his interest, was promoted to the deanery of Ardagh. His Grace having daily opportunities ojf taking notice of the learning and judgment of Mr. Bernard, employed him in making collections for some works he was then meditating, particularly for the antiquities of the British churches; which did not appear till 1639. The primate always expressed great friendship and esteem for him; and upon taking his leave of him at Drogheda in 1640, gave him “A serious preparative against the heavy sorrows and miseries that he should feel before he saw him again, and spoke of them with that confidence, as if they had been within his view.” This serious discourse proved in the event to be a prophecy, as will be noticed in the life of that prelate. The year following, Dr. Bernard published a book and a sermon which gave offence. These were entitled, 1. “The penitent death of a woful Sinner; or, the penitent death of John Atherton, late bishop of Waterford in Ireland, who was executed at Dublin the fifth of December, 1640; with some annotations on several passages,” London, 1641, 4to 1642, 8vo. 2. “A sermon preached at the burial of John Atherton, the next night after his execution, in St. John’s church, Dublin,” Lond. 1641, 4to 1642, 8vo. Dr. Bernard had the best opportunity in the world of knowing the truth of the fact for which bishop Atherton suffered, having attended him in his exemplary preparation for death, and in his last moments, and he gives us his behaviour and confession fairly and honestly. The cause of offence seems, upon the whole, to have been an opinion that this disgraceful affair had better be buried in oblivion. Archbishop Usher, however, who saw Dr. Bernard’s good intentions, did not withdraw from him his favour or countenance. The same year was published a pamphlet of his writing, upon the siege of Drogheda, of which he was an eye-witness. In the summer of 1642, having lost most of his substance, he returned safe to England to attend on the lord primate, and carried with him Usher’s valuable library, which was afterwards removed to Ireland, and is now in Trinity-college, Dublin. Upon his arrival in England, he was presented, by the earl of Bridgwater, to the rich rectory of Whitchurch in Shropshire, and after the declension of the royal cause, was made chaplain to the Protector, one of his almoners, and preacher to the society of Gray’s inn. Being thus comfortably settled, in 1642 he found leisure, from his pastoral charge, to publish “The whole proceedings of the siege of Drogheda,” London and Dublin, 1642, 4to and Dublin, 1736; and “A Dialogue tetweeu Paul and Agrippa,” London, 1642, 4to. After the restoration of king Charles II. in 1660, having no confidence in the settlement of the state of Ireland, he declined returning and taking possession of his deanery, and contilined at VV hitchurch to his death, which iiappened in winter, 1661. His other works were, 1. “A farewell sermon of comfort and concord, preached at Drogheda,” 1651, 8vo. 2. “The life and death of Dr. James Usher, late archbishop of Armagh, primate and metropolitan of all Ireland, in a sermon preached at his funeral in the abbey of Westminster, on the 17th of April, 1656,” London, 1656, 12mo, afterwards enlarged. 3. “The judgment of the late archbishop of Armagh and primate of Ireland concerning first, the extent of Christ’s death and satisfaction secondly, of the Sabbath, and observation of the Lord’s day,” &c. London, 1657, 8vo. This treatise was answered by Dr. Peter Heylyn, in a book entitled “Respondet Petrus or, the answer of Peter Heylyn, D. D. to so much of 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,“London, 1658, 4to. He also published several letters which passed between him and Dr. Heylyn, and published and enlarged several posthumous works of Dr. Usher as,” His judgment on Babylon being the present see of Rome, Rev. xviii. 4, with a sermon of bishop Bedell’s upon the same words,“London, 1659.” Devotions of the ancient church, in seven pious prayers,“&c. London, 1660, 8vo.” Clavi trabales, or nails fastened by some great masters of assemblies, confirming the king’s supremacy, the subject’s duty, and church government by bishops being a collection of some pieces written on these subjects by archbishop Usher, Mr. Hooker, bishop Andrews, and Dr. Hadrian Saravia; with a preface by the bishop of Lincoln," London, 1661, 4to.

, a celebrated French writer, of the order of Jesus, was born at Rouen in Normandy, Nov. 7, 1681. He was designed for the pulpit, but the weakness of his frame not allowing him to declaim, he gave himself up to the quiet but severe studies of the closet, and produced some critical works of importance, which his countrymen in their spirit of intolerance thought fit to suppress and the reading of his “Histoire du peuple de Dieu” was forbid by the archbishop of Paris, which the Sorbonne were six years reviewing. The first part of this work made its appearance in 8 vols. 4to, with a supplement, 1728, reprinted in 1733, 8 vols. 4to, and 10 vols. 12mo; this ends with the times of the Messiah: the second part came out in 1753 in 4 vols. 4to, and 8 vols. 12mo; and the third part in 2 vols. 4to, or 5 vols. in 12mo, containing a literal paraphrase of the epistles, was printed in 1758, notwithstanding it was censured and condemned by the pope and clergy as containing abominable errors. Abominable absurdities it certainly contained, the history of the Jews being detailed with all the affectation of sentimental romance. The author died at Pans, Feb. 18, 1758.

, a famous Augustine monk, born May 28, 1696, at Serravezza, a small village in Tuscany, was called to Rome by his superiors, and obtained the title of assistant-general of Italy, and the place of prefect of the papal library. His great proficiency in theological studies procured him these distinctions, and appeared to advantage in his grand work, “De disciplinis theologicis,” printed at Rome in 8 vols. 4to. He here adopts the sentiments of St. Augustine in their utmost rigour, after the example of Bellelli his brother- monk. The archbishop of Vienna [Salmon], or rather the Jesuits who managed him, published under his name in 1744, two pieces against the two Augustine theologues, inveighing against them as being too severely Augustine. The first is entitled, “Ba'ianismus redivivus in scriptis pp. Bellelli et Berti,” in 4to. The second bore this title “Jansenismus redivivus in scriptis pp. Bellelli et Berti,” in 4to. At the same time father Berti was accused to pope Benedict XIV. as a disciple of Ba'ius and of Jansenitis. The prudent pontiff, without returning any answer to the accusers, advised Berti to defend himself; which he accordingly did in a work of two vols. 4to, 1749. In this apology, rather long, though learned and lively, he laid down the difference there is between Jansenism and Augustinianism. After this piece Berti brought out several others, the principal of which is an ecclesiastical history in Latin, in 7 vols. 4to: it made however but little way out of Italy, by reason of the dryness of the historian, and of his prejudices in favour of exploded tenets. He speaks of the pope, both in his theology and in his history, as the absolute monarch of kingdoms and empires, and that all other princes are but his lieutenants. Berti wrote also dissertations, dialogues, panegyrics, academical discourses, and some Italian poems, which are by no means his best productions. An edition in folio of all his works has been printed at Venice. He died at the age of 70, May 26, 1766, at Pisa, whither he had been called by Francis I. grand duke of Tuscany.

, one of the revivers of literature in the fifteenth century, was born, not at Constantinople, as some writers assert, but at Trebisond, in 1389, a date which is ascertained by his epitaph written by himself, but as all the copies of this epitaph do not agree, Bandini, one of his biographers, gives 1395, as the time of his birth. He entered into the order of St. Basil, and passed twentyone years in a monastery of Peloponnesus, employed in the study of divinity and polite literature. The philosopher Gemistus Pletho was one of his masters. In 1438, when the emperor John Paleologus formed the design of going to the council of Ferrara, to re-unite the Greek with the Latin church, he drew Bessarion from his retirement, made him bishop of Nice, and engaged him to accompany him into Italy with Pletho, Marcus Eugenius, archbishop of Ephesus, the patriarch of Constantinople, and several other Greeks eminent for talents or rank. In the sittings of this council, the archbishop of Ephesus distinguished himself by his powers of reasoning, and Bessarion by the charms of his eloquence, but unfortunately from being rivals in talents, they soon became enemies. Eugenius was not favourable to the scheme of uniting the Greek and Latin churches; and Bessarioii, after having been of a contrary opinion, declared for the Latins, which was the side the emperor took. The union was accordingly announced, and in December 1439, pope Eugenius IV. to reward the zeal of Bessarion, created him a cardinal priest. ‘ Being now, in consequence of his new dignity, fixed in, Italy, a step which was at the same time rendered necessary by the commotions in Greece, where he was very unpopular, and the union universally rejected, Bessarion returned to the studious and simple life he had led in his convent in the Peloponnesus. His house became the resort of the learned, and when he appeared abroad, his train was composed of such men as Argyropulus, Philelphus, Valla, Theodore Gaza, George of Trebisonde, and Calderino. He obtained the confidence and friendship of several popes. Nicholas V. appointed him archbishop of S’ponto, and cardinal-bishop; and Pius II. in 1463, conferred upon him the title of Patriarch of Constantinople. On the death of Nicholas V. the college of cardinals would have elected him his successor, but this purpose was defeated by the intrigues of cardinal Alain. Some years after, Bessarion, was likely to have succeeded Paul II. but to accomplish this, it was necessary to secure the vote of the cardinal Orsini by an act of injustice, which he refused. Orsini, however, tendered his vote on the same terms to the cardinal de Rovere, who had none of Bessarion’s scruples, and was elected. Paul Jovius tells a foolish story of Bessarion’s having lost this election, by the blundering reply of his servant; and Gibbon, credulous enough when the object of belief is worth nothing, has repeated it after him, nor knowing that our countryman Hody had amply refuted it.

, a learned abbé of the convent of Benedictines of Gottvvich, in Austria, was born Sept. 5, 1672, at Buchheim in the electorate of Mentz. LothaireFrancis, archbishop of Mentz, of the family of the counts of Schoenborn, employed him in divers embassies at Rome, Vienna, and Wolfenbuttel, and admitted him of his privy council. In 1714 he was chosen abbé of Gottwich, and in 1720, the emperor Charles VI. sent him to Kempten to accommodate some differences which had arisen there. His convent having been destroyed by fire in 17 18, he succeeded in saving the library, and afterwards having rebuilt the convent with great magniticence, he enriched the library with a great many manuscripts and rare books, being an ardent lover of literature and learned men, and himself very learned in history and diplomacy. The “Chronicon Gottwicense, pars prima et secunda,” Tegernsée, 1732, fol. has been, often attributed to him, but there is reason to think that Francis Joseph de Hahn, afterwards bishop of Bamberg, was the real author. Bessel speaks of him in the preface as his coadjutor. It contains a great number of diplomas granted by the emperors from Conrad I. to Frederick II. whose seals and arms are very accurately engrayed, and throws so much light on the public law of Germany, that many writers have not scrupled to equal it to father Mabillon’s work “De re diplomatica,” Bessel also published St. Augustine’s letters to Optatus, “De pœnis parvulorum qui sine baptismate decedunt,” Vienna, 1733. He died Jan. 20, 1749.

, in Latin Beverlacius, archbishop of York in the eighth century, was born of a noble family among the English Saxons, at Harpham, a small town in Northumberland. He was first a monk, and afterwards abbot of the monastery of St. Hilda. He was instructed in the learned languages by Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, and was justly esteemed one of the best scholars of his time. Alfred of Beverly, who wrote his life, pretends that he studied at Oxford, and took there the degree of master of arts; but bishop Godwin assures us this cannot be true, because such distinction of degrees was not then known at Oxford, nor any where else. Our abbot’s merit recommended him to the favour of Alfred, king of Northumberland, who, in the year 685, advanced him to the see of Hagustald, or Hexham, and, upon the death of archbishop Bosa in 687, translated him to that of York. This prelate was tutor to the famous Bede, and lived in the strictest friendship with Acca, and other AngloSaxon doctors, several of whom he put upon writing comments on the scriptures. He likewise founded, in 704, a college at Beverly for secular priests. After he had governed the see of York thirty-four years, being tired with the tumults and confusions of the church, he divested himself of the episcopal character, and retired to Beverly; and four years after died May 7, 721. The day of his death was appointed a festival by a synod held at London in 1416. Bede, and other monkish writers, ascribe several miracles to him. Between three and four hundred years after his death, his body was taken up by Alfric, archbishop of York, and placed in a shrine richly adorned with silver, gold, and precious stones. Bromton relates, that William the conqueror, when he ravaged Northumberland with a numerous army, spared Beverly alone, out of a religious veneration for St. John of that place. This prelate wrote some pieces, 1. “Pro Luca exponendo;” an essay towards an exposition of St. Luke, addressed to Bede. 2. “Homiliee in Evangelia.” 3. Epistolae ad Hildara Abbatissam.“4.” Epistolse ad Herebaldum, Andenum, et Bertinum.“- -Pits mentions another John of Beverly, so called from the place of his nativity, who was a Carmelite monk in the fourteenth century, and a very learned man, and doctor and professor of divinity at Oxford. He flourished about 1390, in the reign of Richard II. and wrote, 1.” Questiones in magistrum sententiarum“in four books. 2.” Disputationes ordinariae" in one book.

, a noted Socinian writer, was born in 1615, at Wotton-under-Edge, in Gloucestershire. He was educated at the free-school in that town and, being a promising youth, was noticed by George lord Berkeley, who made him an allowance of 10l. a year. While at this school, he translated Virgil’s eclogues, and the two first satires of Juvenal, into English verse, both which were printed at London in 1634, in 8vo. In 1634 he was sent to Oxford, and entered at Magdalen-hall. June 23, 1683, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and soon after was invited to be master of the school of his native place, but declined it. May 20, 1691, he took his degree of master of arts; and the magistrates of Gloucester having chosen him master of the free-school of St. Mary de Crypt in that city, he went and settled there, and was much esteemed for his diligence. Falling, however, into some opinions concerning the Trinity, different from those commonly received, and having expressed his thoughts with too much freedom, he was accused of heresy: and being summoned before the magistrates, he exhibited in writing a confession, which not being thought satisfactory, he was obliged to make another more explicit than the former. When ha had fully considered this doctrine, he comprised it in twelve arguments drawn, as he pretended, froai the Scripture wherein the commonly-received opinion, touching the deity of the Holy Spirit, is attempted to be refuted . An acquaintance who had a copy of them, having shewed them, to the magistrates of Gloucester, and to the parliament committee then residing there, he was committed, Dec. 2, 1645, to the common gaol, till the parliament should take cognizance of the matter. However, an eminent person in Gloucester procured his enlargement, by giving security for his appearance when the parliament should send for him. June 1616, archbishop Usher, passing through Gloucester in his way to London, had a conference with our author, and endeavoured, but in vain, to convince him of his errors. Six months after he had been set at liberty he was summoned to appear at Westminster, and the parliament appointed a committee to examine him before whom he freely confessed, that he did not acknowledge the commonly-received notion of the divinity of the Holy Ghost, but, however, was ready to hear what could be opposed to him, and, if he could not make out his opinion to be true, honestly to own his error. But being wearied with tedious and expensive delays, he wrote a letter to sir Henry Vane, a member of the committee, requesting him either to procure his discharge, or to make a report of his case to the house of commons. The result of this was, his being committed to the custody of one of their officers, which restraint continued the five years following. He was at length referred to the assembly of divines then sitting at Westminster, before whom he often appeared, and gave them in writing his twelve arguments, which were published the same year. Upon their publication, he was summoned to appear at the bar of the house of commons; where being asked, “Whether he owned this treatise, and the opinions therein” he answered in the affirmative. Upon which he was committed to prison, and the house ordered, Sept. 6, 1747, that the book should be called in and burnt by the hangman, and the author be examined by the committee of plundered ministers. But Mr. Biddle drew a greater storm upon himself by two tracts he published in 1648, “A confession of faith touching the Holy Trinity according to the Scripture” and “The testimonies of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Novatianusy Theophilus, Origen, also of Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius, Hilary, and Brightman, concerning that one God, and the persons of the Holy Trinity, together with observations on the same.” As soon as they were published, the assembly of divines solicited the parliament, and procured an ordinance, inflicting death upon those that held opinions contrary to the received doctrine about the Trinity, and severe penalties upon those who differed in lesser matters. Biddle, however, escaped by a dissension in the parliament, part of which was joined by the army; many of whom, both officers and soldiers, being liable to the severities of the ordinance above-mentioned, it therefore from that time lay unregarded for several years. Biddle had now more liberty allowed him by his keepers who suffered him, upon security given, to go into Staffordshire, where he lived some time with a justice of peace, who entertained him with great hospitality, and at his death left him a legacy. Serjeant John Bradshaw, president of the council of state, having got intelligence of this indulgence granted him, caused him to be recalled, and more strictly confined. In this confinement he spent his whole substance, and was reduced to great indigence, till he was employed by Roger Daniel of London, to correct an impression of the Septuagint Bible, which that printer was about to publish and this gained him for some time a comfortable subsistence.

, an eminent patron of literature, was born at Rouen in 1626, of an ancient family, and having no inclination to rise in the offices of magistracy, as many of his ancestors had done, nor to enter into the church, he determined to devote his time and fortune to the study and advancement of polite literature. His father, dean of the court of aids in Normandy, left him a library of six thousand volumes, including upwards of five hundred manuscripts, to which he made so many additions, that at his death it was valued at forty thousand franks and that it might not be scattered, he entailed it on his family, with handsome funds for the support and enlargement of it. It was, however, sold in July 1706, and the catalogue, which was printed, is in considerable request among bibliographers. During his life-time this library was the resort of a number of men of letters, who held frequent meetings here, in which Bigot presided. His travels in Holland, England, Germany, and Italy, procured him the acquaintance and correspondence of most of the literati of Europe, who frequently consulted him, and paid great regard to his opinions. His sole passion was to contribute by his wealth and studies to the perfection and illustration of the best Greek and Latin authors, and he employed these advantages with the utmost liberality and modesty. Having discovered in the library at Florence, the Greek text of the “Life of St. Chrysostom by Palladius, he published it at Paris in 1680, 4to, with some other ancient Greek remains, hitherto in manuscript, the whole accompanied with a Latin translation by Ambrose of Camaldoli. To this he added St. Chrysostom’s epistle to Cesarius, but it being discovered that this was an attack on the doctrine of transubstantiation, the licensers refused its being published, and caused the leaves on which it was printed to be cut out. A copy of these leaves, however, having fallen into the hands of Mr. (afterwards archbishop) Wake, was published by him in his” Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the exceptions of M. de Meaux, &c.“Lond. 1686, 4to. In this Wake has given a curious account not only of the suppression of this letter, but of the controversy to which it gave rise in archbishop Cranmer’s time. Du Pin says, that after Bigot’s death, some of his literary correspondence was published but this appears a mistake, if we except a letter of his written, in 1672, to the bishop of Trulle against the abbé de St. Cyran’s book” Le Cas Royal," and printed at Basil in 1690. Menage and Heinsius were among his most intimate friends, and such was his general knowledge and communicative disposition, that he was consulted by every one fond of literary history and anecdote. He died Oct. 18, 1689.

, a learned writer, and bishop, in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, was born in the city of Winchester, being the son of Harman Bilson, the same probably who was fellow of Merton-college in 1536, and derived his descent by his grandmother, or great-grandmother, from the duke of t>avaria. He was educated in Winchester school and in 1565 admitted perpetual fellow of New-college, after he had served two years of probation. October 10, 1566, he took his degree of bachelor, and April 25, 1570, that of master of arts; that of bachelor of divinity, June 24, 1579; and the degree of doctor of divinity on the 24th of January 1580. In his younger years, he was a great lover of, and extremely studious in, poetry, philosophy, and physic. But when he entered into holy orders, and applied himself to the study of divinity, which his genius chiefly led him to, he became a most solid and constant preacher, and one of the most accomplished scholars of his time. The first preferment he had was that of master of Winchester-school he was then made prebendary of Winchester, and afterwards warden of the college there. To this college he did a very important service, about the year 1584, by preserving the revenues of it when they were in danger of being swallowed up by a notorious forgery, of which, however, we have only an obscure account. In 1585, he published his book of “The true difference betweene Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion,” and dedicated it to queen Elizabeth a work, which, although it might answer her immediate purpose, was of fatal tendency to Charles I. few books being more frequently quoted by the mal-contents to justify their resistance to that prince. In 1593, he published a very able defence of episcopacy, entitled, “The perpetuall Government of Christes Church: wherein are handled, the fatherly superioritie which God first established in the patriarkes for the guiding of his Church, and after continued in the tribe of Levi and the Prophetes and lastlie confirmed in the New Testament to the apostles and their successors: as also the points in question at this day, touching the Jewish Synedrion: the true kingdome of Christ: the Apostles’ commission: the laie presbyterie: the distinction of bishops from presbyters, and their succession from the apostles times and hands: the calling and moderating of provinciall synods by primates and metropolitanes the allotting of dioceses, and the popular electing of such as must feede and watch the flock and divers other points concerning the pastoral regiment of the house of God.” On the 20th of April, 15y6, he was elected v confirmed June the llth, and the 13th of the same month consecrated bishop of Worcester and translated in May following to the bishopric of Winchester, and made a privy-counsellor. In 1599, he published “The effect of certaine Sermons touching the full Redemption of Mankind by the death and bloud of Christ Jesus wherein, besides the merite of Christ’s suffering, the manner of his offering, the power of his death, the comfort of his crosse, the glorie of his resurrection, are handled, what paines Christ suffered in his soule on the crosse together with the place and purpose of his descent to hel after death” &c. Lond. 4to. These sermons being preached at Paul’s Cross in Lent 1597, by the encouragement of archbishop Whitgift, greatly alarmed most of the Puritans, because they contradicted some of their tenets, but they are not now thought consonant to the articles of the church of England. The Puritans, however, uniting their forces, and making their observations, sent them to Henry Jacob, a learned puritan, who published them under his own name. The queen being at Farnham-castle, and, to use the bishop’s words, “taking knowledge of the things questioned between him and his opponents, directly commanded him neither to desert the doctrine, nor to let the calling which he bore in the church of God, to be trampled under foot by such unquiet refusers of trueth and authoritie.” Upon this royal command, he wrote a learned treatise, chiefly delivered in sermons, which was published in 1604, under the title of “The survey^of Christ’s sufferings for Man’s Redemption and of his descent to hades or hel for our deliverance,” Lond. fol. He also preached the sermon at Westminster before king James I. and his queen, at their coronation on St. James’s day, July 28, 1603, from Rom. xiii. L. London, 1603, 8vo. In January 1603-4, he was one of the speakers and managers at the Hampton-Court conference, in which he spoke much, and, according to Mr. Fuller, most learnedly, and, in general, was one of the chief maintainers and supports of the church of England. The care of revising, and putting the last hand to, the new translation of the English Bible in king James Ist’s reign, was committed to our author, and to Dr. Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. His last public act, recorded in history, was the being one of the delegates that pronounced and signed the sentence of divorce between Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, and the lady Frances Howard, in the year 1613 and his son being knighted soon after upon this very account, as was imagined, the world was so malicious as to give him the title of sir Nullity Bilson. This learned bishop, after having gone through many employments, departed this life on the 18th of June, 1616, and was buried in Westminsterabbey, near the entrance into St. Edmund’s chapel, on the south side of the monument of king Richard II. His character is represented to the utmost advantage by several persons. Sir Anthony Weldon calls him “an excellent civilian, and a very great scholler” Fuller, “a deep and profound scholar, excellently well read in the fathers” Bishop Godwin, “a very grave iman and how great a divine (adds he), if any one knows not, let him consult his learned writings” Sir John Harrington, “I find but foure lines (in bishop Godwin’s book) concerning him and if I should give him his due, in proportion to the rest, I should spend foure leaves. Not that I need make him better known, being one of the most eminent of his ranck, and a man that carried prelature in his very aspect. His rising was meerly by his learning, as true prelates should rise. Sint non modo labe mali sed suspicione carentes, not onely free from the spot, but from the speech of corruption.” He wrote in a more elegant style, and in fuller and betterturned periods, than was usual in the times wherein he lived. It is related of our prelate, that once, when he was preaching a sermon* at St. Paul’s Cross, a sudden panic, occasioned by the folly or caprice of one of the audience, seized the multitude there assembled, who thought that the church was falling on their heads. The good bishop, who sympathized with the people more from pity than from fear, after a sufficient pause, reassumed and went through his sermon with great composure.

, the second son of the eminent writer before mentioned, was the last of his numerous family, and consequently extremely young at the time of his father’s death. Though he died in very early life, yet during the short period of his existence, he pursued his studies with such unremitting 'perseverance, and gave such early proofs of genius and sound understanding, and so strongly evinced his determination to tread in the footsteps of his father, as fully entitle him to a few lines from the pen of the biographer. This young man received his education on the foundation at the Charter-house, from whence he was at the usual age removed to Corpus college in Oxford. In the university he was a most exemplary and persevering student, and was preparing to give public proofs of his diligence, having actually printed every part, except the title-pruge and preface, of a very valuable edition of the Theban story, which was completed and published after his death by a gentleman, into whose hands his papers had fallen, as a security for a sum of money which had been borrowed to facilitate the publication. Whilst he was thus usefully employed, and just as he was on the point of being ordained, with every prospect of promotion from the patronage of archbishop Potter, he was suddenly brought to his grave, at the immature age of 22, by an illness wholly occasioned by -too sedentary a life, and too close an application to his studies. He lies buried in the cloisters of Corpus college, without either monument, inscription, or stone erected to his memory, though it might most truly be said of him, that he fell a martyr to application, industry, and learning.

How much Mr. Birch was affected by this calamity appears from some verses written by him, August 3d, 1729, on his wife’s coffin, and inserted in Mrs. Rowe’s Miscellaneous Works. That Mrs. Birch was a woman of very amiable accomplishments, is not only evident from the verses now mentioned, but from two Latin epitaphs drawn up for her one by her husband, and the other by Dr. Dale, which last was translated into English by Mr. James Ralph. In both these epitaphs, she is celebrated as having- possessed an uncommon share of knowledge and taste, and many virtues. After this melancholy event, he was ordained deacon by the bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Hoadly, Jan. 17, 1730, and priest by the same prelate, Dec. 21, 1731, and at the same time was presented to the rectory of Siddington St. Mary, and the vicarage of Siddington St. Peter, in Gloucestershire. He had been recommended, by a common friend, to the friendship and favour of the late lord high chancellor Hardwicke, then attorney-general; to whom, and to the late earl of Hardwicke, he was indebted for all his preferments. The chancellor gave him the living of Ulting in the county of Essex, to which he was instituted by Dr. Gibson, bishop of London, on the 20th of May, and he took possession of it on the day following. In 1734, he was appointed one of the domestic chaplains to William earl of Kilmarnock, the unfortunate nobleman who was afterwards beheaded, on the 18th of August, 1746, for having been engaged in the rebellion of 1745. The earl of Kilmarnock was, we believe, in more early life, understood to be a whig; and under no other character could Mr. Birch have been introduced to his lordship’s notice. On the 20th of February, 1734-5, Mr. Birch had the honour of being chosen a member of the royal society, sir Hans Sloane taking a leading part in the election. The same honour was done him on the llth of December 1735, by the society of antiquaries of which he afterwards became director. A few weeks before he was chosen into the latter, the Marischal college of Aberdeen had conferred on him, by diploma, the degree of master of arts. In the Spring of 1743, by the favour of his noble patron before mentioned, he received a more substantial benefit; being presented by the crown to the rectory of Landewy Welfrey in the county of Pembroke. To this benefice, which was a sinecure, he was instituted on the 7th of May, by Dr. Edward Willes, bishop of St. David’s. On the 24th of February, 1743-4, he was presented to the rectories of St. Michael, Wood-street, and St. Mary, Staining, united. His next preferment was likewise in the city of London; being to the united rectories of St. Margaret Pattens, and St. Gabriel, Fenchurch-street, to which he was presented in the beginning of February, 1745-6. In January, 1752, he was elected one of the secretaries of the royal society, in the room of Dr. Cromwell Mortimer, deceased. In January 1753, the Marischal college of Aberdeen created him doctor of divinity and in that year, the same honour was conferred on him by that excellent prelate, Dr. Thomas Herring, archbishop of Canterbury. Our author was also a trustee of the British Museum. The last preferment given to Dr. Birch, was the rectory of Depden in Essex; for which he was indebted to the late earl of Hardwicke. Depden itself, indeed, was in the patronage of Mr. Chiswell, and in the possession of the rev. Dr. Cock. But the benefice in lord Hardwicke’s gift, being at too great a distance from town, to be legally held by Dr. Birch, he obtained an exchange with Dr. Cock. Dr. Birch was instituted to Depden by the late eminent bishop Sherlock, on the 25th of February 1761; and he continued possessed of this preferment, together with the united rectories of St. Margaret Pattens, and St. Gabriel, Fenchurch-street, till his decease. In 1765, he resigned his office of secretary to the royal society, and was succeeded by Dr. Maty. Dr. Birch’s health declining about this time, he was ordered to ride for the recovery of it but being a bad horseman, and going out, contrary to advice, on a frosty day, he was unfortunately thrown from his horse, on the road betwixt London and Hampstead, and killed on the spot. Dr. William Watson, of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, as soon as he heard of the accident of the fall, hastened to the relief of his friend, but in vain. It is not known whether Dr. Birch’s fall might not have been occasioned by an apoplexy. This melancholy event happened on the 9th of January 1766, in the 61st year of his age, to the great regret of the doctor’s numerous literary friends. Some days after his death, he was buried in the chancel of his own church of St. Margaret Pattens. Dr. Birch had, in his life-time, been very generous to his relations; and none that were near to him being living at his decease, he bequeathed his library of books and manuscripts, many of which are valuable, to the British Museum. He, likewise, left the remainder of his fortune, which amounted to not much more than five hundred pounds, to be laid out in government securities, for the purpose of applying the interest to increase the stipend of the three assistant librarians. Thus manifesting at his death, as he had done during his whole life, his respect for literature, and his desire to promote useful knowledge.

Having related the more personal and private circumstances of Dr. Birch’s history, we proceed to his various publications. The first great work he engaged in, was “The General Dictionary, historical and critical” wherein a new translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle was included and which was interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. It was on the 29th of April, 1734, that Dr. Birch, in conjunction with the rev. Mr. John Peter Bernard, and Mr. John Lockman, agreed with the booksellers to carry on this important undertaking; and Mr. George Sale was employed to draw up the articles relating to oriental history. The whole design was completed in ten volumes, folio; the first of which appeared in 1734, and the last in 1741. It is universally allowed, that this work contains a very extensive and useful body of biographical knowledge. We are not told what were the particular articles written by Dr. Birch but there is no doubt of his having executed a great part of the dictionary neither is it, we suppose, any disparagement to his coadjutors, to say, that he was superior to them in abilities and reputation, with the exception of Mr. George Sale, who was, without controversy, eminently qualified for the department he had undertaken. The next great design in which Dr. Birch engaged, was the publication of “Thurloe’s State Papers.” This collection, which comprised seven volumes in folio, came out in 1742. It is dedicated to the late lord chancellor Hardwicke, and there is prefixed to it a life of Thurloe but whether it was written or not by our author, does not appear. The same life had been separately published not long before. The letters and papers in this collection throw the greatest light on the pe'riod to which they relate, and are accompanied with proper references, and a complete index to each volume, yet was a work by which the proprietors were great losers. In 1744, Dr. Birch published, in octavo, a “Life of the honourable Robert Boyle, esq” which hath since been prefixed to the quarto edition of the works of that philosopher. In the same year, our author began his assistance to Houbraken and Vertue, in their design of publishing, in folio, the “Heads of illustrious persons of Great Britain,” engraved by those two artists, but chiefly by Mr. Houbraken. To each head was annexed, by Dr, Birch, the life and character of the person represented. The first volume of this work, which came out in numbers, was completed in 1747, and the second in 1752. Our author’s concern in this undertaking did not hinder his prosecuting, at the same time, other historical disquisitions: for, in 1747, appeared, in octavo,“His inquiry into the share which king Charles the First had in the transactions of the earl of Glamorgan.” A second edition ef the Inquiry was published in 1756, and it was a work that excited no small degree of attention. In 1751, Dr. Birch was editor of the “Miscellaneous works of sir Walter Raleigh” to which was prefixed the life of that unfortunate and injured man. Previously to this, Dr. Birch published “An historical view of the negociations between the courts of England, France, and Brussels, from 1592 to 1617; extracted chiefly from the ms State Papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, knight, embassador in France, and at Brussels, and treasurer of the household to the kings James I. and Charles I. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon. To which is added, a relation of the state of France, with the character of Henry IV. and the principal persons of that court, drawn up by sir George Carew, upon his return from his embassy there in 1609, and addressed to king James I. never before printed.” This work, which consists of one volume, in octavo, appeared in 1749; and, in an introductory discourse to the honourable Philip Yorke, esq. (the late earl of Hardwicke), Dr. Birch makes some reflections on the utility of deducing history from its only true and unerring sources, the original letters and papers of those eminent men, who were the principal actors in the administration of affairs; after which he gives some account of the lives of sir Thomas Edmondes, sir George Carew, and Mr. Anthorry Bacon. The “Historical View” is undoubtedly a valuable performance, and hath brought to light a variety of particulars relative to the subjects and the period treated of, which before were either not at all, or not so fully known. In 17.51, was published by our author, an edition, in two volumes, 8vo, of the “Theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn” with an account of her life. In the next year came out his “Life of the most reverend Dr. John Tillotson, lord archbishop of Canterbury. Compiled chiefly from his original papers and letters.” A second edition, corrected and enlarged, appeared in 1753. This work, which was dedicated to archbishop Herring, is one of the most pleasing and popular of Dr. Birch’s performances; and he has done great justice to Dr. Tillotsou’s memory, character, and virtues. Our biographer hath likewise intermixed with his narrative of the good prelate’s transactions, short accounts of the persons occasionally mentioned; a method which he has pursued in some of his other publications. In 1753, he revised. the quarto edition, in two volumes, of Milton’s prose works, and added a new life of that great poet and writer. Dr. Birch gave to the world', in the following year, his “Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the year 1581, till her death. In which the secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert earl of Essex, both at home and abroad, are particularly illustrated. From the original papers of his intimate friend, Anthony Bacon, esq. and other manuscripts never before published.” These memoirs, which are inscribed to the earl of Hardwicke, give a minute account of the letters and materials from which they are taken and the whole work undoubtedly forms a very valuable collection in which our author has shewn himself (as in his other writings) to be a faithfnl and accurate compiler and in which, besides a full display of the temper and actions of the earl of Essex, much light is thrown on the characters of the Cecils, Bacons, and many eminent persons of that period. The book is now becoming scarce, and, as it may not speedily be republished, is rising in its value. This is the case, likewise, with regard to the edition of sir Walter Raleigh’s miscellaneous works. Dr. Birch’s next publication was “The history of the Royal Society of London, for improving of natural knowledge, from its first rise. In which the most considerable of those papers, communicated to the society, which have hitherto not been published, are inserted in their proper order, as a supplement to the Philosophical Transactions.” The twq first volumes of this performance, which was dedicated to his late majesty, appeared in 1756, and the two other volumes in 1757. The history is carried on to the end of the year 1687 and if the work had been continued, and had been conducted with the same extent and minuteness, it would have been a very voluminous undertaking. But, though it may, perhaps, be justly blamed in this respect, it certainly contains many curious and entertaining anecdotes concerning the manner of the society’s proceedings at their first establishment. It is enriched, likewise, with a number of personal circumstances relative to the members, and with biographical accounts of such of the more considerable of them as died in the course of each year. In 1760, came out, in one volume, 8vo, our author’s “Life of Henry prince of Wales, eldest son of king James I. Compiled chiefly from his own papers, and other manuscripts, never before published.” It is dedicated to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. Some have objected to this work, that it abounds too much with trifling details, and that Dr. Birch has not given sufficient scope to such reflections and disquisitions as arose from his subject. It must, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that it affords a more exact and copious account than had hitherto appeared of a prince whose memory has always been remarkably popular; and that various facts, respecting several other eminent characters, are occasionally introduced. Another of his publications was, “Letters, speeches, charges, advices, &c. of Francis Bacon, lord viscount St. AJban, lord chancellor of England.” This collection, which is comprised in one volume, 8vo, and is dedicated to the honourable Charles Yorke, esq. appeared in 1763. It is taken from some papers which had been originally in the possession of Dr. Rawley, lord Bacon’s chaplain, whose executor, Mr. John Rawley, having put them into the hands of Dr. Tenison, they were, at length, deposited in the manuscript library at Lambeth. Dr. Birch, speaking of these papers of lord Bacon, says, that it can scarcely be imagined, but that the bringing to light, from obscurity and oblivion, the remains of so eminent a person, will be thought an acquisition not inferior to the discovery (if the ruins of Herculaneum should afford such a treasure) of a new set of the epistles of Cicero, whom our immortal countryman most remarkably resembled as an orator, a philosopher, a writer, a lawyer, and a statesman. Though this, perhaps, is speaking too highly of a collection, which contains many things in it seemingly not very material, it must, at the same time, be allowed, that nothing can be totally uninteresting which relates to so illustrious a man, or tends, in any degree, to give a farther insight into his character. To this catalogue we have still to add “Professor Greaves’s miscellaneous works,” 1737, in two vols. 8vo. Dr. Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” (improved from the Latin edition of Mosheim) his discourse on the true notion of the Lord’s Supper, and two sermons, with an account of his life and writings, 1743, in two vols. 4to. An edition of Spenser’s “Fairy Queen,” 1751, in three Vols. 4to, with prints from designs by Kent. “Letters between col. Robert Hammond, governor of the Isle of Wight, and the committee of lords and commons at Derbyhouse, general Fairfax, lieut.-general Cromwell, commissary general Ireton, &c. relating to king Charles I. while he was confined in Carisbrooke-castle in that island. Now first published. To which is prefixed a letter from John Ashburnham, esq. to a friend, concerning his deportment towards the king, in his attendance on his majesty at Hampton-court, and in the Isle of Wight,” 1764, 8vo. Dr. Birch’s last essay, “The life of Dr. Ward,” which was finished but a week before his death, was published by Dr. Maty, in 1766.

, a political author in the seventeenth century, was the son of Richard Birkenhead, of Northwych, in the county of Cheshire, an honest saddler, who, if some authors may deserve credit, kept also a little ale-house. Our author was born about 1615, and having received some tincture of learning in the common grammar-schools, came to Oxford, and was entered in 1632, a servitor of Oriel college, under the tuition of the learned Dr. Humphrey Lloyd, afterwards bishop of Bangor. Dr. Lloyd recommended him to Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, as his amanuensis, and in that capacity he discovered such talents, that the archbishop, by his diploma, created him A. M. in 1639, and the year following, by letter commendatory from the same great prelate, he was chosen probationary fellow of All-souls college. This preferment brought him to reside constantly in Oxford, and on king Charles I. making that city his head-quarters during the civil war, our author was employed to write a kind of journal in support of the royal cause, by which he gained great reputation; and his majesty recommended him to be chosen reader in moral philosophy, which employment he enjoyed, though with very small profit, till 1648, when he was expelled by the parliament visitors. He retired afterwards to London, where adhering steadily to his principles, he acquired, among those of his own sentiments, the title of “The Loyal Poet,” and suffered, from such as had then the power in their hands, several imprisonments, which served only to sharpen his wit, without abating his courage. He published, while he thus lived in obscurity, and, as Wood says, by his wits, some very tart performances, which were then very highly relished, and are still admired by the curious. These were, like his former productions, levelled against the republican leaders, and were written with the same vindictive poignancy that was then fashionable. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. he was created April 6, 1661, on the king’s letters sent for that purpose, D. C. L. by the university of Oxford and in that quality was o'ne of the eminent civilians consulted by the convocation on the question “Whether bishops ought to be present in capital cases?” and with the rest, Keb. 2, 1661-2, gave it under his hand, they ought and might. He was, about the same time, elected a burgess, to serve in parliament for Wilton, in the county of Wilts, and continuing his services to his master, was by him promoted, on the first vacancy, to some office at court, which he quitted afterwards, and became master in the Faculty office. He was knighted November 14, 1662, and upon sir Richard Fanshaw’s going with a public character to the court of Madrid, sir John Birkenhead succeeded him as master of requests. He was also elected a member of the royal society, an honour at that time conferred on none who were not well known in the republic of letters, as men capable of promoting the truly noble designs of that learned body. He lived afterwards in credit and esteem with men of wit and learning, and received various favours from the court, in consideration of the past, and to instigate him to other services; which, however, drew upon him some very severe attacks from those who opposed the court. Anthony Wood has preserved some of their coarsest imputations, for what reason is not very obvious, as Wood is in general very partial to the loyalist writers. He died in Westminster, December 4, 1679, and was interred at St. Martin’s in the Fields, leaving to his executors, sir Richard Mason, and sir Muddiford Bamston, a large and curious collection of pamphlets on all subjects.

, a modern Latin poet, was born in 1617, near St. Paul’s cathedral, in London, and after having been educated under the famous Farnaby, was entered a commoner at Trinity college, Oxford, in 1633; admitted Scholar there, May 28, 1635, and soon after was seduced to become a member of the college of Jesuits, at St. Omer’s. He soon, however, returned to the church of England, and by the patronage of archbishop Laud, was elected fellow of All Souls, in 1638, being then bachelor of arts, and esteemed a good philologist. He proceeded in that faculty, was made senior of the act celebrated in 1641, and entered on the law faculty. He kept his fellowship during the usurpation, but resigned it after the restoration, when he became registrar of the diocese of Norwich. This too he resigned in 1684, and resided first in the Middle Temple, and then in other places, in a retired condition for many years. The time of his death is not mentioned but in the title of Trapp’s “Lectures on Poetry,” Henry Birkhead, LL. D. some time fellow of All Souls college, is styled “Founder of the poetical lectures,” the date of which foundation is 1707. He wrote 1. “Poemata in Elegiaca, lambica, Polymetra, &c. membranatim quadripartite,” 1656, 8vo. 2. “Otium Literarium, sive miscellanea quaedam Poemata,” 16=6, 8vo. He also published in 4to, with a preface, some of the philological works of his intimate friend Henry Jacob, who had the honour of teaching Selden the Hebrew language; and he wrote several Latin elegies on the loyalists who Suffered in the cause of Charles I. which are scattered in various printed books, and many of them subscribed H. G.

, an eminent English divine, was born in London, 1654, and educated at Catherine-hail, Cambridge. In 1690, he was inducted into the living of South Okenden, Essex, and four years afterwards to the rectory of St. Mary Aldermary, London and was successively chosen lecturer of St. Olave’s, and of St. Dunstan’s in the West. He was likewise appointed chaplain to king William. He preached before the house of commons Jan. 30, 1699, and in his sermon animadverted on Mr. Toland for his asserting in his life of Milton, that Charles I. was not the author of “Icon Basilike,” and for some insinuations against the authenticity' of the holy scriptures which drew him into a controversy with that author. In 1700, he preached a course of sermons at Boyle’s lecture, in the cathedral church of St. Paul, which were afterwards published. In 1707, he was consecrated to the bishopric of Exeter. Burnet, having mentioned him and sir William Dawes as raised to bishoprics, tells us, “that these divines were in themselves men of value and worth; but their notions were all on the other side. They had submitted to the government but they, at least Blackall, seemed to condemn the revolution, and all that had been done pursuant to it.” And it is asserted in an anonymous pamphlet, published in 1705, that he had refused for two years to take the oath of allegiance to king William. But what contributed most to his fame in his life- time was a controversy he had with Mr. (afterwards bishop) Hoadly, which was occasioned by his sermon upon Rom. xiii. 3, 4, entitled, “The Divine Institution of Magistracy, and the gracious design of its institution,” preached before the queen at St. James’s on Tuesday, March 8, 1708, being the anniversary of her majesty’s happy accession to the throne, and published by her majesty’s special command. The next year, 1709, Mr. Hoadly animadverted upon the bishop’s sermon, in a piece, entitled “Some Considerations humbly offered to the right reverend the lord bishop of Exeter, occasioned by his lordship’s sermon before her majesty, March 8, 1708.” Upon this the bishop published “An Answer to Mr. Hoadly’s Letter,” dated from Bath, May the 10th, 1709. Mr. Hoadly endeavoured to vindicate himself, in “An humble Reply to the right reverend the lord bishop of Exeter’s answer; in which the Considerations offered to his lordship are vindicated, and an apology is added for defending the foundation of the present government,” London, 1709, in 8vo. In this controversy, bishop Blackall defends the High-church, Tory, principles (as they usually are called), of the divine institution of magistracy, and unlimited passive obedience and non-resistance; which Mr. Hoadly opposes. There were several pamphlets written on the side of the bishop against Mr. Hoadly particularly one, entitled, “The best Answer that ever was made, and to which no answer will be made” supposed to be wi'itten by Mr. Lesley, a nonjuring clergyman, and which Mr. Hoadly animadverts upon in the postscript to his humble reply. The wits in the Tatler engaged in this controversy on the side of Hoadly, and with an illiberality not usual in the writers of that paper. He died at Exeter, Nov. 29, 1716, and was interred in the cathedral there. Archbp. Dawes, who had a long and intimate friendship with him, declares, that in his whole conversation he never met with a more perfect pattern of a true Christian life, in all its parts, than in him: so much primitive simplicity and integrity; such constant evenness of mind, and uniform conduct of behaviour; such unaffected and yet most ardent piety towards God such orthodox and steadfast faith in Christ such disinterested and fervent charity to all mankind such profound modesty, humility, and sobriety such an equal mixture of meekness and courage, of cheerfulness and gravity such an exact discharge of all relative duties and in one word, such an indifferency to this lower world and the things of it and such an entire affection and joyous hope and expectation of things above. He says also, that his “manner of preaching was so excellent, easy, clear, judicious, substantial, pious, affecting, and upon all accounts truly useful and edifying, that he universally acquired the reputation of being one of the best preachers of his time.” Felton, in his Classics, commends him as an excellent writer. M. de la Roche, in his memoirs of literature, tells us, that our prelate was one of those English divines, who, when they undertake to treat a subject, dive into the bottom of it, and exhaust the matter. His works were published by archbishop Dawes, in 2 vols. fol. 1723, consisting of Practical discourses on our Saviour’s Sermon on the mount, and on the Lord’s Prayer, together with his sermons preached at Boyle’s lecture, with several others upon particular occasions.

, the celebrated author of the “Confessional,” was born at Richmond in Yorkshire, June 9, 1705. At the age of seventeen he was admitted pensioner of Catherine-hall, Cambridge, where his peculiar notions on civil and religious liberty rendered him obnoxious to his superiors, and occasioned the loss of a fellowship for which he was a candidate. In 1739, he was ordained by Dr. Gooch, bishop of Norwich, at Ely chapel, Holborn, and in a short time afterwards was inducted into the rectory of Richmond in Yorkshire, where he resided constantly for forty years, during which he composed all the pieces contained in the late edition of his works, besides a multitude of smaller ones. His first appearance as an author was on the following occasion. In 1749, the rev. John Jones, vicar of Alconbury, near Huntingdon, published his “Free and candid disquisitions relating to the Church of England,” containing many observations on the supposed defects and improprieties in the liturgical forms of faith and worship of the established church. As Mr. Blackburne corresponded with this gentleman, who had submitted the work to his perusal in manuscript, and as there were many of his opinions in which Mr. Blackburne coincided, it was not unnatural to suppose that he had a hand in the publication. This, however, Mr. Blackburne solemnly denied, and his biographer has assigned the probable reason. “The truth,” says he, “is, Mr. Blackburne, whatever desire he might have to forward the work of ecclesiastical reformation, could not possibly conform his style to the milky phraseology of the ‘ Disquisitions,’ nor could he be content to have his sentiments mollified by the gentle qualifications of Mr. Jones’s lenient pen. He was rather (perhaps too much) inclined to look upon those who had in their hands the means and the power of reforming the errors, defects, and abuses, in the government, forms of worship, faith and discipline, of the established church, as guilty of a criminal negligence, from which they should have been roused by sharp and spirited expostulations. He thought it became disquisitors, with a cause in hand of such high importance to the influence of vital Christianity, rather to have boldly forced the utmost resentment of the class of men to which they addressed their work, than, by meanly truckling to their arrogance, to derive upon themselves their ridicule and contempt, which all the world saw was the case of these gentle suggesters, and all the return they had for the civility of their application.” Animated by this spirit, which we are far from thinking candid or expedient, Mr. Blackburne published “An Apology,” for the “Free and candid disquisitions,” to which, whatever might be its superior boldness to the “milky phraseology” of Mr. Jones, he yet did not venture to put his name nor, although he was suspected to be the author, did he meet with any of that “arrogance,” which is attributed to those who declined adopting Mr. Jones’s scheme of church-reformation. On the contrary, in July, 1750, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Cleveland, and in August following to the prebend of Bilton, by Dr. Matthew Hutton, archbishop of York, to whom he had been for some years titular chaplain and when his friends intimated their suspicions that he would write no more “Apologies” for such books as “Free and candid Diquisitions,” he answered, “with a cool indifference,” that he had made no bargain with the archbishop for his liberty. His next publication, accordingly, was an attack on Dr. Butler bishop of Durham’s charge to his clergy in 1751, which, in Mr. Blackburne’s opinion, contained some doctrines diametrically opposite to the principles on which the protestant reformation was founded. This appeared in 1752, under the title of “A Serious Enquiry into the use and importance of external religion, &c.” but was not generally known to be his, until Mr. Baron, an enthusiast in controversies, republished it with Mr. Blackburne’s name, in his collection, entitled “The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken.”

His next publications were on the subjects of the new style Archdeacon Sharpe’s charges the Jew naturalization-bill a letter to archbishop Herring, on church reformation none of which require much notice. When in 1755, Dr. Law’s notion appeared concerning the soul and the state of death, or what was called “the soul-sleeping system,” Mr. Blackburne adopted, and defended it in a tract entitled “No proof in the Scriptures of an intermediate state of happiness or misery, between death and the resurrection,” and he urged the same opinion in a subsequent tract but as the Confessional is the publication on which his fame principally rests, the history of it is more interesting than any detail of his minor tracts. On Commencement Sunday 1757, Dr. Powell, an eminent tutor of St. John’s college, Cambridge, published a sermon on subscription to the Liturgy and XXXIX articles, in which he maintained that a latitude was allowed to subscribers, even, so far as to admit of the assent and conserit of different persons to different and even opposite opinions, according to their different interpretations of the propositions to be subscribed. Dr. Powell’s casuistry on the subject appeared to Mr. Blackburne so detestable, and so subversive of the principles of good faith among men, that he determined to expose and refute it to the best of his power, and accordingly published “Remarks on the rev. Dr. Powell’s Sermon in defence of Subscriptions, &c.” 1758. His sentiments on the subject of subscriptions are thus explained, in that part of his life which was written by himself. "When he took possession of the living of Richmond, he had been engaged in a way of life that did not give him time or opportunity to reflect upon subjects of that nature with precision; and though, upon taking his first preferment, he determined conscientiously to perform the duties of it, yet he was by no means aware of the difficulties that afterwards embarrassed him in qualifying himself for holding it. He, therefore, then subscribed as directed by law, without scruple, and without apprehending the obligation he laid himself under, according to the form, of giving his assent and consent to the whole system of the church. When the same form was to be subscribed to qualify him. to hold the archdeaconry and prebend, he consulted some of his friends, and particularly Dr. Law (afterwards bishop of Carlisle), who gave him his opinion at large, containing such reasons, as had occurred to himself on the several occasions he had to undergo that discipline. He was likewise referred to Dr. Clarke’s Introduction to his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity and lastly, to the sixth article of the church of England all which appeared plausible enough to satisfy him, for that time, that with these salvos and modifications, he might safely subscribe to the prescribed forms. Some time afterwards, however, upon a prospect of farther advancement to a considerable preferment, he took occasion to re-consider these arguments, and thought they fell short of giving that satisfaction which an honest man would wish to have, when he pledges his good faith to society in so solemn a form as that prescribed by the 36th canon, enjoining subscription to the articles and liturgical forms of the church of England.

Such is the author’s account of the origin of this celebrated work, which soon gave rise to a controversy of considerable length. We follow him with more reluctance in his account of its reception, in which he states that grievous offence was taken at it by that part of the clergy “who affect to call themselves orthodox” and archbishop Seeker is stated to have thrown off his mask of moderation at once. More calm reasoners, however, at this later period may be of opinion, that many of the opponents of the Confessional stood in no need of affectation to indicate the class to which they belonged and that the archbishop, as well as many of his brethren, might think themselves amply justified in considering the Confessional, as having a tendency to render the principles of the church of England a series of private opinions ending in ho general system, and affording encouragement to perpetual fluctuation and indecision, under pretence of regard for conscience. Nor, as the press was to be the medium of this controversy, can we, upon any principles of candour, conceive, why archbishop Seeker, or any of his brethren, should be censured for encouraging the best writers they could find.

In November 1743, he was elected into the society of All Souls college, and in the November following, he spoke the annual speech in commemoration of archbishop Chichele, the founder, and the other benefactors to that house of learning, and was admitted actual fellow. From this period he divided his time between the university and the Temple, where he took chambers in order to attend the courts: in the former he pursued his academical studies, and, on the 12th of June 1745, commenced B.C. L.; in the latter he applied himself closely to his profession, both in the half, and in his private studies, and on the 28th of November 1746, was called to the bar.

The 26th of April, 1750, he commenced doctor of civil law, and thereby became a member of the convocation which enabled him to extend his views beyond the narrow circle of his own society, to the general benefit of the university at large. In this year he published “An essay on Collateral Consanguinity,” relative to the claim made by such as could by a pedigree prove themselves of kin to the founder of All-Souls college, of being elected preferably to all others into that society. Those claims became now so numerous, that the college, with reason, complained of being frequently precluded from making choice of the most ingenious and deserving candidates. In this treatise, which was his first publication, he endeavoured to prove, that as the kindred to the founder, a Popish ecclesiastic, could be only collateral, the length of time elapsed since his death must, according to the rules both of the civil and canon law, have extinguished consanguinity; or that the whole race of mankind were equally founders’ kinsmen. This work, although it did not answer the end proposed, or convince the then visitor, yet did the author great credit; and shewed that he had read much, and well digested what he had read. And most probably, the arguments contained in, it had some weight with his Grace the late archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Cornwallis, when about forty years ago, on application to him, as visitor of the college, he formed a new regulation, which gives general satisfaction, by limiting the number of founder’s kin; by which the inconvenience complained of was in a great measure removed, without annihilating a claim founded on the express words of the college statutes. In forming this new regulation, his Grace made choice of Mr. Blackstone as his common-law assessor, together with 'Dr. Hay the civilian.

He was the author of “A letter to cardinal Cajetane io. commendation of the English Jesuits,” written in 1596. “Answers upon sundry examinations whilst he was a prisoner,” London, 1607, 4to. “Approbation of the Oath of Allegiance letters to the Romish priests touching the lawfulness of taking the Oath of Allegiance,” and another to the same purpose, all of which were printed with the “Answers upon sundry examinations,” &c. “Epistolae ad Anglos Pontificios,” London, 1609, 4to. “Epistolae ad Robertum cardinalem Bellarminum.” See the third volume of the Collections of Melchior Goldast, Francfort, 1613, fol. “Answer to the Censure of Paris in suspending the secular priests obedience to his authority,” dated May the 29th, 1600. This was replied to by John Dorel, or Darrel, dean of Agen the same year. “A treatise against lying and fraudulent dissimulations,” in manuscript, among those given to the Bodleian library by archbishop Laud. At the end of it is the approbation of the book written by Blackwell, and recommended by him as fit for the press; so that no other name being put to it, it has been ascribed to him whereas it is more justly supposed to have been written by Francis Tresham, esq. an English Catholic.

, professor of civil law at Poictiers, was born at Dumfermling, in Scotland, in 1539, descended of an ancient family. He was left an orphan in the tenth year of his age, and was sent by his uncle, the bishop of Orkney, to the university of Paris. On his uncle’s death, by which he seems to have lost the means of being able to remain at Paris, he returned to Scotland, but finding no encouragement there, he went again to Paris, where, by the liberality of Mary, queen of Scotland, he was enabled to pursue his studies in philosophy, mathematics, and the oriental languages. He then went to the university of Tholouse, where he studied civil law for two years and having obtained the patronage of Beaton, archbishop of Glasgow, he was chosen by the parliament of Poictiers one of their counsellors, and afterwards professor of civil law. He died in 1623, and was interred at Poictiers in St. Porcharius church, near his brother George. As a writer, he was chiefly known for his vindication of his royal mistress, when put to death by queen Elizabeth, written with all that bitterness of resentment which is natural for a man of spirit to feel, who, by an act of flagrant injustice, was deprived of his mistress and his sovereign, his friend and his benefactress. He addresses himself, in a vehement strain of passion, to all the princes of Europe, to avenge her death; declaring, that they are unworthy of royalty, if they are not roused on so interesting and pressing an occasion. He laboured hard to prove that Henry VIII.' s marriage with Anne Bolen was incestuous a calumny too gross to merit a formal refutation. This work was entitled “Martyre de Maria Stuart Reyne d'Escosse,” Antwerp, 1588, 8vo. His other works were, 1. “Adversus G. Buchanani Dialogum de Jure Ilegni apud Scotos, pro regibus apologia,” Pict. 1580, 8vo. 2. “De Vinculo Religionis et Imperii,” Paris, 1575, 8vo. 3. “Sanctarum precationum prsemia,” a manual of devotions, Pict. 1598, 8vo. 4. “Varii generis poemata,” ibid. 1609, 8vo. 5. “Jacobi I. Magnse Britanniae inauguratio,” Paris, 1606, 4to. These and some other pieces by him, were collected and published, with a life, by Gabriel Naudeus, 1644, 4to.

We now draw near to his death, which corresponded more closely with his principles than his friends and admirers will probably allow. After the death of his wife, he became enamoured of her sister, who, we are told, was a lady of great beauty, wit, good humour, virtue, and discretion, and who is said not to have been insensible on her side, but scrupulous only as to the lawfulness of the thing he proposed, viz. marrying her after her sister. Our author wrote a letter on this subject, in which he states the case as of a third person, and treats it with some ingenuity. It is also said that he applied himself to the archbishop of Canterbury, and other divines, who having decided against his opinion, and the lady consequently becoming inflexible, it threw him into a fit of despair, which ended in a frenzy, so that he shot himself in the head. The wound, however, did not prove inured lately mortal he lived after it some clays and retaining still his passion for that lady, he would receive nothing hut from her hands during that period. He died in the month of August, 1693, and was interred with his family in the church of Ridge, in Hertfordshire. After Mr. Blount’s decease, abundance of his private letters were published in a work called “The Oracles of Reason,” compiled by Mr. Gildon, who in his preface gives seme account of our author, in a letter addressed to a ladv, in which he defends Mr. Blount’s manner of dying, and threatens to follow his example but he lived to change his opinions afterwards. These “Oracles of Reason” were afterwards printed with several of our author’s pieces, under the title of “The miscellaneous works of Charles Blount, esq.” 1695, including all we have mentioned, except the pamphlet respecting king William and queen Mary, which is now extremely scarce. As to his character, he was certainly a man of sense and learning, and could write with much seeming strength, where his arguments were not very cogent. His early dislike to superstition hurried him into dangerous mistakes, and inclined him to believe all revealed religion priestcraft, because some priests made a trade of religion. However, if any credit be due to his writings (and sincerity seems to have been rooted in his temper) he was certainly a Deist; foreigners have classed him among Atheists, which Dr. Campbell, in his life in the Biog. Brit, has taken more pains than necessary to contradict.

, called in Latin Blondus, or Blundus, a very eminent divine in the thirteenth century, was educated in the university of Oxford, and went afterwards for his improvement to Paris, where he quickly distinguished himself, among many of his learned contemporaries, by the vivacity of his wit. On his return into England, he again settled himself at Oxford, and read divinity lectures there with universal applause. Wood says he was the first that lectured on Aristotle both in Paris and Oxford. The reputation of his learning obtained him also several other preferments, particularly those of prebendary andhancellor in the church of York. In 1232, the archiepiscopal see of Canterbuiy being vacant by the death of Richard Wethershed, and the rejection of two of his successors, Ralph Nevil, bishop of Chichester and chancellor of England, and John, sub-prior of Canterbury, by the pope, Dr. Blount was, by the chapter of Canterbury, elected archbishop. He did not, however, enjoy that dignity; for the pope immediately objected to him, and after a summary inquiry into the validity of his election, declared it void, for several reasons, of which our historians take notice, though very probably Bale has hit upon the true, although not the ostensible cause, namely, that his abilities rendered him obnoxious to the court of Rome, or, as Bale expresses it, that he was more learned than that court wished an archbishop to be.

, an English musician of considerable fame, was born in 1648, at North Collingham in Nottinghamshire, and became one of the first set of children of the chapel royal after the restoration. In 1673, he was sworn one of the gentlemen of the chapel, and in 1674, appointed master of the children. In 1685, he was nominated one of the private music to king James II. and in 1687, was likewise appointed almoner and master of the choristers in the cathedral church of St. Paul but, in 1693, he resigned this last place in favour of his scholar Jeremiah Clerk. Blow had his degree of doctor in music conferred on him by the special grace of archbishop Sancroft, without performing an exercise for it at either of the universities. On the death of Purcell, in 1695, he was elected organist of St. Margaret’s, Westminster; and in 1699, appointed composer to the chapel of their majesties king AYilliam and queen Mary, at the salary of 40l. a year, which afterwards was augmented to 73l. A second composer, with the like appointment, was added in 1715, at which time it was required that each should produce a new anthem on the first Sunday of his month in waiting. Dr. Blow died in 1708 and though he did not arrive at great longevity, yet by beginning his course, and mounting to the summit of his profession so early, he enjoyed a prosperous and eventful life. His compositions for the church, and his scholars who arrived at eminence, have rendered his name venerable among the musicians of our country. In his person he was handsome, and remarkable for a gravity and decency in his deportment suited to his station, though he seems by some of his compositions to have been not altogether insensible to the delights of a convivial hour. He was a man of blameless morals, and of a benevolent temper; but was not so insensible to his own worth, as to be totally free from the imputation of pride. Sir John Hawkins furnishes us with an anecdote that shews likewise that he had a rough method of silencing criticism. In the reign of James II. an anthem of some Italian composer had been introduced into the chapel royal, which the king liked very much, and asked Blow if he could make one as good Blow answered in the affirmative, and engaged to do it by the next Sunday when he produced “I beheld and lo a great multitude.” When the service was over, the king sent father Petre to acquaint him that he was much pleased with it: “but,” added Petre, “I myself think it too long.” “That,” answered Blow, “is the opinion of but one fool, and I heed it not.” This provoked the Jesuit so much that he prevailed on the king to suspend Blow, and the consequences might perhaps have been more serious, had not the revolution immediately followed.

It would requirea volume to enumerate the many important additions made to the Bodleian library by its numerous benefactors, or to give even a superficial sketch of its ample contents in every branch of science. Among the earliest benefactors were, Robert Devereux, earl of Essex Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset Robert Sidney, lord Sidney of Penshurst viscount Lisle and earl of Leicester; George Carey,- lord Hunsdon William Gent, esq. Anthony Browne, viscount Montacute John lord Lumley Philip Scudamore, of London, esq. and Lawrence Bodley, younger brother to the founder. All these contributions were made before the year 16 Oo. In 1601, collections of books and manuscripts were presented by Thomas Allen, some time fellow of Trinity college Thomas James, first librarian Herbert Westphaling, bishop of Hereford sir John Fortescue, knt. Alexander Nowell, dean of St. Paul’s John Crooke, recorder of London, and chief justice of the Common Pleas and Nicholas Bond, D. D. president of Magdalen college. The most extensive and prominent collections, however, are those of the earl of Pembroke, Mr. Selden, archbishop Laud, sir Thomas Roe, sir Kenelm Digby, general Fairfax, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Barlow, Dr. Rawlinson, Mr. St. Amand, Dr. Tanner, Mr. Browne Willis, T. Hearne, and Mr. Godwin. The last collection bequeathed, that of the late eminent and learned antiquary, Richard Gough, esq. is perhaps the most perfect series of topographical science ever formed, and is particularly rich in topographical manuscripts, prints, drawings, and books illustrated by the manuscript notes of eminent antiquaries. Since 1780, a fund of more than 4001. a year has been esablished for the purchase of books. This arises from a small addition to the matriculation fees, and a moderate contribution annually from such members of the university as are admitted to the use of the library, or on their taking their first degree.

, one of the brothers of the preceding, a doctor of the Sorbonne, was born in 1635, studied in the university of Paris, took his degree of doctor in theology in 1662, was appointed dean of Sens, and vicar of the archbishop Gondoin, in 1667; and in 1694, was presented by the king with a canonry in the holy chapel of Paris. He died dean of the faculty of theology in 1716.

, of the Oratory, a native of Orleans, was born in 1629, and died July 15, 1696. He succeeded father le Cointe his friend in the place of librarian to the house of St. Honore, and inherited his papers, which were not useless in his hands. He revised the eighth volume of the “Ecclesiastical Annals of France,” and published it in. 1683. This work procured him a pension of a thousand livres granted him by the clergy. He afterwards undertook, at the entreaty of Harlay, archbishop of Paris, the History of that church; 1690, 2 vols. folio. The second did not appear till eight years after his death, by the care of father de la Rippe, and father Desmolets of the oratory. He frequently mingles civil with ecclesiastical history, and these digressions have lengthened his work; but they have also diversified it. The dissertations with which he has accompanied it evince great sagacity in discerning what is true from what is false. His history is written in Latin, and the style is pure and elegant.

, second wife of king Henry VIII. was born in 1507. She was daughter of sir Thomas Bolen, afterwards earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde, by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk. When she was but seven years of age, she was carried over to France with the king’s sister Mary, who was married to Lewis XII. And though, upon the B'rench king’s death, the queen dowager returned to England, yet Anne Bolen was so highly esteemed at the court of France, that Claude, the wife of Francis I. retained her in her service for some years; and after her death in 1524, the duchess of Alenzon, the king’s sister, kept her in her court during her stay in that kingdom. It is probable, that she returned from thence with her father, from his embassy in 1527; and was soon preferred to the place of maid of honour to the queen. She continued without the least imputation upon her character, till her unfortunate fall gave occasion to some malicious writers to defame her in all the parts of it. Upon her coming to the English court, the lord Percy, eldest son of the earl of Northumberland, being then a domestic of cardinal Wolsey, made his addressee to her, and proceeded so far, as to engage himself to marry her; and her consent shews, that she had then no aspirings to the crown. But the cardinal, upon some private reasons, using threats and other methods, with great difficulty put an end to that nobleman’s design. It was prohably about 1528, that the king began to shew some favour to her, which caused many to believe, that the whole process with regard to his divorce from queen Catherine was moved by the unseen springs of that secret passion. But it is not reasonable to imagine, that the engagement of the king’s affec tion to any other person gave the rise to that affair; for so sagacious a courtier as Wolsey would have infallibly discovered it, and not have projected a marriage with the French king’s sister, as he did not long before, if he had seen his master prepossessed. The supposition is much more reasonable, that his majesty, conceiving himself in a manner discharged of his former marriage, gave a full liberty to his affections, which began to settle upon Mrs. Bolen; who, in September 1532, was created marchioness of Pembroke, in order that she might be raised by degrees to the height for which she was designed; and on the 25th of January following was married to the king, the office being performed by; Rowland Lee, afterwards bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, with great privacy, though in the presence of her uncle the duke of Norfolk, her father, mother, and brother. On the 1st of June, 1533, she was crowned queen of England with such pomp and solemnity, as was answerable to the magnificence of his majesty’s temper; and every one admired her conduct, who had so long managed the spirit of a king so violent, as neither to surfeit him with too much fondness, nor to provoke with too much reserve. Her being so soon with child gave hopes of a numerous issue; and those, who loved the reformation, entertained the greatest hopes from her protection, as they knew she favoured them. On the 13th or 14th of September following, she brought forth a daughter, christened Elizabeth, afterwards the renowned queen of England, Cranmer, archbishop of Canterb ry, being her god-father. But the year 1536 proved fatal to her majesty; and her ruin was in all probability occasioned by those who began to be distinguished by the name of the Romish party. For the king now proceeding both at home and abroad in the point of reformation, they found that the interest which the queen had in him was the grand support of that cause. She had risen, not only in his esteem, but likewise in that of the nation in general; for in the last nine months of her life, she gave above fourteen thousand pounds to the poor, and was engaged in several noble and public designs. But these virtues could not secure her against the artifices of a bigoted party, which received an additional force from several other circumstances, that contributed to her destruction. Soon after queen Catharine’s death in Jan. 1535-6, she was brought to bed of a dead son, which was believed to have made a bad impression on the king’s mind; and as he had concluded from the death of his sons by his former queen, that the marriage was displeasing to God, so he might upon this misfortune begin to have the same opinion of his marriage with queen Anne. It was also considered by some courtiers, that now queen Catharine was dead, his majesty might marry another wife, and be fully reconciled with the pope and the emperor, and the issue by any other marriage would never be questioned; whereas, while queen Anne lived, the ground of the controversy still remained, and her marriage being accounted null from the beginning, would never be allowed by the court of Rome, or any of that party. With these reasons of state the king’s own passions too much concurred; for he now entertained a secret love for the lady Jane Seymour, who had all the charms of youth and beauty, and an humour tempered between the gravity of queen Catharine, and the gaiety of queen Anne. Her majesty therefore perceiving the alienation of the king’s heart, used all possible arts to recover that affection, the decay of which she was sensible of; but the success was quite contrary to what she designed. For he saw her no more with those eyes which she had formerly captivated; but gave way to jealousy, and ascribed her caresses to some other criminal passion, of which he began to suspect her. Her chearful temper indeed was not always limited within the bounds of exact decency and discretion; and her brother the lord Rochford’s wife, a woman of no virtue, being jealous of her husband and her, possessed the king with her own apprehensions. Henry Norris, groom of the stole, William Brereton, and sir Francis W'eston, who were of the king’s privy chamber, and Mark Smeton, a musician, were by the queen’s enemies thought too officious about her; and something was pretended to have been sworn by the lady Wingfield at her death, which determined the king; but the particulars are not known. It is reported likewise, that when the king held a tournament at Greenwich on the 1st of May, 1536, he was displeased at the queen for letting her handkerchief fall to one, who was supposed a favourite, and who wiped his face with it. Whatever the case was, the king returned suddenly from Greenwich to Whitehall, and immediately ordered her to be confined to her chamber, and her brother, with the four persons abovementioned, to be committed to the Tower, and herself to be sent after them the day following. On the river some privy counsellors came to examine her, but she made deep protestations of her innocence; and as she landed at the Tower, she fell down on her knees, and prayed Heaven so to assist her, as she was free from the crimes laid to her charge.“The confusion she was in soon raised a storm of vapours within her; sometimes she laughejj, and at other times wept excessively. She was also devout and light by turns; one while she stood upon her vindication, and at other times confessed some indiscretions, which upon recollection she denied. All about her took advantage from any word, that fell from her, and sent it immediately to court. The duke of Norfolk and others, who came to examine her, the better to make discoveries, told her, that Morris and Smeton had accused her; which, though false, had this effect on her, that it induced her to own some slight acts of indiscretion, which, though no ways essential, totally alienated the king from her. Yet whether even these small acknowledgments were real truths, or the effects of imagination and hysterical emotions, is very uncertain. On the 12th of May, Morris, Brereton, Weston, and Smeton, were tried in Westminster-hall. Smeton is said by Dr. Burnet to have confessed the fact; but the lord Herbert’s silence in this matter imports him to have been of a different opinion; to which may be added, that Cromwell’s letter to the king takes notice, that only some circumstances were confessed by Smeton. However, they were all four found guilty, and executed on the 17th of May. On the 15th of which month, the queen, and her brother the lord Rochford, were tried by their peers in the Tower, and condemned to die. Yet all this did not satisfy the enraged king, who resolved likewise to illegitimate his daughter Elizabeth; and, in order to that, to annul his marriage with the queen, upon pretence of a precontract between her and the lord Percy, now earl of Northumberland, who solemnly denied it; though the queen was prevailed upon to acknowledge, that there were some just and lawful impediments against her marriage with the king; and upon this a sentence of divorce was pronounced by the archbishop, and afterwards confirmed in the convocation and parliament. On the 19th of May, she was brought to a scaffold within the Tower, where she was prevailed upon, out of regard to her daughter, to make no reflections on the hardships she had sustained, nor to say any thing touching the grounds on which sentence passed against her; only she desired, that” all would judge the best." Her head being severed from her body, they were both put into an ordinary chest, and buried in the chapel in the Tower.

, an eminent puritan divine, and one of the best scholars of his time, was born at Blackburn in Lancashire, in 1572, and educated in queen Elizabeth’s free-school in that place, where he made such proficiency as to be accounted a young man of extraordinary talents and industry. In his eighteenth year he went to Oxford, and entered of Lincoln college, under the tuition of Mr. John Randal, where he went through a course of logic and philosophy with distinguished approbation, and particularly took pains to acquire a critical knowledge of Greek, transcribing the whole of Homer with his own hand. By this diligence he attained a greater facility than was then usual, writing, and even disputing, in Greek with great correctness and fluency. From Lincoln he removed to Brazen-nose, in hopes of a fellowship, as that society consisted most of Lincolnshire and Cheshire men. In 1596 he took his bachelor’s degree in this college, and was kindly supported by Dr. Brett of Lincoln, himself a good Grecian, and who admired the proficiency Bolton had made in that language, until 1602, when he obtained a fellowship, and proceeded M. A. the same year. His reputation advancing rapidly, he was successively chosen reader of the lectures on logic, and on moral and natural philosophy in his college. In 1605, vrhen king James came to Oxford, the vice-chancellor (Abbot, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) appointed him to read in natural philosophy in the public schools, and to be one of the disputants before his majesty. Afterwards he increased his stock of learning by metaphysics, mathematics, and scholastic divinity. About this time, one Anderton, a countryman and schoolfellow, and a zealous Roman catholic, endeavoured to seduce him to that religion, and a place of private conference was fixed, but Anderton not keeping his appointment, the affair dropped. Mr. Bolton, with all his learning, had been almost equally noted for immorality, but about his thirty-fourth year, reformed his life and manners, and became distinguished for regularity and piety. In 1609, about two years after he entered into holy orders, which he did very late in life, he was presented to the living of Broughton in Northamptonshire, by Mr. afterwards sir Augustine Nicolls, serjeant at law, who sent for him to his chamber* in Serjeant’s Inn and gave him the presentation. Dr. King, bishop of London, being by accident there at the same time, thanked the serjeant for what he had done for Broughton, but told him that he had deprived the university of a singular ornament. He then went to his living and remained on it until his death, Dec. 17, 1631. He was, says Wood, a painful and constant preacher, a person of great zeal in his duty, charitable and bountiful, and particularly skilled in resolving the doubts of timid Christians. Of his works, the most popular in his time, was “A Discourse on Happiness.” Lond. 1611, 4to, which was eagerly bought up, and went through six editions at least in his life-time. He published also various single and volumes of sermons, a list of which may be seen in Wood. After his death Edward Bagshaw, esq. published “Mr. Bolton’s last and learned work of the Four last Things, Death, Judgment, Hell, and Heaven, with an Assize Sermon, and Funeral Sermon for his patron Judge Nichols,” Loncl. 1633. Prefixed to this is the life of Mr. Bolton, to which all his subsequent biographers have been indebted.

Being chosen senior fellow of Dulwich college, he went to reside there, March 10, 1722, where he remained three years, and resigned his fellowship May 1, 1725. About this time he removed to Kensington, living upon a small fortune he possessed; and here he appears to have become acquainted with the celebrated Whiston; and partly, as it is said, by his recommendation, became known to sir Joseph Jekyll, master of the rolls, by whom he was appointed his domestic chaplain, and, in 1729, preacher at the Rolls, on the resignation of Dr. Butler, afterwards bishop of Durham. This connection introduced him to the patronage of lord Hardwicke, by whose means, in 1734, he was promoted to the deanery of Carlisle, and, in 1738, to the vicarage of St. Mary’s Reading. He had his degree of doctor of civil law from the archbishop of Canterbury, Jan. 13, 1734, and went to reside at Carlisle in 1736. Both these preferments, the only ones he ever received, he held until the time of his death. He was an excellent parishpriest, and a good preacher, charitable to the poor, and having from his own valetudinary state acquired some knowledge of physic, he kindly assisted them by advice and medicine. He was greatly beloved by his parishioners, and deservedly; for he performed every part of his duty in a truly exemplary manner. On Easter Tuesday in 173y he preached one of the spital sermons at St. Bride’s, Fleet' street, which was afterwards printed in 4to, but we do not find that he aspired to the character of an author, though so well qualified for it, until late in life. His first performance was entitled “A Letter to a lady on Cardplaying on the Lord’s day, 8vo, 1748; setting forth in a lively and forcible manner the many evils attending the practice of gaming on Sundays, and of an immoderate attachment to that fatal pursuit at any time. In 1750 appeared” The Employment of Time, three essays,“8vo, dedicated to lord Hardwicke; the most popular of our author’s performances, and, on its original publication, generally ascribed to Gilbert West. In this work two distinguished and exemplary female characters are supposed to be those of lady Anson and lady Heathcote, lord Hardwicke' s daughters. The next year, 1751, produced” The Deity’s delay in punishing the guilty considered on the principles of reason,“8vo; and in 1755,” An answer to the question, Where are your arguments against what you call lewdness, if you can make no use of the Bible?“8vo. Continuing to combat the prevailing vices of the times, he published in 1757,” A Letter to an officer of the army on Travelling on Sundays,“8vo; and, in the same year,” The Ghost of Ernest, great grandfather of her royal highness the princess dowager of Wales, with some account of his life,“8vo. Each of the above performances contains good sense, learning, philanthropy, and religion, and each of them is calculated for the advantage of society. The last work which Dr. Bolton gave the public was not the least valuable. It was entitled” Letters and Tracts on the Choice of Company, and other subjects,“1761, 8vo. This he dedicated to his early patron, lord Hardwicke, to whom he had inscribed The Employment of Time, and who at this period was no longer chancellor. In his address to this nobleman he says,” An address to your lordship on this occasion in the usual style would as ill suit your inclinations as it doth my age and profession. We are both of us on the confines of eternity, and should therefore alike make truth our care, that truth which, duly influencing our practice, will be the security of our eternal happiness. Distinguished by my obligations to your lordship, I would be so by my acknowledgments of them: I would not be thought to have only then owned them when they might have been augmented. Whatever testimony I gave of respect to you when in the highest civil office under your prince, I would express the same when you have resigned it; and shew as strong an attachment to lord Hardwicke as I ever did to the lord chancellor. Receive, therefore, a tribute of thanks, the last which I am ever likely in this manner to pay. But I am hastening to my grave, with a prospect which must be highly pleasing to me, unless divested of all just regard to those who survive me."

In the year 732, he received the title of archbishop from Gregory II f. who supported his mission with the same spirit as his predecessor Gregory II.; and under this encouragement he proceeded to erect new churches, and extend Christianity. At this time, he found the Bavarian churches disturbed by one Eremvolf, who would have seduced the people into idolatry, but whom he condemned, according to the canons, and restored the discipline of the church. In the year 738, he again visited Rome; and after some stay, he induced several Englishmen who resided there, to join with him in his German mission. Returning into Bavaria, he established three new bishoprics, at Salczburgh, Frisinghen, and Ratisbon. At length he was fixed at Mentz, in the year 745, and although afterwards many other churches in Germany have been raised to the dignity of archbishoprics, Mentz has always retained the primacy, in honour of St. Boniface. He also founded a monastery at Fridislar, another at Hamenburgh, and one at Ordorfe, in all which the monks gained their livelihood by the labour of their hands. In the year 746, he laid the foundation of the great abbey of Fulda, which continued long the most renowned seminary of religion and learning in all that part of the world. The abbot is now a prince of the empire. In the mean time his connection with England was constantly preserved; and it is in the epistolary correspondence with his own country, that the most striking evidence of his pious views appears. Still intent on his original design, although now advanced in years, he determined to return into Friezeland, and before his departure, acted as if he had a strong presentiment of what was to happen. He appointed Lullus, an Englishman, his successor as archbishop of Mentz, a privilege which the pope had granted him, and ordained him with the consent of king Pepin. He went by the Rhine to Friezeland, where, assisted by Eoban, whom he had ordained bishop of Utrecht, he brought great numbers of pagans into the pale of the church. He had appointed a day to confirm those whom he had baptized; and in waiting for them, encamped with his followers on the banks of the Bordue, a river which then divided East and West Friezeland. His intention was to confirm, by imposition of hands, the converts in the plains of Dockum. On the appointed day, he beheld, in the morning, not the new converts whom he expected, but a troop of enraged pagans, armed with shields and lances. The servants went out to resist; but Boniface, with calm intrepidity, said to his followers, “Children, forbear to fight; the scripture forbids us to render evil for evil. The day which I have long waited for is come; hope in God, and he will save your souls.” The pagans immediately attacked them furiously, and killed the whole company, fifty-two in number, besides Boniface himself. This happened on June 5, 755, in the fortieth year after his arrival in Germany. His body was interred in the abbey of Fulda, and was long regarded as the greatest treasure of that monastery. Boniface’s character has been strangely misrepresented by Mosheim, and by his transcribers, but ably vindicated by Milner, who has examined the evidence on both sides with great precision. His works, principally sermons and correspondence, were published under the title “S. Bonifacii Opera, a Nicolao Serrario,” Mogunt. 1605, 4to.

At the time of the king’s death in 1547, Bonner was ambassador with the emperor Charles V.; and though during Henry’s reign he appeared zealous against the pope, and had concurred in all the measures taken to abrogate his supremacy, yet these steps he appears to have taken merely as the readiest way to preferment; for his principles, as far as such a man can be said to have any, were those of popery, as became evident from his subsequent conduct. On the 1st of September 1547, not many months after the accession of Edward VI. he scrupled to take an oath, to renounce and deny the bishop of Rome, and to swear obedience to the king, and entered a protestation against the king’s injunction and homilies. For this behaviour he was committed to the Fleet; but having submitted, and recanted his protestation, was released, and for sometime complied outwardly with the steps taken to advance the reformation, while he used privately all means in his power to obstruct it. After the lord Thomas Seymour’s death, he appeared so remiss in putting the court orders in execution, particularly that relating to the use of the common prayer book, that he was severely reproved by the privy council. He then affected to redouble his diligence: but still, through his remissness in preaching, and his connivance at the mass in several places, many people in his diocese being observed to withdraw from the divine service and communion, he was accused of neglect in the execution of the king’s orders. He was summoned before the privy council on the llth of August, when, after a reproof for his negligence, he was enjoined to preach the Sunday three weeks after at Paul’s cross, on certain articles delivered to him; and also to preach there once a quarter for the future, and be present at every sermon preached there, and to celebrate the communion in that church on all the principal feasts: and to abide and keep residence in his house in London, till he had licence from the council to depart elsewhere. On the day appointed for his preaching, he delivered a sermon to a crowded audience on the points assigned to him. But he entirely omitted the last article, the king’s royal power in his youth; for which contempt he was complained of to the king by John Hooper, afterwards bishop of Worcester: and archbishop Cranmer, bishop Ridley, sir William Petre, and sir Thomas Smith, secretaries of state, and William May, LL. D. and dean of St. Paul’s, were appointed commissioners to proceed against him. Appearing before them several days in September, he was, after a long trial, committed to the Marshalsea; and towards the end of October deprived of his bishopric.

On the accession of queen Mary, Bonner had an opportunity of shewing himself in his proper character, which indeed had been hitherto but faintly-concealed. He was restored to his bishopric by a commission read in St. Paul’s cathedral the 5th of September 1553; and in 1554, he was made vicegerent, and president of the convocation, in the room of archbishop Cranmer, who was committed to the Tower. The same year he visited his diocese, in order to root up all the seeds of the Reformation, and behaved in the most furious and extravagant manner; at Hadham, he was excessively angry because the bells did not ring at his coming, nor was the rood-loft decked, or the sacrament hung up. He swore and raged in the church at Dr. Bricket, the rector, and, calling him knave and heretic, went to strike at him; but the blow fell upon sir Thomas Joscelyn’s ear, and almost stunned him. On his return he set up the mass again at St. Paul’s, before the act for restoring it was passed. The same year, he was in commission to turn out some of the reformed bishops. In 1555, and the three following years, he was the occasion of above two hundred of innocent persons being put to death in the most cruel manner, that of burning, for their firm adherence to the Protestant religion. On the 14th of February 1555-6, he came to Oxford (with Thirlby bishop of Ely), to degrade archbishop Cranmer, whom he used with great insolence. The 29th of December following he was put into a commission to search and raze all registers and records containing professions against the pope, scrutinies taken in religious houses, &c. And the 8th of February 1556-7, he was also put in another commission, or kind of inquisition, for searching after and punishing all heretics.

, or Boquinus, a French divine, and one of the contributors to the reformation, was born in Aquitaine, and educated in a monastery at Bourges, of which he became prior, and in high estimation with his brethren. Having, however, perused some of the writings of Luther, Bucer, &c. he imbibed their sentiments, and went to Wittemberg, where he became acquainted with Luther and Melancthon, and at Basil he attended the lectures of Myconius, Carlostadt, and Sebastian Muncer. Melancthon afterwards recommended him as a proper person to supply Calvin’s place at Strasburgh, who had gone back to Geneva; and there he gave lectures on the epistle to the Galatians, and soon after had for his coadjutor Peter Martyr. Boquine being at some distance of time invited by his brother, who was a doctor in divinity, and not an enemy to the reformation, removed to Bourges, in. hopes that the French churches were friendly to his doctrine, and there he publicly read and expounded the Hebrew Bible. About this time, Francis, king of France, being dead, the queen of Navarre came to Bourges, when Boquine presented her with a book he had written on the necessity and use of the Holy Scriptures, which she received very graciously, allowed him a yearly stipend out of her treasury, and appointed him to preach a public lecture in the great church of Bourges, with the consent of the archbishop. He remained in like favour with her successor, king Henry’s sister; but the enemies of the reformation threatening his life, he was obliged to desist from his labours, and went back to Strasburgh, where he was appointed pastor to the French church. This office, however, he filled only about four months, and in 1557 went into Heidelberg, at the invitation of Otho Henry, prince elector Palatine, who was carrying on the reformation in his churches. Here he was appointed professor of divinity, and continued in this office about twenty years, under Otho and Frederic III. After the death of the latter in 1576, the popish party again prevailing, drove him and the rest of the reformed clergy from the place, but almost immediately he was invited to Lausanne, where he remained until his death in 1582. He left various works, the dates of which his biographers have not given, except the following “Oratio in obitum Frederici III. Comit. Palatini,” Leyden, 1577, 4to; but their titles are, 1. “Defensio ad calumnias Doctoris cujusdam Avii in Evangelii professores.” 2. “Examen libri quern Heshusius inscripsit.de praesentia corporis Christi in coena Domini.” 3. “Theses in ccena Domini.” 4. “Exegesis divinsc communicationis.” 5. “Adsertio veteris, ac veri Christianismi adversus novum et fictum Jesuitismum.” This appears to have been one of his ablest works, and was translated into English under the title, “A defence of the old and true profession of Christianitie against the new counterfeite sect of Jesuites, by Peter Boquine, translated by T. G.” London, 1581, 8vo, by John Wolf, city printer. 6. “Notatio praecipuarum causarum diuturnitatis controversial de crena Domini,” &c.

, a monster of ambition and cruelty, was a natural son of pope Alexander VI. What year he was born in, we do not find: but he was at his studies in the university of Pisa, when Alexander was elected pope, in August 1492. Upon the news of his father’s advancement, he banished all thoughts of his former private condition of life; and, full of ambition, as if himself was to be made emperor of the world, he hastened directly to Rome, where Alexander received him with formality and coldness, but whether it was real or but affected, is not easy to determine. Cscsar, however, took it to be real; and, greatly disgusted as well as disappointed, went immediately and complained to his mother Vanozza, who bid him not be cast down; and told him, that she knew the pope’s mind better than any body, and for what reasons his holiness had given him that reception. In the mean time the courtflatterers solicited the pope to make Cæsar a cardinal, which he absolutely refused; but, that he might not seem altogether forgetful of him, he created him archbishop of Valenza, a benefice which his holiness had enjoyed in his younger days. This preferment was by no means acceptable to Cæsar, yet he affected to be content, since the pope, he found, Was determined to confer the best of his secular dignities on his eldest son Francis, who at that time was made duke of Gandia by Fertlinand king of Castile and Arragon.

, an eminent Romish saint and cardinal, was born the 2d of October 1538, of a good family, in the castle of Arona, upon lake Major in the Milanese. He addicted himself at an early period to retirement and study. His maternal uncle, Pius IV. sent for him to the court of Rome, made him cardinal in 1560, and afterwards archbishop of Milan. Charles was then but 22 years of age, but conducted the affairs of the church with disinterested zeal and prudence. The Romans were at that time ignorant and lazy: he therefore formed an academy composed of ecclesiastics and seculars, whom, by his example and his liberality, he animated to study and to virtue. Each of them was to write upon some chosen subject, either in prose or verse, and to communicate to each other in frequent conferences the fruits of their studies. The works produced by this society have been published in many volumes, under the title of “Noctes Vaticanas,” their assemblies being held in the Vatican, and at night, after the business of the day was over. About the same time he also founded the college at Pavia, which was dedicated to St. Justina.

In the mean while, however, the young cardinal, in the midst of a brilliant court, went along with the torrent, fitted up grand apartments, furnished them magnificently, and kept splt-ntiid equipages. His table was sumptuously served; his house was never empty of nobles and scholars. His uncle, delighted with this magnificence, gave him ample revenues to support it. In a very short time he was at once grand penitentiary of Rome, archpriest of St. Mary Major; protector of several crowns, and of various orders, religious and military; legate of Bologna, of Romania, and of the marche of Ancona. It was at that time that the famous council of Trent was held. Much was said about the reformation of the clergy, and Charles, after having advised it to others, gave an example of it in his own conduct. He suddenly discharged no less than eighty livery servants, left off wearing silk, and imposed on himself a weekly fast on bread and water. From this beginning he soon proceeded greater lengths. He held councils for confirming the decrees of that of Trent, terminated partly by his means. He made his house into a seminary of bishops; he established schools, colleges, communities; re-modelled his clergy and the monasteries; made institutions for the poor and orphans, and for girls exposed to ruin, who were desirous to return to a regular life. His zeal was the admiration of good men, but was far from acceptable to the corrupt clergy. The order of the Humiliati, which he attempted to reform, excited against him a friar, Farina, a shocking member of that society, who fired a gun at the good man while he was at evening prayer with his domestics. The bail having only grazed his skin, Charles petitioned for the pardon of his assassin, who was punished with death, notwithstanding his solicitations, and his order was suppressed. These contradictions did not abate the ardour of the good archbishop. He visited the desolate extremities of his province, abolished the excesses of the carnival, preached to his people, and shewed himself every where as their pastor and father. During the ravages of a cruel pestilence, he assisted the poor in their spiritual concerns by his ecclesiastics and his personal attentions, sold the furniture of his house to relieve the sick, put up prayers and made processions, in which he walked barefoot, and with a rope round his neck. His heroic charity was repaid with ingratitude. The governor of Milan prevailed on the magistrates of that city to prefer complaints against Charles, whom they painted in the blackest colours. “They accused him (says Baillet) of having exceeded the limits of his authority during the time of the plague; of having introduced dangerous innovations; of having abolished the public games, the stage-plays, and dances; of having revived the abstinence on the first Sunday in Lent, in violation of the privilege granted to that town of including that day in the carnival.” They published an injurious and insulting manifesto against him: but, contented with the testimony of his own conscience, he resigned the care of his justification to the Almighty. At length, worn out by the labours of an active piety, he finished his course the 3d of November 1594, being only in his 47th year. He was canonized in 1610. He wrote a very great number of works on doctrinal and moral subjects, which were printed 1747 at Milan, in 5 vols. folio, and the library of St. Sepulchre in that city is in possession of thirty-one vols. of his manuscript letters. The clergy of France reprinted at their expence the Institutions he composed for the use of confessors. Among his works are many homilies and sermons, as he thought it incumbent on him to preach the word of God himself to his people, notwithstanding the various business and government of so large a diocese. The edition of “Ada Ecclesiae Mediolanensis,” Milan, 1599, fol. is much valued.

, cousin german to the preceding, and also a cardinal and archbishop of Milan, was first educated under St. Charles, who afterwards placed him in his newly-founded college at Pavia. Jn 1587, pope Pius V. made him a cardinal, and in 1595, Clement VIII. promoted him to the archbishopric of Milan. He died in 1632, leaving various pious works, written in Italian, the principal of which is “Sacri Ragionamenti,” Milan, 1632 1G46, 4 vols. folio, and “Ragionamenti Spiritual!,” ibid. 1673 1676; “De Piacere della mente Christiana,” ibid. 1625. All his works are said to be scarce, but literature was most indebted to him as the founder of the celebrated Ambrosian library at Milan, which was enriched in his time with ten thousand manuscripts collected by Antony Oggiati, whom he made librarian, and by a large collection of books from the Pinelli library.

, bishop of Lodeve, and afterwards of Montpellier, was one of the most learned French prelates in the seventeenth century. He was born at Narbonne, May 28, 1605, and studied atThoulouse. He was afterwards appointed judge royal of Narbonne, intendant of Guienne and Languedoc, solicitor general to the parliament of Normandy, and counsellor of state in ordinary. For his services in this last office he was promoted to the bishopric of Lodeve, Jan. 1650. When the affair of the five propositions was agitated at Rome, Bosquet was appointed deputy on the part of the king and clergy of France, and while there, the cardinal Este appointed him bishop of Montpellier. He was exemplary for piety, disinterestedness, and charity, and, like the best of his brethren at that time, practised rigorous austerities. He assisted at the general assembly of the clergy held at Paris in 1670, and was distinguished for his learning and eloquence. An apoplexy carried him off July 24, 1676, and he was interred in the cathedral, with an epitaph celebrating his many virtues. The first work he published was “Pselli Synopsis Legum,” 1632, apiece never before printed, and written in Greek verse by Pselius for the use of his pupil Michael Ducas,in the eleventh century. Bosquet translated it into Latin, and added notes to it. He then published, 2. “Ecclesiye Gallicanae Historiarum liber primus,” 1656, 4to. 3. “Pontificum Romanorum qui e Gallia oriundi in ea seclerunt, historia, ab anno 1315 ad ann. 1394 ex Mss. edita,” Paris, 1632, The second edition of his history of the Gallican Church, the one above mentioned "in 1636, was much enlarged, but some passages were omitted that had appeared in the first octavo edition, which archbishop Usher has transcribed. By these it appears that Bosquet was of opinion that the mistaken zeal of the monks was the chief cause of those fabulous traditions which have destroyed all confidence in the early history of the Gallican church, and while he makes some apology for the credulous believers of those stories, he makes none for those who originally invented them, a concession of great liberality from a prelate of the Romish church.

His celebrated “Exposition of the Roman Catholic Faith,” mentioned above, was designed to show the protestants, that their reasons against returning to the Romish church might be easily removed, if they would view the doctrines of that church in their true light, and not as they had been erroneously represented by protestant writers. Nine years, however, passed before this book could obtain the pope’s approbation. Clement X. refused it positively; and several catholic priests were rigorously treated and severely persecuted, for preaching the doctrine contained in the exposition of Bossuet, which was likewise formally condemned by the university of Louvain in the year 1685, and declared to be scandalous and pernicious. All this we should have thought a proof of the merit of the work, if it had not been at length licensed and held up as unanswerable by the protestants. The artifice, however, employed in the composition of it, and the tricks that were used in the suppression and alteration of the first edition, have been detected with great sagacity by archbishop Wake in the introduction to his “Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England,” and in his two “Defences” of that Exposition, in which the perfidious sophistry of Bossuet is unmasked and refuted in the most satisfactory manner. There was also an excellent answer to Bossuet' s book by M. de la Bastide, one of the most eminent protestant ministers in France. Of this answer the French prelate took no notice during eight years: at the end of which he published an advertisement, in a new edition of his “Exposition,” which was designed to remove the objections of La Bastide. The latter replied in such a demonstrative manner, that the learned bishop, notwithstanding all his eloquence and art, was obliged to quit the field of controversy. There is a very interesting account of this insidious work of Bossuet, and the controversies it occasioned, in the “Bibliotheque des Sciences,” published at the Hague, vol. XV Ih. This account, which is curious, ample, accurate, and learned, was given partly on occasion of a new edition of the “Exposition” printed at Paris in 1761, and accompanied with a Latin translation by Fleury, and partly on occasion of Burigny’s “Lite of Bossuet,” published the same year at Paris.

Had the French press, however, remained open, the controversy between the catholics and protestants might have soon been brought to a conclusion: but other measures were to be adopted, more characteristic of the genius of popery. Bossuet has been praised by most French writers for his laudable attempts to promote an union between the catholic and reformed churches of France. The basis of this union was not very promising. The reformed were to give up every thing, the catholics nothing, and the subsequent practice was worse than this principle. In the “Memoirs pour servira I'histoire des Refugies Francois dans les etats du Roi,” or Memoirs of the French refugees in the dominions of the king of Prussia, by Messrs. Erman and Reclam, published at Berlin in 1782, we have a curious developement of the plan of union, as detected by the celebrated Claude. The reformed church of Paris, which was a considerable edifice, was to be surrounded with troops; the archbishop of Paris and the bishop of Meaux (Bosquet) accompanied with a train of priests and the lieutenant of the police, were to march thither in procession, during divine service: one of these prelates was to mount the pulpit and summon the congregation to submit to the mother church and re-unite; a number of Roman Catholics, posted for the purpose in different parts of the church, as if they belonged to it, were to answer the prelate’s summons, by crying out “re-union!” after which the other prelate was to give the congregation a public absolution from the charge of heresy, and to receive the new pretended converts into the bosom of the church; and this scandalous farce was to be imposed upon the world for an actual re-union. This plan affords a tolerable specimen of Bossuet as a prelate, and a man of candour; and it is worthy of notice, that his associate in this expedition, was the libertine Harlai, archbishop of Paris, whose life and death were so scandalous, that not a single curate could be found, among the most unprincipled part of the Romish clergy, who would undertake to preach his funeral sermon.

, a monk of St. Edmund’s bury in the fourteenth century, and who is thought to have died in 1410, was one of the first collectors of the lives of English writers, and the precursor of Leland, Bale, and Pitts. He searched indefatigably all the libraries of the kingdom, and wrote a catalogue of the authors, with short opinions of them. Archbishop Usher had the most curious ms copy of this book, which became afterwards Mr. Thomas Gale’s property. Wood mentions another smaller catalogue of his writing. He wrote also “Speculum ccenobitarum,” in which he gives the origin and progress of monachism; and a history of his own monastery. “De rebus cœnobii sui,” which last is lost, but the former was printed at Oxford 1722, 8vo, by Hall at the end of “Trivet. Annal.”

, D. D. archbishop of Armagh, primate and metropolitan of all Ireland, was born in or near London, Jan. 4, 1671, of a reputable and opulent family, received his first rudiments] of learning at Merchant-Taylor’s school, and was admitted from thence a commoner of Christ-church, Oxford, some time before the Revolution. His merit became so conspicuous there, that immediately after that great event, he was elected a demi of Magdalencollege, with the celebrated Mr. Addison, and Dr. Joseph Wilcox, afterwards bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster, from whose merit and learning Dr. Hough, who was then restored to the presidentship of that college (from which he had been unwarrantably ejected in the reign of king James II.) used to call this election by the name of the golden election, and the same respectful appellation was long after made use of in common conversation in the college*, Mr. Boulter was afterwards made fellow of Magdalen-college. He continued in the university till he was called to London, by the invitation of sir Charles Hedges, principal secretary of state in 1700, who made him his chaplain;

* Dr. Welsted, a physician, was also The primate maintained a son of the of this golden election, and when he doctor’s, as a commoner, at Hart-halt became poor in the latter part of his in Oxford; and would effectually have life, the archbishop, though he was no provided for him, if the young gentlerelation, gave him, at the least, two man had not died before he had taken hundred pounds a year, till his death, a degree. Dr. Welsted was one of the Nor did his grace’s kindness to the editors of the Oxford Pindar, and doctor’s family end with his decease-, esteemed an excellent Greek scholar. and some time after he was preferred to the same honour by Dr. Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury. In these stations he was under a necessity of appearing often at court, where his merit obtained him the patronage of Charles Spencer, earl of Sunderland, principal secretary of state, by whose interest he was advanced to the rectory of St. Olave in Southwark, and to the archdeaconry of Surrey. The parish of St. Olave was very populous, and for the most part poor, and required such a liberal and vigilant pastor as Dr. Boulter, who relieved their wants, and gave them instruction, correction, and reproof. When king George I. passed over to Hanover in 1719, Dr. Boulter was recommended to attend him in quality of his chaplain, and also was appointed tutor to prince Frederic, to instruct him in the English tongue; and for that purpose drew up for his use “A set of Instructions.” This so recommended him to the king, that during his abode at Hanover, the bishopric of Bristol, and deanery of Christchurch, Oxford, becoming vacant, the king granted to him that see and deanery, and he was consecrated bishop of Bristol, on the fifteenth of November, 1719. In this last station he was more than ordinarily assiduous in the visitation of his diocese, and the discharge of his pastoral duty; and during one of these visitations, he received a letter by a messenger from the secretary of state, acquainting him, that his majesty had nominated him to the archbishopric of Armagh, and primacy of Ireland, then vacant by the death of Dr. Thomas Lindsay, on the 13th of July, 1724-, and desiring him to repair to London as soon as possible, to kiss the king’s hand for his promotion. After some, consultation on this affair, to which he felt great repugnance, he sent an answer by the messenger, refusing the honour the king intended him, and requesting the secretary to use his good offices with his majesty, in making his excuse, but the messenger was dispatched back to him. by the secretary, with the king’s absolute commands that he should accept of the post, to which he submitted, though not without some reluctance, and soon after addressed himself to his journey to court. Ireland was at that juncture not a little inflamed, by the copper-coin project of one Wood, and it was thought by the king and ministry, that the judgment, moderation, and wisdom of the bishop of Bristol would tend much to allay the ferment. He arrived in Ireland on the third of November, 1724, had no sooner passed patent for the primacy, than he appeared at all the public boards, and gave a weight and vigour to them; and, in every respect, was indefatigable in promoting the real happiness of the people. Among his other wise measures, in seasons of great scarcity in, Ireland, he was more than once instrumental in averting a pestilence and famine, which threatened the nation. When the scheme was set on foot for making a navigation, by a canal to be drawn from Lough -Neagh to Newry, not only for bringing coal to Dublin, but to carry on more effectually an inland trade in the several counties of the north of Ireland, he greatlv encouraged and promoted the design, not only with his counsel but his purse. Drogheda is a large and populous town within the diocese of Armagh, and his grace finding that the ecclesiastical appointments were not sufficient to support two clergymen there, and the cure over-burthensome for one effectually to discharge, he allotted out of his own pocket a maintenance for a second curate, whom he obliged to give public service every Sunday in the afternoon, and prayers twice every day. He had great compassion for the poor clergy of his diocese, who were disabled from giving their children a proper education, and maintained several of the sons of such in the university, in order to qualify them for future preferment, He erected four houses at Drogheda for the reception of clergymen’s widows, and purchased an estate for the endowment of them, after the model of primate Marsh’s charity; which he enlarged in one particular: for as the estate he purchased for the maintenance of the widows, amounted to twenty-four pounds a year more than he had set apart for that use, he appointed that the surplus should be a fund for setting out the children of such, widows apprentices, or otherwise to be disposed of for the benefit of such children, as his trustees should think proper. He also by his will directed, which has since been performed, that four houses should be built for clergymen’s widows at Armagh, and endowed with fifty pounds a year. During his life, he contracted for the building of a stately market-house at Armagh, which was finished by his executors, at upwards of eight hundred pounds expence. He was a benefactor also to Dr. Stevens’s hospital in the city of Dublin, erected for the maintenance and cure of the poor. His charities for augmenting small livings, and buying of glebes, amounted to upwards of thirty thousand pourids, besides what he devised by his will for the like purposes in England. Though the plan of the incorporated society for promoting English protestant working schools, cannot be imputed to primate Boulter, yet he was the chief instrument in forwarding the undertaking, which he lived to see carried into execution with consider, able success. His private charities were not less munificent, but so secretly conducted, that it is impossible to give any particular account of them: it is affirmed by those who were in trust about him, that he never suffered an object to leave his house unsupplied, and he often sent them away with considerable sums, according to the judgment he made of their merits and necessities. With respect to his political virtues, and the arts of government, when his health would permit him he was constant in his attendance at the council-table, and it is well known what weight and dignity he gave to the debates of that board. As he always studied the true interest of Ireland, so he judged, that the diminishing the value of the gold coin would be a means of increasing silver in the country, a thing very much wanted in order to effect which, he supported a scheme at the council- table, which raised the clamours of unthinking people, although experience soon demonstrated its wisdom. He was thirteen times one of the lords justices, or chief governors of Ireland; which office he administered oftener than any other chief governor on record. He embarked for England June 2, 1742, and after two days illness died at his house in St. James’s place, Sept. 27, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a stately monument has been erected to his memory. His deportment was grave, his aspect venerable, and his temper meek and humble. He was always open and easy of access both to rich and poor. He was steady to the principles of liberty, both in religion and politics. His learning was universal, yet more in substance than shew; nor would his modesty permit him to make any ostentation of it. He always preserved such an equal temper of mind that hardly any thing could ruffle, and amidst obloquy and opposition, steadily maintained a resolution of serving his country, embraced every thing proposed for the good of it, though by persons remarkable for their opposition to him: and when the most public-spirited schemes were introduced by him, and did not meet with the reception they deserved, he never took offence, but was glad when any part of his advice for the public good was pursued, and was always willing to drop some points, that he might not lose all; often saying, “he would do all the good to Ireland he could, though they did not suffer him to do all he would.” His life was mostly spent in action, and therefore it is not to be expected that he should have left many remains of his learning behind him nor do we know of any thing he bath written, excepting a few Charges to his clergy at his visitations, which are grave, solid, and instructive, and eleven Occasional Sermons, printed separately. In 1769, however, were published, at Oxford, in two volumes 8vo, “Letters written by his excellency Hugh Boulter, D. D. lord primate of all Ireland, &c. to several ministers of state in England, and some others. Containing an account of the most interesting transactions which passed in Ireland from 1724 to 1738.” The originals, which are deposited in the library of Christ church, in Oxford, were collected by Ambrose Philips, esq. who was secretary to his grace, and lived in his house during that space of time in which they bear date. They are entirely letters of business, and are all of them in Dr. Boulter’s hand-writing, excepting some few, which are fair copies by his secretary. The editor justly remarks, that these letters, which could not be intended for publication, have been fortunately preserved, as they contain the most authentic history of Ireland, for the period in which they were written: “a period,” he adds, “which will ever do honour to his grace’s memory, and to those most excellent princes George the first and second, who had the wisdom to place confidence in so worthy, so able, and so successful a minister; a minister who had the rare and peculiar felicity of growing still more and more into the favour both of the king and of the people, until the very last day of his life,” It is much to be regretted that in some of his measures, he was opposed by dean Swift, particularly in that of diminishing the gold coin, as it is probable that they both were actuated by an earnest desire of serving the country. In one affair, that of Wood’s halfpence, they appear to have coincided, and in that they both happened to encourage a public clamour which had little solid foundation. The writer of archbishop' Boulter’s Life in the Biog. Brit, seems to doubt whether he assisted Ambrose Philips in the paper called the “Freethinker;” but of this we apprehend there can be no doubt. It was published while he held the living of St. Olave’s.

, a Latin poet of France, was born in 1503 at Vandeuvrt, near Langres, the son of a rich forge-master. Margaret de Valois appointed him preceptor to her daughter Jane d'Albret de Navarre, mother of Henry IV. He retired afterwards to Conde“, where he had a benefice, and died there about 1550. Bourbon left eight books of epigrams, and a didactic poem on the forge entitled” Ferrarie,“1533, 8vo;” De puerorum moribus,“Lyons, 1536, 4to, a series of moral distichs, with a commentary by J. de Caures. He was extremely well acquainted with antiquity and the Greek language. Erasmus praises his epigrams, and he appears to have been the friend and correspondent of Erasmus, Scaliger, Latimer, Carey, Harvey, Saville, Norris, Dudley, &c. having frequently visited England, where he was patronized by Dr. Butts, the king’s physician, and William Boston, abbot of Westminster, an hospitable man, with whom he speaks of having passed many pleasant hours in archbishop Cranmer’s garden at Lambeth. He treats sir Thomas More with great asperity in one of his epigrams, from which we may probably conclude that he inclined to protestantism, although this is not consistent with his history. His epigrams were published under the title of” Nugarumlibriocto," Paris, 1533, and often reprinted, particularly by Scaliger, 1577 in 1608 by Passerat, with notes; and lastly, by the abbe Brochard in 1723, a handsome quarto edition, printed at Paris.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the successi^eio-ns of Henry VI. Edward IV. Edward V. Richard III. tf Henry VII. was son of William Bourchier earl of Ewe in Normandy, and the countess of Stafford, and brother of Henry earl of Essex, and, consequently, related to the preceding lord Berners. He had his education in Neville’s-inn at Oxford, and was chancellor of that university three ears viz. from 1433 to 1437. His first dignity in the church was that of dean of the collegiate church of St. Martin’s in London; from which, in 1433, he was advanced, by pope Eugenius IV. to the see of Worcester but his consecration was deferred to May 15, 1436, by reason (as is supposed) of a defect in age. He had not sat a full year, before he was elected by the monks of Ely bishop of that see, and confirmed by the pope: but, the king refusing his consent, Bourchier did not dare to comply with the election,' for fear of incurriig the censure of the laws, which forbad, under very sevtfe penalties, the receiving the pope’s bull without the khg’s leave. Nevertheless, seven or eight years after, the see of Ely still continuing vacant, and the king consenting, he was translated thither, the 20th of December 1443. The author of the “Historia Eliensis” speaks very disadvantageously of him, as an oppressor, and neglectfi of his duty during his residence on that see, which was ten years twenty-three weeks and five days. At last he was elected archbishop of Canterbury, in the room of John Kemp, the 23d of April 1454. This election was the irre remarkable, as the monks were left entirely to trir liberty of choice, without any interposition either frc the crown or the papal chair. On the contrary, pof Nicolas Vth’s concurrence being readily obtained, t> archbishop was installed with great solemnity. In the m^th of December following, he received the red hat from vome, being created cardinal-priest of St. Cyriacus in Ttemis, but Bentham thinks this was not till 1464, The next ear, he was made lord high chancellor of England, but‘esigned that office in October the year following. So’ after his advancement to the see of Canterbury, he be^aia visitation in Kent, and made several regulations fothe government of his diocese. He likewise publish* 3 - constitution for restraining the excessive abuse of papa'rovisions, but deserved most highly of the learned world, r being the principal instrument in introducing the no 2 art of printing into England. Wood’s account^ althou not quite correct, is worth transcribing. Bourchier being informed that the inventor, Tossan^ alias John -ithenberg, had set up a press at Harlem, was extremely desirous that the English might be made masters of s^ 6116 ^ ^ an art. To this purpose he persuaded fcino Henry VI. to dispatch one Robert Tournour, belong to the wardrobe, privately to Harlem. This man, f ur ed with a thousand marks, of which the archbishop suried three hundred, embarked for Holland, and, to disise the matter, went in company with one Caxton, a, nnhant of London, pretending himself to be of the same profession. Thus concealing his name and his business, he went first to Amsterdam, then to Leyden, and at last settled at Harlem where having spent a -great deal of time and money, he sent to the king for a fresh supply, giving his Highness to understand, that he had almost compassed the enterprize. In short, he persuaded Frederic Corselli, one of the compositors, to carry off a set of letters, and embark with him in the night for London. When they arrived, the archbishop, thinking Oxford a more convenient place for printing than London, sent Corselli down thither. And, lest he should slip away before he had discovered the whole secret, a guard was set upon the press. And thus the mystery of printing appeared ten years sooner in the university of Oxford than at any other place in Europe, Harlem and Mentz excepted. Not long after, there were presses set up at Westminster, St. Alhan’s, Worcester, and other monasteries of note. After this manner printing was introduced into England, by the care of archbishop Bourchier, in the year of Christ 1464, and the third of king Edward IV."

Bourchier, we are told, was strangely imposed upon by the specious pretences of Richard duke of Gloucester, when he undertook to persuade the queen to deliver up the duke of York, her son, into the protector’s hands. He presided over the church thirty-two years, in the most troublesome times of the English government, those of Henry VI. and Edward IV. He also performed the marriage ceremony between Henry VII. and the daughter of Edward IV.; and had the happiness to be contemporary with many prelates of distinction in English history. He was certainly a man of learning; though nothing written by him has come down to us, if we except a few Sy nodical decrees. Dart tells us, he founded a chantry, which was afterwards surrendered to king Henry VIII. Archbishop Bourchier died at his palace of Knowle, on Thursday the thirtieth of March 1486, and was buried on the north side of the choir of his cathedral, by the high altar, in a tomb of marble, on which is an inscription merely recording the event.

Archbishop Bourchier’s benefactions are stated by Mr. Bentham as follows: He gave to the prior and convent of Christ Church in Canterbury, the alien priory of Cranfield in Essex, a grant of which he had obtained from the crown in the time of Edward the Fourth. To the church of Canterbury, besides the image of the Trinity, he bequeathed twenty-seven copes of red tissue, and left to his successor, in recompence for dilapidations, 2000l.; also 12 5l. to each of the universities, to be kept in chests, for the support of the poor scholars. The chest at Cambridge, which was united with Billingford’s, was in being in 1601, when 100l. was borrowed out of it for the use of the university; but this fund was afterward embezzled, through the iniquity of the times. The archbishop left also legacies to several monasteries.

Her father, however, to whom all this appeared unnatural, considered her as a mere woman and, having found an agreeable match, promised her in marriage to a Frenchman. Easter-day, 1636, was fixed for the nuptials; but, to avoid the execution, the young lady fled, under the disguise of a hermit, hut was stopped at Blacon, a village of Hainault, on suspicion of her sex. It was an officer of horse quartered in the village who seized her; he had observed something extraordinary in her, and mentioning her to the archbishop of Cambray, that prelate came to examine her, and sent her home. But being pressed again with proposals of matrimony, she ran away once more: and, going to the archbishop, obtained his licence to set up a small society in the country, with some other maidens of her taste and temper. That licence, however, was soon retracted, and Antoinette obliged to withdraw into the country of Liege, whence she returned to Lisle, and passed many years there privately in devotion and great simplicity. When her patrimonial estate fell to her, she resolved at first to renounce it; but, changing her mind, she took possession of it; and as she was satisfied with a few conveniences, she lived at little expence: and bestowing no charities, her fortune increased apace. For thus taking possession of her estate, she gave three reasons: first, that it might not come into the hands of those who had no right to it; or secondly, of those who would have made an ill use of it; thirdly, God shewed her that she should have occasion for it to his glory. And as to charity, she says, the deserving poor are not to be met with in this world. This patrimony must have been something considerable, since she speaks of several maid servants in her house. What she reserved, however, for this purpose, became a temptation to one John de Saulieu, the son of a peasant, who resolved to make his court to her; and, getting admittance under the character of a prophet, insinuated himself into the lady’s favour by devout acts and discourses of the most refined spirituality. At length he declared his passion, modestly enough at first, and was easily checked; but finding her intractable, he grew so insolent as to threaten to murder her if she would not comply. Upon this she had recourse to the provost, who sent two men to guard her house; and in revenge Saulieu gave out, that she had promised him marriage, and even bedded with him. But, in conclusion, they were reconciled; he retracted his slanders, and addressed himself to a young devotee at Ghent, whom he found more tractable. This, however, did not free her from other applications of a similar nature. The parson’s nephew of St. Andrew’s parish near Lisle fell in love with her; and as her house stood in the neighbourhood, he frequency environed it, in order to force an entrance. Our recluse threatened to quit her post, if she was not delivered f*om this troublesome suitor, and the uncle drove himrom his house upon which he grew desperate, and someimes discharged & musquet through the nun’s chamber, giung out that she was his espoused wife. This made a nose in the city; the devotees were offended, and threatined to affront Bourignon, if they met her in the streets. At length she was relieved by the preachers, who publisied from their pulpits, that the report of the marriage wis a scandalous falsehood.

Mr. Bowyer had always been subject to a bilious colic; and during the last ten years of his life, he was afflicted with the palsy and the stone. But, notwithstanding these infirmities, he preserved, in general, a remarkable cheerfulness of disposition; and received great satisfaction from the conversation of a few literary friends, by whom he continued to be visited. The faculties of his mind, though somewhat impaired, were strong enough to support the labour of almost incessant reading, which had ever been his principal amusement; and he regularly corrected the learned works, and especially the Greek books, which came from his press. This he did till within a very few weeks of his death; which happened on the 18th of November, 1777, when he had nearly completed his 78th year. The publications of Mr. Bowyer are an incontrovertible evidence of his abilities and learning; to which may be added that he was honoured with the friendship and patronage of many of the most distinguished ornaments of his age. We already have had occasion to mention the earls of Macclesfield and Marchmont, Dr. Wotton, Mr. Pope, Mr. Chishull, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Markland, bishop Warburton, the right honourable Arthur Onslow, Mr. Hollis, Dr. Salter, Mr, De Missy, Dr. Owen, and Dr. Heberden. To these, among other respectable names, might be added those of archbishop Seeker, bishop Kennett, bishop Tanner, bishop Sherlock, bishop Hoadly, bishop Lyttelton, bishop Pearce, bishop Lowth, bishop Barrington, bishop Hurd, bishop Percy, lord Lyttelton, lord Sandys, dean Prideaux, doctors Robert and John Freind, dean Freind, dean Milles, the very learned Dr. Taylor, chancellor of Lincoln, Dr. Barnard, Dr. Powell, Dr. Wilkins, Mr. Maittaire, Messrs. R. and S. Gale, Mr. Browne Willis, Mr. Spelman, Mr. Morant, Dr. Ducarel, Dr. Pegge, Mr. Garrick, and most of the distinguished scholars and antiquaries of his time. His connec^ tion with the late eminent and excellent Richard Gough, esq. so well known by his acquaintance with British topography and antiquities, is apparent from his last will; where his obligations to Dr. Jenkin, dean Stanhope, and Mr. Nelson, are acknowledged. The late excellent Dr. Robert Clayton, bishop of Clogher, so highly esteemed his friendship, that he not only honoured him by a regular epistolary intercourse, but presented him with the copy-right of all his valuable writings. Mr. Bowyer stood unrivalled, for more than half a century, as a learned printer; and some of the most masterly productions of this kingdom have undoubtedly appeared from his press. To his literary and professional abilities, he added an excellent moral character. His regard to religion was displayed in his publications, and in the course of his life and studies; and he was particularly distinguished by his inflexible probity, and an uncommon alacrity in assisting the necessitous. His liberality in relieving every species of distress, and his endeavours to conceal his benefactions, reflect great honour on his memory. Though he was naturally fond of retirement, and seldom entered into company, excepting with men of letters, he was, perhaps, excelled by few in the talent of justly discriminating the real characters of mankind. He judged of the persons he saw by a sort of intuition; and his judgments were generally right. From a consciousness of literary superiority, he did not always pay that particular attention tQ the booksellers which was expedient in the way of his business. Too proud to solicit the favours in that way which he believed to be his due, he was often disappointed in his expectations. On the other hand, he' frequently experienced friendships in cases where he had much less reason to have hoped for them so that, agreeably to his own expression, “in what he had received, and what he had fyeen denied, he thankfully acknowledged the will of Heaven.” The two great objects of Mr. Bowyer’s view, in the decline of his life, were to repay the benefactions his father had met with, and to be himself a benefactor to the meritorious of his own profession. These purposes are fully displayed in his last will: for which reason, and because it illustrates the turn of his mind in other respects, we shall insert it at large. After a liberal provision for his son, among other legacies are these “I likewise give to my son all my plate; except the small silver cup which was given to my father (after his loss by fire) by Mrs. James, and which I give to the Company of Stationers in London, hoping they will preserve it as a memorial. Having committed my body to the earth, I would testify my duty and gratitude to my few relations and numerous benefactors after my father’s loss by fire. I give and bequeath to my cousin Scott, lately of Westminster, brewer, and to his sister, fifty pounds each. I give and bequeath to my relations Mr. Thomas Linley and his wife one thousand pounds four per cent, consolidated annuities, to be transferred to them, or to the survivor of them; and which I hope they will take care to settle, at their deaths, for the benefit of their son and daughter. I give to the two sons and one daughter of the late reverend Mr. Maurice of Gothenburgh iuSweden, who married the only daughter of Mr. Richard Williamson, bookseller (in return for her father’s friendship to mine), one thousand pounds four per cent, consolidated annuities, to be divided equally between them. Among my father’s numerous benefactors, there is not, that I can hear of, one alive: to several of them I made an acknowledgement. But one respectable body I am still indebted to, the University of Cambridge; to whom I give, or rather restore, the sum of fifty pounds, in return for the donation of forty pounds made to my father at the motion of the learned and pious master of Saint John’s college, doctor Robert Jenkin: to a nephew of his I have already given another fifty pounds, as appears by his receipt of the thirty-first of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy. The benefactions which my father received from Oxford I can only repay with gratiiude; as he received them, not from the university as a body, but from particular members. I give thirty pounds to the dean and chapter of Canterbury, in gratitude for the kindness of the worthy doctor Stanhope (sometime dean of Canterbury) to my father; the remembrance of which amongst the proprietors of his works I have long out-lived, as I have experienced by not being employed to print them: the like I might say of the works of Mr. Nelson, another respectable friend and patron of my father’s, and of many others. I give to doctor William Heberden my little cabinet of coins, with H ickes’s Thesau rus, Tristan, and the odd volume, Spanheim’s Numismata, Harduin’s Opera Selecta, in folio, Nummi Populorum et Urbium, in quarto, and any other of my books he chooses to accept: to the reverend doctor Henry Owen, such of my Hebrew books and critical books on the New Testament, as he pleases to take: to Richard Gough, esq. in like manner, my books on topographical subjects: to Mr. John Nichols, all books that relate to Cicero, Livy, and the Roman history, particularly the * Cenotaphia' of Noris and Pighius, my grammars and dictionaries, with Swift’s and Pope’s works: to my son, whatever books (not described above) he thinks proper to take. And now I hope I may be allowed to leave somewhat for the benefit of printing. To this end, I give to the master and keepers or wardens and commonalty of the mystery or art of a stationer of the city of London, such a sum of money as will purchase two thousand pounds three per cent, reduced Bank annuities, upon trust, to pay the dividends and yearly produce thereof, to be divided for ever equally amongst three printers, compositors or pressmen, to be elected from time to time by the master, wardens, and assistants, of the said company, and who at the time of such election shall be sixty-three years old or upwards, for their respective lives, to be paid half-yearly; hoping that such as sha.ll be most deserving will be preferred. And whereas I have herein before given to my son the sum of three thousand pounds four per cent, consolidated annuities, in case he marries with the consent of my executors: Now, I do hereby give and bequeath the dividends and interest of that sum, till such marriage take place, to the said company of stationers to be divided equally between six other printers, compositors or pressmen, as aforesaid, in manner as aforesaid; and, if my said son shall die unmarried, or married without such consent as aforesaid, then I give and bequeath the said capital sum of three thousand pounds to the company of stationers, the dividends and yearly produce thereof to be divided for ever equally amongst six other such old printers, compositors or pressmen, for their respective lives, to be qualified, chosen, and paid in manner as aforesaid. It has long been to me matter of concern, that such numbers are put apprentices as compositors without any share of school-learning, who ought to have the greatest: in hopes of remedying this, I give and bequeath to the said company of stationers such a sum of money as will purchase one thousand pounds three per cent, reduced bank annuities, for the use of one journeyman compositor, such as shall hereafter be described; with this special trust, that the master, wardens, and assistants, shall pay the dividends and produce thereof half-yearly to such compositor: the said master, wardens, and assistants of the said company, shall nominate for this purpose a compositor who is a man of good life and conversation, who shall usually frequent some place of public worship every Sunday unless prevented by sickness, and shall not have worked on a newspaper or magazine for four years at least before such nomination, nor shall ever afterwards whilst he holds this annuity, which may be for life, if he continues a journeyman; he shall be able to read and construe Latin, and at least to read Greek fluently with accents; f which he shall bring a testimonial from the rector of St. Martin’s Ludgate for the time being: I could wish that he shall have been brought up piously and virtuously, if it be possible, at Merchant Taylors, or some other public school, from seven years of age till he is full seventeen, and then to serve seven years faithfully as a compositor, and work seven years more as a journeyman, as I would not have this annuity bestowed on any one under thirty -one years of age: if after he is chosen he should behave ill, let him be turned out, and another be chosen in his stead. And whereas it may be many years before a compositor may be found that shall exactly answer the above description, and it may at some times happen that such a one cannot be found; I would have the dividends in the mean time applied to such person as the master, wardens, and assistants, shall think approaches nearest to what I have described. And whereas the above trusts will occasion some trouble: I give to the said company, in case they think proper to accept the trusts, two hundred and fifty pounds.” It is almost superfluous to add, that the trust was accepted, and is properly executed.

, a Scotch writer of considerable reputation in the sixteenth century, the son of Robert Boyd, of Pinkill in Ayrshire, was born Jan. 13, 1562. Having lost his father early, he was educated under the inspection of his uncle, Mr. James Boyd, of Trochrig, who, with the then unpopular title of “Archbishop of Glasgow,” performed the offices of minister of the Barony parish in that city. Young Boyd, in his nature lively and headstrong, soon grew weary of academical discipline, quarreled with his preceptors, renounced his studies, and, eager to become a man of the world, presented himself at court. It is not unlikely that in this scheme ae relied chit fly on the patronage of liobert, fourth lord Boyd, who was probably the cousin-gernran of Boyd’s father. All, however, that we learn of his proficiency at cm:;c is, that he fought one duel, and was engaged in numberless broils. His relations advised him to follow the profession of arms in the Low Countries, for they could not tolerate his impetuous and unruly temper, and perhaps they were little inclined or little able to support him in a manner of life which had no determined object or aim. Boyd readily consented to become a soldier; but he chose France rather than the Low Countries, for the theatre of his future achievements. He went therefore to Paris, furnished with a small stock of money, all of which he soon lost at dice. This the author of his life ascribes to some secret fate, “occulto veluti fato” but says his more recent biographer, lord Hailes, we may absolve fate, for when the raw and self-sufficient go amongst sharpers, they ought to ascribe their ruin to folly.

It is much to be regretted that so faithful a servant of the public should have lived at variance with the earl of Strafford, himself a man of virtue, talents, and patriotism, and afterwards a sacrifice to the fury of the republican party in England; yet it cannot be denied that the earl of Strafford behaved in a very arrogant and haughty manner to the earl of Cork; and that the conduct of the lord deputy was such, as it could not reasonably be expected any man of spirit would patiently submit to, and especially a man of so much worth and merit as the noble subject of this article. His lordship gave evidence at Strafford’s trial, that when he had commenced a suit at law, in a case in which he apprehended himself to be aggrieved, the earl of Strafford, in the most arbitrary manner, forbad his prosecuting his suit, saying to him, “Call in your writs, or if you will not, I will clap you in the castle; for I tell you, I will not have my orders disputed by law, nor lawyers.” We have, however, already seen that lord Cork had other enemies, who took various opportunities of displaying their jealousy of his power and talents. One singular opportunity was taken on the death of his second lady, which we shall detail, as including some traits of the taste and prejudices of the times. This lady was privately interred on the 27th of February 1629-30, but her funeral was publicly solemnized on the llth of March following; soon after which$ the earl of Cork purchased from the dean and chapter of St. Patrick’s church, the inheritance of the upper part of the chancel where the vault was, in which the bodies of her grandfather by the mother’s side, the lord chancellor Weston, and of her father sir Geoffry Fenton, were laid, over which the earl her husband caused a fine marble tomb to be erected. This presently gave offence to some people, who suggested that it stood where the altar ought to stand, of which they complained to the king, who mentioned it to Dr. Laud, then bishop of London; who after the lord Wentworth was made lord deputy of Ireland, and himself archbishop of Canterbury, moved him that it might be inquired into, as it was, and this affair made afterwards a very great noise. The earl of Cork procured a letter from Dr. Usher, then lord primate of Ireland, and also from Dr. Launcelot Bulkeiey, then archbishop of Dublin, justifying, that the tomb did not stand in the place of the altaf, and that instead of being an inconvenience, it was a great ornament to the church; which letters archbishop Laud transmitted to the lord deputy, and at the same time acquainted^ him that they did not give himself any satisfaction. The postscript to this letter, dated Lambeth, March 11, 1634, is very remarkable, and shews both the rise and the falsehood of the common opinion, that it was the lord deputy, afterwards earl of Strafford, who set this matter on foot out of prejudice to the earl of Cork. “I had almost forgot to tell you, that all this business about demolishing my lord of Cork’s tomb is charged upon you, as if it were done only because he will not marry his son to my lord Clifford’s daughter, and that I do it to join with you; whereas the complaint came against it to me out of Ireland, and was presented by me to the king before I knew that your lordship was named for deputy there. But jealousies know no end.” The archbishop afterwards wrote in very strong terms to the earl of Cork himself, in which he affirms the same thing, and deals very roundly with his lordship upon that and other subjects, advising him to leave the whole to the lord deputy and the archbishops. As to the issue of the affair, it appears clearly from a letter of the lord deputy Wentworth’s, dated August 23, 1634, to the archbishop, in which he delivers himself thus: “I have issued a commission, according to my warrant, for viewing the earl of Cork’s tomb: the two archbishops and himself, with four bishops, and the two deans and chapters, were present when we met, and made them all so ashamed, that the earl desires he may have leave to pull it down without reporting further into England; so as I am content if the miracle be done, though Mohammed do it, and there is an end of the tomb before it come to be entombed indeed. And for me that my lord treasurer do what he please; I shall ever wish his ways may be those of honour to himself, and dispatch to my master’s affairs; but go it as it shall please God with me, believe me, my lord, I will be still tlwrow and thorowout one and the same, and with comfort be it spoken by myself, and your grace’s commendations.” It may be added that though the tomb has been taken away above a century, yet the inscription that was upon it is still extant.

He entered on the duties of a parish priest first at Hollingbourne in his native county, of which place, however, he was not the vicar, as Mr. Masters conjectures; and to the inhabitants of it he dedicated his Exposition of the Festival Epistles and Gospels. In 1597, he was preferred by his uncle, sir John Boys, who had been the patron of his studies at the university, to the rectory of Bettishanger near Deal. In the same year he was also collated by archbishop Whitgift to the mastership of East-bridge hospital in Canterbury. In 1599, the same patron presented him to the vicarage of Tilmanstone, adjoining to Bettishanger. He had now acquired the character of a distinguished theologist, and proceeded soon afterwards to the degree of D. D. He was likewise what then was termed “a painful preacher,” one who in preaching was frequent and laborious, as his works testify, which were all delivered originally in the pulpit.

His merit becoming known to James I. he was appointed one of the first fellows of Chelsea-college; but that scheme, as we have had occasion to remark in the preceding article, never having been carried into execution, his title was only nominal. Of this college we shall give some account in the life of Dr. Sutclifte the founder. In 1618, Dr. Boys was collated by archbishop Abbot to the rectory of Great Mongeham, adjoining also to his benefice of Bettishanger, and resigned the vicarage of Tilmanstone. On the death of Mr. Fotherby, king James promoted him to the deanry of Canterbury, to which he was admitted May 3, 1619; but this preferment he did not enjoy long, dying suddenly in his study Sept. 26, 1625, aged fifty-four.

, D. D. bishop of Rochester, was a native of London, the son of William Bradford, of whom it is recorded, that being a parish-officer in the time of the plague, he looked upon it as his duty to take care in person both of the dead and living, although he removed his family to Islington. The subject of this article was born Dec. 20, 1652, in St. Anne’s Blackfriars, and was educated at St. Paul’s school, and afterwards in the Charter-house. In 1669, he was admitted a student of Bene't college, Cambridge, and matriculated March 27, 1672, but left it without taking a degree, having at that time some scruples of conscience respecting the subscriptions, declarations, and oaths then required. He pursued his studies, however, in private, and after studying divinity, having overcome his scruples by a careful examination of the matters in controversy, he became desirous of orders in the church of England; but as he was then twenty-eight years old, and could not return to the university and go regularly on in the statutable course of taking his degrees, archbishop Sancroft procured him a royal mandate for M. A. in 1680, and he was admitted to the same at Oxford in 1697. As the state of affairs, however, was critical at the time he received his degree at Cambridge, he declined proceeding in his design, living as a private tutor to gentlemen’s families, until after the revolution, when he was ordained deacon and priest in 1690, and in the spring following was elected minister of St. Thomas’s church, Southwark, by the governors of that hospital.

He was soon aften chosen lecturer of St. Mary-le-Bow, and engaged by archbishop Tillotson to educate his grandsons, which occasioned him to reside at Carlisle-house in Lambeth. While here, the rector of St. Mary-le-Bow died, and the parishioners were so pleased with Mr. Bradford, as to solicit the archbishop to give him the living, with which his grace complied, but not without acquainting them with the informality of such applications. On this Mr. Bradford resigned St. Thomas’s, and the lectureship of Bow;‘ but soon after accepted that of Allhallows, in Bread-street. In 1698, he preached on the 30th of January before king William, who was so well pleased with the sermon, as to command it to be published; and also, in March following, appointed him one of his chaplains in ordinary, in which office he was retained by queen Anne. In 1705, when she visited Cambridge, he was made D. D. and in 1707, her majesty gave him a prebend of Westminster. He now was exemplary in a diligent and conscientious discharge of his parochial duties, and enjoyed the esteem of his superiors, the good opinion and friendship of his brethren the clergy, and the affection of his parishioners. In 1710, he refused the bishoprick of St. David’s, as the then ministry would not suffer him to hold his prebend in commendam, nor the rectory of Bow, either of which was necessary to enable him to keep up his rank as a bishop. In 1716, he was unanimously elected master of Bene’t college, and in 1718 was consecrated bishop of Carlisle, whence in 1723 he was translated to Rochester, which he held with the deanry of Westminster. About a year afterwards he resigned the mastership of the college. He died May 17, 1731, and was buried in Westminsterabbey. His character appears to have been excellent, according to every account. His Boylean lectures were published in 4to, 1699, under the title of “The Credibility of the Christian Religion from its intrinsic evidence, being eight sermons, &c. with a ninth as an appendix, in reply to an objection from the imperfect promulgation of the gospel,” 4to. He published also separately twenty-three sermons preached on public occasions, and assisted in the publication of Tillotson’s works. He left two daughters, one married to Dr. Reuben Clarke, archdeacon of Essex, and the other to Dr. John Denne, archdeacon of Rochester.

, an eminent puritan divine, was born in 1571 at Market-Bosworth, in Leicestershire, of an ancient but reduced family, and was first educated at Worcester free school, at the expense of an uncle, ou whose death he was obliged to return to Bosworth, but afterwards found a friend in Mr. Ainsworth, schoolmaster at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, who continued his education in that school. In 1589, he was admitted along with Joseph Hall, afterwards the celebrated bishop of Exeter, into Emmanuel college, Cambridge, and took in course his degree of B. A. and M. A. but could not obtain a fellowship, according to the statutes, which allow but of one of a county at time, and that for Leicestershire was gained by Mr. Hall. The master of the college, however, Dr. Chaderton, who had a high respect for him, first procured him to be tutor to the children of sir Thomas Leighton, governor of Guernsey, and afterwards to be fellow of Sidney Sussex college, then newly founded. He then entered into holy orders, and preached first as a lecturer at Abington, near Cambridge, and at Steeple Morton. Afterwards, by the recommendation of Dr. Chaderton, he was in 101i settled at Chatham, in Kent; but before he had been there a year, he was sent for by the archbishop of Canterbury (Whitgift) and commanded to subscribe, which he refusing, was suspended. He therefore was obliged to remove, but was afterwards licensed by the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry (Dr. Overton) to preach any where in his diocese, and at length coming to London, was chosen lecturer of Christ Church, Newgate-street. Here, however, he published a treatise against the Ceremonies, which obliged him, to leave the city and retire to the house of his friend and patron, Mr. Redriche, at Newhall, in Leicestershire, and he remained here until near his death, which happened when, on a visit at Chelsea in 1618. Bishop Hall says of him$ that he was “of a strong brain and of a free spirit, not suffering himself for small differences of judgment to be alienated from his friends, to whom, notwithstanding his seeming austerity, he was very pleasing in conversation, being full of witty and harmless urbanity. He was very strong and eager in arguing, hearty in friendship, regardless of the world, a despiser of compliments, a lover of reality, full of digested and excellent notions, and a painful labourer in God’s vineyard.” The rev. Thomas Gataker, of Ilotherhiihe, wrote his life, a long and not uninteresting account.

, archbishop of Canterbury, is supposed to have been born at Hortfield, in Cheshire, about the middle of the reign of king Edward I. in the fourteenth century. He was of Merton colle'ge, Oxford, and was one of the proctors of that university in 1325. He excelled in mathematical knowledge, and was in general distinguished for his accurate and solid investigations in divinity, which procured him the title of the “profound Doctor.” He was confessor to Edward III. and attended that monarch in his French wars, often preaching before the army. Sir Henry Savile informs us that some writers of that time attributed the signal victories of Edward, rather to the virtues and holy character of his chaplain, than to> the bravery or prudence of the monarch or of any other person. He made it his business to calm and mitigate the fierceness of his master’s temper when he saw him eitherimmoderately fired with warlike rage, or improperly flushed with the advantages of victory. He also often addressed the army, and with so much meekness and persuasive discretion, as to restrain them from those insolent excesses which are too frequently the attendants of military success. When the see of Canterbury became vacant, the monks of that city chose him archbishop, but Edward, who was fond of his company, refused to part with him. Another vacancy happen ing soon after, the monks again elected him^ and Edward yielded to their desires. The modesty and innocence of his manners, and his unquestionable piety and integrity, seem to have been the principal causes of his advancement. He was, however, by no means adapted to 'a court, where his personal manners and character became an object of derision, the best proof history can afford us of their excellence. Even when he was consecrated at Avignon, cardinal Hugh, a nephew of the pope, ridiculed the prelate by introducing into the hall a person in a peasant’s habit, ridiog on an ass, petitioning the pope to make him archbishop of Canterbury, but the jest was so ill relished that the pope and cardinals resented the indignity, and frowned on the insolent contriver. Bradwardine was consecrated in 1349; but not many weeks after his consecration, and only seven days after his return into England, he died at Lambeth. His principal work “De Causa Dei,” against the Pelagian heresy, was edited from the ms. in Merton college library by sir Henry Savile, 1618, fol. with a biographical preface, in which he informs us that Bradwardine devoted his principal application to theology and mathematics; and that particularly in the latter he distanced, perhaps, the most skilful of his contemporaries. These mathematical works are, 1. “Astronomical tables,” in ms. in the possession of Sir Henry. 2. “Geometria Speculativa, cum Arithmetica specuiativa,” Paris, 1495, 1504, fol. The arithmetic had been prAited separately ia 1502, and other editions of both appeared in 1512 and 1530. 3. “De proportionibus,” Paris, 1495, Venice, 1505, fol. 4. “De quadratura circuli,” Paris, 1495, fol. Sir Henry Savile informs us that the treatise against Pelagius was first delivered in lectures at Oxford, and the author, at the request of the students of Merton college, arranged, enlarged, and polished them, while he was chancellor of the diocese of London. As Bradwardine was a very excellent mathematician, he endeavoured to treat theological subjects with a mathematical accuracy, and was the first divine, as far as I know, says sir Henry, who pursued that method. Hence this book against Pelagianism is one regular, connected series of reasoning, from principles or conclusions which have been demonstrated before; and if, in the several lemmas and propositions, a mathematical accuracy is not on all occasions completely preserved, the reader must remember to ascribe the defect to the nature of the subject, rather than to the author.

, an eminent prelate, was descended from the antient family of the Bramhalls, of Cheshire, and born at Pontefract, in Yorkshire, about 1593. He received his school education at the place of his birth, and was removed from thence to Sidney-college, Cambridge, in 1608. After taking the degrees of B A. and M. A. he quitted the university; and, entering into orders, had a living given him in the city of York. About the same time he married a clergyman’s widow of the Hally’s family, with whom he received a good fortune, and a valuable library, left by her former husband. In 1623 he had two public disputations, at North-Allerton, with a secular priest and a Jesuit. The match between prince Charles and the infanta of Spain was then depending; and the papists expected great advantages and countenance to their religion from it. These two, therefore, by way of preparing the way for them, sent a public challenge to all the protestant clergy in the county of York; and when none durst accept it, our author, though then but a stripling in the school of controversy, undertook the combat. His success in this dispute gained him. so much reputation, and so recommended him in particular to Matthews, archbishop of York, that he made him his chaplain, and took him into his confidence. He was afterwards made a prebendary of York , and then pf Rippon; at which last place he went and resided after the archbishop’s death, which happened in 1628, and managed most of the affairs of that church, in the quality of sub-dean. He had great political influence, especially in elections, in the town of Rippon, and was also appointed one of his majesty’s high commissioners, in the administration of which office he was by some accounted severe, although far less so than some of his brethren.

In 1637, he took a journey into England, and was there surprised with the news of an information exhibited against him in the star-chamber, “for being present at Rippon when one Mr. Palmes had made some reflecting discourse upon his majesty, and neither reproving nor informing against him.” The words deserved no very great punishment if they had been true, being no more than, that “he feared a Scottish mist was come over their town,” because the king had altered his lodgings from Rippon, where he had designed them, to sir Richard Graham’s house, not far from that place. But the bishop easily cleared himself and the whole company. After having received much honour from Charles 1. and many civilities from archbishop Laud and other persons, he returned to Ireland, and, with 6000l. for which he sold his estate in England, purchased another at Omagh, in the county of Tyrone, and began a plantation, which the distractions of that kingdom hindered him from perfecting. In March 1641 articles of high treason were exhibited against him in Ireland, wherein he was charged with having conspired with others to subvert the fundamental laws of that kingdom, to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, &c. The bishop was at Londonderry, when he received intelligence of this accusation. All his friends wrote to him to decline the trial; but, thinking it dishonourable to fly, he went directly to Dublin, and was made a close prisoner by the parliament. In this distress he wrote to the primate Usher, then in England, for his advice and comfort; who mediated so effectually in his behalf with the king, that his majesty sent a letter to Ireland, to stop proceedings against him. This letter was very slowly obeyed; however, the bishop was at length restored to liberty, but without any public acquittal, the charge lying still dormant against him, to be awakened when his enemies pleased. Shortly after his return to Londonderry, sir Phelim O'Neil laid a plot to affect his life, in the following manner. He directed a letter to him, wherein he desired, “that, according to their articles, such a gate of the city should be delivered to him;” expecting that the Scotch in the place would, upon the discovery, become his executioners: but the person who was to manage the matter, ran away with the letter. But, though this design faded, the bishop did not find any safety there: the city daily being crowded with discontented persons out of Scotland, he began to be afraid lest they should deliver him up. One night they turned a cannon against his house to affront him; and, being persuaded by his friends to consider that as a warning, he took their advice, and privately embarked for England. Here he continued active in the king’s service, till his majesty’s affairs were grown desperate; and then, embarking with several persons of distinction, he landed at Hamburgh on July 8, 1644. Shortly after, at the treaty of Uxbridge, the parliaments of England and Scotland made this one of their preliminary demands, that bishop Bramhall, together with archbishop Laud, &c. should be excepted out of the general pardon.

Upon the restoration of the church and monarchy, he returned to England, and was from the first designed for higher promotion. Most people imagined it would be the archbishopric of York; but at last he was appointed archbishop of Armagh, to which he was translated upon the 18th of January, 1660-1. The same year he visited his diocese, where he found great disorder; some having committed horrible outrages; and many imbibed very strong prejudices, both against his person and the doctrine and discipline of the church; but, by argument, persuasion, and long suffering, he gained upon them even beyond his own expectation. His biographer affords one instance of his prudence, in turning the edge of the most popular objection of that time against conformity. When the benefices were called over at the visitation, several appeared, and exhibited only such titles as they had received from the late powers. He told them, “they were no legal titles, but in regard he heard well of them, he was willing to make them such to them by institution and induction;” which they thankfully accepted of. But when he desired to see their letters of orders, some had no other but their certificates of ordination by some presbyterian classes, which, he told them, did not qualify them for any preferment in the church. Upon this, the question arose, “Are we not ministers of the gospel r” To which his grace answered, That is not the question; at least, he desired for peace sake, that might not be the question for that time. “I dispute not,” said he, “the value of your ordination, nor those acts you have exercised by virtue of it; what you are, or might be here when there was no law, or in other churches abroad. But we are now to consider ourselves as a national church limited by law, which among other things takes chief care to prescribe about ordination: and I do not know how you could recover the means of the church, if any should refuse to pay you your tithes, if you are not ordained as the law of this church requireth; and I am desirous that she may have your labours, and you such portions of her revenue, as shall be allotted you in a legal and assured way.” By this means he gained such as were of the moderate kind, and wished to be useful. As he was by his station president of the convocation, which met upon the 8th of May, 166 1, so was he also chosen speaker of the house of lords, in the parliament which met at the same time: and so great a value had both houses for him, that they appointed committees to examine what was upon record in their books concerning him and the earl of Strafford, and ordered the scandalous charges against them to be torn out, which was accordingly done. In this parliament many advantages were procured, and more designed, for the church, in which he was very industrious. About this time he had a violent sickness, being a second fit of the palsy, which was very near putting an end to his life; but he recovered. A little before his death, he visited his diocese; and having provided for the repair of his cathedral, and other affairs suitable to his pastoral office, he returned to Dublin about the middle of May 1663. The latter end of June, he was seized with a third fit of the palsy; of which he soon died, being then 70 years old. At this time he had a trial for some part of his temporal estate at Omagh, with sir Audley Mervyn, depending in the court of claims; and there, at the time of hearing, the third fit of the palsy so affected him, that he sunk in the court, was carried out senseless, and never recovered. The cause, however, was determined in his favour.

His various works, published at different times, were reprinted at Dublin in 1677, in one vol. fol. with his Life by the editor, Dr. Vesey, bishop of Limerick. His funeral sermon, with a shorter account of his life, was preached and published by Dr. Jeremy Taylor, bishop of Down and Connor, Dublin, 1663, 4to. His works are chiefly levelled at the Roman catholics and the sectaries, some of both parties, in his opinion, uniting for the destruction of the established government and church. But perhaps the most valuable part of his works is that in which he contended with Hobbes. He argued with great acuteness against Hobbes’s notions on liberty and necessity, and attacked the whole of his system in a piece called the “Catching of the Leviathan,” originally published in 1658, in which he undertakes to demonstrate, out of Hobbes’s own works, that no sincere Hobbist can be a good Christian, or a good Common-wealth’s-man, or reconcile himself to himself. For some time an answer to Milton’s “Defensio populi,” was attributed to archbishop Bramhall, but with what injustice Mr. Todd has lately shewn, in his accurate and valuable Life of Milton.

, D.D. an eminent learned and pious divine of the seventeenth century, was born at Marton in Shropshire, in 1656, where his parents were persons of good reputation. His infancy discovering promising parts, he was early sent to the school at Oswestry, in the same county, and his close application to school-learning, determining his parents to dedicate him to religion and learning, he was entered of Hart-hall, Oxford. Here he soon made a considerable proficiency in divinity, as well as other studies necessary for the profession for which he was intended: but, labouring under the common disadvantages of a narrow fortune, his circumstances not permitting a longer residence at Oxford, he left the university soon after he had commenced bachelor of arts. Much about this time he entered into holy orders; and the first duty he had was that of a parish near Bridgenorth in Shropshire, his native county, from which curacy he soon removed into Warwickshire, officiating as chaplain in sir Thomas Price’s family, of Park-hall, and had the donative of Lac Marsin given him by sir Thomas, which proved very advantageous; for living now in the neighbourhood of Coieshill, his exemplary behaviour, and distinguished diligence in his calling, introduced him into the acquaintance of Mr. Kettlewell, sir Charles Holt, and the lord Simon Digby. One incident which contributed to establish his character at this juncture, was his preaching the assize sermon at Warwick, on which occasion Mr. Bray, though but young, acquitted himself to the satisfaction of the whole audience, particularly the lord Digby, who was afterwards pleased to honour him with many proofs of his friendship and esteem, recommending him to the worthy and honourable patronage of his brother, the fifth lord Digby, who some time after gave him the vicarage of Over-Whitacre in the same county, since augmented, by his patron’s uncommon generosity, with the great tithes. In 1690, the rectory of Sheldon being vacant, by Mr. Digby Bull’s refusing to take the oaths at the revolution, his lordship presented Mr. Bray to it; which preferment he held till about a quarter of a year before his death, when he resigned it by reason of his advanced age, and the known worth and abilities of his appointed successor, the Rev. Mr. Carpenter. Dec. 12, 1693, he took his master of arts degree in Hart-hall, Oxford. In this parish of Sheldon he composed his “Catechetical Lectures,” a work which met with general approbation and encouragement, and produced to him the sum of 700l. This publication, which drew him out of his rural privacy to London, determined Dr. Compton, bishop of London, to pitch upon him as a proper person to model the infant church of Maryland, and establish it upon a solid foundation. Accordingly, in April 1696, he proposed to Mr. Bray to go, on the terms of having the judicial office of commissary, valued, as was represented to him, at four hundred pounds per annum, conferred upon him, for his support in that service. Mr. Bray, disregarding his own interest, and the great profit which would have arisen from finishing his course of lectures on the plan he had formed, soon determined, in his own mind, that there might be a greater field for doing good in the Plantations, than by his labours here, and no longer demurred to the proposal, than to inquire into the state of the country, and inform himself what was most wanting to excite good ministers to embark in that design, as well as enable them most effectually to promote it. With this view he laid before the bishops the following considerations: That none but the poorer sort of clergy could be persuaded to leave their friends, and change their native country for one so remote; that such persons could not be able sufficiently to supply themselveswith books; that without such a competent provision of books, they could not answer the design of their mission; that a library would be the best encouragement to studious and sober men to undertake the service; and that, as the great inducement to himself to go, would be to do the most good of which he could be capable, he therefore purposed, that if they thought fit to encourage and assist htm in providing parochial libraries for the ministers, he would then accept of the commissary’s office in Maryland. This proposal for parochial libraries being well approved of by the bishops, and due encouragement being promised in the prosecution of the design, both by their lordships and others, he set himself with all possible application to provide missionaries, and to furnish them with libraries, intending, as soon as he should have sent both, to follow after himself. But, upon his accepting of this employment of commissary of Maryland, it fell to his share to solicit at home whatever other matters related to that church, more particularly to the settlement and establishment thereof, which he laboured to promote with unwearied diligence, and spared neither expence or trouble. But, above all, it was his greatest care, to endeavour to send over to Maryland, and the other colonies, pious men, of exemplary lives and conversations, and to furnish those whom he had a hand in sending, with good libraries of necessary and useful bdbks, to render them capable of answering the ends of their mission, and instructing the people in all things ecessary to their salvation. The sense of the clergy and inhabitants, with respect to these'important services, was testified by the solemn letters of thanks, returned him from the assemblies of Maryland, from the vestries of Boston and Baintrie in New England, from Newfoundland, Rhode Island, New York, Philadelphia, North Carolina, Bermudas, and by the acknowledgments of the royal African company, on account of those procured for their factories. About the same time it was, that the secretary of Maryland, sir Thomas Lawrence, with Mr. Bray, waited on the then princess of Denmark, in behalf of that province, humbly to request her gracious acceptance of the governor’s and country’s dutiful respects, in having denominated the metropolis of the province, then but lately built, from her royal highness’s name, Annapolis: and Mr. Bray being soon after favoured with a noble benefaction from the same royal hand, towards his libraries in America, he dedicated the first library in those parts, fixed at Annapolis, and which had books of the choicest kind belonging to it, to the value of four hundred pounds, to her memory, by the title of the Annapolitan Library, which words were inscribed on the several books. Another design was also set on foot, much about the same time, by Dr. Bray, to raise lending libraries in every deanery throughout England and Wales, out of which the neighbouring clergy might borrow the books they had occasion for, and where they might consult upon matters relating to their function, and to learning. Upon this, many lending libraries were founded in several parts of the kingdom, besides above a hundred and fifty parochial ones in Great Britain and the plantations, from ten to fifty pounds value, those in South Britain being afterwards secured to posterity, by an act of parliament passed for that purpose in 1708. Soon after, upon the repeated instances of the governor and some of the country, Mr. Bray was at the charge of taking the degree of doctor of divinity, which, though it might be of some use, as procuring a certain degree of respect, did then but ill comport with his circumstances. He took his degrees of bachelor of divinity, and doctor, together, by accumulation, not of Hart hall where he was entered, but of Magdalen college, Dec. 17, 1696. Soon after, the better to promote his main design of libraries, and to give the missionaries directions in prosecuting their theological studies, he published two books, one entitled, “Bibiiothee* Paroctnalis or, a Scheme of such Theological and other heads, as seem requisite to be perused, or occasionally consulted by the reverend Clergy, together with a catalogue of books, which may be profitably read on each of those points,” &c. The other, “Apostolic Charity, its nature and excellency considered, in a discourse upon Daniel xii. 3. preached at St. Paul’s, at the ordination of some Protestant Missionaries to be sent into the plantations. To which is prefixed, a general view of the English colonies in America, in order to show what provision is wanting for the propagation of Christianity in those parts, together with proposals for the promoting the same r to induce such of the clergy of this kingdom, as are persons of sobriety and abilities, to accept of a mission.” During this interval, viz. in the year 1697, a bill being brought into the house of commons to alienate lands given, to superstitious uses, and to vest them in Greenwich hospital, he preferred a petition to the house, that some share thereof might be appropriated for the propagation of religion in the Plantations, and that the same should be vested in a body politic, to be erected for that purpose; which petition was received very well in the house, and a fourth part of all that should be discovered, after one moiety to the discoverer, was readily and unanimously allotted by the committee for that use, it being thought by far more reasonable, to appropriate some part at least of what was given to superstitious uses, to uses truly pious, than altogether to other, though charitable purposes: but the bill was never suffered to be reported. In the year 1698, failing of a public and settled provision by law, for carrying on the service of the church in Maryland, and the other plantations, he addressed his majesty for a grant of some arrears of taxes due to the crown; and some time after, was obliged to be at the charge and trouble of going over to the king in Holland, to have the grant completed. The recovery of these arrears of taxes was represented as very feasible and very valuable, and also without any grievance *o the subject: but as they proved troublesome to be recovered, so they were scarcely of any value. All designs failing of getting a public fund for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, he thereupon formed a design, of which he then drew the plan, of having a Protestant confregation, pro jide propaganda, by charter from the king, ut this he was obliged to defer till a more favourable opportunity. However, to prepare the way for such a charlet-society, he soon after made it his endeavour, to find worthy persons ready to form a voluntary society, both to carry on the service already begun for the Plantations, and to propagate Christian knowledge as well at home as abroad, hoping afterwards to get such a society incorporated. This he laid before the bishop of London, in the year 1697, and a society was constituted on this plan; and though the design of having them incorporated by charter could not then be brought to bear, yet they still subsisted and acted as a voluntary society. But their number and benefactions at last increasing, a different constitution and more extensive powers appeared necessary for the success of the undertaking: application was therefore made, by Dr. Bray, to his then majesty king William, for his royal charter. The doctor’s petition to his majesty, with other papers relating to the corporation to be erected for the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts, was read May 5, 1701; and his majesty’s letters patent, under the great seal of England, for erecting a corporation, by the name of “The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts,” was laid before the society, and read the ninth of June following. He received no advantage all this time from his commissary’s place in Maryland; neither was any allowance made him at home, or preferment give him, to support the charge of living altogether in town, to solicit the establishment and endowment of the church of Maryland, and to provide missionaries for that and all the colonies on the Continent; which, excepting Virginia, lay upon him; all the benefactions that were received being to be laid out to raise them libraries, which also he did faster than money came in to answer the charge. This being observed by some of his friends, they endeavoured to persuade him to lay his design of going abroad aside, and take two good preferments that were then offered him at home, of as good or better value than what was proposed to him in Maryland, viz. that of sub-almoner, and the donative of Aldgate, in the city of London. But he declined all offers that were inconsistent with his going to Maryland, as soon as it should become proper for him to take that voyage. By the year 1699, having waited upwards of two years for the return of the act of religion from Maryland, with such amendments as would render it without exception at the court of England; and it being presumed by his superiors, that it would be requisite the doctor should now hasten over, as well to encourage the passing of that act in their assemblies, as to promote other matters for the service of religion there, it was signified to him from them that they would have him take the opportunity of the first ship; and indeed, the doctor having, by this time, tried all ways he could think of, and done all he was able to do here, to serve those parts, and according to proposal having provided Maryland, as also many other colonies, with a competent number of missionaries, and furnished them with good libraries, to be fixed in the places where they were sent, to remain there for ever, he was himself eager to follow, and did so accordingly, even, in the winter, though he had no allowance made him towards his charge of the voyage, and the service he was to do; but was forced to dispose of his own small effects, and raise money on credit to support him. With this poor encouragement, and thus, on his own provision, he took the voyage, December 16, 1699, and set sail from the Downs the twentieth of the same month; but was driven back into Plymouth-sound on Christmas-eve, and remained in harbour almost all the holydays, where his time was not unusefully spent, in the recovery of a tolerable library there out of dust and rubbish, which was also indebted to him for a benefaction of books and where he left a proposal for taking in subscriptions to make it a sea- port library, for the use of missionaries and sea-chaplains, as well as others. After an extremely tedious and dangerous passage, the doctor arrived at Maryland the twelfth of March, where he applied himself immediately to repair the breach made in the settlement of the parochial clergy; in order to which he consulted, in the first place, the governor, whom he found ready to concur in all proper methods for the re-establishment of their maintenance. Before the next assembly, which was to be in May following, he sent to all the clergy on the western shore, who only could come together in that season, to learn from them the disposition of the people, and to advise with them what was proper to be done, in order to dispose the members of the assembly to re-enact their law next meeting. Soon after he had dismissed their clergy, he made his parochial visitation, as far as it was possible for him at that season; in which, he met with very singular respect from persons of the best condition in the country, which the doctor turned to the advantage of that poor church. During the sessions of the assembly, and whilst the re-establishment of the church was depending, he preachod very proper and seasonable sermons, with a tendency to incline the country to the establishment of the church and clergy; all which were so well received, that he had the thanks of the assembly, by messages from the house. The doctor was providentially on such good term* with the assembly, that they ordered the attorney-general to advise with him in drawing up the bill; and that he himself might be the better advised in that case, he sent for the most experienced clergy within reach, to suggest to him, what they found would be of advantage to them and the church, to be inserted in, or left out of it; by which means the constitution of that church had much the advantage of any in America. It may not be amiss to observe in this place, that as well during the general court or assize, which preceded the assembly, and lasted thirteen days, as during the sessions of the assembly itself, he was under a necessity of entertaining the gentlemen of the province, who universally visited him; a charge, however, which he thought requisite as circumstances then were, that he might strengthen his interest in them, the better to promote the establishment of the clergy’s maintenance. The bill being prepared, passed with a nemiilt contradicente; but it was on all hands declared and confessed, that it was very providential that Dr. Bray came into the country at that juncture. Soon after the assembly was up, the commissary cited the whole clergy of the province to a general visitation at Annapolis, to be held May 22, 1700. At the close of this visitation, the clergy taking into consideration, that the opposition of the Quakers against the establishment of that church would in all probability continue, so as to get the law for its establishment so lately re-enacted, annulled again at home, they entered into debates, whether it would not be of consequence to the preservation and final settlement of that church, that the doctor should be requested to go home with the law, and to solicit the royal assent. It had been before voted, at the passing the bill in the house of burgesses, that he should be desired to request his grace of Canterbury, and the bishop of London, to favour that good law, by obtaining his majesty’s royal assent to it with all convenient speed; and the members who gave him an account of passing their vote, told him withal, that it was the general opinion of the house, that he could be most serviceable by waiting personally on their lordships, rather, than by letters, in which he conld not crowd all that might be necessary to be represented concerning the then state of the church, and the necessity, at that time, of their utmost patronage: and it was in debate, whether this should not be the desire of the assembly; but it was thought too unreasonable a request from them, who were sensible of the great danger and fatigue he had already been at in the service of that province, as they had a few days before acknowledged by a message of thanks from that house. Such were the sentiments of the members of the assembly, as to the necessity of his coming home to solicit the establishment of that church; and the clergy meeting at their visitation, some weeks after, represented to him, as the earnest desire of the more sensible persons throughout the country, as well as of the assembly-men, that he should go over with the law for England; being aware that its opponents would make the utmost efforts against the establishment of that church, by false representations at home of the numbers and riches of their party, and by insinuating, that to impose upon them an established maintenance for the clergy, would be prejudicial to the interest of the province, by obliging so many wealthy traders to remove from thence, the falsity of which, or any other suggestions, they thought him best able to make appear, by the information he had gained from this visitation, There were also many other advantages to the church in those parts, which they proposed by his coming home at that time, upon the consideration of all which he took his voyage soon after. He was no sooner arrived in England, but he found their apprehensions in Maryland'not ill grounded; but the objections raised against the plan, Dr. Bray refuted, by a printed memorial, representing truly the state of the church of Maryland, to the full satisfaction of all to whom it was communicated. The quakers’ opposition to the establishment now depending, was carried by united councils and contributions; but the doctor refuted their specious objections by unanswerable reasons, and placed the affair in such an advantageous light, that his majesty decided, without any appearance of hesitation, in the church’s favour, and gave the royal assent in these remarkable words: “Have the Quakers the benefit of a toleration? let the established church have an established maintenance.” This chargeable and laborious undertaking having swallowed up the doctor’s own small fortune, lord Weymouth generously presented him with a bill of 300l. for his own private use, a, large portion of which the doctor devoted to the advancement of his farther designs. Though he was vested with the character of commissary, yet no share of the revenue proposed was annexed to it; and his generosity even induced him to throw in two sums of fifty pounds each, that were presented to himself in Maryland, towards defraying the charges of their libraries and law. After the return of Dr. Bray from thence in 1701, he published his “Circular Letters to the Clergy of Maryland,” a memorial, representing the present state of religion on the continent of North America, and the acts of his visitation held at Annapolis; for which he had the thanks of the society above mentioned. Not only the bishop of London approved entirely of all these transactions, but also the archbishop of Canterbury declared, that he was well satisfied with the reasons of Dr. Bray’s return from the West Indies, and added, that his mission thither would be of the greatest consequence imaginable to the establishment of religion in those parts. In 1706, he had the donative of St. Botolph without Aldgate offered him again, which he then accepted of, worth about 150l. per annum. In the year 1712, the doctor printed his “Martyrology; or, Papal Usurpation,” in folio. That nothing might be wanting to enrich and adorn the work, he established a correspondence with learned foreigners of the first distinction, and called in the assistance of the most eminent hands. This work consists of some choice and learned treatises of celebrated authors, which were grown very scarce, ranged and digested into as regular an history as the nature of the subject would admit. He proposed to compile a second volume, and had, at no small expence and pains, furnished himself with materials for it; but he was afterwards obliged to lay the prosecution, of his design aside, and bequeathed by will his valuable collection of Martyrological Memoirs, both printed and manuscript, to Sion college. He was, indeed, so great a master of the history of popery, that few authors could be presumed able, with equal accuracy and learning, to trace the origin and growth of those exorbitant claims which are made by the see of Rome. He was happily formed by nature both for the active and for the retired life. Charity to the souls of other men, was wrought up to the highest pitch in his own: every reflection on the dark and forlorn condition of the Indians and negroes, excited in his bosoin the most generous emotions of pity and concern. His voyage to Holland, to solicit king William’s protection and encouragement to his good designs, and the proofs he gave of a public spirit and disinterested zeal, in such a series of generous undertakings, obtained him the esteem of M. d‘Allone of the Hague, a gentleman not more celebrated for his penetration and address in state affairs, than for a pious disposition of mind. An epistolary correspondence commenced very early between him and the doctor upon this subject; the result of which was, that M. d’Allone gave in his life-time a sum to be applied to the conversion of negroes, desiring the doctor to accept the management and disposal of it. But that a standing provision might be inade for this purpose, M. d'Allone bequeathed by will a certain sum, viz. 900 pounds, out of his English estate, to Dr. Bray and his associates, towards erecting a capital fund or stock, for converting the negroes in the British plantations. This was in the year 1723, much about which time Dr. Bray had an extremely dangerous fit of illness, so that his life and recovery were despaired of. In the year 1726, he was employed in composing and printing his “Directorium Missionarium,” his “Primordia Bibliothecaria,” and some other tracts of the like kind. About this time he also wrote a short account of Mr. Rawlet, the author of “The Christian Monitor;” and reprinted the Life of Mr. Gilpin. Some of these were calculated for the use of the mission; and in one he has endeavoured to shew, that civilizing the Indians must be the first step in any successful attempt for their conversion. In his “Primordia Bibliothecaria,” we have several schemes of parochial libraries, and a method laid down to proceed by a gradual progression, from a collection not much exceeding one pound in value, to one of a hundred. His attention to other good works occasioned no discontinuance of this design, the success of which was so much the object of his desires; and accordingly benefactions came in so fast, that he had business enough upon his hands to form the libraries, desired. As trie furnishing the parochial clergy with the means of instruction, would be an effectual method to promote Christian knowledge, so another expedient, manifestly subservient to the same end, would be, he thought, to imprint on the minds of those who are designed for the ministry, previously to their admission, a just sense of its various duties, and their great importance. With a view to this, he reprinted the “Ecclesiastes of Erasmus.” In the year 1727, an acquaintance of Dr. Bray’s made a casual visit to Whitechapel prison; and his representation of the miserable state of the prisoners had such an effect on the doctor, that he immediately applied himself to solicit benefactions in order to relieve them; and he had soon contributions sufficient to provide a quantity of bread, beef, and broth, on Sundays, and now and then on the intermediate days, for this prison and the Borough compter. To temporal, he always subjoined spiritual, provisions; and to enure them to the most distasteful part of their office, the intended missionaries were here employed in reading and preaching. On this occasion that scene of inhumanity was imperfectly discovered, which afterwards some worthy patriots of the house of commons took so much pains to inquire into and redress. Being now far advanced in years, and continually reminded of his approaching change, by the imbecility and decays of old age, he was desirous of enlarging the number of his associates, and adding such to them, ^in whose zeal and integrity he might repose an entire confidence. His inquiry into the state of the gaols, made him acquainted with Mr. (afterwards general) Oglethorpe, who accepted the trust himself, and engaged several others, some of the first rank and distinction, to act with him and the former associates. In short, most of the religious societies and good designs in London, owe grateful acknowledgment to his memory, and are, in a great measure, formed on the plans he projected; particularly the society for the reformation of manners, charity schools, and the society for the relief of poor proselytes, &c. The doctor having thus happily lodged his principal designs in the hands of able managers, departed this life February 15, 1730, in the seventy-third year of his age, leaving issue a son and daughter.

, a learned lawyer in the seventeenth century, was born at Little Wool ford, in Warwickshire, in 1573, being the son of Anchor Brent of that place, gent. In 1589, he became pordonist, or post-master, of Merton-college, in Oxford; and, on the 20th of June 1593, took the degree of bachelor of arts. The year following he was admitted probationer-fellow of the college. On the 3 1st of October 1598; he took the degree of master of arts and then entered upon law studies. In 1607, he was one of the proctors of the university. Some years after, in 1613, &c. he travelled into foreign parts, and became acquainted with several of the most learned men abroad. After his return, he married Martha daughter and heir of Dr. Robert Abbot, bishop of Salisbury, and niece to Dr. George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, which was the cause of his succeeding great preferments. About the year 1618, he was sent to Venice by archbishop Abbot, on purpose to get a copy of the History of the Council of Trent, then newly composed by the most renowned Padre Paolo Sarpi; in procuring of which he exposed himself to very great dangers. In 1621, he Was elected warden of Merton-college, through the archbishop’s recommendation; who also made him his vicar-general, commissary of the diocese of Canterbury, master of the faculties, and at length judge of the prerogative. On the llth of October, 1623, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor of law. The 23d of August, 1629, he received the honour of knighthood from king Charles I. at Woodstock, being then supposed well-affected to the church and hierarchy. But in the great disputes that arose between archbishop Abbot and bishop Laud, he entirely sided with the first, and his adherents, the puritan party; and grew so inveterate against Laud, that he was a frequent witness against him at his trial. He likewise deserted Oxford when king Charles I. garrisoned that place, and took the covenant: for which reason he was deprived of his wardenship of Merton-college, by his majesty’s command; but restored again when Oxford garrison was surrendered for the parliament’s use, in 1646. In 1647 and 1648, he was appointed chief visitor of that university, and countenanced all the violent and arbitrary proceedings there used, not sparing his own college. When an order was made against pluralities, he was forced to leave Mertoncollege, on the 27th of November, 1651; at which time he refused also the oath called the Engagement. Upon this, retiring to his house in Little Britain, in London, he died there November 6, 1652, aged 79; and was buried, the seventeenth of the same month, with great solemnity, in the church of St. Bartholomew the Less.

The only service to the public which sir N. Brent did, appears to have been in procuring the history of the council of Trent. As father Paul and father Fulgentio, the two joint authors, composed it, they privately gave a copy to Brent, who sent it over weekly to the archbishop Abbot in the original Italian; and it came to his hands under five or six covers to other persons, for the greater security. When Mr. Brent had sent it all over, he came back himself, and translated it out of Italian into English and Latin. The original Italian was printed first at London in 1619, and dedicated to king James I. by D. Antonio de Dominis, archbishop of Spalatro, who had been instrumental in procuring that history. The English translation was published in 1619, folio. A new edition was printed in 1640; and another in 1676, with other pieces of father Paul at the end. His other publication would have done him equal credit, had he adhered to his principles. He reviewed Mr. Francis Mason’s “Vindication of the Church of England, concerning the Consecration and Ordination of the Bishops, &c.” examined the quotations, compared them with the originals, and printed that book from the author’s manuscript, in 1625, fol. in Latin. It is a complete refutation of the old story of the Nag’s head ordination.

Upon his father’s decease, at the earnest solicitation of his mother, he left Islington with some reluctance in May, 1696, came to his house at Spring-grove, and took upon him the cure of Great- Chart where he soon became acquainted with the family of sir Nicholas Toke, and married his youngest daughter Bridget before the expiration of that year. In the following year he took the degree of LL. D. as a member of Queen’s, and soon after entered upon the cure of Wye, as lying more conveniently for him, but had no benefice of his own before April 12, 1703, when upon the death of his uncle, Thomas Boys, rector of Bettishanger, he was instituted to that rectory, on the presentation of Jeffery Boys, the eldest brother of Thomas. Archbishop Tenison made him an offer of the vicarage of Chistlet, of about 70l. per ann. soon after, and, as he acquainted him at the same time that he designed something better for him, indulged him in holding it by sequestration; and it was not long before he had an opportunity of making good his promise, by collating him to the rectory of Rucking, April 12, 1705.

At each of these institutions he took the oath of abjuration, and without scruple, until by frequent discourse on the subject of parties, with his near relation the lord chief baron Gilbert, who endeavoured to bring him over to the whigs, that he might have the better opportunity of recommending him to higher preferment, he unwittingly opened his eyes, as he terms it, and rivetted him the firmer in his former opinions; and, upon reading the trial of Dr. Sacheverel, published soon after, he began in earnest to believe he had taken oaths which he ought not to have taken, and resolved never to repeat them. In this dilemma, however, he had no scruple about the schism in the church, nor about continuing to pray for a prince in possession of the throne, until upon the accession of a new one, an act of parliament was made obliging all persons to take the oaths afresh. But this, in the present state of his conscience, he could not comply with, and wrote to his patron the archbishop, in April 1715, desiring he would give him leave to resign his livings, to which his grace answered very kindly, that he would advise him to consider farther of it, and not to do that rashly of which he might afterwards repent. Dr. Brett accordingly took his advice, and made no resignation, considering that his non-compliance with the act of parliament would' in a short time vacate them of course. He left off, however, to officiate in either of them, but still went to his own parish church as a lay communicant, until Mr. Campbell wrote to him, by order of bishop Hickes, (who had got some information of his resolution) pressing him earnestly to refrain entirely from all communion with the parish churches, urging the point of schism. On this he had recourse to ?.lr. Dodwell’s tracts on that subject, whose arguments not satisfying his mind, he resolved to surrender himself up to bishop Hickes, and upon a penitential confession, was received into his communion July 1, 1715, who from this time appears to have had a great influence over him.

He now usually officiated in his own house every Sunday, where a few of the same persuasion assembled with his family, until he was presented at the assizes the year following, for keeping a conventicle, but the act of indemnity soon after cleared him from this. To avoid, however, any prosecution of the like sort for the future, it was thought adviseable to vary the place of their meeting, and he went accordingly, sometimes to Canterbury, and sometimes to Feversham, where part of his congregation lived, without any interruption, until upon intruding into the duties of the parochial minister of Feversham, by visiting a sick person of his communion, this minister complained of him to the archbishop in 1718, who sent him word that if he heard any more such complaints, he should be obliged to lay them before the king and council. He continued to officiate on Sundays, as usual, and no farther notice was taken of it, until in 1729 he obtained leave of Mr. Simpson, the minister of Norton, to perform the burial office in his church. Lord Townsend hearing of this, and communicating it to the archbishop, he ordered his archdeacon to reprove the vicar for granting him permission. So that it appears from his own confession (for most of the foregoing particulars are extracted from the account he gives of/ himself in a letter to a friend) both the archbishops Tenison and Wake, shewed great wisdom and charity, candour and generosity, in their conduct towards him, although they could not influence him so far as to be even ^a lay-communicant with them; and that he lived under a mild government, having no other disturbance given him, than a reproof, upon a complaint.

, a learned divine of the seventeenth century, was born in the Isle of Jersey, in the reign of king James I. and probably educated in grammar-learning in that place. From thence he went and studied logic and philosophy in the Protestant university of Saumur, where he took the degree of master of arts, on September 12, 1634. Coming to Oxford, he was, October 12, 1638, incorporated M. A. as he stood at Saumur. About this time king Charles I. having through archbishop Laud’s persuasion founded three fellowships in the colleges of Pembroke, Exeter, and Jesus, for the islands of Jersey and Guernsey, alternately, Mr. Brevint was nominated the first fellow at Jesus-college upon this foundation, in 1638. Here he continued till he was ejected from his fellowship by the parliament- visitors, for refusing to take the solemn league and covenant, and withdrew to his native country, but upon the reduction of that place by the parliament’s forces, he fled into France, and became minister of a Protestant congregation in Normandy. Not long after, he had the honour of being made chaplain to the viscount de Turenne, afterwards marshal of France, whose lady was one of the most pious women of her time. Whilst he was in that station, he was one of the persons “employed about the great design then in hand, of reconciling the Protestant and Popish religions; which gave him an access into, and made him acquainted with every corner of that church,” as he says himself. At the restoration of king Charles II. he returned to England, and was presented by that prince (wjio had known him abroad) to the tenth prebend in the church of Durham, vacant by the promotion of Dr. J. Cosin to that see, and was installed March 15, 1660-61. By bishop Cosiu, who had been his fellow-sufferer, he was also collated to a living in the diocese of Durham. On the 27th of February, 1661-62, he took his degree of D. D. at Oxford. Having during his exile seen Popery in its native deformity, and observed all the mean and dishonest arts that are used to support it, he in 1672 published “Missale Romanum; or, the depth and mystery of the Roman Mass laid open and explained, for the use of both reformed and unreformed Christians,” and the next year, “The Christian Sacramenc and Sacrifice, by way of discourse, meditation, and prayer, upon the nature, parts, and blessings of the holy communipn,” reprinted on the recommendation of Dr. Waterland, in 1739. And in 1674, “Saul and Samuel at Endor, or the new waies of salvation and service, which usually tempt men to Rome, and detain them there, truly represented and refuted,” reprinted 1688. At the end of which is, “A brief account of R. F. his Missale Vindicaturo, or vindication of the Roman mass,” being an answer to “The depth and mystery of the Roman Mass,” above-mentioned. The learning and other eminent qualifications of the author having recommended him to the esteem of the world, and to the favour of his sovereign, he was promoted to the deanery of Lincoln, and was installed January 3, 1681-82, and had the prebend of WeltonPayns-hall annexed thereto, January 7th following. He died May 5, 1695, and was buried in the cathedral church of Lincoln, behind the high altar; where, on a gravestone, is an inscription to his memory. He was a person of extensive reading, especially in the controversy between the Protestants and Papists; zealous for the church of England; and for his life and learning, truly praise-worthy. Besides the above works, he published in Latin: 1. “Ecclesiae primitives Sacramentum & Sacrificium, a pontificiis corruptelis, & exinde natis controversiis liberum,” written at the desire of the princesses of Turenne and Bouillon. 2. “Eucharistiae Christianse prsesentia realis, & pontificia ficta, luculentissimis non testimoniis modo, sed etiam fundamentis, quibus fere tota S. S. Patrum Theologia nititur, hsec explosa, ilia suffulta & asserta.” 3. “Pro Serenissima Principe Weimariensi ad Theses Jenenses accurata Responsio.” 4. “Ducentue plus minus Praelectiones in Matthaei xxv capita, et aliorum Evangelistarum locos passim parallelos.” He also translated into Frenck “The judgment of the university of Oxford concerning the solemn League and Covenant.”

Upon the settlement of Gresham college, in London, he was chosen the first professor of geometry there, in 1596. Soon after this, he constructed a table, for finding the latitude, from the variation of the magnetic needle being given. In 1609 he contracted an acquaintance with the learned Mr. James Usher, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, which continued many years after by letters, two of Mr. Briggs’s being still extant in the collection of Usher’s letters that were published: in the former of these, dated August 1610, he writes among other things, that he was engaged in the subject of eclipses; and in the latter, dated the 10th of March 1615, that he was wholly taken up and employed about the noble invention of logarithms, which had come out the year before, and in the improvement of which he had afterwards so great a concern. For Briggs immediately set himself to the study and improvement of them; expounding them also to his auditors in his lecturesat Gresham college. In these lectures he proposed the alteration of the scale of logarithms, from the hyperbolic form which Napier had given them, to that in which 1 should be the logarithm of the ratio of 10 to 1; and soon after he wrote to Napier to make the same proposal to himself. In 1616 Briggs made a visit to Na.pier at Edinburgh, to confer with him upon this change; and the next year he did the same also. In these conferences, the alteration was agreed upon accordingly, and upon Briggs’ s return from his second visit, in 1617, he published the first chiliad, or 1000 of his logarithms.

10. “Two letters to archbishop Usher.” 11. “* Mathematica ab antiquis minus cognita.” This is a summary account of the most observable inventions of modern mathematicians, conrtnunicated by Mr. Briggs to Dr. George Hakewill, and published by him in his Apologie, London, folio. Besides these publications, Briggs wrote some other pieces that have not been printed: as, 1. “Commentaries on the Geometry of Peter Ramus.”. 2. “Duae Epistolae ad celeberrimum virutn Chr. Sever. Longomontanuiii.” One of these letters contained some remarks on a treatise of Longomontanus, about squaring the circle; ani the other a defence of arithmetical geometry, 3. “Animadversiones Geometricas, 4to. 4.” De eodem Argumento,“4to. These two were in the possession of the late Mr. Jones. They both contain a great variety of geometrical propositions, concerning the properties of many figures, with several arithmetical computations relating to the circle, angular sections, &c. Mr. Jones also had, 5.” A treatise of common arithmetic,“folio; and 6.” A letter to Mr. Clarke of Gravesend," dated Feb. 25, 1606, containing the description of a ruler, called Bedwell’s ruler.

, an eminent physician, was son of Augustine Briggs, esq. who was descended of an ancient family in Norfolk, and had been four times member of parliament for the city of Norwich, where this son was born about the year 1650, although his biographers differ very widely on this point. At thirteen years of age he was sent to Bene't-college in Cambridge, and placed under the care of Dr. Thomas Tenison, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, whom he succeeded in his fellowship. He took both his degrees in arts, and was chosen fellow of his college, Nov. 1668. His genius leading him to the study of physic, he travelled into France, where he attended the lectures of the famous anatomist Mons. Vieussens at Montpelier; and, after his return, published his “Ophthalmographia” in 1676. The year following he was created M. D. at Cambridge, and soon after made fellow of the college of physicians of London. In 1682 he quitted his fellowship to his brother; and the same year his “Theory of Vision” was published by Hooke. In 1683 he sent to the royal society a continuation of that discourse, which was published in their Transactions; and the same year was by Charles II. appointed physician to St. Thomas’s hospital. In 1684 he communicated to the royal society two remarkable cases relating to vision, which were likewise printed in their Transactions; and in 1685 published a Latin version of his “Theory of Vision,” at the desire of Mr. (afterwards sir) Isaac Newton, with a recommendatory epistle from him prefixed to it. And for completing this curious and useful subject relating to the eye, he promised, in the preface, two other treatises, one “De usu partium oculi;” and the other “De ejusdem affectibus;” neither of which', however, appears to have been ever published: but, in 1687, came out a second edition of his “Ophthalmographia.” He was afterwards made physician in ordinary to king William, and continued in great esteem for his skill in his profession till he died at Town-Malling in Kent, Sept. 4, 1704, and was there buried, although a cenotaph is erected to his memory in the church of Holt in Norfolk. He married Hannah, sole daughter and heiress of Edmund Hobart, grandson to sir Henry Hobart, lord chief justice of the common pleas in the reign of James I. by whom he left three children, Mary, Henry, and Hannah. Henry died in 1748, rector of Hoit.

, an English divine, attached to the principles of the puritans, was born at Nottingham in 1557, and was educated in Queen’s college, Cambridge, and long maintained a controversy on the discipline and ceremonies of the church, which seems to have led 'him to write his Commentaries in Latin on the Song of Solomon and the Revelations. This last was afterwards translated under the title of “The Revelation of St. John illustrated,” 1644, 4to. In this, when treating on chap. xiv. ver. 18, he discovers archbishop Cranmer to be the angel that had power over the fire; and in chap. xvi. ver. 5, he makes the lord treasurer Cecil the angel of the waters, justifying the pouring forth of the third vial. He accuses the church of England of being lukewarm, like the Laodiceans, and gives the preference to the foreign protestant communions. He prophesied also that the episcopal government would soon be overthrown, but he does not appear to have foreseen that it would also be restored. He was presented by sir John Osbourneto the rectory of Hannes in Bedfordshire, which he held until his death, Aug. 24, 1607. Fuller gives him a most exalted character for piety, learning, and sweetness of temper, in which he says all his opponents agreed. He informs us also, that it was his custom to read over the Greek testament regularly once a fortnight. In 1647 was published, “Brightman Redivivus, or the posthumian offspring of Thomas Brightman, in four Sermons,” 4to.

Brissot, at the period of his residence at Boulogne, had been introduced to mademoiselle Dupont, who was employed under mad. de Genlis as reader to the daughter of the duke of Orleans, and whose mother kept a lodginghouse in that place: and having married this lady, he found it necessary to exert his literary talents for gaining a subsistence. But as France did not afford that liberty, which he wished to indulge, he formed a design of printing, in Swisserland or Germany, a series of works in a kind of periodical publication, under the title of “An universal Correspondence on points interesting to the welfare of Man and of Society,” which he proposed to smuggle into France. With this view, he visited Geneva and Neuchatel, in order to establish correspondences; and he also made a journey to London, which was to be the central point of the establishment, and the fixed residence of the writers. His intentions, however, were divulged by the treachery of some of his confidential associates; and the scheme totally failed. During his abode in London, he concerted the plan of a periodical work or journal, on the literature, arts, and politics of England, which, being published in London, was allowed to be reprinted at Paris, and first appeared in 1784. The avowed object of this publication, as he himself declares, was “the universal emancipation of men.” In London, he was arrested for debt; but, being liberated by the generosity of a friend, he returned to Paris, where he was committed to the Bastille in July 1784, on the charge of being concerned in a very obnoxious publication. But by the interest of the duke of Orleans, he was released, on condition of never residing in England, and discontinuing his political correspondence. In 1785, he published two letters to the emperor Joseph II. “Concerning the Right of Emigration, and the Right of the People to revolt,” which he applied particularly to the case of the Waiachsans: and in the following year appeared his “Philosophical Letters on the History of England,” in 2 vols. and “A critical Examination of the Travels of the marq is de Chatelleux in North America.” With a view of promoting a close, political, and commercial union between France and the United States, he wrote in 1787, with the assistance of Claviere, a tract, entitled “De la France et des Etats Unis, &c.” “On France and the United States or on the Importance of the American Revolution to the kingdom of France, and the reciprocal advantages which will accrue from a commercial Intercourse between the two nations.” Of this work, an English translation was published, both in England and America. At this time he was in the service of the duke of Orleans, as secretary to his chancery, with a handsome salary, and apartments in the palais royal; and, without doubt, employed in aiding that monster in his schemes of ambition. In this situation, he wro:e a pamphlet against the administration of the archbishop of Sens, entitled “No Bankruptcy, &c.” which occasioned the issuing of a lettre de cachet against him. But to avoid its effect, he went to Holland, England, and the Low Countries; and at Mechlin, he edited a newspaper, called “Le Courier Beigique.” For the purpose of promoting the views of a society at Paris, denominated “Les Amis des Noirs,” and established for the purpose of abolishing negro slavery, he embarked for America in 1788; and, during his residence in that country, he sought for a convenient situation, in which a colony of Frenchmen might be organized into a republic, according to his ideas of political liberty. But his return was hastened in 1789 by the intelligence he received of the progress of the French revolution. After his arrival, he published his “Travels in America;” (Nouveau Voyage dans les Etats Unis, &. Paris, 1791, 3 vols. 8vo), and as he found the attention of the public directed to the approaching assembly of the states-general, he wrote his “Plan of Conduct for the Deputies of the People.” At this time, he had withdrawn from the partisans of the duke of Orleans; and he took an active part in the plans that were then projected for the organization of the people, with a view to their union and energy in accomplishing the revolution. To the lodgings of Brissot, as a person who was held in estimation at this period, the keys of the Bastille, when it was taken, were conveyed; he also became president of the Jacobin club; and he distinguished himself in various ways as a zealous promoter of those revolutionary principles, which afterwards gave occasion to a great jiumber of atrocious excesses. After the king’s flight to Varennes, Brissot openly supported the republican cause; but, as some form of monarchy was still the object of the national wish, he was obliged to restrain his impetuosity. The popularity acquired by his writings and conduct was such, as to induce the Parisians to return him as one of their members in the “Legislative national assembly,” which succeeded the “Constituent assembly,” in October 1791, of which assembly he was appointed secretary; and he became afterwards a member of the committee of public instruction. Although inferior to many others in talents and knowledge, his activity raised him to the rank of head or chief, in the party denominated “Girondists” or “La Gironde,” the name of the department to which several of its members belonged, and also from his own name “Brissotins.” In his career of ambition, he does not seem to have been influenced by pecuniary cc nsiderations; power, more than wealth, being the object of his aim; for, at this time, he and his family lodged in an apartment up four pair of stairs, and subsisted on his stipend as deputy, and the inconsiderable gains accruing from a newspaper. As a determined enemy to monarchy, he was unremitting in his efforts to engage the nation in a war, with the avowed purpose of involving the king and his ministers in difficulties which would terminate in their ruin, and this part of his political conduct must ever be lamented and execrated by the friends of freedom and of mankind. In the impeachment of M. Delessart, the minister for foreign affairs, Brissot took a principal lead; and alleged against him several articles of accusation, in consequence of which, he was apprehended, tried by the high national court at Orleans, and condemned to die, without being h'rst heard in his own defence, so that he became the first victim to that desperate faction, which afterwards deluged France with blood. His colleagues were so complex ly terrified by this event, that they requested leave to resign, and the ministry was at once completely dissolved. Their successors, appointed by the king, under the direction and inriuence of Brissot, were Dumourier, Roland, and Ciaviere. This appointment was followed bya declaration of war, decreed by the national assembly, against the king of Hungary and Bohemia; and Brissot, during the existence of this administration, which terminated soon, was considered as the most powerful person in France. About this time, Brissot began to entertain secret jealousy and suspicion of La Fayette, and concurred with other members of the assembly, in signing an accusation against him, which, however, he was not able to substantiate. He and his republican party were likewise industrious in their endeavours to throw an odium on the court, by alleging, that a private correspondence was carried on between the king and queen and the emperor; and they even averred, that an “Austrian Committee,” and a conspiracy in favour of the enemies of the country, existed among the friends of the court. The charge seemed to be unsupported by sufficient evidence; the king publicly contradicted these accusations as calumnies; nevertheless, they made no small impression on the minds of the public. To the writings and conduct of Brissot, the horrid massacres at the Tuiileries, on the 10th of August, 1792, have been principally ascribed; and it is a poor excuse that he is said to have preserved the lives of several of the Swiss guards on that fatal day. He was employed to draw up the declaration to the neutral powers concerning the suspension of the king’s authority; but he is said to have regarded with horror the sanguinary spirit that was now predominant among the leaders of the jacobins. Whilst, indeed, he was ascending to the pinnacle of power, he seems to have been the ardent advocate of insurrection and the revolutionary power: but as he found himself raised to that station, he began to inculcate “order and the constitution,” the usual cant of all demagogues who think they have attained their object. In the shocking massacre of the prisoners at Paris in September, he had probably no other concern, than the inwhich his irritating speeches and writings had created on the minds of the more active agents. When the “National convention,” the idea of which is said to have been suggested by him, assumed the direction of the state, and assembled on the 20th of September, 1792, he was returned as member for the department of Eure and Loire, his native country. In this assembly, he openly avowed himself an advocate for a republican government, in opposition both to the Jacobins and Orleanists; and was expelled the Jacobin club. On this occasion, he wrote a vindication of his public conduct, under the title of “An Address to all the Republicans.” He is said to have been so far shocked by the prospect of the fatal issue of the king’s trial, as to have attempted the preservation of his life, by deferring his execution till the constitution should be perfected; a proposition of which the absurdity and cruelty are nearly equal. The war with England, which soon followed the death of Louis, is ascribed to his ardour find credulity; for he was led to imagine, that the consequence of it would be a civil war in this country; and it is said, that this, as well as the war with Holland, was decreed in the national convention, Feb. 1, 1793, at his motion. This charge, however, he retorts on his accusers, and says, that the anarchists, by voting the death of the king, were themselves the authors of the war,

, son of the rev. W. Broad, of Rendcombe, in Gloucestershire, was born in 1577, and educated at St. Mary’s-hall, Oxford, which he entered in 1594, but soon after went to Aiban-hall, where he took his degrees in arts: In 1611, on the death of his father, he became rector of Rendcombe, where he was held in high esteem for piety and learning, and where he died, and was buried in the chancel of his church, in June, 1635. He wrote: 1. a “Touchstone for a Christian,” Lond. 1613, 12mo. 2. “The Christian’s Warfare,' ibid. 1613, 12mo. 3.” Three questions on the Lord’s Day, c.“Oxon. 1621, 4to. 4.” Tractatus de Sabbato, in quo doctrina ecclesise primitives declaratur ac defenditur," 1627, 4to, and two treatises on the same subject, left in manuscript, and published, with an answer, by George Abbot (not the archbishop), as mentioned in his life.

In 1588, he published a piece, entitled “The Consent of Scriptures.” This was a work in which he was employed several years; and which, therefore, he used to call his “little book of grest pains.” It is a kind of scripture chronology, and scripture genealogies, and appears to have been compiled with great labour. It was dedicated to queen Elizabeth, to whom it was presented by himself, on her inauguration day, Nov. 17, 1589 . He appears to have had some assistance in it from Speed, who overlooked the press, and compiled those genealogies which are prefixed to the old Bibles; but Broughton certainly directed and digested them. Speed is said to have owed many obligations to Broughton, and had a vast number of his manuscripts, which, for whatever reason, he burnt. But, to return to the “Consent of Scripture;” it excited much attention at its first publication, but was strongly opposed by Dr. Reynolds at Oxford. This gave great offc-nce to Mr. Broughton, who had a very earnest and absurd desire to have the dispute between him and Dr. Reynolds, concerning the scripture chronology, settled by public authority. He addressed on this subject queen Elizabeth, Dr. Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Aylmer, bishop of London. His work was opposed, not only at Oxford, but at Cambridge, where Mr. Lively, a professor, read publicly against it. He was, therefore, induced to read lectures in defence of his performance, which he did first in St. Paul’s, at the east end of the church, and afterwards in a large room in Cheapside, and in Mark-lane .

He continued several years in London, where he procured many friends. One of these was Mr. William Cotton, whose son Rowland, who was afterwards knighted, he instructed in the Hebrew tongue. In 1589 Mr. Broughton went over into Germany, accompanied by Mr. Alexander Top, a young gentleman who had put himself under his care, and travelled with him, that he might continually receive the benefit of his instructions. He was some time at Frankfort, where he had a long dispute in the Jewish synagogue, with rabbi Elias, on the truth of the Christian religion. He appears to have been very solicitous for the conversion of the Jews, and his taste for rabbinical and Hebrew studies naturally led him to take pleasure in the conversation of those learned Jews whom he occasionally met with. In the course of his travels, he had also disputes with the papists; but in hig contests both with them and with the Jews, he was not very attentive to the rules either of prudence or politeness. It appears, that in 1590 he was at Worms; but in what other places is not mentioned. In 1591 he returned again to England, and met at London with his antagonist Dr. Reynolds; and they referred the -decision of the controversy between them, occasioned by his “Consent of Scripture,” to Dr. Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Aylmer, bishop of London. Another piece which he published, entitled “An Explication of the article of Christ’s Descent to Hell,” was a source of much controversy, though his opinion on this subject is now generally received. Two of his opponents in this controversy were archbishop Whitgift and bishop Bilson. He addressed on this subject “An Oration to the Geneveans,” which was first published in Greek, at Mentz, by Albinus. In this piece he treats the celebrated Beza with much severity. In 1592 he was in Germany again, and published a piece called “The Sinai Sight,” which he dedicated to the earl of Essex, and had the odd whim of having it engraved on brass, at a considerable expence. About the year 1596, rabbi Abraham Reuben wrote an epistle from Constantinople to Mr. Broughton, which was directed to him in London; but he was then in Germany. He appears to have continued abroad till the death of queen Elizabeth; and during his residence in foreign countries, cultivated an acquaintance with Scaliger, Raphelengius, Junius, Pistorius, Serrarius, and other eminent and learned men. He was treated with particular favour by the archbishop of Mentz, to whom he dedicated his translation of the Prophets into Greek. He was also offered a cardinal’s hat, if he wo<;ld have embraced the Romish religion. But that offer he retused to accept, and returned again to England, soon after the accession of king James I. In 1603 he preached before prince Henry, at Oatlands, upon the Lord!s Prayer. In 1607 the new translation of the Bible was begun; and Mr. Broughton’s friends expressed much surprize that he was not employed in that work. It might probably be disgust on this account, which again occasioned him to go abroad; and during his stay there, he was for some time puncher to the English at Middleburgh. But finding his health decline, 'having a consumptive disorder, which he found to increase, he returned again to England in November, 1611. He lodged in London, during the winter, at a friend’s house in Cannon-street; but in the spring he was removed, for the benefit of the air, to the house of another friend, at Tottenham High-cross, where he died of a pulmonary consumption on the 4th of August, 1612, in the sixty-third year of his age. During his illness he made such occasional discourses and exhortations to his friends, as his strength would enable him; and he appears to have had many friends and admirers’ even to the last. His corpse was brought to London, attended by great numbers of people, many of whom had put themselves in mourning for him; and interred in St. Amholin’s church, where his funeral sermon was preached by the rev. James Speght, B. D. afterwards D. D. minister of the church in Milkstreet, London. Lightfoot mentions it as a report, that the bishops would not suffer this sermon to be published; but it was afterwards printed at the end of his works.

, viscount Brouncker, of Castle Lyons in Ireland, son of sir William Brouncker, afterwards made viscount in 1645, was born about 1620; and, having received an excellent education, discovered an early genius for mathematics, in which he afterwards became very eminent. He was created M. D. at Oxford, June 23, 1646. In 1657 and 1658, he was engaged in a correspondence on mathematical subjects with Dr. John Wallis, who published the letters in his “Commercium. Epistoiicum,” Oxford, 1658, 4to. He, with others of the nobility and gentry who had adhered to king Charles I. in and about London, signed the remarkable declaration published in April 1660. After the restoration, he was made chancellor to the queen consort, and a commissioner of the navy. He was one of those great men who first formed the royal society, and, by the charter of July 15, 1662, and that of April 22, 1663, was appointed the first president of it: which office he held with great advantage to the society, and honour to himself, till the anniversary election, Nov. 30, 1677. Besides the offices mentioned already, he was master of St. Ratherine’s near the Tower of London; his right to which post, after a long contest between him and sir Robert &tkyns, one of the judges, was determined in his favour, Nov. 1681. He died at his house in St. James’s street, Westminster, April 5, 1684; and was succeeded in his honours by his younger brother Harry, who died Jan. 1687. Of his works, notwithstanding his activity in promoting literature and science, there are few extant. These are: “Experiments on the recoiling of Guns,” published in Dr. Sprat’s History of the Royal Society; “An algebraical paper upon the squaring of the Hyperbola,” published in the Philosophical Transactions. (See Lowthorp’s Abr. vol. I. p. 10, &c.); “Several Letters to Dr. James Usher, archbishop of Armagh,” annexed to that primate’s life by Dr. Parr; and “A translation of the Treatise of Des Cartes, entitled Musicae Compendium,” published without his name, but enriched with a variety of observations, which shew that he was deeply skilled in the theory of the science of music. Although he agrees with his author almost throughout the book, he asserts that the geometrical is to be preferred to the arithmetical division; and with a view, as it is presumed, to the farther improvement of the “Systema Participato,” he proposes a division of the diapason by sixteen mean proportionals into seventeen equal semitones; the method of which division is exhibited by him in an algebraic process, and also in logarithms. The “Systema Participato,” which is mentioned by Bontempi, consisted in the division of the diapason, or octave, into twelve equal semitones, by eleven mean proportionals. Descartes, we are informed, rejected this division for reasons which are far from being satisfactory. Mr. Park, in his edition of lord Orford’s “Royal and Noble Authors,” to which we are frequently indebted, points out an original commission, among the Sloanian Mss. from Charles II. dated Whitehall, Dec. 15, 1674, appointing lord Brouncker and others to inquire into, and to report their opinions of a method of finding the longitude, devised by Sieur de St. Pierre.

, an English divine of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, from whom the sect of the Brownists derived its name, was descended of an ancient and worshipful family, says Fuller, (one whereof founded a fair hospital in Stamford), and was nearly allied to the lord-treasurer Cecil. He was the son of Anthony Brown, of Tol thorp, in Rutlandshire, esq. (though born at Northampton, according to Mr. Collier), and grandson of Francis Brown, whom king Henry VIII. in the eighteenth year of his reign, privileged by charter to wear Jiis cap in the presence of himself, his heirs, or any of his nobles, and not to uncover but at his own pleasure; which charter was confirmed by act of parliament. Robert Brown studied divinity at Cambridge, in Corpus Christi college, and was afterwards a schoolmaster in Southwark. He was soon discovered by Dr. Still, master of Trinity-college, to have somewhat extraordinary in him that would prove a great disturbance to the church. Brown soon verified what the doctor foretold, for he not only jm^ bibed Cartwright’s opinions, but resolved to refine upon his scheme, and to produce something more perfect of his own. Accordingly, about the year 1580, he began to inveigh openly against the discipline and ceremonies of the church of England, and soon shewed that he intended to go much farther than Cartwright had ever done. In his discourses the church government was antichristian; her sacraments clogged with superstition; the liturgy had a mixture of Popery and Paganism in it; and the mission of the clergy was no better than that of Baal’s priests in the Old Testament. He first preached at Norwich, in 1581, where the Dutch having a numerous congregation, many of them inclined to Ahabaptism; and, therefore, being the more disposed to entertain any new resembling opinion, he made his first essay upon them; and having made some progress, and raised a character for zeal and sanctity, he then began to infect his own countrymen; for which purpose he called in the assistance of one Richard Harrison, a country schoolmaster, and they formed churches out of both nations, but mostly of the English. He instructed his audience that the church of England was no true church; that there was little of Christ’s institution in the public ministrations, and that all good Christians were obliged to separate from those impure assemblies; that their only way was to join him and his disciples, among whom all was pure and unexceptionable, evidently inspired by the Spirit of God, and refined from all alloy and prophanation. These discourses prevailed on the audience; and his disciples, now called Brownists, formed a society, and made a total defection from the church, refusing to join any congregation in any public office of worship. Brown being convened before Dr. Freake, bishop of Norwich, and other ecclesiastical commissioners, he maintained his schism, to justify which he had also written a book, and behaved rudely to the court, on which he was committed to the custody of the sheriff of Norwich; but his relation, the lord treasurer Burghley, imputing his error and obstinacy to zeal, rather than malice, interceded to have him charitably persuaded out of his opinions, and released. To this end he wrote a letter to the bishop of Norwich, which procured his enlargement. After this, hisjordship ordered Brown up to London, and recommended him to archbishop Whitgift for his instruction and counsel, in order to his amendment; but Brown left the kingdom, and settled at Middleburgh in Zealand, where he and his followers obtained leave of the states to form a church according to their own model, which was drawn in a book published by Brown at Middleburgh in 1582, and called “A treatise of Reformation, without staying for any man.” How long he remained at Middleburgh, is not precisely known; but he was in England in 1585, when he was cited to appear before archbishop Whitgift, to answer to certain matters contained in a book published by him, but what this was, we are not informed. The archbishop, however, by force of reasoning, brought Brown at last to a tolerable compliance with the church of England; and having dismissed him, the lord treasurer Burgh.­Jey sent him to his father in the country, with a letter to recommend him to his favour and countenance, but from another letter of the lord treasurer’s, we learn that Brown’s errors had sunk so deep as not to be so easily rooted out as was imagined; and that he soon relapsed into his former opinions, and shewed himself so incorrigible, that his good old father resolved to own him for his son no longer than his son owned the church of England for his mother; and Brown chusing rather to part with his aged sire than his new schism, he was discharged the family. When gentleness was found ineffectual, severity was next practised; and Brown, after wandering up and down, and enduring great hardships, at length went to live at Northampton, where, industriously labouring to promote his sect, Lindsell, bishop of Peterborough, sent him a citation to come before him, which Brown refused to obey; for which contempt he was excommunicated. This proved the means of his reformation; for he was so deeply affected with the solemnity of this censure, that he made his submission, moved for absolution, and received it; and from that time continued in the communion of the church, though it was not in his power to close the chasrn^ or heal the wound he had made in it. It was towards the year 1590 that Brown renounced his principles of separation, antl was soon after preferred to the rectory of Achurch, near Thrapston in Northamptonshire. Fuller does not believe that Brown ever formally recanted his opinions, either by word or writing, as to the main points of his doctrine; but that his promise of a general compliance with the church of England, improved by the countenance of his patron and kinsman, the earl of Exeter, prevailed upon the archbishop, and procured this extraordinary favour for him. He adds, that Brown allowed a salary for one to discharge his cure; and though he opposed his parishioners in judgment, yet agreed in taking their tithes. He was a man of good parts and some learning, but was imperious and uncontroulable; and so far from the Sabbatarian strictness afterwards espoused by some of his followers, that he led an idle and dissolute life. In a word, says Fuller, he had a wife with whom he never lived, and a church in which he never preached, though he received the profits thereof: and as all the other scenes of his life were stonny and turbulent, so was his end: for the constable of his parish requiring, somewhat roughly, the payment of certain rates, his passion moved him to blows, of which the constable complaining to justice St. John, he rather inclined to pity than punish him but Brown behaved with so much insolence, that he was sent to Northampton gaol on a feather-bed in a cart, being very infirm, and aged above eighty years, where he soon after sickened and died, anno 1630, after boasting, “That he had been committed to thirty-two prisons, in some of which he could not see his hand at noon-day.” He was buried in his church of Achurch in Northamptonshire.

, the first bishop that embraced and promoted the Reformation in Ireland, was originally an Austin friar of London. He received his academical education in the house of his order, near Halywell, in Oxford, and becoming eminent for his learning and other good qualities, was made provincial of the Austin monks in England. In 1523 he supplicated the university for the degree of B. D. but it does not appear that he was then admitted. He took afterwards the degree of D. D. in some university beyond sea, and was incorporated in the same degree at Oxford, in 1534, and soon after at Cambridge. Before that time, having read some of Luther’s writings, he took a liking to his doctrine; and, among other things, was wont to inculcate into the people, “That they should make their applications solely to Christ, and not to the Virgin Mary, or the saints.” King Henry VIII. being informed of this, took him into his favour, and promoted him to the archbishopric of Dublin, to which he was consecrated March 19, 1534-5, by Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the bishops of Rochester and Salisbury. A few months after his arrival in Ireland, the lord privy-seal, Cromwell, signified to him that his majesty having renounced the Papal supremacy in England, it was his highness’ s pleasure that his subjects of Ireland should obey his commands in that respect as in England, and nominated him one of the commissioners for the execution thereof. On November 28, 1535, he acquainted the lord Cromwell with his success; telling him that he had “endeavoured, almost to the danger and hazard of his life, to procure the nobility and gentry of the Irish nation to due obedience, in owning the king their supreme head, as-well spiritual as temporal.” In the parliament which met at Dublin, May l, 1536, he was very instrumental in having the Act for the king’s supremacy over the church of Ireland passed; but he met with many obstacles in the execution of it; and the court of Rome used every effort to prevent any alterations in Ireland with regard to religious matters; for this purpose the pope sent over a bull of excommunication against all such as had ownedj or should own, the king’s supremacy within that kingdom, and the form of an oath of obedience to be taken to his holiness, at confessions. Endeavours were even used to raise a rebellion there; for one Thady é Birne, a Franciscan friar, being seized by archbishop Browne’s order, letters were found about him, from the pope and cardinals to O'Neal; in which, after commending his own and his father’s faithfulness to the church of Rome, he was exhorted “for the glory of the mother church, the honour of St. Peter, and his own security, to suppress heresie, and his holiness’s enemies.” And the council of cardinals thought fit to encourage his country, as a sacred island, being certain while mother church had a son of worth as himself, and those that should succour him and join therein, she would never fall, but have more or less a holding in Britain in spite of fate. In pursuance of this letter, O'Neal began to declare himself the champion of Popery; and having entered into a confederacy with others, they jointly invaded the Pale, and committed several ravages, but were soon after quelled. About the time that king Henry VIII. began to suppress the monasteries in England and Ireland, archbishop Browne completed his design of removing all superstitious reliques and images out of the two cathedrals of St. Patrick’s and the Holy Trinity, in Dublin, and out of the rest of the churches within his diocese, and in their room placed the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments in gold letters. And in 1541, the king having converted the priory of the Holy Trinity into a cathedral church, consisting of a dean and chapter, our archbishop founded three prebends in the same in 1544, namely, St. Michael’s, St. John’s, and St. Michan’s, from which time it has generally been known by the name of Christ-church. King Edward VI. having caused the Liturgy to be published in English, sent an order to sir Anthony St. Leger, governor of Ireland, dated February 6, 1550-1, to notify to all the clergy of that kingdom, that they should use this book in all their churches, and the Bible in the vulgar tongue. When sir Anthony imparted this order to the clergy (on the 1st of March), it was vehemently opposed by the Popish party, especially by George Dowdall, primate of Armagh, but archbishop Browne received it with the utmost satisfaction; and on Easter-day following the Liturgy was read, for the first time within Ireland, in Christ -church, Dublin, in presence of the mayor and bailiffs of that city, the lord deputy St. Leger, archbishop Browne, &c. On this occasion the archbishop preached a sermon against keeping the Scriptures in the Latin tongue, and the worship of images, which is printed at the end of his life, and is the only part of his writings extant, except the letters mentioned above . But Dowdall, in consequence of his violent and unseasonable opposition to the king’s order, was deprived of the title of primate of all Ireland, which, by letters patent bearing date the 20th of October, 1551, was conferred on archbishop Browne, and his successors in the see of Dublin for ever. However, he did not long enjoy this dignity, for he was deprived both of it and his archbishopric in 1*554, the first of queen Mary I. under pretence that he was married, but in truth because he had zealously promoted the Reformation; and archbishop Dowdall, who had lived in exile during part of the reign of king Edward VI. recovered the title of primate, and also the archbishopric of Armagh, which had been given to Hugh Goodacre. While archbishop Browne enjoyed the see of Dublin, the cathedral of St. Patrick’s was suppressed for about the space of eight years; but queen Mary restored it to its ancient dignity, towards the end of the year 1554. The exact time of archbishop Browne’s death is not recorded; only we are told that he died about the year 1556. He was a man, says Usher, of a cheerful countenance; meek and peaceable: in his acts and deeds plain and downright; of good parts, and very stirring in what he judged to be for the interest of religion, or the service of his king; merciful and compassionate to the poor and miserable; and adorned with every good and valuable qualification.

In 1754 Mr. Browne published what may be called his. great work, his Latin poem “I}e Aiumi Immortalitate^ in two books, the reception of which was such as its merit deserved. It immediately excited the applause of the most polite scholars, and has been praised by some of the most eminent and ingenious men of the age, by archbishop Herring, Dr. E. Barnard, R. O. Cambridge, Mr. Upton, bishop Hoadly, bishop Green, Mr. Harris, Dr. Beattie, &c. &c. Its popularity was so great, that several English translations of it appeared in a little time. The first was by Mr. Hay, author of an” Essay on Deformity,“and other pieces; and the second in blank verse, by Dr. Richard Grey, a learned clergyman, well known by his” Memoria Technica,“and his publications in scripture criticism. A third translation was published without a name, but with a laboured preface, containing some quotations from sir John Davies’s” Nosce Teipsum,“which were supposed to be analogous to certain passages in Mr. Browne. All these versions made their appearance in the course of a few months; and there was afterwards printed, by an unknown hand, a translation of the first book. Some years after Mr. Browne’s death, the” De Animi Immortalitate“was again translated by the rev. Mr. Crawley, a clergyman in Huntingdonshire, and more recently Dr. John Lettice published a translation in blank verse, with a commentary and annotations, 1795, 8vo. A close and literal version, of it in prose was inserted by Mr. Highmore the painter in his publication which appeared in 1766, entitled” Essays moral, religious, and miscellaneous," But the best translation is that by Soame Jenyns, esq. printed in his Miscellanies, and since published in Mr. Browne’s poems. These testimonies and attentions paid to our ingenious author’s principal production, are striking evidences of the high sense which was justly entertained of its merit. Not to mention the usefulness and importance of the subject, every man of taste must feel that the poem is admirable for its perspicuity, precision, and order; and that it unites the philosophical learning and elegance of Cicero, with the numbers, and much of the poetry, of Lucretius and Virgil. Mr. Browne intended to have added a third book. In these three books he proposed to carry natural religion as far as it would go, and in so doing, to lay the true foundation of Christianity, of which he was a firm believer. But he went no farther than to leave a fragment of the third book, enough to make us lament that he did not complete the whole.

, a clergyman of the church of England in the seventeenth century, was born in the county of Middlesex in 1604, was elected student of Christ church in 1620, and took the degrees in arts, that of master being completed in 1627. In 1636, he served the office of proctor, and the year after was made domestic chaplain to archbishop Laud, and bachelor of divinity. Soon after he became rector of St. Mary, Aldermary, London, canon of Windsor in 1639, and rector of Oddington in Oxfordshire. On the breaking out of the rebellion, he was ejected from his church in London by the ruling party, and retired to his majesty, to whom he was chaplain, at Oxford, and in 1642 was created D. D. having then only the profits of Oddington to maintain him. He appears afterwards to have been stripped even of this, and went to the continent, where he was for some time chaplain to Mary, princess of Orange. After the restoration, he was admitted again to his former preferments, but does not appear to have had any other reward for his losses and sufferings. He died at Windsor Dec. 6, 1673, and was buried on the outside of St. George’s chapel, where Dr. Isaac Vossius, his executor, erected a monument to his memory, with an inscription celebrating his learning, eloquence, critical talents, and knowledge of antiquities. Besides a sermon preached before the university in 1633, he published, “A Key to the King’s Cabinet; or animadversions upon the three printed speeches of Mr. L'isle, Mr. Tate, and Mr. Browne, members of the house of commons, spoken at a common hall in London, July 1645, detecting the malice and falsehood of their blasphemous observations upon the king and queen’s letters,” Oxford, 1645, 4to. His next publication was a treatise in defence of Grotius against an epistle of Salmasius, “De posthumo Grotii;” this he printed at the Hague, 1646, 8vo, under the name of Simplicius Virinus, and it was not known to be his until after his death, when the discovery was made by Vossius. He wrote also, “Dissertatio de Therapeutis Philonis adversus Henricum Valesium,” Loud. 1687, 8vo, at the end of Colomesius’ edition of St. Clement’s epistles; and he translated part of Camden’s annals of queen Elizabeth, under the title, “Tomus alter et idem; or the History of the life and reign of that famous princess Elizabeth, &c.” London, 1629, -4to. In the Republic of Letters, vol. VI. 1730, we find published for the first time, a “Concio ad Clerum,” delivered for his divinity bachelor’s degree in 1637; the subject, “the revenues of the clergy,” which even at that period were threatened.

The reputation of Browne encouraged some low writer to publish, under his name, a book called “Nature’s cabinet unlocked,” translated, according to Wood, from the physics of Magirus, but Browne advertised against it. In 1658, the discovery of some ancient urns in Norfolk gave him occasion to write “Hydriotaphia, Urn -burial, or a discourse of Sepulchral Urns,” 8vo, in which he treats with his usual learning, on the funeral rites of the ancient nations; exhibits their various treatment of the dead; and examines the substances found in these Norfolk urns. There is, perhaps, none -of his works which better exemplifies his reading or memory. To this treatise was added “The Garden of Cyrus, or the Quincunxial lozenge, or net-work plantation of the ancients, artificially, naturally, mystically considered.” This is a more fanciful performance than the other, but still it exhibits the fancy of a man of learning. Besides these, he left some papers prepared for the press, of which two collections have been published, the first by Dr. Thomas Tennison, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, in 1684, 8vo, entitled, “A Collection of Miscellaneous Tracts,” and these, with what had been published in his life-time, were printed in one vol. fol. in 1686. In 1690 his son, Dr. Edward Browne, of whom we have already spoken, published a single tract, entitled “A Letter to a friend upon occasion of the death of his intimate friend,” 8vo. The second collection was of the “Posthumous Works,” edited in 1722 by Owen Brigstock, esq. his grandson by marriage.

, bishop of Exeter, was born at Ipswich in Suffolk, in 1592. His father, who was a merchant of that place, dying when he was but a few weeks old, his mother took due care of his education, in which he made a very considerable progress. At the age of fourteen, he was sent to Pembroke-hall in Cambridge, of which he successively became scholar and fellow; and there he distinguished himself by his facetious and inoffensive wit, his eloquence, and his great skill and knowledge in philosophy, history, poetry, &c. He took his master’s degree in 1617, B. D. in 1621, and D. D. in 1626. He was appointed prevaricator when James I. visited the university, and discharged that employment to the universal aUmiration of the whole audience. His first preferments were, the rectory of Barley in Hertfordshire, and a prebend of Ely in 1621, to both which he was collated by Dr. Nicholas Felton, bishop of Ely. July 15, 1628, he was incorporated doctor of divinity at Oxford. On the 2 1st of September, 16-29, he was collated to the prebend of Tachbrook, in the cathedral church of Lichfield, which he quitted September 19, 1631, when he was admitted to the archdeaconry of Coventry. He was likewise master of Catherine-hall in Cambridge, and proved a great benefit and ornament both to that college and the whole university. In 1637, 1638, 1643, and 1644, he executed the office of vice-chancellor, to the universal satisfaction of all people, and to his own great credit. In 1641, he was presented to the eleventh stall or prebend in the church of Durham, by Dr. Thomas Morton, bishop of that diocese, to whom he was chaplain. Upon the translation of Dr. Joseph Hall to the bishopric of Norwich, Dr. Brown rig was nominated to succeed him in the see of Exeter, in 1641. Accordingly he was elected March 3 1, 1642; confirmed May 14; consecrated the day following; and installed the 1st of June. But the troubles that soon after followed, did not permit him long to enjoy that dignity. Before the beginning of them, he was much esteemed, and highly commended, by his relation John Pym, and others of the presbyterian stamp: but they forsook him, only because he was a bishop; and suffered him to be deprived of his revenues, so that he was almost reduced to want. Nay, once he was assaulted, and like to have been stoned by the rabble, his episcopal character being his only crime. About 1645, he was deprived of his mastership of Catherine-hall> on account of a sermon preached by him before the university, on the king’s inauguration, at some passages of which, offence was taken by the parliament party; and neither his piety, gravity, or learning, were sufficient to preserve him in his station. Being thus robbed of all, he retired to the house of Thomas Rich, of Sunning, esq. in Berkshire, by whom he was generously entertained: and there, and sometimes at London, at Highgate, and St. Edmundsbury, spent several years. During this time, he had the courage to advise Oliver Cromwell to restore king Charles II. to his just rights, but yet he suffered in his reputation, as not being zealous enough for the church. About a year before his decease, he was invited to be a preacher at the Temple, in London, with a handsome allowance; and accordingly he went and settled there, in good lodgings furnished for him. But his old distemper, the stone, coming upon him with greater violence than usual, and being attended with the dropsy and the infirmities of age, they all together put an end to his life, on the 7th of December, 1659: he was buried the 17th following in the Temple church, where there is an epitaph over him. He was once married, but never had a child. Though he was very elaborate and exact in his compositions, and completely wrote his sermons, yet he could not be persuaded to print any thing in his life-time. Bishop Brownrig, as to his person, was tall and comely. The majesty of his presence was so allayed with meekness, candour, and humility, that no man was farther from any thing morose or supercilious. He had a great deal of wit, as well as wisdom; and was an excellent scholar, an admirable orator, an acute disputant, a pathetic preacher, and a prudent governor, full of judgment, courage, constancy, and impartiality. He was, likewise, a person of that soundness of judgment, of that conspicuity for an unspotted life, and of that unsuspected integrity, that he was a complete pattern to all. Dr. Gauden, who had known him above thirty years, declares that he never heard of any thinor said or done by him, which a wise and good man would have wished unsaid or undone. Some other parts of Dr. Gauden’s character of him may be supposed to proceed from the, warmth of friendship. Echard says of him, that “he was a great man for the Anti-Arminian cause (for he was a rigid Calvinist), yet a mighty champion for the liturgy and ordination by bishops: and his death was highly lamented by men of all parties.' 7 Baxter, Neal, and other writers of the nonconformist party, are no less warm in his praises. He was one of those excellent men with whom archbishop Tillotson cultivated an acquaintance at his first coming to London, and by whose preaching and example he formed himself. After his death some of his sermons were published, under the title” Forty Sermons, &c." 1662, fol. and reprinted with the addition of twenty-five, making a second volume, 1674, fol. His style is rather better than that of many of his contemporaries.

, founder of the Carthusian monks, was descended from an ancient and honourable family, and born at Cologn about the year 1030. He was educated first among the clergy of St. Cunibert’s church at Cologn, and afterwards at Rheims, where he attracted so much notice by his learning and piety, that on a vacancy occurring, he was promoted to the office or rank of Scholasticus, to which dignity then belonged the direction of the studies, and all the great schools of the diocese. In this office, which he filled with great reputation, he continued until 1077, when the scandalous conduct of Manasses, archbishop of Rheims, who, by open simony had got possession of that church, induced him to join with some others in accusing Manasses in a council held by the pope’s legate at Autun. Manasses accordingly was deposed, and the church of Rheims was about to choose Bruno for his successor in the archbishopric, when he resigned his office, and persuaded some of his friends to accompany him into solitude. After searching for some time to discover a proper place, they arrived at Grenoble in 1084, and requested the bishop to allot them some place where they might serve God, remote from worldly affairs. The bishop having assigned them the desert of Chartreuse, and promised them his assistance, Bruno and his companions, six in number, built an oratory there, and small cells at a little distance one from the other like the ancient Lauras of Palestine, in which they passed the six days of the week, but assembled together on Sundays. Their austerities were rigid, generally following those of St. Benedict; and, among other rules, perpetual silence was enjoined, and all their original observances, it is said, were longer preserved unchanged than those of any other order. Before the late revolution in France, they had 172 convents divided into sixteen provinces, of which five only are said to have been nunneries, all situated in the catholic Netherlands, and where the injunction of silence was dispensed with. There were nine monasteries of this order in England at the dissolution under Henry VIII.

, an eminent German reformer, was born in 1491, at Schelestadt, a town of Alsace. At the age of seven he took the religious habit in the order of St. Dominic, and with the leave of the prior of his convent, went to -Heidelberg to learn logic and philosophy. Having applied himself afterwards to divinity, he made it his endeavour to acquire a thorough knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew. About this time some of Erasmus’s pieces came abroad, which he read with great avidity, and meeting afterwards with certain tracts of Luther, and comparing the doctrine there delivered with the sacred scriptures, he began to entertain doubts concerning several things in the popish religion. His uncommon learning and his eloquence, which was assisted by a strong and musical voice, and his free censure of the vices of the times, recommended him to Frederick elector palatine, who made him one of his chaplains. After some conferences with Luther, at Heidelberg, in 1521, he adopted most of his religious notions, particularly those with regard to justification. However, in 1532, he gave the preference to the sentiments of Zuinglius, but used his utmost endeavours to re-unite the two parties, who both opposed the Romish religion. He is looked upon as one of the first authors of the reformation at Strasburg, where he taught divinity for twenty years, and was one of the ministers of the town. He assisted at many conferences concerning religion; and in 1548, was sent for to Augsburg to sign that agreement betwixt the Protestants and Papists, which was called the Interim. His warm opposition to this project exposed him to many difficulties and harships; the news of which reaching England, where his fame had already arrived, Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, g av e him an invitation to come over, which he readily accepted. In 1549 an handsome apartment was assigned him in the university of Cambridge, and a salary to teach theology. King Edward VI. had the greatest regard for him; being told that he was very sensible of the cold of this climate, and suffered much for want of a German stove, he sent him an hundred crowns to purchase one. He died of a complication of disorders, in 1551, and was buried at Cambridge, in St. Mary’s church, with great funeral pomp. Five years after, in the reign of queen Mary, his body was dug up and publicly burnt, and his tomb demolished; but it was afterwards set up again by order of queen Elizabeth. He married a nun, by whom he had thirteen children. This woman dying of the plague, he married another, and, according to some, upon her death, he took a third wife. His character is thus given by Burnet: “Martin Bucer was a very learned, judicious, pious, and moderate person. Perhaps he was inferior to none of all the reformers for learning; but for zeal, for true piety, and a most tender care of preserving unity among the foreign churches, Melancthon and he, without any injury done to the rest, may be ranked apart by themselves. He was much opposed by the Popish party at Cambridge; who, though they complied with the law, and so kept their places, yet, either in the way of argument, as if it had been for dispute’s sake, or in such points as were not determined, set themselves much to lessen his esteem. Nor was he furnished naturally with that quickness that is necessary for a disputant, from which they studied to draw advantages; and therefore Peter Martyr wrote to him to avoid all public disputes.” His writings were in Latin and in German? and so numerous, that it is computed they would form eight or nine folio volumes. His anxiety to reconcile the Lutherans and Zuinglians led him to use many general and perhaps ambiguous expressions in his writings. He seems to have thought Luther’s notion of the sacrament too strong, and that of Zuinglius too weak. Verheiclen in Latin, and Lupton in English, have given a list of his works, but without size or dates.

, a Scottish historian, and Latin poet, of great eminence, and uncommon abilities and learning, was descended from an ancient family, and was born at Killairn, in the shire of Lenox, in Scotland, in the month of February 1506. His father died of the stone in the prime of life, whilst his grandfather was yet living; by whose extravagance the family, which before was but in low circumstances, was now nearly reduced to the extremity of want. He had, however, the happiness of a very prudent mother, Agnes, the daughter of James Heriot of Trabrown, who, though she, was left a widow with five sons and three daughters, brought them all up in a decent manner, by judicious management. She had a brother, Mr. James Heriot, who, observing the marks of genius which young George Buchanan discovered when at school, sent him to Paris in 1520 for his education. There he closely applied himself to his studies, and particularly cultivated his poetical talents but before he had been there quite two years, the death of his uncle, and his own ill state of health, and want of money, obliged him to return home. Having arrived in his native country, he spent almost a year in endeavouring to re-escablish his health; and in 1523, in order to acquire some knowledge of military affairs, he made a campaign with the French auxiliaries, who came over into Scotland with John duke of Albany. But in this new course of life he encountered so many hardships, that he was confined to his bed by sickness all the ensuing winter. He had probably much more propensity to his books, than to the sword; for early in the following spring he went to St. Andrews, and attended the lectures on logic, or rather, as he says, on sophistry, which were read in that university by John Major, or Mair, a professor in St. Saviour’s college, and assessor to the dean, of Arts, whom he soon after accompanied to Paris. After struggling for about two years with indigence and ill fortune, he was admitted, in 1526, being then not more than twenty years of age, in the college of St. Barbe, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1527, and M. A. in 1528, and in 1529 was chosen procurator nationis, and began then to teach grammar, which he continued for about three years. But Gilbert Kennedy, earl of Cassils, a young Scottish nobleman, being then in France, and happening to fall into the company of Buchanan, was so delighted with his wit, and the agreeableness of his manners, that he prevailed upon him to continue with him five years. According to Mackenzie, he acted as a kind of tutor to this young nobleman; and, during his stay with him, translated Linacre’s Rudiments of grammar out of English into Latin; which was printed at Paris, by Robert Stephens, in 1533, and dedicated to the earl of Cassils. He returned to Scotland with that nobleman, whose death happened about two years after; and Buchanan had then an inclination to return to France: but James V. king of Scotland prevented him, by appointing him preceptor to his natural son, James, afterwards the abbot of Kelso, who died in 1548, and not, as some say, the earl of Murray, regent of that kingdom. About this time, he wrote a satirical poem against the Franciscan friars, entitled, “Somnium;” which irritated them to exclaim against him as a heretic. Their clamours, however, only increased the dislike which he hud conceived against them on account of their disorderly and licentious lives; and inclined him the more towards Lutheranism, to which he seems to have had before no inconsiderable propensity. About the year 1538, the king having discovered a conspiracy against himself, in which he suspected that some of the Franciscans were concerned, commanded Buchanan to write a poem against that order. But he had probably already experienced the inconveniency of exasperating so formidable a body; for he only wrote a few verses which were susceptible of a double interpretation, and he pleased neither party. The king was dissatisfied, that the satire was not more poignant; and the friars considered it as a heinous offence, to mention them in any way that was not honourable. But the king gave Buchanan a second command, to write against them with more seventy; which he accordingly did in the poem, entitled, “Franciscanus;” by which he pleased the king, and rendered the friars his irreconcileable enemies. He soon found, that the animosity of these ecclesiastics was of a more durable nature than royal favour: for the king had the meanness to suffer him to feel the weight of their resentment, though it had been chiefly excited by obedience to his commands. It was not the Franciscans only, but the clergy in general, who were incensed against Buchanan: they appear to have made a common cause of it, and they left no stone unturned till they had prevailed with the king that he should be tried for heresy. He was accordingly imprisoned at the beginning of 1539, but found means to make his escape, as he says himself, out of his chamber-window, while his guards were asleep. He fled into England, where he found king Henry the Eighth persecuting both protestants and papists. Not thinking that kingdom, therefore, a place of safety, he again went over into France, to which he was the more inclined because he had there some literary friends, and was pleased with the politeness of French manners. But when he came to Paris, he had the mortification to find there cardinal Beaton, who was his great enemy, and who appeared there as ambassador from Scotland. Expecting, therefore, to receive some ill offices from him, if he continued at Paris, he withdrew himself privately to Bourdeaux, at the invitation of Andrew Govea, a learned Portuguese, who was principal of a new college in that city. Buchanan taught in the public schools there three years; in which time he composed two tragedies, the one entitled, “Baptistes, sive Calurania,” and the other “Jephthes, Votum;” and also translated the Medea and Alcestig of Euripides. These were all afterwards published;-but they were originally written in compliance with the rules of the school, which every year required some new dramatic exhibition; and his view in choosing these subjects was, to draw off the youth of France as much as possible from the allegories, which were then greatly in vogue, to a just imitation of the ancients; in which he succeeded beyond his hopes. During his residence at Bourdeaux, the emperor Charles V. passed through that city; upon which Buchanan presented his imperial majesty with an elegant Latin poem, in which the emperor was highly complimented, and at which he expressed great satisfaction. But the animosity of cardinal Beaton still pursued our poet: for that haughty prelate wrote letters to the archbishop of Bourdeaux, in which he informed him, that Buchanan had fled his country for heresy; that he had lampooned the church in most virulent satires; and that if he would put him to the trial, he would find him a most pestilentious heretic. Fortunately for Buchanan, these letters fell into the hands of some of his friends, who found means to prevent their effects: and the state of public affairs in Scotland, in consequence of the death of king James V. gave the cardinal so much employment, as to prevent any farther prosecution of his rancour against Buchanan.

During his residence in England, he wrote some encomiastic verses in honour of queen Elizabeth, and several English ladies of rank, from whom he received presents. He appears to have been very ready to receive favours of that kind; and, like Erasmus, not to have been at all backward in making his, wants known, or taking proper measures to procure occasional benefactions from the great. In 1571 he published his “Detectio Marise Reginae,” in which he very severely arraigned the conduct and character of queen Mary, and expressly charged her with being concerned in the murder of her husband lord Darnly. At the beginning of 1570, his pupil, the earl of Murray, regent of Scotland, was assassinated, which, Mackenzie says, “was a heavy stroke to him, for he loved him as his own life.” He continued, however, to be in favour with some of those who were invested with power in Scotland; for, after the death of the earl of Murray, he was appointed one of the lords of the council, and lord privy seal. It appears also that he had a pension of one hundred pounds a year, settled on him by queen Elizabeth. In 1579 he published his famous treatise “De Jure Regni apud Scotos;” which he dedicated to king James. In 1582 he published at Edinburgh, his “History of Scotland,” in twenty books, on which he had chiefiy employed the last twelve or thirteen years of his life. He died at Edinburgh the same year, on the 5th of December, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. Towards the close of his life, he had sometimes resided at Stirling. Ife is said, that when he was upon his death-bed, he was informed that the king was highly incensed against him for writing his book “De Jure Regni,” and his “History of Scotland;” to which he replied, that “he was not much conterned about that; for he was shortly going to a place where there were few kings.” We are also told, that when he was dying, he called for his servant, whose name was Young, and asked him how much money he had of his; and finding that it was not sufficient to defray the expences of his burial, he commanded him to distribute it amongst the poor. His servant thereupon asked him: “Who then would be at'the charge of burying him?” Buchanan replied, “That he was very indifferent about that; for if he were once dead, if they would not bury him, they might let him lie where he was, or throw his corpse where they pleased.” Accordingly, he was buried at the expence of the city of Edinburgh. Archbishop Spotswood says of Buchanan, that “in his old age he applied himself to write the Scots History, which he renewed with such judgment and eloquence, as no country can shew a better: only in this he is justly blamed, that he sided with the factions of the time, and to justify the proceedings of the noblemen against the queen, he went so far in depressing the royal authority of princes, and allowing their controulment by subjects; his bitterness also in writing of the queen, and of the times, all wise men have disliked; but otherwise no man hath merited better of his country for learning, nor thereby did bring to it more glory. He was buried in the common burial-place, though worthy to have been laid in marble, and to have had some statue erected to his memory; but such pompous monuments in his life he was wont to scorn and despise, esteeming it a greater credit, as it was said of the Roman Cato, to have it asked, Why doth he lack a statue? than to have had one, though never so glorious, erected.”

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of William Buckeridge, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Thomas Keblewhyte of Basilden in Berks, son of John Keblewhyte, uncle to sir Thomas White, founder of St. John’s college, Oxford. He was educated in Merchant Taylors’ school, and thence sent to St. John’s college, Oxon, in 1578, where he was chosen fellow, and proceeded, through other degrees, to D. D. in the latter end of 1596. After leaving the university, he became chaplain to Robert earl of Essex, and was rector of North Fambridge in Essex, and of North Kiiworth in Leicestershire, and was afterwards one of archbishop Whitgii't’s chaplains, and made prebendary of Hereford, and of Rochester. In 1604, he was preferred to the archdeaconry of Northampton; and the same year, Nov. 5, was presented by king James to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, in which he succeeded Dr. Andrews, then made bishop of Chichester. About the same time he was chaplain to the king; was elected president of St. John’s college, 1605, and installed canon of Windsor, April 15, 1606. His eminent abilities in the pulpit were greatly esteemed at court; insomuch that he was chosen to be one of the four (Dr. Andrews, bishop of Chichester, Dr. Barlow of Rochester, and Dr. John King, dean of Christ-church, Oxford, being the other three) who were appointed to preach before the king at Hampton-court in September 1606, in order to bring the two Melvins and other presbyterians of Scotland to a right understanding of the church of England. He took his text out of Romans xiii. 1. and managed the discourse (as archbishop Spotswood, who was present, relates), both soundly and learnedly, to the satisfaction of all the hearers, only it grieved the Scotch ministers to hear the pope and presbytery so often equalled in their opposition to sovereign princes.

, a popish divine of some note^ was born at West Harptre, the seat of an ancient family of his name in Somersetshire, about 1564. In 1579, he was admitted commoner in Magdalen college, Oxford, and afterwards passed some years in one of the inns of court. Having at last embraced the popish religion, he spent seven years in Doway college, and being ordained priest, returned to England, acted as a missionary for about twenty years, and died in 1611. He published, 1. A translation of the “Lives of the Saints” from Surius. 2. “A Per. suasive against frequenting Protestant Churches,” 12mo. 3. “Seven sparks of the enkindled flame, with four lamentations, composed in the hard times of queen Elizabeth,” 12mo. From this book, archbishop Usher, in a sermon preached in 1640, on Nov. 5, produced some passages hinting at the gun-powder plot. The passages are not, perhaps, very clearly in point, nor can we suppose any person privy to the design fool enough at the same time to give warning of it. This Buckland also wrote “De Persecutione Vandalica,” a translation from the Latin of Victor, bishop of Biserte, or Utica.

Dr. Buckler, who was an able antiquary, assisted his friend and contemporary, Mr. Justice Blackstone, in his researches respecting the right of fellowships, &c. in AllSouls college, and drew up that valuable work, the “Stemmata Chicheleana; or, a genealogical account of some of the families derived from Thomas Chichele, of HighamFerrers, in the county of Northampton; all whose descendants are held to be entitled to fellowships in All-Souls college, Oxford, by virtue of their consanguinity to archbishop Chichele, the founder,” Oxford, 1765, 4to. The college having afterwards purchased, at Mr. Anstis’s sale, many large ms volumes by him, relating to the history and constitution of this college, and the case of founder’s kindred, Dr. Buckler published “A Supplement to the Stemmata,” Oxford, 1775, and afterwards went on continuino' it, as information offered itself, but no more has been published. We find him also as one of the proctors, signing his name to a pamphlet, which he probably wrote, entitled “A reply to Dr. Huddesford’s observations relating to the delegates of the press, with a narrative of the proceedings of the proctors with regard to their nomination of a delegate,” Oxford, 1756, 4to. In this it is the object to prove, against Dr. Huddesford, that the right of nominating such delegates is in the proctors absolutely, and that the vice-chancellor has not a negative.

Long before this, Dr. Buckler afforded a proof of excellent humour. Mr. Pointer having in his account of the antiquities of Oxford, a superficial and incorrect work, degraded the famous mallard of All-Souls into a goose, Buckler published, but without his name, “A complete vindication of the Mallard of All-Souls college against the injurious suggestions of the rev. Mr. Pointer,” Lond. 1750, 8vo, and a second edition, 1751. This produced another exquisite piece of humour, entitled “Proposals for printing by subscription, the History of the Mallardians,” This was to have been executed in three parts, the contents of which will give the reader some idea of Mr. Bilson’s humour, and that of Rowe Mores, who assisted him in drawing up the proposals, and bore the expence of some engravings which accompany it. “Part I. Of the origin of the Mallardians. Of the foundation of the house of Mallardians. The intent of that foundation, and how far it has been answered. Of the affinity between the Mallardians and the order of the Thelemites. Of the library of the Mallardians; and of the cat that was starved to death in it. Part II. Of the manners of the Mallardians. Of their comessations, compotations, ingurgitations, and other enormities, from their first settlement till their visitation by archbishop Cranmer. Part III. The subject of the second part continued from the death of archbishop Cranmer to the dissolution of Bradgate-Hall, alias les Tunnys, (i.e. the Three Tuns Tavern). To the whole will be added, a full account of the annual festival of the Mallardians. Of the adventures common at this festival. Of the presidents, or lords of this festival, with their characters drawn at length. Of the Swopping-Song of the Mallardians, with annotations on the same. Of the progress of the Mallardians to Long Crendon, and of their demeanour to Damosels. And, lastly, a true history of their doughty champion Pentrapolin a Calamo, usually styled by way of eminence, The Buckler of the Mallardians.” Dr. Buckler published also two occasional sermons in 1759.

, a civilian of Oxford, the son of John Budden of Canford, in Dorsetshire, was born in that county in 1566, and entered Merton college in 1582, but was admitted scholar of Trinity college in May of the fol lowing year, where he took his bachelor’s degree. He was soon after ivmoved to Gloucester hall, where he took his master’s degree, but chiefly studied civil law. He was at length made philosophy reader of Magdalen college, and took his bachelor and doctor’s degrees in civil law in 1602. In 1609 he was made principal of New-inn, and soon after king’s professor of civil law, and principal of Broadgate’s hall, where he died June 11, 1620, and was buried in the chancel of St. Aldate’s church. Wood says he was a person of great eloquence, an excellent rhetorician, philosopher, and civilian. He wrote the lives of “William of Wainflete,” founder of Magdalen college, in Latin, Oxon, 1602, 4to, reprinted in “Batesii Vitæ” and of “Archbishop Morton,” London, 1607, 8vo. He also made the Latin translation of sir Thomas Bodley’s statutes for his library; and sir Thomas Smith’s “Common Wealth of England;” and from the French of P. Frodius, a civilian, “A Discourse for Parents’ Honour and Authority over their Children,” Loud. 1614, 8vo.

, an English divine, wa<s born at Woodhill, in Bedfordshire, 1582, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he obtained a fellowship. He had an estate left to him by his father, whom he succeeded in the living of Woodhill. Here he remained for twenty-one years, until he was silenced for non-conformity by archbishop Laud. On this he converted his estate into money, and went to New England in 1635, and carrying with him some planters, they settled at a place which they called Concord, and where they succeeded better than Mr. Bulkley did, who sunk his property in improvements. He died there March 9, 1658—9. His only publication was entitled “The Gospel Covenant opened,” 1651, 4to, which passed through several editions, and was one of the first books published in that country.

Whilst he remained minister of this parish, the providence of God wonderfully interposed for the preservation of his life; for his lodgings being near a powder-mill, Mr. Morgan, a gentleman of the parish, represented to him. the danger of his situation, and at the same time invited him to his own house. Mr. Bull, at first, modestly declined the offer, but after some importunity accepted it; and, not many days after his removal to Mr. Morgan’s, the mill was blown up, and his apartment with it. In this part of his life he took a journey once a year to Oxford, where he stayed about two months, to enjoy the benefit of the public libraries. In his way to and from Oxford, he always paid a visit to sir William Masters, of Cirencester, by which means he contracted an intimacy with Mr. Alexander pregory, the minister of the place, and after some time married Bridget, one of his daughters, on the 20th of May, 1658. The same year he was presented by the lady Pool, to the rectory of Suddington St. Mary, near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire. The next year, 1659, he was made privy to the design of a general insurrection in favour of king Charles II. and several gentlemen of that neighbourhood who were in the secret, chose his house at Suddington for one of the places of their meeting. Upon the restoration, Mr. Bull frequently preached for his father-in-law, Mr. Gregory, at Cirencester, where there was a large and populous congregation; and his sermons gave such general satisfaction, that, upon a vacancy, the people were very solicitous to have procured for him the presentation; but the largeness of the parish, and the great duty attending it, deterred him Trom consenting to the endeavours they were making for that purpose. In 1662, he was presented by the lord high-chancellor, the earl of Clarendon, to the vicarage of Suddington St. Peter, which lay contiguous to Suddington St. Mary, at the request of his diocesan Dr. Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester, both livings not exceeding 100l. a year. When Mr. Bull came first to the rectory of Suddington, he began to be more open in the use of the liturgy of the church of England, though it was not yet restored by the return of the king; for, being desired to marry a couple, he performed the ceremony, on a Sunday morning, in the face of the whole congregation, according to the form prescribed by the book of common -prayer. He took the same method in governing these parishes, as in that of St. George’s, and with the same success; applying himself with great diligence to the discharge of his pastoral functions, and setting the people an admirable example in the government and œconomy of his own family. During his residence here, he had an opportunity of confirming two ladies of quality in the protestant communion, who were reduced to a wavering state of mind by the arts and subtleties of the Romish missionaries. The only dissenters he had in his parish were quakers; whose extravagances often gave him no small uneasiness. In this part of his life, Mr. Bull prosecuted his studies with great application, and composed most of his works during the twenty-seven years that he was rector of Suddington. Several tracts, indeed, which cost him much pains, are entirely lost, through his own neglect in preserving them; particularly a treatise on the posture used by the ancient Christians in receiving the Eucharist; a letter to Dr. Pearson concerning the genuineness of St. Ignatius’ s epistles; a long one to Mr. Glanvil, formerly minister of Bath, concerning the eternity of future punishments; and another, on the subject of popery, to a person of very great quality. In 1669, he published his Apostolical Harmony, with a view to settle the peace of the church, upon a point of the utmost importance to all its members; and he dedicated it to Dn William Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester. This performance was greatly disliked, at first, by many of the clergy, and others, on account of the author’s departing therein from the private opinions of some doctors of the church, and his manner of reconciling the two apostles St. Paul and St. James, as to the doctrine of justification. It was particularly opposed by Dr. Morley, bishop of WinChester; Dr. Barlow, Margaret-professor of divinity at Oxford; Mr. Charles Gataker, a presbyterian divine; Mr. Joseph Truman, a non-conformist minister; Dr. Tully, principal of St. Edmund’s-hall; Mr. John Tombes, a famous anabaptist preacher; Dr. Lewis Du Moulin, an independent; and by M. De Marets, a French writer, who tells us, “that the author, though a professed priest of the church of England, was more addicted to the papists, remonstrants, and Socinians, than to the orthodox party.” Towards the end of 1675, Mr. Bull published his “Examen Censuræ,” &c. in answer to Mr. Gataker, and his “Apologia pro Harmonia,” &c. in reply to Dr. Tully. Mr. Bull’s notion on this subject was “That good works, which proceed from faith, and are conjoined with faith, are a necessary condition required from us by God, to the end that by the new and evangelical covenant, obtained by and sealed in the blood of Christ the Mediator of it, we may be justified according to his free and unmerited grace.” In this doctrine, and throughout the whole book, Mr. Bull absolutely excludes all pretensions to merit on the part of men; but the work nevertheless excited the jealousy of many able divines both in the church and among the dissenters, as appears from the above list. About three years after, he was promoted by the earl of Nottingham, then lord chancellor, to a prebend in the church of Gloucester, in which he was installed the 9th of October, 1678. In 1680, he finished his “Defence of the Nicene Faith,” of which he had given a hint five years before in his Apology. This performance, which is levelled against the Arians and Socinians on one hand, and the Tritheists and Sabellians on the other, was received with universal applause, and its fame spread into foreign countries, where it was highly esteemed by the best judges of antiquity, though of different persuasions. Five years after its publication, the author was presented, by Philip Sheppard, esq. to the rectory of Avening in Gloucestershire, a very large parish, and worth two hundred pounds per annum. The people of this parish, being many of them very dissolute and immoral, and many more disaffected to the church of England, gave him for some time great trouble and uneasiness; but, by his prudent conduct and diligent discharge of his duty, he at last got the better of their prejudices, and converted their dislike iuto the most cordial love and affection towards him. He had not been long at Avening, before he was promoted, by archbishop Sancroft, to the archdeaconry of Landaff, in which he was installed the 20th of June, 1686. He was invited soon after to Oxford, where the degree of doctor in divinity was conferred upon him by that university, without the payment of the usual fees, in consideration of the great and eminent services he had done the church. During the reign of James II. the doctor preached very warmly against popery, with which the nation was then threatened. Some time after the revolution, he was put into the commission of the peace, and continued in it, with some little interruption, till he was made a bishop. In 1694, whilst he continued rector of Avening, he published his “Judicium Ecclesia? Catholicse, &c.” in defence of the “Anathema,” as his former book had been of the Faith, decreed by the first council of Nice. The last treatise which Dr. Bull wrote, was his “Primitive Apostolical Tradition,” &c. against Daniel Zwicker, a Prussian. All Dr. Bull’s Latin works, which he had published by himself at different times, were collected together, and printed in 1703, in one volume in folio, under the care and inspection of Dr. John Ernest Grabe, the author’s age and infirmities disabling him from undertaking this edition. The ingenious editor illustrated the work with many learned annotations, and ushered it into the world with an excellent preface. Dr, Bull was in the seventy-first year of his age, when he was acquainted with her majesty’s gracious intention of conferring on him the bishopric of St. David’s; which promotion he at first declined, on account of his ill state of health and advanced years; but, by the importunity of his friends, and strong solicitations from the governors o*f the church, he was at last prevailed upon to accept it, and was accordingly consecrated in Lambeth-chapel, the 29th of April, 1705. Two years after, he lost his eldest son, Mr. George Bull, who died of the small-pox the 11th of May, 1707, in, the thirty-seventh year of his age. Our prelate took his seat in the house of lords in that memorable session, when the bill passed for the union of the two kingdoms, and spoke in a debate which happened upon that occasion, in favour of the church of England. About July after his consecration, he went into his diocese, and was received with all imaginable demonstrations of respect by the gentry and clergy. The episcopal palace at Aberguilly being much out of repair, he chose the town of Brecknock for the place of his residence; but was obliged, about half a year before his death, to remove from thence to Abermarless, for the benefit of a freer air. He resided constantly in his diocese, and carefully discharged all the episcopal functions. Though bishop Bull was a great admirer of our ecclesiastical constitution, yet he would often lament the distressed state of the church of England, chiefly owing to the decay of ancient discipline, and the great number of lay-impropriations, which he considered as a species of sacrilege, and insinuated that he had known instances of its being punished by the secret curse which hangs over sacrilegious persons. Some time before his last sickness, he entertained thoughts of addressing a circular letter to all his clergy; and, after his death, there was found among his papers one drawn up to that purpose. He had greatly impaired his health, by too intense and unseasonable an application to his studies, and, on the 27th of September, 1709, was taken with a violent fit of coughing, which brought on a spitting of blood. About the beginning of February following, he was seized with a distemper, supposed to be an ulcer, or what they call the inward piles; of which he died the 17th of the same month, and was buried, about a week after his death, at Brecknock/ leaving behind him but two children out of eleven.

, one of the reformers, was born, at Bremgarten, “a village near Zurich, in Switzerland, July 18, 1504. At the age of twelve he was sent by his father to Emmeric, to be instructed in grammar-learning, and here he remained three years, during which his father, to make him feel for the distresses of others, and be more frugal and modest in his dress, and temperate in his diet, withdrew that money with which he was wont to supply him; so that Bullinger was forced, according to the custom of those times, to subsist on the alms he got by singing from door to door. While here, he was strongly inclined to enter among the Carthusians, but was dissuaded from it by an elder brother. At fifteen years of age he was sent to Cologn, where he studied logic, and commenced B. A. at sixteen years old. He afterwards betook himself to the study of divinity and canon law, and to the reading of the fathers, and conceived such a dislike to the schooldivines, as in 1520, to write some dialogues against them; and about the same time he began to see the errors of the church of Rome, from which, however, he did not immediately separate. In 1522, he commenced M. A. and returning home, he spent a year in his father’s house, wholly employing himself in his studies. The year after, he was called by the abbot of La Chapelle, a Cistercian abbey near Zurich, to teach in that place, which he did with great reputation for four years, and was very instrumental in causing the reformation of Zuinglius to be received. It is very remarkable that while thus teaching and changing the sentiments of the Cistercians in this place, it does not appear that he was a clergyman in the communion of the see of Rome, nor that he had any share in the monastic observances of the house. Zuinglius, assisted by Oecolampadius and Bucer, had established the reformed doctrines at Zurich in 1523; and in 1527, Bullinger attended the lectures of Zuinglius in that city, for some months, renewed his acquaintance with Greek, and began the study of Hebrew. He preached also publicly by a licence from the synod, and accompanied Zuinglius at the famous disputation held at Bern in 1528. The year following, he was called to be minister of the protestant church, in his native place at Bremgarten, and married a wife, who brought him six sons and five daughters, and died in 1564. He met with great opposition from the papists and anabaptists in his parish, but disputed publicly, and wrote several books against them. The victory gained by the Romish cantons over the protestants in a battle fought 1531, forced him, together with his father, brother, and colleague, to fly to Zurich, where he was chosen pastor in the room of Zninglius, slain in the late battle. He was also employed in several ecclesiastical negociations, with a view to reconcile the Zuiuglians and Lutherans, and to reply to the, harsh censures which were published by Luther against the doctrine of the Swiss churches respecting the sacrament. In 1549, he concurred with Calvin in drawing up a formulary, expressing the conformity of belief which subsisted between the churches of Zurich and Geneva, and intended on the part of Calvin, for obviating any suspicions that he inclined to the opinion of Luther with respect to the sacra, ment. He greatly assisted the English divines who fled into Switzerland from the persecution raised in England by queen Mary, and ably confuted the pope’s bull excommunicating queen Elizabeth. The magistrates of Zurich, by his persuasion, erected a new college in 1538. He also prevailed with them to erect, in a place that had formerly been a nunnery, a new school, in which fifteen youths were trained up under an able master, and supplied with food, raiment, and other necessaries. In 1549, he by his influence hindered the Swiss from renewing their league with Henry It. of France; representing to them, that it was neither just nor lawful for a man to suffer himself to be hired to shed another man’s blood, from whom himself had never received any injury. In 1551 he wrote a book, the purport of which was to shew, that the council of Trent had no other design than to oppress the professors of sound religion; and, therefore, that the cantons should pay no regard to the invitations of the pope, which solicited their sending deputies to that council. In 1561 he commenced a controversy with Brentius concerning the ubiquity of the body of Christ, zealously maintained by Brentius, and as vehemently opposed by Bullinger, which Continued till his death, on the 17th of September, 1575. His funeral oration was pronounced by John Stukius, and his life was written by Josias Simler (who had married one of his daughters), and was published at Zurich in 1575, 4to, with Stukius’s oration, and the poetical tributes of many eminent men of his time. Bullinger' s printed works are very numerous, doctrinal, practical, and controversial, but no collection has ever been made of them. His high reputation in England, during the progress of the reformation, occasioned the following to be either translated into English, or published here: 1.” A hundred Sermons upon the Apocalypse,“1561, 4to. 2.” Bullae papisticae contra reginam Elizabetham, refutatio,“1571, 4to. 3.” The Judgment of Bullinger, declaring it to be lawful for the ministers of the church of England to wear the apparel prescribed by the laws, &c.“Eng. and Lat. 1566, 8vo. 4.” Twenty-six Sermons on Jeremiah,“1583. 5.” An epistle on the Mass, with one of Calvin’s,“1548, 8vo. 6.” A treatise or sermon, concerning Magistrates and Obedience of Subjects, also concerning the affairs of War,“1549, 8vo. 7,” Tragedies of Tyrants, exercised upon the church of God from the birth of Christ unto this present year 1572,“translated by Tho. Twine, 1575, 8vo. 8.” Exhortation to the ministers of God’s Word, &c.“1575, 8vo. 9.” Two Sermons on the end of the World,“1596, 8vo. 10.” Questions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the adversaries of the same, and answered by M. H. Bullinger of Zurich, reduced into seventeen common places,“1572, 8vo. 11.” Common places of Christian Religion,“1572 and 158J, 8vo. 12.” Bullinger’s Decades, in Latin,“1586. 13.” The Summe of the Four Evangelists,“1582, 8vo. 14.” The Sum or Substance pf St. Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians,“1538, 8vo. 15.” Three Dialogues between the seditious Libertine or rebel Anabaptist, and the true obedient Christian,“1551, 8vo. 16.” Fifty godly and learned Sermons, divided into five decades, containing the chief and principal points of Christian religion," a very thick 4to vol. 1577, particularly described by Ames. This book was held in high estimation in the reign of queen Elizabeth. In 1586, archbishop Whitgift, in full convocation, procured an order to be made that every clergyman of a certain standing should procure a copy of them, read one of the sermons contained in them every week, and make notes of the principal matters.

, descended from an ancient family in Yorkshire, was born at a house called the Vache, near Chalfont St. Giles’s, in Buckinghamshire, in 1540, and when sixteen years old was sent to Oxford, and having taken his bachelor’s degree, was elected probationer fellow of Magdalen college. He was at this time distinguished for his knowledge of logic and philosophy, and soon after went to Staple’s Inn, and then to Gray’s Inn, where he spent about two years in the study of the law, which profession his father wished him to follow. His own inclination, however, was for the study of divinity, which displeased his father so much, that, to use his own words, he “cast him off,” although a man of piety himself, and one that had fled for his religion in queen Mary’s days. He returned accordingly to Oxford, and took his master’s degree in 1564. In, the year following he was elected fellow of Merton college, an irregular act of the society, which, however, Wood says was absolutely necessary, as there was no person then in Merton college able to preach any public sermon in the college turn; and not only there, but throughout the university at large, there was a great scarcity of theologists. In 1570 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and about the same time became chaplain to 'archbishop Grindall, who gave him a prebend in that church, and the rectory of Bolton-Percy about six miles distant. This rectory he held twenty-five years, and then resigned it, but retained his prebend. In 1570 we also find that he was subdean of York, which he resigned in 1579. In 1585 he was collated, being then B. D. to a prebend in Carlisle, and had likewise, although we know not at what period, a prebend in St. Paul’s. It appears that he preached and catechised very frequently, both in Oxford and in many other places, travelling over a considerable part of the kingdom, and preaching wherever there appeared a want of clergy. This zeal, his being a Calvinist, and his preaching extempore, brought him under the imputation of being too forward and meddling, against which he vindicated himself in “A Defence of his labours in the work of the Ministry,” written Jan. 20, 1602, but circulated only in manuscript. He died at Cawood in Yorkshire, Feb. 26 (on his monument, but 27 in archbishop Matthews’s ms diary) 1617, and was buried in York cathedral. He published, 1. “The Sum of Christian Religion,” Lond. 1576, 8vo. 2. “Abridgment of Calvin’s Institutions,” from May’s translation, ibid. 1580, 8vo. 3. “Sceptre of Judah,” &c. ibid. 1584, 8vo. 4. “The Coronation of King David, &c.” 4to, 1588. 5. Three or four controversial pamphlets with Parsons, the Jesuit. 6. “The Corner Stone, or a form of teaching Jesus Christ out of the Scriptures,” ibid. 1611, fol.

, D. D. another Nonconformist, but of a very different stamp, was descended from the Burgesses of Batcomb, in Somersetshire. In 1611 he was entered at Oxford, but in what college is uncertain. He translated himself, however, to Wadham, and afterwards to Lincoln. When he took orders, he had the rectory of St. Magnus, London-bridge, the date of which promotion is not mentioned, and the living of Watford, in Hertfordshire, in 1618. In the beginning of Charles the First’s reign he became one of his chaplains in ordinary, and in 1627 took both degrees in divinity, at which time Dr. Prideaux, the regius professor, told him he was a sorry disputant, but might make a good preacher. At this time and for several years after he was a zealous friend to the church of England, but either from being disappointed in certain expected preferments, as Wood insinuates, or from being vexed, as Calamy says, for opposing archbishop Laud’s party, he became a powerful advocate for the principles which soon overthrew church and state; and particularly directed his attacks against the revenues of deans and chapters, and bishops. He procured, however, that St. Paul’s cathedral might be opened, and himself appointed lecturer there, with a salary of 400l. and the dean’s house to reside in. Enriched by this and similar advantages, he not only purchased church lands, but even wrote a book in vindication of such purchases. On the restoration, however, he lost all this plunder, to the amount of many thousand pounds, and died in extreme poverty, June 9, 1665. Calamy, his continuator, and Mr. Neal, find great difficulty in refuting Wood’s account of this Dr. Burgess. Their strongest plea is, that he was against the king’s murder, and drew up the paper signed by the London ministers to prevent that act. At his death, although he had been obliged from poverty to dispose of his library, he left some curious editions of the Prayer-book to the university of Oxford. He wrote some devotional tracts, enumerated by Calamy, and several of the controversial kind.

The celebrity of such works soon made Mr. Burke known to the literati; amongst whom were the late George lord Lyttelton, the right honourable William Gerard Hamilton, the late Dr. Markham, archbishop of York, Dr. Johnson, sir Joshua Reynolds, and many other eminent characters, who were proud to patronize a young man of such good private character, and such very distinguished talents. It was in consequence of these connections that we soon after find Mr. Burke in the suite of the earl of Halifax, appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, October 1761. Here, by his talents, as well as by his convivial and agreeable manners, he made himself not only useful at the castle, but renewed and formed several valuable acquaintances.

About six months after he returned to Scotland, where he declined accepting the living of Saltoun, offered him by sir Robert Fletcher of that place, resolving to travel for some time on the continent, in 1664, he went over into Holland; where, after he had seen what was remarkable in the Seven Provinces, he resided for some time at Amsterdam, and afterwards at Paris. At Amsterdam, by the help of a learned Rabbi, he increased his knowledge in the Hebrew language, and likewise x became acquainted with the leading men of the different persuasions tolerated in that country: among each of whom, he used frequently to declare, he had met with men of such real piety and virtue, that he contracted a strong principle of universal charity. At Paris he conversed with the two famous ministers of Charenton, Dailie and Morus. His stay in France was the longer, on account of the great kindness with which he was treated by the lord Holies, then ambassador at the French court. Towards the end of the year he returned to Scotland, passing through Londo/rr, where he was introduced, by the president sir Robert Murray, to be a member of the royal society. In 1665, he was ordained a priest by the bishop of Edinburgh, and presented by sir Robert Fletcher to the living of Saitoun, which had been kept vacant during his absence. He soon gained the affections of his whole parish, not excepting the presbyterians, though he was the only clergyman in Scotland that made use of the prayers in the liturgy of the church of England. During the five years he remained at Saitoun, he preached twice every Sunday, and once on one of the week-days; he catechized three times a-week, so as to examine every parishioner, old or young, three times in the compass of a year: he went round the parish from house to house, instructing, reproving, or comforting them, as occasion required: the sick he visited twice a day: he administered the sacrament four times a year, and personally instructed all such as gave notice of their intention to receive it. All that remained above his own necessary subsistence (in which he was very frugal), he gave away in charity. A particular instance of his generosity is thus related: one of his parishioners had been in execution for debt, and applied to our author for some small relief; who inquired of him, how much would again set him up in his trade: the man named the sum, and he as readily called to his servant to pay it him: “Sir,” said he, “it is all we have in the house.” “Well,” said Mr. Burnet, “pay it this poor man: you do not know the pleasure there is in making a man glad.” This may be a proper place to mention our author’s practice of preaching extempore, in which he attained an ease chiefly by allotting many hours of the day to meditation upon all sorts of subjects, and by accustoming himself, at those times, to speak his thoughts aloud, studying always to render his expressions correct. His biographer gives us here two remarkable instances of his preaching without book. In 1691, when the sees, vacant by the deprivation of the nonjuring bishops, were filled up, bishop Williams was appointed to preach one of the consecration -sermons at Bow-church; but, being detained by some accident, the archbishop of Canterbury desired our author, then bishop of Sarum, to supply his place; which he readily did, to the general satisfaction of all present. In 1705, he was appointed to preach the thanksgiving-sermon before the queen at St. Paul’s; and as it was the only discourse he had ever written before-hand, it was the only time that he ever made a pause in preaching, which on that occasion lasted above a minute. The same year, he drew up a memorial of the abuses of the Scotch bishops, which exposed him to the resentments of that order: upon which, resolving to confine himself to study, and the duties of his function, he practised such a retired and abstemious course, as greatly impaired his health. About 1668, the government of Scotland being in the hands of moderate men, of whom the principal was sir Robert Murray, he was frequently consulted by them; and it was through his advice that some of the more moderate presbyterians were put into the vacant churches; a step which he himself has since condemned as indiscreet. In 1669, he was made professor of divinity at Glasgow; in which station he executed the following plan of study. On Mondays, he made each of the students, in their turn, explain a head of divinity in Latin, and propound such theses from it as he was to defend against the rest of the scholars; and this exercise concluded with our professor’s decision of the point in a Latin oration. On Tuesdays, he gave them a prelection in the same language, in which he proposed, in the course of eight years, to have gone through a complete system of divinity. On Wednesdays, he read them a lecture, for above an hour, by way of a critical commentary on St. Matthew’s Gospel;' which he finished before he quitted the chair. On Thursdays, the exercise was alternate; one Thursday, he expounded a Hebrew Psalm, comparing it with the Septuagint, the Vulgar, and the English version; and the next Thursday, he explained some portion of the ritual and constitution of the primitive church, making the apostolical canons his text, and reducing every article of practice under the head of one or other of those canons. On Fridays, he made each of his scholars, in course, preach a short sermon upon some text he assigned; and, when it was ended, he observed upon any thing that was defective or amiss in the handling of the subject. This was the labour of the mornings: in the evenings, after prayer, he every day read some parcel of scripture, on which he made a short discourse; and, when that was over, he examined into the progress of their several studies. Ail this he performed during the whole time the schools were open; and, in order to acquit himself with credit, he was obliged to study hard from four till ten in the morning; the rest of the day being of necessity allotted, either to the care of his pupils, or to hearing the complaints of the clergy, who, rinding he had an interest with men of power, were not sparing in their applications to him. In this situation he continued four years and a half, exposed, through his principles of moderation, to the censure both of the episcopal and presbyterian parties. The same year he published his “Modest and free Conference between a Conformist and a Nonconformist.” About this time he was entrusted, by the duchess of Hamilton, with the perusal and arrangement of all the papers relating to her father’s and uncle’s ministry; which induced him to compile “Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton,” and occasioned his being invited to London, to receive farther information, concerning the transactions of those times, by the earl of Lauderdale; between whom and the duke of Hamilton he brought about a reconciliation. During his stay in London, he was offered a Scotch bishopric, which he refused. Soon after his return to Glasgow, he married the lady Margaret Kennedy, daughter of the earl of Cassilis. In 1672, he published his “Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, and Laws, of the Church and State of Scotland,” against the principles of Buchanan and others; which was thought, at that juncture, such a public service, that he was again courted to accept of a bishopric, with a promise of the next vacant archbishopric, but he persisted in his refusal of that dignity. In 1673, he took another journey to London; where, at the express nomination of the king, after hearing him preach, he was sworn one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. He became likewise in high favour with his majesty and the duke of York . At his return to Edinburgh, finding the animosities between the dukes of Hamilton and Lauderdale revived, he retired to his station at Glasgow; but was obliged the next year to return to court, to justify himself against the accusations of the duke of Lauderdale, who had represented him as the cause and instrument of all the opposition the measures of the court had met with in the Scotch parliament. Thus he lost the favour of the court; and, to avoid putting himself into the hands of his enemies, he resigned the professor’s chair at Glasgow, and resolved to settle in London, being now about thirty years of age. Soon after, he was offered the living of St. Giles’s Cripplegate, which he declined accepting, because he heard that it was intended for Dr. Fowler, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. In 1675, our author, at the recommendation of lord Holies, and notwithstanding the interposition of the court against him, was appointed preacher at the Rolls chapel by sir Harbottle Grimstone, master of the Rolls. The same year he was examined before the house of commons in relation to the duke of Lauderdale, whose conduct the parliament was then inquiring into. He was soon after chosen lecturer of St. Clement’s, and became a very popular preacher. In 1676, he published his “Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton;” and the same year, “An account of a Conference between himself, Dr. Stillingfleet, and Coleman.” About this time, the apprehensions of popery increasing daily, he undertook to write the “History of the Reformation of the Church of England.” The rise and progress of this his greatest and 'most useful work, is an object of too great curiosity to require any apology on account of its length. His own account of it is as follows: “Some time after I had printed the ‘ Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton,’ which were favourably received, the reading of these got me the acquaintance and friendship of sir William Jones, then attorney-general. My way of writing history pleased him; and so he pressed me to undertake the History of England. But Sanders’s book, that was then translated into French, and cried up much in France, made all my friends press me to answer it, by writing the History of the Reformation. So now all my thoughts were turned that way. I laid out for manuscripts, and searched into all offices. I got for some days into the Cotton Library. But duke Lauderdale hearing of my design, and apprehending it might succeed in my hands, got Dolben, bishop of Rochester, to divert sir John Cotton from suffering me to search into his library. He told him, I was a great enemy to the prerogative, to which Cotton was devoted, even to slavery. So he said, I would certainly make an ill use of all 1 had found. This wrought so much on him, that I was no more admitted, till my first volume was published. And then, when he saw how I had composed it, he gave me free access to it.” The first volume of this work lay near a year after it was finished, for the perusal and correction of friends; so that it was not published tiii the year 1679, when the affair of the popish plot was in agitation. This book procured our author an honour never before or since paid to any writer: he had the thanks of both houses of parliament, with a desire that he would prosecute the undertaking, and complete that valuable work. Accordingly, in less than two years after, he printed the second volume, which met with the same general approbation as the first: and such was his readiness in composing, that he wrote the historical part in the compass of six weeks, after all his materials were laid in order. The third volume, containing a supplement to the two former, was published in 1714. “The defects of Peter Heylyn’s” History of the Reformation,“as bishop Kicolson observes,” are abundantly supplied in our author’s more complete history. He gives a punctual account of all the affairs of the reformation, from its beginning in the reign of Henry VIII. to its final establishment under queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1559. And the whole is penned in a masculine style, such as becomes an historian, and is the property of this author in all his writings. The collection of records^ which he gives at the end of each volume, are good vouchers of the truth of what he delivers in the body of the history, and are much more perfect than could reasonably be expected, after the pains taken, in queen Mary’s days, to suppress every thing that carried the marks of the reformation upon it.“Our author’s performance met with a very favourable, reception abroad, and was translated into most of the European languages; and even the keenest of his enemies, Henry Wharton, allows it to have” a reputation firmly and deservedly established.“The most eminent of the French writers who have attacked it, M. Varillas and M. Le Grand, have received satisfactory replies from -the author himself. At home it was attacked by Mr. S. Lowth, who censured the account Dr. Burnet had given of some of archbishop Cranmer’s opinions, asserting that both our historian and Dr. Stillingfleet had imposed upon the world in that particular, and had” unfaithfully joined together“in their endeavours to lessen episcopal ordination. Our author replied to Mr. Lowth, in some” letters. in answer“to his book. The next assailant was Henry Wharton, who, under the name of Anthony Harrner, published” A specimen of some Errors and Defects in the History of the Reformation,“1693, 8vo, a performance of no great candour; to which, however, our historian vouchsafed a short answer, in a” Letter to the Bishop of Lichfield.“A third attack on this History was made by Dr. Hickes in” Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson;“in which the whole charge amounts to no more than this, that,” in a matter of no great consequence, there was too little care had in copying or examining a letter writ in a very bad hand,“and that there was some probability that Dr. Burnet” was mistaken in one of his conjectures.“Our author answered this piece, in a” Vindication“of his History. The two first parts were translated into French by M. de Rosemond, and into Latin by Melchior Mittelhorzer. There is likewise a Dutch translation of it. In 1682, our author published” An abridgment of his History of the Reformation," in 8vo, in which he tells us, he had wholly waved every thing that belonged to the records, and the proof of what he relates, or to the confutation of the falsehoods that run through the popish historians; all which is to be found in the History at large. And therefore, in this abridgment, he says, every thing is to be taken upon trust; and those who desire a fuller satisfaction, are referred to the volumes he had before published.

In 1692, he published a treatise, entitled “The Pastoral Care,” in which the duties of the clergy are laid down with great strictness, and enforced with no less zeal and warmth. The next year came out his “Four Discourses to the Clergy of his Diocese.” In 1694, our author preached the funeral sermon of archbishop Tillotson, with whom he had long kept up an intimate acquaintance and friendship, and whose memory he defended in “A Vindication of Abp. Tillotson,” 1696. The death of queen Mary, which happened the year following, drew from our author’s pen that “Essay on her character,” which her uncommon talents merited at the hands of a person who enjoyed so high a degree of her favour and confidence. After the decease of that princess, through whose hands the affairs and promotions of the church had wholly passed, our prelate was one of the ecclesiastical commission appointed by the king to recommend to all bishoprics, deanries, and other vacant benefices in his majesty’s gift.

On May 19, 1685, he was made master of the Charterhouse, by the interest of the duke of Ormond; and soon after commenced LL. D. At what time he entered into orders is not exactly known; but it is plain that he was a clergyman at his election to this mastership, from the objection then made against him by some of the bishops who were governors, namely, “that he generally appeared in a lay-habit,” which was over-ruled by his patron the duke of Ormond, by asserting in his favour, that he had no living or other ecclesiastical preferment; and that his life and conversation were in all respects suitable to the clerical character. In the latter end of 1686, Dr. Burnet’s integrity, prudence, and resolution, were fully tried in his new station, upon the following occasion: one Andrew Popham, a Roman Catholic, came to the Charter-house, with a letter from king James to the governors, requiring them to choose and admit him the said Andrew Popham a pensioner thereof, “without tendering any oath or oaths unto him, or requiring of him any subscription, recognition, or other act or acts, in conformity to the doctrine and discipline of the church of England as the same is now established; and notwithstanding any statute, order, or constitution, of or in the said hospital; with which, says his majesty, we are graciously disposed to dispense in his behalf.” On the meeting of the governors, the king’s letter was read, and the lord chancellor Jefferies moved, that without any debate they should proceed to vote whether Andrew Popham should be admitted a pensioner of the hospital, according to the king’s letter. The master, Dr. Burnet, as the junior, was to vote first, but he told the governors, that he thought it was his duty to acquaint their lordships with the state and constitution of that hospital; and, though this was opposed by some, yet, after a little debate, he proceeded to observe, that to admit a pensioner into the hospital without his taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, was not only contrary to the constitution of the ho&pital, but to an express act of parliament for the better establishment thereof. One of the governors asked what this was to the purpose? The duke of Ormond replied, that he thought it much to the purpose; for an act of parliament was not so slight a thing as not to deserve a consideration. After some other discourse, the question was put, whether Popham should be admitted? and passed in the negative. A second letter from the king was afterwards sent; to which the governors, in a letter addressed to his majesty, humbly replied, and gave their reasons why they could not admit Andrew Popham as a pensioner of the hospital. This not satisfying king James, he ordered chancellor Jefferies to find out a way how he might compel their submission, and the master was particularly threatened to be summoned before the ecclesiastical commissioners. But his subsequent quarrels with the universities, and the commotions which followed, prevented any farther proceeding on the part of the king. This was the first stand made against the dispensing power of that reign, by any society in England, and was of great importance to the public, A relation of the Charter-house proceedings upon this occasion was published by Dr. Burnet in 1689. After the revolution, he was introduced to court by his tutor and friend, archbishop Tillotson, and was made chaplain to the king, and soon after, clerk of the closet. He was now considered as in the high road to great preferment, and had certainly a fine prospect before him; when he ruined all by some unadvised strokes of his pen. In 1692 he published “Archæologiæ philosophiæ; sive doctrina antiqua de rerum originibus,” 4to, with a dedication to king William, whose character he diws with great strength of genius and art, and in that beautiful style which was peculiar to himself. But neither the high rank and authority of his patron, nor the elegance and learning displayed throughout the work, could protect the author from the clamours raised against him for allegorizing in a very indelicate manner the scripture account of the fall of Adam and Eve. In consequence of which, as appears from a Latin letter written by himself to Walters, a bookseller at Amsterdam, dated Sept. 14, 1694, he desires to have the most offensive parts omitted in the future editions of that work. He had expressed himself to the same purpose, some time before the date of this letter, in a Latin epistle, “Ad virum clarissimum circa nuper editum de Archæologiis Philosophicis libellum;” where he says, that he cheerfully wished that any passages which have given offence to the pious and wise, and particularly the dialogue between Eve and the Serpent, may be expunged. The person to whom this letter is addressed, and also a second afterwards upon the same subject, was generally understood to be archbishop Tillotson. Both the letters are subjoined to the second edition of “Archæologiæ philosophicæ,” printed in 1728, in 8vo, and in both he acknowledges sacred scripture, whether literally or mystically understood, to be given us from heaven, as the rule of our faith, the guide of our life, and the refuge of our salvation; and professes to pay to it all possible respect, honour, and veneration.

, M.D. and F. R. S. and F. S.A. an eminent antiquary, of whom our accounts are very scanty, was born at Rjppon in Yorkshire 1697, and educated hi Christ church college in Oxford for some time, but took his degree in some foreign university; and on his settling at York, became very eminent in his profession. In 1745 it is said that he proposed joining himself to the pretender, then at Manchester; but that his friends had interest sufficient to dissuade him from a measure which must have terminated in his ruin. His conduct, therefore, appears to have unjustly exposed him to censure, if his own account may be relied on, to this purpose, that “going out of York, with leave of the mayor, &c. to take care of his estates, on the approach of the rebels, he was taken by them, and in consequence of that was apprehended Dec. 3, 1745, and detained till March 25, 1746—7.” This is explained in “British liberty endangered, demonstrated by the following narrative, wherein is proved from facts, that J. B. has hitherto been a better friend to the English constitution, in church and state, than his persecutors. Humbly dedicated to the most reverend and worthy the archbishop of Canterbury, late of York (Herring). With a proper preface, by John Burton, of York, M. D.” London, 3 749. There was afterwards published “An account of what passed between Mr. George Thomson of York, and doctor John Burton of that city, physician and manmidwife, at Mr. sheriff Jubb’s entertainment, and the consequences thereon, by Mr. George Thomson,” London, 1756, 8vo, a narrative, in the lowest and most abusive language, says Mr. Gough, of a quarrel and assault, for the doctor’s refusing to drink certain healths proposed to him, drawn up with all the virulence of disappointment for a verdict against the writer. Long before these events, he published “A Treatise on the Non-naturals, in which the great influence they have on human bodies is set forth, and mechanically accounted for. To which is subjoined, a short Essay on the Chin-Cough, with a new method of treating that obstinate distemper,” York, 1738, 8vo. In the title of this work, he calls himself “M. B. Cant, and M. D. Rhem.” by which it would appear that his bachelor’s was a Lambeth degree, and that he graduated as doctor at Rheims. In 1751, he published “An Essay towards a complete new system of Midwifery,” 8vo, and in 1753, “A Letter to William Smellie, M. D. containing critical and practical remarks upon his Treatise on the theory and practice of Midwifery,” 8vo. But the work by which he is principally known, and for which he was employed in making collections during his latter years, was, his “Monasticon Eboracense; and the Ecclesiastical History of Yorkshire, &c.” the first volume of which was published in 1758, folio. This is in all respects a most valuable work; and it is to be regretted that it was not completed by a second volume, for which he had ample materials. Mr. Gough seems to intimate that his conduct in 1745 was a check both to encouragement and the means for publishing his second volume. Previously to that period, his zeal for illustrating the antiquities of his native country, and his indefatigable researches, met with due encouragement from those who had many important materials in their hands; and he was himself possessed of an invaluable and unparalleled collection for illustrating the history and antiquities of that county, which before his death in 1771, he sold for a sum of money and an annuity for himself and wife to William Constable, esq. of Burton Constable, in whose, or his family’s hands, they probably now remain. Mr. Gough has given an ample list of them.

, a native of Arlon in Luxemburgh, in the sixteenth century, owed his success in life to his brother Francis, who died archbishop of Besangon in 1500. By his interest he became master of requests, a member of the sovereign council of Mechlin, and held several ecclesiastical benefices. His genius and learning recommended him to the friendship and correspondence of many of the learned men of his time, particularly Erasmus and sir Thomas More. He was employed in embassies to pope Julius II. Francis I. of France, and Henry VIII. of England; and in 1517, he was sent into Spain by Charles V. but falling sick at Bourdeaux, he died August 26 of that year. He left a considerable property to found three professorships at Louvain for Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, which composed what was called the Collegium Trilingue. Erasmus says this institution gave much disgust to the illiterate members of the church there, who, he adds, were vexed that three tongues should be in request. Several verses, speeches, and epistles written by Buslidius, were found after his death, but the only piece published is a letter prefixed to sir Thomas More’s Utopia.

, duke of Ormond, an eminent statesman, the son of Thomas Butler, esq. a branch of the Ormond family, was born at Newcastle house, in Clerkenwell, 1610. Oh the decease of Thomas, earl, of Ormond, his grandfather Sir Walter Butler, of Kilcash, assumed the title, and his father was styled by courtesy viscount Thurles. After the death of his father, in 1619, who left a widow and seven children in embarrassed circumstances, this title devolved upon him. In 1620 he was sent over to England by his mother, and educated partly at a school at Finchtey, in Middlesex, but king James claiming the wardship of him, he was put under the tuition of. archbishop Abbot, who instilled in him that love for the protestant religion which he afterwards displayed on so many occasions. On the death of king James he was taken home by his grandfather the carl of Ormond; and in 1629 he married his cousin, lady Elizabeth Preston, a match which terminated some disputes that had long been agitated between the families. In 1630 he purchased a troop of horse in Ireland, and two years after succeeded, by the death of his grandfather, to the earldom of Ormond. During the earl of Stratford’s viceroyalty in Ireland, his talents were much noticed by that nobleman, who predicted his future fame. On the commencement of the rebellion in Ireland in 1641, he was appointed lieutenant-generaJ and commander in chief of an army of only 3000 men, but with this inconsiderable force, and a few additional troops raised by himself, he resisted the progress of the rebels, and in 1642 dislodged them from the Naes near Dublin, raised the blockade of Drogheda, and routed them at Kiirush. His exertions, however, being impeded by the jealousies of the lords justices and of the lord lieutenant, the king, that he might act without controui, gave him an independent commission under the great seal, and created him marquis of Ormond. In 1643 he obtained a considerable victory with a very inferior force over the rebels under the command of the Irish general Preston, but for want of suitable encouragement, he was under a necessity of concluding a cessation of hostilities, for which measure he was much blamed in England; though he availed himself of it by sending over troops to the assistance of the king, who was then at war with the parliament. His majesty, however, duly appreciating his services, appointed him lord lieutenant of Ireland, in the room of the earl of Leicester, in the beginning of the year 1644; but in the exercise of this office, he had to contend both with the rebellious spirit of the old Irish, and the machinations of the English parliament, and after maintaining an unsuccessful struggle for three years, he was, in 1647, obliged to sign a treaty with the parliament’s commissioners, and to come over to England, where he waited on 'the king at Hampton-court, and obtained his majesty’s full approbation of all his proceedings; but in the hazardous state of public affairs he thought it most prudent to provide for his own safety by embarking for France.

, late bishop of Hereford, was born at Hamburgh, probably of English parents, Dec. 1717. In his early days he acted as private tutor in the family of Mr. Child the banker. He was then a popular preacher in London, and possessed of sound parts, indefatigable industry, a good figure, and agreeable manners. Being introduced to Mr. Bilson Legge, he assisted that gentleman in the political controversy with lord Bute^ and rendered him farther services in calculations on public finance. It was probably through this connection that Dr^Hayter, bishop of London, appointed Mr. Butler his first chaplain, who obtained also the living of Everley in Wiltshire, about the same time. On the recommendation of lord Onslow, he was constituted one of the king’s chaplains, and obtained a prebend in Winchester cathedral. Commencing a political writer, he espoused the cause of lord North in all the measures of administration, and particularly in that of the American war, which he endeavoured to justify in several pamphlets. In reward of these services, he was n^ade archdeacon of Surrey, and procured-a Lambeth degree of D. D. from the archbishop of Canterbury. His next promotion was to the see of Oxford, which was given him by the minister (lord North) in 1777, on the advancement of Dn Lowth to the bishoprick of London; and the living of Cuddesden was held by Dr. Butler at the same time, being annexed to the see of Oxford; but this preferment was rendered locally unpleasant from the circumstance of his not having been regularly graduated at either of the universities. He, however, retained it till 1788, when he was advanced to the bishopric of Hereford, over which he presided until his death at his palace at Hereford, Dec. 10, 1802. He was twice married. His first wife was the mistress of a boarding-school in Westminster; his second, the sister and one of the coheiresses of sir Charles Vernon, of Farnham in Surrey; but he had issue by neither. He underwent the operation of lithotomy at the age of sixty, which he long survived, although in his latter days he was kept alive by great care and attention. Although charitable and even munificent in his lifetime, he left a very considerable fortune to his executors and friends. He was an eloquent, pleasing, and impressive preacher, always from short-hand notes, and very distinct and audible in his delivery, although his voice was weak.

, a prelate of the most distinguished character and abilities, was born at Wantage in Berkshire, in 1692. His father, Mr. Thomas Butler, who was a reputable shopkeeper in that town, observing in his son Joseph an excellent genius and inclination for learning, determined to educate him for the ministry, among the protestant dissenters of the presbyterian denomination. For this purpose, after he had gone through a proper course of grammatical literature, at the free grammarschool of his native place, under the care of the rev. Mr. Philip Barton, a clergyman of the church of England, he was sent to a dissenting academy, then kept at Gloucester, but which was soon afterwards removed to Tewkesbury, the principal tutor of which was Mr. Jones, a man of uncommon abilities and knowledge. At Tewkesbury, Mr. Butler made an extraordinary progress in the study of divinity; of which he gave a remarkable proof in the letters addressed by him, whilst he resided at Tewkesbury, to Dr. Samuel Clarke, laying before him the doubts that had arisen in his mind concerning the conclusiveness of some arguments in the doctor’s “Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God.” The first of these letters was dated November the 4th, 1713; and the sagacity and depth of thought displayed in it immediately excited Dr. Clarke’s particular notice. This condescension encouraged Mr. Butler to address the doctor again upon the same subject, which, ^likewise, was answered by him; and the correspondence being carried on in three other letters, the whole was annexed to the celebrated treatise before mentioned, and the collection has been retained in all the subsequent editions of that work. The management of this correspondence was entrusted by Mr. Butler to his friend and fellow-pupil Mr. Seeker, who, in order to conceal the affair, undertook to convey the letters to the post-office at Gloucester, and to bring back Dr. Clarke’s answers. When Mr. Butler’s name was discovered to the doctor, the candour, modesty, and good sense with which he had written, immediately procured him his friendship. Our young student was not, however, during his continuance at Tewkesbury, solely employed in metaphysical speculations and inquiries. Another subject of his serious consideration was, the propriety of his becoming a dissenting minister. Accordingly, he entered into an examination of the principles of non-conformity; the result of which was, such a dissatisfaction with them, as determined him to conform to the established church. This intention was at first very disagreeable to his father, who endeavoured to divert him from his purpose; and with that view called in the assistance of some eminent presbyterian divines; but finding his son’s resolution to be fixed, heat length suffered him to be removed to Oxford, where he was admitted a commoner of Oriel college, on the 17th of March, 1714. At what time he took orders is uncertain, but it must have been soon after his admission at Oxford, if it be true, as is asserted, that he sometimes assisted Mr. Edward Talbot in the divine service, at his living of Hendred near Wantage. With this gentleman, who was the. second son of Dr. William Talbot, successively bishop of Oxford, Salisbury, and Durham, Mr. Butler formed an intimate friendship at Oriel college, which laid the foundation of all his subsequent preferments, and procured for him a very honourable situation when he was only twentysix years of age. In 1718, at the recommendation of Mr. Talbot and Dr. Clarke, he was appointed by sir Joseph Jekyll to be preacher at the Rolls. This was three years before he had taken any degree at the university, where he did not go out bachelor of law till the 10th of June, 1721, which, however, was as soon as that degree could statutably be conferred upon him. Mr. Butler continued at the Rolls till 1726, in the beginning of which year he published, in one volume 8vo, “Fifteen Sermons preached at that Chapel.” In the mean time, by the patronage of Dr. Talbot, bishop of Durham, to whose notice he had been recommended (together with Mr. Benson and Mr. Seeker) by Mr. Edward Talbot on his death-bed, our author had been presented first to the rectory of Haughton, near Darlington, in 1722, and afterwards to that of Stanhope in the same diocese, in 1725, At Haughton there was a necessity for rebuilding a great part of the parsonagehouse, and Mr. Butler had neither money nor talents for that work. Mr. Seeker, therefore, who had always the interest of his friends at heart, and had acquired a very considerable influence with bishop Talbot, persuaded that prelate to give Mr. Butler, in exchange for Haughton, the rectory of Stanhope, which was not only free from any such incumbrance, but was likewise of much superior value, being indeed one of the richest parsonages in England. Whilst our author continued preacher at the Rolls chapel, he divided his time between his duty in town and country; but when he quitted the Rolls, he resided, during seven years, wholly at Stanhope, in the conscientious discharge of every obligation appertaining to a good parish priest. This retirement, however^ was too solitary for his disposition, which had in it a natural cast of gloominess: and though his recluse hours were by no means lost either to private improvement or public utility, yet he felt at times very painfully the want of that select society of friends to which he had been accustomed, and which could inspire him with the greatest chearfulness. Mr. Seeker, therefore, who knew this, was extremely anxious to draw him out into a more active and conspicuous scene, and omitted no opportunity of expressing this desire to such as he thought capable of promoting it. Having himself been, appointed king’s chaplain in 1732, he took occasion, in a conversation which he had the honour of holding with queen Caroline, to mention to her his friend Mr. Butler. The queen said she thought he had been dead. Mr. Seeker assured her he was not. Yet her majesty afterwards asked archbishop Blackburne if he was not dead? His answer was, “No, madam, but he is buried.” Mr. Seeker, continuing his purpose of endeavouring to bring his friend out of his retirement, found means, upon Mr. Charles Talbot' s being made lord chancellor, to have Mr. Butler recommended to him for his chaplain. His lordship accepted and sent for him; and this promotion calling him to town, he took Oxford in his way, and was admitted there to the degree of doctor of law, on the 8th of December, 1733. The lord chancellor, who gave him also a prebend in the church of Rochester, had consented that he should reside at his parish of Stanhope one half of the year.

Dr. Butler being thus brought back into the world, his merit and talents soon introduced him to particular notice, and paved the way for his rising to those high dignities which he afterwards enjoyed. In 1736, he was appointed clerk of the closet to queen Caroline; and, in the same year, he presented to her majesty a copy of his celebrated treatise, entitled “The Analogy of Religion, natural and revealed, to the constitution and course of Nature.” His attendance upon his royal mistress, by her especial command, was from seven to nine in the evening every day; and though this was interrupted by her death in 1737, yet he had been so effectually recommended by her, as well as by the late lord chancellor Talbot, to his majesty’s favour, that, in the next year, he was raised to the highest order of the church, by a nomination to the bishopric of Bristol; to which see he was consecrated on the 3d of December, 1738. King George II. not being satisfied with this proof of his regard to Dr. Butler, promoted him, in 1740, to the deanry of St. Paul’s London; into which he was installed on the 24th of May in that year, and finding the demands of this dignity to be incompatible with his parish duty at Stanhope, he immediately resigned that rich benefice. Besides our prelate’s unremitted attention to his peculiar obligations, he was called on to preach several discourses on public occasions, which were afterwards separately printed, and have since been annexed to the later editions of the Sermons at the Rolls chapel. In 1746, upon the death of Dr. Egerton, bishop of Hereford, Dr. But> ler was made clerk of the closet to the king; and in 1750, he received another distinguished mark of his majesty’s favour, by being translated to the see of Durham on the 16th of October in that year, upon the decease of Dr. Edward Chandler. Our prelate, being thus appointed to preside over a diocese with which he had long been connected, delivered his first, and indeed his last charge to his clergy, at his primary visitation in 1751. The principal subject of it was, “External Religion.” The bishop having observed, with deep concern, the great and growing neglect of serious piety in the kingdom, insisted strongly on the usefulness of outward forms and institutions, in fixing and preserving a sense of devotion and duty in the minds of men. In doing this, he was thought by several persons to speak too favourably of pagan and popish ceremonies, and to countenance, in a certain degree, the cause of superstition. 'Under that apprehension, an able and spirited writer, who was understood to be a clergyman of the church of England, published in 1752, a pamphlet, entitled “A serious inquiry into the use and importance of External Religion: occasioned by some passages in the right reverend the lord bishop of Durham’s Charge to the Clergy of that diocese; humbly addressed to his lordship.” Many persons, however, and, we believe, the greater part of the clergy of the diocese, did not think our prelate’s charge so exceptionable as it appeared to this author. The charge, which was first printed at Durham, was afterwards annexed to Dr. Butler’s other works, by Dr. Halifax. By his promotion to the see of Durham, our worthy bishop was furnished with ample means of exerting the virtue of charity, the exercise of which was his highest delight. But this gratification he did not long enjoy. He had been but a short time seated in his new bishopric, when his health began visibly to decline; and having been complimented, during his indisposition, upon account of his great resignation to the divine will, he is said to have expressed some regret, that he should be taken from the present world so soon after he had been rendered capable of becoming much more useful in it. In his last illness, he was carried to Bristol, to try the waters of that place; but, these proving ineffectual, he removed to Bath, where, being past recovery, he died on the 16th of June, 1752. His corpse was conveyed to Bristol, and interred in the cathedral there, where a monument, with an inscription, is erected to his memory. On the greatness of bishop Butler’s intellectual character we need not enlarge; for his profound knowledge, and the prodigious strength of his mind, are amply displayed in his incomparable writings. His piety was of the most serious and fervent, and perhaps somewhat of the ascetic kind. His benevolence was warm, generous, and diffusive. Whilst he was bishop of Bristol, he expended, in repairing and improving the episcopal palace, four thousand pounds, which is said to have been more than the whole revenues of the bishopric amounted to, during his continuance in that see. Indeed he used to say that the deanery of St. Paul’s paid for it. Besides his private benefactions, he was a contributor to the' Infirmary at Bristol, and a subscriber to three of the Hospitals at London. He was, likewise, a principal promoter, though not the first founder, of the Infirmary at Newcastle, in Northumberland. lu supporting the hospitality and dignity of the rich and powerful diocese of Durham, he was desirous of imitating the spirit of his patron, bishop Talbot. In this spirit, he set apart three clays every week for the reception and entertainment of the principal gentry of the country. Nor were even the clergy who had the poorest benefices neglected by him. He not only occasionally invited them to dine with him, but condescended to visit them at their respective parishes. By his will, he left five hundred pounds to the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, and some legacies to his friends and domestics. His executor was his chaplain, the rev. Dr. Nathaniel Forster, a divine of distinguished literature, who was especially charged to destroy all his manuscript sermons, letters, and papers. Bishop Butler was never married. The bishop’s disposition, which had in it a natural ca’st of gloominess, was supposed to give a tincture to his devotion. As a proof of this, and that he had even acquired somewhat of a superstitious turn of mind, it was alleged, that he had put a. cross in his chapel at Bristol. The cross was a plain piece of marble inlaid. This circumstance, together with the offence which some persons had taken at his charge delivered at Durham, might possibly give rise to a calumny, that, almost fifteen years after his death, was advanced concerning him, in an obscure and anonymous pamphlet, entitled “The Root of Protestant Errors examined.” It was there said, that our prelate died in the communion of the church of Rome. Of this absurd and groundless charge, we shall take no other notice, than to transcribe what the worthy and learned Dr. Porteus has written concerning it, in his Life of Archbishop Seeker. “This strange slander, founded on the weakest pretences and most trivial circumstances that can be imagined, no one was better qualified to confute than the archbishop; as well from his long and intimate knowledge of bishop Butler, as from the information given him at the time by those who attended his lordship in his last illness, and were with him when he died. Accordingly, by an article in a newspaper, signed Misopseudes, his grace challenged the author of that pamphlet to produce his authority for what he had advanced; and in a second article defended the bishop against him; and in a third (all with the same signature) confuted another writer, who, under the name of ‘A real Protestant,’ still maintained that ridiculous calumy. His antagonists were effectually subdued, and his superiority to them was publicly acknowledged by a sensible and candid man, who signed himself, and who really was ‘A dissenting Minister.’ Surely, it is a very unwise piece of policy, in those who profess themselves enemies to popery, to take so much pains to bring the most respectable names within its pale; and to give it the merit of having gained over those who were the brightest ornaments and firmest supports of the protestant cause.”

In this dilemma, however, Mr. Byrom had recourse to the teaching of short-hand writing, as a means of supporting himself and his wife, who adhered to him with affectionate tenderness in all his vicissitudes. Dr. Nichols informs us, that he had invented his short-hand at Cambridge on the following occasion: Some manuscript sermons being communicated to him, written in short-hand, he easily discovered the true reading, but observing the method to be clumsy and ill-contrived, he set about inventing a better. The account given by the editor of his System, published in 1764, is somewhat different. It is said that the first occasion of his turning his attention that way arose from his acquaintance with Mr. Sharp of Trinity college, son to archbishop Sharp. Mr. Sharp had been advised by his father to study the art, and Mr. Byrom joined him. All the systems then in vogue appearing inadequate to the end, he devised that which now goes by his name. This discovery was made, not without considerable exultation, and provoked Weston, then the chief stenographer, to a trial of skill, or rather a controversy, which terminated in favour of Byrom. Weston published his system in 1725, and the dispute was carried on probably about that time. Into the respective merits of these systems, it is unnecessary to enter. Angel, another professor of the art, who prefixed a short history of Stenographers to his own system (published in 1758) considers Weston' s method as one that few have either capacity, patience, or leisure to learn. He also tells us that Dr. Byrom “so far distinguished himself as a professor or teacher of the art of short-writing, that about the year 1734, he obtained an act of parliament, (perhaps he means a patent) for that purpose, as presuming he had discovered a wonderful secret; and great care has since been taken to preserve it inviolably such, except to his pupils, in hopes that by exciting a greater curiosity, it might increase their number;” and, as Mr. Angel had a new system to propose, it was necessary for him to add, “that he could discover no peculiar excellence in Byrom’s, either in the form of the letters, the rules, or the application of them.” Byrom, however, preserved his system in manuscript as long as he lived. When his friends wished to publish it after his death, they found no part of it finished for the press, although he had made some progress in drawing it up in form, enoilgh, says his editor, to show the plan upon which he intended to proceed. Among his pupils, of whom an ample list is given, in honour of his system, we find the names of many distinguished scholars, of Isaac Hawkins Browne, Martin Folkes, Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Hartley, lord Camden, &c. Lord Chesterfield, according to Dr. Nichols, was likewise taught by him, which appears to be doubtful. The same biographer informs us, that it was Byrom’s practice to read a lecture to his scholars upon the history and utility of short-hand, interspersed with strokes of wit that rendered it very entertaining. About the same time he became acquainted with that irregular genius Dr. Byfield, with whom he used to have skirmishes of humour and repartee at the Rainbow coffee-house, near Temple Bar. Upon that chemist’s decease, who was the inventor of the Sal volatile oleosum, Byrom wrote the following impromptu:

, archbishop of Thessalonica in the fourteenth century, under the empire of the Andronicus’s, wrgainst the Latins; the first to prove that the division between the Greek and Latin churches is owing in a great measure to the conduct of the Pope, who wishes to act independently of an œcumenical council, contrary to the usage of the church the second is a 'more direct attack on the infallibility of the Pope, and reduces his primacy to merely a primacy of honour; and he urges many arguments against the assumed power of the pope which are perfectly consistent with the opinions on which the reformers afterwards proceeded. These treatises, Du Pin says, are written with method, perspicuity, and learning. They were at first printed at London in Greek, without date, according to Du Pin, but we have not been able to discover this edition. They were, however, published in English at London, in 1560; or at least the latter of them, under the title “A Treatise containing a declaration of the Pope’s usurped primacie; written in Greek above seven hundred yeares since by Nilus archbishop of Thessalonica. Translated by Thomas Gressop, student in Oxford,” 8vo. There are also editions in Greek and Latin at Basil, 1544, Francfort, 1555, and with Salmasius’s notes, 1608. Our author also wrote a large work on the procession of the Holy Ghost, in opposition to the Latins.

, grand nephew of the preceding, and second son of Charles Sloan Cadogan, third baron, and first earl Cadogan of the new creation (1800), was born Jan. 22, 1751, at his father’s house in Bruton-street, and was educated at Westminster-school, whence he was removed to Christ church college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. At this university, he distinguished himself by obtaining several prizes for classical learning, and by a diligent application to the study of the holy scriptures. In 1774, the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Reading, became vacant, by the death of the rev. William Talbot, a very popular preacher of Calvinistic principles, and was conferred on Mr. Cadogan, unsolicited, in the following manner. Lord Bathurst, who was then chancellor, called at lord Cadogan’s house in Privy Gardens, and desired to see him. Lord Cadogan was not at home; and the servants, seeing lord Bathurst plainly dressed, admitted him no farther than the hall, on the table of which he wrote a note, requesting lord Cadogan to accept the vicarage of St. Giles’s for his son. The offer of so valuable a preferment, and so near to the family seat at Caversham, was peculiarly acceptable to lord Cadogan: but his son not being in priest’s orders, it was held by sequestration till he was ordained priest in 1775. Soon after, he was presented by lord Cadogan to the rectory of Chelsea, but as he could not hold two livings without being a master of arts, that degree was conferred upon him by archbishop Cornwallis and in the following year, being then of sufficient standing in the university, he was regularly admitted to the same degree of Oxford.

, a very eminent divine among the nonconformists, grandson to Mr. Edmund Calamy, minister of Aldermanbury, by his eldest son Mr. Edmund Calamy (who was ejected out of the living of Moreton in Essex, on St. Bartholomew’s day, 1662), was born April 5, 1671. Having made a considerable progress in grammar learning at several private schools, and under Mr. Hartcliffe at Merchant Taylors, where he contracted a close friendship with Mr. Dawes, afterwards sir William Dawes, and archbishop of York, as also with Mr. Hugh Boulter, the primate of Ireland, he went through a course of logic, natural philosophy, and metaphysics, under the tuition of Mr. Samuel Craddock at the academy kept by him at Wickham Brook in Suffolk. In March 1688, he went over to the university of Utrecht, where he studied philosophy under De Vries, and civil law under Vander Muyden, and attended Graevius’s lectures upon Sophocles and Puffendorf’s Introduction. His application to his studies at this place was so great, that he spent one whole night every week among his books; and his proficiency gained him -the friendship of two of his countrymen at that university, who rose afterwards to very high stations in church and state, lord Charles Spencer, the famous earl of Sunderland, and his tutor Mr. Charles Trimnell, afterwards successively bishop of Norwich and of Winchester, with both of whom he kept up his acquaintance as long as he and they lived. Whilst he resided in Holland, an oiler of a professor’s chair in the university of Edinburgh was made him by Mr. Carstairs, principal of that university, sent over on purpose to find a person properly qualified lor such an office; which he declined, and returned to England in 1691, bringing with him letters from Graevius to Dr. Pocock, canon of Christ-church, and regius professor of Hebrew, and to Dr. Edward Bernard, Savilian professor of astronomy, who obtained leave for him to prosecute his studies in the Bodleian library; and his resilience at Oxford procured him the acquaintance of the learned Mr. Henry Dodvvell. Having resolved to make divinity his principal study, he entered into an examination of the controversy between the conformists and nonconformists, and was led to join the latter. Coming to London in 1692, he was unanimously chosen assistant to Mr. Matthew Sylvester at Blackfriars; and oa June 22, 1694, was ordained at Mr. Annesley’s meetinghouse in Little St. Helen’s, which was the first public transaction of the kind, after the passing of the act of uniformity, and was not undertaken without some timidity on the part of the elder nonconformists, such as Mr. Howe and Dr. Bates, who seemed afraid of giving offence to government. Six other young ministers were ordained at the same time, and the ceremony lasted from ten o'clock in the morning to six in the evening. He was soon after invited to become assistant to Mr. Daniel Williams in Hand-alley, Bishupsgate-street. Oct. 20, 1702, he was chosen one of the lecturers at Salters’-lmll, and in 1703 succeeded Mr. Vincent Alsop, as pastor of v. congregation in Westminster. He drew up the table of contents to Mr. Baxter’s History of his life and times, which was sent to the press in 1696, made some remarks on the work itself, and added to it an index; and reflecting on the usefulness of the book, he saw the expediency of continuing it, for Mr. Baxter’s history came no lower than 1684. Accordingly he composed an abridgment of it; with an account of many others of those ministers who were ejected after the restoration of Charles II. their apology for themselves and their adherents; containing the grounds of their nonconformity and practice, as to stated and occasional communion witlx the church of England; and a continuation of their history till the year 1691. This work was published in 1702. The following year Mr. Hoadly (afterwards bishop of Winchckter) published the two parts of his “Reasonableness of Conformity to the Church of England, &c. in answer to Mr. Calamy’s Abridgement of Mr. Baxter’s history, &c.” As a reply to these treatises, Mr. Calamy published the same year, “A Defence of moderate Nonconformity;” and soon after Mr. Hoadly sent abroad, “A serious admonition to Mr Calamy,” occasioned by the first part of his “Defence, of moderate Nonconformity.”

, a famous divine of the church of Scotland, and a distinguished writer in behalf of the presbyterians, was descended of a good family in that kingdom, and born in 1575. Being early designed for the ministry, he applied with great diligence to the study of the scriptures in their original tongues, the works of the fathers, the councils, and the best writers of church history. He was settled, about 1604, at Crailing, not far from Jedburgh, in the south of Scotland. James VI. of that country, and the first of Great Britain, being desirous of bringing the church of Scotland to a near conformity with that of England, laboured earnestly to restore the episcopal authority, and enlarge the powers of the bishops in that kingdom; but this design was very warmly opposed by many of the ministers, and particularly by David Calderwood, who, when James Law, bishop of Orkney, came to visit the presbyteries of the Merse and Teviotdale, declined his jurisdiction, by a paper under his hand, dated May 5, 1603. The king, however, having its success much at heart, sent the earl of Dunbar, then high-treasurer of Scotland, Dr. Abbot, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, and two other divines, into that kingdom, with instructions to employ every method to persuade both the clergy and the laity, of his majesty’s sincere desire to promote the good of the church, and of his zeal for the Protestant religion, in which they succeeded. Calderwood, however, did not assist at the general assembly held at Glasgow, June 8, 1610, in which lord Dunbar presided as commissioner; and it appears from his writings, that he looked upon every thing transacted in it as null and void. Exceptions were also taken by him and his party, against a great part of the proceedings of another general assembly > held with much solemnity at Aberdeen, Aug. 13, 1616. In May following, king James went to Scotland, and in June held a parliament at Edinburgh; at the same time the clergy met in one of the churches, to hear and advise with the bishops; which kind of assembly, it seems, was contrived in imitation of the English convocation. Mr. Calderwood was present at it, but declared publicly that he did not take any such meetings to resemble a convocation; and being opposed by Dr. Whitford and Dr. Hamilton, who were friends to the bishops, he took his leave of them in these words: “It is absurd to see men sitting in silks and satins, and to cry poverty in the kirk, when purity is departing.” The parliament proceeded mean while in the dispatch of business; and Calderwood, with several other ministers, being informed that a bill was depending to empower the king, with advice of the archbishops, bishops, and such a number of the ministry as his majesty should think proper, to consider and conclude, as to matters decent for the external policy of the church, not repugnant to the word of God; and that such conclusions should have the strength and power of ecclesiastical laws: against this they protested for four reasons: 1. Because their church was so perfect, that, instead of needing reformation, it might be a pattern to others. 2. General assemblies, as now established by law, and which ought always to continue, might by this means be overthrown. 3. Because it might be a means of creating schism, and disturb the tranquillity of the church. 4. Because they had received assurances, that no attempts should be made to bring them to a conformity with the church of England. They desired, therefore, that for these and other reasons, all thoughts of passing any such law may be laid aside; but in case this be not done, they protest, for themselves and their brethren who shall adhere to them, that they can yield no obedience to this law when it shall be enacted, because it is destructive of the liberty of the church; and therefore shall submit to such penalties, and think themselves obliged to undergo such punishments, as may be inflicted for disobeying that law. This protest was signed by Archibald Simpson, on behalf of the members, who subscribed another separate roll, which he kept for his justification. It was delivered to Peter Hewet, who had a seat in parliament, in order to be presented; and another copy remained in Simpson’s hands, to be presented in case of any accident happening to the other. The affair making a great noise, Dr. Spotswood, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, asked a sight of the protest from Hewet, one day at court and, upon some dispute between them, it was torn. The other copy was actually presented by Simpson to the clerk register, who refused to read it before the states in parliament. However, the protest, though not read, had its effect; for although the bill before-mentioned, or, as the Scottish phrase is, the article, had the consent of parliament, yet the king thought fit to cause it to be laid aside; and not long after called a general assembly at St. Andrew’s. Soon after, the parliament was dissolved, and Simpson was summoned before the high commission court, where the roll of names which he had kept for his justification, was demanded from him; and upon his declaring that he had given it to Harrison, who had since delivered it to Calderwood, he was sent prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh; and Calderwood was summoned to appear before the high commission court at St. Andrew’s, on the 8th of July following, to exhibit the said protest, and to answer for his mutinous and seditious behaviour.

It may be necessary to say somewhat more of his manuscript history, which is contained in six large folio volumes, in the Glasgow library. In the first volume, immediately after the title-page, there is the following note. “This work, comprehended in pages, is collected out of Mr. Knox’s History, and his Memorials gathered for the continuation of his History, out of Mr. James Melvil’s Observations, Mr. John Davidson his Diary, the Acts of the General Assemblies, and Acts of Parliament, and out of several Proclamations, and Scrolls of diverse; and comprehendeth an History from the beginning of the reign of king James V. to the death of king James VI. but is contracted and digested in a better order, in a work of three volumes, bound in parchment, and is comprehended in 2013 pages. Out of which work contracted, is extracted another, in lesser bounds, but wanting nothing in substance, and comprehended in pages, which the author desireth only to be communicated to others, and this with the other, contracted into three volumes, to serve only for the defence of the third, and preservation of the History, in case it be lost.” The first of the six volumes gives a large introduction, in which the author undertakes to inform us of the time when, and the persons by whom the island of Great Britain was first inhabited; and afterwards brings down the Scottish Civil History as well as the Ecclesiastical, from the first planting of Christianity to the end of James the Fourth’s reign. After his account of the affairs of the state and the church, we have a view of all the most considerable wars and battles (domestic and foreign) wherein the people of Scotland have been engaged before the said period, as also of the ancient honorary titles, and their institution. On this last head he quotes an old manuscript, sent from Icolmkill to Mr. George Buchanan, which testifies that a parliament was held at Forfar, in the year 1061, wherein surnames are appointed to be taken, and several earls, barons, lords, and knights, were created. After this general preface he begins his proper work, The History of the Scottish Reformation. And in this volume advances as far as the marriage of queen Mary with the lord Darnley, in 1565. In his story of Mr. Patrick Hamilton, the protomartyr in this cause, he gives a copy of the sentence pronounced against him, together with a congratulatory letter from the doctors at Louvain to the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, on the occasion of his death. Amongst those learned men, who upon the first persecution fled into Germany, he reckons Mr. George Buchanan. In his large account of the disputes and sufferings of the reformers, under the administration of cardinal Beaton and the queen regent, we have the particulars of the contentions at Frankfurt, which are mostly taken out of a book entitled “A brief discovery of the Troubles of Mr. John Knox, for opposing the English Service Book, in 1554.” After which we have Knox’s Appeal from the sentence of the clergy, to the nobility, estates, and community of Scotland, with a great many letters from the nobility to the queen-regent and him, on the subject of religion. All this part of the history, which in the printed book makes no more than thirteen pages, ends at page 57 1; from whence (to the end of the book at page 902) there is a good collection of curious letters, remonstrances, &c. which are not in the prints, either of Knox or Calderwood. The second volume contains the history from 1565 to the arraignment of the earl of Moreton for treason, in December 15 So, and contains 614 pages, wherein are many valuable discoveries relating to the practices of David Rizzio, the king’s murder, Bothweil’s marriage and flight, &c. and a more periect narrative of the proceedings in the general assemblies, than the printed history will afford us. The third volume comprehends the entire history of both church and state, from the beginning of January 1581 to July 1586, when queen Mary’s letter to Babington was intercepted. Under the year 1584, there is a severe character of Mr. Patrick Adamson, archbishop of St. Andrew’s; which, in the conclusion, refers us for a farther account of him to a poem made by one Robert Semple, and entitled “The Legend of the Limmer’s Life.” Here is also “An account of the State and Church of Scotland to the Church of Geneva,” which was written by Andrew Melvil, in answer to the misrepresentations of the Scottish discipline scattered in foreign countries, by the said archbishop Adamson. The fourth gives the like mixed history of affairs, from July 1586 to the beginning of 1596. Here we have a full collection of papers relating to the trial, condemnation, and execution, of the unfortunate queen Mary, with abundance of others, touching the most remarkable transactions of this Decennium. In 1587 there is a large account of the coming of the sieur du Bartas into Scotland; of his being carried by king James to the university of St. Andrew’s, his hearing of the lectures of Mr. A. Melvil there, and the great opinion he had of the abilities of that professor, &c. In 1590 there are some smart reflections on Dr. Bancroft’s sermon at Paul’s Cross, censuring the proceedings of J. Knox, and others of the northern reformers, with the assembly’s letter to queen Elizabeth about that sermon. The fifth volume reaches from the beginning of January 1596, to the same month in 1607. After the accounts of the proceedings of the assembly in 1596, the author subjoins this pathetic epiphonema: “Here end all the sincere assemblies general of the kirk of Scotland, enjoying the liberty of the gospel under the free government of Christ.” The new and constant Platt of Planting all the Kirks of Scotland (written by Mr. David Lindsay, one of the Octavians) is here inserted at large, as it was presented to the king and states in the said year 1596. The history of the conspiracy of the Cowries, and the manner of its discovery, is likewise here recorded at length, in the same order, wherein the king commanded it to be published. The new form of ojmination to bishoprics, the protestation in parliament against the restitution of episcopacy, and the reasons offered against it by others, are the remaining matters of consideration in this book. The sixth concludes with the death of king James VI.

, a learned divine of the sixteenth century, otherwise named Calfield, Cawfield, Chalfhill, or Calfed, was born in Shropshire, in 1530. Strype, however, says he was a Scotchman, and cousin to Toby Malhew, afterwards archbishop of York. He received his education at Eton school, and from thence was sent, in 1545, to King’s college in Cambridge, from which he was removed, with many Other Cambridge men, in 1548, to Christ Church in Oxford, newly founded by king Henry VIII. Here be shewed himself to be a person of quick wit and great capacity; being an excellent poet and author of a tragedy, with other theatrical performances. In 1549, he took his degree of bachelor of arts; and that of master in 1552, being junior of the act celebrated in St. Mary’s church, July 18. He was made, in 1560, canon of the second canonry in Christ Church cathedral, Oxon; and, On the 12th of December 1561, took the degree of bachelor of divinity. In 1562 he was proctor for the clergy of London and the chapter of Oxford in the convocation that made the XXXIX Articles and on the 16th of May, the same year, was admitted to the rectory of St. Andrew Wardrobe, London. The 4th of October following, he was presented by the crown to the prebend of St. Pancras, in the cathedral church of St. Paul; and May 4, 1565, was collated by Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, to the rectory of Booking, in Essex; and on July 16th following, to the archdeaconry of Colchester in Essex, by Edmund Grindal, bishop of London. The same year, December 17th, he took the degree of doctor in divinity. In 1568, he preached two sermpns in Bristol cathedral, on purpose to confute Dr. Cheney, who held that see in commendam, and who had spoken disrespectfully of certain opinions of Luther and Calvin. In 1569 he made application to secretary Cecil, chancellor of the university of Cambridge, for the provostship of king’s college, but Dr. Goad’s interest prevailed. Upon the translation of.Dr. Edwin Sandys from the bishopric of Worcester to that of London in 1570, Dr. Calfhiil was nominated by queen Elizabeth to succeed him 3 but before his consecration he died, about the beginning of August (having a little before resigned his canonry of Christ Church, and rectory of St. Andrew Wardrobe), and was buried in the chancel of Bocking church. His works were, 1. “Querela Oxoniensis Academise ad Cantabrigiam,” Lond. 1552, 4to, a Latin poem on the death of Henry and Charles Brandon, sons of Charles duke of Suffolk, who died of the sweating-sickness in the bishop of Lincoln’s house at Bugden, July 14, 1551. 2. “Historia de exhumatione Catherines nuper uxoris Pet. Martyris;” or, The History of the digging up the body of Catherine late wife of Peter Martyr, Lond. 1562, 8vo. The remains of this lady had been deposited in the cathedral of Christ Church, near to the relics of St. Frideswide, and in queen Mary’s reign were dug up and buried in the dunghill near the stables belonging to the dean; but on the accession of queen Elizabeth, an order was given to replace them with suitable solemnity. This order our author partly executed, and the remains of Martyr’s wife were on this occasion purposely mixed with those of St. Frideswide, that the superstitious worshippers of the latter might never be able to distinguish or separate them. 3. Answer to John Martiall’s “Treatise of the Cross, gathered out of the Scriptures, Councils, and ancient Fathers of the primitive Church,” Lond. 1565, 4to. 4. “Progne,” a tragedy, in Latin; whichprobably was never printed. It was acted before que^n Elizabeth at Oxford in 1566, in Christ Church hall; but, says Wood, “it did not take half so well as the much admired play of Palsemon and Arcyte,” written by Edwards. 5. “Poemata varia.” As to his character, we are informed, that he was in his younger days a noted poet and comedian and in his elder, an exact disputant, and had an excellent faculty in speaking and preaching. One who had heard him preach, gives this account of him: “His excellent tongue, and rhetorical tale, tilled with good and wholesome doctrine, so ravished the minds of the hearers, that they were all in admiration of his eloquence.” One John Calfhill, chaplain to Dr. Matthew, archbishop of York, a prebendary of Durham, &c. who died in 1619, was probably son to our author.

, a learned Benedictine of the college of St. Vanncs, was born at Mesnil-la-Horgue, near Commercy, Feb. 26, 1672, and was first educated in the priory of Breuii. In 1687 he went to study at the university of Pont-a-Mousson, where he was taught a course of rhetoric. On leaving this class, he entered among the Benedictines in the abbey of St. Mansuy, in the fauxbourg of Toul, Oct. 17, 1688, and mad,e profession in the same place Oct. 23, 1689. He began his philosophical course in the abbey of fcfe. Evre, and completed that and his theological studies in the abbey of St. Munster. At his leisure hours he studied the Hebrew language with great attention and success, and likewise improved his knowledge of the Greek. In 1696 he was sent with some of his companions to the abbey of Moyenmoutier, where they studied the Holy Scriptures under P. D. Hyacinthe Alliot. Two years aftef, in 1698, Calmet was appointed to teach philosophy and theology to the young religious of that monastery, an employment which he filled until 1704, when he was sent, with the rank of sub-prior, to the abbey of Munster. There he was at the head of an academy of eight or ten religious, with whom he pursued his biblical studies, and having, while at Moyenmoutier written commentaries and dissertations, on various parts of the Bible, he here retouched and improved these, although without any other design, at this time, than his own instruction. During a visit, however, at Paris, in 1706, he was advised by the abbe Duguet, to whom he had been recommended by Mabillon, to publish his commentaries in French, and the first volume accordingly appeared in 1707. In 1715 he became prior of Lay, and in 1718 the chapter-general appointed bim abb 6 of St. Leopold, of Nancy, and the year following he was made visitor of the congregation. In 1728 he was chosen abbe* of Senones, on which occasion he resigned his priory of Lay. When pope Benedict XIII. confirmed his election, the cardinals proposed to his holiness that Calmet should also have the title of bishop in partibus infiddium, with power to exercise the episcopal functions in those parts of the province which are exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary; but this Calmet refused, and wrote on the subject to Rome. The pope in Sept. 1729, addressed a brief to him, accepting of his excuses, and some time after sent him a present of his works, in 3 vols. fol. Calmet took possession of the abbey of Senones, January 3, 1729, and continued his studies, and increased the library and museum belonging to the abbey with several valuable purchases, particularly of the medals of the deceased M. de Corberon, secretary of slate, and of the natural curiosities of M, Voile. Here be died Oct. 25, 1757, respected by all ranks, Roman catholics and Protestants, for his learning and candour, and by his more particular friends and those of his own order, for his amiable temper and personal virtues. His learning, indeed, was most extensive, as the greater part of his long life was devoted to study, but amidst such vast accumulation of materials, we are not surprized that he was sometimes deficient in selection, and appears rather as a collector of facts, than as an original thinker. His principal works are, 1. “Commentaire litteral sur tous les livres de l'Aneten et da Nouyeau Testament,” 1707 1716, 23 vols. 4to; reprinted in 26 vols. 4to, and fol. and abridged in 14 vols. 4to. Rondet published a new edition of this abridgment in 17 vols. 4to, Avignon, 1767 1773. M. Fourmont, Arabic professor in the royal college, had begun an attack on this commentary, because Calmet had not, as he thought, paid sufficient respect to the rabbins, but the king (Louis XIV.) and the cardinal de Noailles obliged him to desist. The celebrated father Simon wrote some letters against Calmet, which were communicated to him by Pinsonnat, the Hebrew professor, who did not approve of them, nor did Anquetille, the librarian of Tellier, archbishop of Rheims, nor were they published until eighteen or twenty years afterwards, and even then the censors expunged many illiberal passages respecting Calmet. 2. The “Dissertations and Prefaces” belonging to his commentary, published separately with nineteen new Dissertations, Paris, 1720, 2 vols. 4to. 3. “Histoire de PAncien et du Nouveau Testament,” intended as an introduction to Fleury’s “Ecclesiastical History,” 2 and 4 vols. 4to; and 5 and 7 vols. 12mo. 4. “Dictionnaire historique, critique, et chronologique de la Bible.” Paris, 1730, 4 vols. fol. This work, which is a valuable treasure of sacred history and criticism, was soon made known to the English public by a translation, in 3 vols. fol. London, 1732, by Sam.D'Oyly, M. A. vicar of St. Nicholas, Rochester, and John Colson, F. R. S. vicar of Chalk, in Kent, a work elegantly printed and embellished with a profusion of fine engravings. A new edition appeared in 17^5, 4to, with valuable additions from subsequent critics, travellers, and philosophers. 5. “Histoire ecclesiasiique et civile de la Lorraine,” 3 vols. fol. reprinted 1745, in 5 vols. fol. 6. “Bibliotheque des Ecrivains de Lorraine,” fol, 1751. 7. “Histoire universelle sacrée et profane,” 15 vols. 4to. This Calmet did not live to finish, and in other respects it is not his best work. 7. “Dissertations sur les apparitions des Anges, des Demons, et des Esprits, et sur les Revenans et Vampires de Hongrie,” Paris, 1746, 12mo, and Einfidlen, 1749, 12mo, a work, say the French critics, in which there are many symptoms of old age, and its credulous weaknesses. It was however translated and published in English in 1759, 8vo. The author admits the reality of apparitions, on the authority of the scriptures, but discredits many of the miraculous stories concerning them to which his own church has given currency. 9. f Commentaire litteral, historique, et moral, sur la Regie de St. Benoit,“1754, 2 vols. 4to. 10.” De la Poesie et Musique des anciens Hebreux," Amst. 1723, 8vo. His conjectures on this subject, Dr. Burney thinks, are perhaps as probable as those of any one of the numerous authors who have exercised their skill in expounding and defining what some have long since thought involved in Cimmerian darkness. Calmet also left a vast number of manuscripts, or rather manuscript collections, as it had long been his practice to copy, or employ others to copy, whatever he found curious in books. In 1733, he deposited in the royal library, a correct transcript of the Vedam, a work which the natives of Hiudostan attribute to their legislator Brama, who received it, according to their tradition, from God himself. This copy came into Calmet' s possession by means of a bramin who had been converted by the Jesuit missionaries. Calmet’s life was written by Dom Fange, his nephew and successor in the abbey of Senones, and published in 8vo. It was afterwards translated into Italian by Benedetto Passionei, and published at Rome in 1770.

George, the first lord, was buried in the chancel of Su Dunstan’s in the west, in Fleet-street. As to his character, Lloyd says, “he was the only statesman, that, being engaged to a decried party (the Roman catholics), managed his business with that great respect for all sides, that all who knew him applauded him, and none that had any thing to do with him complained of him.” But archbishop Abbot, in a letter to sir Thomas Roe (Roe’s Letters, p. 372) seems to impute his turning Roman catholic to political discontent. This nobleman wrote, 1. “Carmen funebre in D. Hen. Untonum ad Gallos bis h-gatuiu, ibique nuper fato functum.” 2. “Speeches in Parliament.” 3. “Various Letters of State.” 4. “The Answer of Tom Tell Truth.” 5. “The Practice of Princes” and 6. “The Lamentation of the Kirk.” There are some of his letters in the Harleian ms collection, and some in Howard’s collection, 4to, p. 53—61.

, the son of Robert Calvert, a grocer and sheriff of York, was born on the Pavement in that ancient city. He was educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, where he was contemporary with the famous archbishop Tillotson. He was bred up under Mr. David Clarkson, and was a graduate in the university. He had been for several years at Topcliff, when he was silenced by the act of uniformity after which he retired to York, lived privately, but studied hard; and there it was that he wrote his learned book concerning the ten tribes, entitled “Naphthali, seu colluctatio theologica de reditu decem tribuum, conversione Judaeorum et mens. Ezekielis,” Lond. 1672, 4to. This book he dedicated to bishop Wilkins, on whom he waited at Scarborough Spaw, together with Mr. Williams of York. Bishop Wilkins received him with much respect, and encouraged him to live in hopes of a comprehension. About the year 1675 he became chaplain to sir William Strickland of Boynton, where he" continued several years, preaching and educating his son, till both he and his lady died; then he removed to Hull, and from thence into Northumberland, to sir William Middleton’s, where he constantly exercised his function as chaplain, educated his only son, was left tutor to him when his father died, and was very careful of his education both at home and in Cambridge. He died in December 1698.

The character of Calvin, like that of Luther, and the other more eminent reformers, has been grossly calumniated by the adherents of popery, but the testimonies in its favour are too numerous to permit us for a moment to doubt that he was not only one of the greatest, but one of the best men of his time, and the deduction which necessarily must be made from this praise, with respect to his conduct towards Servetus and others, must at the same time in candour be referred to the age in which he lived, and in which the principles of toleration were not understood . On the other hand his uncommon talents have been acknowledged not only by the most eminent persons of his age, but by all who have studied his works, or have traced the vast and overpowering influence he possessed in every country in Europe, where the work of reformation was carrying on. Every society, every church, every district, every nation that had in any degree adopted the principles of the reformers, were glad to consult and correspond with Calvin on the steps they were to pursue. The court of England in particular, Edward VI. queen Elizabeth, archbishop Cranmer, and the leading prelates and reformers here, expressed their high respect for him, and frequently asked and followed his advice. In France perhaps he was yet more consulted, and at Geneva he was an ecclesiastical dictator, whose doctrines and discipline became the regular church establishment, and were afterwards adopted and still remain in full force in Scotland. Calvinism was also extensively propagated in Germany, the United Provinces, and England. In France it was abolished, as well as every other species of protestantism, by the revocation of the edict >f Nantz in 1685. During the reign of Edward VI. it entered much into the writings of the eminent divines of that period; in queen Elizabeth’s time, although many of her' divines were of the same sentiments, it was discouraged as far as it showed itself in a dislike of the ceremonies, habits, &c. of the church. In the early part of Charles Ts time it was yet more discouraged, Arminiamsm being the favourite system of Laud; but during the interregnum it revived in an uncommon degree, and was perhaps the persuasion of the majority of the divines of that period, all others having been silenced and thrown out of their livings by the power of parliament. How far it now exists in the church of England, in her articles and homilies, has recently been the subject of a very long and perhaps undecided controversy, into which it is not our intention to enter, nor could we, indeed, make the attempt within any moderate compass. One excellent effect of this controversy has been to inform those of the real principles of Calvinism, who have frequently used that word to express a something which they did not understand. Perhaps it would be well if the word itself were less used, and the thing signified referred to the decision of more than human authority. It may be added, however, that the distinguishing theological tenets of Calvinism, as the term is now generally applied, respect the doctrines of Predestination, or particular Election and Reprobation, original Sin, particular Redemption, effectual, or, as some have called it, irresistible Grace in Regeneration, Justification by faith, Perseverance, and the Trinity. Besides the doctrinal part of Calvin’s system, which, so far as it differs from that of other reformers of the same period, principally regarded the absolute decree of God, whereby the future and eternal condition of the human race was determined out of mere sovereign pleasure and free-will; it extended likewise to the discipline and government of the Christian church, the nature of the Eucharist, and the qualification of those who were entitled to the participation of it. Calvin considered every church as a separate and independent body, invested with the power of legislation for itself. He proposed that it should be governed by presbyteries and synods, composed of clergy and laity, without bishops, or any clerical subordination; and maintained, that the province of the civil magistrate extended only to its protec-r tion and outward accommodation. In order to facilitate an union with the Lutheran church, he acknowledged a Vol. VIII. H renl, though spiritual, presence of Christ in the Eucharist; that true Christians were united to the man Christ in this ordinance; and that divine grace was conferred upon them, and sealed to them, in the celebration of it: and he confined the privilege of communion to pious and regenerate believers. In France the Calvinists are distinguished by the name of Huguenots; and, among the common people, by that of Parpaillots. In Germany they are confounded with the Lutherans, under the general title Protestants; only sometimes distinguished by the name Reformed.

Upon leaving the university, he seems to have made the tour of great part of England; and in 1575, by the interest of his friend Dr. Gabriel Goodman, dean of Westnii nster, he obtained the place of second master of Westminster school. The little leisure he could spare from this important charge he devoted to his favourite study. He was not content with pursuing it in his closet, but made excursions over the kingdom every vacation. In 1582, for example, he took a journey through Suffolk into Yorkshire, and returned by Lancaster. When at home he searched into the manuscript collections of our own writers, and the published writings of foreigners respecting us. At this time too, he meditated his great work, the “Britannia;” and as his reputation engaged him in an extensive correspondence both at home and abroad, Ortelius, whom he terms the great restorer of geography, happening to come over into England, applied himself to Mr. Camden for information respecting this country. His solicitations, and the regard our author had for his native country, prevailed on him to improve and digest the collections, which he seems to have made at first only for private satisfaction and curiosity. He entered upon this task with every difficulty and disadvantage. It was a new science, which was to amuse and inform an age which had just began to recover itself from the heat and perplexity of philosophy and school divinity. The study of geography had been first attended to in Italy for the facilitating the reading of Roman history. The names of places there, and even in the rest of Europe, where the Romans had so long kept possession, were not greatly altered; but in Britain, which they subdued so late, and held so precariously, a great degree of obscurity prevailed. The Roman orthography and terminations had obscured in some instances the British names; but the Saxons, who succeeded the Romans here, as they gained a firmer possession, made an almost total change in these as in every thing else. Upon their expulsion by the Normans, their language ceased to be a living one, while that of the Britons was preserved in a corner of the island. Very soon after the coiiquesj there were few who could read the Saxon characters. In tracing the Roman geography of Britain, Mr. Camden might he assisted by Ptolemy, Antoninus’s Itinerary, and the Notitia; but before he could become acquainted with the Saxon geography, it was necessary for him to make himself master of a language which had ceased for above 400 years. The few written remains of it were almost divided between three collections; that of archbishop Parker, now at Bene't college, Cambridge; that of archbishop Laud, now at Oxford; and that of sir Robert Cotton, now in the British Museum.

His impartiality has been attacked on several parts of this work. He has been charged with being influenced in his account of the queen of Scots by complaisance for her son, and with contradictions in the information given by him to M. deThou, and his own account of the same particulars. It is not to be wondered if James made his own corrections on the ms. which his warrant sets forth he had perused before he permitted it to be published. It was no easy matter to speak the truth in that reign of flattery in points where filial piety and mean ambition divided the mind of the reigning monarch. An English historian in such a reign could not indulge the same freedom as Thuanus. The calumnies cast upon him for his detail of Irish affairs were thought by him beneath the notice his friends wanted to take of them. But though he declined adding his own justification to that which the government of Ireland thought proper to publish of their own conduct, we have the letters he wrote on the subject to archbishop Usher and others and it had this effect on him, that he declined publishing in his life-time the second part of his history, which he completed in 1617. He kept the original by him, which was preserved in the Cottonian library, and sent an exact copy of it to his friend Mr. Dupuy, who had given him the strongest assurances that he would punctually perform the duty of this important trust, and faithfully kept his word. It was first printed at Leyden, 1625, 8vo, again London, 1627, folio, Leyden, 1639, 8vo, &c. But the most correct edition of the whole is that by Hearne from Dr. Smith’s copy corrected by Mr. Camden’s own hand, collated with another ms. in Mr. Rawlinson’s library. Both parts were translated into French by M. Paul de Belligent, advocate in the parliament of Paris; and from thence into English with many errors, by one Abraham D'Arcy, who did not understand English. The materials whence Camden compiled this history are most of them to be found in the Cottonian library. We learn from a ms letter of Dr. Goodman’s, that he desired them as a legacy, but received for answer, that they had been promised to archbishop Bancroft, upon whose death he transferred them to his successor Abbot, and archbishop Laud said they were deposited in the palace at Lambeth, but whereever they were archbishop Sancroft could not find one of them.

In his last testament, after a devout introduction, and bequeathing eight pounds to the poor of the parish in which he should happen to die, he bequeaths to sir Fulke Grevile, lord Brooke, who preferred him gratis to his office, a piece of plate of ten pounds; to the company of painter stainers of London, he gave sixteen pounds to buy them a piece of plate, upon which he directed this inscription, “Gul. Camdenus Clarenceux filius Sampsonjs, Pictoris Londinensis, dono dedit;” he bestowed the sum of twelve pounds on the company of cordwainers, or shoemakers of London, to purchase them a piece of plate, on which the same inscription was to be engraved. Then follow the legacies to his private friends. As to his books and papers, he directs that sir Robert Cotton of Conington, should take out such as he had borrowed of him, and then he bequeaths to him all his printed books and manuscripts, excepting such as concern arms and heraldry, which, with his ancient seals, he bequeaths to his successor in the office of Clarenceux, provided, because they cost him a considerable sum of money, he gave to his cousin John Wyat, what the kings at arms Garter and Norroy for the time being should think fit, and agreed also to leave them to his successor. But notwithstanding this disposition of his books and papers, Dr. John Williams, then dean of Westminster, and bishop of Lincoln, afterwards archbishop of York, procured all the printed books for the new library erected in the church of Westminster. It is understood, that his collections in support of his History, with respect to civil affairs, were before this time deposited in the Cotton library; for as to those that related to ecclesiastical matters, when asked for them by Dr. Goodman, son to his great benefactor, he declared he stood engaged to Dr. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury. They came afterwards to archbishop Laud, and are supposed to have been destroyed when his papers fell into the hands of Mr. Prynne, Mr. Scot, and Hugh Peters; for upon a diligent search made by Dr. Sancroft, soon after his promotion to that see, there was not a line of them to be found, as we have already mentioned. His body was removed to his house in London, and on the 19th of November, carried in great pomp to Westminster abbey, and after a sermon preached by Dr. Christopher Sutton, was deposited in the south aile, near the learned Casaubon, and over against Chaucer. Near the spot was erected a handsome monument of white marble, with an inscription, erroneous as to his age, which is stated to be seventy-four, whereas he wanted almost six months of seventy-three. At Oxford, Zouch Townley, of Christ Church, who was esteemed a perfect master of the Latin tongue in all its purity and elegance, was appointed to pronounce his funeral oration in public, which is printed by Dr. Smith. The verses written on his death were collected and printed in a thin quarto, entitled “Insignia Camdeni,” Ox. 1624, and his name was enrolled in the list of public benefactors.

Carnden’s personal character is drawn by bishop Gibson in few words: that he was “easy and innocent in his conversation, and in his whole life even and exemplary.” We have seen him unruffled by the attacks of envy, which his merit and good fortune drew upon him. He seems to have studied that tranquillity of temper which the love of letters generally superinduces, and to which one may, perhaps, rationally ascribe his extended life. The point of view in which we are to set him, is as a writer; and here he stands foremost among British antiquaries. Varro, Strabo, and Pausanias, among the ancients, fall short in the comparison; and however we may be obliged to the two latter for their descriptions of the world, or a small portion of it, Camden’s description of Britain must be allowed the pre-eminence, even though we should admit that Leland marked out the plan, of which he filled up the outlines. A crowd of contemporaries, all admirable judges of literary merit, and his correspondents, bear testimony to his merit. Among these may be reckoned Ortelius, Lipsius, Scaliger, Casaubon, Merula, De Thou, Du Chesne, Peiresc, Bignon, Jaque Godefre, Gruter, Hottoman, Du Laet, Chytraeus, Gevartius, Lindenbrogius, Mercator, Pontanus, Du Puy, Rutgersius, Schottus, Sweertius, Liinier, with many others of inferior note. Among his countrymen, dean Goodman and his brother, lord Burleigh, sir Robert Cotton, Dr. (afterwards archbishop) Usher, sir Philip Sidney, and archbishop Parker, were the patrons of his literary pursuits, as the first two had befriended him in earliest life: and if to these we add the names of Allen, Carleton, Saville, Stradling, Carew, Johnston, Lambarde, Mathews, Spelroan, Twyne, Wheare, Owen, Spenser, Stowe, Thomas James, Henry Parry, afterwards bishop of Worcester, Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, Richard Hackluyt, Henry Cuff, Albericus Gentilis, John Hanmer, sir William Beecher, Dr. Budden, Dr. Case, sir Christopher Hey don, bishop Godwin, Richard Parker, Thomas Ryves, besides others whose assistance he acknowledges in the course of his Britannia, we shall find no inconsiderable bede-roll of associates, every one of them more or less eminent in the very study in which they assisted Mr. Camden, or were assisted by him.

, was born at Toulouse in 1656, and shewed an early taste for poetry, whichwas improved by a good education, and when he came to Paris, he took Racine for his guide in the dramatic career. But, though it may be allowed that Campistron approached his merit in the conduct of his pieces, yet he could never equal him in the beauties of composition, nor in his enchanting versification. Too feeble to avoid the defects of Racine, and unable like him to atone for them by beautiful strokes of the sublime, he copied him in his soft manner of delineating the love of his heroes, of whom, it must be confessed, he sometimes made inamoratos fitter for the most comic scenes than for tragedy, in which passion ought always to assume an elevated style. Racine, while he was forming Campistron for the drama, was not inattentive to promote the fortune of the young* poet. Having proposed him to the duke de Vendome for the composition of the heroic pastoral of “Acis and Galatea,” which he designed should be represented at his chateau of Anet, that prince, well satisfied both with his character and his talents, first made him secretary of his orders, and then secretary general of the gallies. He afterwards got him made knight of the military order of St. James in Spain, commandant of Chimene, and marquis of Penange in Italy. The poet, now become necessary to the prince, by the cheerfulness of his temper and the vivacity of his imagination, attended him on his travels into various countries. Campistron, some time after his return, retired to his own country; where he married mademoiselle de Maniban, sister of the first president of Toulouse, and of the bishop of Mirepoix, afterwards archbishop of Bourdeaux; and there he died May 11, 1723, of an apoplexy, at the age of 67. This stroke was brought on by a fit of passion excited by two chairmen who refused to carry him on account of his great weight. Campistron kept good company, loved good cheer, and had all the indolence of a man of pleasure. While secretary to the duke de Vendome, he found it a more expeditious way to burn the letters that were written to that prince than to answer them. Accordingly, the duke, seeing him one day before a large fire, in which he was casting a heap of papers: “There its Campistron,” said he, “employed in answering my correspondents.” He followed the duke even to the field of battle. At the battle of Steinkerque, the duke seeing him always beside him, said, “What do you do here, Campistron?” “Mon seigneur,” answered he, “I am waiting to go back with you.” This sedateness of mind in a moment of so much danger was highly pleasing to the bero. His plays, 1750, 3 vols. 12mo. have been nearly as often printed as those of Corneille, Racine, Crebillon, and Voltaire. The most popular of them are his “Andronicus,” “Alcibiades,” “Acis and Galatea,” “Phocion,” “Adrian,” “Tiridates,” “Phraates,” and “Jaloux Desabuseé.”

, an exemplary French prelate, was born at Paris in 1582, and on account of his excellent character and talents, was nominated to the bishopric of Bellay by Henry IV. in 1609, before he was of age, but having obtained the pope’s dispensation, he was consecrated on Dec. 30th of the same year. From this time he appears to have devoted his time and talents to the edification of his flock, and of the people at large, by frequent preaching, and more frequent publication of numerous works calculated to divert their attention to the concerns of an immortal life. In his time romances began to be the favourite books with all who would be thought readers of taste; and Camus, considering that it would not be easy to persuade them to leave off such books without supplying them with some kind of substitute, published several works of practical piety with a mixture of romantic narrative, by which he hoped to attract and amuse the attention of romancereaders, and draw them on insensibly to matters of religious importance. He contrived, therefore, that the lovers, in these novels, while they encountered the usual perplexities, should be led to see the vanity and perishable nature of all human enjoyments, and to form resolutions of renouncing worldly delights, and embracing a religious life. Among these works we find enumerated, 1. “Dorothee, ou recit de la pitoyable issue d'une volorite violentee,” Paris, 1621. 2. “Alexis,” 1^22, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. L'Hyacinte, histoire Catalane,“ibid. 1627, 8yo. 4.” Alcime, relation funeste, &c.“ibid. 12mo, 1625, &c. But the principal object of his reforming spirit was the conduct of the rnonks, or mendicant friars, against whom he wrote various severe remonstrances, and preached against them with a mixture of religious fervour and satirical humour. Among the works he published against them are, 1.” Le Directeur desinteresse,“Paris, 1632, 12mo. 2.” Desappropriation claustrale,“Besangon, 1634. 3.” Le Rabat-joy e du triomphe monagal.“4.” L'anti-Moine bien prepare,“1632, &c. &c. These monks teazed the cardinal Richelieu to silence him, and the cardinal told him,” I really find no other fault with you but this horrible bitterness against the monks; were it not for that, I would canonize you.“”I wish that may come to pass,“said the bishop,” “for then we should both have our wish; you would be pope, and I a saint.” Many of his bons-mots were long in circulation, and show that he had the courage to reprove vices and absurdities among the highest classes. In 1620 he established in the city of Bellay a convent of capuchins, and in 1622 one for the nuns of the visitation, instituted by St. Francis de Sales. In 1629 he resigned his bishopric that he might pass the remainder of his days in retirement, in the abbey of Cluny in Normandy, but the archbishop of Rouen, unwilling that so active a member of the church should not be employed in public services, associated him in his episcopal cares, by appointing him his grand vicar. At length he finally retired to the hospital of incurables in Paris, where he died April 26, 1652. Moreri has enumerated a large catalogue of his works, the principal of which, besides what we have enumerated, are, “L' Esprit de S. Frangois de Sales,” 6 vols. 8vo, reduced to one by a doctor of the Sorbonne; and “L'Avoisinement des Protestans avec TEglise Romaine,” republished in 1703 by Richard Simon, under the title of “Moyens de reunir les Protestans avec l'Eglise Romaine.” Simon asserted, that Bossuet’s exposition of the catholic faith was no more than this work in a new dress.

, son of Christopher Capel, an alderman of Gloucester, was born 1586 in that city, and after being educated there in grammar, became a commoner of Aiban hall, Oxford, in 1601, and soon after was elected demy of Magdalen-college. In 160.9 he was made perpetual fellow, being then M. A. the highest degree which he took at the university. While there, Wood says, “his eminence was great, and he was resorted to by noted men, especially of the Calvinist persuasion,” and was tutor to several young men who afterwards rose to high reputation, particularly Accepted Frewen, archbishop of York, Will. Pemble, &c. He left college on obtaining the rectory of Eastington in Gloucestershire, and became highly popular as a plain and practical preacher, and a man of exemplary life and conversation. In 1633, when the Book of Sports on the Lord’s day was ordered to be read in all churches, he refused, and resigned his rectory. He then obtained licence from the bishop of Gloucester to practise physic, which he did with much success for some years, residing at Pitchcomb, near Stroud, where he had an estate. In the commencement of the rebellion, he was called to be one of the assembly of divines, but did not accept the offer. Wood thinks he was restored to his benefice at this time, or had another conferred upon him, which we believe was Pitchcomb, where he died Sept. 21, 1656, and was buried in the church there. Clarke informs us that for some time he attended the court of James I. until the death of sir Thomas Overbury, who was his particular friend. His principal works are, 1. “Temptations, their nature, danger, and cure, &c.” Lond. 1650, 8vo, and an “Apology” against some exceptions, 1659, 8vo. 2. “Remains, being an useful Appendix to the former,” 1658, 8vo. His son Daniel Capel was also a divine, and, according to Walker, ejected from his living in Gloucestershjre by the Oxford visitors. He then practised physic at Stroud, where he died in 1679. He wrote, “Tentamen medicum de variolis,” and some other tracts.

It has hitherto escaped the notice of Capellus’s biographers, that England had a considerable share in his education. He came to Oxford in 1610, and resided for some time at Exeter college, attracted by the fame of those eminent rectors of that house, Dr. Holland and Dr. Prideaux. Wood says that he wore a gown, and in February of the above year answered in certain disputations in the divinity school, and performed other exercises in order to take the degree of bachelor in divinity; but his name does not appear in the register. In 1612, out of gratitude for the assistance he had enjoyed in his studies, he presented some books to the library; and it was after his return from Oxford that he was appointed Hebrew professor at Saumur. Capellus’s other works are, 1. “Historia Apostolica illustrata,” Genev. 1634, 4to, inserted afterwards in vol. L of the “Critici Sacri,” London, 1660, ful. 2. “Spicilegium post messem;” a collection of criticisms on the New Testament, Gen. 1632, 4to, and added afterwards to Canieroif s “Myrothecium Evangeiicum,” of which we have already mentioned Capellus was the editor. 3. “Diatribae duoe,” also in the Spicilegium. 4. “Templi Hierosolymitani Delineatio triplex,” in vol. I. of the “Critici Sacri.” 5. “Ad novam Davidis lyram animadversiones, &c.” Salmur. 1643, 8vo. 6. “Diatriba de veris et antiquis Ebraeorum literis,” Amst. 1645, 12mo, in answer to Buxtorf. 7. “De critica nuper a se edita, ad rev. virum D. Jacob. Usserium Armacanum in Hibernia Episcopum, Epistola apologetica, in qua Arnoldi Bootii temeraria Criticae censura refellitur,” Salm. 1651, 4to. His correspondence with the learned Usher may be seen in Parr’s valuable collection of letters to and from the archbishop, p. 559, 562, 568, 569, and 587. 8. “Chronologia Sacra,” Paris, 1655, 4 to, reprinted afterwards among the prolegomena to Walton’s Polyglot. In 1775 and 1778, a new edition of his? Critica Sacra" was published at Halle in 2 vols. 8vo, by Vogel and Scharfenberg, with corrections and improvements.

In 1547, an offer was made to him of the honourable post of physician to the king of Denmark, with an annual salary of eight hundred crowns, and a free table, which he refused on account of the climate and the religion of the country. This offer, which was made by the advice of Vesalius, is a proof that his medical reputation was considerably high; and we find that it was likewise very extensive, for in 1552, he was invited into Scotland by Hamilton, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, who had consulted the most eminent physicians in Europe without effect. Of his disease, which was of the asthmatic kind, he began to recover from the time that Cardan prescribed for him; and in less than two months Cardan left him with fair prospects of recovery, and gave him some prescriptions, which in two years effected a complete cure. For this he was amply rewarded by his patient, and great offers were made to persuade him to reside in Scotland. These, however, he rejected, and took an opportunity to visit France and Germany, from which he passed into England, and' at London he exercised his astrological knowledge in calculating the nativity of Edward VI. The most remarkable part of it was, that the young monarch should die a violent death; for which reason, he says, he left the kingdom for fear of further danger which might follow on it. He drew a very favourable character of Edward, which was probably just and sincere, because it was afterwards published in one of his works, in Italy, where Edward was detested as a heretic, and where Cardan could have no motive for flattering his memory. While at the English court Edward was solicitous to retain him in England, and appears to have honoured him with frequent conferences; but Cardan refused sril his offers, and returned to Milan, after an absence, in all, of only ten months, and resided there until 1559, practising physic and teaching the mathematics. He then went to Pavia, where he filled the chair of professor of medicine until 1562, when he removed to Bologna, and there likewise became professor of medicine until 1570. About this time he was, for some reason with which we are unacquainted, thrown into prison, which was exchanged soon after for a milder confinement in his own house. On his release, he was invited to Rome, and admitted into the college of physicians there, with a pension from the pope. Here he died Sept. 21, 1576, “more,” says Brucker, “like a maniac than a philosopher.” Thuanus and Scaliger both are of opinion that he starved himself, in order to verify his own prediction of his death.

With regard to the general abilities and character of lord Dorchester, it appears from alt his political remains, that he was a judicious, faithful, and diligent minister, and better qualified for his department than any who were his immediate predecessors or successors in the same office. King Charles himself, who was a good judge of his servants’ abilities, used to say, as sir P. Warwick relates in his Memoirs, “that he had two secretaries of state, the lords Dorchester and Falkland; one of whom was a dull man in comparison of the other, and yet pleased him the best for he always brought him his own thoughts in his own woreds: the latter cloathed them in so fine a dress, that he did not always know them again.” Allowing for some defects of stiffness and circumlocution, which are common to all the writings of that time, lord Dorchester’s dispatches are drawn up in that plain, perspicuous, and unaffected stile which was fittest for business. Domestic concerns were no part of his province, but entirely managed by the lord treasurer Weston and archbishop Laud. He held the pen singly in foreign affairs, and was regretted by those who were used to receive the instructions of government from a secretary of state, upon whom they could depend that he would make a just report of their services, and that he would not mislead or misrepresent the ministers with whom he corresponded. That he died much lamented by the public in general, and with the reputation of an honest and well-deserving statesman, is declared by sir Thomas Roe, in a manuscript letter to a friend in Holland. The earl of Clarendon’s assertion, that lord Dorchester was unacquainted with the government, laws, and customs of his own country, and the nature of the people, is disputed by Dr. Birch, in his “Review of the Negociations,” who considers it as absolutely incompatible with the experience which he must have acquired in the house of commons. But, not to mention that the noble historian, who had no prejudice against his lordship, could not well be deceived in the fact, it is, we think, confirmed by the figure he made in the parliament of 1626, and by his acquiescence in all the obnoxious measures of Buckingham, Weston, and Laud. The following articles are attributed to his pen, by Anthony Wood and lord Orford: 1. “Balance pour peser en toute equite & droicture la Harangue fait vagueres en L'Assemblee des illustres & puissans Seignoures Messeigneurs les Estats generaux des Provinces Unies du Pais has, &c.” 1618, 4to. 2. “Harangue fait au Counseile de Mess, les Estats generaux des Provinces Unies, touchant le Discord & le Troubles de PEglise & la Police, causes par la Doctrine d'Arminius,” 6 Oct. 1617, printed with the former. 3. Various Letters in the “Cabala, or Scrinia sacra,” London, 1663, fol. 4. Various Letters to George, duke of Buckingham, in “Cabala, or Mysteries of State,” London, 1654, 4to. 5. Several French and Latin Letters to the learned Vossius, printed in “Ger. Jo. Vossii & clarorum Virorum ad.eum Epistoiae,” London, 1690, fol. 6. Several Speeches in Parliament, in 1626, in Rushworth’s Collections. 7. Several Letters in the three volumes of “Sir Ralph Winwood’s Memorials,” published at London, in folio, 1725. 8. A Letter to the earl of Salisbury, printed in “Howard’s Collection.” 9. Memoirs for Dispatches of political Affairs relating to Holland and England, arm. 1618; with several Propositions made to the States. Manuscript. 10. Particular Observations of the military Affairs in the Palatinate, and the Low Countries, annis 1621, 1622. Manuscript. 11. Letters relating to State Affairs, written to the king and viscount Rochester, from Venice, ann. 1613. Manuscript. The manuscript pieces here mentioned, are probably no more than parts of the collections preserved in the Paper office. The letters from and to sir Dudley Carleton, during his embassy in Holland, from January 1615-16, to December 1620, properly selected, and as occasion required, abridged, or only noted, were published by the late earl of Hardwicke, in 1757, in one vol. 4to, with an historical preface. The second edition of the same work, with large additions to the historical preface, appeared in 1775, and has been twice reprinted since. These letters, if some allowances be made for party violences and prejudices, contain more clear, accurate, and interesting accounts of that remarkable period of Dutch history to which they relate, than are anj where extant. There are, likewise, discussed in the course of them, many points of great importance, at that time, to the English commerce. Lord Hardwicke’s excellent preface has furnished the materials of the present sketch.

, an eminent civilian of the sixteenth century, was of a Glamorganshire family, and educated at Oxford. Here he chiefly studied the civil law, of which he took the degree of doctor in June 1524, being about that time principal of Greek-hall in St. Edward’s parish. He was admitted at Doctors’ Commons Nov. 13, 1625, and his talents being known at court, he was sent abroad on public affairs, and received the honour of knighthood from the emperor Charles V. In 1530 he was joined in a commission with archbishop Cranmer and others, the purpose of which was to argue the matter of king Henry VIII.'s memorable divorce at the courts of France, Italy, and Germany. Sir Edward Carne afterwards remained at Rome as “a sort of standing agent for Henry, and appears likewise to have continued there during the reign of Edward VI. and had no concern in the reformation. During queen Mary’s reign, he was her agent in the same situation; but on the accession of Elizabeth, the pope ordered him to relinquish that employment. When he was recalled by the queen, with offers of preferment, he thought proper to remain at Rome, and was employed by the pope as director of the English hospital in that city. He was so far a patriot as to inform Elizabeth of the machinations of the catholic powers against her, but he continued inflexible in his attachment to popery, and died in that communion Jan. 18, 1561. Several of his letters relating to the divorce are in Burnet’s” History of the Reformation." Wood remarks that sir Edward Carne was accounted the last ambassador of the kings of England to the pope, until Roger earl of Castlemain was sent to him by king James II.

1 Gen. Diet. Biog. Brit. Richardsoniana, p. 259. See also an account of his conduct in Scotland in “A true relation of the Pursuit of the Rebels in the North, and of their Surrender at Preston to lieutenant-general Carpenter, commanding in chief his majesty’s forces there,” joined to a plan published under this title, “An exact Plan of the Town of Preston, with the barricades of the Rebels, and the disposition of the king’s forces, under the command of lieutenant-general Carpenter and major-general Wills.” See likewise “The Poltarchbishop Usher, then at Oxford, who admired his talents and piety, took him with him to Ireland, and made him one of his chaplains, and tutor to the king’s wards in Dublin. These king’s wards were the sons of Roman catholics who had fled for their religion, leaving them in their minority; and Mr. Carpenter’s charge was to bring them up in the protestant religion. Soon after he came to Ireland he was advanced to a deanery, but what deanery is not mentioned. He died at Dublin in 1635, according to Fuller, or in 1628, according to Wood. Dr. Robert Usher, afterwards bishop of Kildare, and brother to the archbishop, preached his funeral sermon, and gave a high character of him, which seems to be confirmed by all his contemporaries. He published, 1.” Philosophia libera, triplici exercitationum decade proposita,“Francfort, 1621, under the name of Cosmopolitanus London, 1622, 8vo, with additions, Oxford, 1636, 1675. This was considered as a very ingenious work, and one of the earliest attacks on the Aristotelian philosophy. Brucker, who has given our author a place among the” modern attempters to improve natural philosophy/* adds, that he has advanced many paradoxical notions, sufficiently remote from the received doctrines of the schools. 2. “Geography,” in two books, Oxford, 1625, and corrected and enlarged 1635, 4to. In the latter part he maintains that mountainous people are more stout, warlike, and generous than the inhabitants of flat countries, and supports this doctrine by an appeal to his countrymen in Devonshire. 3. “Achitophel or the picture of a wicked Politician, in three parts,” Dublin, 1627, 8vo, Oxford, 1628, 4to, 1640, 12mo. These three parts are the substance of three sermons on 2 Sam. xvii. 23. which he had formerly preached at Oxford. Some objections being made to several passages against (not, as Mr. Malone says, in favour of) Arminianism (for Carpenter was a Caivinist), the book was castrated by archbishop Laud in various places. “The scene,” says the writer in a dedication to archbishop Usher, “wherein I have bounded my discourse, presents unto your grace a sacred tragedy, consisting of four chief actors, viz. David, an anointed king; Absalom, an ambitious prince Achitophel, a wicked politician and Cushay, a loyal subject a passage of history, for variety pleasant, for instruction useful* for event admirable.” He inveighs in general against the inordinate ambition and subtle practices of courts and courtiers. Mr. Malone takes more pains than necessary to prove that Dry den adopted no hint from it for his “Absalom and Achitophel.” 4. “Chorazin and Bethsaida’s woe and warning,” Oxford, 1640. He wrote also a “Treatise of Optics,” of which there were some imperfect copies in Mss. but the original was by some means lost.

, a divine and poet of the seventeenth century, was educated at Eton college, and thence elected scholar of King’s college in Cambridge, in 1622. About three years after, he left England, and studied in Flanders, Artois, France, Spain, and Italy; and at length received holy orders at Rome from the hands of the pope’s substitute. Soon after, having taken upon him the order of St. Benedict, he was sent into England to make proselytes; in which employment he continued somewhat above a year, then returned to the protestant religion, and, through the archbishop of Canterbury’s interest, obtained the small vicarage of Poling by the seaside, near Arundel castle, in Sussex. Here he was exposed to the insults of the Romish party, particularly one Francis a S. Clara, living in that neighbourhood under the name of Hunt, who used to expose him to scorn before his parishioners. In the time, however, of the civil war, he quitted his living, retired to Paris, and reconciling himself to the Romish church, he made it his business to rail against the protestants. Afterwards, returning to England, he settled at Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire, where he had some relations; and, being once more a protestant, he would often preach there in a very fantastical manner, to the great mirth of his auditors. He was living there in 1670; but before his death he returned a third time to popery, causing his pretended wife to embrace that persuasion; and in that faith he died. He was generally esteemed a man of an absurd character, one that changed his opinions as often as his cloaths, and, for his juggles and tricks in religion, a theological mountebank.

, a Dominican, born in 1504 at Miranda in Navarre, appeared with great distinction at the council of Trent, where he composed a treatise on trie residence of bishops, which he held to be of divine right, treating the contrary opinion as diabolical. Philip II. king of Spain, having married queen Mary in 1554, took Carranza with him into England, who laboured to restore the Catholic religion there, and pleased Philip so much, that he appointed him archbishop of Toledo 1557. This illustrious prelate was, however, accused before the Inquisition, 1559, and carried as a heretic to Rome, where he was thrown into prison, and suffered greatly during ten years, notwithstanding the solicitations of his friend Navarre, who openly undertook his defence. At length the Inquisition declared by a sentence passed 1576, that there was not any certain proof that Carranza was a heretic. They condemned him nevertheless to abjure the errors which had been imputed to him, and confined him to la Minerve, a monastery of his order, where he died the same year, aged 72. His principal works are, 1. “Summary of the Councils” in Latin, 1681, 4to, which is valued. 2. “A Treatise on the residence of Bishops,” 1547, 4to. 3. “A Catechism” in Spanish, 1558, fol.; censured by the Inquisition in Spain, but justified at the council of Trent in 1563.

In 1739, she translated “The Critique of Crousaz on Pope’s Essay on Man;” and in the same year gave a translation of “Algarotti’s Explanation of Newton’s Philosophy for the use of the Ladies.” These publications extended her acquaintance among the literati of her own country and her fame reached the continent, where Baratier bestowed high praises on her talents and genius. In 1741 she formed an intimacy with Miss Catherine Talbot, niece to the lord chancellor Talbot, and a young lady of considerable genius and most amiable disposition. This was an important event of Miss Carter’s life on many accounts. The intimacy of their friendship, the importance of their correspondence, and the exalted piety of both, made it the main ingredient of their mutual happiness: and in addition to this, it procured a friendship with Dr. Seeker, then bishop of Oxford, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, with whom Miss Talbot resided, which extended her knowledge of the world, cherished her profound learning, and exercised the piety of her thoughts. To this event is to be traced her undertaking and completing the work by which her fame has been most known abroad, and will longest be remembered by scholars at home, her “Translation of Epictetus.” It was not, however, till the beginning of 1749, that this translation was commenced. It was then sent up in sheets, as finished, to Miss Talbot, who earnestly pressed its continuance, which was further urged by bishop Seeker, to whom her friend shewed it. Her biographer has given a minute account of its progress till its conclusion in December 1752. She then by the bishop’s desire, added notes and an introduction, both admirably executed; and the work was sent to press in June 1757, and finished in April 1758, in an elegant quarto volume. At the entreaty of her friends, she permitted it to published by subscription (at the price of \l. 1s.) and by their liberality, it produced her a clear 1000l.

In 1763, Mrs. Carter accompanied lord Bath, and Mr. and Mrs. Montague, with Dr. Douglas (afterwards bishop of Salisbury, but then lord Bath’s chaplain) to Spa. They landed at Calais June 4; and after visiting Spa, made a short tour in Germany; and then proceeded down the Rhine into Holland; whence through Brussels, Ghent, Bruges, and Dunkirk, they came again to Calais, and returned to Dover Sept. 19. Lord Bath’s health seemed improved by this tour; but appearances were fallacious, for he died in the summer of 1764. His death gave Mrs. Carter deep concern. In August 1768, she had an additional loss in the death of her revered friend and patron archbishop Seeker. Two years after she sustained a more severe deprivation in the loss of her bosom friend Miss Talbot, of whom, among other praises dictated by sense and feeling, she says, “Never surely was there a more perfect pattern of evangelical goodness, decorated by all the ornaments of a highly-improved understanding; and recommended by a sweetness of temper, and an elegance and politeness of manners, of a peculiar and more engaging kind than in any other character I ever knew.”

Mr. Cartwright took occasion, in his lectures, to deliver his sentiments on church-discipline; which being unfavourable to the established hierarchy, public accusations were soon exhibited against him though Mr. Strype says, “that he had indeed a great party in the university, and some of them men of learning, who stuck close to him, exceedingly admiring him; though some of them, better informed, fell off afterwards.” Archbishop Grindal wrote a letter to sir William Cecil, chancellor of the university, on the 23d of June 1570, requesting him to take some speedy course against Mr. Cartwright; alleging, that in his readings he daily made invectives against the external policy, and distinction of states, in the ecclesiastical government in consequence of which the youth of the university, who frequented his lectures in great numbers, “were in danger to be poisoned with a love of contention and a liking of novelty.” He therefore recommended, that the chancellor should write to the vice-chancellor, to enjoin silence upon Cartvvright and all his adherents, both in schools and pulpits; and afterwards, upon examination, and hearing of the matters before him, and some of the heads of houses, to reduce the offenders to conformity, or to expel them out of the colleges, or the university, as the cause should require; and also that the vice-chancellor should not suffer Mr. Cartwright to take his degree of D. D. at the approaching commencement, for which he had applied. Dr. Whitgift also zealously opposed Cartwright, and wrote another letter to the chancellor upon the occasion, communicating to him not only what Cartwright had “openly taught,” but also “what he had uttered to him in private conference.”

Very severe measures had now been adopted for several years against the puritans; on whose behalf a piece was published, intituled, “An admonition to the parliament;” to which were annexed, A letter from Beza to the earl of Leicester, and another from Gualter to bishop Parkhurst, recommending a reformation of church discipline. This work contained what was called the “platform of a church;” the manner of electing ministers; their several duties; and arguments to prove their equality in government. It also attacked the hierarchy, and the proceedings of the bishops, with much severity of language. The admonition was concluded with a petition to the two houses, that a discipline more consonant to the word of God, and agreeing with the foreign reformed churches, might be established by law. Mr. Field and Mr. Wilcox, authors of the admonition, and who attempted to present it to parliament, were committed to Newgate on the second of October 1572. Notwithstanding which, Mr. Cartwright, after his return to England,“wrote” a second admonition to the parliament,“with an humble petition to the two houses, for relief against the subscription required by the ecclesiastical commissioners. The same year Dr. Whitgift published an answer to the admonition: to which Mr. Cartwright published a reply in 1573; and aboat this time a proclamation was issued for apprehending him. In 1574 Dr. Whitgift published, in folio,” A defence of the answer to the admonition, against the reply of T. C.“In 1575 Mr. Cartwright published a second reply to Dr. Whitgift; and in 1577 appeared,” the rest of the second reply of Thomas Cartwright, against master Doctor Whitgift’s answer, touching the church discipline.“This seems to have been printed in Scotland; and it is certain, that before its publication Mr. Cartwright had found it necessary to leave the kingdom, whilst his opponent was raised to the bishopric of Worcester. Mr. Cartwright continued abroad about five years, during which time he officiated as a minister to some of the English factories. About the year 1580 James VI. king of Scotland, having a high opinion of his learning and abilities, sent to him, and offered him a professorship in the university of St. Andrew’s; but this he 'thought proper to decline. Upon his return to England, officers w.e re sent to apprehend him, as a promoter of sedition, and he was thrown into prison. He probably obtained his li­* berty through the interest of the lord treasurer Burleigh, and the earl of Leicester, by both of whom he was favoured: and the latter conferred upon him the mastership of the hospital which he had founded in Warwick. In 1583 he was earnestly persuaded, by several learned protestant divines, to write against the Rhemish translation of the New Testament. He was likewise encouraged in this design by the earl of Leicester and sir Francis Walsingham: and the latter sent him a hundred pounds towards the expences of the work. He accordingly engaged in it; but after some time received a mandate from archbishop Whitgift, prohibiting him from prosecuting the work any farther. Though he was much discouraged by this, he nearly completed the performance; but it was not published till many years after his death in 1618, fol. under the title” A Confutation of the Rhemish Translation, Glosses, and Annotations on the New Testament.“It is said, that queen Elizabeth sent to Beza, requesting him to undertake a work of this kind; but he declined it, declaring that Cartwright was much more capable of the task than himself. Notwithstanding the high estimation in which he was held, and his many admirers, in the year 1585 he was again committed to prison by Dr. Aylmer, bfshop of London; and that prelate gave some offence to the queen by making use of her majesty’s name on the occasion. When he obtained his liberty is not mentioned: but we find that in 1590, when he was at Warwick, he received a citation to appear in the starchamber, together with Edmund Snape, and some other puritan ministers, being charged with setting up a new discipline, and a new form of worship, and subscribing their names to stand to it. This was interpreted an opposition and disobedience to the established laws. Mr. Cartwright was also called upon to take the oath ex officio; but this he refused, and was committed to the Fleet. In May 1591 ije was sent for by bishop Ay liner to appear before him, and some others of the ecclesiastical commissioners, at that prelate’s house. He had no previous notice given him, to prevent any concourse of his adherents upon the occasion. The bishop threw out some reproaches against him, and again required him to take the oath ex officio. The attorney general did the same, and represented to him” how dangerous a thing it was that men should, upon the conceits of their own heads, and yet under colour of conscience, refuse the things that had been received for laws for a long time.“Mr. Cartwright assigned sundry reasons for refusing to take the oath; and afterwards desired to be permitted to vindicate himself from some reflections that had been thrown out against him by the bishop and the attorney general. But to this bishop Aylmer would not consent, alleging,” that he had no leisure to hear his answer,“but that he might defend himself from the public charges that he had brought against him, by a private letter to his lordship. With this Mr. Cartwright was obliged to be contented, and was immediately after again committed to the Fleet. In August 1591 he wrote a letter to lady Russel, stating some of the grievances under which he laboured, and soliciting her interest with lord Burleigh to procure him better treatment. The same year king James wrote a letter to queen Elizabeth, requesting her majesty to shew favour to Mr. Cartwright and his brethren, on account of their great learning and faithful labours in the gospel. But he did not obtain his liberty till about the middle of the year 1592, when he was restored to his hospital at Warwick, and was again permitted to preach: but his health appears to have been much impaired by his long confinement and close application to study. He died on the 27th of December 1603, in the 68th year of his age, having preached a sermon ou mortality but two days before. He was buried in the hospital at Warwick. He was pious, learned, and laborious; an acute disputant, and an admired preacher; of a disinterested disposition, generous and charitable, and particularly liberal to poor scholars. It is much to be regretted that such a man should have incurred the censure of the superiors either in church or state; but inuovations like those he proposed, and adhered to with obstinacy, could not be tolerated in the case of a church establishment so recently formed, and which required every effort bf its supporters to maintain it. How far, therefore, the reflections which have been cast on a the prelates who prosecuted him are just, may be safely left to the consideration of the reader. There is reason also to think, that before his death Cartwright himself thought differently of his past conduct. Sir Henry Yelverton, in his epistle to the reader, prefixed to bishop Moreton’s” Episcopacy justified,“says that the last words of Thomas Cartwright, on his death-bed, were, that he sorely lamented the unnecessary troubles he had caused in the church, by the schism, of which he had been the great fomenter; and that be wished he was to begin his life again, that he might testify to the world the dislike he had of his former ways In tnis opinion, says sir Henry, he died; and it appears certain, that he abated something of the warmth of his spirit towards the close of his days. When he had obtained his pardon, of the queen, which, as sir George Paule asserts, was at the instance of aichbishop Whitgilt, Cartwright, in his letters of acknowledgment to that prelate, vouchsafed to stile him a” Right Reverend Fatner in God, and his Lord the Archbishop’s Grace of Canterbury.“This title of Grace he often yielded to Whitgift in the course of their correspondence. Nay, the archbishop was heard to say, that if Mr. Cartwright had not so far engaged himself as he did in the beginning, he verily thought tnat he would, in his letter time, have been drawn to conformity: for when he was freed from his troubles, he often repaired to the archbishop, who used him kindly, and was contented to tolerate his preaching at Warwick for several years, upon his promise that he would not impugn the laws, orders, and government of the church of England, but persuade and procure, as much as he could, both publicly and privately, the estimation and peace of the same. With these terms he complied; notwithstanding which, when queen Elizabeth understood that he preached again, though in the temperate manner which had been prescribed, she would not permit him to do it any longer without subscription; and was not a little displeased with the archbishop, for his having connived at his so doing. Sir George Paule farther adds, that, by the benevolence and bounty of his followers, Mr Cartwright was said to have died rich. Besides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Cartwright was author of the following works: 1.” Commentaria practica in totam historiam evangelicam, ex quatuor evangelistis harmonice concinnatam,“1630, 4to. An elegant edition of this was printed at Amsterdam, by Lewis Elzevir, in 1647, under the following title:” Harmonia evangelica commentario analytico, metaphrastico, practice, illustrata,“&c. 2.” Commentarii succincti & dilucidi in proverbia Salomonis,“Amst. 1638, 4to. 3.” Metaphrasis & homiliae in librum Salomonis qui inscribitur Ecclesiastes,“Amst. 1647, 4to. 4.” A Directory of Church Government,“1644, 4to. 5.” A Body of Divinity," Lond. 1616, 4to.

Casaubon is to be ranked amongst those learned men who, in the beginning of the last century, were very solicitous to have an union formed between the popish and protestant religions. This is expressly asserted by Burigny, in his life of Grotius. According to that biographer, Casaubon, who wished to see all Christians united in one faith, ardently desired a re-union of the protestants with the Roman catholics, and would have set about it, had he lived longer in France. He greatly respected the opinions of the ancient church, and was persuaded that its sentiments were more sound than those of the ministers of, Charentou. Grotius and he had imparted their sentiments to each other before the voyage to England, which we are to mention, and Arminius had a project of the same kind, which he communicated to Casaubon, by whom it was approved. In the year 1610 two things happened that afflicted Casaubou extremely; one was the murder of king Henry IV. which deprived him of all hopes of keeping his place; the other, his eldest son’s embracing popery. This made him resolve to come over into England, where he had often been invited by king James I.; and having obtained leave of absence from the queen-regent of France, he arrived in England October 1610,along with sir Henry Wotton, ambassador-extraordinary from king James I. and was received with the utmost civility, by most persons of learning and distinction, although he complains of being ill used by the rabble in the streets. He waited upon the king, who took great pleasure in discoursing with him, and even did him the honour of admitting him several times to eat at his own table. His majesty likewise made him a present of a hundred and fifty pounds, to enable him to visit the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. On the Christmas day after he arrived in England, he received the communion in the king’s chapel, though he did not understand the language. In his diary he says, that he had carefully considered the office for the sacrament the day before, and preferred it and the manner of receiving to that of other churches. The 3d ofJanuary, 1611, he was naturalized, and the 19th of the same month, the king granted him a pension of three hundred pounds; as also two prebends, one at Canterbury, and the other at Westminster. He likewise wrote to the queen regent of Franc*-, to desire Casaubon might stay longer in England than she had at first allowed him. But Casaubon did not long enjoy these great advantages, as a painful distemper in the bladder proved fatal July 1, 1614, in the 55th year of his age. He was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory, with a Latin epitaph in a high style of panegyric. Of his twenty children, John, the eldest, turned Roman catholic, as has been mentioned above. Another, named Augustin, became a capuchin, at Calais, where he was poisoned, with eleven oihers of the same order. Mr. Dupin relates, upon the authority of Mr. Cotelier, that before he took the vow of capuchiu, /he went to ask his father’s blessing, which the father readily granted him; adding, “My son, I do not condemn thee; nor do thou condemn me; we shall both appear before the tribunal of Jesus Christ.” What became of the rest of his children (except Meric, mentioned in the next article), is not known. In 1612, he had a son born in England, to which the king and the archbishop of Canterbury were godfathers, and sir George Gary’s lady, godmother. This great man received the highest encomiums from persons of learning in his time, which he amply deserved by his extensive knowledge, modesty, sincerity, and probity.

, son of the preceding, was born at Geneva, August 14, 1599, and had the name of Meric from Meric de Vicq, a great friend and benefactor to his father. His first education he received at Sedan, but coming to England with his father, in the year 1610, he was instructed by a private master till 1614, when he was sent to Christ Church, Oxford; and being put there under a most careful tutor, Dr. Edward Meetkirk (afterwards Regius Hebrew professor), was soon after elected a student of that house. He took the degree of bachelor of arts, May 8, 1618, and that of master, June 14, 1621, being even then eminent for his extensive learning; and the same year, though he was but two and twenty, he published a book in defence of his father, against the calumnies of certain Roman catholics, entitled “Pietas contra maledicos, &c.” Loud. 1621, 8vo. This book made him known to king James I. who ever after entertained a good opinion of him; and also brought him into reputation abroad, especially in France, whither he was invited with offers of promotion, when his godfather, Meric de Vicq, was keeper of the great seal of that kingdom. Three years after, he published another vindication of his father, written by the command of king James I. and entitled, “Vindicatio Patris, &c.” 1624, 4to. About that time he was collated by Dr. Lancelot Andrews, bishop of Winchester, to the rectory of Bledon in Somersetshire; and June 1628, took the degree of bachelor of divinity. He had now formed the design of continuing his father’s “Exercitations against Baronius’s Annals,” but was diverted by some accident. At length, when he came to maturity of years for such a work, and had acquainted archbishop Laud, his great friend and patron, with his design, who was very ready to place him conveniently in Oxford or London, according to his desire, that he might be furnished with books necessary for such a purpose, the rebellion broke out in England. Having now no fixed habitation, he was forced to sell a good part of his books; and, after about twenty years’ sufferings, became so infirm, that he could not expect to live many years, and was obliged to relinquish his design. Before this, however, in June 1628, he was made prebendary of Canterbury, through the interest of bishop Laud; and when that prelate was promoted to the archbishopric of Canterbury, he collated him, in Oct. 1634, to the vicarage of Minster, in the Isle of Thanet; and in the same month, he was inducted into the vicarage of Monckton, in that island. In August 1636, he was created doctor in divinity, by order of king Charles I. who was entertained at the same time, with his queen, by the university of Oxford. About the year 1644, during the heat of the civil wars, he was deprived of his preferments, abused, fined, and imprisoned. In 1649, one Mr. Greaves, of Gray’s inn, an intimate acquaintance of his, brought him a message from Oliver Cromwell, then lieutenant-general of the parliament forces, desiring him to come to Whitehall, on purpose to confer with him about matters of moment; but his wife being lately dead, and not, as he said, buried, he desired to be excused. Greaves came again afterwards, and Dr. Casaubon being somewhat alarmed, desired him to tell him the meaning of the matter; but Greaves refusing, went away the second time. At length he returned again, and told him, that the lieutenant-general intended his good and advancement; and his particular errand was, that he would make use of his pen to write the history of the late war; desiring withal, that nothing but matters of fact should be impartially set down. The doctor answered, that he desired his humble service and hearty thanks should be returned for the great honour done unto him; but that he was uncapable in several respects for such an employment, and could not so impartially engage in it, as to avoid such reflections as would be ungrateful, if not injurious, to his lordship. Notwithstanding this answer, Cromwell seemed so sensible of his worth, that he acknowledged a great respect for him; and, as a testimony of it, ordered, that upon the first demand there should be delivered to him three or four hundred pounds, by a bookseller in London, whose name was Cromwell, whenever his occasions should require, without acknowledging, at the receipt of it, who was his benefactor. But this ofter he rejected, although almost in want. At the same time, it was proposed by Mr. Greaves, who belonged to the library at St. James’s, that if our author would gratify him in the foregoing request, Cromwell would restore to him all his father’s books, which were then in the royal library, having been purchased by king James; and withal give him a patent for three hundred pounds a year, to be paid to the family as long as the youngest sou of Dr. Casaubon should live, but this also was refused. Not long after, it was intimated to him, by the ambassador of Christiana, queen of Sweden, that the queen wished him to come over, and take upon him the government of one, or inspection of all her universities; and, as an encouragement, she proposed not only an honourable salary for himself, but offered to settle three hundred pounds a year upon his eldest son during life: but this also he waved, being fully determined to spend the remainder of his days in England. At the restoration of king Charles II. he recovered his preferments; namely, his prebend of Canterbury in July 1660, and his vicarages of Monckton and Minster the same year: but, two years after, he exchanged this last for the rectory of Ickham, near Canterbury, to which he was admitted Oct. 4, 1662. He had a design, in the latter part of his days, of writing his own life; and would often confess, that he thought himself obliged to do it, out of gratitude to the Divine Providence, which had preserved and delivered him from more hazardous occurrences than ever any man (as he thought) besides himself had encountered with; particularly in his escape from a fire in the night-time, which happened in the house where he lived, at Geneva, while he was a boy: in his recovery from a sickness at Christ Church, in Oxford, when he was given over for dead, by a chemical preparation administered to him by a young physician: in his wonderful preservation from drowning, when overset in a boat on the Thames near London, the two watermen being drowned, and himself buoyed up by his priest’s coat: and in his bearing several abuses, fines, imprisonments, &c. laid upon him by the republicans in the time of his sequestration: but this he did not execute. He died July 14, 1671, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried in the south part of the first south cross aile of Canterbury cathedral. Over his grave was soon after erected a handsome monument with an inscription. He left by will a great number of manuscripts to the university of Oxford. His character is thus represented. He was a general scholar, but not of particular excellence, unless in criticism, in which probably he was assisted by his father’s notes and papers. According to the custom of the times he lived in, he displays his extensive reading by an extraordinary mixture of Greek and Latin quotations and phrases. He was wont to ascribe to Descartes’s philosophy, the little inclination people had in his time for polite learning. Sir William Temple very highly praises his work, hereafter mentioned, on “Enthusiasm;” and unquestionably it contains in any curious and learned remarks; buthisbeingamaintainer of the reality of witches and apparitions, shews that he was not more free from one species of enthusiasm than most of his contemporaries. In his private character he was eminent for his piety, charity to the poor, and his courteous and affable disposition towards scholars. He had several children, but none made any figure in the learned world; one, named John, was a surgeon at Canterbury .

1660, 4to. 21. “The Question to whom it belonged anciently to preach? And whether all priests might or did? Discussed out of antiquity. Occasioned by the late directions concerning preachers,” Lond. 1663, 4to. These directions were set forth by the king, October 14, 1662, to restrain the abuses and extravagances of preachers. 22. “Notse & emendationes in Diogenem Laertium de Vitis, &c. Philosophorum” added to those of his father, in the editions of Laertius printed at London 1664, fol. and Amsterdam in 1692, 4to. 23. “Of the necessity of Reformation in and before Luther’s time, and what visibly hath most hindered the progress of it Occasioned by some late virulent books written by papists, but especially by that, entitled, Labyrinthus Cantuariensis,” Lond. 1664, 4to. This is chiefly an answer to “Labyrinthus Cantuariensis,” printed at Paris in 1658; which pretends to confute “Archbishop Laud’s relation of a conference with Fisher the Jesuit.” 24. “An answer concerning the new way of Infallibility lately devised to uphold the Roman cause; the ancient fathers and councils laid aside, against J. S. (the author of Sure-footing) his Letter lately published,” Lond. 1665, 8vo. This letter of J. S. (i, e. John Sarjeant, the author of Sure-footing, &c. so learnedly confuted by archbishop Tillotson) was a sort of an answer to some passages in Dr. Casaubon’s book “Of the necessity of Reformation,” &c. and was printed at the end of Sarjeant’s Surefooting in Christianity. 25. “A Letter of Meric Casaubon, D.D. &c. to Peter du Moulin, I). D. &c. concerning natural experimental philosophy, and some books lately set out about it,” Cambridge, 1669, 4to. 26. “Of Credulity and Incredulity in things natural, civil, and divine; wherein, among other things, the sadducism of these times in denying spirits, witches, and supernatural operations, by pregnant instances and evidences is fully confuted; Epicurus his cause discussed, and the juggling and false dealing lately used to bring him and atheism into credit, clearly discovered; the use and necessity of ancient learning against the innovating humour all along proved and asserted^” Lond. 1668, 8vo, two parts. The third part was printed at London, 1670, 8vo, under the title “Of Credulity and Incredulity in things divine and spiritual: wherein (among other things) a true and faithful account is given of the Platonic philosophy, as it hath reference to Christianity: as also the business of witches and witchcraft, against a late writer, fully argued and disputed.” The late writer, attacked only in the two last sheets of this book, was Mr. John Wag-staff, who published “The question of Witchcraft debated; or a discourse against their opinion, that affirm witches,” Lond. 1669, 8vo. But these two parts of Dr. Casaubon’s book remaining unsold, he printed a new title to them, running thus, “A treatise proving Spirits, Witches, and supernatural operations by pregnant instances and evidences, &c.” London, 1672. 27. “Notse in Polybium,” printed for the first time in Gronovius’s edition, Amsterdam, 1670, 8vo. 28. “Epistolae, Dedicationes, Prsefationes, Prolegomena, & Tractatus quidam rariores. Curante Theodore Janson ab Almeloveen;” printed at the end of Isaac Casaubon’s Letters, Roterodami, 1709. 29. “De Jure concionandi apud antiques.” This seems to be the same as the treatise mentioned above No. 22, or perhaps it was a Latin translation of it.

, an eminent nonconformist divine, the son of George Case, vicar of Boxley in Kent, was born there in 1598 or 1599, and became student of Christ church, Oxford, upon the recommendation of Toby Mathew, archbishop of York, in 1616. After taking his degrees in arts, he went into the church, and preached for some time in Oxfordshire and Kent, and held the living of Erpingham in Norfolk, from which he was ejected for nonconformity. In 1641, he joined in principle and practice with the parliament, and about that time was minister of St. Mary Magdalen, Milk-street, London, in the room of a sequestered loyalist. One of the party jour nafs of the time informs us that in administering the sacrament, he used to say, instead of “Ye that do truly and earnestly repent, &c.” “Ye that have freely and liberally contributed to the parliament, &c.;” but this was probably the squib of the day. Case, with all his republican zeal, was a man of real piety but the former certainly betrayed him into extreme violence in his discourses, which is poorly excused by his biographer telling us of his having been ejected from his living by bishop Wren. When in London he wasthe institutor of the Morning Exercise, which was kept up in the city many years after, and produced some of the ablest sermons of the nonconformist clergy. From the living of Milk-street he was turned out, for refusing the engagement, and was afterwards lecturer at Aldermanbury and St. Giles’s Cripplegate. He was imprisoned six months in the Tower, for being implicated in Love’s plot, but Love only was made a sacrifice, and Mr. Case and his fellow-prisoners Mr. Jenkyn, Mr. Watson, &c. were released and restored to their livings. He was afterwards rector of St. Giles’s in the Fields. In 1660, he was one of the ministers deputed to wait on the king at the Hague; and in 1661, one of the commissioners at the fruitless Savoy conference. He appears to have retained his living in Milk-street after the restoration, as it was from that he was finally ejected. He died May 30, 1682, and was buried in Christ church, Newgate-street. Dr. Jacomb, who preached his funeral sermon, gives him an excellent and probably a just character: and it is certain that he lived to repent of the intemperance of his harangues at the commencement of the rebellion. This led him to subscribe the two papers declaring against the proceedings of the parliament in 1648, and the bringing king Charles to a trial. His works consist chiefly of sermons preached on public occasions, before the parliament and at funerals, enumerated by Calamy.

A little before this misfortune, the marquis of Mantua sent him to Leo X. as his ambassador; and after the death of Leo he continued at Rome in that capacity, under Hadrian VI. and Clement VII. Clement sent him to the emperor Charles the Fifth’s court in quality of legate; where affairs were to be transacted of the highest importance, not only to the pontifical see, but to all Italy. He went into Spain, Oct. 1524; and in his negotiations and transactions not only answered the pope’s expectations, but also acquired the good-will of the emperor, by whom he was soon received as a favourite counsellor and friend, as well as an ambassador. Among other marks of affection which the emperor shewed Castiglione, one was rather singular, that being then at war with Francis I. of FVance, he always desired him to be present at the military councils of that war and, when it was supposed that the war would be ended by a single combat between Charles V. and Francis I. with only three knights attending them, the emperor chose Castiglione to be one of the number. He also made him 'a free denizen of Spain; and soon alter nominated him to the bishopric of Avila. And because this happeped at the juncture of the sacking of Rome, some took occasion to reflect upon Castiglicwie, as if he had neglected the affairs of the court of Rome, for the sake of gratifying the inclinations of the emperor; at least such was indeed the current opinion at Rome; but Castiglione defended himself from the imputation in his letter to Clement VII. It is probable that there were no real grounds for it, since Clement himself does not appear to have given the least credit to it. Paul Jovius says, that if Castiglione had lived, the pope intended to have made him a cardinal; and after his death, in two of his holiness" briefs, both of condolence to his mother, there are the strongest expressions of his unblemished fidelity and devotion to the see of Rome. The imputation, however, affected Castiglione so sensibly, that it was supposed in some measure to have contributed to his death. His constitution was already impaired with the continual fatigues, civil as well as military, in which he had always been engaged; and falling at length sick at Toledo, he died Feb. 2, 1529. The emperor, who was then at Toledo, was extremely grieved, and commanded all the prelates and lords of his court to attend his corpse to the principal church there; and the funeral offices were celebrated by the archbishop with such solemnity and pomp as was never permitted to any one before, the princes of the blood excepted. Sixteen months after, his body was removed by his mother from Toledo to Mantua, and interred in a church of her own building; where a sumptuous monument was raised, and a Latin epitaph inscribed, which was written by cardinal Bern bo.

, an eminent French physician and surgeon, was born at Blerancourt, between Noyon and Coucy, Sept. 6, 1700. If chirurgical skill be hereditary, his claims were considerable, as he was descended both by the father’s and mother’s side from eminent practitioners. His parents, however, first intended him for the church; but after completing his philosophy course, he applied himself to the study of medicine, not altogether with his inclination. From his infancy he had amused himself with making geometrical figures, and without the aid of a master, used to make drawings of military architecture with considerable accuracy, and at one time seems to have had an inclination for the bar, but at last he had no alternative but the church, or the profession of his ancestors, and having determined in favour of the latter, he went to Paris for education in the different branches of the healing art. The first publication by which he was known, was a curious dissertation, which he printed in his twenty-fourth year, on the mechanism of the buttresses of the church of St. Nicaise at Rheuns: these buttresses have always been an object of curiosity, as a motion is perceptible in them, which has never affected their solidity. la 1729, he was appointed surgeon and physician to M. de Tressan, archbishop of Rouen. He did not take his degree, however, until 1732, when he took it at Rheims, to avoid the heavy expence of 6000 livres, which it would have cost at Paris. In 1733, he settled at Rouen, and began to give a course of anatomical lectures, and there first he established a high reputation for his dextrous method of operation for the stone. In 1731 he obtained the reversion of the place of surgeon-major to the hospital at Rouen; and when the royal academy of surgery was established, he gained the first prize, and continued to gain all the prizes of that academy to the year 17:58 inclusive, when they paid him the high compliment of requesting that he would no longer become a candidate, but leave to others a chance of obtaining these rewards. Flattering as this seemed, M. Le Cat was aware that the academicians had it in their power to prevent his contending for prizes in a more effectual way, by electing him one of their body, and accordingly stood for the prize of 1739 with his usual success: about the end of the year, however, he was elected into the academy, and pursued his career of fame by those numerous publications on which it was so justly founded.

, Queen Of England, and first consort of Henry VIII. was the fourth daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Castile and Arragon. She was born in 1485. In the sixteenth year of her age, Nov. 14, 1501, she was married to Arthur, prince of Wales, son of Henry VII. who died a few months after. The king, either from political reasons, or, as some think, because he was unwilling to restore Catherine’s dowry, which was 200,000 ducats, obliged his second son Henry, whom he created prince of Wales, and who was then in his twelfth year, to be contracted to the infanta. The prince resisted this injunction to the utmost of his power; but the king was invincible, and the espousals were at length, by means of the pope’s dispensation, contracted between the parties. Immediately after the accession of Henry VIII. to the crown, in 1509, the king began to deliberate on his former engagements, to which he had many objections, but his privy council, though contrary to the opinion of the primate, gave him their advice for celebrating the marriage. Even the prejudices of the people were averse to an union betwixt such near relations as Henry and his brother’s widow; and the late king is thought to have had an intention to avail himself of a proper opportunity of annulling the contract. In 1527 several circumstances occurred which combined to excite scruples in the king’s mind concerning the lawfulness of his marriage, but probably the chief were what arose from his own passions. The queen was six years older than the king; and the decay of her beauty, together with particular infn-mities and diseases, had contributed, notwithstanding her blameless character and deportment, to render her person unacceptable to him. Though she had borne him several children, they all died in early infancy, except one daughter, Mary; and it was apprehended, that if doubts of Mary’s legitimacy concurred with the weakness of her sex, the king of Scots, the next heir, would advance his pretensions, and might throw the kingdom into confusion. But most of all, Anne Boleyn had acquired an entire ascendant over his affections, and he was now determined on a divorce, and upon consulting them, all the prelates of England, except Fisher, bishop of Rochester, unanimously declared that they deemed his marriage unlawful. In this they were supported by cardinal Wolsey, who had political purposes to answer in breaking off the match with Catherine, although he was no friend to Anne Boleyn. Accordingly Henry determined to apply to the pope, Clement VII. for a divorce, who, though at first disposed to favour Henry’s application, and had actually concerted measures for its successful issue, was overawed by the interference of the emperor, Charles V. Catherine’s nephew; and when the negociation was protracted to such a length as to tire Henry’s patience, the pope, importuned by the English ministers, put into their hands a commission to Wolsey, as legate, in conjunction with the archbishop of Canterbury, or any other English prelate, to examine the validity of the king’s marriage, and of the late pope’s dispensation. He also granted them a provisional dispensation for the king’s marriage with any other person; and promised to issue a decretal bull, annulling the marriage with Catherine; but he enjoined secrecy, and conjured them not to publish these papers, or to make any farther use of them, till his afflxirs with regard to the emperor were in such a train as to secure his liberty and independence. After considerable hesitation and delay, the legates, Campeggio and Wolsey, to whom the pope had granted a new commission for the trial of the king’s marriage, opened their court in London, May 31, 1529, and cited the king and queen to appear before it. They both presented themselves, and the king answered to his name, when called; but the queen, instead of answering to her’s, threw herself at the king’s feet, and appealed to his justice, declaring that she would not submit her cause to be tried by the members of a court who depended on her enemies; and making the king a low reverence, she departed, and never would again appear in that court.

, queen of England, and fifth wife of Henry VIII. was daughter of lord Edmund Howard (third son of Thomas duke of Norfolk, and grandson of John first duke of Norfolk), by Joyce, daughter of sir Richard Culpepper, of Holingbourne in Kent, knight. Her mother dying while she was young, she was educated under the care of her grandmother, the duchess dowager of Norfolk; and when she grew up, the charms of her person soon captivated the affections of Henry VIII, who, upon his divorce from Anne of Cleves, married her, and shewed her publicly as queen, Aug. 8, 1540, But this marriage proved of the utmost prejudice to the cause of the reformation, which had begun to spread itself in the kingdom. ' The queen being absolutely guided by the counsels of the duke of Norfolk, her uncle, and Gardiner bishop of Winchester, used all the power she had over the king to support the credit of the enemies of the protestants, In the summer of 1541, she attended his majesty to York, to meet his nephew the king of Scotland, who had promised to give him an interview in that city, but was diverted by his clergy, and a message from the court of France, from that resolution; and during that progress she gained so entire an ascendant over the king’s heart, that at his return to London, on All-Saints day, when he received the sacrament, he gave public thanks to God for the happiness which he enjoyed by her means and desired his confessor, the bishop of Lincoln, to join with him in the like thanksgiving. But this proved a very short-lived satisfaction, for the jiext clay, archbishop Cranmer came to him with information that the queen had been unfaithful to his bed. By the advice of the lord chancellor and other privy counsellors, the archbishop wrote the particulars on a paper, which he delivered to the king, being at a loss how to open so delicate a matter in conversation. When the king read it, he was much confounded, and his attachment to the queen made him at first consider the story as a forgery, but having full proof, the persons with whom the queen Jiad been guilty, Dierham and Mannoch, two of the duchess dowager of Norfolk’s domestics, were apprehended, and not only confessed what was laid to their charge, but revealed some other circumstances, which placed the guilt of the queen in a most heinous light. The report of this struck the king so forcibly, that he lamented his misfortune with a flood of tears. The archbishop and some other counsellors were sent to examine the queen, who at first denied every thing, but finding that her crime was known, confessed all, and subscribed the paper. It appeared likewise, that she had intended to continue in that scandalous course of life; for as she had brought Dierham into her service, she had also retained one of the women, who had formerly been privy to their familiarities, to attend upon her in her bed-chamber; and while the king was at Lincoln, by the lady Rochford’s means, one Culpepper was brought to her at eleven at night, and stayed with her till four next morning; and at his departure received from her a gold chain. Culpepper being examined, confessed the crime: for which he, with Dierham, suffered death on the 1 Oth of December.

This unfortunate affair occasioned a new parliament to be summoned on Jan. 16, 1541-2, in which the archbishop, the duke of Suffolk, the earl of Southampton, and the bishop of Winchester, were appointed to examine the queen; which they did on the 28th of that month. Their report is recorded only in general, that she confessed; but no particulars are mentioned. Upon this the parliament passed an act in the form of a petition, in which, after desiring the king not to be grieved at this misfortune, they requested, that the queen and her accomplices, with her procuress the lady Rochford, might be attainted of high treason; and that all those, who knew of the queen’s Vicious course before her marriage, and had concealed it, as the duchess dowager of Norfolk her grandmother, the countess of Bridgwater, the lord William Howard her uncle, and his kidy, with the four other men and five women, who were already attainted by the course of common law (except the duchess of Norfolk and the countess of Bridgwater), might be attainted of misprision of treason. It was enacted also, that whoever knew any thing of the incontinence of the queen for the time being, should reveal it with all possible speed, under the pains of treason: and that if the king, or his successors, should incline to marry any woman, whom they took to be a virgin, if she, not being so, did not declare the same to the king, it should be high treason; and all, who knew it, and did not reveal it, were guilty of misprision of treason: and if the queen, or the prince’s wife, should procure any person, by messages or words, to have criminal conversation with her; or any other, by messages or words, should solicit them; they, their counsellors and abettors, were to be adjudged guilty of high treason.

Peter’s conduct, on the other hand, was mere infatuation. He permitted his mistress the countess Woronzoff to have the most complete ascendancy over him, and this woman had the hardihood to claim the performance of a promise which he had made when grand duke, to marry her, place her, in the room of Catherine, on the throne, and bastardize his son Paul, whose place he was to supply by adopting prince Ivan, who had been dethroned by the empress Elizabeth. Whatever ground he might have for expecting success to this wild project, he had not the sense to conceal it; and his mistress openly made her boast of it. Such indiscretion was, no doubt, in favour of Catherine^ but still the part she had to play required all her skill. It was no less than a plot to counteract that of her husband, and dethrone him. The minute details of this would extend too far in a sketch like the present; her conspirators were numerous, secret, and well prepared, and by their means she, who had been confined at Peterhof by her husband, was enabled to enter Petersburgh July 9, 1762, where she was received as empress, and where, while the enthusiasm was fresh in the minds of her troops and subjects, she was crowned in the church of Kazan, by the archbishop of Novogorod, who proclaimed her with a loud voice, sovereign of all the Russias, by the title of Catherine II. and declared at the same time the young grand duke, Paul Petrovitch, her successor. But of all this Peter III. had yet no suspicion. Such was his security, that he set out, after having received some intimations of the conspiracy, from Oranienbaum in a calash with his mistress, his favourites, and the women of his court, for Peterhof; but in the way, Gudovitch, the general aidede-camp, met one of the chamberlains of the empress, by whom he was informed of her escape from Peterhof; and upon his communicating the intelligence to Peter, he turned pale, and appeared much agitated. On his arrival at Peterhof, his agitation and confusion increased, when he found that the empress had actually left the palace, and he soon received the certain tidings of the revolution that had been accomplished; and the chancellor Worouzof offered his services to hasten to Petersburgh, engaging to bring the empress back. The chancellor, on entering the palace, found Catherine surrounded by a multitude of people in the act of doing homage; and forgetting his duty, he took the oath with the rest. He was permitted, however, at his earnest request, to return to his house, under the guard of some trusty officers; and thus secured himself from the vindictive spirit of the partisans of Catherine, and from the suspicions of the czar. After the departure of the chancellor, Peter became a prey to the most distressing anxieties, and he every instant received some fresh intelligence of the progress of the revolution, but knew not what steps to pursue. Although his Holstein guards were firmly attached to him, and the veteran marshal Munich offered to risk every thing for his service, he remained hesitating and undetermined; and after some fruitless attempts, he found it absolutely necessary to submit unconditionally to her will, in consequence of which he was compelled to sign a most humiliating act of abdication, in which he declared his conviction of his inability to govern the empire, either as a sovereign, or in any other capacity, and his sense of the distress in which his continuance at the head of affairs would inevitably involve it, and in the evening an officer with a strong escort came and conveyed him prisoner to Ropscha, a small imperial palace, at the distance of about 20 versts from Peterhof. He now sent a message to Catherine, requesting, that he might retain in his service the negro who had been attached to him, and who amused him with his singularities, together with a dog, of which he was fond, his violin, a Bible, and a few romances; assuring her, that, disgusted at the wickedness of mankind, he would henceforward devote himself to a philosophical life. Not one of these requests was granted. After he had been at Ropscha six days without the knowledge of any persons besides the chiefs of the conspirators, and the soldiers by whom he was guarded, Alexius Orlof, accompanied by Teplof, came to him with the news of his speedy deliverance, and asked permission to dine with him. While the officer amused the czar with some trifling discourse, his chief rilled the wine-glasses, which are usually brought in the northern countries before dinner, and poured a poisonous mixture into that which he intended for the prince. The czar, without distrust, swallowed the potion; on which he was seized with the most excruciating pains; and on his being offered a second glass, on pretence of its giving him relief, he refused it with reproaches on him that offered it. Being pressed to take another glass, when he called for milk, a French valet-de-chamhre, who was greatly attached to him, ran in; and throwing himself into his arms, he said in a faint tone of \oice, “It was not enough, then, to prevent me from reigning in Sweden, and to deprive me of the crown of Russia! I must also be put to death.” The valet-dechamhre interceded in his behalf; but the two miscreant forced him out of the room, and continued their ill treatment of him. In the midst of the tumult, the younger of the princes Baratinsky, who commanded the guard, entered; Orlof, who in a struggle had thrown down the emperor, was pressing upon his breast with both his knees, and firmly griping his throat with his hand. In this situation the two other assassins threw a napkin with a running knot round his neck, and put an end to his life by suffocation, July 17th, just one week after the revolution; and it was announced to the nation, that Peter had died of an haemorrhoidal colic. When Catherine received the news of Peter’s death, she appeared at court, whither she was going, with a tranquil air; and afterwards shut herself up with Orlof, Panin, Rasumofsky, and others who had been concerned in her counterplot, and resolved to inform the senate and people next day of the death of the emperor. On this occasion she did not forget her part, but rose from her seat with her eyes full of tears, and for some days exhibited all the marks of profound grief. The best part of her conduct was, that she showed no resentment to the adherents of Peter, and even pardoned the countess Woronzoff.

, a celebrated divine of the sixteenth century, was born in 1487 at Sienna, and taught law, till the age of thirty, under the name of Lancelot Politi, but took that of Catharinus upon turning Dominican in 1515. He then applied to the study of divinity, and became very eminent; appeared with great distinction at the council of Trent, was made bishop of Minori 1547, and archbishop of Conza 1551. He died 1553, aged 70, leaving several works, printed at Lyons, 1542, 8vo and at the end of his “Enarrationes in Genesim,” Rome, 1552, fol. in which he maintains singular opinions concerning predestination and other theological points, he says, that St. John the Evangelist is not dead, but has been taken up to heaven, like Enoch and Elijah; that Jesus Christ would have come into the world, even though Adam had not sinned; that the evil angels fell because they would not acknowledge the decree of the incarnation; and that children) who die unbaptized, enjoy a degree of happiness suited to their state. It was he who first warmly defended the opinion, that the exterior intention is sufficient in-him who administers the sacraments, i. e. that the sacrament is valid provided the minister performs such outward ceremonies as are required, though he should in his heart m?.ke a jest of sacred things. Catharinus is very free in other respects in his sentiments, and does not scruple to depart from those of St. Austin, St. Thomas, and other divines. His opinion, however, concerning the exterior intention of the minister who gives the sacrament, has been always followed by the Sorbonne, when cases of conscience were to be decided. He wrote “Commentaries on St. Paul’s,” and the other canonical epistles, Venice, 1551, fol.; and there is a book ascribed to him which is in request, and is entitled, “Remedio alia pestilente Dottrina d'Ochino,” Rome, 1544, 8vo.

, a very learned divine, was born at Pickwell, in Leicestershire, of which parish his father was rector, Dec. 30, 1637. On the 9th of May, 1653, he was admitted into St. JohnVcollege, in Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1656, and that of M. A. in 1660. In August 1662, he was admitted to the vicarage of Islington, in Middlesex-, and some time after became chaplain in ordinary to king Charles 11. He took the degree of D. D. in 1672, and on the 16th of September, 1679, was collated by the archbishop of Canterbury to the rectory of Allhallows the Great, in Thames-street, London. In July 1681, he was incorporated D. D. at Oxford, and in November 1684, he was installed canon of Windsor, upon the death of Mr. John Rosewell; about which time, as Mr. Wood tells us r he became rector of Hasely, in Oxfordshire; but that seems to be a mistake, as the rectory of Hasely is annexed to the deanery of Windsor. He resigned his rectory of Allhallows in 1689, and the vicarage of Islington in 1691; but on the 19th of November before, namely, in 1690, he was admitted to the vicarage of Isleworth, in Middlesex, which being a quiet and retired place, probably suited best his most studious temper. He published: 1. “Primitive Christianity; or the Religion of the ancient Christians in the first ages of the Gospel,” London, 1672, reprinted several times since. 2. “Tabulae Ecclesiastics,” tables of the ecclesiastical writers, Lond. 1674, reprinted at Hamburgh, in 1676, without his knowledge. 3. “Antiquitates Apostolicae: or the history of the lives, acts, and martyrdoms of the holy apostles of our Saviour, and the two evangelists, St. Mark and St. Luke. To which is added an introductory Discourse concerning the three great dispensations of the church, Patriarchal, Mosaical, and Evangelical. Being a continuation of `Antiquitates Christianas,' or the Life and Death of Holy Jesus,” written by Jeremy Taylor, afterward bishop of Down and Connor, Lond. 1676, fol. 4. “Apostolici, or the History of the lives, acts, deaths, and martyrdomsof those who were contemporaries with or immediately succeeded the Apostles as also of the most eminent of the primitive fathers for the first three hundred years. To which is added, a Chronology of the three first ages of the Church,” Lond. 1677, fol. 5. “A Sermon preached before the right honourable the lordmayor, aldermen, and citizens of London, at St. Mary-leBuw, on the fifth of November, M.DC.LXXX.” London, 1680, 4to. 6. “A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church, by bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs. More particularly concerning the ancient power and jurisdiction of the bishops of Rome, and the encroachments of that upon other sees, especially the see of Constantinople;” Lond. 1683, 8vo. 7. “Ecclesiastic!, or the History of the lives, acts, deaths, and writings of the most eminent Fathers of the Church that flourished in the fourth century. Wherein, among other things, an account is given of the rise, growth, and progress of Arianism, and all other sects of that age descending from it. Together with an Introduction, containing an historical account of the state of Paganism under the first Christian emperor,” Lond. 1682, fol. 8. “A Sermon preached before the king at Whitehall, on Sunday, January 18, 1684-5, on Psalm iv. 7. Publisheo 1 by his majesties special command,” Lond. 1685, 4to. 9. “Chartopbylax Ecclesiasticus,” Lond. 1685, 8vo. This is aii improvement of the “Tabulae Ecclesiastics,” above-mentioned, and a kind of abridgment of the “Historia Literaria,” and contams a short account of most of the ecclesiastical writers from the birth of Christ to 1517. 1O. “Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria i. e. A Literary History of Ecclesiastical Writers, in two parts,” fol. the first printed at Lond. 1688; and the second in 1698. 11. “A Serious Exhortation, with some important advices relating to the late cases about Conformity, recommended to the present dissenters from the Church of England.” It is the twenty-second in the “London Cases.” This very learned person died at Windsor, on the 4th of August, 1713, and was buried in Islington church, where a monument was erected to his memory. He was an excellent pud universal scholar, an elegant and polite writer, and a florid and very eloquent preacher. He was thoroughly acquainted with the history and constitution of the Christian church. His works, particularly his Lives of the apostles, Lives of the fathers, and Primitive Christianity, evince his great knowledge of antiquity, and are justly esteemed the best books written upon those important subjects. Yet the “Historia Literaria” is perhaps the work on which his fume will now be thought principally to depend. This very useful work was reprinted at Geneva, in 1705 and 1720, but the best edition is that printed at the Clarendon press, by subscription, in 2 vols. fol, 1740— 1743, which contains the author’s last corrections and additions, and additions by other hands. What share Mr. Henry Wharton had in this work will be noticed in our life of that writer. From a manuscript letter of Cave’s in our possession, it appears that he had much reason to complain of Wharton. During the last twelve years of his life Cave had repeatedly revised this history, and made alterations and additions equal to one third part of the work, all which were carefully incorporated in the new edition. The copy thus improved, he left in the hands of his executors, the lord chief justice Reeve, and the rev. Dr. Jones, canon of Windsor, but they both dying soon after the work went to press, Dr. Daniel Waterland undertook the care of it. The venerable Dr. Watson, bishop of Llandaff, observes, that “Casimiri Oudini Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesix, &c.” Leipsic, 1722, 3 vols. fol. is a kind of supplement to Cave’s “Historia Literaria,” and other works of the same kind.

Sir William Cavendish xvrote the life of his old master cardinal Wolsey, and therein gives him a very high character; affirming that, in his judgment, he never saw the kingdom in better obedience and quiet than during the time of his authority, or justice better administered. Indeed, impartial inquirers into the history of Wolsey will be ready to conclude that he was not the worst man in the court of Henry VIII. No work, however, has experienced a more singular fate than sir William Cavendish’s “Life of' Wolsey.” It was long known only by manuscripts, and by the large extracts from it, inserted by Stowe in his “Annals,” and in this state it remained from the reign of queen Mary in which it was composed, until 1641, when it was first printed under the title of “The Negociations of Thomas Wolsey,” &c. 4to; and as the chief object of the publication was to institute a parallel between the cardinal and archbishop Laud, in order to reconcile the public to the murder of that prelate, the manuscript was mutilated and interpolated without shame or scruple, and no pains having been taken to compare the printed edition with the original, the former passed for genuine above a century, and was reprinted, with a slight variation in the title, in 1667 and 1706, besides being inserted in the Harleian Miscellany. At length Dr. Wordsworth printed a correct transcript in his valuable “Ecclesiastical Biography,” 1810, 6 yols. 8vo, collated with four Mss. two in the Lambeth, one in the York cathedral library, and one in the British Museum.

Besides these lesser failings of this great man, he has been accused of illiberality to the poet Spenser, which perhaps may be attributed to his dislike of Leicester, under whose patronage Spenser had come forward, but perhaps more to his want of relish for poetry. On the other hand, our historians are generally agreed in their praises of his high character. Smollett only has endeavoured to lessen it, but as this is coupled with a disregard for historical truth, the attempt is entitled to little regard, and the advocates for Mary queen of Scots cannot be supposed to forgive the share he had in her fate. Lord Orford has given lord Burleigh a place among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” but at the same time justly observes, that he is one of those great names, better known in the annals of his country than in those of the republic of letters. Besides lord Burleigh’s answer to a Latin libel published abroad, which he entitled “Slanders and Lies,” and “A Meditation of the State of England, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth,” lord Orford mentions “La Complainte de PAme pecheresse,” in French verse, extant in the king’s library; “Car mina duo Latina in Obitum Margaretae Nevillee, Reginoe Catherine a Cubiculis;” “Carmen Latinum in Memoriain Tho. Challoneri Equitis aurati, prsefixum ejusdem Libro de restaurata Republica;” “A Preface to Queen Catherine Parr’s Lamentation of a Sinner.” When sir William Cecil accompanied the duke of Somerset on his expedition to Scotland, he furnished materials for an account of that war, which was published by William Patten, under the title of “Diarium Expeditions Scoticae,” London, 1541, 12mo. This is supposed to be the reason why lord Burleigh is reckoned by Holinshed among the English historians. “The first paper or memorial of sir William Cecil \ anno primo Eliz.” This, which is only a paper of memorandums, is printed in Somers’s tracts, from a manuscript in the Cotton library. “A Speech in Parliament, 1592.” This was first published by Strype in his Annals, and has since been inserted in the Parliamentary History. “Lord Burleigh’s Precepts, or directions for the well-ordering and carriage of a man’s life,” 1637. “A Meditation on the Death of his Lady.” Mr. Ballard, in his Memoirs of British Ladies, has printed this Meditation from an original formerly in the possession of James West, esq. but now in the British Museum. Lord Burleigh was supposed to be the author of a thin pamphlet, in defence of the punishments inflicted on the Roman catholics in the reign of queen Elizabeth: it is called “The Execution of Justice in England, for maintenance of public and Christian peace, against certain stirrers of sedition, and adherents to the traitors and enemies of the realm, without any persecution of them for questions of religion, as it is falsely reported, &c.” London, 1583, second edition. Other political pieces were ascribed to him, and even the celebrated libel, entitled “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” It was asserted, that the hints, at least, were furnished by him for that composition. But no proof has been given of this assertion, and it was not founded on any degree of probability. His lordship drew up also a number of pedigrees, some of which are preserved in the archbishop of Canterbury’s library at Lambeth. These contain the genealogies of the kings of England, from William the Conqueror to Edward the Fourth; of queen Anne Boleyn; and of several princely houses in Germany.

, Pope, and the only one of his name who seems to deserve much notice, was born in Apulia about the year 1221, and lived as a hermit in a little cell. He was admitted into holy orders; but after that, he lived five years in a cave on mount Morroni near Sulmona, where he founded a monastery in 1274. The see of Rome having been vacant two years and three months, Celestine was unanimoifsly chosen pope on account of the fame of his sanctity. The archbishop of Lyons, presenting him with the instrument of his election, conjured him to submit to the vocation. Peter, in astonishment, prostrated himself on the ground: and after he had continued in prayer for a considerable time, consented to his election, and' took the name of Celestine V. Since the days of the fir* Gregory, no pope had ever assumed the pontifical dignity with more purity of intention. But he had not Gregory’s talents for business and government; apd the Roman see was far more corrupt in the thirteenth than it was in the sixth century. Celestine soon became sensible of his incapacity. He attempted to reform abuses, to retrench the luxury of the clergy, to do, in short, what he found totally impracticable. He committed mistakes, and exposed himself to ridicule. His conscience, in the mean time, was kept on the rack through a variety of scruples, from which he could not extricate himself; and from his ignorance of the world and of canon law, he began to think he had done wrong in accepting the office. He spent much of his time in retirement; nor was he easy there, because his conscience told him, that he ought to be discharging the pastoral office. In this dilemma he consulted cardinal Cajetan, who told him he might abdicate, which he accordingly did in 1294, after having endeavoured to support the rank of pope for only four or five months, and before his abdication made a constitution that the pontiff might be allowed to abdicate, if he pleased; but there has been no example since of any pope taking the benefit of this constitution. Cajetan succeeded him under the title of Boniface VIII. and immediately imprisoned him in the castle of Fumone, lest he should revoke his resignation, although nothing was more improbable, and treated him with such harshness as brought him to his grave, after ten months imprisonment, in 1296. Clement V. canonized him in 1313. Several of his “Opuscula” are in the Bibl. Patrum. The order of the Celestins, which takes its name from him, still subsists.

In 1606, Cervantes returned from Valladolid to Madrid, where he passed the last ten years of his life. In 1610, his second patron, don Pedro Fernandez de Castro, count of Lemos, was named viceroy of Naples, and from thence continued to him his protection and liberality: and the cardinal don Bernardo de Sandoval y Rojas, archbishop of Toledo, after the example of his cousin the count of Lemos, assigned him a pension, that he might bear with less inconvenience the troubles of old age. Although Madrid was now Cerva:es’s home, he passed certain seasons in Esquivias, either to take care of some effects of his wife, or to avoid the noise of the court, and to enjoy the quiet of the village, which afforded him opportunity to write more at his ease. Availing himself of this convenience, he hastened, as he was advanced in years, to publish the greater part of his works. He printed his “Novels” in 1613; his “Journey tq Parnassus” in 16 14-; his “Comedies and Interludes” in 1615; and in the same year the second part of his “Don Quixote.” He finished also his “Persilas and Sigismunda,” which was not published till after his death. In the mean time an incurable dropsy seized him, and gave him notice of his approaching dissolution, which he saw with Christian constancy and with a cheerful countenance. He has minutely described this in the prologue to his posthumous work. One of his late biographers says, that good-nature and candour, charity, humanity, and compassion for the infirmities of man in his abject state, and consequently an abhorrence of cruelty, persecution, and violence, the principal moral he seems to inculcate in his great work, were the glorious virtues and predominant good qualities of his soul, and must transmit his name to the latest ages with every eulogium due to so exalted a character. At length, on the same nominal day with his equally great and amiable contemporary Shakspeare, on the 23d of April, 16 16, died Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, and was buried in the church of the Trinitarian nuns in Madrid.

, an eminent dissenting minister, was born at Hungerford, in Berkshire, in 1693, where his father was then pastor of a congregation of protestant dissenters. He early discovered a genius for literature, which was carefully cultivated; and being placed under proper masters, he made a very uncommon progress in classical learning, and especially in the Greek tongue. As it was intended by his friends to bring him up for the ministry, he was sent to an academy at Bridgewater; but was sbort removed to Gloucester, that he might become a pupil to Mr. Samuel Jones, a dissenting minister of great erudition and abilities, who had opened an academy in that city, afterwards transferred to Tewkesbury. Such was the attention of that gentleman to the morals of his pupils, and to their progress in literature, and such the skill and discernment with which he directed their studies, that it was a singular advantage to be placed under so able and accomplished a tutor. Chandler made the proper use of so happy a situation, applying himself to his studies with great assiduity, and particularly to critical, biblical, and oriental learning. Among the pupils of Mr. Jones, were Mr. Joseph Butler, afterwards bishop of Durham, and Mr. Thomas Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he contracted a friendship that continued to the end of their lives, notwithstanding the different views by which their conduct was afterwards directed, and the different situations in which they were placed.

While Mr. Chandler was minister of the congregation at Peckham, some gentlemen of the several denominations of dissenters in the city, came to a resolution to set up and support a weekly evening lecture at the Old Jewry, for the winter half year. The subjects to be treated in this lecture were the evidences of natural and revealed religion, and answers to the principal objections against them. Two of the most eminent young ministers among the dissenters were appointed for the execution of this design, of which Mr. Chandler was one, and Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Lardner, who is so justly celebrated for his learned writings, was another. But after some time this lecture was dropped, and another of the same kind set up, to be preached by one person only, it being judged that it might then be conducted with more consistency of reason and uniformity of design; and Mr. Chandler was appointed for this service. In the course of this lecture he preached some sermons on the confirmation which miracles gave to the divine mission of Christ, and the truth of his religion; and vindicated the argument against the objections of Collins, in his “Discourse of the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion.” These sermons, by the advice of a friend, he enlarged, and threw into the form of a continued treatise, and published in 1725, 8vo, under the following title: “A Vindication of the Christian Religion, in two parts, I. A discourse on the nature and use of Miracles II. An answer to a late book,entitled a Discourse on the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion.” Having presented a copy of this book to archbishop Wake, his grace expressed his sense of the value of the favour, in a letter, which is an honourable testimony to Mr. Chandler’s merit. It appears from the letter, that the archbishop did not then know that the author was any other than a bookseller; for he says: “I cannot but own myself to be surprised to see so much good learning and just reasoning in a person of your profession; and do think it a pity you should not rather spend your time in writing books than in selling them. But I am glad, since your circumstances oblige you to the latter, that you do not wholly omit the former.” Besides gaining the archbishop’s approbation, Mr. Chandler’s performance considerably advanced his reputation in general, and contributed to his receiving an invitation, about 1726, to settle as a minister with the congregation in the Old Jewry, which was one of the most respectable in London. Here he continued, first as assistant, and afterwards as pastor, for the space of forty years, and discharged the duties of the ministerial office with great assiduity and ability, being much esteemed and regarded by his own congregation, and acquiring a distinguished reputation, both as a preacher and a writer.

, D. D. was the son of the rev. William Chapman, rector of Stratfield-say in Hampshire, where he was probably born in 1704. He was educated at King’s college, Cambridge, A. B. 1727, and A. M. 1731. His first promotion was the rectory of Mersham in Kent, and of Alderton, with the chapel of Smeeth; to which he was appointed in 1739 and 1744, being then domestic chaplain to archbishop Potter. He was also archdeacon of Sudbury, and treasurer of Chichester, two options. Being educated at Eton, he was a candidate for the provostship of that college, and lost it by a small majority, and after a most severe contest with Dr. George. Among his pupils he had the honour to class the first lord Camden, Dr. Ashton, Horace Walpole, Jacob Bryant, sir W. Draper, sir George Baker, and others who afterwards attained to considerable distinction in literature. His first publication was entitled “The Objections of a late anonymous writer (Collins) against the book of Daniel, considered/' Cambridge, 1728, 8vo. This was followed by his” Remarks on Dr. Middleton’s celebrated Letter to Dr. Waterland,“published in 1731, and which has passed through three editions. In his” Eusebius,“2 vols. 8vo, he defended Christianity against the objections of Mor-­gan, and against those of Tindal in his” Primitive Antiquity explained and vindicated.“The first volume of Eusebius, published in 1739, was dedicated to archbishop Potter; and when the second appeared, in 1741, Mr. Chapman styled himself chaplain to his grace. In the same year he was made archdeacon of Sudbury, and was honoured with the diploma of D. D. by the university of Oxford. He is at this time said to have published the” History of the ancient Hebrews vindicated, by Theophanes Cantabrigiensis,“8vo but this was the production of Dr. Squire. He published two tracts relating to” Phlegon,“in answer to Dr. Sykes, who had maintained that the eclipse mentioned by that writer had no relation to the wonderful darkness that happened at our Saviour’s crucifixion. In 1738 Dr. Chapman published a sermon preached at the consecration of bishop Mavvson, and four other single sermons, 1739, 1743, 1748, and 1752. In a dissertation written in elegant Latin, and addressed to Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Tunstall, then public orator of the university of Cambridge, and published with his Latin epistle to Dr. Middleton concerning the genuineness of some of Cicero’s epistles, 1741, Dr. Chapman proved that Cicero published two editions of his Academics; an original thought that had escaped all former commentators, and which has been applauded by Dr. Ross, bishop of Exeter, in his edition of Cicero’s” Epistolse ad familiares,“1749. In 1744 Mr. Tunstall published” Observations on the present Collection of Epistles between Cicero and M. Brutus, representing several evident marks of forgery in those epistles,“&c. to which was added a” Letter from Dr. Chapman, on the ancient numeral characters of the Roman legions.“Dr. Middleton had asserted, that the Roman generals, when they had occasion to raise new legions in distant parts of the empire, used to name them according to the order in which they themselves had raised them, without regard to any other legions whatever. This notion Dr. Chapman controverts and confutes. According to Dr. Middleton there might have been two thirtieth legions in the empire. This Dr. Chapman denies to have been customary from the foundation of the city to the time when Brutus was acting against Anthony, but affirms nothing of the practice after the death of Brutus. To this Dr. Middleton made no reply. In 1745 Dr. Chapman was employed in assisting Dr. Pearce, afterwards bishop of Rochester, in his edition of” Cicero de Officiis.“About this time Dr. Chapman introduced Mr. Tunstall and Mr. Hall to archbishop Potter, the one as his librarian, the other as his chaplain, and therefore had some reason to resent their taking an active part against him in the option cause, though they both afterwards dropped it. Dr. Chapman’s above-mentioned attack on Dr. Middleton, which he could not parry, and his interposition in defence of his much-esteemed friend Dr. Waterland, provoked Dr. Middleton to retaliate in 1746, by assailing him in what he thought a much more vulnerable part, in his Charge to the archdeaconry of Sudbury, entitled <e Popery the true bane of letters.” In 1747, to Mr. Mounteney’s edition of some select orations of Demosthenes, Dr. Chapman prefixed in Latin, without his name, observations on the Commentaries commonly ascribed to Ulpian, and a map of ancient Greece adapted to Demosthenes. Mr. Mounteney had been schoolfellow with Dr. Chapman at Eton, and was afterwards a baron of the exchequer in Ireland. If archbishop Potter had lived to another election, Dr. Chapman was intended for prolocutor. As executor and surviving trustee to that prelate, his conduct in that trust, particularly his presenting himself to the precentorship of Lincoln, void by the death of Dr. Trimnell (one of his grace’s options), was brought into chancery by the late Dr. Richardson, when lord keeper Henley in 1760 made a decree in Dr. Chapman’s favour; but, on an appeal to the house of lords, the decree was reversed, and Dr. Richardson ordered to be presented, When Mr. Yorke had finished his argument, in which he was very severe on Dr. Chapman, Mr. Pratt, afterwards lord Camden, who had been his pupil, and was then his counsel, desired him, by a friend, not to be uneasy, for that the next day he “would wash him as white as snow.” Thinking his case partially stated by Dr. Burn, in his “Ecclesiastical Law,' 1 vol. I. (article Bishops), as it was taken from the briefs of his adversaries, he expostulated with him on the subject by letter, to which the doctor candidly replied,” that he by no means thought him criminal, and in the next edition of his work would certainly add his own representation." On this affair, however, Dr. Hurd passes a very severe sentence in his correspondence with Warburton lately published. Dr. Chapman died the 34th of October, 1784, in the 80th year of his age.

The abbe set out for the place of his destination in the month of November 1760. After encountering a variety of almost incredible difficulties, he arrived at Tobolsk, where ignorance and superstition prepared new danger for him. The simple Russians, attentive to all his actions, beheld his preparations with the utmost terror; the observatory which he caused to be erected, and the instruments he transported thither, increased their alarm; and the overflowing of the river Irtish, which inundated part of the city, a natural consequence of the thaw that took place, served still more to confirm them in their suspicions. The governor of Tobolsk, a man of education, to whom the world is indebted for a correct chart of the Caspian, was obliged to give the abb a guard for his protection. The moment so long wished for, and purchased by such fatigue and peril, being at length arrived, the abbe", on the 5th of June, made every necessary preparation for observing the transit; but the pleasure which he anticipated from the success of his expedition was not free from a mixture of pain, for the sky, during the night, became quite overcast. This was a new source of uneasiness to the abbe; but luckily for science, a favourable wind, which sprung up at sun-rise, revived his hopes, by withdrawing the veil that obscured the object of his researches. The observation was made with the necessary precision, in presence of M. Ismailof, count Poushkin, and the archbishop of Tobolsk: and the academy of sciences at Paris, as well as that of Petersburg, received the particulars of this event soon after by a courier whom M. Ismailof immediately dispatched. The glory of this observation had preceded the abbé, and prepared new honours for him at St. Petersburg. The empress, with a view of inducing him to settle there, made him an offer, by means of baron de Breteuil, of the distinguished place which had been occupied by M. Delisle. But choosing rather to pass his days at home, he rejected the offers made him. On his arrival in France hebegan, to prepare an account of his journey, which was published in 1768, in 3 vols. 4to, elegantly printed and adorned with engravings. Besides the account of the particular object of his journey, the philosopher finds in it the history of mankind and of nature; and the statesman the political system and interest of nations. The great labour required to prepare this work for publication did not interrupt the abba’s astronomical pursuits. He enriched the memoirs of the academy with several instructive pieces; and that which he presented in 1767 is the more valuable, as it confirms the experiments made upon electricity at Tobolsk, and demonstrates the identity of the electric fluid with lightning.

It is probable that he would have spent his days in college, if he had not received an unexpected offer from Laud, then bishop of London, of the deanery of Cashel, in Ireland; which preferment, though he was much disturbed at Cambridge by the calumnies of some who envied his reputation, he was yet very unwilling to accept. For being a man of a quiet easy temper, he had no inclination to stir, nor was at all ambitious of dignities; but he determined at length to accept the offer, went over to Ireland accordingly, and was installed August 20, 1633. Soon after he was made provost of Trinity-college, Dublin, by Laud, then archbishop of Canterbury, and chancellor of the university of Dublin, who, desirous of giving a new form to the university, looked upon Chappel as the fittest person to settle the establishment that was proposed. Chappel took great pains to decline this charge, the burden of which he thought too heavy, and for this purpose returned to England in May 1634, but in vain. Upon this he went down to Cambridge, and resigned his fellowship; which to him, as himself says, was the sweetest of earthly preferments. He also visited his native country, and taking his last leave of his ancient and pious mother, he returned to Ireland in August. He was elected provost of Trinity-college, and had the care of it immediately committed to him; though he was not sworn into it till June 5, 1637, on account of the new statutes not being sooner settled and received. The exercises of the university were never more strictly looked to, nor the discipline better observed than in his time; only the lecture for teaching Irish was, after his admission, wholly waved. Yet, that he might mix something of the pleasant with the profitable, and that young minds might not be oppressed with too much severity, he instituted, as sir James Ware tells us, among the juniors, a Roman commonwealth, which continued during the Christmas vacation, and in which they had their dictators, consuls, censors, and other officers of state in great splendour. And this single circumstance may serve to give us a true idea of the man, who was remarkable for uniting in his disposition two very different qualities, sweetness of temper, and severity of manners.

In 1638 his patrons, the earl of Strafford, and the archbishop of Canterbury, preferred him to the bishoprics of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross; and he was consecrated at St. Patrick’s, Dublin, Nov. 11, though he had done all he could to avoid this honour. By the king’s command he continued in his provostship till July 20, 1640; before which time he had endeavoured to obtain a small bishopric in England, that he might return to his native country, as he tells us, and die in peace. But his endeavours were fruitless; and he was left in Ireland to feel all the fury of the storm, which he had long foreseen. He was attacked in the house of commons with great bitterness by the puritan party, and obliged to come to Dublin from Cork, and to put in sureties for his appearance. June 1641, articles of impeachment were exhibited against him to the house of peers, consisting of fourteen, though the substance of them was reduced to two; the first, perjury, on a supposed breach of his oath as provost; the second, malice towards the Irish, founded on discontinuing the Irish lecture during the time of his being provost. The prosecution was urged with great violence, and, as is supposed, for no other reason but because he had enforced uniformity and strict church discipline in the college. This divine’s fate was somewhat peculiar, for although his conduct was consistent, he was abused at Cambridge for being a puritan, and in Ireland for being a papist. Yet as we find the name of archbishop Usher among his opponents in Ireland, there seems reason to think that there was some foundation for his unpopularity, independent of what was explicitly stated. While, however, he laboured under these troubles, he was exposed to still greater, by the breaking out of the rebellion in the latter end of that year. He was under a kind of confinement at Dublin, on account of the impeachment which was still depending; but at length obtained leave to embark for England, for the sake of returning thence to Cork, which, from Dublin, as things stood, he could not safely do. He embarked Dec. 26, 1641, and the next day landed at Milford-haven, after a double escape, as himself phrases it, from the Irish wolves and the Irish sea. He went from Milford-haven to Pembroke, and thence to Tenby, where information was made of him to the mayor, who committed him to gaol Jan. 25. After lying there seven weeks, he was set at liberty by the interest of sir Hugh Owen, a member of parliament, upon giving bond in 1000l. for his appearance; and March 16, set out for Bristol. Here he learnt that the ship bound from Cork to England, with a great part of his effects, was lost near Minehead; and by this, among other things, he lost his choice collection of books. After such a series of misfortunes, and the civil confusions increasing, he withdrew to his native soil, where he spent the remainder of his life in retirement and study; and died at Derby, where he had some time resided, upon Whitsunday, 1649. He published the year before his death, “Methodus concionandi,” that is, the method of preaching, which for its usefulness was also translated into English. His “Use of Holy Scripture,” was printed afterwards in 1653. He left behind him also his own life, written by himself in Latin, which has been twice printed; first from a ms. in the hands of sir Philip Sydenham, bart. by Hearne, and a second time by Peck, from a ms. still preserved in Trinity-hall, Cambridge, for the author left two copies of it. Mr. Peck adds, by way of note upon his edition, the following extract of a letter from Mr. Beaupre Bell: “’Tis certain ‘The whole Duty of Man’ was written by one who suffered by the troubles in Ireland; and some lines in this piece give great grounds to conjecture that bishop Chappel was the author. March 3, 1734.” Thus we see this prelate, as well as many other great and good persons, comes in for part of the credit of that excellent book; yet there is no explicit evidence of his having been the author of it. It appears indeed to have been written before the death of Charles I. although it was not published till 1657, and the manner of it is agreeable enough to this prelate’s plain and easy way of writing; but then there can be no reason given why his name should be suppressed in the title-page, when a posthumous work of his was actually published with it but a few years before.

, an eminent oriental scholar, of whom we regret that our information is so scanty, was born in 1683, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1712, his master’s in 1716, and that of B. D. in 1723. To his other studies he united an uncommon application to oriental languages, in which such was his reputation, that he was chosen to succeed the learned Simon Ockley in 1720, as Arabic professor. He held also a fellowship in his college, until they bestowed on him the livings of Great and Little Hormead, in Hertfordshire. To this fellowship he was chosen in 1717, in the room of a Mr. Tomkinson, one of the nonjuror-fellows ejected at that time by act of parliament. The celebrated Mr. Baker was another, and always afterwards designated himself “Socius ejectus.” In February 1734-5, we find Mr. Chappelow a candidate for the mastership of St. John’s college, but he failed, although after a very severe contest. Mr. Chappelow constantly read lectures during one term on the Oriental languages, for which he had a peculiar enthusiasm, and in which he was critically versed. This inclined him to the publication of the first work by which his name was more extensively known, his edition of Spencer “De Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus.” Spencer, after the first publication of this capital work in 1685, had continued to make improvements in it, and by will left such of his papers and writings as were perfect, to be added in their proper places, if ever there should be occasion to reprint it with the full right and property of them to his executor, bishop (afterwards archbishop) Tenison, who bequeathed them to the university of Cambridge, after having caused them to be prepared for the press, with fifty pounds towards the expences of printing. These the senate, by grace, gave leave to Mr. Chappelow to publish, and as an encouragement, bestowed upon him the archbishop’s benefaction likewise. The work was accordingly executed in 1727, 2 vols. fol. by a subscription of two guineas the small, and three guineas the large paper, begun in 1725. B en e't college, on this occasion, was at the expence of prefixing an elegant engraving of the author, as a small testimony of gratitude to their munificent benefactor. In 1730, he published “Elementa Linguae Arabicae,” chiefly from Erpenius.

, a skilful apothecary, born at Usez, in Upper Languedoc, in 1618, followed ins profession at Orange, from whence he went and settled at Paris. Having obtained a considerable share of reputation by his treatise on the virtues and properties of treacle, he was chosen to deliver a course of chemistry at the royal garden of plants at Paris, in which he acquitted himself with general applause during nine years. His “Pharmacopeia,” 1673, of which an improved edition by Monnier was published in 1753, 2 vols. 4to, was the fruit of his lectures and his studies, and has been translated into all the languages of Europe, and even into the Chinese, for the accommodation of the emperor. The edicts against the Calvinists obliged him to quit his country in 1680. He went over to England, from thence to Holland, and afterwards into Spain with the ambassador, who brought him to the assistance of his master Charles II. Languishing in sickness from his birth. Every good Spaniard was at that time convinced that the vipers for twelve leagues round Toledo were innoxious, ever since they were deprived of their venom by the fiat of a famous archbishop. The French doctor endeavoured to combat this error, and the physicians of the court, envious of the merit of C haras, failed not to take umbrage at this impiety; they complained of him to the inquisition, from whence he was not dismissed till he had abjured the protestant faith. Charas was then seventy -two years old. He returned to Paris, and was admitted a member of the royal academy, and there he continued until his death, Jan. 17, 1698.

, was born June 27, 1682 and set off in the style and with the spirit of Alexander the Great. His preceptor asking him, what he thought of that hero? “I think,” says Charles, “that I should choose to be like him.” Ay, but, says the tutor, he only lived 32 years: “Oh, answered the prince, that is long enough, when a man has conquered kingdoms.” Impatient to reign, he caused himself to be declared of age at 15 and at his coronation, he snatched the crown from the archbishop of Upsal, and put it upon his head himself, with an air of grandeur which struck the people. Frederic IV. king of Denmark, Augustus king of Poland, and Peter tzar of Muscovy, taking advantage of his minority, entered into a confederacy against this youth. Charles, aware of it, though scarce 18, attacked them one after another. He hastened first to Denmark, besieged Copenhagen, forced the Danes into their entrenchments, and caused a declaration to be made to king Frederic, that, “if he did not justice to the duke of Holstein, his brotherin-law, against whom he had committed hostilities, he must prepare to see Copenhagen destroyed, and his kingdom laid waste by fire and sword.” These menaces brought on the treaty of Frawendal; in which, without any advantages to himself, but quite content with humbling his enemy, he demanded and obtained all he wished for his ally.

, son of Richard Charnock an. attorney, descended from an ancier.t family of that name in Lancashire, was born in London in 1628, and educated first in Emanuel college in Cambridge, from whence be removed to New college, Oxford, in 1649, and obtained a fellowship by the parliamentarian interest. Afterwards he went into Ireland, where he preached, and was much admired by the presbyterians and independents. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. he refused to conform, but returned into England, and lived mostly in London, where adhering to the principles of the nonconformists, he preached in private meetings, and had the reputation of a man of good parts, learning, and elocution. He died in July 27, 1680. He printed only a single sermon in his life-time, which is in the “Morning Exercise;” but after his death, two folio volumes from his manuscripts were published in 1683, and still bear a high price. Wood says that those who differed from him in opinion, admired his extensive learning, into which he was first initiated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, by his tutor, Dr. Sancroft, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.

, an eminent nonconformist, and great uncle to the historian of Hertfordshire, was the fifth and youngest son of George Chauncy, esq. of Yardley-bury and New-place in Hertfordshire, by Agnes, the daughter of Edward Welch, and widow of Edward Humberstone, and was born in 1592. He was educated at Westminster school, from which he went to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he was admitted to his several degrees, till he became bachelor of divinity. His reputation for learning was such as gained him the esteem and friendship of the celebrated Dr. Usher, archbishop of Armagh. In consequence of his distinguished skill in Oriental literature, he was chosen, by the heads of houses, Hebrew professor; but Dr. Williams, the vice-chancellor, preferring a relation of his own, Mr. Chauncy resigned his pretensions, and was appointed to the Greek professorship. He was the author of the sTriKpuris which is prefixed to Leigh’s “Critica Sacra' 7 upon the New Testament. When Mr. Chauncy quitted the university, he became vicar of Ware in Hertfordshire. Being of puritanical principles, he was jnuch offended with the” Book of Sports;“and opposed, although with less reason, the railing in of the Communion table. Besides this, he had the indiscretion to say in a sermon, that idolatry was admitted into the church; that much Atheism, Popery, Arminianism, and Heresy had crept into it; and that the preaching of the gospel would be suppressed. Having by these things excited the indignation of the ruling powers, he was questioned in the high commission; and the cause being referred, by order of that court, to the determination of his ordinary, he was imprisoned, condemned in costs of suit, and obliged to make a recantation; which, as it had been extorted from him through fear, lay heavy on his mind. He continued, indeed, some years in his native country, and officiated at Marston Lawrence, in the diocese of Peterborough; but at length retired to New England, where he made an open acknowledgment of his crime in signing a recantation contrary to the dictates of his conscience. For some considerable time succeeding his arrival at New England in 1637, he assisted Mr. Reyner, the minister of that place; after which he removed to a town at a little distance, called” Scituate," where he continued twelve years in the discharge of his pastoral office. When the republican party became predominant in England, Mr. Chauncy was invited, by his old parishioners at Ware, to return back to his native country, and had thoughts of complying, but was so earnestly pressed by the trustees of Harvard college, in Cambridge, which then wanted a president, to accept of the government of that society, that he could not resist their solicitations. This event took place in 1654; and from that time to his death, which happened on the 19th of February, 1671-2, in the 80th year of his age, Mr. Chauncy continued with great reputation at the head of the college, discharging the duties of his station with distinguished attention, diligence, and ability. So high was the esteem in which he was held, that when he had resided about two years in Cambridge, the church of that town, to whom he was united, and among whom he preached, kept a whole day of thanksgiving to God, for the mercy they enjoyed in their connection with him. Mr. Chauncy, by his wife Catherine, whose life was published, had six sons, all of whom were brought up for the ministry. Isaac the eldest of them, became pastor of a nonconformist society in London, and wrote several treatises . Mr. Charles Chauncy had a number of descendants, who long flourished both in Old and New England. One of them was the late Dr. Chauncy the physician, who died in 1777, well known for his skill and taste in pictures, and for his choice collection of them, afterwards in the possession of his brother, Nathaniel Chauncy, esq. of Castle-street, Leicester-fields, who died in 1790.

, in Latin, a Capite Fontium, a learned divine, fifty-fifth general of the cordeliers, was a native of Bretany, descended from a noble and ancient family, and born in 1632. He was titular archbishop of Csesarea, to exercise the episcopal office in the diocese of Sens, in the absence of cardinal de Peleve. He died May 26, 1595, at Rome, leaving several theological works; among them, “De necessaria Theologian Scholasticse correctione,” Paris, 1586, 8vOj of which bibliographers desire us to be careful that the leaf marked E be not wanting, or is not from another book, it being frequently wanting. He wrote also a volume against duels, entitled “Confutation du Point d'Honneur,” 1579, 8vo, and “De Virgiuitate Marias et Josephi,” 1578, 8vo, &c. Dupin has a very long article on Chefforitaines. He appears to have been a man of great learning, and understood six languages besides his native Bas Breton.

His works are: 1. A Latin translation of two of St. Chrysostom’s Homilies, never before published, “Contra observatores novilunii;” and “De dormientibus in Christo,” London, 1543, 4to. 2. A Latin translation of six homilies of the same father, “De Fato,” and “Providentia Dei,” Lond. 1547. 3. “The hurt of Sedition, how grievous it is to a commonwealth.” The running title is, “The true subject to the rebel*” It was published in 1549, on occasion of the insurrections in Devonshire and Norfolk; and besides being inserted in Holinshed’s Chronicle, under the year 1549, was reprinted in 1576, as a seasonable discourse upon apprehension of tumults from malcontents at home, or renegadoes abroad. Dr. Gerard Langbaine of Queen’s college, Oxon, caused it to be reprinted again about 1641, for the use and consideration of those who took arms against Charles I. in the time of the civil wars, and prefixed to it a short life of the author. 4. A Latin translation of the English “Communion-book;” done for the use of M. Bucer, and printed among Bucer’s “Opuscula Angiicana.” 5. “De obitu doctissimi et sanctissimi Theologi domini Martini Buceri, &c. Epistolae duse,” Lond. 1551, 4to, printed in Bucer’s “Scripta Angiicana.” He also wrote an epicedium on the death of that learned man. 6. “Carmen heroicum, or Epitaphium, in Antonium Deneium clarissimum virum,” Lond. 4to. This sir Anthony Denny was originally of St. John’s college in Cambridge, and a learned man: afterwards he became one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber, and groom of the stole to Henry VIII. and one of the executors of his will. 7. “De Pronuntiatione Graecse potissimum linguae disputationes,” &c. containing his dispute on this subject with Gardiner, Basil, 1555, 8vo. 8. “De superstitione ad regem Henricum.” This discourse on superstition was drawn up for king Henry’s use, in order to excite that prince to a thorough reformation of religion. It is written in very elegant Latin, and was prefixed by the author, as a dedicar tion to a Latin translation of his, of Plutarch’s book of Superstition. A copy of this discourse, in manuscript, is still preserved in the library of University college, Oxon, curiously written, and bound up in cloth* of silver, which makes it probable, that it was the veiy book that was presented to the king. An English translation of it, done by the learned W. Elstob, formerly fellow of that college, was published by Mr. Strype, at the end of his Life of sir John Cheke. 9. Several “Letters” of his are published in the Life just now mentioned, and eight in Harrington’s “Nugae antiquae,” and perhaps in other places. 10. A Latin translation of Archbishop Cranmer’s book on the Lord’s Supper, was also done by sir John Cheke, and printed in 1553. 11. He likewise translated “Leo de apparatu bellico,” Basil, 1554, 8 vo. Strype gives also a long catalogue of his unpublished writings, which are probably lost. Sir John Cheke, like some other learned men of his time, particularly Smith, Cecil, and Ascham, wrote a very fair and beautiful hand.

Du Chesne’s first attempt as an author, was a duodecimo volume, printed in 1602, and dedicated to Boulanger, entitled “Egregiarum seu Electarum Lectionum et Antiquitatum liber.” The same year he dedicated another to M. de Cerisy, archbishop of Tours, entitled “Januariae Kalendae, seu de solemnitate anni tain Ethnica quam Christiana brevis tractatus,” with a Latin poem “Gryphus de Ternario numero.” In 1605 he composed for a young lady whom he married in 1608, “Les figures mystiques du riche et precieux Cabinet des Dames,” apparently a moral work. In his twenty-third year he began a translation of Juvenal, which he published with notes, in 1607. This is a work of very rare occurrence. In 16-09 he published “Antiquitez et Recherches de la grandeur et majeste des Rois de France,” dedicated to Louis XIII. then dauphin. In 1610 he wrote a poem, “Chandelier de Justice,” and also a panegyrical discourse on the ceremonies of the coronation of queen Mary of Medicis, with a treatise on the ampulla and fleur-de-lys, &c. but owing to the assassination of the king, which happened after this ceremony, these productions were lost. The same year he published a funeral discourse on king Henry IV. and the first edition of his “Antiquitez et Recherches des Villes et Chateaux de France,” which has been often reprinted. In 1611, appeared his translation and abridgement of the controversies and magical researches of Delrio, the Jesuit, 8vo. In 1612 and 1613, he was employed on his “Histoire d'Angleterre,” the first edition of which was published in 1614; and the same year, in conjunction with father Marrier, he published in folio, a collection of the works of the religious of Cluny, under the title “Bibliotheca Cluniacensis.” This was followed in 1615, by his “Histoire des Papes,” fol. reprinted in 1645, but as this last edition was very incorrect, his son Francis Du Chesne published a new one in 1653, enlarged and illustrated with portraits. In 1616 he published the “Works of Abelard,” with a preface and notes/ which are rarely found together.

, a doctor and librarian of the Sorbonne, was born at Pontoise in the isle of France in 1636, of poor parents. One of his uncles, a clergyman of Veaux in the diocese of Rouen, undertook his education, and afterwards sent him to Paris, where he took his degrees in divinity, and he was received into the house and society of the Sorbonne in 1658, where he was equally admired for learning, piety, and charity, often stripping himself to clothe the poor, and even selling his books to relieve them, which, all book-collectors will agree, was no small stretch of benevolence. Having been appointed librarian to the Sorbonne, his studies in that collection produced a valuable work, well known to bibliographers, entitled “Origine de I'lmprimerie de Paris, dissertation historique et critique,” Paris, 1694, 4to. Maittaire frequently quotes from this dissertation. 2. A translation, or rather paraphrase of the “Grand Canon de l'Eglise Grecque,” written by Andrew of Jerusalem, archbishop of Candy, Paris, 1699, 12mo. He also published in 1664, a Latin dissertation on the council of Chalcedon, on formularies of faith, and had some hand in the catalogue of prohibited books which appeared in 1685. Chevillier died Sept. 8, 1700.

Dr. Cheynell (for he had taken his doctor’s degree) was a man of considerable parts and learning, and published a great many sermons and other works; but now he is chiefly memorable for his conduct to the celebrated Chillingworth, in which he betrayed a degree of bigotry that has not been defended by any of the nonconformist biographers. In 1643, when Laud was a prisoner in the Tower, there was printed by authority a book of Cheynell’s, entitled “The rise, growth, and danger of Socinianism,” and unquestionably one of his best works. This came out about six years after Chillingworth' s more famous work called “The Religion of Protestants,” &c. and was written, as we are told in the title-page, with a view of detecting a most horrid plot formed by the archbishop and his adherents against the pure Protestant religion. In this book the arcfrbishop, Hales of Eton, Chillingworth, and other eminent divines of those times, were strongly charged with Socinianism. The year after, 1644, when Chillingworth was dead, there came out another piece of CheyneJPs with this strange title, “Chillingworthi Novissima; or, the sickness, heresy, death and burial of William Chillingworth.” This was also printed by authority and is, as the writer of Chillingworth’s life truly observes, a most ludicrous as well as melancholy instance of fanaticism, or religious madness. To this is prefixed a dedication to Dr. Bayly, Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Fell, &c. of the university of Oxford, who had given their imprimatur to Chillingworth’s book; in which those divines are abused not a little, for giving so much countenance to the use of reason in religious matters, as they had given by their approbation of Chillingworth’s book. After the dedication follows the relation itself; in which Cheynell gives an account how he came acquainted with this man of reason, as he calls Chillingworth; what care he took of him; and how, as his illness increased, “they remembered him in their prayers, and prayed heartily that God would be pleased to bestow saving graces as well as excellent gifts upon him; that He would give him new light and new eyes, that he might see and acknowledge, and recant his error; that he might deny his carnal reason, and submit to faith:” in all which he is supposed to have related nothing but what was true. For he is allowed by bishop Hoadly to have been as sincere, as honest, and as charitable as his religion would suffer him to be; and, in the case of Chillingworth, while he thought it his duty to consign his soul to hell, was led by his humanity to take care of his body. Chillingworth at length died; and Cheynell, though he refused, as he tells us, to bury his body, yet conceived it very fitting to bury his book. For this purpose he met Chillingworth' s friends at the grave with his book in his hand; and, after a short preamble to the people, in which he assured them “how happy it would be for the kingdom, if this book and all its fellows could be so buried that they might never rise more, unless it were for a confutation,” he exclaimed, “Get thee gone, thou cursed book, which has seduced so many precious souls: get thee gone, thou corrupt rotten book, earth to earth, and dust: to dust get thee gone into the place of rottenness, that thou mayest rot with thy author, and see corruption.”

, archbishop of Canterbury, and founder of All Souls college, Oxford, was born, probably in 1362, at Higham-Ferrars in Northamptonshire, of parents who, if not distinguished by their opulence, were at least enabled to place their children in situations which qualified them for promotion in civil and political life. Their sons, Robert and Thomas, rose to the highest dignities in the magistracy of London; and Henry, the subject of this memoir, was, at a suitable age, placed at Winchester school, and thence removed to New college, where he studied the civil and canon law. Of his proficiency here, we have little information, but the progress of his advancement indicates that he soon acquired distinction, and conciliated the affection of the first patrons of the age. From 1392 to 1407, he can be traced through . various ecclesiastical preferments and dignities, for some at least of which he was indebted to Richard Metford, bishop of Salisbury. This valuable friend he had the misfortune to lose in the last mentioned year; but his reputation was so firmly established, that king Henry IV. about this time employed him on an embassy to pope Innocent VII. on another to the court of France, and on a third to pope Gregory XII. who was so much pleased with his conduct as to present him to the bishopric of St. David’s, which happened to become vacant during his residence at the apostolic court in 1408. In the following year he was deputed, along with Hallum, bishop of Salisbury, and Chillingdon, prior of Canterbury, to represent England in the council of Pisa, which was convoked to settle the disputed pretensions of the popes Gregory and Benedict, both of whom were deposed, and Alexander V. chosen in their room, who had once studied at Oxford.

In the spring of 1414, Chichele succeeded Arundel as archbishop of Canterbury, which he at first refused in- deference to the pope but on the pontiff’s acceding to the election made by the prior and monks, he was put in complete possession, and soon had occasion to exert the whole of his talents and influence to preserve the revenues of the church, which the parliament had more than once advised the king to take into his own hands. The time was critical; the king bad made demands on the court of France, wlrch promised to end in hostilities, and large supplies were wanted. The clergy, alarmed for the whole, agreed to give up a part of their possessions, and Chichele undertook to lay their offer before parliament, and as far as eloquence could go, to render it satisfactory to that assembly. It is here that historians have taken occasion to censure his conduct, and to represent him as precipitating the king into a war with France, in order to divert his attention from the church. But while it is certain that he strongly recommended the recovery of Henry’s hereditary dominions in France, and the vindication of his title to that crown, it is equally certain that this was a disposition which he rather found than created; and in what manner he could have thwarted it, if such is to be supposed the wiser and better course, cannot be determined without a more intimate knowledge of the state of parties than is now practicable. The war, however, was eminently successful, and the battle of Azincourt gratified the utmost hopes of the nation, and has ever since been a proud memento of its valour. During this period, besides taking the lead in political and ecclesiastical measures at home, Chichele twice accompanied the king’s camp in France.

After the death of Henry V. in 1422, and the appointment of Humphrey duke of Gloucester to be regent during the minority of Henry VI., Chichele retired to his province, and began to visit the several dioceses included in it, carefully inquiring into the state of morals and religion. The principles of Wickliffe had made considerable progress, and it was to them chiefly that the indifference of the public towards the established clergy, and the efforts which had been made to alienate their revenues, were attributed. Officially, therefore, we are not to wonder that Chichele, educated in all the prejudices of the times, endeavoured to check the growing heresy, as it was called; but from the silence of Fox on the subject, there is reason to hope that his personal interference was far more gentle than that of his predecessor Arundel. On the other hand, history has done ample justice to the spirit with which he resisted the assumed power of the pope in the disposition of ecclesiastical preferments, and asserted the privileges of the English church. In all this he was supported by the nation at large, by a majority of the bishops, and by the university of Oxford, nor at this time was more zeal shown against the Lollards, or first protestants, than against the capricious and degrading encroachments of the court of Home. Among the vindications of Chichele’s character from the imputations thrown upon it by the agents of the pope, that of the university of Oxford must not be omitted. They told the pope, that “Chichele stood in the sanctuary of God as a firm wall that heresy could not shake, nor simony undermine, and that he was the darling of the people, and the foster parent of the clergy.” These remonstrances, however, were unsatisfactory to the proud and restless spirit of Martin V. but after he had for some time kept the terrors of an interdict hanging over the nation, the dispute was dropped without concessions on either side, and the death of this pope, soon after, relieved the archbishop from farther vexation.

At what time he first conceived this plan is not recorded. It appears, however, to have been in his old age, when he obtained a release from interference in public measures. The purchases he made for his college consisted chiefly of Berford hall, or Cherleton’s Inn, St. Thomas’s hall, Tingewick hall, and Godknave hall,- comprising a space of one hundred and seventy-two feet in length in the High street, ana one hundred and sixty-two in breadth in Cat, or Catherine street, which runs between the High street and Hertford college: to these additions were afterwards made, which enlarged the front in the High street. The foundation stone was laid with great solemnity, Feb. 10, 1437. John Druell, archdeacon of Exeter, and Roger Keyes, both afterwards fellows of the college, were the principal architects, and the charter was obtained of the king in 1438, and confirmed by the pope in the following year. In the charter, the king, Henry VI. assumed the title of founder, at the archbishop’s solicitation, who appears to have paid him this compliment to secure his patronage for the institution, while the full exercise of legislative authority was reserved to Chichele as co-founder.

According to this charter, the society was to consist of a warden and twenty fellows, with power in the warden to increase their number to forty, and to be called The warden and college of the souls of all the faithful deceased, Collegium Omnium slnimarum Fiddium defunctorum de Oxon. The precise meaning of this may be understood from the obligation imposed on the society to pray for the good estate of Henry VI. and the archbishop during their lives, and for their souls after their decease; also for the souls of Henry V. and the duke of Clarence, together with those of all the dukes, earls, barons, knights, esquires, and other subjects of the crown of England, who had fallen in the war with France; and for the souls of all the faithful deceased.

It was not till within a few days of his death that the archbishop gave a body of statutes for the regulation of his college, modelled after the statutes of his illustrious precursor Wykeham. After the appointment of the number of fellows, already noticed, he ordains that they should be born in lawful wedlock, in the province of Canterbury, with a preference to the next of kin, descended from his brothers Robert and William Chichele*. To the society were also added chaplains, clerks, and choristers, who appear to have been included in the foundation, although they are not mentioned in the charter.

* This part of the founder’s statutes puted and disputable claims. In 1776, has occasioned much litigation, as the on an application to Cornwallis, archfarther the time is removed from his bishop of Canterbury, as visitor, he age, the difficulty of ascertaining con- decreed that the number of fellows to sanguinity becomes almost insupera- be admkted on claim of kindred should ble. According- to the “Stemmata be limited to twenty. In 1792, on the Chicheleana,” published in 1765, the claim of kindred by a person, when the collateral descendants of our founder number of twenty happened to be cornwere then to be traced through nearly plete, the matter was re-heard, and the twelve hundred families; but this, former archbishop’s decree ratified and which seems at first to administer faci- confirmed, lity, is in fact the source of many disWapenham, Northamptonshire with the suppressed alien priories of Romney in Kent; the rectory of Upchurch the priory of New Abbey near Abberbury, in Shropshire of St. Clare in Carmarthenshire, and of Llangenith in Glamorganshire. Wood says, that king Edward IV. took into his hands all the revenues of this college and these priories, because the society had sided with Henry VI. against him; but it appears by the college archives, that the king took only these alien priories, and soon restored them, probably because he considered it as an act of justice to restore what had been purchased from, and not given, by the crown. Besides these possessions, the trustees of the founder purchased the manors of Edgware, Kingsbury, and Malories, in Middlesex, &c.; and he bequeathed the sums of 134l. 6s. Sd. and a thousand marks, to be banked for the use of the college .