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

, an eminent English divine and voluminous writer, the son of the preceding Thomas Edwards, was born at Hertford, February 26, 1637. His father, as we have already noticed, died in 1647, and by his wife, who was an heiress of a very considerable fortune, he left one daughter and four sons, the second of whom was John, the subject of the present narrative. After having received his grammatical education at Merchanttaylors’ school, in London, he was removed in 1653 to the university of Cambridge, and was admitted of St. John’s college, then under the government of Dr. Anthony Tuckney, a presbyterian divine of acknowledged character and learning, and particularly distinguished for the wise and exact discipline of his college. Mr. Edwards, soon after his admission, was chosen scholar of the house, and was quickly taken notice of for his exercises, both in his tutor’s chamber, and in his college-hall. Towards the close of his undergraduateship, the senior proctor being then of the college, he was appointed one of the moderators for the year. Whe: he was middle bachelor, he was elected a fellow of his college, for which he was principally indebted to the exertions of Dr. Tuckney in his behalf. During the time of his senior bachelorship he was again chosen moderator in the schools, and his performances were long remembered with esteem and praise. In 1661 he was admitted to the degree of M. A.; and soon after sir Robert Carr presented him to Dr. Sanderson, bishop cf Lincoln, who conferred upon him the order of deacon. That learned prelate engaged him, at the same time, to preach a sermon at the next ordination, when with the other candidates, he was ordained priest. In 1664, he undertook the duty of Trinity-church, in Cambridge, and went through the whole both parts of the day. In his preaching, without affecting eloquence, he studied to be plain, intelligible, and practical; and his church was much frequented by the gown, and by persons of considerable standing in the university. Dr. Sparrow, master of Queen’s, Dr. Beaumont, master of Peterhouse, and Dr. Pearson, master of Trinity-college, were often heard to applaud his pulpit performances. In 1665, during the time of the plague, he quitted his residence in the college, and dwelt all that year, and part of the next, in the town, that he might devote himself entirely to the edification and comfort of the parishioners of Trinity church, in that season of calamity. A little after this, sir Edward Atkins offered him a good living near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire, but he chose to continue in his station at Cambridge. In 1668 he was admitted to the degree of B. D. About the same time, through the interest of sir Robert Carr with sir Thomas Harvey, Mr. Edwards was unanimously chosen lecturer at St. Edmund’s Bury, with a salary of loo/, a year. This office he discharged with great reputation and acceptance, notwithstanding which, after a period of twelve months, he resigned it, and returned to his college, where, however, his situation was uneasy to him. He had not been upon the best terms with Dr. Peter Gunning, the former master of St. John’s, and being still more dissatisfied with Dr. Francis Turner, Gunning’s successor, who had somehow offended him, he determined to resign his fellowship. On quitting his college, he was presented by the fellows with a testimonial of his worthy and laudable behaviour among them. From St. John’s he removed to Trinity-hall, where he entered himself as a fellow-commoner, and performed the regular exercises in the civil Jaw. Being willing to be employed in the offices of jits clerical function, he accepted of the invitation of the parishioners of St. Sepulchre, in Cambridge, to be their minister; and his sermons there were as much attended by persons of consequence in the university as they had formerly been at Trinity church. In 1676 Mr. Edwards married Mrs. Lane, the widow of Mr. Lane, who had been ati alderman, a justice of peace, and an eminent attomey in the town. “This gentlewoman,” says his biographer, “was an extraordinary person, of unusual accomplishments and singular graces but had the unhappiness (as some others of that sex) to be misrepresented to the world. She being naturally of a high and generous spirit, and not framed to low observances and vulgar compliances, incurred thereby the imputation of pride and superciliousness among vulgar minds. But those who were no strangers to good breeding, and knew how to make distinction of persons, admired the agreeableness of her conversation, and saw those excellent and worthy things in her deportment which they could find but in very few of her sex. She understood herself and her duty, and all the rules of civil and religious behaviour.”

, a learned divine of the church of England, was born at Coventry, August 10, O.S. 1729, and was the son of the Rev. Thomas Edwards, M. A. vicar of St. Michael’s in that city, and of Katharine his wife. His grammatical education he received partly under the tuition of Edward Jackson, D. D. master of the free grammar-school in Coventry, but principally under the care of his own father; and such was his eagerness for the acquisition of knowledge, that he seldom engaged in the diversions common to boys. In 1747, at the age of eighteen, he was matriculated at the university of Cambridge, and entered of Clare hall, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1750, and of M. A. in 1754. He was likewise a fellow of his college. In the younger part of his life he was a self-taught musician, and became no mean performer on the spinnet and the bass-viol: but, finding that this amusement encroached too much upon his studies, he entirely relinquished it. On the 22d of September, 1751, he was ordained deacon, and on the 23d of September, 1753, he was ordained priest, both which orders he received from the hands of Dr. Frederick Cornwallis, at that time bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. In the spring of 1755, when Mr. Edwards was not yet twenty-six years of age, he gave a striking proof of the diligence with which he applied himself to the study of the learned languages, and the acquisition of sacred literature. This was his publication of “A new English Translation of the Psalms from the original Hebrew, reduced to metre by the late bishop Hare with notes, critical and explanatory, illustrations of many passages, drawn from the classics, and a preliminary dissertation, in which the truth and certainty of that learned prelate’s happy discovery is stated, and proved at large,” 8vo. It was Mr. Edwards’s design to make Dr. Hare’s system of Hebrew metre better known, and to prove, that, by a judicious application of it, great light might be thrown upon the poetical parts of the Hebrew scriptures. He was of opinion that Dr. Hare’s hypothesis was rejected by many persons, partly from an over-hasty determination, and partly from too scrupulous a veneration for the Hebrew text. The notes, which comprehend more than one third of this book, chiefly contain emendations of the Hebrew text, pointed out by the metre, and illustrations of some passages, drawn from the classics, together with an explanation of the most difficult places. Considerable use is made by our author of Hare and Mudge, but with no servile adherence to their authority. Mr. Edwards’s next publication was only a single sermon, which he had preached at St. Michael’s in Coventry, on the 6th of February, 1756. On the 2d of May, 1758, he was nominated, by the corporation of Coventry, master of the free grammar-school, and presented to the rectory of St. John, the Baptist in that city. This promotion was- followed by his marriage, November 27th, in the same year, to Anne Parrott, daughter of Stony er Parrott, esq. of Hawkesbury, in the parish of Foleshill, in the county of Warwick, by whom he had one son, Dr. Edwards of Cambridge. Early in 1759, Mr. Edwards published one of his principal works, “The doctrine of irresistible Grace proved to have no foundation in the writings of the New Testament.” This was levelled at the opinions of the Calvinists on that subject. Our author’s next publication, which appeared in 1762, was entitled “Prolegomena in Libros Veteris Testamenti Poeticos; sive dissertatio, in qua viri eruditissimi Francisci Harii nuper Episcopi Cicestriensis de antiqua Hebraeorum poesi hypothesin ratione et veritate niti, fuse ostenditur, atque ad objecta quaedam respond etur. Subjicitur Metricae Lowthianae Confutatio, cum indicibus necessariis,” 8vo. This attack upon Dr. Lowth’s “Metricae Harianaj brevis Confutatio,” which had been annexed to the first edition of his admirable “Praelectiones de sacra Poesi Hebraeorum,” did not pass unnoticed by that gentleman. In the second edition of his “Praelectiones” he added a note, in which he strenuously maintained his own opinion, in opposition to that of Mr, Edwards. In reply to this note our author published, in 1765 t “Epistola ad doctissimimi Robertum Lowthium, S. T. P., In qua nonnulla, quae ad nuperae siur de sacra Hebraeorum Poesi Prielectionum editionis calcem habet, expenduntur.” In this he indulged himself in some severity of language, which the subject did not merit, and which ought not to have been used towards such an antagonist as Dr. Loath. The doctor thought the “Epistola” of consequence enough to deserve a reply; and therefore he printed, in 1766, “A larger Confutation of bishop Hare’s System of Hebrew Metre in a letter to the reverend Dr. Edwards in answer to his Latin cpisile,” 8vo. Here the controversy ended and the general opinion of the learned world gave the preference to Dr. Lowth’s arguments.

The fame of John Williams, fellow of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, as an able scholar and accomplished preacher, came to the ear of the lord chancellor, who sent for him, and about Midsummer 1611, made him his chapJain (the first chancellor since the reformation who had a domestic chaplain); and to this promotion, and the subsequent friendship of his patron, this great prelate, afterwards archbishop of York, was indebted for all his future success. The lord chancellor, indeed, employed on all occasions the ablest servants and coadjutors, and his affection made choice of the most honourable and valuable friends. Besides the archbishop Williams, sir Francis Bacon lord Verulam was honoured by his friendship, and promoted by his favour.

It is not always that men distinguished in public appear to advantage in their private characters. We shall consider the life of our prelate in both these views, and each will throw a lustre upon the other. In the following sketch we mean to delineate such select traits only as are not common to all other men, but were more peculiar in him. His person was tall and well formed, it had both elegance and strength; his countenance was ingenuous, animated, and engaging. By nature he was endowed with strong and lively parts, a good temper, “and an active disposition. Descended from noble ancestors, and initiated from his birth in the most honourable connections, his manners and sentiments were cast from an early age in the happiest mould, and gave all the advantages of that ease and propriety of behaviour, which were so very observable even in the most indifferent actions of his life. In his address there was a peculiar mixture of dignity and affability, by which he had the remarkable art both of encouraging those who were diffident, and checking those who were presumptuous. The vivacity of his spirits and conversation, and the peculiar propriety of his manners, made him universally admired and caressed. His memory was accurate and extensive. In describing the characters, and in relating the anecdotes and transactions with which he had been acquainted, he took particular delight; and this, when his health permitted, he did with much spirit, and often with the utmost pleasantry and humour; but scrupulously taking care that the desire of ornamenting any narrative should never in the smallest degree induce him to depart from the truth of it. With so rare and happy a talent for description, with a mind stored with much information, and a memory very retentive, he was one of the most instructive and entertaining of companions; his conversation was enriched with pertinent and useful observations, and enlivened by genuine wit and humorous anecdote. He had a very peculiar art of extricating himself with much immediate address from those little embarrassments which perplex and confound many, and which often occur in society from thf awkwardness of others, or from a concurrence of singular and unexpected circumstances. When pressed by improper questions, instead of being offended with them himself, or giving offence by his replies, be had a talent of returning very ready and very dextrous answers. In every sort of emergency, as well in personal danger as in difficulties of an inferior nature, he shewed an uncommon presence of mind. He possessed a great reach of understanding, and was singularly gifted with a quick and ready judgment, deciding rightly upon the instant when it was necessary. No man was better qualified, or at the same time more averse to give his opinion; which, upon many occasions, he found a difficulty in avoiding, its value being so well known, that it was often solicited by his friends; and, when he was prevailed upon, he delivered it rather with the humility of one who asked, than with the authority of one who gave advice. In forming his friendships, he was as cautious as he was steady and uniform in adhering to them. He was extremely partial to the friendships of his youth, and made a particular point of being useful to those with whom he had been thus early connected. In all the domestic relations of life he was exemplary, as a husband, a master, and a parent. Instead of holding over his children an authority founded upon interest, during his life he put them into possession of a great part of such fortunes as they would have inherited from him upon his death, willing to have their obedience proceed not merely from a sense of duty, but from gratitude, and from pure disinterested affection. Though he was ever disinclined to write for the public, yet his merit as a scholar was, however, well known, and properly estimated, by such of his private friends as were them” selves distinguished by their erudition, particularly by archbishop Seeker, Benson bishop of Gloucester, Butler bishop of Durham, the late lord Lyttelton, the late lord Egremont, the late Mr. George Grenville, Mr. William Gerard Hamilton, Mr. Ansty, Mr. Richard Owen Cambridge, Mr. Garrick, Mr. Stillingfleet, Mr. J. Nourse, author of several pieces of poetry in Dodsley’s collection, Dr. Croxall, sir William Draper, &c. &c. His only publications were three sermons one preached before the lords, the llth of February, 1757, being a general fast another before the lords, the 30th of January, 1761 and a third before the society for the propagation of the gospel, on the 18th of February, 1763. In the early part of his life he was fond of those manly exercises which give strength and vigour both to the body and mind, without suffering them to interrupt his studies; a practice, which thus regulated, instead of being injurious, is serviceable to learning, and which men eminent for their judgment have lamented was not more cultivated and improved. His usual relaxations were such as exercised the understanding; chess was his favourite amusement, and he played well at that game. The Greek and Latin tongues were familiar to him. He spoke the French and Italian languages; and wrote, and spoke his own with purity and precision. Of books he had a competent knowledge, and collected a good library. In every thing he had a pure taste. In history, anecdotes, and memoirs, in the belles-lettres, in the arts and sciences, and in whatever else may be supposed to fall within the circle of polite education, he was by no means uninstructed.

, a learned prelate of the church of England, was born in 1693. Who his parents were, and what was the place of his birth, we are not informed, nor have any reason to suppose him related to the subject of the following article. After having gone through a proper course of grammatical education, he was entered of Clarehall, in the university of Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1712, and that of master of arts in 1716. It is highly probable that he likewise became a fellow of his college. Some time after, having taken holy orders, ne was in 1724 promoted to the vicarage of St. Olave, Jewry, and to the rectory of St. Martin, Iremonger lane, which is united to the former. In 1725, he was presented, by the lord chancellor Macclesfield, whose chaplain he is said to have been, to a prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Gloucester. On the 25th of April, 1728, when king George the Second paid a visit to the university of Cambridge, Mr. Ellys was created doctor of divinity, being one of those who were named in the chancellor’s list upon that occasion. In 1736, when the protestant dissenters were engaged in endeavouring to obtain a repeal of the corporation and test acts, Dr. Ellys appeared in opposition to that measure, and published a work, entitled “A Plea for the Sacramental Test, as a just security to the Church established, and very conducive to the welfare of the State,” 4to, an elaborate performance, written with great ability and learning. In 1749, Dr. Ellys published a sermon, which he preached before the house of commons on the thirtieth of January. This discourse, the text of which was Mat. xxii. 21, was printed, as then was customary, at the request of the house. Our author’s next publication was early in 1752, being “Remarks on an Essay concerning Miracles, published by David Hume, esq, among his Philosophical Essays,” 4to. In this small piece, which was written in a sensible and genteel manner, Dr. Ellys considered what Mr. Hume had advanced, relating to miracles, in a somewhat different light from what had been done by Dr. Rutherforth and Mr. Adams; but the tract being anonympus, and coming after what Mr. Adams had so admirably written on the same subject, it did not, perhaps, excite that attention which, it deserved. In October, 1752, Dr. Ellys was promoted to the see of St. David’s, in the room of the honourable Dr. Richard Trevor, translated to the bishopric of Durham, and was consecrated February 28, 1753. It had for many years been understood, that our author was engaged in preparing, and had frequently declared his intention of publishing, a work, the design of which should be to illustrate, confirm, and vindicate, the principles of religious liberty, and the reformation from popery, founded upon them. This design recommended him to the notice of the excellent persons at that time in administration, and particularly to archbishop Herring; and it was the reputation of being employed in the accomplishment of it, that occasioned Dr. Ellys’s advancement to the high station which he held in the church. Why our prelate never completed his design during his life-time, and why he received no farther marks of favour, from the great personages who first countenanced him, is not known. Dr. Ellys, after his promotion to the bishopric of St. )avid’s, continued to bold his prebend of Gloucester, and his city living in commendam; and besides his other preferments, he was vicar of Great Marlow, Bucks. In 1754, he published the sermon which he had preached before the house of lords on the thirteenth of January. The text was 1 Pet. ii. 16. In 1758, he was called to a similar service, before the tame house, on the twenty-ninth of May, being the anniversary of king Charles the Second’s restoration. The last discourse published by him was in 1759, having been delivered, from John xv. 8. before the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts. On the seventeenth of January, 1761, our prelate died at Gloucester, and was buried in the South aile of the cathedral there, where a neat pyramidal monument is erected to his memory, with an epitaph on a tablet of white marble, supported by a cherub.

The second part of our prelate’s work comprehends six tracts, under the following titles: “I. Of the Liberty of the Subjects in Judicial proceedings, as to matcers both criminal and civil. II. Of the right and manner of imposing Taxes; and of the other privileges of the Parliament. III. Of the means whereby the free Constitutions of other nations have been impaired, while that of England has been preserved and improved. IV. Of the Antiquities of the Commons in Parliament. V. Of the Royal Prerogative, and the hereditary right to the Crown of Britain. VI. Of the dangers that may be incident to the present Establishment, and the prospect there is of its continuance.” The second, third, fifth, and sixth, of these tracts are divided into sections, containing various important and learned discussions. The specific character of bishop Kllys’s work is, that it is a copious defence of moderate whiggistn, joined with a zealous attachment to our ecclesiastical establishment; and that it contains a large fund of historical, constitutional, and legal knowledge. The editors of the tracts say of him that “he was not only eminent for his fine parts, extensive knowledge, and sound judgment, jewels truly valuable in themselves, but they were set in him to the highest advantage, by a heart so overflowing with benevolence and candour as never even to conceive terms of acrimony or reproach towards the opinions or persons of those who differed from him. This Christian temper of his is discoverable in all the parts of these tracts that are taken up in controversy; for he always thought a person, though on the right side of the question, with principles of persecution, to be a worse man than he that was on the wrong. These dispositions engaged him in defence of toleration, and all those indulgences that he thought ought to be allowed to tender consciences. But when that liberty was once granted (as it was by law to our dissenters), he saw no necessity it should be attended with civil power, which might endanger the ecclesiastical establishment; and if he has shewed, beyond all doubt, the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and a liberty of publicly worshipping God in consequence of that judgment, he has also as undeniably proved the necessity of a test, as a just security to the established church, and a proper guard to the welfare of the state: for he was persuaded, that human laws cannot bind conscience, but they may exclude those from civil power who profess a private conscience repugnant to the public conscience of the state: all which he has managed with such gentle, charitable, and Christian liberty, as meant only to answer the arguments, not inflame the resentment of the opponents.”

, an eminent Scotch prelate, descended from a noble family in Germany, the counts of Helphinstein, was the son of John, or as some say, William Elphinston and Margaret Douglas, daughter of Douglas of Drumlanrig, and was horn at Glasgow in 1431, or, according to another account, in 1437. He was educated in the newly-erected university of Glasgow, and in the twentieth year of his age became M. A. He then applied himself to the study of divinity, and was made rector of Kirkmichael. After continuing four years in this situation, he went to Paris, where he acquired such reputation in the study of the civil and canon law, as to attract the attention of the university; and he was advanced to the professorship of civil and canon law, first at Park, and afterwards at Orleans, where his lectures were attended by a great concourse of students. The improvement of his own mind, however, being the particular object of his solicitude, he canvassed the most abstruse and difficult parts of his profession with the most eminent and learned doctors of the age. After nine years’ intense study in France, he returned home at the earnest solicitations of his friends, particularly bishop Muirhead, who made him parson of Glasgow, and official of his diocese; and as a mark of respect he was chosen rector of that university in which he had been educated. After the death of his friend and patron, Ivluirbead, he was made official of Lolhian, by archbishop Schevez, of St. Andrew’s; and at the same time was called to parliament, and to a seat in the privycouncil. As his talents were of the most acute and discerning kind, he embraced subjects remote from his religious studies, and became conspicuous as an able politician and skilful negociator. In this capacity he was employed by James III. on an embassy to France, in conjunction with Livingstone, bishop of Dunkeld, and the earl of fiuchan. It is said that he managed so dextrously, that the old league and amity were renewed, and all cause of discord between the two kingdoms removed. The French monarch was so charmed with his conduct and conversation, that he loaded him with valuable presents. When he returned home, he was made archdeacon of Argyle, in 1479, and soon after bishop of Ross; and in 1484, he was translated to the see of Aberdeen. His address in negociation induced the king to send him as one of the commissioners from Scotland to treat of a truce with England, and a marriage between his son and the lady Anne, the niece of Richard III.

James IV. having precipitated the country into a war with England, in opposition to Elphinston’s advice, who was cautious from experience, lost his life at Flodden-field, where the better part of the Scotch nobility shared a similar fate. This circumstance so afflicted the venerable prelate’s mind, that his wonted cheerfulness entirely forsook him, and his debilitated frame fast verged to the grave. The affairs of Scotland, however, being again in a distracted state, Elphinstou, ever anxious to do good, made an exertion to attend parliament, that he might offer his advice; but the fatigue of the journey exhausted his wearied body, and he died Oct. 25, 1514. His corpse was brought from Edinburgh, and interred in the collegiate church at Aberdeen near the high altar. This eminent prelate has justly obtained the encomium of historians, and the reverence of his countrymen. He appears to have been eminent as a prelate and statesman, a man of learning, aud an able promoter of it by his munificent endowment of the college.

, a very ingenious and benevolent French abbé, and the extensive promoter, if not the inventor, of a method of relieving the deaf and dumb, and rendering them useful members of society, was the son of an architect, who educated him for the church. Having obtained a canonry of Troyes, by the presentation of the bishop of that diocese, he soon became intimate with the prelate Soanen, famous for his attachment to Quesnel, and his opposition to the bull Unigenitus, and coinciding in his religious opinions, shared in the persecution of which Soanen was the object, and was laid under an interdict. He was first induced to turn his thoughts towards the unhappy case of the deaf and dumb, from observing two young girls in that situation, and although some not altogether unsuccessful attempts had been made before his time, in individual cases, the abbé L'Epee soon outdid the most skilful of his predecessors, by reducing his means to a sort of system. Under his care numerous pupils acquired useful knowledge, and were enabled to hold a communication with their friends. Some of them were enabled to learn several languages; others became profound mathematicians, and others obtained academical prizes by poetical and literary works. Without other means than a moderate personal fortune, for he held no place or preferment, he defrayed the whole expences of his establishment, and always deprived himself of luxuries, and often of necessaries, that his poor pupils might not want. When the emperor Joseph II. came to Paris, he admired the institution and its founder, and asked permission to place under his care an intelligent man, who might diffuse through Germany the blessings of his labours; and he sent him a magnificent gold box with his picture. In 1780 the Russian ambassador came to offer him the compliments of his sovereign, and a considerable present. “Tell Catherine,” said L'Epee, “that I never receive gold; but that if my labours have any claim to her esteem, all I ask of her is to send me from her vast dominions one born deaf and dumb to educate.” This amiable man died in February 1790, justly regretted by his country, and was succeeded in his school by the abbé Sicard. L'Epee wrote, 1. “An Account of the Complaint and Cure of Marianne Pigalle,” 1759, 12mo. 2. “Institution des Sourds et Muets, par la voie des signes methodiques,” 1776, 12mo, reprinted in 1784, under the title “La veritable maniere d'instruire les Sourds et Muets, confirmee par une longue experience.” A translation of this was published in London, 1801, 8vo. We cannot conclude this article without adverting to the success of the methods of teaching the deaf and dumb as now practised in this country, and eminently promoted by the “Society for the Deaf and Dumb,” in their Asylum, Kent Road: few charitable foundations have been more wisely laid, more judiciously conducted, or more liberally supported.

, an ancient Christian writer, was born, about the year 320, at Besanduce, a village of Palestine, His parents are said by Cave to have been Jews; but others. are of opinion that there is no ground for this suspicion, since Sozomen affirms, that “from his earliest youth he was educated under the most excellent monks, upon which, account he continued a very considerable time in Ægypt.” It is certain, that, while he was a youth, he went into Ægypt, where he fell into the conversation of the Gnostics, who had almost engaged him in their party; but he soon withdrew himself from them, and, returning to his country, put himself for some time under the discipline of Hilarion, the father of the monks of Palestine. He afterwards founded a monastery near the village where he was born, and presided over it. About the year 367 he was elected bishop of Salamis, afterwards called Constantia, the metropolis of the isle of Cyprus, where he acquired great reputation by his writings and his piety. In the year 382, he was sent lor to Rome by the imperial letters, in order to determine the cause of Paulinus concerning the see of Antioch. In the year 3yi a contest arose between him and John, bishop of Jerusalem. Epipbanius accused John of holding the errors of Origen; and, going to Palestine, ordained Paulinian, brother of St. Jerom, deacon and priest, ill a monastery which did not belong to his jurisdiction. John immediately complained of this action of Epiphanius, as contrary to the canons and discipline of the church, and Epiphanius defended what he had done, in a letter to John. This dispute irritated their minds still more, which were already incensed upon the subject of Origen; and both of them endeavoured to engage Theophilus of Alexandria in their party. That prelate, who seemed at first to favour the bishop of Jerusalem, declared at last against Origen condemned his books in a council held in the year 399 and persecuted all the monks who were suspected of regarding his memory. These monks, retiring to Constantinople, were kindly received there by John Chrysostom; which highly exasperated Theophilus, who, from that time, conceived a violent hatred to Chrysostom. In the mean time Theophilus informed Epiphanius of what he had done against Origen, and exhorted him to do the same; upon which Epiphanius, in the year 401, called a council in the isle of Cyprus, procured the reading of Origen’s writings to be prohibited, and wrote to Chrysostom to do the same. Chrysostom, not approving this proposal, Epiphanius went to Constantinople, at the persuasion of Theophilus, in order to get the decree of the council of Cyprus executed. When he arrived there, he would not have any conversation with Cbrysostom, but used his utmost efforts to engage the bishops, who were then in that city, to approve of the judgment of the council of Cyprus against Origen. Not succeeding in this, he resolved to go the next day to the church of the apostles, and there condemn publicly all the books of Origen, and those who defended them; but as he was in the church, Cbrysostom informed him, by his deacon Serapion, that he was going to do a thing contrary to the laws of the church, and which might expose him to danger, as it would probably raise some sedition. This consideration stopped Epiphanius, who yet was so inflamed against Origen, that when the empress Eudoxia recommended to his prayers the young Theodosius, who was dangerously ill, he answered, that “the prince her son should not die, if she would but avoid the conversation of Dioscorides, and other defenders of Origen.” The empress, surprised at this presumptuous answer, sent him word, that “if God should think proper to take away her son, she would submit to his will that he might take him away as he had given him but that it was not in the power of Epiphanius to raise him from the dead, since he had lately suffered his own archdeacon to die.” Epiphanius’s heat was a little abated, when he had discoursed with Ammourns and his companions, whomTheophilus had banished for adhering to Origen’s opinions; for these monks gave him to understand that they did hot maintain an heretical doctrine, and that he had condemned them in too precipitate a manner. At last he resolved to return to Cyprus, and in his farewell to Chrysostom, he said, “I hope you will not die a bishop;” to which the latter replied, “I hope you will never return to your own country,” and both their hopes were realized, as Chrysostom was deposed from his bishopric, and Epiphanius died at sea about the year 403. His works were printed in Greek at Basil, 1544, in folio, and had afterwards a Latin translation made to them, which has frequently been reprinted. At last Petavius undertook an edition of them, together with a new Latin translation, which he published at Paris, 1622, with the Greek text revised and corrected by two manuscripts. This, which is the best edition, is in two volumes folio, at the end of which are the animadversions of Petavius, which however, are rather dissertations upon points of criticism and chronology, than notes to explain the text of his author. This edition was reprinted at Cologne, 1682, in 2 vols. folio.

He left Italy soon after his pupil, without understanding the language of that country, which made his journey less advantageous as well as pleasant to him. It is said that when he was at Venice, he met Bernard Ocricularius of Florence, who had written Latin history in the manner of Sallust Erasmus desired a conversation with him, and addressed him in Latin: but the Florentine obstinately refused to speak any thingexcept Italian; which Erasmus not understanding, they separated without edification on either part. Why Erasmus should not understand Italian, it is. not difficult to conceive; but it is somewhat singular that he should be ignorant of French, which was in a great measure the case, though he had spent so much time in that country. In his way from Italy to England, he passed first to Curia, then to Constance, and so through the Martian forest by Brisgau to Strasburgh, and from thence by the Rhine to Holland; whence, after making some little stay at Antwerp and Louvain, he took shipping for England. Some of his friends and patrons, whom he visited as he came along, made him great offers, and wished him to settle among them; but his heart was at this time entirely fixed upon spending the remainder of his days in England, not only upon account of his former connections and friendships, which were very dear to him, bxit the great hopes that had lately been held out to him, of ample preferment, provided he would settle there. Henry VII. died in April 1509; and Henry VIII. his son and successor, was Erasmus’s professed friend and patron, and had for some time held a correspondence with him by letters. That prince was no sooner upon the throne, than Montjoy wrote to Erasmus to hasten him into England, promising him great things on the part of the king, and of Warham archbishop of Canterbury, though indeed he had no particular commission to that end from either the one or the other. More, and some other friends, wrote him also letters to the same purpose. But he had no sooner arrived in the beginning of 1510, than he perceived that liis expectations had been raised too high, and began secretly to wish that he had not quitted Rome. However, he took no notice of the disappointment, but pursued his studies with his usual assiduity. At his arrival in England he lodged with More; and while he was there, to divert himself and his friend, he wrote, within the compass of a week, “Encomium Moriæ,” or “The praise of Folly,” a copy of which was sent to France, and printed there, but with abundance of faults; yet it became so popular, that in a few months it went through seven editions. The general design of this ludicrous piece is to shew, that there are fools in all stations, and more particularly to expose the errors and follies of the court of Rome, not sparing the pope himself; so that he was never after regarded as a true son of that church. It was highly acceptable to persons of quality, but as highly offensive to dissolute monks, who disapproved especially of the Commentary which Lystrius wrote upon it, and which is printed with it, because it unveiled several things from whose obscurity they drew much profit. Soon after he came to England he published a translation of the Hecuba of Euripides into Latin verse; and, adding some poems to it, dedicated it to archbishop Warham. The prelate received the dedication courteously, yet made the poet only a small present. As he was returning from Lambeth, his friend Grocyn, who had accompanied him, asked, “what present he had received” Erasmus replied, laughing, “A very considerable sum” which Grocyn would not believe. Having told him what it was, Grocyn observed, that the prelate was rich and generous enough to have made him a much handsomer present; but certainly suspected that he had presented to him a book already dedicated elsewhere. Erasmus asked, “how such a suspicion could enter his head” “Because,” said Grocyn, “such hungry scholars as you, who stroll about the world, and dedicate books to noblemen, are apt to be guilty of such tricks.”

, an eminent scholar of the middle age, was born in an early part of the ninth century. The most common account of him is, that he was a native of Ayr, in Scotland, though some writers have said that the place of his birth was Ergene, on the borders of Wales, and others have contended that he was an Irishman. It is, we apprehend, most probable that he was a Scotchman. However this may have been, he was animated, in a very dark period, with a most uncommon desire of literature. Seeing his country involved in great confusion and ignorance, and that it afforded no means of acquiring the knowledge after which he thirsted, he travelled into foreign, parts; and it is even asserted, by several authors, that he went to Athens, and spent some years in studying the Greek, Chaldaic, and Arabic languages. In whatever place he obtained his learning, it is certain that in philosophy he had no superior, and in languages no equal, in. the age during which he flourished. These extraordinary accomplishments, together with his wit and pleasantry, which rendered his conversation as agreeable as it was instructive, procured him an invitation from Charles the Bald, king of France, the greatest patron of literature in that period, to reside with him. Of this invitation Erigena accepted, and Jived a number of years in the court of that prince, on a footing of the most intimate acquaintance and familiarity. He slept often in the royal apartments, and dined daily at the royal table. From the following repartee, which is preserved by one of our ancient historians, we may judge of the freedom which Scotus used with the monarch. As they were sitting one day at table opposite to each other, after dinner, the philosopher having said something that was not quite agreeable to the rules of politeness, the king, in a merry humour, asked him, “Pray what is between a Scot and a sot” To which he answered, “Nothing but the table.” Charles, says the historian, laughed heartily, and was not in the least offended, as he made it- a rule never to be angry with his master, as he always called Erigena; yet, in order to assist our belief in the above joke, it has been observed, that we ought to know in what language Charles and Scotus conversed. Charles, however, valued this great man for his wisdom and learning, still more than for his wit, and retained him about his person, not merely as an agreeable companion, but as his preceptor in the sciences, and his best counsellor in the most arduous affairs of governnfenf. While Scotus resided in the court of France, he composed, at the desire of his royal patron, a number of works, which procured him many admirers on the one hand, and many adversaries on the other. The clergy, in particular, were dissatisfied with some of his notions, as not being perfectly orthodox. One of the subjects which employed his pen was the doctrine of predestination. In his treatise on this subject, which was addressed to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and Pardulus, bishop of Laon, the position he begins with is, that every question may be resolved by four general rules of philosophy, viz. division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. By these rules he endeavours to prove, that there cannot be a double predestination, of one to glory, and another to damnation; and that predestination does not impose any necessity, but that man is absolutely free; and that, although he cannot do good without the grace of Jesus Christ, yet he does it, without being constrained or forced to do it by the will of God, by his own free choice. Sin, and the consequences of it, and the punishments with which it is attended, are, says Erigena, mere privations, that are neither foreseen nor predestinated by God; and predestination hath no place but in those things which God hath pre-ordained in order to eternal happiness; for our predestination arises from the foresight of the good use of our free-will. Sentiments so bold, and delivered in such an age, could not fail of exciting great indignation. Wemlo, or Ganelo, archbishop of Sens, having read the work, collected out of it several propositions, which he arranged under nineteen heads, according to the number and order of the chapters of Scotus’s treatise, and sent them to Prudentius, bishop of Troyes. This prelate, having examined them, found in them, as he thought, not only the errors of Pelagius, but the impiety of the Collyridians. He employed himself, therefore, in answering Erigena and another answer to him was written by Florus, a deacon of the church of Lyons. It does not appear that Scotus engaged any farther in the controversy.

, archbishop of Lyons, of the fifth century, was of an illustrious family, and so reputed for his piety that he was afterwards sainted. He retired with his sons Salonius and Veranius into the solitude of Lerins r after having distributed a part of his property among the poor, and divided the other part between his daughters. After some time he quitted the isle of LeVins, where the fame of his virtues brought him much applause, and went over to that of Le'ro, at present called St. Marguerite. Itwas not till after repeated solicitations that he was prevailed upon to leave this desert for the see of Lyons, which dignity he accepted about the year 434. In this capacity he assisted at the first council of Orange in the year 441, where he acquired much reputation for his judicious speeches. He died about the year 454. History has not handed down to us the events of his episcopate: but Claudian Mamertius informs us, that Eucherius frequently held conferences at Lyons, in which he gave proofs of his learning and judgment, that he often preached, and always with success, and that he was accounted the greatest prelate of his age. He wrote several books in the ascetic taste of the times. 1. “In praise of the desert,” addressed to St. Hilary; in which, it must be owned, he paints that of Lerins in very pleasing colours, and the style is in general elegant. 2. A tract “On the contempt of the world;.” translated into French by Arnaud d'Andilly, as well as the former, 1672, 12mo. They are both in the form of letters; the latter addressed to his kinsman Valerian. 3. “On spiritual formularies;” for the use of Veranius, one of his sons, 4. “The history of St. Maurice aud the Martyrs of the Thebaic legion.” All these are in the Bibliotheca Patrum. His two sons, Salonius and Veranius, were bishops even during the life-time of their father.

, bishop of Hermianum in Asia, is noticed by ecclesiastic writers as having been present at the council of Constantinople, held by pope Vigilius in the year 547, where he was a strenuous defender of the writings called The Three Chapters,“which the council of Chalcedon had pronounced orthodox. The works so named were, 1. The writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 2. The books which Theodoret of Cyrus wrote, against the twelve anathemas published by Cyril against the Nestorians. 3. The letter which Ibas of Edessa had written to Maris, a Persian, concerning the council of Ephesus, and the condemnation of Nestorius. The question of condemning these writings, had been raised by Theodore bishop of Csesarea, for the sake of weakening the authority of the council of Chalcedon, and crushing the Nestorians. The emperor Justinian listened to this prelate, published an edict against The Three Chapters in the year 544, and in the council of Constantinople above-mentioned, forced the pope Vigilius to accede to the same sentence. Vigilius, agitated between the contending parties, changed his opinion and conduct four times; but Facundus remained firm, and was banished for his perseverance. He wrote twelve books on the subject, addressed to Justinian, which are still extant, and one against Mutianus, but^in fatft^ against Vigilius; both published with notes, by P. Sirmond, in 1629. There is also an” Epistola Catholics fidei pro defensione trium capitulorum," added to the edition of 1675. His style is animated, but he is frequently deficient in moderation.

, a voluminous compiler of historical documents, was born in Franconia in 1682, and died in 1760. In 1724 he was appointed director of the university of Erlangen, but turning catholic, he entered into the service of the bishop of Eichstadt, and after the death of that prelate, obtained the patronage of the margrave of Anspach. Among other compilations of a similar kind, without taste or arrangement, but which may be useful to future historians, are his “Antiquities of Nordgau in the bishopric of Eichstadt,” 3 vols. fol.

, one of the most celebrated historians and poets of his nation in the seventeenth century, was born March 18, 1590, at Sonto near Caravilla in Portugal, of a noble family, both by his father’s and mother’s side. His father’s name was Arnador Perez d'Eiro, and his mother’s Louisa Faria, but authors are not agreed in their conjectures why he did not take his father’s name, but preferred Faria, that of his mother, and Sousa, which is thought to have been his grandmother’s name. In his infancy he was very infirm, yet made considerable progress, even when a puny child, in writing, drawing, and painting. At the age of ten, his father sent him to school to learn Latin, in which his proficiency by no means answered his expectations, owing to the boy’s giving the preference to the Portuguese and Spanish poets. These he read incessantly, and composed several pieces in verse and prose in both languages, but he had afterwards the good sense to destroy his premature effusions, as well as to perceive that the Greek and Roman classics are the foundation of a true style, and accordingly he endeavoured to repair his error by a careful study of them. In 1604, when only in his fourteenth year, he was received in the Tank of gentleman into the household of don Gonzalez de Moraes, bishop of Porto, who was his relation, and afterwards made him his secretary; and during his residence with this prelate, which lasted ten years, he applied himself indefatigably to his studies, and composed some works, the best of which was an abridgment of the historians of Portugal, “Epitome de las historias Portuguesas, desde il diluyio hasta el anno 1628,” Madrid, 1628, 4to. In this he has been thought to give rather too much scope to his imagination, and to write more like an orator than a historian. In 1612 he fell in love with a lady of Porto, whom he calls Albania, and who was the subject of some of his poems; but it is doubtful whether this was the lady he married in 1614, some time after he left the bishop’s house, on account of his urging him to go into the church, for which he had no inclination. -He remained at Porto until 1618, when he paid his father a visit at Pombeiro. The year following he went to Madrid, and into the service of Peter Alvarez Pereira, secretary of state, and counsellor to Philip the III. and IV. but Pereira did not live long enough to give him any other proof of his regard than by procuring to be made a knight of the order of Christ in Portugal. In 1628 he returned to Lisbon with his family, but quitted Portugal in 1631, owing to his views of promotion being disappointed. Returning to Madrid, he was chosen secretary to the marquis de Castel Rodrigo, who was about to set out for Rome as ambassador at the papal court. At Rome Faria was received with great respect, and his merit acknowledged; but having an eager passion for study, he visited very few. The pope, Urban VIII. received him very graciously, and conversed familiarly with him on the subject of poetry. One of his courtiers requested Faria to write a poem on the coronation of that pontiff, which we find in the second volume of his poems. In 1634, having some reason to be dissatisfied with his master, the ambassador, he quitted his service, and went to Genoa with a view to return to Spain. The ambassador, piqued at his departure, which probably was not very ceremonious, wrote a partial account of it to the king of Spain, who caused Faria to be arrested at Barcelona. So strict was his confinement, that for more than three months no person had access to him; until Jerome de Villa Nova, the prothonotary of Arragon, inquired into the affair, and made his innocence known to the king. This, however, had no other effect than to procure an order that he should be a prisoner at large in Madrid; although the king at the same time assured him that he was persuaded of his innocence, and would allow him sixty ducats per month for his subsistence. Faria afterwards renewed his solicitations to be allowed to remove to Portugal, but in vain; and his confinement in Madrid, with his studious and sedentary life, brought on, in 1647, a retention of urine, the torture of which he bore with great patience. It occasioned his death, however, on June 3, 1640. He appears to have merited an excellent character, but was too little of a man of the world to make his way in it. A spirit of independence probably produced those obstacles which he met with in his progress; and even his dress and manner, we are told, were rather those of a philosopher than of a courtier. Besides his History of Portugal, already mentioned, and of which the best edition was published in 1730, folio, he Wote, 1. “Noches claras,” a collection of moral and political discourses, Madrid, 1623 and 1626, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Fuente de Aganipr, o Rimes varias,” a collection of his poems, in 7 vols. Madrid, 1644, &c. 3. “Commentarios sobra las Lusiadas de Luis de Camoens,” an immense commentary on the Lusiad, ibid. 1639, in 2 vols. folio. He is said to have began it in 1614, and to have bestowed twentyfive years upon it. Some sentiments expressed here had alarmed the Inquisition, and the work was prohibited. He was permitted, however, to defend it, which he did in, 4. * Defensa o Information por'los Commentaries, &c.“Madrid, 1640 or 1645, folio. 5.” Imperio de la China, &e.“and an account of the propagation of religion by the Jeuits, written by Semedo: Faria was only editor of this work, Madrid, 1643, 4to. 6.” Nobiliario del Concle D. Petro de Barcelos,“&c. a translation from the Portuguese, with notes, ibid. 1646, folio. 7.” A Life of Don Martin Bapt. de Lanuza,“grand justiciary of Arragon,” ibid. 1650, 4to. 8. “Asia Portuguesa,” Lisbon, 1666, &c. 3 vols. folio. 9. “Europa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1678, 2 vols. folio. 10. “Africa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1681, folio. Of this we have an English Edition by John Stevens, Lond. 1695, 3 vols. 8vo. 11. “America Portuguesa.” All these" historical and geographical works have been considered as correct and valuable. Faria appears to have published some other pieces of less importance, noticed by Antonio.

Hitherto the archbishop had bestowed no preferment on. his chaplain; but in 1627, as we are told, “urged by hearing the discontents of the court and city, because his chaplain was kept behind the hangings,” he bestowed on him the rectory of Allhallows, Bread-street, and afterwards the rectory of Acton. Much about the same time, but the year not known, he was appointed provost of Chelsea college, an institution which did not last long. In 1622 he had married Mrs. Joyce Holloway, who was his parishioner, and resided in Kennington-lane. This lady appears to have been considerably older than Dr. Featley, but was a woman of great piety and accomplishments. He concealed his marriage for some time, lest it should interfere with his residence at Lambeth palace; but in 1625 he ceased to be chaplain to the archbishop, and concealment was no longer necessary. The cause of his quitting the archbishop’s service has been represented as “the unfeeling treatment” of that prelate. But of this, his biographers have made too much. The story, in short, is, that Dr. Featley fell sick at Oxford, supposed of the plague, and was obliged to leave the place and go to Lambeth; and when he found that the archbishop had removed to Croydon for fear of the plague, he followed him thither, and the archbishop refused him entrance, and was surely justifiable in every endeavour to prevent the disorder from extending to the place he had chosen as a refuge. The story is told with some confusion of circumstances, but the above is probably the truth. Dr. Featley, however, on recovering from his disorder, which, after all, happened not to be the plague, quitted the archbishop’s service, and removed his books from the palace. It was during the raging of the plague in 1625, or 1626, when the churches were deserted, that he wrote his “Ancilla Pietatis, or Hand-maid to private devotion,” which became very popular; and before 1676, had passed through eight editions. Wood appears to be mistaken in saying, that in this work Dr. Featley makes the story of St. George, the tutelar saint of England, a "mere fiction, and that archbishop Laud obliged him to apologize for this on his knees. Dr. Featley’s words bear no such meaning, but it is probable enough that there was a misunderstanding between Featley and the archbishop, as the former refused to obey the latter in turning the communion-table of Lambeth church altar-wise; and we know that Featley was afterwards a witness against the archbishop, upon the charge of his having made superstitious innovations in Lambeth church.

, so called, because he was born of poor parents in a cottage, near the forest of Feckenham in Worcestershire, his right name being Howmau, was the last abbot of Westminster. Discovering in his youth very good parts, and a strong propensity to learning, the priest of the parish took him under his care, instructed him some years, and then procured him admission into Evesham monastery. At eighteen, he was sent by his abbot to Gloucester-hall, Oxford; from whence, when he had sufficiently improved himself in academical learning, he was recalled to his abbey; which being dissolved Nov. 17, 1536, he had a yearly pension of an hundred florins allowed him for his life. Upon this he returned to Gloucester-hall, where he pursued his studies some years; and in 1539, took the degree of bachelor of divinity, being then chaplain to Bell bishop of Worcester. That prelate resigning his see in 1543, he became chaplain to Bonner bishop of London but Bonner being deprived of his bishopric, in 1549, by the reformers, Feckenham was committed to the Tower of London, because, as some say, he refused to administer the sacraments after the protestant manner. Soon after, he was taken from thence, to dispute on the chief points controverted between the protestants and papists, and disputed several times in public before and with some great personages.

, an English prelate, was born at Yarmouth in Norfolk, and admitted of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, of which college he was chosen fellow Nov. 27, 15H3 Archbishop Whitgift collated him to the rectory of St. Mary le Bow, Jan. 17, 1595-6, being then B. D. and he was some time also rector of St. Antholin’s, London. He was elected master of Pembroke-hall, June 29, 1616; admitted rector of Easton-Magna in Essex, Oct. 23, the same year; and collated to a prebend in St. Paul’s, being then D. D. March 4 following. In 1617, he was promoted to the see of Bristol, to which he was consecrated, Dec. 14. The next year he resigned his mastership, and was nominated to the bishopric of Coventry and Lichfield, but was translated to Ely, March 11, 1618-19. He died Oct. 5, 1626, in the sixty-third year of his age, and was buried under the communion-table in St. Antholin’s church, London; but without any memorial or inscription. He was a very pious, learned, and judicious man, and deserves some notice in this work, as one of those who was employed by king James I. in the new translation of the Bible. There is an excellent picture of him in the gallery of the palace at Ely, which was presented for that purpose to the late bishop Gooch, by Mr. Cole of Milton.

But a storm now arose against him, which obliged him to leave the court for ever; and was occasioned by his book, entitled “An Explication of the Maxims of the Saints concerning the interior life.” This book was published in 1697, and was occasioned by the writings of madam Guyon, who pretended to a very high and exalted devotion. She explained this devotion in some books which she published, and wrote particularly a mystical exposition of Solomon’s Song. Fenelon, whose gentle disposition is said to have been strongly actuated by the lov of God, became a friend of madam Guyon, in whom he fancied he saw only a pure soul animated with feelings similar to his own. This occasioned several conferences between the bishop of Meaux, the bishop of Chalons, afterwards cardinal de Noailles, and Mr. Tronon, superior-general to the congregation of St. Sulpicius. Into these conferences, in which madam Guyon’s books were examined, Fenelon was admitted; but in the mean time began to write very secretly upon the subject under examination, and his writings tended to maintain or excuse madam Guyon’s books without naming her. This examination lasted seven or eight months, during which he wrote several letters to the examiners, which abounded with so many testimonies of submission, that they said they could not think God would deliver him over to a spirit of error. While the conferences lasted, the secret was inviolably kept with regard to Fenelon; the two bishops being as tender of his reputation, as they were zealous to reclaim him. He was soon after named archbishop of Cam bray, and yet continued with the same humility to press the two prelates to give a final sentence. They drew up thirty-four articles at Issi, and presented them to the new archbishop, who offered to sign them immediately; but they thought it more proper to leave them with him for a time, that he might examine them leisurely. He did so, and added to every one of the articles such limitations as enervated them entirely: however, he yielded at last, and signed the articles March 10, 1695. Bossuet wrote soon after an instruction designed to explain the articles of Issi, and desired Fenelon to approve it; but he refused, and let Bossuet know by a friend, that he could not approve a book which condemned madam Guyon, because he himself did not condemn her. It was in order to explain the system of the mystics that he wrote his book already mentioned. There was a sudden and general outcry against it, and the clamours coming to the king’s ear, his majesty expostulated with the prelates for having kept secret from him what they alone knew. The controversy was for some time carried on between the archbishop of Cambray and the bishop of Meaux. But as the latter insisted upon a positive recantation, Fenelon applied to the king, and represented to his majesty, that there were no other means to remove the offence which this controversy occasioned, than by appealing to the pope, Innocent XII. and therefore he begged leave to go himself to Rome. But the king sent him word, that it was sufficient to carry his cause thither, without going himself, and sent him to his diocese in August, 1697. When the question was brought before the consultators of the inquisition to be examined, they were divided in their opinions: but at last the pope condemned the book, with twenty-three propositions extracted from it, by a brief dated March 12, 1699. Yet, notwithstanding this censure, Innocent seems to have disapproved the violent proceedings against the author. He wrote thus to the prelates who distinguished themselves as adversaries to Fenelon: “Peccavit excessu amoris divini, sed vos peceastis defectu amoris proximi.” Some of Fenelon’s friends have pretended, that there was in this affair more courtpolicy than zeal for religion. They have observed, that this storm was raised against him at a time when the king thought of choosing an almoner for the duchess of Burgundy; and that there was no way of preventing him, who had been tutor to the duke her husband, and who had acquitted himself perfectly well in the functions of that post, from being made her almoner, but by raising suspicions of heresy against him. They think themselves sufficiently justified in this opinion, by Bossuet’s being made almoner after Fenelon was disgraced and removed. Be this as it will, he submitted patiently to the pope’s determination, and read his sentence, with his own recantation, publicly in his diocese of Cambray, where he led a most exemplary life, acquitting himself punctually in all the duties of his station. Yet he was not so much taken up with them, nor so deeply engaged in his contemplative devotion, but he found time to enter into the controversy with the Jansenists. He laboured not only to confute them by his writings, but also to oppress them, by procuring a bull from Rome against a book which the cardinal de Noailles, their chief support, had approved: namely, father Quesnel’s “Reflections upon the New Testament.” The Jesuits, who were resolved to humble that prelate, had formed a great party against him, and prevailed with the archbishop of Cambray to assist them in the affair. He accordingly engaged himself: wrote many pieces against the Jansenists, the chief of which is the “Four Pastoral Letters,” printed in 1704, at Valenciennes; and spared no pains to get the cardinal disgraced, and the book condemned, both which were at length effected.

, surnamed Fulgentius, who flourished in the sixth century, was an African by birth, and a disciple of St. Fulgentius. When that prelate was banished by the Arians to Sardinia, Ferrandus accompanied him; but on his return he was chosen deacon of the church of Carthage, and entered with much zeal into the question which was the subject of warm discussion at that day, “whether it could be said that one of the persons of the Trinity suffered on the cross.” Ferrandus died about the year 530, leaving behind him many works that were highly esteemed by his contemporaries. The most considerable, “A Collection of Ecclesiastical Canons,” for restoring discipline in the churches of Africa, is one of the most ancient collections of canons among the Latins. It consists of between two and three hundred abridged from the councils of Africa, Ancyra, Laodicea, Nice, Antioch, &c. A life of Fulgentius has also been ascribed to Ferrandus, but by some authors it has been ascribed to another of the prelate’s pupils.

We shall notice only one other part of this strange system, which was their nightly watchings. It was agreed that; there should be a constant double night-watch, of men at one end of the house, and of wome.n at the other. That each watch should consist of two or more persons. That the watchings should begin at nine o'clock at night, and end at one in the morning. That each watch should, in those four hours, carefully and distinctly say over the whole book of Psalms, in the way of Autiphony, one repeating one verse, and the rest the other. That they should then pray for the life of the king and his sons. The time of their watch being ended, they went to Mr. Ferrar’s door, bade him good-morrow, and left a lighted caudle for him. At one he constantly rose, and betook himself to religious meditation, founding this practice on the passage, “At midnight will I rise and give thanks;” and some other passages of similar import. Several religious persons, both in the neighbourhood, and from distant places, attended these watchings; and amongst these the celebrated Mr. Richard Crashaw, fellow of Peterhouse, who was very intimate in the family, and frequently came from Cambridge for this purpose, and at his return often watched in Little St. Mary’s church, near Peterhonse. It is some*­what more singular that a late worthy prelate, Dr. Home, has given his sanction, if not to the severity, at least to a moderate observation, of this mode of psalmody, in the following words, *on a part of his commentary on the 134th Psalm:

According to Burnet, bishop Ferrar was one of the committee nominated to compile the English liturgy, but his name does not occur among those who compiled the new liturgy in 1547, and therefore Burnet probably means that he was one of those appointed to correct the liturgy in the time of Henry VIII. in 1540. It is more certain that he acquiesced in the brief confession of faith, in conjunction with other protestant bishops and martyrs imprisoned in London, which was signed May 8, 1554, by Ferrar, Taylor, Philpot, Bradford, Hooper, &c. &c. Mr. Butler, in his excellent life of bishop Hildesley, enumerates our prelate among the bishops of Sodor and Mann, to which, according to that account, he must have been preferred in 1545, and resigned it some time before Jan. 1546.

His first publication appears to have been, 1. “A prefatory Epistle concerning some Remarks to be published on Homer’s Iliad: occasioned by the proposals of Mr. Pope towards a new English version of that poem, 17 14,” 12mo. It is addressed to Dr. Swift. It would seem to have been his intention to write a kind of moral commentary upon Homer; but, probably for want of encouragement, this never appeared. The first work by which he distinguished himself in any considerable degree, was, 2. “Theologia Speculativa: or the first part of a body of divinity under that title, wherein are explained, the principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, 1718,” folio. This met with a favourable reception from the public: yet when Stackhouse, a man certainly not of much higher talents, afterwards executed a work of a similar nature, he endeavoured to depreciate the labours of his predecessor. Dr. Fiddes’s second part is entitled “Theologia Practica, wherein are explained the duties of Natural and Revealed Religion;” and was published in 1720, folio. The same year also he published in folio, 3. “Fifty-two practical Discourses on several subjects, six of which were never before printed.” These, as well as his Body of Divinity, were published by a subscription, which was liberally encouraged at Oxford. But the work which gained him the most friends, and most enemies, was, 4. “The Life of Cardinal Wolsey, 1724,” in folio, dedicated to the chancellors, vice-chancellors, doctors, and other members of the two universities; and encouraged by a large subscription. This work was attacked with great severity in “The London Journal,” and the author charged him with being a papist; who repelled this accusation in, 5. “An Answer to Britannicus, compiler of the London Journal, 1725,” in two letters; in the first of which he endeavours to obviate the charge of popery; in the second, to show his impartiality in the life of this cardinal. Dr. Knight, in the “Life of Erasmus,” published a little after our author’s death, attacked him in the severest terms, accusing him of speaking irreverently of Erasmus, “probably,” says he, “because he had by his writings favoured the reformation.” Dr. Fiddes, he says, vilifies the reformation, depreciates the instruments of it, and palliates the absurdities of the Romish church. He declares also that the life was written at the solicitation of bishop Atterbury, on the occasion of the dispute in which he was then engaged with archbishop Wake: and that Atterbury supplied him with materials, suggested matter and method, entertained him at his deanery, procured him subscribers, and “laid the whole plan for forming such a life as might blacken the reformation, cast lighter colours upon popery, and even make way for a popish pretender.” Fiddes, indeed, had given occasion for part of this surmise, by saying that “a very learned prelate generously offered to let me compile the life of cardinal Wolsey in his house.” Suspicion was likewise heightened by the eulogium he made on Atterbury, a little before his deprivation. Though it may be difficult to determine how far this author was at the bottom an enemy to the reformation, yet in his Life of Wolsey, his prejudices in favour of the ancient religion are unquestionably strong, and in these he shared with some contemporaries of no inconsiderable fame. Asa collection of facts, however, the work is highly valuable, and he has the merit (whatever that may be esteemed) of placing the life and character of Wolsey in a more just light than any preceding writer. As the munificent founder of Christ church, he could not avoid a certain reverence for Wolsey, nor, if Atterbury assisted him, can we wonder at that prelate’s disposition to think well of so great a benefactor to learning, who would have proved a still greater benefactor, had he not been sacrificed to the avarice and caprice of his royal master.

After this, Flaminio was removed by his father to Bologna for the study of philosophy, after which he returned again to Rome, and formed an intimacy with the most illustrious scholars of that city. Without devoting himself to any profession, he for some years attached himself to the cardinal de Sauli, and after his death resided with the prelate Ghiberti, either at Padua, or at his see of Verona, where he secured the friendship of Fracastorius and Naugerius, a friendship of the most generous and disinterested kind, as appears from many passages in their writings. About 1538 he went to Naples in consequence of a long indisposition, and by relaxation from his studies, recovered his former health, and repaired to Viterbo, where cardinal Pole then resided as pontifical legate, and honoured Flaminio by the most friendly intimacy. He also accompanied the cardinal to the council of Trent, but refused the office of secretary to this council, and by this refusal, as well as by other parts of his conduct, and a certain liberality of sentiment displayed in some of his writings, gave rise to suspicions that he was inclined towards the. opinions of the reformers. Whether this was actually the case has been a subject of dispute among his biographers; but that he was suspected is certain, for his writings were for some time prohibited in the Index Expurgatorius of the Roman church. Those who feel an interest in the question may consult Schelhornius’ dissertation on the subject in his “Amcenitates Hist. Eccles.” and compare it with Tiraboschi’s answer, who after being obliged to admit that Flaminio had embraced the opinions of the reformers, informs us that he was recalled to his former faith by cardinal Pole. And another account says, that cardinal Caraflfa (afterwards Paul IV.) attended him on his /death-bed. His death, which happened at Rome in 15.50, was lamented by all the learned of his time, and he appears to have deserved their highest encomiums. His poems place him in the first rank of the Latin school. Most of his poems are in the “Carmina quinque illustrium poetarum;” but the scarce editions of his works are, I. “M. Ant. Flaminii in Librum Psalmorum brevis explanatio,” Venice, 1545, 8vo. 2. “Epistolae aliquot de veritate doctrinae eruditae et sanctitate religionis, in Latinum veterem sermonem conversse, ex Italico hodierno, nee non narrationes de Flaminio,” &c. Noriberg. 1571, 8vo. 3. “M. A. Flaminii Carmina sacra, quue extant omnia, hoc modo nunquam hactenus edita,” c. Rostock, 1578, 8vo. There is an edition of his works, with those of his father, by Maucurti, mentioned before, which was reprinted in 1743.

Having taken his degree of master of arts at Cambridge, he designed to enter into orders, and to settle on a small living near Derby, promised to him by a friend of his father’s. In the mean time, sir Joitas Moore, having notice of his design, wrote to him to come to London, whither he returned Feb. 1674-5. He was entertained in the house of that gentleman, who had other views for serving him, but Flamsteed persisting in his resolution to take orders, he did not dissuade him from it. March following, sir Jonas brought him a warrant to be the king’s astronomer, with a salary of iOOl. per annum, payable out of the office of ordnance, to commence from Michaelmas before; which, however, did not abate his inclinations for orders, so that at Easter following he was ordained at Elyhouse by bishop Gunning, who ever after conversed freely with him, and particularly upon the new philosophy and opinions, though that prelate always maintained the old. August 10, 1675, the foundation of the royal observatory at Greenwich was laid; and during the building of it, Flamsteed lodged at Greenwich; and his quadrant and telescopes being kept in the queen’s house there, he observed the appulses of the moon and planets to the fixed stars. In 1681, his “Doctrine of the Sphere” was published in a posthumous work of sir Jonas Moore, entitled, “A new System of the Mathematics,” printed in 4to.

Notwithstanding his difference with the ministry, when a fast was appointed to be kept, Jan. 16, 1711-12, he was chosen by the house of lords to preach before them; but, by some means or other getting intelligence that he had censured the peace, they contrived to have the house adjourned beyond that day. This put it indeed out of his power to deliver his sentiments from the pulpit; yet he put the people in possession of them, by sending them from the press. Though without a name, from the spirit and language it was easily known whose sermon it was. It gave offence to some ministers of state, who now only waited for an opportunity to be revenged; and this opportunity the bishop soon gave them, by publishing, 8. “Four Sermons; viz. On the Death of queen Mary, 1694; on the Death of the duke of Gloucester, 1700; on the Death of king William, 1701; on the Queen’s accession to the throne, 1702. With a preface,” 1712, 8vo. This preface, bearing very hard upon those who had the management of public affairs, was made an object of attack, and, upon a motion made for that purpose in the house of commons, an order was made to burn it, which was accordingly done on the 12th of May. The bishop, knowing this to be the effect of party rage, was very little affected with it; but rather pleased to think that the very means they had used to suppress his book, was only a more effectual way of publishing and exciting the whole nation to read it. It was owing to this, certainly, that it was printed in the Spectator, No. 384, and thereby dispersed into several thousand hands. This same year, and indeed before his sermons, he published, but without his name, 9. “The Judgment of the Church of England in the case of LayBaptism, and of Dissenter’s Baptism; by which it appears that she hath not, by any public act of hers, made or declared Lay-Baptism to be invalid. The second edition. With an additional letter from Dr. John Cosin, afterwards bishop of Durham, to Mr. Cordel, who scrupled to communicate with the French Protestants upon some of the modern pretences,” 8vo. This piece was occasioned by the controversy about Lay-Baptism, which was then au object of public notkv. In 1713, he published without his name, 10. “The Life and Miracles of St. Wenefrede, together with her Litanies, with some historical observations made thereon.” In the preface, he declares the motives which induced him to bestow so much pains upon this life of St. Wenefrede; and these were, that the concourse of people to the well which goes by her name was very great that the papists made use of this to influence weak minds that they had lately reprinted a large life of this saint in English; that these considerations might justly affect any protestant divine, and th,at for certain reasons they affected him in particular. Upon the demise of the queen, and the Hanover succession, this prelate had as much reason to expect that his zeal and services should be rewarded, as any of his rank and function: but he did not make any display of his merit, either to the king or his ministers. However, upon the death of Moore, bishop of Ely, in 1714, Tenison, then archbishop of Canterbury, strenuously recommended Fleetwood to the vacant see; and he was accordingly, without the least application from himself directly or indirectly, nominated to it.

We have already mentioned ten publications of this author, besides occasional sermons, of which he published many that were very excellent. There remain yet to be mentioned some pieces of a smaller kind; as, II. “The Counsellor’s Plea for the Divorce of sir G. D. (Downing) and Mrs. F.” 1715. This relates to an affair which was brought before -the house of lords. 12. “Papists not excluded from the Throne upon the account of Religion. Being a vindication of the right reverend lord bishop of Ban go r' a Preservative, &c. in that particular. In a short Dialogue,” 1717. 13. “A Letter from Mr. T. Burdett, who was executed at Tyburn for the murder of capt. Falkner, to some attorneys’ clerks of his acquaintance; written six days before his execution,” 1717. 14. “A Letter td an Inhabitant of the Parish of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, about new ceremonies in the church,” 1717. 15. “A Defence of Praying before Sermon, as directed 'by the 55th canon.” All these were published without his name. The indefatigable labours of this prelate brought him at length into a bad state of health, which made life troublesome to him a good while before his death. He died at Tottenham, in Middlesex, whither he had retired for the benefit of the air, Aug. 4, 1723 and was interred in the cathedral church of Ely, where a monument was erected to him by his lady, who did not long survive him. He left behind him an only son, Dr. Charles Fleetwood, who inherited his paternal estate in Lancashire; and had been presented a few years before by his father, as bishop of Ely, to the great rectory of Cottenham, in Cambridgeshire, which he did not long enjoy.

Bishop Fleetwood’s character was great in every respect. His virtue was not of the fanatical kind, nor was his piety the least tinctured with superstition; yet he cultivated and practised both to perfection. As for his accomplishments, he was inconteslibly the best preacher of his time; and for occasional sermons, may be considered as a model. He was also very learned, but chiefly distinguished as an antiquary. Dr. Hickes acknowledges him as an encourager of his great work entitled “Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus,” and Mr. Hearne often confesses himself much obliged by many singular instances of his friendship. In the “Richardsoniana,” are two anecdotes of bishop Fleetwood, which we shall not copy, because we doubt their authenticity. If true, they would prove that the religious opinions of our prelate were extremely lax."

, an English prelate, and the founder of Lincoln college, Oxford, descended from an ancient family, was born at Crofton iti Yorkshire, and educated at University college, Oxford, where his extraordinary proficiency in logic and philosophy procured him higher degrees than were then usually conferred. In 1406 he was presented to the prebend of South Newbold, in the church of York, and next year served the office of proctor in the university. The copy of the statutes belonging to the duties of junior proctor, which he caused to be transcribed, is still preserved among the archives. Soon after taking his master’s degree, he professed a zealous attachment to the principles by which Wickliff was endeavouring to oppose the established religion, and argued with so much ability as to make many converts, some of whom were persons of high distinction. By what means he was induced to change His opinion, and display equal or greater zeal against the reformation, is not known. In 1396, when a student in theology, or scholar, we find his name among the other Oxford men who condemned Wicklif 's doctrines, and it is certain, that when he speculated on the foundation of a college, it was for the express purpose of educating divines who were to exert their talents against the heresy of that reformer.

In 1410, being then rector of Boston in Lincolnshire, he exchanged his prebend of South Newbold for that of Langford in the cathedral church of York, and on April 28, 1420, was promoted to the see of Lincoln. In 1424 he was sent to the council of Sienna, where, in a dispute about precedency, he vindicated the honour and superiority of his country, against the Spanish, French, and Scotch deputies. This council was called to continue the proceedings of that of Constance against the Hussites, and other continental reformers, and our prelate distinguished himself so much as to become a favourite with Pope Martin V. who would have promoted him to be archbishop of York, had not the king as well as the dean and chapter opposed his -election with such firmness as to oblige the pope to yield. Flemming consequently remained in his diocese of Lincoln. In 1428, he executed that decree of the council of Constance which ordered that the bones of Wicklilf should be taken up and burned; the harmless remains of a man whom he once honoured with the warmth of his zeal, and supported with the vigour of his talents.

, an Italian prelate and poet, was born at Foligno, in the fourteenth century, but the year is not known. He became a Dominican, and after some inferior preferments, was in 1403 appointed bishop of Foligno. He was afterwards called, both as a theologian and a bishop, to the council of Pisa, and was also made one of the fathers of the grand council of Constance, where he died in 1416. No other work of his is fcnown but his great poem entitled “Quadriregio,” in which he describes the four reigns of Love, Satan, the Vices and the Virtues. The morality of this poem was probably its greatest recommendation; but the author, who was an admirer of Dante, has endeavoured to imitate him, and in some respects, not unsuccessfully. The first edition of the “Quadriregio” was published at Perugia, in 1481, fol. and the second at Bologna, in 1494; but the best is that published by the academicians of Foligno, 2 vols. 4to, 1725.

Beside “Tales,” he was the author of “Fables;” and in both he has merited the title of an original writer, who is, and probably will ever be, single in his kind. In his subjects indeed, he has made great use of the Greek, and Larin, and French, and Italian authors; but he is truly original in his manner, which is so easy, so natural, so simple, so delicate, that it does not seem possible to exceed it. His compositions have much nature, entirely devoid of affectation: his wit seems unstudied, and so much pleasantry is hardly to be met with. He never grows languid or heavy, but is always new and surprising*. His Tales are said to have been a great while the cause of his exclusion from the French academy; but at last, upon his writing a letter to a prelate of that society, wherein he declared his dissatisfaction for the liberties he had taken, and his resolution that his pen should never relapse, he was received into that body with marks of esteem. His first Fables are more valued than his last he seems to have thrown the best of his fire and force into them and both the one and the other have more sobriety and correctness than his Tales.

It was greatly advantageous to the cause of letters that Mr. Forcellini, being introduced to the notice of cardinal Cornaro, bishop of Padua, received from that prelate an order to compile a new Latin Dictionary, in which all the deficiencies of the preceding edition of Calepini’s performance, for the Latin department, should be supplied. Perhaps no person was better qualified for such an undertaking, or was possessed of more steadiness, patience, and perseverance; an almost incredible proof of which is, that he employed in it in-aHy forty years of his life He ransacked not only all the Latin writers of the several ages of Roman literature, but all the ancient grammarians, and every collection of inscriptions which had been published to his time. To each of the Latin words inserted in this new Dictionary he affixed the corresponding Italian and Greek, and, to render the work still more complete, he subjoined to u a copious list of barbarous words, and a numerous catalogue of the writers whose works he had investigated. The performance was soon considered classical and unrivalled. Besides the intimate friendship of Facciolati, his preceptor and benefactor, the abbe Forceliini was highly esteemed by Morgagni, Pontedera, Valsecchi, and other eminent professors in the university of Padua. His learning and his merit would have advanced him to high literary honours, had he been less modest and unassuming. He was regular in his domestic life, candid, disinterested, and exemplary; and as a literary character, he was satisfied that his memory would be dear to and respected by posterity. He died April 4, 1768.

His first preferment in the church was the small rectory of Hethe in Oxfordshire, which was given him July 6, 1749, by the lord chancellor Hardwicke, on the recommendation of one of his earliest friends, Dr. Seeker, bishop of Oxford, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. By him he was also introduced to the notice of Dr. Butler, then bishop of Bristol, to whom, in 1750, he became domestic chaplain, when that prelate was translated to the see of Durham. In this situation he continued till the death of his new patron, which took place before he had &n opportunity of conferring upon Dr, Forster any mark of Ins affection and esteem. The bishop, however, who died in his arms at Bath, bequeathed him a legacy of 200l. and appointed him executor of his will. He now returned to college, determining to obliterate the remembrance of his disappointments by a renewed application to his studies. But he was very soon called forth again, and appointed, in July 1752, one of the chaplains to Dr. Herring, archbishop of Canterbury. In Feb. 1754 he was promoted by the lord chancellor Hardwicke to the prebendal stall in the church of Bristol; and in the autumn of the same year the archbishop gave him the valuable vicarage of Rochdale, in Lancashire. He was admitted fellow of the royal society in May 1765. In May 1756 he was sworn one of the chaplains to his late majesty, George II. and through the interest of lord Roystou, was appointed by sir Thomas Clarke to succeed Dr. Terrick, in the summer of 1757, as preacher at the Rolls chapel. In August 1757, he married Susan, relict of John Balls, esq. of the city of Norwich, a lady of great merit, and possessed of a considerable fortune. Upon his marriage he hired a house in Craig’s court, Westminster, where, after a short illness, he died on Oct. 20, foJlowing, in the forty-first year of his age, leaving no issue. His widow afterwards married Philip Bedingfield, esq. of Ditchingham, in Norfolk. His body was interred in St. Martin’s church, Westminster, and a monument was erected to his memory by his widow, in the cathedral church of Bristol, with an elegant Latin inscription, written by his friend Dr. Hayter, then bishop of Norwich.

, a learned Italian prelate and poet, was born in 1674, obtained the highest rank of episcopacy under pope Clement XI, and flattered himself that Clement XII. a friend of poetry and poets, would advance him to the dignity of cardinal. This pope continally giving him reason to hope, as constantly found excuses for disappointing him; at length one instance more of this duplicity, added to so many that had passed, completely extinguished the expectations of Fortiguerra, and this mortification so deeply affected him, that it proved fatal. When he was on his death-bed, Clement sent to him, endeavouring to comfort him once more, and revive his hopes, but the sick man turning himself about, and raising the clothes, only uttered such an explosion, as once surprised and entertained the British house of commons, and said, “that is my answer; a good journey to us both” <c Eccovi la riposta bon viaggio e per lei, e per me.“He died soon after this, which happened in 1735, being then sixty-one. His house was the general resort of wit and literature in Rome, and he wrote his ”Ricciardetto,“a burlesque poem in thirty cantos, in a very short time, to prove to a party of this kind, how easy it is for a man of imagination to write in the style of Ariosto, whom some of them had preferred to Tasso. In this poem he gave abundant liberty to his imagination, and its extravagance would be fatiguing beyond measure, were it not supported by the utmost ease of versification, and perpetual sallies of pleasantry and genius. It has been ably translated into French by a M. du Mourner, chev. of St. Louis, who died in 1768. There is also a translation of” Terence" by Fortiguerra, with the Latin text, printed at Urbino in 1736, and adorned with cuts, a very splendid book.

, a learned English prelate, was born in 1632, at Westerleigh, in Gloucestershire; of which place his father was minister, but ejected for noncon formitjr after the restoration. He was sent to the College-school in Gloucester, where he was educated under William Russel, who had married his sister. In the beginning of 1650 he became clerk of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and being looked upon, says Wood, “as a young man well endowed with the spirit, and gifted with extemporary prayer, he was admitted one of the chaplains thereof in 1653, and the same year took a bachelor of arts degree.” Afterwards removing to Cambridge, he took his master’s degree as a member of Trinity college, and returning to Oxford, was incorporated in the same degree July 5, 1656., About the same time he became chaplain to Arabella, countess dowager of Kent, who presented him to the rectory of Northill, in Bedfordshire. Having been educated a presbyterian, he scrupled about conformity at the restoration, but conformed afterwards, and became a great ornament to the church. His excellent moral writings renderedhim so considerable, that archbishop Sheldon, in order to introduce him into the metropolis, collated him in August 1673, to the rectory of All-hallows, Breadtreet. In February 1675-6, he was made prebendary of Gloucester; and in March IbSl, vicar of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, on which he resigned the living of Allhallows. The same year, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor of divinity. During the struggle between protestantism and popery in this kingdom, he appeared to great advantage in defence of the former; but this rendered him obnoxious to the court, and in all probability tvas the secret cause of a prosecution against him, in 1685, by some uf his parishioners, who alledged that he was guilty of Whiggism, that he admitted to the communion excommunicated persons before they were absolved, &c. We are told this matter was carried so far, that, after a trial at Doctors’-couimons, he was suspended, under the pretence of having acted in several respects contrary to the canons of the church. This affront, however, did not intimidate him from doing what he thought his duty; for he was the second, who in 1688, sighed the resolution of the London clergy, not to read king James’s new declaration for liberty of conscience. He was rewarded for this and other services at the revolution; for in 1691, he was preferred to the see of Gloucester, and continued there till his death, which happened at Chelsea, Aug. 26, 1714, in his eighty-second year. His widow survived him some years, dying April 2, 1732. She was his second wife, the widow of the rev. Dr. Ezekiel Burton, and daughter of Ralph Trevor, of London, merchant. His first wife, by whom he had a large family, was daughter of Arthur Barnardiston, one of the masters in chancery. She died Dec. 19, 1696, and was buried, as well as the bishop, in Hendon church-yard, Middlesex, in the chancel of which church is a monument to his memory.

, an eminent prelate, and the munificent founder of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, was the son of Thomas Fox, and born at Ropesley, near Grantham, in Lincolnshire, about the latter end of the reign of Henry VI. His parents are said to have been in mean circumstances, but they must at least have been able to afford him school education, since the only dispute on this subject between his biographers, is, whether he was educated in grammar learning at Boston, or at Winchester. They all agree that at a proper age he was sent to Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he was acquiring distinction for his extraordinary proficiency, when the plague, which happened to break out about that time, obliged him to go to Cambridge, and continue his studies at Pembrokehall. After remaining some time at Cambridge, he repaired to the university at Paris, and studied divinity and the canon law, and here, probably, he received his doctor’s degree. This visit gave a new and important turn to his life, and introduced him to that eminence which he preserved for many years as a statesman. In Paris he became acquainted with Dr. Morton, bishop of Ely, whom Richard III. had compelled to quit his native country, and by this prelate he was recommended to the earl of Richmond, afterwards Henry VII. who was then providing for a descent upon England. Richmond, to whom he devoted himself, conceived such an opinion of his talents and fidelity, that he entrusted to his care a negotiation with France for supplies of men and money, the issue of which he was not able himself to await; and Fox succeeded to the utmost of his wishes. After the defeat of the usurper at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, and the establishment of Henry on the throne, the latter immediately appointed Fox to be one of his privy-council, and about the same time bestowed on him the prebends of Bishopston and South Grantham, in the church of Salisbury. In 1487, he was promoted to the see of Exeter, and appointed keeper of the privy seal, with a pension of twenty shillings a day. He was also made principal secretary of state, and master of St. Cross, near Winchester. His employments in. affairs of state both at home and abroad, were very frequent, as he shared the king’s confidence with his early friend Dr. Morton, who was now advanced to the archbishopric of Canterbury. In 1487, Fox was sent ambassador, with sir Richard Edgecombe, comptroller of the household, to James III. of Scotland, where he negociated a prolongation of the truce between England and Scotland, which was to expire July 3, 1488, to Sept. 1, 1489. About the beginning of 1491, he was employed in an embassy to the king of France, and returned to England in November following. In 1494 he went again as ambassador to James IV. of Scotland, to conclude some differences respecting the fishery of the river Esk, in which he was not successful. Having been translated in 1492 from the see of Exeter to that of Bath and Wells, he was in 1494 removed to that of Durham. Jn 1497, the castle of Norham being threatened by the king of Scotland, the bishop caused it to be fortified and supplied with troops, and bravely defended it in person, until it was relieved by Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, who compelled the Scots to retire. Fox was then, a third time, appointed to negociate with Scotland, and signed a, seven years truce between the two kingdoms, Sept. 30, 1497. He soon after negociated a marriage between James IV. and Margaret, king Henry’s eldest daughter, which was, after many delays, fully concluded Jan. 24, 1501-.

This appears to be the last of his public acts. During the reign of Henry VII. he enjoyed the unlimited favour and confidence of his sovereign, and bore a conspicuous share, not only in the political measures, but even in the court amusements and ceremonies of that reign. Henry likewise appointed him one of his executors, and recommended him strongly to his son and successor. But although he‘ retained his seat in the privy-council, and continued to hold the privy-seal, his influence in the new reign’ gradually abated. Howard, earl of Surrey and lord treasurer, had been his rival in Henry the Seventh’s time, and learned now to accommodate himself to the extravagant passions of his new master, with whom he was for a considerable time a confidential favourite; and the celebrated Wolsey, who had been introduced to the king by Fox, in order to counteract the influence of Surrey, soon became more powerful than either. After remaining some time in office, under many mortifications, our prelate, together with archbishop Warham, retired from court in 1515. Such was the political life of bishop Fox, distinguished by high influence and talent, but embittered at length, by the common intrigues and vicissitudes to which statesmen are subject.

His retirement at Winchester was devoted to acts of charity and munificence, although he did not now for the first time appear as a public benefactor. He had bestowed large sums on the repairs of the episcopal palace at Durham, while bishop of that see, and on every occasion of this kind discovered a considerable taste for architecture. In 1522 he founded a free-school at Taunton, and another at Grantham, and extended his beneficence to many other foundations within the diocese of Winchester. But the triumphs of his munificence and taste are principally to be contemplated in the additions which he built both within and without the cathedral of Winchester. Of these we shall borrow a character from one whose fine enthusiasm cannotbe easily surpassed. “Itis impossible to survey the works of this prelate, either on the outside of the church, or in the inside, without being? struck with their beauty and magnificence. In both of them we see the most exquisite art employed to execute the most noble and elegant designs. We cannot fail in particular of admiring the vast but well-proportioned and ornamented arched windows which surround this (the eastern) part, and give light to the sanctuary; the bold and airy flying buttresses that, stretching over the said ailes, support the upper walls; the rich open battlement which surmounts these walls; and the elegant sweep that contracts them to the size of the great eastern window: the two gorgeous canopies which crown the extreme turrets, and the profusion of elegant carved work that covers the whole east front, tapering up to a point, where we view the breathing statue of the pious founder resting upon his chosen emblem, the Pelican. In a word, neglected and mutilated as this work has been during the course of nearly three centuries, it still warrants us to assert, that if the whole cathedral had been finished in the style of this portion of it, the whole island, and perhaps all Europe, could not have exhibited a gothic structure equal to it.”

The foundation of Corpus Christi college was preceded by the purchase of certain pieces of land in Oxford, belonging to Merton college, the nunnery of Godstow, and the priory of St. Fridesvvyde, which he completed in 1513, But his design at this time went no farther than to found a college for a warden and a certain number of monks and secular scholars belonging to the priory of St. Svvithin, in Winchester, in the manner of Canterbury and Durham colleges, which were similar nurseries in Oxford for the priories of Canterbury and Durham. The buildings for this purpose were advancing under the care of William Vertue, mason, and Humphrey Cook, carpenter and master of the works, when the judicious advice of Hugh Oldham, bishop of Exeter, induced him to enlarge his plan to one pf more usefulness and durability. This prelate, an emir nent patron of literature, and a man of acute discernment, is said to have addressed him thus: “What! my lord, shall we build houses, and provide livelihoods fo/ a company of monks, whose end and fall we ourselves may live to see? No, no, it is more meet a great deal, that we should have care to provi.de for the increase of learning, and for such as who by their learning shall do good to the church and commonwealth.” These arguments, strengthened probably by others of a similar tendency, induced Fox to imitate those founders who had already contributed so largely to the fame of the university of Oxford. Accordingly, by licence of Henry VIII. dated Nov. 26, 1516, he obtained leave to found a college for the sciences of divinity, philosophy, and arts, for a president and thirty scholars, graduate and not graduate, more or less according to the revenues of the society, on a certain ground between Mefton college on the east, a lane Dear Canterbury college (afterwards part of Christ-church), and a garden of the priory of St. Frideswyde on the west, a street or lane of Oriel college on the north, and the town wall on the south, and this new college to be endowed with 3 50l. yearly. The charter, dated Cal. Mar. 151 G, recites that the founder, to the praise and honour of God Almighty, the most holy body of Christ, and the blessed Virgin Mary, as also of the apostles Peter, Paul, and Andrew, and of St. Cuthbert and St. Swithin, and St. Birin, patrons of the churches of Exeter, Bath and Wells, Durham, and Winchester, (the four sees which he successively rilled) doth found and appoint this college always to be called Corpus Christi College. The statutes are dated Feb. 13, 1527, in the 27th year of his translation to Winchester, and according to them, the society was to consist of a president, twenty fellows, twenty scholars, two chaplains, two clerks, and two choristers.

, eldest brother of the preceding, was born in 16'67, and admitted in 1680 at Westminster school, whence he was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in. 1686. While a student there he wrote some good verses on the inauguration of king William and queen Mary, which were printed in the Oxford collection. In, the celebrated dispute between Bentley and Boyle, Mr. Freind was a warm partizan for the honour of his college, but was eventually more lucky with Bentley than his brother, Dr. John. A neice of our author’s was married to a son of Dr. Bentley, who, after that event, conceived a better opinion of the Christ Church men, and declared that “Freind had more good learning in him than ever he had imagined.” Mr. Freind proceeded M. A. June I, 1693, became second master of Westminster school in 1699, and accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. July 7, 1709. In 1711 he published a sermon preached before the house of commons, Jan. 30, 1710-11, and in the same year he succeeded Duke, the poet, in the valuable living of Witney, in Oxfordshire; became head master of Westminster school, and is said either to have drawn up, or to have revised the preamble to the earl of Oxford’s patent of peerage. In March 1723, the day after his brother, Dr. John, was committed to the Tower, he caused much speculation in Westminster school and its vicinity, by giving for a theme, tf Frater, ne desere Fratrem.“In 1724 he published Cicero’s” Orator,“and in 1728 Mr. Bowyer, the celebrated printer, was indebted to him for the Westminster verses on the coronation of George II. In April 1729, Dr. Freind obtained a canonry of Windsor, which in 173l i he exchanged for a prebend of Westminster, and in 1733 he quitted Westminster school. In 1734 he was desirous of resigning Witney to his son (afterwards dean of Canterbury); but could not do it without the permission of bishop Hoadly, which he had little reason to expect. On application, however, to that prelate, through queen Caroline and lady Sundon, he received this laconic answer,” If Dr. Freind can ask it, I can grant it." Dr. Freind’s letters to lady Sundon are still existing, and prove that he had as little scruple in asking, as bishop Hoadly had in flattering a lady, who, by her influence with queen Caroline, became for a considerable time the sole arbitress of churchpreferments. In 1744 Dr. Freind resigned his stall at Westminster in favour of his son, and died August 9, 1751. By Jane his wife, one of the two daughters of Dr. Samuel Delangle, a prebendary of Westminster, he had two sons, Charles, who died in 1736, and William, his successor at Witney, and afterwards dean of Canterbury.

, bishop of Chartres, who flourished towards the end of the tenth t and beginning of the eleventh century, is celebrated, in the Tlomish church history, for his learning and piety. Some authors rank him among the chancellors of France, under the reign or‘ king Robert, but he was only chancellor of the church of Chartres, at the same time that he was rector of the school. He had been himself a disciple of the learned Gerbert, who was afterwards pope Sylvester II. in the year 999. Fulbert came from Rome to France, and taught in the schools belonging to the church of Chartres, which were then not only attended by a great concourse of scholars, but by his means contributed greatly to the revival of learning and religioii in France and Germany; and most of the eminent men of his time thought it an honour to be able to say that they had been his scholars. In 1007 he succeeded to the bishopric of Chartres, and the duke William gave him the office of treasurer of St. Hilary of Poitiers, the profits of which Fulbert employed in rebuilding his cathedral church. He was distinguished in his time for attachment to ecclesiasrtical discipline, and apostolic courage; and such was his character and fame, that he was highly esteemed by the princes and sovereigns of his age, by Robert, king of France, Canute, king of England; Richard II. duke of Normandy; William, duke of Aquitaine; and the greater part of the contemporary noblemen and prelates. He continued bishop of Chartres for twenty-one years and six months, and died, according to the abbé Fleuri, in 1029; but others, with more probability, fix that event on April 10, 1028. His works, which were printed, not very correctly, by Charles de Villiers in 1608, consist of letters, sermons, and some lesser pieces in prose and verse. His sermons, Dupin thinks, contain little worthy of notice; but his letters, which amount to 134-, have ever been considered as curious memorials of the history and sentiments of the times. They prove, however, that although Fulbert might contribute much to the propagation of learning, he had not advanced in liberality of sentiment before his contemporaries. There are also two other letters of our prelate in existence, the one in D’Acheri’s “Spicilegium,” and the other in Martenne’s “Thesaurus Anecdotorum,” both illustrative of his sentiments, and the sentiments of his age.

, an eminent prelate, the descendant of a noble family in Westphalia, was born at Bilstein in 1626. He studied at Cologne, where he contracted an intimate friendship with Chigi, who was then nuncio, and afterwards pope. During the cardinalate of Chigi, he invited f urstemberg to reside with him, whom he raised to the bishopric of Paderborn in 1661, when he himself was seated in the papal chair, under the title of Alexander VII. The high reputation of the bishop attracted the notice of Vat) Galer:, who appointed him his, coadjutor, and whom he succeeded in 1678, when he. was declared by the pope apostolical vicar of all the north of Kurope. He was. a zealous catholic, and anxious for the conversion of those who were not already within the pale of the church; but at the same time he did not neglect the cultivation of the belles lettres, eitper by his own efforts or those of many learned men whom he patronized. He died in 1683, As an author he collected a number of Mss. and monuments of antiquity, and gave to the world valuable work relative to those subjects, entitled “Momimenta Paderbornensia.” He al*o printed at Rome a. collection of Latin poems, entitled “Septem Virorutn. illusirium Poemata.” In this work there were many poems of his own, written witU much purity. A magnificent edition of these poems was published in the same year in which he died, at the Louvre, at the expence of the king of France.

At the age of twenty, about 1740, he published a ludicrous work, which evinced the turn of his genius for wit and humour. It was a prevailing custom at that time in Naples (as well as in other cities of Italy), on the decease of any great or eminent person, to make a large collection of songs, sonnets, epigrams, elegies, and inscriptions, in praise of the real or reputed talents and virtues of the deceased. The abuse to which such a practice is liable, called loudly for reformation, and Galiani catching the opportunity of the death of a famous public executioner, named Jannaccone, sported a droll funereal collection of prose and verse in his praise, in which the manner and style of the respective authors, accustomed to that sort of compositions, were ingeniously personated and burlesqued. Much about the same time, Galiani had an opportunity in another work, of producing another specimen of his humour. Pope Benedict XIV. had applied to his uncle, the great almoner, to procure him a complete collection of the various materials which compose mount Vesuvius. This prelate intrusted the commission to his nephew, who actually undertook to make the collection, accompanying each article with a short philosophical comment. Soon after, he addressed them in a box to the pontiiT, with an humorous inscription to the whole, “Si filius Dei es, fae ut Lapides isti Panes fiant.” The turn of this motto was easily apprehended by the pope, who was himself one of the wittiest men of his age, and it could not fail to procure Galiani what he hinted at. He accordingly received soon afterwards a rich abbey, worth four thousand ducats (nearly seven hundred pounds) per annum. Galiani soon afterwards displayed his abilities in philosophy, by publishing about 1745, his well-known political tract “Trattato della Moneta,” (a Treatise on Money). This was unanimously pronounced in Italy an original and capital publication, which firmly established his reputation in the world. He was now appointed secretary to the Neapolitan ambassador in Paris, where he soon exhibited other specimens of his philosophical abilities, by publishing an “Essay on the Commerce of Corn.” This new work was very favourably received in France, where some of their philosophers were candidly wont to say, “Le petit Italien est en cela plus instruit que nous.” By the word -petit, they allude to the diminutive stature of the author.

In his private character, Gardiner is entitled to some respect, not from its morality, for he is said to have been, licentious; but he was a man of learning, and in some remarkable instances a patron of learned men. Thomas Smith, who had been secretary to Edward VI. was permitted by him to live in Mary’s days, in a state of privacy unmolested, and with a pension of 100l. a year for his better support, though he had a good estate of his own. Roger Ascham, another secretary to the same prince, of the Latin tongue, was continued in his office, and his salary inCreased by this prelate’s favour; which he fully repaid, by those elegant epistles to him, that are extant in his works. Strype, who notices this circumstance, adds: “Thus lived two excellent protestants, under the wings, as it were, of the sworn enemy and destroyer of protestants.” He is said also to have been of a liberal and generous disposition; kept a good house, and brought up several young gentlemen, some of whom became afterwards men of the first rank in the state.

, an English divine, was born at Bury St. Edmund’s, May 1, 1753, and was the only surviving child of the rev. Robert G. many years master of the free grammar-school at Bury, and rector of Nowton and Hargrave, in Suffolk . His mother was Mary, daughter of Mr. Benton, and sister of the late Edward Benton, esq. secondary in the court of king’s-bench. He was educated partly by his father, who supported a considerable reputation for classical learning, and partly at Bury school, whence he was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1770, and the following year was elected scholar. In 1774 he was admitted to his degree of B. A. which he obtained with credit to his college and himself; and was elected fellow in 1775, and proceeded M. A. in 1777. In 1793 he was elected college preacher, and in November 1797, was advanced into the seniority. He was ordained deacon March 3, 1776, and afterwards entered on the curacies of Newton and Great Welivatham, in the neighbourhood of Bury. On June 15, 1777, he was ordained priest, but having imbibed some scruples as to the articles of the church, of the Socinian cast, he determined sever to repeat his subscription to the articles for any preferment which he might become entitled to from the college patronage, or which might be offered to him from any other quarter. Agreeably to, and consistently with, this state of mind, be resigned, at Midsummer, 1789, the curacies in which he was then engaged, and resolved thenceforward to decline officiating in the ministry. Mr. Garnham’s health was never robust, and, during the last five or six years of his life, suffered much from sickness, which prevented his residing at Cambridge after the death of his father, in 1798, and indisposed and disqualified him from pursuing his former application to his studies. His indisposition and infirmities continued to increase; and, in the summer of 1801, he evidently appeared to be much broken. For some short time he had complained of an asthma; and, on the Saturday preceding his death, was attacked with an inflammation on the lungs and breast. He continued till the morning of the following Thursday, June 24, 1802, when he expired in the- 50th year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of Nowtoa church. His writings were numerous, but all anonymous. 1. “Examination of Mr. Harrison’s Sermon, preached in the cathedral church of St. Pawl, London, before the lord mayor, on May 25, 1788, 1789.” 2. “Letter to the right rev. the bishop of Norwich (Dr. Bagot), requesting him to name the prelate to whom he referred as * contending strenuously for the general excellence of our present authorized translation of the Bible,' 1789.” 3. “Letter to the right rev. the bishop of Chester (Dr. Cleave*), on the subject of two sermons addressed by him to the clergy of his diocese comprehending also a vindication of the late bishop Hoadly, 1790.” 4. “Review of Dr. Hay’s sermon, entitled, t Thoughts on the Athanasian Creed,' preached April 12, 1790, at the visitation of the archdeacon of Bucks,” 1790. 5. “Outline of a Commentary on Revelations xi. 114,” 1794. 6. “A Sermon preached in the chapel of Trinity-college, Cambridge, on Thursday, Dec. 19, 1793, the day appointed for the commemoration of the benefactors to that society,” 1794. He wrote also the papers in “Commentaries and Essays” signed Synergus: and some in “The Theological Repository,” signed Ereunetes, and Idiota.

A pamphlet of uncommon rarity has lately been brought to light, after a concealment of nearly a century. Bishop Tanner is the first who notices this pamphlet, under the title of “A Remembrance of the well-employed life and godly end of George Gascoigne, esq. who deceased at Stamford in Lincolnshire, 7th October, 1577, reported by George Whetstone.” But it is very extraordinary that the learned prelate should inform us of this pamphlet being in his possession, and at the same time express his doubt whether it was the life of this, or of another George Gascoigne, when a very slight inspection must have convinced him that it could be no other, and that, in its principal ftcts, it agreed with the account he had just transcribed from Wood. Since the antiquities of poetry have become a favourite study, many painful inquiries have been made after this tract, but it could not be found in Tanner’s library, which forms part of the Bodleian, or in any other collection, private or public, and doubts began to be entertained whether such a pamphlet had ever existed. About six or seven years ago, however, it was discovered in the collection of a deceased gentleman, a Mr. Voight of the Custom-house, London, and was purchased at his ale by Mr. Malone. It consists of about thirteen pages small quarto, black letter, and contains certainly not much life, but some particulars unknown to his biographers. A transcript of the whole is given in the late edition of the English Poets.

In July 1403, he was joined in a commission with Ralph Nevil, earl of Westmoreland, and others, to issue their power and authority, for levying forces in Yorkshire and Northumberland, against the insurrection of Henry Percy, earl of that county, in favour of Richard II. and, after that earl had submitted, was nominated April 1405, in another commission to treat with his rebellious abettors, a proclamation to the purpose being issued next day by the king at Pontefract. These were legal trusts, which he executed from a principle of gratitude and loyalty, with spirit and steadiness. But, on the taking of archbishop Scroop in arms the same year, when the king required him to pass sentence upon that prelate as a traitor, in his manor-house at Bishopthorp near York, no prospect of fear or favour was able to corrupt him to any such violation of the subjects’ rights, or infringement of those laws, which suffered no religious person to be brought to a secular or lay trial, unless he were a heretic, and first degraded by the church. He therefore refused to obey the royal command, and said to his majesty: “Neither you, my lord the king, nor any liege subject of yours in your name, can legally, according to the rights of the kingdom, adjudge any bishop to death.” Henry was highly displeased at this instance of his intrepidity; but his anger must have been short, if, as Fuller tells us, Gascoigne had the honour of knighthood conferred on him the same year. However that be, it is certain, the king was fully satisfied with his fidelity and circumspection in treating with the rebels; and on that account joined him again in a commission as before, dated at Pontefract- castle, April 25, 1408.

This affair was scarcely concluded, when the prosecution commenced against Atterbury, bishop of Rochester. Bishop Gastrell never liked the haughty temper of that prelate, and had always opposed his arbitrary attempts while dean of Christ Church; yet, being satisfied in his conscience, that the proceedings in parliament against him were pushed on with too much violence, he opposed them with great resolution; and when the bill for inflicting pains and penalties upon Atterbury was before the house of lords, he spoke againstit with earnestness and warmth, not sparing to censure the rest of his brethren the bishops, who all concurred with the bill.

, an English prelate, of more fame than character, was son of John Gauden, vicar of Mayfield in Essex, where he was born in 1605. He was first educated at Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk, whence he was removed to St. John’s-college in Cambridge; and having made a good proficiency in academical learning, took his degrees in arts. About 1630, he married a daughter of sir William Russel of Chippenham in Cambridgeshire, and was presented to that vicarage. He also obtained the rectory of Brightwell in Berkshire, which bringing him near Oxford, he entered himself of Wadham-college in that university, and became tutor to two of his father-in-law’s sons; other young gentlemen, and some noblemen, were also put under his care. He proceeded B. D. July 1635; and D.D.July 8, 1641.

, was born about 1685, of a noble family, at Louviers. His refusing to sign the Formulary having put a stop to his degrees in the Sorbonne, he retired to the seminary of St. Magloir, and devoted himself to the study of theology. On his return home, he was appointed subdeacon of Evreux, but opposing the bull Unigenitus, was obliged to quit that diocese, upon which de Langle, bishop of Boulogne, gladly received him into his house, and ordained him priest; from that time Gaultier was the prelate’s counsellor, proctor, grand vicar, friend, and secretary. De Langle dying in 1724, Colbert bishop of Montpellier, took Gaultier to be his librarian, as was supposed, but in fact to be his adviser, confessor, and secretary; while he was looked upon at Montpellier merely as a quiet inoffensive man, with just abilities sufficient to take down the bishop’s books and put them in order again. Colbert died in 1738, and Gaultier went the same year to Paris, where he lived as retired as at Montpellier, only visiting his native place once a year for relaxation. In the last of these journies, returning to Paris with a friend, their post-chaise was overset, and Gaultier being dangerously hurt by his fall, was carried to Gaillon as the nearest place, where he died five days after, October 30, 1755. Besides what he wrote for messrs. Langle and Colbert, he left various works on the affairs of his time, all anonymous except the largest, which has been published since his death, and is entitled

, surnamed the Cappadocian,*waa made bishop of Alexandria when Athanasius was driven from that see by the persecutions of the emperor Constantius, about the year 355. He was a native of Epiphania, in Cilicia, where his father pursued the business of a fuller. From this obscure situation the son raised himself, it is said, not bv the most honourable means, to the station of a prelate in the church, and his mean arts and depredations on the public purse became so notorious, that he was obliged to fly from the pursuit of justice, and contrived to take with him his ill-gotten wealth. The place of his retreat was Alexandria, where he professed great zeal for the Arian system of theology, and acquired considerable influence with his disciples in that city. Here he formed a very valuable collection of books, which the emperor Julian, afterwards made the foundation of the noble library established by him in the temple erected in honour of the emperor Trajan, but which was burnt by the connivance of the emperor Jovian. When Athanasius was driven from Alexandria, George was elected bishop by the prevailing party, and persecuted the catholics, and in other respects played the tyrant with such unrelenting cruelty and avarice, that at length the people rose as one man, and expelled him the city. With much difficulty he regained his authority, which he held till the year 362, when he and two other persons who had been ministers of his atrocities, were ignominiously dragged in chains to the public prison, and murdered by the populace. Such a character scarcely merits a place in this work, if it were not necessary to expose the ignorance of those who pretend that he has been transformed into the renowned St. George of England, the patron of arms, of chivalry, and of the garter, a calumny which has been amply refuted by Pegge, Miiner, and others.

The biographer of sir Robert Walpole allows that the inveteracy displayed against this eminent prelate for the conscientious discharge of his duty on this occasion, reflects no credit on the memory of that statesman. His esteem for Gibson had been so great, that when he was reproached with giving him the authority of a pope, he replied, “And a very good pope he is.” Even after theii; disagreement, he never failed to pay an eulogium to tha learning and integrity of his former friend. About this time, great pains were taken to fix upon this worthy prelate, the character of a haughty persecutor, and even of a Secret enemy to the civil establishment. To this end a passage in the introduction to his “Codex,” which suggested the groundlessness of the modern practice of sending prohibitions to the spiritual from the temporal courts, was severely handled, in a pamphlfet written by the recorder of Bristol, afterwards sir Michael Foster, as derogatory from the supreme power and superintendency of the court of king’s bench; and other writers, with less reason and no moderation, attacked our prelate in pamphlets and periodical journals. It is said also that he was obnoxious to the king, on a personal account, because he had censured, with a freedom becoming his character, the frequent recurrence of masquerades, of which his majesty was very fond. Bishop Gibson had preached against this diversion in the former reign: and he now procured an address to the king from several of the bishops, for the entire suppression of such pernicious amusements. In all this his zeal cannot be too highly commended; and to his honour be it recorded, that neither the enmity of statesmen, nor the frowns of princes, could divert his attention from the duties of his pastoral office; some of which consisted in writing and printinrg pastoral letters to the clergy and laity, in opposition to infidelity and enthusiasm; in visitation-charges, as well as occasional sermons, besides less pieces of a mixt nature, and some particular tracts against the prevailing immoralities of the age.

He was very sensible of his decay for some time before his death, in which he complained of a languor that hung about him. As, indeed, he had made free with his constitution by incredible industry, in a long course of study and business of various kinds; he had well nigh exhausted his spirits, and worn out a constitution which was naturally so vigorous, that life might, otherwise, have probably been protracted. He died, however, on September 6, 1748, with true Christian fortitude, an apparent sense of his approaching dissolution, and in perfect tranquillity of mind, during the intervals of his last fatal indisposition at Bath, after a very short continuance there. His lordship was married, and left several children of each sex, who were all handsomely provided for by him. In private life he possessed the social virtues in an eminent degree, and hi beneficence was very extensive. Of this one remarkable instance is recorded by Whiston. Dr. Crow had left him 2500l. which our prelate freely gave to Dr. Crow’s relations, who were in indigent circumstances. Recording this story does Whiston more credit than his foolish ravings against the bishop’s “gross ignorance” of what he calls “primitive Christianity.”

, a distinguished scholar and traveller, was born 1490, at Albi. After travelling over France, and into Italy, he spent some time, at his return, with George d'Armagnac, bishop of Rhodes, afterwards cardinal, who was his patron; and, at this prelate’s request, wrote his 16 books on the nature of animals, “De vi et natura Animalium,” Lyons, 1533, 4to, extracted from Ælian, Porphyry, Heliodorus, and Oppian to which he has added his own observations, and a book of the fish found at Marseilles. He dedicated this work to Francis I. and entreated him, in the dedication, to send some learned men into foreign countries, at his own expence. Francis approved this plan, and the author was sent to the Levant some time after but, receiving nothing from the king during his stay there, he was obliged, at the king’s death, 1547, to enlist himself in the service of Soliman II. for a maintenance. In 1550, however, he returned to France with M. d‘Aramont, ambassador from that kingdom to the Porte; he went afterwards to cardinal d’Armagnac at Rome, being entrusted with the affairs between France and the holy see, and died in that city in 1555. Besides his work above mentioned, he left “Elephanti descriptio,” 8vo; “De Bosphoro Thracio,” 24to; “De Topographia Constantinouoleos,” 24to; and in Banduri’s Imperium Orientate, editions of Demetrius of Constantinople in “Rei Accipitrariae Auctores,” 1612, 4toj of Tbeodpret’s “Commentary on the Twelve minor Prophets;” and of the “Hist, of Ferdinand, king of Arragon,” by Laurentius Valla.

Gilpin now embarked for Holland, whence he immediately went to Mechlin to visit his brother George, then a 2ealous papist, but afterwards a warm advocate for the reformation, and the translator from Dutch into English of that keen satire against popery, entitled “The Beehive of the Roman church.” He went afterwards to Louvain, where he resolved to settle for sometime, making occasional excursions to other placet. Loinrain was then one of the chief places for students in divinity. Some of the most eminent divines on both sides of the question resided there, and the most important topics of religion were discussed with gfeat freedom. Of such opportunities he soon began to avail himself, and the consequence was his imbibing juster notions of the doctrines of the reformation: he saw things in a clearer and stronger light, and felt a satisfaction in the change he Uad made, to whichhe had hitherto been n stranger. While thus pursuing his studies, he heard the important news from England of queen Mary’s accession to the crown, whose bigotry was well known, and in whom the signs of a persecuting spirit already appeared; and at the same time learned that his relation bishop Tonstal was released from the Tower, and reinstated in his bishopric. The first consequence of this last event was the offer of a living, which Mr. Gilpin declined in a long letter, the unaffected piety of which disarmed all resentment on the part of the bishop, and led him rather to admire a behaviour, in which the motives of conscience shewed themselves so superior to those of interest. After remaining two years in Flanders, to which his countrymen were daily flocking to escape the sanguinary laws of queen Mary, he took a journey to Paris, in order to print the bishop of Durham’s book on the Sacrament, with which that prelate had intrusted him. This work of Tonstal’s was written so much in a spirit of moderation respecting the extravagant popish doctrine of the Sacrament, that Gilpin was generally supposed to have corrupted it, which he refuted by shewing the bishop’s letter of thanks for his “care and fidelity” as an editor. While Mr. Gilpin staid at Paris, he lodged with Vascosan, the eminent printer, to whom he had been recommended by his friends in the Netherlands, and who shewed him great regard, introducing him to the most considerable men in that city. Here popery became quite his aversion; he saw more of its superstition and craft than he had yet seen; the former among the people, the latter among the priests, who scrupled not to avow how little truth was their concern. Here also he found his old acquaintance Mr. Neat, of New college, who was now become an inflexible bigot to popery, and resisted all Gilpin’s endeavours to reclaim him. This was the same Neal, who was afterwards chaplain to bishop Bonner, and distinguished himself by being sole voucher of the very improbable and silly story of the Nag’s head consecration.

Mr. Gilpin having spent three years abroad, was now fully satisfied in all his more considerable scruples. He wanted no further conviction of the bad tendency of popery: he saw the necessity of some reformation, and began to think every day more favourably of the present one. The doctrine of the corporal presence indeed he had not yet fully considered; but he looked upon it as a mystery, which it rather became him to acquiesce in than examine. The principal end of his going abroad being thus answered, he was desirous, of return ing iion:eb,ut ap the Marian persecution was still raging, his mends suggested that it was little less than madness to think of going to a place, from whence all of his sentiments were endeavouring to withdraw themselves. But it is most probable, that his purpose to return at this time was in pursuance of the bishop of Durham’s advice; who, rinding the infirmities of age increase upon him, and believing his nephew totally unqualified to advance himself in life, might be desirous of providing for him before l.is death; and hoped that his power, in that remote part of the kingdom, would be a sufficient protection for him against his enemies. It is, however, certain that he came into England during the heat of the persecution, and went immediately to the bishop, who was then in his diocese. Here this humane prelate kept himself withdrawn during most of that violent reign, to avoid having any hand in measures which he abhorred.

His hospitable manner of living was the admiration of the whole country, and strangers and travellers met with a cheerful reception. Even their beasts had so much care taken of them, that it was humorously said, “if a horse was turned loose in any part of the country, it would immediately make its way to the rector of Moughton’s.” Every Sunday, from Michaelmas to Easter, was a sort of public day with him. During this season, he expected to see all his parishioners and their families, whom he seated, according to their ranks, at three tables; and when absent from home, the same establishment was kept up. When lord Burleigh, then lord treasurer, was sent on public affairs into Scotland, he unexpectedly paid a visit to Mr. Gilpin, but the reconomy of his house was not easily disconcerted, and he entertained the statesman nnd his retinue in such a manner as made him acknowledge “he could hardly have expected more at Lambeth.” On looking back from an eminence, after he had left Houghton, Btirleigh eould not help exclaiming, “There is the enjoyment of life indeed! who can blame that man for not accepting of a bishopric! what doth he want to make him greater, or happier, or more useful to mankind!” Mr. Gilpin’s labours extended beyond his own parish; he every year visited divers neglected parishes in Northumberland, Yorkshire, Cheshire, Westmoreland, and Cumberland; and that his own flock might not suffer, he was at the expence of a constant assistant. In all his journeys he did not fail to visit the gaols and places of confinement; and by his labours and affectionate manner of behaviour, he is said to have reformed many abandoned persons in those abodes of human misery. He had set places and times for preaching in the different parts of the country, which were as regularly attended as the assize towns of a circuit. If he came to a place in which there was a church, he made use of it; if not, of barns, or any other large building, where great crowds of persons were sure to attend him, some for his instructions, more, perhaps, to partake of his bounty; but in his discourses he had a sort of enthusiastic warmth, which roused many to a sense of religion who had never thought of any thing serious before. The dangers and fatigues attending this employment were, in his estimation, abundantly compensated by the advantages which he hoped would accrue from them to his uninstructed fellow-creatures. He did not spare the rich; and in a discourse before Barnes, bishop of Durham, who had already conceived a prejudice against him, he spoke with so much freedom, that his best friends dreaded the result; they rebuked him for giving the prelate a handle against him, to which he replied, “If the discourse should do the good he intended by it, he was regardless of the consequences to himself.” He then waited on the prelate, who said, “Sir, I propose to wait upon you home myself.” When they arrived at the rectory, and entered the house, the bishop turned suddenly round, and grasped him eagerly by the hand, saying, “Father Gil pin, I know you are fitter to be bishop of Durham, than I am to be parson of this church of yours. I ask forgiveness for past injuries. Forgive me, father, I know you have enemies, but while I live bishop of Durham, none of tjiem shall cause you any further trouble.”

, an English prelate, was born in 1517 at Oakingham in Berkshire; and being put to the grammar-school there, quickly made such a progress as discovered him to be endowed with excellent parts. But his parents being low in circumstances, he must have lost the advantage of improving them by a suitable education, had they not been noticed by Dr. Richard Layton, archdeacon of Bucks, a zealous promoter of the reformation, who, taking him into his house, and instructinghim in classical learning, sent him to Oxford, where he was entered of Magdalen college about 1538. Not long after, he lost his worthy patron; but his merit, now become conspicuous in the university, had procured him other friends; so that he was enabled to take the degree of B. A. July 12, 1543. The same merit released his friends from any farther expence, by obtaining him, the year ensuing, a fellowship of his college; and he proceeded M. A. in 1547. But he did not long enjoy the fruits of his merit in a college life; his patron, the archdeacon, had taken care to breed up Godwin in the principles of the reformation, and this irritating some popish members of the college, they made his situation so uneasy, that, the free-school at Brackley in Northamptonshire becoming vacant in 1549, and being in the gift of the college, he resigned his fellowship, and accepted it. In this station, he married the daughter of Nicholas Purefoy, of Shalston, in the county of Bucks, and lived without any new disturbance as long as Edward VI. was at the helm: but, upon the accession of Mary, his religion exposed him to a fresh persecution, and he was obliged to quit his school. In this exigence, although the church was his original intention, and he had read much with that view, yet now it became more safe to apply to the study of physic; and being admitted to his bachelor’s degree in that faculty, at Oxford, July 1555, he practised in it for a support till Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, when he resolved to enter into the church. In this he was encouraged by Bullingham, bishop of Lincoln, who gave him orders, and made him his chaplain; his lordship also introduced him to the queen, and obtained him the favour of preaching before her majesty; who was so much pleased with the propriety of his manner, and the grave turn of his oratory, that she appointed him one of her Lentpreachers. He had discharged this duty by an annual appointment, with much satisfaction to her majesty, for a series of eighteen years. In 1565, on the deprivation of Sampson, he was made dean of Christ church, Oxford, and had also the prebend of Milton-ecclesia in the church of Lincoln conferred on him by his patron bishop Bullingham. This year also he took his degrees of B. and D. D. at Oxford. In 1566, he was promoted to' the deanery of Canterbury, being the second dean of that church: and queen Elizabeth making a visit to Oxford the same year, he attended her majesty, and among others kept an exercise in divinity against Dr. Lawrence Humphries, the professor; in which the famous Dr. Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, was moderator. In June following he was appointed by archbishop Parker, one of his commissioners to visit the diocese of Norwich; and that primate having established a benefaction for a sermon on Rogation Sunday at Thetford in Norfolk and other places, the dean, while engaged in this commission, preached the first sermon of that foundation, on Sunday morning July 20, 1567, in the Green-yard adjoining to the bishop’s palace at Norwich. In 1573 he quitted his prebend of Milton-ecclesia, on being presented by Cooper, then bishop of Lincoln, to that of Leighton-Bosard, the endowment of which is considered the best in the church of Lincoln. In 1576 he was one of the ecclesiastical commissioners, empowered by the queen to take cognizance of all offences against the peace and good order of the church, and to frame such statutes as might conduce to its prosperity.

The see of Bath and Wells had in 1584 been vacant since the death of Dr. Gilbert Berkley in Nov. 1581. To this bishopric the queen now nominated dean Godwin, who accordingly was consecrated Sept. 13, 1584. He immediately resigned the deanery of Canterbury; and as he arrived at the episcopal dignity “as well qualified,” says his contemporary, sir John Harrington, “for a bishop as might be, umeproveable, without simony, given to good hospitality, quiet, kind, and affable,” it is to be lamented that he was unjustly opposed in the enjoyment of what he deserved. At the time of his promotion there prevailed among the courtiers no small dislike to the bishops; prompted by a desire to spoil them of their revenues. To cover their unjust proceedings, they did not want plausible pretences, the effects of which Godwin too severely experienced. He was a widower, drawing towards seventy, and much enfeebled by the gout, when he came to the see; but in order to the management of his family, and that he might devote his whole time to the discharge of his high office, he married a second wife, a widow, of years suitable to his own. An illiberal misrepresentation, however, of this affair was but too readily believed by the queen, who had a rooted aversion to the marriages of the clergy, and the crafty slanderers gratified their aim in the disgrace of the aged prelate, and in obtaining part of his property. This unfortunate affair, which affected his public character as well as his private happiness, contributed not a little to increase his infirmities. He continued, however, attentive to the duties of his function, and frequently gave proof that neither his diligence nor his observation were inconsiderable. During the two last years of his life, his health more rapidly declined, and he was also attacked with a quartan ague. He was now recommended by his physicians to try the benefit of his native air. Accordingly he came to Oakingham with this intention, but breathed his last there, Nov. 19, 1590. He was buried in the chancel of Oakingham church, where is a modest inscription to his memory, written by his son, the subject of the next article.

, an English prelate, and the only one who forsook the church of England for that of Rome since the reformation, was born at Ruthvyn in Denbighshire, 1583. He was educated at Westminster school, whence, in 1600, he went to Trinity college, Cambridge. After taking orders, he got the living of Stapleford Abbots in Essex in 1607. Becoming acknowledged at court as a celebrated preacher, he obtained in 1617, a canonry of Windsor; in 1620, the deanery of Rochester, and in 1625 was consecrated bishop of Gloucester. In 1639, he refused to sign the seventeen canons of doctrine and discipline drawn up in a synod, and enjoined by archbishop Laud, who, after admonishing him three times, procured him to be suspended, and it appeared soon after that he was in all principles a Roman catholic. After this, and during the rebellion, he lived privately in Westminster, employing much of his time in researches in the Cottonian library. He died, in the open profession of popery, Jan. 19, 1655. He wrote, 1. “The Fall of Man, and Corruption of Nature, proved by reason,” 1616, 1624, 4to. 2. “Arguments and Animadversions on Dr. George Hackwil’s Apology for Divine Providence.” 3. “The two mysteries of Christian Religion, viz. the Trinity and Incarnation, explicated,” 1653, 4to. 4. “An Account of his Sufferings,” 1650. 5. “The Court of King James by Sir Anthony Weldon reviewed,” a ms. in the Bodleian.

, an eminent English prelate, was the second son of Edward Goodrich of East Kirby in Lincolnshire. He was admitted pensioner of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, soon after 1500, became fellow of Jesus college in 1510, commenced M. A. in 1514, and the following year was proctor of the university. Being of a studious turn, he made great proficiency in several branches of learning, particularly in the civil and canon laws. In 1529, he was appointed one of the syndics to return an answer from the university of Cambridge, concerning the lawfulness of king Henry VIII.’s marriage with queen Catherine: and from his readiness to oblige the king in that business, was recommended to his royal favour. He was presented to the rectory of St. Peter’s Cheap in London, by cardinal Wolsey, at that time commendatory of the monastery of St. Alban’s; and soon after was made canon of St. Stephen’s, Westminster, and chaplain to the king. On the death of Dr. West, bishop of Ely, his nephew and godson Dr. Nicholas Hawkins, archdeacon of Ely, at that time the king’s ambassador in foreign parts, was designed to succeed him; but he dying before his consecration could be effected, the king granted his licence to the prior and convent, dated March 6, 1534, to choose themselves a bishop; who immediately elected in their chapter-house the 17th of the same month, Thomas Goodrich, S.T.P. which was confirmed by the archbishop April 13th following, in the parish church of Croydon.

, an English prelate, was born about 1706, at Beverly, in Yorkshire, and received the rudiments of his education at a private school. From this he was admitted a sizar in St. John’s college, Cambridge; and after taking his degrees in arts, with great credit as a classical scholar, engaged himself as usher to a school at Lichfield, before Dr. Johnson and Mr. Garrick had left that city, with both of whom he was of course acquainted, but he continued here only one year. In 1730 he was elected fellow of St. John’s, and soon after the bishop of Ely procured him the vicarage of Hingeston from Jesus college, which was tenable with a fellowship of St. John’s, but could not be held by any fellow of Jesus. In 1744, Charles duke of Somerset, chancellor of the university, appointed Mr. Green (then B. D.) his domestic chaplain. In January 1747, Green was presented by his noble patron to the rectory of Borough-green, near New-market, which he held with his fellowship. He then returned to college, and was appointed bursar. In December 1748, on the death of Dr. Whalley, he was elected regius professor of divinity, with which office he held the living of Barrow in Suffolk, and sodn after was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains. In June 170, on the death of dean Castle, master of Bene't college, a majority of the fellows (after the headship had been declined by their president, Mr. Scottowe) agreed to apply to archbishop Herring for his recommendation; and his grace, at the particular request of the duke of Newcastle, recommended professor Green, who was immediately elected. Among the writers on the subject of the new regulations proposed by the chancellor, and established by the senate, Dr. Green took an active part, in a pamphlet published in the following winter, 1750, without his name, entitled “The Academic, or a disputation on the state of the university of Cambridge.” On March 22, 1751, whenhis friend Dr. Keene, master of St. Peter’s college, was promoted to the bishopric of Chester, Dr. Green preached the consecration -sermon in Elyhouse chapel, which, by order of the archbishop of York, was soon after published. In October 1756, on the death of Dr. George, he was preferred to the deanery of Lincoln, and resigned his professorship. Being then eligible to the office of vice-chancellor, he was chosen in November following. In June 1761, the dean exerted his polemical talents in two letters (published without his name) “on the principles and practices of the Methodists,” the first addressed to Mr. Berridge, and the second to Mr. Whitfield. On the translation of bishop Thomas to the bishopric of Salisbury, Green was promoted to the see of Lincoln, the last mark of favour which the duke of Newcastle had it in his power to shew him. In 1762, archbishop Seeker (who had always a just esteem for his talents and abilities) being indisposed, the bishop of Lincoln visited as his proxy the diocese of Canterbury. In 1763 he preached the 30th of January sermon before the house of lords, which was printed.

The bishop resigned the mastership of Bene't college in July 17G4. After the death of lord Willoughby of Parham in 1765, the literary conversation meetings of the royal society, &c. which used to be held weekly at his lordship’s house, were transferred to the bishop of Lincoln’s in Scotland yard, as one of their most accomplished members. In July 1771, on a representation to his majesty, that, with distinguished learning and abilities, and a most extensive diocese, bishop Green (having nocommendam) had a very inadequate income, he was presented to the residentiaryship of St. Paul’s, which bishop Egerton vacated on his translation to the see of Durham. He now removed to his residentiary-house in Amen-corner, and took a small country-house at Tottenham. It has often been noticed as a circumstance conducing to our prelate’s honour, that, in May 1772, when the bill for relief of protestant dissenters, &c. after having passed the house of commons, was rejected, on the second reading, by the house of lords (102 to 27), he dissented from his brethren, and was the only bishop who voted in its favour. Without any particular previous indisposition, his lordship died suddenly in his chair at Bath, on Sunday, April 25, 1779. This elegant scholar was one of the writers of the celebrated “Athenian Letters,” published by the earl of Hardwicke in 1798, 2 vols. 4to.

, a worthy English prelate, was the son of Thomas Greene of St. Peter’s Mancroft in Norwich, where he was born in 1658, He was educated in the freeschool of that city, and in July 1674, admitted of Bene't college, Cambridge, of which he obtained a scholarship, and in 1680 a fellowship, and became tutor. He took his degree of A. B. in 1679, and that of A. M. in 1682. His first step from the university was into the family of sir Stephen Fox, grandfather of the late hon. Charles Fox, to whom he was made domestic chaplain through the interest of archbishop Tenison, who soon after his promotion to the see of Canterbury, took him under the same relation into his own palace; and collated him April 2, 1695, to the vicarage of Minster in the isle of Thanet; he being, since 1690, D. D. by the archbishop’s faculty. To the same patron he was likewise obliged for a prebend in the cathedral of Canterbury, into which he was installed in May 1702; for the rectory of Adisham cum Staple in Kent, to which he was collated Oct. 2, 1708, and for the archdeaconry of Canterbury, into which he was installed the next month, having been chosen before one of the proctors of the clergy in convocation for that diocese. Upon these preferments he quitted the vicarage of Minster, as he did the rectory of Adisham upon his institution (in Feb. 1716) to the vicarage of St. Martin’s in the Fields, Westminster; to which he was presented by the trustees of archbishop Tenison, for the disposal of his options, of whom he himself was one. This he held in commendam with the bishopric of Norwich, to which he was consecrated Oct. 8, 1721, but was thence translated to Ely, Sept 24, 1723.

In the year 595, he refused to send the empress Constantia any relics of St. Paul, which she had requested, desiring to look at the body of that apostle. On this occasion he relates several miraculous punishments for such a rash attempt, all as simply devised as those in his< Dialogues." The same year he warmly opposed John patriarch of Constantinople, for assuming the title of oecumenical or universal, which he himself disclaimed, as having Do right to reduce the other bishops to be his substitutes; and afterwards forbad his nuncio there to communicate with that patriarch, till he should renounce the title. His humility, however, did not keep him from resenting an affront put upon his understanding, as he thought, by the emperor, for proposing terms of peace to the Lombards, who besieged Rome this year: the same year he executed the famous mission into England; and as Brunehaut, queen of France, had been very serviceable in it, he wrote a letter of thanks to her on the occasion. The princess is represented as a profligate woman, but very liberal to the ecclesiastics; founding churches and convents, and even sueing t9 the pope for relics. This was a kind of piety which particularly pleased Gregory; and accordingly, he wrote to the queen several letters, highly commending her conduct in that respect, and carried his complaisance so far as to declare the French happy above all other nations in having such a sovereign. In the year 598, at the request of the Christian people at Caprita, a small island at the bottom of the gulph of Venice, he ordered another bishop to be ordained for that place, in the room of the present prelate, who adhered to the Istrian schism. This was done contrary to the orders of the emperor Maurice, against taking any violent measures with schismatics.

, a learned divine of a different family from the preceding, wus born November 10, 1607, at Agmondesham, in Buckinghamshire. There appeared in his infancy such a strong inclination to learning, as recommended him to the notice of some persons of the best rank in the town; and, his parents being well respected for their piety and honesty, it was resolved to give him a liberal education at the university, the ex pence of which they were not able to support. To this purpose, he was chosen at the age of fifteen, by Dr. Crooke, to go with sir William Drake to Christ church, in Oxford, whom he attended in the station of a servitor, and he was soon after retained by sir Robert Crook in the same capacity; Dr. George MorJey, afterwards bishop of Winchester, was their tutor. Mr. Gregory made the best use of this favour, and applied so closely to his studies, for several years at the rate of sixteen hours each day, that he became almost a prodigy for learning. He took his first degree in arts in 1628, and commenced master in 1631; about which time, entering into orders, the dean, Dr. Brian Duppa, gave him a chaplain’s place in that cathedral. In 1634, he published a second edition of sir Thomas Ridley’s “View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law,” 4to, with notes; which was well received, and afforded the world eminent proofs of his extensive knowledge; the notes shewing him well versed in? historical, ecclesiastical, ritual, and oriental learning, and a considerable master of the Saxon, French, Italian, Spanish, and all the eastern languages. All these acquisitions were the pure fruit of his own industry; for he had no assistance, except for the Hebrew tongue, in which Mr. John Dod, the decalogist, gave him some directions, during one vacation that he resided with him near Banbury. His merit engaged the farther kindness of Dr. Duppa; and, when that prelate was promoted to the bishopric of Chichester in 1638, he made Mr. Gregory his domestic chaplain, and some time after gave him a prebend in that church. His patron also continued his favours after his translation to the see of Salisbury in 1G41, when he seated him in a stall of that cathedral.

, LL. D. an English divine, and miscellaneous writer, was of a Yorkshire family, originally from France. He was born in 1687, and was admitted a pensioner in Jesus college, Cambridge, April 18, 1704, but afterwards removed to Trinity-ball, where he was admitted scholar of the house, Jan. 6, 1706-7; LL. B. 1709 LL. D. 1720; and though he was never fellow of that college, he was elected one of the trustees for Mr. Ayloffe’s benefaction to it. He was rector of Houghton Conquest in Bedfordshire: and vicar of St. Peter’s and St. Giles’s parishes in Cambridge, where he usually passed the winter, and the rest of his time at Ampthill, the neighbouring market-town to his living. He died Nov. 25, 1766, at Ampthill, and was buried at Houghton Conquest. Very little of his history has descended to us. How he spent his life will appear by a list of his works. He is said to have been of a most amiable, sweet, and communicative disposition; most friendly to his acquaintance, and never better pleased than when performing acts of friendship and benevolence. Being in the commission of the peace, and a man of reputable character, he was much courted for his interest in elections. He was not, however, very active on those occasions, preferring literary retirement. His works were, 1. “A Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to Mr. Pearce’s Vindication of the Dis^ senters; by a Presbyter of the Church of England.” 1720, 8vo. 2. “Presbyterian Prejudice displayed,” 1722, 8vo. 3. “A pair of clean Shoes and Boots for a Dirty Baronet; or an answer to Sir Richard Cox,” 1722. 4. “The Knight of Dumbleton foiled at his own weapons, &c. In a Letter to Sir Richard Cocks, knt. By a Gentleman and no Knight,” 1723. 5. “A Century of eminent Presbyterians: or a Collection of Choice Sayings, from the public sermons before the two houses, from Nov. 1641 to Jan. 31, 1648, the day after the king was beheaded. By a Lover of Episcopacy,” 1723, 6. “A Letter of Thanks to Mr. Benjamin Bennet,” 1723. This Bennet published “A memorial of the Reformation,” full of gross prejudices against the established church, and “A defence of it.” 7. “A Caveat against Mr. Benj. Bennet, a mere pretender to history and criticism. By a lover of history,” 1724, 8vo. 8. “A Defence of our ancient and modern Historians against the frivolous cavils of a late pretender to. Critical History, in which the false quotations smd unjust inferences of the anonymous author are confuted and exposed in the manner they deserve, la two parts,” 1725, 4vo. In reply, Oldmixon, the critical historian alluded to, published “A Review of Dr. Zachary Grey’s Defence of our ancient and modern historians. Wherein, instead of dwelling upon his frivolous cavils, false quotations, unjust inferences, &c it is proved (to his glory be it spoken) that there is not a book in the English tongue, which contains so many falsehoods in so many pages. Nori vitiosus homo es, Zachary, sed vitium. By the author,” &c. y. “An Appendix by way of Answer to the Critical Historian’s Review,” 1725. 10. * f A Looking-glass for Fanatics, or the true picture of Fanaticism; by a gentleman of the university of Cambridge,“1725. 11.” The Ministry of the Dissenters proved to be null and void from Scripture and antiquity,“1725. 12. In 1732 he wrote a preface to his relation dean Moss’s sermons,” by a learned hand.“Mr. Masters in his history of C. C. C. C. ascribes this to Dr. Snape, who might perhaps have been editor of the sermons, but it was written by Dr. Grey. 13.” The spirit of Infidelity detected, in answer to Barbeyrac, with a defence of Dr. Waterland,“1735, 8vo. 14.” English Presbyterian eloquence. By an admirer of monarchy and episcopacy,“1736, 8vo. 15.” Examination of Dr. Chandler’s History of Persecution,“1736, 8vo. 16.” The true picture of Quakerism,“1736. 17.” Caveat against the Dissenters,“1736, 8vo. 18.” An impartial Examination of the second volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans,“1736, 8vo. The first volume of Neal had been examined by Dr. Madox, assisted in some degree by Dr. Grey, who published his examination of the third volume in 1737, and that of the fourth in 1739. J 9.” An examination of the fourteenth chapter of Sir Isaac Newton’s Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel,“1736, 8vo. This is in answer to sir Isaac’s notion of the rise of Saintworship. 20.” An attempt towards the character of the Royal Martyr, king Charles I.; from authentic vouchers,“1738. 21.” Schismatics delineated from authentic vouchers, in reply to Neal, with Dowsing' s Journal, &c. By Philalethes Cantabrigiensis,“1739, 8vo. 22.” The Quakers and Methodists compared,“&c. 1740. 23.” A Review of Mr. Daniel Neil’s History of the Puritans, with a Postscript. In a letter to Mr. David Jennings;“a pamphlet, Cambridge, 174-4. 24.” Hudibras with large annotations, and a prelate,“&c. 1744, 2 vols. 8vo. 2b.” A serious address to Lay Methodists: by a sincere Protestant,“1745, 8vo. 27.” Popery in its proper colours, with a list of Saints invocated in England before the Reformation,“17, 8vo. 28,” Remarks upon a late edition of Shakspeare, with a long string of emendations borrowed by the celebrated editor from the Oxford edition without acknowledgement. To which is prefixed, a Defence of the late sir Thomas Hanmer, bart. addressed to the rev. Mr. Warburton, preacher of Lincoln’s-Inn,“8vo, no date, but about 1745. 29.” A word or two of Advice to William Warburton, a dealer in many words; by a friend. With an Appendix, containing a taste of William’s Spirit of Railing,“1746, 8vo. 30.” A free and familiar Letter to that great refiner of Pope and Shakspeare, the rev. William Warburton, preacher at Lincoln’s-Inn. With Remarks upon the epistle of friend W. E. (query if not T. E. i. e. Thomas Edwards). In which his unhandsome treatment of this celebrated writer is exposed in the manner it deserves. By a Country Curate,“1750, 8vo, 31.” A Supplement to Hudibras,“1752, 8vo. 32.” Critical, historical, and explanatory notes on Shakspeare, with emendations on the text and metre,“1755, 2 vols. 8vo. 33.” Chronological account of Earthquakes,“1757, 8vo. In 1756 he assisted iVIr. Whalley in his edition of Shakspeare; he had also contributed to Mr. Peck’s” Desiderata,“and” Life of Cromwell," and collected some materials for a Life of Baker, the Cambridge antiquary, which were afterwards enlarged and published by the rev. Robert Masters. Dr. Grey left some other Mss. and a collection of letters, now in Mr. Nichols’s possession.

, a poet of considerable rank in his time, was a native of Huntingdonshire, and received the first part of his academical education at Christ’s college in Cambridge, where he became B. A. in 1539 or 1540. Removing to Oxford in 1542, he was elected fellow of Merton college; but, about 1547, having opened a rhetorical lecture in the refectory of Christ church, then newly founded, he was transplanted to that society, which gave the greatest encouragement to such students as were distinguished for their proficiency in criticism and philology. The same year he wrote a Latin tragedy, which probably was acted in the college, entitled “Archipropheta, sive Joannes Baptista,” dedicated to the dean, Richard Cox, and printed Colon. 1548, 8vo. In 1548, he explained all the four books of Virgil’s Georgics in a regular prose Latin paraphrase, in the public hall of his college, which was printed at London in 1591, 8vo. He wrote also explanatory commentaries, or lectures, on the <c Andria“of Terence, the Epistles of Horace, and many pieces of Cicero, perhaps for the same auditory. He translated Tully’s Offices into English, which he dedicated to the learned Thirlby, bishop of Ely, printed at London, 1553, 8vo, and reprinted in 1574 and 1596. He also made translations from some of the Greek classics; but these, Mr. Warton thinks, were never published; among others was the” Cyropaedia.“Bale mentions some plays and poems, but not with sufficient precision to enable us to know whether they were in Latin or English. It is allowed, however, that he was the second English poet after lord Surrey who wrote in blank verse, and added to Surrey’s style new strength, elegance, and modulation. In the disposition and conduct of his cadences, says our poetical historian, he often approaches to the legitimate structure of the improved blank verse, although he is not quite free from those dissonancies and asperities, which in his time adhered to the general character and state of English diction. Both Mr. Warton and Mr. Ellis have given specimens of his poetry from” The Songes written by N. G.“annexed to the” Songes and Soanettes of uncertain Auctours“in TottelPs edition of lord Surrey’s Poems (reprinted in the late edition of the English poets). As a writer of verses in rhyme, Mr. Warton thinks that Grimbold yields to none of his contemporaries, for a masterly choice of chaste expression, and the concise elegancies of didactic versification; and adds that some of the couplets in his” Praise of Measure-keeping,“or moderation, have all the smartness which mark the modern style of sententious poetry, and would have done honour to Pope’s ethic epistles. It is supposed that he died about 1563. Wood and Tanner, and after them, Warton, are decidedly of opinion that he is the same person, called by Strype” one Grimbold," who was chaplain to bishop Ridley, and who was employed by that prelate while in prison, to translate into English Laurentius Valla’s book against the fiction of Constantine’s Donation, with some other popular Latin pieces against the papists. In Mary’s reign, it is said that he was imprisoned for heresy, and saved his life by recantation. This may be true of the Grimbold mentioned by Strype, but we doubt whether he be the same with our poet, who is mentioned in high terms by Bale, on account of his zeal for the reformed doctrines, without a syllable of his apostacy, which Bale must have known, and would not have concealed.

Thus distinguished in the university, his merit was observed by Hid ley, bishop of London, who made him his chaplain in 1550; perhaps by the recommendation of Bucer, the king’s professor of divinity at Cambridge, who soon after his removal to London, in a letter to that prelate, styles our divine “a person eminent for his learning and piety.” And thus a door being opened to him into church -preferments, he rose by quick advances. tiis patron the bishop was so much pleased with him, that he designed for him the prebend of Cantrilles, in St. Paul’s church, and wrote to the council (some of whom had procured it for furnishing the king’s stables) for leave to give this living, as he says, “to his well deserving chaplain, who was without preferment, and to whom he would grant it with all his heart, that so he might have him continually with him and in his diocese to preach,” adding, that “he was known to be both of virtue, honesty, discretion, wisdom, and learning.” What effect this application had does not appear, but the praecentor’s place becoming vacant soon after, his lordship on August 24, 1551, collated him to that office, which was of much greater value, and likewise procured him to be made one of his majesty’s chaplains, with the usual salary of 40l. in December of the same year. On July 2, 1552, he obtained a stall in Westminster-abbey; which, however, he resigned to Dr. Bonner, whom he afterwards succeeded in the bishopric of London. In the mean time, there being a design on the death of Dr. Tonstall, to divide the rich see of Durham into two, Grindal was nominated lor one of these, and would have obtained it, had not one of the courtiers got the whole bishopric dissolved, and settled as a temporal estate upon himself.

, an English prelate, and the most learned ecclesiastic of his time, was born probably about 1175, of obscure parents at Stradbrook in Suffolk. He studied at Oxford, where he laid the foundation of his skill in the Greek tongue, and was thus enabled to make himself master of Aristotle, whose works had been hitherto read only in translations: at Oxford too he acquired a knowledge of the Hebrew. He afterwards went to Paris, where he prosecuted his studies of Greek and Hebrew, and made himself master of French. Here he also studied the divinity and philosophy of the age, his proficiency in which was so remarkable as to draw upon him the suspicion of being a magician. At Oxford, on his return, he became celebrated as a divine, and was the first lecturer in the Franciscan school in that university. In 1235 he was elected, by the dean and chapter, bishop of Lincoln, which see was then, and continues still, the largest in England, although Ely, Oxford, and Peterborough have been since taken from it. Grosseteste, who was of an ardent and active spirit, immediately undertook to reform abuses, exhorting 'both clergy and people to religious observances, and perhaps would have been in a considerable degree successful, had he not confided too much in the Dominican and Franciscan friars, as his helpers in the good work. But they being appointed by him to preach to the people, hear their confessions, and enjoin penance, abused these op-­portunities by exercising dominion over the superstitious minds of the laity, and enriched themselves at their expence. Although, however, the hypocrisy of the Dominicans and Franciscans in this instance escaped his penetration, he could not be deceived in the dissolute character and ignorance of the more ancient orders, and was very strict in his visitations, and very severe in his censures of their conduct. Partly through this sense of his duty, and his love of justice, and partly from his warmth of temper, he was frequently engaged in quarrels with convents, and other agents of the pope. At one time he was even excommunicated by the convent of Canterbury; but treating this with contempt, he continued to labour in promoting piety, and redressing abuses with his usual zeal, firmness, and perseverance. Although the friars continued to be his favourites, and he rebuked the rectors and vicars of his diocese, because they neglected to hear them preach, and be^ cause they discouraged the people from attending and confessing to them, in time he began to see more clearly into the character of those ecclesiastics. In 1247, two English Francisqans were sent into England with credentials to extort money for the pope; and when they applied, with some degree of insolence, to Grosseteste, for six thousand marks, as the contribution for the diocese of Lincoln, he answered them that (with submission to his holiness), the demand was as dishonourable as impracticable; that the whole body of the clergy and people were concerned in it as well as himself; and that for him to give a definitive answer in an instant to such a demand, before the sense of the kingdom was taken upon it, would be rash and absurd.

Few authors, ancient or modern, ever mention bishop Grosseteste without an eulogium, and from the many evidences brought by his biographer, he appears to have excelled all his contemporaries in learning, piety, judgment, and conscientious integrity in the discharge of his episcopal duties, and to have powerfully aided in producing what we may term the preliminaries of that reformation which was afterwards to take place in a church so corrupt, and so weak, that even at this time it was not able to support itself against the arguments of one English prelate, a point of religion, the papists are very desirous of having bishop Grosseteste for their own; and it must be acknowledged that he was much with them doctrinally, and at first entertained a high opinion of the power of the keys, and the personal authority of the pope; but at last, in a case manifestly unscriptural and injurious to the welfare of religion, he openly contemned it, and did not even regard dying in a state of excommunication. He had also at one time conceived a most elevated idea of the hierarchy in general, thinking it superior to the regal dignity. To this he was led, exceeding in this respect even Becket himself, by the authority of the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and this is the best excuse that can be made for him; the blindness of the times being sucb, that men of the best learning, and the greatest acuteness, had not critical skill sufficient, though this be the first and proper object of criticism, to distinguish a spurious composition from the true word of God. But, however, he afterwards changed his mind in regard to the hierarchy. Had he lived in more enlightened times, when points formerly taken fur granted as principles not to be controverted, were more maturely canvassed and considered, his ideas on many religious topics would have been greatly enlarged, and he would not have been at all averse to a separation from a church so venal and corrupt as that of Home, nor to a reformation both of her doctrines and discipline.

For a list of his works, both published, which are but few, and unpublished, we must necessarily refer to Dr. Pegge-'s elaborate life of our prelate, where it occupies twenty-five closely printed pages in quarto. It is thought Grosseteste was the most voluminous writer of any Englishman, at least wrote more tracts, and on a greater variety of subjects, than any one. Archbishop Williams had once an intention of collecting them for publication; but as Dr. Pegge has very justly remarked, it is not much to be regretted that the design was not executed,when we consider the superior light and knowledge of our times, and how much better every thing is understood. His style is copious and verbose, and bordering frequently upon turgidity, abounding with uncouth words, which, though formed analogically, are yet new, and not very pleasing to a reader of the classics; but he expresses himself in general very intelligibly, particularly in his books “De Sphaera” and “De Cessatione Legalium.” He proceeds also in his compositions very methodically and perspicuously.

The late bishop Kurd’s mode of accounting for the apparent inconsistencies in the religious principles of Grotius, is the most favourable we have yet seen, and not improbable. “Grotius,” says that learned prelate, " is justly esteemed among the ablest and most learned men of an age that abounded in ability and learning. Besides his other shining talents, his acquaintance with history was extensive; and his knowledge of Scripture profound. And yet with two such requisites for unlocking the true sense of the prophetic writings, this excellent man undertook to prove in form, that the pope was not antichrist. The account of this mischance is as extraordinary as the mischance itself. The moral qualities of Grotius were still more admirable than his intellectual; and its these qualities we shall find the true spring of his unhappy and misapplied pains on the subject before us. He was in his own nature just, candid, benevolent, to a supreme degree; and the experience of an active turbulent life had but fortified him the more in a love of those pacific virtues. He was, on principle, a sincere and zealous Christian; and consequently impressed With a clue sense of that exalted charity which is the characteristic of that religion but he had seen and felt much of the mischiefs which proceed from theological quarrels and thus every thing concurred to make him a friend to peace, and above all, to peace among Christians. An union of the catholic and protestant churches seemed necessary to this end; and the apparent candour, whether real or affected, of some learned persons, whom he had long known and valued in the church of Rome, drew him into the belief that such a project was not impracticable. Henceforth it became the ruling object of his life; and permitting himself too easily to conclude that the protestant doctrine of antichrist was the sole or principal obstruction to the union desired, he bent all the efforts of his wit and learning to discredit and overthrow that doctrine. Thus was this virtuous man betrayed by the wisdom and equity of his own character; and I know not if the observation of the moral poet can be so justly applied to any other:

, a German prelate and naturalist, was born at Christiana, in Norway, in 1718. He was educated at the public school of Christiana, and in 1737 removed to Copenhagen, where he pursued his studies with great success. In 1742 he began the study of theology, philosophy, and mathematics in the university of Halle, and in 1754 was invited to be extraordinary professor of theology at Copenhagen, preacher at Herlufsholm, and lecturer in theology and the Hebrew language in the public school of that place. Shortly after this, he was ordained priest at Copenhagen, and in 1758 was appointed by his majesty Frederic V. bishop of Drontheim. He was the founder of the royal Norwegian society at Drontheim, of which he was elected vice-president, and in the Transactions of which, he published several curious and useful papers on subjects of natural history. He was a zealous student in botany, and so highly esteemed by Linnæus, that he gave the name of Gunnera to a plant in his system. He was enrolled among the members of the academies of Stockholm, Copenhagen, and other learned societies. He published “Flora Norvegica,” in two parts, fol. 1766, &c. containing 1118 species, to each of which are added the medical uses. The author died in 1773.

Thus acquitted she returned to Paris, not thinking of any further prosecution.; but all these attestations and submissions were not sufficient to allay the storm, and she soon found herself involved in the prosecution or rather persecution of the archbishop of Cambray. This amiable prelate, when Bossuet desired his approbation of the book he had composed, in answer to madame Guyon’s sentiments, not only refused it, but openly declared that this pious woman had been treated with great partiality and injustice, and that the censures of her adversary were unmerited and groundless. Fenelon also, in the same year, published a book, in which he adopted several of the tenets of madame Guyon, and especially that favourite doctrine of the mystics, which teaches that the love of the Supreme Being must be pure and disinterested, that is, exempt from all views of interest and all hope of reward. What followed with respect to the archbishop may be seen in another place (art. Fenelon); but madame Guyon was imprisoned before the expiration of 1695, in the castle of Vincennes, whence she was removed to a convent, and afterwards sent to the Bastille, where she underwent many rigorous examinations, and continued in prison as a criminal till the meeting of the general assembly of the clergy of France in 1700, when nothing being proved against her, she was released. After this she went first to the castle belonging to her children, whence she was permitted to retire to Blois, the next town to that castle.

, a very eminent, pious, and learned English prelate, was born July 1, 1574, in Bristow-park, within the parish of Ashby de la Zouch, in Leicestershire. His father was an officer to Henry earl of Huntingdon, then president of the North, and under him had the government of that town, which was the chief seat of the earldom. His mother was of the family of the Bembridge’s, and according to his own account, a woman of great piety. His parents had twelve children, and therefore, although disposed to bring up Joseph for the church, were inclined from motives of oeconomy to confine his education to the care of a private tutor. But Mr. Gilby, fellow of Emanuel college, hearing of this design, represented its disadvantages in such a manner to Mr. Hall’s eldest son, that the latter importuned his father that Joseph might be sent to the university, and generously offered to sacrifice part of his inheritance, rather than prevent his brother from enjoying the advantages of academical education. His father, struck with this mark of brotherly affection, declared that, whatever it might cost him, Joseph should be sent to the university.

ter known than the prelate or the pole-Hist, of Poetry, and the Life of Hall in

On the 15th of November, 1641, he was translated, by the little power now left to the king, to be bishop of Norwich; but on the 30th of December following, having joined with the archbishop of York, and eleven other prelates, in a protest against the validity of such laws as should be made during their compelled absence from parliament, he was ordered to be sent to the Tower with his brethren on the 30th of January, 1641-2. Shortly after, they were impeached by the commons of high treason, and on their appearance in parliament were treated with the utmost rudeness and contempt. The commons, however, did not think fit to prosecute the charge of high treason, having gained their immediate purpose by driving them from the house of lords, and he and his brethren were ordered to be dismissed; but upon another pretext they were again sent to the Tower, and it was not until June following that he was finally released on giving bail for 5000l. He immediately returned to Norwich, and being received with rather more respect than could be hoped for in the then state of popular opinion, he resumed his functions, frequently preaching, as was his custom, to crowded audiences, and enjoying the forbearance of the predominant party till the beginning of April, 1643, when the destruction of the church could no longer be delayed. About this time, the ordinance for sequestering notorious delinquents having passed, and our prelate being included by name, a distinction which his writings and his popularity had merited, all his rents were stopped, even the half-year then due; and a few days after, the sequestrators entered his palace, and began the work of devastation with unfeeling brutality, seizing at the same time all his property real and personal. Some notion of their proceedings may be formed from his own brief account.

His works were published at various periods in folio, quarto, and duodecimo. They have lately been collected w a very handsome, correct, and well-arranged edition, by the rev. Josias Pratt, in 10 vols. 8vo. The “Meditations” have been often reprinted. As a moralist he has been entitled the Christian Seneca; his knowledge of the world, depth of thought, and elegance of expression, place him nearer our own times than many of his contemporaries, while he adorned his age by learning, piety, and the uniform exercise of all the Christian graces. It would, indeed, be difficult to mention a prelate of more excellent character, or one, of his time, whose talents and sufferings, whose zeal in prosperity, and courage in adversity, deserve more honourable mention.

, a learned English prelate, was born at Mansfield in Derbyshire, Jan. 18, 1733. He was the eldest son of Mr. Samuel Hallifax, apothecary, by Hannah, daughter of Mr. Jebb, of Mansfield, by which alliance our author became first cousin of the late sir Richard, and Dr. John Jebb. He was admitted of Jesus college, Cambridge, where he distinguished himself in his academical exercises, and he was in the list of wranglers, as they are called, and obtained the chancellor’s gold medal forclassical learning, and some prize dissertations. He proceeded A. B. in 1744, and A.M. in 1747, and afterwards removed to Trinity Hall (where are only two fellowships in divinity), and proceeded LL.D. in 1761. In Nov. 1765 he was presented to the rectory of Chaddington, in Buckinghamshire, and in 1768 was elected professor of Arabic in the university of Cambridge, which he resigned in 1770 on being made regius professor of civil law. In February 1774 he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; in 1775 was created D. D. by royal mandate, and on the death of Dr. Topham succeeded him as master of the faculties in Doctors Commons. From Mrs. Galley, relict of Dr. Galley, prebendary of Gloucester, he received, without any solicitation on his part, but merely as a reward for his eminent services in the cause of religion, the valuable rectory of Warsop, in Nottinghamshire, in 1778. In 1781 he was advanced to the see of Gloucester, and thence was translated to the see of St. Asaph in 1787, being the first English bishop that was translated to that see, and the second that was translated to a bishopric in North Wales. He died of the stone, March 4, 1790, when only fifty-seven years of age. He married one of the daughters of Dr. Cooke, provost of King’s college, Cambridge, who wrote the elegant epitaph on his monument in the church of Warsop, where bishop Hallifax was buried at his own desire, near a favourite son who was interred there. By his wife he left another son and six daughters.

Bishop Hallifax published at various times, fourteen sermons, preached on occasional subjects; an “Analysis of the Roman Civil Law compared with the Laws of England, being the heads of a course of lectures publicly read in the university of Cambridge,” 1774, 8vo; Twelve Sermons on the Prophecies concerning the Christian Religion, and in particular concerning the church of Papal Home, preached in Lincoln’s Inn chapel, at bishop Warburton’s lecture," 1776, 8vo. He published also an excellent analysis of bishop Butler’s Analogy annexed to a charge of that prelate and was the editor of Dr. Ogden’s Sermons. He was a man of great ability, an excellent civilian, and a very acute and elegant public speaker.

, a learned English prelate, successively bishop of Chichester and Norwich, and archbishop of York, the son of William Harsnet, a baker at Colchester, was born in that town, and baptised June 20, 1561. He was probably sent to the free-school of Colchester, but was admitted Sept. 8, 1576, of King’s college, Cambridge, whence he removed to Pembroke-hall, of which he became a scholar, and was elected fellow Nov. 27, 1583. He took his degree of B.A. in 1580, and that of M. A. in 15'84. Three years after, in March 1586-7, he was elected master of the free-school in Colchester, but, preferring the prosecution of his studies at Cambridge, he resigned this office in November 1588, and returned to Pembrdke-hall, where he studied divinity, in which indeed he had made great progress before, and had been admitted into holy orders, as appears by a sermon preached by him at St. Paul’s cross, Oct. 27, 1584, on the subject of predestination. In 1592 he served the office of proctor, and five years after became chaplain to Dr. Bancroft, bishop of London, by whose favour he obtained the rectory of St. Margaret Fish-street, London, which he resigned in 1604; and the vicarage of Chigwell in Essex, which he resigned in 1605, but continued to reside at Chigwell, where he had purchased a house and estate, now the property and residence of his descendant Mrs. Fisher. In 1598 he was collated to the prebend of Mapesbury in St. Paul’s, and Jan. 1602 to the archdeaconry of Essex, all in bishop Bancroft’s disposal. In April 1604, sir Thomas Lucas of Colchester presented him to the rectory of Shenfield in that county. The year following, upon the resignation of bishop Andrews, he was chosen master of Pembroke-hall, which he held until 1616, when he resigned in consequence of the society having exhibited to the king an accusation branching into fifty-seven articles. Many of these, Le Neve says, were scandalous, and the proof evident; but, as Le Neve was iiot able to procure a sight of tHem, we are not enabled to judge. They do not, however, appear to have injured his interest at court. He had been consecrated bishop of Chichester in 1609, and was now, in 1619, three years after he quitted Pembroke-hall, translated to Norwich, on the death of Dr. Overall. In 1624 we find him again accused in the house of commons of “putting down preaching setting up images praying to the east;” and other articles which appear to have involved him with the puritans of his diocese, but which he answered to the satisfaction of the parliament as well as of the court. On the death of Dr. Montague, he was translated to the archbishopric of York in 1628, and in Nov. 1629, was sworn of the privy council. These dignities, however, he did not enjoy long, dying atMorton-on-the-marsh, Gloucestershire, while on a journey, May 25, 1631. He was buried at Chigwell church, agreeably to his own desire, where his effigies is still to be seen fixed on the north side of the chancel, against the wall. He left several charitable legacies and a year or two before his death founded and endowed a free school at Chigwell, and some alms-houses the history of his school may be seen in Lysons’s “Environs.” He bequeathed his library to the corporation of Colchester for the use of the clergy. Besides the sermon above noticed, the only other occasion on which Dr. Harsnet appeared as a writer, was in writing some pamphlets to expose the impostures of one John Darrell, who pretended to have the power of casting out devils. Bishop Harsnet’s character, from what we have related, appears to be equivocal it is said he was equally an enemy to puritanism and to popery and, according to Fuller, was the first who used the expression conformable puritans, i. e. those who conformed out of policy, and yet dissented in their judgments.

, bishop of Durham. Of this great prelate we meet with few accounts previous to his promotion to the see of Durham, except his being a prebendary of Lincoln and York, and secretary to Edward III. by whom he appears to have been much esteemed. Before this time the popes had for many years taken upon them the authority of bestowing all the bishoprics in England, without even consulting the king: this greatly offended the nobility and parliament, who enacted several statutes against it, and restored to the churches and convents their ancient privilege of election. Richard de Bury, bishop of Durham, dying April 24, 1345, king Edward was very desirous of obtaining this see for his secretary Hatfield; but, fearing the convent should not elect, and the pope disapprove him, he applied to his holiness to bestow the bishopric upon him, and thereby gave him an opportunity of resuming his former usurpations. Glad of this, and of obliging the king, and showing his power at the same time, the pope immediately accepted him; objections, however, were made against him by some of the cardinals, as a man of light behaviour, and no way fit for the place; to this the pope answered, that if the king of England had requested him for an ass, he would not at that time have denied him: he was therefore elected the 8th of May, and consecrated bishop of Durham, 10th of July, 1345.

What his former behaviour, on which the cardinals grounded their objections, may have been, is uncertain; but it is scarce to be imagined, that a king of Edward’s judgment and constant inclination to promote merit, would have raised him to such a dignity had he been so undeserving; nor would he have employed him in so many affairs of consequence as he appears to have done had he not been capable of executing them. In 1346, David king of Scotland, at the head of 50,000 men, invaded England, and after plundering and destroying the country wherever he came, encamped his army in Bear-park, near Stanhope, 141 the county of Durham, from which he detached parties to ravage the neighbouring country; to repel these invaders, a great number of the northern noblemen armed all their vassals, and came to join the king, who was then at Durham; from thence they marched against the Scots in four separate bodies, the first of which was commanded by lord Percy and bishop Hatfield, who on this occasion assumed the warrior, as well as several other prelates. The Scots were defeated, and their king taken prisoner. In 13 54 the bishop of Durham and lords Percy and Ralph Nevill were appointed commissioners to treat with the Scots for the ransom of their captive monarch. In 1355, when king Edward went into France at the head of a large army, he was attended by our prelate; to whom, however, It is more important to mention, that Trinity college, in Oxford, owed its foundation; it was at first called Durham college, and was originally intended for such monks of Durham as should chuse to study there, more particulars of which may be seen in Warton’s Anglia Sacra. Wood, in his Annals, relates the matter somewhat differently. At the dissolution it was granted, in 1552, to Dr. Owen, who sold it to sir Thomas Pope, by whom it was refounded^ endowed, and called Trinity college. Before Hatfield’s time, the bishops of Durham had no house in London to repair to when summoned to parliament; to remedy this, this munificent prelate built a most elegant palace in the Strand, and called it Durham-house (lately Durham-yard), and by his will bequeathed it for ever to his successors in the bishopric. This palace continued in possession of the bishops till the reformation, when it was, in the fifth of Edward VI. demised to the princess Elizabeth. In the fourth of Mary it was again granted to bishop Tunstall and his successors, and afterwards let out on a building lease, with the reservation of 200l. a year out-rent, which the bishop now receives. On this pfat of ground the Adelphi buildings are erected.

, a distinguished English prelate, was born in the year 1691, at Walsoken in Norfolk. His father, John Herring, was then rector of that place; and Dr. John Carter, afterwards fellow of Eton, having at that time the care of the school of Wisbeach, in the Isle of Ely, Mr. Herring placed his son under his care. Here our young student continued till June 21, 1710, when he was admitted into Jesus college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Richard Warren, afterwards D. D. rector of Cavendish, and archdeacon of Suffolk. In this college he took the degree of bachelor of arts; but there being no prospect of his succeeding to a fellowship, he removed in July 1714, to Corpus Christ! college, and was made a fellow of that seat of learning on the resignation of Mr. Peane in April 1716. The same year he was ordained deacon, and the year following commenced master of arts, and took upon him the charge of pupils.

, another Romish saint of that name, bishop of Aries, was born in the year 401, of rich and noble parents, and educated under St. Honoratus, abbot of Lerins. When Honoratus was promoted to the see of Aries, Hilarius, afterwards his successor, attended him, and when he was himself promoted to that dignity, beheld several councils, and presided in that at Rome in 441. In consequence of some false accusations, he was partly degraded by pope Leo, but his merit was afterwards fully perceived by that prelate. He died at the age of 48, May 5, 449, and although so young, was yet worn out by his ecclesiastical labours. In sentiments he was a Semi-Pelagian, yet he bore the highest character for piety, and all virtues. His works are, 1. “Homilies,” under the name of Eusebius of Emesa, which are in the library of the fathers. 2. “The Life of St. Honpratus,” his predecessor, Paris, 1578, 8vo; 3. Various smaller works, but no collection has been made of them.

, a worthy prelate, appears by his pedigree given by his biographer, compared with that of the preceding Mr. Hildersham, to have been descended in the same line from the royal family of England, but as this circumstance seems to have escaped Mr. Butler’s notice, we are unable to say whether the name Hildersham and Hildesley were originally the same. It is certain that Hildersham occurs in t:ie descents in cardinal Pole’s pedigree, and that Hildesley does not. The subject of this article was the eldest surviving son of the rev. Mark Hildesley, rector of the valuable living of Houghton, held with the chapel of Witton, or Wyton All Saints, in the county of Huntingdon, who died in 1729. He was born Dec. 9, 1698, at Murston, near Sittingbourne, in Kent, of which his father was at that time rector. He was educated at the Charter-house, and at the age of nineteen was sent to Trinity-college, Cambridge, where he to >k his degree of A. B. in 1720, and of A. M. in 1724-, having been elected a fellow the year preceding. He was ordained deacon in 1722 and in 172.1 was appointed domestic chaplain to lord Cobham. In 1725 he was nominated a preacher at Whitehall, by Dr. Gibson, bishop of London; and from 1725 to 1729 held the curacy of Yelling in Huntingdonshire. In Feb. 1731 he was presented by his college to the vicarage of Hitchin in Hertfordshire, and the same year married miss Elizabeth Stoker, with whom he lived in the utmost conjugal airection for upwards of thirty years, but by whom it does not appear that he had any issue.

At first, with the sanction and support of the society, Dn Hildesley printed only the New Testament; the “Book of Common Prayer” translated, untler his direction, by the clergy of his diocese; “The Christian Monitor;” Mr. Lewis’s “Exposition of the Catechism,” and bishop Wilson’s “Form of Prayer” for the use of the Herring-fishery. But the benefactions came in so far beyond their expectation, that about 1766 they were encouraged to set on foot a Manks version of the Old Testament, which had scarcely, been accomplished, when the good prelate’s health, which was always delicate, showed alarming symptoms of approaching dissolution, and although he had alternations of apparent recovery, and in June 1772 had gained firmness enough to visit his hospital near Durham, yet his usual vivacity was visibly much reduced, and application to business of any kind proved rather irksome. This continued till about the middle of November following, when he was ao-ain enabled to dispatch common affairs without apparent fatio-ue. and performed the duties of his ministerial office with ereat alacrity. On Saturday, Nov. 28, he received the last part of the translation of the Bible, so long the sbject of his ardent prayers upon which occasion, accord in'g to his own repeated promise, he very emphatically sang Nunc, Dentine, Dimtitis, in the presence of his congratulating family. Next Sunday he officiated in his own chapel, and preached “on the uncertainty of human life,” which subject he repeated in private exhortation to his family in the evening. On the Monday following, Nov. 30, after dining and cheerfully conversing in his palace, with his family and one of the neighbouring clergy around him, he was seized with a stroke of apoplexy on the left side, which in a moment deprived him of his intellectual powers, and in that situation he remained, until Dec. 7, when he calmly expired, deeply regretted by the clergy and inhabitants of his diocese, to whom his amiable manners and active benevolence had endeared him. In the work to which we are indebted for the particulars of this sketch, may be found many proofs of his piety, liberality, and anxiety for the best concerns of his flock. A narrative, indeed, like that of Mr. Butler’s, strengthened by so much authentic and minute information, and interesting correspondence, cannot be too frequently consulted by the junior clergy. Bishop Hildesley is known as an author, only by a small tract which he published without his name, entitled “Plain Instructions for young persons in the principles of the Christian religion in six conferences, between a minister and his disciple designed for the use of the isle and diocese of Mann. By a resident clergyman,” in two parts, 1762 and 1767.

, a learned English gentleman, fellow and treasurer of the royal society, one of the lords of trade, and comptroller to the archbishop of Canterbury, was descended of an ancient and honourable family of that name, seated at Shilston, in Devonshire, and was the son of Richard Hill, of Shilston, esq. His father was bred to mercantile business, which he pursued with great success, was chosen an alderman of London, and v.as much in the confidence of the Long-parliament, and of Cromwell and his statesmen. Abraham, his eldest son, was born April 18, 1633, at his father’s house, in St. Botolph’s parish by Billingsgate, and after a proper education, was introduced into his business. He was also an accomplished scholar in the Greek, Latin, French, Dutch, and Italian languages, and was considered as one of very superior literary attainments. On his father’s death in 1659, he became possessed of an ample fortune, and that he might, with more ease, prosecute his studies, he hired chambers in Gresham college, where he had an opportunity of conversing with learned men, and of pursuing natural philosophy, to which he was much attached. He was one of the first eucouragers of the royal society, and on its first institution became a fellow, and in 1663 their treasurer, which office he held for two years. His reputation, in the mean time, was not confined to his native country, but by means of the correspondence of his learned friends, was known over most part of Europe. Having, like his father, been biassed in favour of the republican party from which he recovered by time and reflection, his merit was in consequence overlooked during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. but on the accession of king William, he was called to a seat at the board of trade, where his knowledge of the subject made his services of great importance; and when Dr. Tillotson was promoted to the see of Canterbury in 1691, he prevailed on Mr. Hill to take on him the office of his comptroller, which he accordingly accepted, and lived in Jiigh favour with that distinguished prelate, who would frequently term him “his learned friend and his instructing philosopher.” On the accession of queen Anne, Mr. Hill resigned his office in the Board of Trade, and retired to his seat of St. John’s in Sutton, at Hone in the county of Kent, which he had purchased in 1665, and which was always his favourite residence. Here he died Feb. 5, 1721. In 1767 a volume of his “Familiar Letters” was published, which gives us a very favourable idea of his learning, public spirit, and character; and although the information these letters contain is not of such importance now as when written, there is always an acknowledged charm in unreserved epistolary correspondence, which makes the perusal of this and all such collections interesting.

, a learned English prelate, was born in Swallow-street, Westminster, in 1731, where his father was in the humble employment of a stable-keeper. He was educated, however, at Westminster-school at the same time with Smith and Vincent, who were afterwards his successors in the headship of that celebrated academy. In 1750 he was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1754, and about the same time became usher of Westminster-school, then entered into holy orders, and officiated as morning preacher of South Audley street chapel. He continued in these employments (taking his master’s degree in 1757) until 1760, when he travelled into Germany, Italy, and France with Mr. Crewe, afterwards member of parliament for Cheshire, who, when returned from his tour, settled on Dr. Hinchliffe three hundred pounds a year, and made him his domestic chaplain. With this gentleman the doctor lived, with the attention and respect which were justly due to his merit. During his residence in Italy, where he conducted himself in every respect agreeable to his station and character, he was favoured with an introduction to the ]ate duke of Grafton, who had been contemporary with him at Cambridge, and soon after, in 1764, by the interest of his o-race, he was appointed head-master of Westminster schooCon the resignation of Dr. Markham, late archbishop of York, but his ill state of health not being suited to such a laborious employ, he was obliged to resign in a fe‘w months after he had accepted it. He declined several advantageous offers that were made him if he would travel again; and being made very easy in circumstances by the generosity of his friend and pupil, Mr. Crewe, he intended to return and reside at college, when he was solicited by his ’noble patron to undertake for a few years the care of the late duke of Devonshire.

, a prelate celebrated for his controversial talents, was the son of the rev. Samuel Hoadly, who kept a private school many years, and was afterwards master of the public grammar-school at Norwich. He was born at Westerham in Kent, Nov. 14, 1676. In 1691 he was admitted a pensioner of Catherine hall, Cambridge, and after taking his bachelor’s degree, was chosen fellow; and when M. A. became tutor. He took orders under Dr. Compton, bishop of London, and next year quitting his fellowship (vacated most probably by his marriage) he was chosen lecturer of St. Mildred in the Poultry, London, which he held ten years, but does not appear to have been very popular, as he informs us himself that he preached it down to 30l. a-year, and then thought it high time to resign it. This was not, however, his only employment, as in 1702 he officiated at St. Swithin’s in the absence of the rector, and in 1704-was presented to the rectory of St. Peter-le-Poor, Broad-street. By this time he had begun to distinguish himself as a controversial, anthor, and his first contest was;vith Mr. Calamy, the biographer of the non-conformists. Several tracts passed between them, in which Hoadly endeavoured to prove the reasonableness of conformity to the Church of England. How well he was qualified to produce that influence on the non-conformists appears, among other instances, from what the celebrated commentator Matthew Henry says of the eftect of his writings on his own mind-: “I have had much satisfaction this year (1703) in my non-conformity, especially by reading Mr. Hoadly’s books, in which I see a manifest spirit of Christianity unhappily leavened by the spirit of conformity.” In 1705, Hoadly produced his opinions on the subject of civil government, in a sermon before the lord-mayor, and from this time, as he says, “a torrent of angry zeal began to pour itself out upon him.” His attention to this subject was, however, diverted for some time by another controversy into which he entered with Dr. Atterbury. In 1706 he published “Some Remarks on Dr. Atterbury’s Sermon at the Funeral of Mr. Bennet” and two years afterwards c< Exceptions“against another Sermon by the same author, on the power of” Charity to cover Sin.“In 1709, a dispute arose between these combatants, concerning the doctrine of non-resistance, occasioned by the sermon we just mentioned before the lord-mayor, and Hoadly’s defence of it, entitled” The Measures of Obedience;“some positions in which Atterbury endeavoured to confute in a Latin Sermon, preached that year before the London clergy. Hoadly’s politics were at this time so acceptable to the ruling powers, that the house of commons gave him a particular mark of their regard, by representing in an address to the queen, the signal services he had done to the cause of civil and religious liberty. At this time, when his principles were unpopular, (which was indeed the case the greater part of his life), Mrs. Rowland spontaneously presented him to the rectory of Streatham in Surrey. Soon after the accession of George I. his influence at court became so considerable, that he was made bishop of Bangor in 1715, which see, however, from an apprehension of party fury, as was said, he never visited, but still remained in town, preaching against what he considered as the inveterate errors of the clergy. Among other discourses he made at this crisis, one was upon these words,” My kingdom is not of this world:“which, producing the famous Bangoriau controversy, as it was called, employed the press for many years. The manner in which he explained the text was, that the clergy had no pretensions to any temporal jurisdictions; but this was answered by Dr. Snipe; and, in the course of the debate, the argument insensibly changed, from the rights of the clergy to that of princes, in the government of the church. Bishop Hoadly strenuously maintained, that temporal princes had a right to govern in ecclesiastical polities. His most able opponent was the celebrated William Law, who, in some material points, may be said to have gained a complete victory. He was afterwards involved in another dispute with Dr. Hare, upon the nature of prayer: he maintained, that a calm, rational, and dispassionate manner of offering up our prayers to heaven, was the most acceptable method of address. Hare, on the contrary, insisted, that the fervour of zeal was what added merit to the sacrifice; and that prayer, without warmth, and without coining from the heart, was of n > avail. This dispute, like the former, for a time excited many opponents, but has long subsided. From the bishopric of Bangor, he was translated successively to those of Hereford, Salisbury, and Winchester, of which last see he continued bishop more than 26 years. His latter days were in some measure disturbed by a fraud attempted to be practised on him by one Bernard Fournier, a popish convert, who pretended to have received a notc-of-hand from the bishop for the sum of 8800l.; but this was proved in court to be a forgery. It produced the last, and one of the best written of the bishop’s tracts,” A Letter to Clement Chevallier, esq." a gentleman who had too much countenanced F\>urnier in his imposture. This appeared in 1758, when our prelate had completed his eighty-first year. He died April 17, 1761, aged eighty-five, and was buried in Winchester cathedral, where there is an elegant monument to his memory. His first wife was Sarah Curtis, by whom he had two sons, Benjamin, M. D. and John, LL. I) chancellor of Winchester. His second wife was Mary Newey, daughter of the rev. Dr. John Newey, dean of Chichester.

In 1687, his brother’s daughter, Mrs. Grace Hooke, who had lived with him several years, died; and he was so affected at her death, that he hardly ever recovered it, but was observed from that time to grow less active, more melancholy, and, if possible, more cynical than ever. At the same time a chancery-suit, in which he was concerned with sir John Cutler, on account of his salary for reading the Cutlerian lectures, made him very uneasy, and increased his disorder. In 1691, he was employed in forming the plan of the hospital near Hoxton, (bun Jed by Aske, alderman of London, who appointed archbishop Tillotson one of his executors; and in December the same year, Hooke was created M. D. by a warrant from that prelate. He is also said to have been the architect of Bedlam, and the College of Physicians. In July 1696, his chancerysuit for sir John Cutler’s salary was determined in his favour, to his inexpressible satisfaction. His joy on that occasion was found in his diary thus expressed “Domshlgissa that is, Deo Optimo Maximo sit honor, laus, gloria, in saecula saeculorum. Amen. I was born on this day of July, 1635, and God has given me a new birth: may I never forget his mercies to me! whilst he gives me breath may I praise him!” The same year an order was granted to him for repeating most of his experiments, at the expence of the Royal Society, upon a promise of his finishing the accounts, observations, and deductions from them, and of perfecting the description of all the instruments contrived by him, which his increasing illness and general decay rendered him unable to perform. For the two or three last years of his life he is said to have sat night and day at a table, engrossed with his inventions and studies, and never to have gone to bed, or even undressed; and in this wasting condition, and quite emaciated, he died March 3, 1702, at his lodgings in Gresham-college, and was buried in St. Helen’s church, Bishopsgate- street, his corpse being attended by all the members of the Royal Society then in London.

, an eminent English divine, and author of an excellent work, entitled “The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, in eight books,” was born at Heavytree near Exeter, about the end of March 1554. His parents, not being rich, intended him for a trade; but his schoolmaster at Exeter prevailed with them to continue him at school, assuring them, that his natural endowments and learning were both so remarkable, that he must of necessity be taken notice of, and that God would provide him some patron who would free them from any future care or charge about him. Accordingly his uncle John Hooker, the subject of the preceding article, who was then chamberlain of the town, began to notice him; and being known to Jewell, made a visit to that prelate at Salisbury soon after, and “besought him for charity’s sake to look favourably upon a poor nephew of his, whom nature had fitted for a scholar; bill the estate of his parents was so narrow, that they were unable to give him the advantage of learning; and that the bishop therefore would become his patron, and prevent him from being a tradesman, for he was a boy of remarkable hopes.” The bishop examining into his merits, found him to be what the uncle had represented him, and took him immediately under his protection. He got him admitted, in 1567, one of the clerks of Corpus-Christi college in Oxford, and settled a pension on him; which, with the contributions of his uncle, afforded him a very comfortable subsistence. In 1571, Hooker had the misfortune to lose his patron, together with his pension. Providence, however, raised him up two other patrons, in Dr. Cole, then president of the college, and Dr. Edwyn Sandys, bishop of London, and afterwards archbishop of York. To the latter of these Jewell had recommended him so effectually before his death, that though of Cambridge himself, he immediately resolved to send his son Edwyn to Oxford, to be pupil to Hooker, who yet was not much older; for, said he, “I will have a tutor for my son, that shall teach him learning by instruction, and virtue by example.” Hooker had also another considerable pupil, namely, George Cranmer, grand nephew to Cranmer the archbishop and martyr; with whom, as well as with Sandys, he cultivated a strict and lasting friendship. In 1573, he was chosen scholar of Corpus, and in 1577, having taken his master’s degree, was elected fellow of his college; and about two years after, being well skilled in the Oriental languages, was appointed deputy-professor of Hebrew, in the room of Kingsmill, who was disordered in his senses. In 1581, he entered into orders; and soon after, being appointed to preach at St. Paul’s-cross in London, was so unhappy as to be drawn into a most unfortunate marriage; of which, as it is one of the most memorable circumstances of his life, we shall give the particulars as they are related by Walton. There was then belonging to the church of St. Paul’s, a house called the Shunamites house, set apart for the reception and entertainment of the preachers at St. Paul’s cross, two days before, and one day after the sermon. That house was then kept by Mr. John Churchman, formerly a substantial draper in Watluig-sti'eet, but now reduced to poverty. Walton says, that Churchman was a person of virtue, but that he cannot say quite so much of his wife. To this house Hooker came from Oxford so wet and weary, that he was afraid he should not be able to perform his duty the Sunday following: Mrs. Churchman, however, nursed him so well, mat he presently recovered from the ill effects of his journey. For this he was very thankful; so much indeed that, as Walton expresses it, be thought himself bound in conscience to believe all she said; so the good man came to be persuaded by her, “that he had a very tender constitution; and that it was best for him to have a wife, that might prove a nurse to him; such a one as might both prolong his life, and make it more comfortable; and such a one she could and would provide for him, if he thought fit to marry.” Hooker, not considering “that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light,” and fearing no guile, because he meant none, gave her a power to choose a wife for him; promising, upon a fair summons, to return to London, and accept of her choice, which he did in that or the year following. Now, says Walton, the wife provided for him was her daughter Joan, who brought him neither beauty nor portion; and for her conditions, they were too like that wife’s which Solomon compares to a dripping-house; that is, says Wood, she was “a clownish silly woman, and withal a mere Xantippe.”

, an eminent English divine, son of George Hooper, gent, was born at Grimley, in Worcestershire, Nov. 18, 1640, and educated in grammar and classical learning first at St. Paul’s, and afterwards at Westminster-school, where he was a king’s scholar. From thence he was elected to Christ-church in Oxford, in 1657, where he took his degrees at the regular times and distinguished himself above his contemporaries by his superior knowledge in philosophy, mathematics, Greek and Roman antiquities, and the oriental languages, in which last he was assisted by Dr. Pocock. In 1672 he became chaplain to Morley, bishop of Winchester, who collated him to the rectory of Havant, in Hampshire, which, the situation being unhealthy, he resigned for the rectory of East Woodhay, in the same county. In July 1673 he took the degree of B. D. and not long afterwards became chaplain to archbishop Sheldon, who begged that favour of the bishop of Winchester, and who in 1675 gave him the rectory of Lambeth, and afterwards the precentorship of Exeter. In 1677 he commenced D. D. and the same year, being made almoner to the princess of Orange, he went over to Holland, where, at the request of her royal highness, he regulated her chapel according to the usage of the church of England. After one year’s attendance, he repassed the sea, in order to complete his marriage to Abigail, daughter of Richard Guildford, gent, the treaty for which had been set on foot before his departure. He then went back to her highness, who had obtained a promise from him to that purpose; but, after a stay of about eight months, she consented to let him return home. In 1680 he is said to have been offered the divinity-professorship at Oxford, but the succession to that chair had been secured to Dr. Jane. About the same time, however, Dr. Hooper was made king’s chaplain. In 1685, by the king’s command, he attended the duke of Monmouth, and had much free conversation with him in the Tower, both the evening before, and the day of his execution, on which, that unhappy nobleman assured him “be had made his peace with God,” the nature of which persuasion Dr. Hooper solemnly entreated him to consider well, and then waited on him in his last moments. The following year he took a share in the popish controversy, and wrote a treatise, which will be mentioned presently with his works. In 1691, he succeeded Dr. Sharp in the deanery of Canterbury. As he never made tae least application for preferment, queen Mary surprised him vvitn this offer, when the king her husband was absent in Holland. With a disinterestedness not very common, he now proposed to resign either of his livings, but the queen observed that though the king and she never gave two livings to one man, yet they never took them away,“and ordered him to keep both. However, he resigned the rectory of Woodhay. He was made chaplain to their majesties the same year. In 1698, when a preceptor was chosen forttie duke of Gloucester, though both the royal parents of that prince pressed earnestly to have Hooper, and no objection was ever made against him, yet the king named bishop Burnet for that service. In 1701, he was chosen prolocutor to the lower house of convocation and the same year was offered the primacy cf Ireland by the earl of Rochester, then lord-lieutenant, which he declined. In May 1703, he was nominated to the bishopric of St. Asaph. This he accepted, though against his inclination on this occasion be resigned Lambeth, but retained his other preferments with this bishopric, in which, indeed, he continued but a few months, and on that account he generously refused the usual mortuaries or pensions, then so great a burthen to the clergy of Wales, saying” They should never pay so dear for the sight of him." In March following, being translated to the bishopric of Bath and Wells, he earnestly requested her majesty to dispense with the order, not only on account of the sudden charge of such a translation, as well as a reluctance to remove, but aiso in regard to his friend Dr. Ken, the deprived bishop of that place, for whom he begged the bishopric. The queen, readily complied vvitb Hooper’s request; but the offer being declined by Ken, Hooper at his importunity yielded to become his successor. He now relinquished the deanery of Canterbury, but wished to have retained the precentorship of Exeter in commendam, solely for the use of Dr. Ken. But this was not agreeable to Dr. Trelauney, bishop of Exeter. His intention, however, was supplied by the bounty of the queen, who conferred an annual pension of 200l. on the deprived prelate. In 1705, bishop Hooper distinguished himself in the debate on the danger of the church, which, with many other persons, he apprehended to be more than imaginary. His observation was candid; he complained with justice of that invidious distinction which the terms high church and low church occasioned, and of that enmity which they tended to produce. In the debate in 1706, he spoke against the union between England and Scotland, but grounded his arguments on 'fears which have not been realized. In 1709-10, when the articles of Sachevereli’s impeachment were debated, he endeavoured to excuse that divine, and entered his protest against the vote, which he could not prevent.

Having presided over the see of Bath and Wells twentythree years and six months, and having nearly attained to the great age of eighty seven, he died at Barkley, in Somersetshire, whither he sometimes retired, Sept. 6, 1727. His remains were interred, at his own request, in the cathedral of Wells, under a marble monument with a Latin inscription, and adjoining to it is a monument with an inscription to the memory of his wife, who died the year before him. By this lady he had nine children, one of whom only, a daughter, survived him, then the widow of Prowse, esq. It had been observed of this prelate by the celebrated Dr. Busby, “that he was the best scholar, the finest gentleman, and would make the completest bishop that ever was educated at Westminster-school;” and Dr. Coney, who knew the bishop well, has proved this testimony to have been just in every respect. Bishops Burnet and Atterbury are the only writers of any note who have spoken, evidently from prejudice, against him, as an ambitious man, a charge which the history of his promotions amply refutes.

, an eminent prelate and martyr, was horn in Somersetshire, in 1495, and entered of Merton college, Oxford, in 1514, under the tuition of his uncle John Hooper, a fellow of that house. In 1518 he was admitted B. A.; the only degree he took in this university. It is supposed that he afterwards became one of the number of Cistercians, or white monks, and contir nued some years, until, becoming averse to a monastic life, he returned to Oxford, where, by the writings of some of the reformers which had reached that place, he was in-r duced to embrace the principles of protestantism. In. 1539, when the statute of the six articles was put in execution, he left Oxford, and got into the service of sir Thomas Arundel, a Devonshire gentleman, to whom he became chaplain, and steward of his estate; but this gentleman discovering his principles, withdrew his protection, and he was then obliged to go to France, where he conti r nued for some time among the reformed, until his dislike of some of their proceedings made him return to England; but, being again in danger here, he in the disguise of a, sailor escaped to Ireland, and thence to Holland and Swisserland. At Zurich be met with Bullinger, himself a refugee from his country for the sake of religion, and who, therefore, gave Hooper a friendly reception. During his residence here, Hooper married a Burgundian lady.

, a learned and worthy prelate, whojxperienced a fate extremely singular, was born in 1633, at Sandford in Devonshire, where his father was curate; became chorister of Magdalen college, Oxford, ia 1649; at the age of about sixteen, he was usher of the school adjoining, being already B. A.; he was chaplain of the college when M. A.; and would have been fellow, had his county qualified him. All this time he lived and was educated under presbyterian and independent discipline; and about the time of the restoration became assistant to Dr. Spurstow of Hackney. He was afterwards elected preacher at one of the city churches; the bishop of London, however, refused to admit him, as he was a popular preacher among the fanatics; but after some time he was settled in the parish church of St. Mary Wolnoth. Having retired to Exeter on account of the plague, he obtained the living of St. Mary’s church at Exeter, was countenanced by bishop Ward, and much admired for the comeliness of his person and elegance of preaching. The lord Robartes in particular (afterwards earl of Truro) w*as so pleased with him, that he gave him his daughter Araminta in marriage, took him as his chaplain to Ireland in 1669, gave him the deanery of llaphoe, and recommended him so effectually to his successor lord Berkeley, that he was consecrated bishop of Raphoe, Oct. 27, 1671, and translated to Londonderry in 1681. Driven thence by the forces under the earl of Tyrconnel, in 1688, he retired into England, and was elected minister of Aldermanbury in Sept. 1689, where he died, June 22, 1690. He published five single sermons, afterwards incorporated in two volumes; “An Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 1692, 4to, with his portrait; and an” Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer," 1691, all printed in one volume, 171O, folio. An edition of his works has very recently appeared in 4 vols. 8vo.

, a very learned and highly distinguished prelate, was the son of the rev. John Horsley, M. A. who was many years clerk in orders a$ St. Martin’s in the Fields. His grandfather is said to have been at first a dissenter, but afterwards conformed, and had the living of St. Martin’s in the Fields. This last circumstance, however, must be erroneous, as no such name occurs in the list of the vicars of that church. His father was in 1745 presented to the rectory of Thorley in Hertfordshire, where he resided constantly, and was a considerable benefactor to the parsonage. He also held the rectory of Newington Butts, in Surrey, a peculiar belonging to the bishop of Worcester By his first wife, Anne, daughter of Dr. Hamilton, principal of the college of Edinburgh, he had only one son, the subject of the present article, who was born in his father’s residence in St. Martin’s church-yard, in Oct. 1733. By his second wife, Mary, daughter of George Leslie, esq. of Kimragie in Scotland, he had three sons and four daughters, who were all born at Thorley. He died in 1777, aged seventy-eight; and his widow in 1787, at Nasing in Essex.

The reputation Dr. Horsley had now acquired, recommended him to the patronage of the lord chancellor Thurlow, who presented him to a prebendal stall in the church of Gloucester; and in 1788, by the same interest, he was made bishop of St. David’s, and in this character answered the high expectations of eminent usefulness which his elevation, to the mitre so generally excited. As a bishop his conduct was exemplary and very praiseworthy. In this diocese, which was said to exhibit more of ignorance and poverty than that of any other in the kingdom, he carried through a regular system of reform. He regulated the ccndition of the clergy, and proceeded to a stricter course with respect to the candidates for holy orders, admitting none without personally examining them himself, and looking very narrowly into the titles which they produced. With all this vigilance, his lordship acted to them as a tender father, encouraging them to visit him during his stay in the country, which was usually for several months in the year, assisting them with advice, and ministering to their temporal necessities with a liberal hand. In his progress through the diocese, he frequently preached in the parish churches, and bestowed considerable largesses on the poor. He was, in short, a blessing to his people, and they followed him with grateful hearts, and parted from him with infinite reluctance; and this diocese may be congratulated in being again placed under a prelate whose zeal for the promotion of its best interests has seldom been equalled, and cannot easily be exceeded. Bishop Horsley’s first Charge to the clergy of St. David’s, delivered in 1790, was deservedly admired, as was his animated speech in the house of lords on the Catholic bill, May 31, 1791. These occasioned his subsequent promotion to the see of Rochester in 1793, and to the deanery of Westminster, on which he resigned the living of Newington. As dean of Westminster he effected some salutary changes. Finding the salaries of the minor- canons and officers extremely low, he liberally obtained an advance, and at the same time introduced some regulations in the discharge of their office, which were readily adopted.

Bishop Horsley’s works not yet mentioned, were, besides various occasional Sermons and Charges, 1. “On the properties of the Greek and Latin languages,” 1796, 8vo, without his name. 2. “On the acronychal rising of the Pleiades,” a dissertation appended to his friend Dr. Vincent’s “Voyage of Nearchus,” 1797. 3. “A circular Letter to the diocese of Rochester, on the Scarcity of Corn,” 1796. 4. Another circular Letter to that diocese, on “the Defence of the Kingdom,” 1798. 5. Critical Disquisitions on the 18th chapter of Isaiah: in a letter to Edward King, esq. F. R. S. &c.“1799, 4to. Towards the close of this discussion, in which he applies the words of Isaiah to the aspect of the times, he says, with almost a prophetic spirit,” I see nothing in the progress of the French arms which any nation fearing God, and worshipping the Son, should fear to resist: I see every thing that should rouse all Christendom to a vigorous confederate resistance. I see every thing that should excite this country in particular to resist, and to take the lead in a confederacy of resistance, by all measures which policy can suggest, and the valour and opulence of a great nation can supply.“6.” Hosea, translated from the Hebrew; with notes explanatory and critical,“1801, 4to. Archbishop Newcome, in his” Improved Version of the Minor Prophets,“had preceded bishop Horsley in translating Hosea; but our prelate has thought proper in so many instances to reject his emendations, that bishop Horsley’s labours will probably be thought indispensable to a just illustration of the sacred text. This was reprinted with large additions in 1804. 7.” Elementary treatises on the fundamental principles of practical Mathematics; for the use of students,“1801, 8vo. These tracts were at first composed, without any design of publication, for the use of his son, then a student of Christ-church; and the work was to be considered, although then first published, as the third and last in the order of the subject, of three volumes of elementary geometry, to be issued one after another from the university press of Oxford, The first accordingly appeared in 1802, under the title of” Euclidig Elementorum Libri priores XII. ex Commandini et Gregorii versionibus Latinis,“Oxon, 8vo; and the second in J 804,” Euclidis datorum liber, cum additamento, necnon tractatus alii ad geometriam pertinentes," ibid. 8vo.

, an English prelate, memorable for the firm and patriotic stand which he made against the tyranny and bigotry of James II. was the son of John Hough, a citizen of London, descended from the Houghs of Leighton in Cheshire, and iof Margaret, the daughter of John Byrche of Leacroft in the county of Stafford, esq. He was born in Middlesex, April 12, 1651; and, after having received his education either at Birmingham or Walsall in Staffordshire, was entered of Magdalen college, Oxford, Nov. 12, 1669, and in a few years was elected a fellow. He took orders in 1675, and in 1678 was appointed domestic chaplain to the duke of Ormond, at that time lord lieutenant of Ireland, and went over with him to that country; but he returned soon after, and in 1685 was made a prebendary of Worcester. He was also presented to the rectory of Tempsford in Bedfordshire, in the gift of the crown. From these circumstances, it should seem that he must have been considered as a man of talents and merit, before he acted the conspicuous part he did in October 1687.

, a learned non-conformist divine in the seventeenth century, was a minister’s son, and nephew to Mr. Obadiah Howe, vicar of Boston in Lincolnshire. He was born May 17, 1630, at Loughborough in Leicestershire, of which town his father was minister, being settled there by archbishop Laud, though afterwards ejected by that prelate on account of his adherence to the Puritans; upon which he went with his son to Ireland, where they continued till the Irish Rebellion broke out, when they returned to England, and settled in Lancashire, where our author was educated in the first rudiments of learning and the knowledge of the tongues. He was sent pretty early to Christ college in Cambridge, where he continued till he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, and then removed to Oxford, and became bible-clerk of Brazen-nose college in Michaelmas term 1648, and took the degree of bachelor of arts Jan. 18, 1649. He was made a demy of Magdalen college by the parliament visitors, and afterwards fellow; and July 9, 1652, took the degree of master of arts. Soon after this he became a preacher, and was ordained by Mr. Charles Herle at his church of Winwick in Lancashire, and not long after became minister of Great Torrington in Devonshire. His labours here were characteristic of the times. He informed Dr. Calamy, that on the public fasts it was his common way to begin about nine in the morning with a prayer for about a quarter of an hour, in which he begged a blessing on the work of the day; and afterwards read and expounded a chapter or psalm, in which he spent about three quarters; then prayed for about an hour, preached for another hour, and prayed for about half an hour. After this he retired, and took some little refreshment for about a quarter of an hour or more (the people singing all the while), and then came again into the pulpit, and prayed for another hour, and gave them another sermon of about an hour’s length, and so concluded the service of the day, about four o'clock in the evening, with half an hour or more in prayer.

In 1747, Dr. Hunt was appointed regius professor of Hebrew, and consequently canon of the sixth stall in Christ church. He had in 1740 been elected a fellow of the royal society, and was also a fellow of that of antiquaries. In 1757, as we have noticed in the life of bishop Hooper, he published the works of that prelate, in the preface to which he represents himself as “one who had received many obligations from his lordship, was acquainted with his family, and had been formerly intrusted by him with the care of publishing one of his learned works,” viz. “De Benedictione patriarchs Jacobi, conjecturae,” Oxon. 1728, 4to, by the preface to which it appears that bishop Hooper was one of his early patrons. Of this only 100 copies were printed as presents to friends, but it is included in the bishop’s works.

, an eminent and accomplished prelate, was born at Congreve, in the parish of Penkrich, in Staffordshire, Jan. 13, 1720. He was the second of three children, all sons, of John and Hannah Hurd, whom he describes as “plain, honest, and good people, farmers, but of a turn of mind that might have honoured any rank and any education;” and they appear to have been solicitous to give this son the best and most liberal education. They rented a considerable farm at Congreve, but soon after removed to a larger at Penford, about half-way between Brewood and Wolverhampton in the same county. There being a good grammar-school at Brewood, Mr. Hurd was educated there under the rev. Mr. Hitman, and upon his death under his successor the rev. Mr. Budvvorth, whose memory our author affectionately honoured in a dedication, in 1757, to sir Edward Littleton, who had also been educated at Brewood school. He continued under this master’s care until 1733, when he was admitted of Emanuel college, Cambridge, but did not go to reside there till a year or twa afterwards.

Although Mr. Kurd’s reputation as a polite scholar and critic had been now fully established, his merit had not attracted the notice of the great. He still continued to reside at Cambridge, in learned and unostentatious retirement, till, in Dec. 1756, he became, on the death of Dr. Arnald, entitled to the rectory of Thurcaston, as senior fellow of Emanuel college, and was instituted Feb. 16, 1757. At this place he accordingly entered into residence, and, perfectly satisfied with his situation, continued his studies, which were still principally employed on subjects of polite literature. It was in this year that he published “A Letter to Mr. Mason on the Marks of Imitation,” one of his most agreeable pieces of this class, which was afterwards added to the third edition of the “Epistles of Horace.” This obtained for him the return of an elegy inscribed to him by the poet, in 1759, in which Mason terms him “the friend of his youth,” and speaks of him as seated in “low Thurcaston’s sequester' d bower, distant from promotion’s view.” The same year appeared Mr. Kurd’s “Remarks on Hume’s Essay on the Natural History of Religion.” Warburton appears to have been so much concerned in this tract, that we find it republished by Hurd in the quarto edition of that prelate’s works, and enumerated by him in his list of his own works. It appears to have given Hume some uneasiness, and he notices it in his account of his life with much acrimony. In 1759, he published a volume of “Dialogues on sincerity, retirement, the golden age of Elizabeth, and the constitution of the English government,” in 8vo, without his name. In this work he was thought to rank among those writers who, in party language, are called constitutional; but it is said that he made considerable alterations in the subsequent editions. This was followed by his very entertaining “Letters on Chivalry and Romance,” which with his yet more useful “Dialogues on foreign Travel” were republished in 1765, with the author’s name, and an excellent preface on the manner of writing dialogue, under the general title of“Dialogues moral and political.” In the year preceding, he wrote another of those zealous tracts in vindication of Warburton, which, with the highest respect for Mr. Kurd’s talents, we may be permitted to say, have added least to his fame, as a liberal and courteous polemic. This was entitled “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Thomas Leland, in which his late ‘ Dissertation on the principles of Human Eloquence’ is criticized, and the bishop of Gloucester’s idea of the nature and character of an inspired language, as delivered in his lordship’s Doctrine of Grace, is vindicated from all the objections of the learned author of the dissertation.” This, with Mr. Kurd’s other controversial tracts, is republished in vol. VIII. of the late authorized edition of his works, with the following lines, by way of advertisement, written not long before his death "The controversial tracts, which make up this volume, were written and published by the author at different times, as opportunity invited, or occasion required. Some sharpness of style may be objected to them; in regard to which he apologizes for himself in the words of the poet:

In the end of February 1788, was published in 7 vols. 4to, a complete edition of the Works of bishop Warburton, prepared by our prelate, but who did not publish the “Life” until 1795. In March 1788, a fine gold medal was given to him by his majesty at the queen’s house; the king’s head on one side; the reverse was taken from the bishop’s seal (a cross with the initials on a label, 1. N. R. I. a glory above, and the motto below sx irurleus), which his majesty chanced to see and approved. The die was cut by Mr. Burch, and the medal designed for the annual prize-dissertation on theological subjects, in the university of Gottingen. In the summer of the same year he was honoured with a visit from their majesties at Hartlebury castle.

From this time he began to be still more courted by men of distinction, either for rank or literature, in, Ireland. Abp. King held him in great esteem; and the friendship of that prelate was of great use to him in screening him from two attempts made to prosecute him, for taking upon him the education of youth, without having qualified himself by subscribing the ecclesiastical canons, and obtaining a license from the bishop. He had also a large share in the esteem of the primate Boulter, who, through his influence, made a donation to the university of Glasgow of a yearly fund for an exhibitioner, to be bred to any of the learned professions. A few years after his Inquiry into the Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, his “Treatise on the Passions” was published: these works have been often reprinted, and always admired both for the sentiment and language, even by those who have not assented to the philosophy of them, nor allowed it to have any foundation in nature. About this time he wrote some philosophical papers, accounting for laughter in a different way from Hobbes, and more honourable to human nature, which were published in the collection called “Hibernicus’s Letters.” Some letters in the “London Journal,” 1728, subscribed Philaretus, containing objections to some parts of the doctrine in “The Enquiry,” &c. occasioned his giving answers to them in those public papers. Both the letters and answers were afterwards published in a separate pamphlet.

, a gentleman of Franconia, of uncommon parts and learning, was born in 1488 at Steckenburg, the seat of his family; was sent to the abbey of Fulde at eleven years of age; and took the degree of M. A. in 1506 at Francfort on the Oder, being the first promotion made in that newly-opened university. In 1509, he was at the siege of Padua, in the emperor Maximilian’s army; and he owned that it was want of money, which forced him to make that campaign. His father, not having the least taste or esteem for polite literature, thought it unworthy to be pursued by persons of exalted birth; and therefore would not afford his son the necessary supplies for a life of study. He wished him to apply himself to the civil law, which might raise him in the world; but Hutten had no inclination for that kind of study. Finding, however, that there was no other way of being upon good terms with his father, he went to Pavia in 1511, where he stayed but a little time; that city being besieged and plundered by the Swiss, and himself taken prisoner. He returned afterwards to Germany, and there, contrary to his father’s inclinations, began to apply himself again to literature. Having a genius for poetry, he began his career as an author in that line, and published several compositions, which were much admired, and gained him credit. He travelled to various places, among the rest to Bohemia and Moravia; and waiting on the bishop of Olmutz in a very poor condition, that prelate, who was a great Maecenas, received him graciously, presented him with a horse, and gave him money to pursue his journey. The correspondence also he held with Erasmus was of great advantage to him, and procured him respect from all the literati in Italy, and especially at Venice.

, a nonconformist divine, was born at Little Waldingfield in Suffolk in 1593; his father, who was a Spanish merchant in London, died when he was young. He was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, where he appears to have taken his degrees in arts, and in 1617 was incorporated M. A. at Oxford. While at college he commenced the habit of rising every morning at three or four o'clock, both summer and winter, and studied from fourteen to sixteen hours every day. He continued at Cambridge until his marriage in 1519, soon after which.he was chosen by the inhabitants of St. Michael, Wood-street, London, to be their lecturer, and on the death of Mr. Brogden, their pastor. During the plague in 1624, he was one of those who remained at his post, and administered such aid to the sick and dying as he could, and was in other respects scrupulously diligent in preaching, catechizing, &c. When the reading of the “Book of Sports” was enjoined, he refused that foolish and imprudent mandate; yet such was his character, that when complained of to archbishop Laud for this omission, that prelate said, “Mr. Jackson is a quiet and peaceable man, and therefore I will not have him meddled with.” He was not less respected by archbishop Sheldon, notwithstanding his very different opinion on church-government and ceremonies. He afterwards accepted the living of St. Faith’s under St. Paul’s, whence he was ejected in 1662. He was no friend to the tyranny of Cromwell, and was imprisoned above four months for refusing to give evidence against Mr. Love, before what was called the high court of justice, and was also fined 500l. On the restoration, when Charles II. made his entry into London, Mr. Jackson was appointed by the London clergy to present to him a Bible, as his majesty passed through St. Paul’s churchyard. After his ejection, he employed his leisure in pursuing his annotations on the Bible, during the short remainder of his life. He died Aug. 5, 1666. His “Annotations on the Bible,” as far as the book of Isaiah, were published in 4 vols. 4to, the last by his son, who prefixed ta it some memoirs of the author.

, a learned Flemish prelate, was born at Hulst in the year 1510, and educated at Ghent and Louvain. He became a proficient in the Hebrew, as well as Greek and Latin languages, and devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures. He was appointed professor of divinity at Louvain, and admitted to the degree of doctor of divinity. In the council of Trent he commanded respect by his learning and modesty, and upon his return to Flanders in 1568, was nominated the first bishop of Ghent, where he died in 1576, His works were, “A Paraphrase on the Psalms,” with copious notes, in Latin, printed at Louvain in 1569. “Notes on the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, the Canticles, and the Book of Wisdom,” printed in 1586. “Commentaries upon some passages in the Old Testament,” &c. His chief work, however, was the “Concordia Evangelica,” first printed in 1549, and frequently reprinted. Of this work Dupin says, that it is the most perfect harmony of the four Gospels which had till that time appeared. To the author he pays a very distinguished tribute of respect, as a very able expositor of Scripture, and eminently characterized by his learning, judgment, and perspicuity.

He continued with that patron of distressed cavaliers, enjoying all the opportunities of a well-furnished library, till the restoration, when he returned to Jesus-college, and was chosen one of the fellows. He was created LL. D. in. Feb. 1661, and elected principal in March following, upon the resignation of his patron Dr. Mansell; and sir William Whitmore soon after gave him the commissaryship of the peculiar and exempt jurisdiction of the deanery of Bridgenorth, in Shropshire. In 1662 he was made assessor to the chancellor’s court at Oxford; and the same year Dr. Sweit appointed him his deputy-professor of the civil law there. In 1663 he was made register of the consistory court of Westminster-abbey; and his friend Sheldon, newly translated to the see of Canterbury, soon after appointed him commissary and official for that diocese, and judge of the peculiars. Jenkins was very serviceable to that prelate in settling his theatre at Oxford; of which, as soon as it was finished, he was made one of the curators. He was useful to the archbishop on other occasions also relating to church and state; and it was by his encouragement that Dr. Jenkits removed to Doctors’ commons, and was admitted an advocate in the court of arches in the latter end of 1663. Here he was immediately made deputy-assistant to Dr. Sweit, dean of this court, as he had been to him before in the office of professor; and this situation brought his merit nearer the eye of the court. Upon the breaking out of the first Dutch war in 1664, the lords commissioners of prizes appointed Dr. Jenkins, with other eminent civilians, to review the maritime laws, and compile a body of rules for the adjudication of prizes in the court of admiralty, which afterwards became the standard of those proceedings. Then, by the recommendation of Sheldon, he tvas made judge-assistant in that court, March 21, 1664-5, Dr. Exton, the judge, being then very aged and infirm; and upon his death soon after, our author became principal, and sustained the weight of that important office alone, with great reputation. He had advanced the honour and esteem of that court to a high degree by a three years service; when finding the salary of 300l. per annum, allowed by the king, not a competent maintenance, he petitioned for an additional 200l. per annum, which was granted Jan. 29, 1668. He was now considered as so useful a man by the government, that the king became his patron; and having recommended him to the archbishop as judge of his prerogative court of Canterbury, which appointment he obtained in 1668, employed him the following year in an affair of near concern to himself.

, a learned prelate, and deservedly reputed one of the fathers of the English church, was descended from an ancient family at Buden in Devonshire, where he was born May 24, 1522. After learning the rudiments of grammar under his maternal uncle Mr. Bellamy, rector of Hamton, and being put to school at Barnstaple, he was sent to Oxford, and admitted a postmaster of Mertori college, in July 1535, under the tuition of Parkhurst, afterwards bishop of Norwich, who entertained a very high opinion of him from the beginning, and had great pleasure in. cultivating his talents. After studying four years at this college, he was, in August 1539, chosen scholar of Corpus Chnsti college, where he pursued his studies with indefatigable industry, usually rising at four in the morning, and studying till ten at night by which means he acquired a masterly knowledge in most branches of learning but, taking too little care of his health, he contracted such a cold as fixed a lameness in one of his legs, which accompanied him to his grave. In Oct. 1540, he proceeded B.A. became a celebrated tutor, and was soon after chosen reader of humanity and rhetoric in his college. In Feb. 1544, he commenced M. A. the expence of taking which degree was borne by his tutor Parkhurst.

Dr. Humfrey, in the Life of our bishop, has endeavoured to represent him a favourer of the nonconformists. But it is certain, that he opposed them in his exile, when they began their disputes at Francfort; and in a sermon of his preached at Paul’s Cross, not long before his death, and printed among his Works in 1609, he defended the rites and ceremonies of the church against them. He had likewise a conference with some of them concerning the ceremonies of the present state of the church, which he mentioned with such vigour, that though upon his death-bed he professed that neither his sermon nor'conference were undertaken to please any mortal man, or to trouble those who thought differently from him; yet the puritans could not forbear shewing their resentments against him. “It was strange to me,” says Dr. Whitgift, “to hear so notable a bishop, so learned a man, so stout a champion of true religion, so painful a prelate, as bishop Jewel, so ungratefully and spightfully used by a sort of wavering wicked tongues.” He is supposed likewise to have been the author of a paper, entitled “A brief and lamentable Consideration of the Apparel now used by the Clergy of England,” written in 1566, in which he addresses the nonconformists in a style which evidently shews his dislike of their obstinacy in matters of trivial importance, and his dread of what might be the consequences to the church in future times.

Having, by the bonds of himself and two friends, obtained the liberty of the rules, he was enabled to incur still further dangers, by printing some pieces against Popery in 1685, and dispersing several of them about the country at his own expence. These being answered in three “Observators,” by sir Roger L'Estrange, who also, discovering the printer, seized all the copies that were in his hands, Johnson caused a paper to be posted up everywhere, entitled “A Parcel of wry Reasons and wrong Inferences, but right Observator.” Upon the encampment of the army the following year, 1686, on Hounslow-heath, he drew up “An humble and hearty Address to all the Protestants in the present Army,” &c. He had dispersed about 1000 copies of this paper, when the rest of the impression was seized, and himself committed to close custody, to undergo a second trial at the King’s-bench; where he was condemned to stand in the pillory in Palace-yard, Westminster, Charingcross, and the Old Exchange, to pay a fine of 500 marks, and to be whipped from Newgate to Tyburn, after he had been degraded from the priesthood. This last ought to have been done, according to the canons, by his own diecesan, the bishop of London, Dr. Compton; but that prelate being then under suspension himself (for not obeying the king’s order to suspend Dr. Sharp, afterwards archbishop of York, for preaching against Popery in his own parish church of St. Giles’s in the Fields), Dr. Crewe, bishop of Durham, Dr. Sprat, bishop of Rochester, and Dr. White, bishop of Peterborough, who were then commissioners for the diocese of London, were appointed to degrade Mr. Johnson. This they performed in the chapter-house of St. Paul’s, where Dr. Sherlock, and other clergymen, attended; but Dr. Stillingfleet, then dean of St. Paul’s, refused to be present. Johnson’s behaviour on this occasion was observed to be so becoming that character of which his enemies would have deprived him, that it melted some of their hearts, and forced them to acknowledge, that there was something very valuable in him. Among other things which he said to the divines then present, he told them, in the most pathetic manner, et It could not but grieve him to think, that, since all he had wrote was designed to keep their gowns on their backs, they should be made the unhappy instruments to pull off his; and he begged them to consider whether they were not making rods for themselves.“When they came to the formality of putting a Bible in his hand and taking it from him again, he was much affected, and parted from it with difficulty, kissed it, and said, with tears,” That they could not, however, deprive him of the use and benefit of that sacred depositum." It happened, that they were guilty of an omission, in not stripping him of his cassock; which, slight as such a circumstance may seem, rendered his degradation imperfect, and afterwards saved him his living.

, was born at Caskieben, near Aberdeen, the seat of his ancestors, in 1587, and probably was educated at Aberdeen, as he was afterwards advanced to the highest dignity in that university. The study to which he chiefly applied, was that of physic; and to improve himself in that science, he travelled into foreign countries. He was twice at Rome, but the chief place of his residence was at Padua, in which university the degree of M. D. was conferred on him in 1610, as appears by a ms copy of verses in the advocates’ library in Edinburgh. After leaving Padua, he travelled through the rest of Italy, and over Germany, Denmark, England, Holland, and other countries, and at last settled in France, where he met with great applause as a Latin poet. He lived there twenty years, and by two wives had thirteen children. At last, after twenty-four years absence, he returned into Scotland, as some say in 1632, but probably much sooner, as there is an edition of his “Epigrammata,” printed at Aberdeen in 1632, in which he is styled the king’s physician. It appears by the council-books at Edinburgh, that the doctor had a suit at law before that court about the same time. In the year following, Charles I. went into Scotland, and made bishop Laud, then with him, a member of that council; and by this accident it is probable the acquaintance began between the doctor and that prelate, which produced his “Psalmorum Davidis Paraphrasis Poetica.” We find, that in the same year the doctor printed a specimen of his Psalms at London, and dedicated them to his lordship, which is considered as a proof that the bishop prevailed upon Johnston to remove to London from Scotland, and then set him upon this work; neither can it be doubted but, after he had seen this sample, he also engaged him to perfect the whole, which took him up four years; for the first etlition'of all the Psalms was published at Aberdeen in 1637, and at London in the same year. In 1641, Dr. Johnston being at Oxford on a visit to one of his daughters, who was married to a divine of the church of England in that place, was seized with a violent diarrhoea, of which he died in a few days, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, not without having seen the beginning of those troubles which proved so fatal to his patron. He was buried in the place where he died, which gave occasion to the following lines of his learned friend Wedderburn in his “Suspiria,” on the doctor’s death:

, a pious divine and great benefactor to his country, Wales, was born in 1684, in the parish of Kilredin in the county of Carmarthen, and educated at Carmarthen school, where he made great proficiency in Greek, Latin, and other studies, but does not appear to have been at either university. Having, however, qualified himself for the ministry, he received deacon’s orders from bishop Bull in Sept. 1708, and priest’s orders from the same prelate in Sept. 1709. His learning and piety having recommended him to sir John Phillips, of Picton castle, bart. he was preferred by that gentleman to the rectory of Llanddowror, in Carmarthenshire. He was soon after fixed upon by the “Society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts,” as a person every way qualified to be sent as a missionary amongst the Indians, and at first gave his consent, but circumstances occurred which prevented his country from being deprived of his services. In his parish he soon became popular by his fervent and well digested discourses, delivered with a voice and action tranquil, easy, yet strongly impressive; and by his affectionate discharge of the other duties of his station in risking, catechizing, &c. But he was principally distinguished for his zeal in procuring subscriptions for the support of what were called circulating Welsh schools, to teach poor Welsh men, women, and children to read their native language; and such was his diligence, and the effect of his superintendence of these schools, that he could enumerate 158,000 poor ignorant persons who had been taught to read; and equal care was taken to catechize and instruct young people in the principles of the Christian religion. Having applied to the “Society for promoting Christian knowledge,” of which he was a corresponding member, that body caused to be printed two large editions of the Welsh Bible, of 15,000 copies each, which were sold cheap for the benefit of the poor in Wales. He likewise wrote and published several instructive treatises in the Welsh as well as the English language; and was enabled by the assistance of some charitable friends to print editions of from 8000 to 12,000 of these useful manuals, which were distributed throughout all Wales. His own charitable exertions were extensive, and having studied medicine in a certain degree, he laid in a large stock of drugs, which he made up and dispensed to the poor gratis, taking that opportunity also to give them spiritual advice. This truly good man died April 8, 1761, lamented as a father to his flock, and a general benefactor to the whole country.

In 1792 he published a valuable collection of dissertations, extracts, &c. in defence of the church of England, under the title of “The Scholar armed against the Errors of the Time,” 2 vols. 8vo; and on the death of bishop Home in 1792, Mr. Jones, out of affectionate regard to the memory of the venerable prelate, his dear friend and patron, undertook the task of recording his life, which was published in 1795, and the second edition in 1799, with a new preface, containing a concise but luminous exposition of the leading opinions entertained by Mr. Hutchinson on certain interesting points on theology and philosophy.

In 1731, he published “Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors, ancient and modern,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This is a collection of critical remarks, of which, however, he was not the sole, though the principal, author: Pearce, Masson, Dr. Taylor, Wasse, Theobald, Dr. Robinson, Upton, Thirlby, and others, were contributors to it. This work was highly approved by the learned here, and was translated into Latin at Amsterdam, and continued on the same plan by D'Orville and Burman. In 1751, archbishop Herring, unsolicited, gave him the living of St. Dunstan in the East, London. This prelate had long entertained a high and affectionate regard for him had endeavoured to serve him in many instances with others and afterwards, in 1755, conferred upon him the degree of D. D. This same year, 1751, came out his first volume of “Remarks upon Ecclesiastical History,” 8vi. This work was inscribed to die earl of Burlington by whom, as trustee for the Boylean Lecture, he had, through the application of bishop Herring and bishop Sherlock, been appointed, in 1749, to preach that lecture. There is a preface to this volume of more than forty pages, which, with much learning and ingenuity, displays a spirit of liberty and candour. These “Remarks upon Ecclesiastical fiistory” were continued, in tour succeeding volumes, down to the year 1517, when Luther began the work of reformation; two, published by himself, in 1752 and 1754; and two, after his death, in 1773. In 1755, he published “Six Dissertations upon different Subjects,” 8vo. The sixth dissertation is, “On the state of the dead, as described by Homer and Virgil;” and the remarks in this, tending to establish the great antiquity of the doctrine of a future state, interfered with Warburton in his “Divine Legation of Moses,” and drew upon him from that quarter a very severe attack. He made no reply; but in his “Adversaria” was the following memorandum, which shews that he did not oppose the notions of other men, from any spirit of envy or contradiction, but from a full persuasion that the real matter of fact was as he had represented it. “I have examined,” says he, “the state of the dead, as described by Homer and Virgil; and upon that dissertation I am willing to stake all the little credit that I have as a critic and philosopher. I have there observed, that Homer was not the inventor of the fabulous history of the gods: he had those stories, and also the doctrine of a future state, from old traditions. Many notions of the Pagans, which came from tradition, are considered by Barrow, Serm. viii. vol. II. in which sermon the existence of God is proved from universal consent.”

Besides his principal works, which have already been mentioned, there are some other things of a smaller nature; as, “Remarks upon Spenser’s Poems,” 1734, 8vo, at the end of which are some “Remarks upon Milton;” “Remarks on Seneca,” printed in the “Present State of the Republic of Letters,” for Aug. 1734; “A Sermon preached at the Consecration of Pearce bishop of Bangor,” 1747 a few “Remarks on Tillotson’s Sermons,” given to his friend Dr. Birch, and printed in the appendix to Birch’s Life of that prelate, 1752; “Letter to Mr. Avison, concerning the Music of the Ancients,” subjoined to a second edition of Avison’s “Essay on Musical Expression,” 1753, and a few “Remarks on Phillips’s Life of Cardinal Pole,” printed in an appendix to “Neve’s Animadversions” upon that History, 1766. In 1771, the year after his death, 4 volumes of his “Sermons,” in 8vo, were inscribed by his son Rogers Jortin, esq. to his parishioners of St. Dunstan’s, at whose request they were published; and these, being well received by the public, were reprinted in 1772, with the addition of 3 volumes more. At the end of the 7th vol. a*e “Jour Charges, delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of London.” His whole Works have lately been reprinted, including his Life of Erasmus, by Messrs. White and Cochrane, in an uniform edition.

, a French protestant divine, sometimes called by the catholics the Goliah of the protestants, was born Dec. 24, 1637. His father, Daniel Jurieu, was minister of the reformed religion at Mer his mother, the daughter of Peter du Moulin, minister and professor at Sedan. He was sent, after the first rudiments of his education under Rivet in Holland, to his maternal uncle Peter du Moulin, then in England where, having finished his theological studies, he took orders in that church but, upon the death of his father, being called home to succeed him at Mer, and finding what he had done in England disliked by the reformed in his own country, he submitted to a re-ordination by presbyters, according to the form of the foreign protestant churches. After some time, he officiated in the French church of Vitri, where the people were so much pleased with him, that they endeavoured to procure his settlement among them; and here he composed his “Treatise, of Devotion.” Before this, in 1670, he had attracted public attention by refuting a project for reuniting all the sects of Christianity, wrote by d'Huisseau, minister of Saumur. He was afterwards invited to Sedan, where he discharged the office of professor in divinity and Hebrew with great reputation. In 1673 he wrote his “Preservative against Popery,” which he opposed to the exposition of the doctrine of the catholic church by M. de Meaux, bishop of Condom. This treatise did great credit to the author, who endeavoured to prove that the prelate had disguised the doctrine of his church. In 1675, Jurieu. published the first part of his work (the whole of which appeared in 1685), entitled “La Justification de la Morale,” &c. or, “A Vindication of the Morality of the Protestants against the Accusations of Mr. Arnauld,” &c. la 1681, the university of Sedan being taken from the protestants, our professor resolved to accept an invitation sent to him from that of Rouen; but discovering, in the mean time, that the French court knew him to be the author of a work he had published anonymously, under the title of “La Politique du Clerge,” which was a severe satire on the Roman catholics, he was apprehensive of being prosecuted, and therefore retired hastily into Holland, where be almost immediately received an offer of the divinitychair in the university of Groningen; but his friends having founded the same professorship for him at Rotterdam, he preferred this residence to the other; and he was also appointed minister of the Walloon church in the same town. He had not been long in this happy situation, when he produced to the public “Les derniers Efforts de PInnocence afflige'e,” or “The last Efforts of afflicted Innocence.”

The empire being now in the full enjoyment of profound peace and tranquillity, Justinian made the best use of it, by collecting the immense variety and number of the Roman laws into one body. To this end, he selected ten of the most able lawyers in the empire; who, revising the Gregorian, Theodosian, and Hermogenian codes, compiled out of them one body, called “The Code,” to which the emperorgave his own name. This may be called the statute law, as consisting of the rescripts of the emperors: but the compilation of the other part was a much more difficult task. It was made up of the decisions of the judges and other magistrates, together with the authoritative opinions of the most eminent lawyers; all which lay scattered, without any order, in above 2000 volumes. These, however, after the labour of ten years, chiefly by Tribonian, an eminent lawyer, were reduced to the number of 50; and the whole design was completed in the year 533, and the name of “Digests,” or “Pandects,” given to it. Besides these, for the use chiefly of young students in the law, Justinian ordered four books of “Institutes” to be drawn up, by Tribonian, Dorotheus, and Theophilus, containing an abstract or abridgement of the text of all the laws: and, lastly, the laws of modern date, posterior to that of the former, were thrown into one volume in the year 541, called the “Noveilx,” or “New Code.” This most important transaction in the state has rendered Justinian’s name immortal. His conduct in ecclesiastical affairs was rash and inconsiderate. On one occasion, when Theodotus, king of Italy, had obliged pope Agapetus to go to Constantinople, in order to submit and make peace with the emperor, Justinian received him very graciously, but enjoined him to communicate with Anthenius, patriarch of Constantinople. That patriarch being deemed a heretic at Rome, the pontiff refused to obey the command; and, when the emperor threatened to punish his disobedience with banishment, he answered, without any emotion, “I thought I was come before a Christian prince, but I find a Diocletian.” The result was, that the hardiness and resolution of the pope brought the emperor to a submission. Accordingly Anthenius was deprived, and an orthodox prelate put into his place.

, the first patriarch of Venice, was descended of a noble family, and born there, 1381. He took the monk’s habit in the monastery of St. George, in Alga, before he was a deacon; and in 1424 became general of that congregation, to whom he gave an excellent set of rules, which were afterwards observed, and made him esteemed as one of their founders. Pope Eugenius IV. gave him the bishopric of Venice, of which he was the first patriarch, from 1451. This prelate died Jan. 8, 1455, and was canonized in 1690 by Alexander VIII. He left several works of piety, which were printed together at Brescia, 1506, 2 vols. folio; and again at Venice, 1755, folio; to which is prefixed his life, by his nephew.

, bishop of Nebo or Nebbio, one of the most learned men of his time, was descended from a branch of the same noble family with the former; and born at Genoa, in 1470. After having resided some time at Valencia, in Spain, he entered into the order of St. Dominic, at Paris, in 1488; when he took the name of Augustin in the room of Pantaleon, which he received at his baptism. Soon after he distinguished himself by his learning, and knowledge in the languages, which he acquired in a very short time; so that Leo X. named him to the bishopric of Nebo, in the island of Corsica, in which capacity he assisted in the fifth council of Lateran, where he opposed some articles of the concordat between France and the court of Rome. The revenue of his diocese being small, he petitioned the pope for a better; but Francis I. who was a patron of learned men, drew him to France, by making him his almoner, with a good pension; and he was also regius professor of Hebrew for five years at Paris. Returning to Genoa in 1522, he found every thing in confusion, by the sedition of the Adornes; on which he went to visit his diocese, and discharged all the duties of a good prelate, till 1531. In a voyage from Genoa to Nebc, he perished, together with the vessel in which he was embarked, 1536. By his last will, he left his library to the republic of Genoa.

, a loyal and worthy English prelate, the son of Richard Juxon of Chichester in Sussex, was born in 1582, and educated, upon the foundation, at Merchant Taylors’ school, whence he was elected a fellow of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1598. Here, as his intentions were for the bar, he studied civil law, and took the degree of bachelor in that faculty, July 5, 1603, having before entered himself a student in Gray’s-inn. But for some reasons not assigned by his biographer, he entirely changed his mind, and after having gone through a course of divinity studies, took orders, and in the latter end of 1609 was presented by his college, which stands in that parish, to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Oxford. Here he was much admired for his plain, practical style of preaching. In 1614, we are told, he left this living, probably on being presented to the rectory of Somerton in Oxfordshire, in the east window of the chancel of which church are his arms; but it is equally probable that he might hold both. It is certain that his connexion with Oxford continued; and when, in 1621, Dr. Laud resigned the office of president of St. John’s college, Mr. Juxon was chosen in his room, chiefly by his influence. In December of the same year, he proceeded doctor of laws, and in 1626 and 1627 served the office of vice-chancellor of the university. About this time his majesty Charles I. appointed him one of his chaplains in ordinary, and collated him to the deanery of Worcester, along with which he held a prebend of Chichester. In all these promotions, he was chiefly indebted to Dr. Laud, then bishop of London, who had a high regard for him, and, as dean of the king’s chapel, recommended him to be clerk of the closet, into which office Dr. Juxon was sworn July 10, 1632. Laud’s object in this last promotion is said to have been, that “he might have one that he might trust near his majesty, if he himself grew weak or infirm.” By the same interest Dr. Juxon was elected bishop of Hereford in 1633, and was made dean of the king’s chapel, but before consecration was removed to the bishopric of London, in room of Laud, now archbishop of Canterbury, and was also sworn of the privy council. He entered on his bishopric Nov. 5 of the above year, and although his diocese was much displeased with the conduct of his predecessor, bishop Juxon, by his mild temper and urbanity, obtained the respect of all parties.

On his resignation, he retired to his palace at Fulham, where he continued for some time, not only undisturbed, but. sometimes visited by the greatest persons of the opposite party, although he remained firm in his loyalty to the king, who consulted him upon many occasions. Sir Philip Warwick, being employed on one of those occasions, desired he might bring the bishop himself to his majesty, for fear of a mistake in the message, or lest the bishop should not speak freely to him. To which the king replied, “Go as I bid you if he will speak freely to any body, he will speak freely to you. This I will say of him I never got his opinion freely in my life, but, when I had it, I was ever the better for it.” Bishop Juxon also attended upon his majesty at the treaty in the Isle of Wight in 1643, by the consent of the parliament; and by the king’s particular desire, waited upon him at Cotton-house in Westminster on Jan. 21 following, the day after the commencement of his trial. During the whole of this trial, he attended the king, who declared that he was the greatest support and comfort to him on that occasion. He followed his royal master also to the scaffold, and when he was preparing himself for the block, Juxon said to him, “There is, sir, but one stage more, which, though turbulent and troublesome, is yet a very short one. Consider, it will soon carry you a great way; it will carry you from earth to heaven; and there you shall find, to your great joy, the prize to which you hasten, a crown of glory.” “I go,” said the king, “from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown, where no disturbance can be.” “, You are exchanged,” replied the bishop, “from a temporal to an eternal crown; a good exchange.” It was remarked by the regicides, that the king, the moment before he stretched out his neck to the executioner, said to J uxon, with a very earnest accent, the single word Remember. Great mysteries were consequently supposed to be concealed under that expression; and the generals vehemently insisted with the prelate, that he should inform them of the king’s meaning. Juxon told them, that the king having frequently charged him to inculcate on his son the forgiveness of his murderers, had taken this opportunity, in the last moment of his life, when his commands, he supposed, would be regarded, as sacred and inviolable, to reiterate that desire; and that his mild spirit thus terminated its present course, by an act of benevolence towards his greatest enemies. Dr. Uuxon was also one of those who accompanied the king’s body to "Windsor, but was not permitted to read the funeral service.

Some months after this, when the commonwealth was established, he was deprived of his bishopric, and retired to his private estate, the manor of Little Compton, in Gloucestershire, where he passed his time free from molestation, and in the occasional enjoyment of field sports, to which he was rather more addicted than became his rank in the church. At the restoration he was nominated archbishop of Canterbury, in Sept. 1660, and at the coronation placed the crown on the head of Charles II. He was a man of a liberal and princely spirit. During the short period that he enjoyed the archbishopric, he expended in building and repairing Lambeth and Croydon palaces, nearly 15,000l.; and augmented the vicarages, the great tithes of which were appropriated to his see, to the amount of 1103l. In the decline of life he was much afflicted with the stone, of which he at length died June 4, 1663, in his eighty-first year, and was interred with the greatest solemnity in the chapel of St. John’s college, Oxford, near the remains of archbishop Laud. To this college he had ever been a friend, and was at last a munificent benefactor, bequeathing 7000l. to be laid out in the increase of fellowships. His other charitable bequests amounted to 5000l. His contemporaries unite in praising his piety, learning, charity, moderation of temper, and steady loyalty. As a divine he has left little by which we can appreciate his merits. There is but one sermon of his extant entitled “The Subjects’ sorrow or Lamentations upon the death of Britain’s Josiah, king Charles,” 1649, 4to, and “Some considerations upon the Act of Uniformity; with an expedient for the satisfaction of the clergy within the province of Canterbury. By a Servant of the God of peace,” Lond. 1662, 4to. It is also said that he was the author of " A Catalogue of the most vendible books in England,' 1 a well-known 4to, printed in 1658, and signed W. London, in the dedication; but whoever peruses that dedication will perceive it cannot be from the pen of our prelate.

Soon after the accession of Alexander VI. he was nominated by that pontiff a canon of St. Peter’s, and dignified with the rank of a prelate. In 1495 he was sent as papal nuncio into the Milanese, to treat with the emperor-elect, Maximilian, on which embassy he obtained not only the approbation of the pope, but also the favour of the emperor, who soon after the return of Inghirami to Rome, transmitted to him from Inspruck an imperial diploma, by which, after enumerating his various accomplishments, and particularly his excellence in poetry and Latin literature, he created him count palatine and poet-laureat, and conceded to him the privilege of adding the Austrian eagle to his family arms. Nor was he less favoured by Julius II. who, besides appointing him librarian of the Vatican, conferred on him the important office of pontifical secretary, which he afterwards quitted for that of secretary to the college of cardinals. Leo X. also enriched him with many ecclesiastical preferments, and continued him in his office of librarian until his death, which was occasioned by an accident in the streets of Rome, Sept. 6, 1516, when he had not yet completed the forty- sixth year of his age. To this unfortunate event it is probably owing, that so few of his writings have reached the present times. From the testimony of his contemporaries, it is well known that he was the author of many books. Among these are enumerated a defence of Cicero a compendium of the history of Rome a commentary on the poetics of Horace and remarks on the comedies of Plautus; but these works were left at his death in an unfinished state, and have since been dispersed or lost. It has been supposed that he was the author of the additions to the “Aulularia” of Plautus, printed at Paris, 1513.

, an exemplary and learned bishop of Carpentras, at which place he was born in 1683, was first a Dominican, and in that order he successfully pursued his theological studies; but, thinking the rule of the Cistertians more strict and perfect, he afterwards took the habit of that order. His merit quickly raised him to the most distinguished offices among his brethren, and being dispatched on some business to Rome, he completely gained the confidence and esteem of Clement XII. By that prelate he was named archbishop of Theodosia in partibus, and bishop of Carpentras in 1733. In this situation he was distinguished by all the virtues that can characterize a Christian bishop; excellent discernment, and knowledge, united with the completest charity and humility. His life was that of a simple monk, and his wealth was all employed to relieve the poor, or serve the public. He built a vast and magnificent hospital, and established the most extensive library those provinces had ever seen, which he gave for public use. He died in 1757, of an apoplectic attack, in his seventy-fifth year. This excellent man was not unknown in the literary world, having published some original works, and some editions of other authors. The principal of these productions are, 1. “Genuinus character reverendi admodiim in Christo Patris D. Armandi Johannis Butillierii Rancsei,” Rome, 1718, 4to. 2. An Italian translation of a book entitled “Theologie Religieuse,” being a treatise on the duties of a monastic life, Rome, 1731, 3 vols. folio. 3. An Italian translation of a French treatise, by father Didier, on the infallibility of the pope, Rome, 1732, folio. 4. An edition of the works of Bartholomew of the Martyrs, with his Life, 2 vols. folio. 5. “La Vie separee,” another treatise on monastic life, in 2 vols. 1727, 4to.

, an English prelate, born in 1713, was the younger son of Charles Keene, of Lynn, in Norfolk, esq. sometime mayor of that town, whose eldest son was sir Benjamin Keene, many years ambassador at Madrid, and K. B. who died Dec. 15, 1757, leaving his fortune to the subject of this article. Mr. Edmund Keene was first educated at the Charter-house, and afterwards at Caius college, Cambridge, where he was admitted in 1730. In 1738 he was appointed one of his majesty’s preachers at Whitehall chapel, and made fellow of Peterhouse in 1739. In 1740 he was made chaplain to a regiment of marines; and, in the same year, by the interest of his brother with $ir Robert Walpole, he succeeded bishop Butler in the valuable rectory of Stanhope, in the bishopric of Durham. In 1748, he preached and published a sermon at Newcastle, at the anniversary meeting of the society for the relief of the widows and orphans of clergymen; and, in December following, on the death of Dr. Whalley, he was chosen master of Peterhouse. In 1750, being vice-chancellor, under the auspices of the late duke of Newcastle, he verified the concluding paragraph in his speech on being elected, “Nee tardum nee timidum habebitis procancellarium,” by promoting, with great zeal and success, the regulations for improving the discipline of the university. This exposed him to much obloquy from the younger part of it, particularly in the famous “Fragment,” and “The Key to the Fragment,” by Dr. King, in which Dr. Keene was ridiculed (in prose) under the name of Mun, and in that of the “Capitade” (in verse), under that of Acutus, but at the same time his care and attention to the interests and character of the university justly endeared him to his great patron, so that in Jan. 1752, soon after the expirW tion of his office, which he held for two years, he was nominated to the see of Chester, vacant by the death of bishop Peploe, and was consecrated in Ely-house chapel on Palm Sunday, March 22. With this he held in commendam his rectory, and, for- two years, his headship, when he was succeeded, much to his satisfaction, by Dr. Law. In May following his lordship married the only daughter of Lancelot Andrews, esq. of Edmonton, formerly an eminent linen-draper in Cheapside, a lady of considerable fortune, and a descendant of the family of bishop Andrews. She died March 24, 1776. In 1770, on the death of bishop Mawson, he was translated to the valuable see of Ely. Receiving large dilapidations, his lordship procured an act of parliament for alienating the old palace in Holborn, and building a new one, by which the see has been freed from a great incumbrance, and obtained some increase also of annual revenue. “The bishopric,” it has been humorously observed, “though stripped of the strawberries which Shakspeare commemorates to have been so noted in Holborn, has, in lieu of -them, what may very well console a man not over-scrupulous in his appetites, viz. a new mansion of Portland stone in Dover-street, and a revenue of 5000l. a year, to keep it warm and in good repute.” Bishop Keene soon followed his friend Dr. Caryl, “whom,” he said, “he had long known and regarded, and who, though he had a few more years over him, he did not think would have gone before him.” He died July 6, 1781, in the sixty-eighth year of his age, and was buried at his own desire in bishop West’s chapel, Ely cathedral, where is a short epitaph drawn up by himself. “Bishop Keene,” it is observed by bishop Newton, “succeeded to Ely, to his heart’s desire, and happy it was that he did so; for, few could have borne the expence, or have displayed the taste and magnificence, which he has done, having a liberal fortune as well as a liberal mind, and really meriting the appellation of a builder of palaces. For, he built a new palace at Chester; he built a new Fly-house in London and, in a great measure, a new palace at Ely leaving onjy the outer walls standing, he formed a new inside, and thereby converted it into one of the best episcopal houses, if not the very best, in the kingdom. He had indeed received the money which arose from the sale of old Elyhouse, and also what was paid by the executors of his predecessor for dilapidations, which, all together, amounted to about 11,000l. but yet he expended some thousands more of his own upon the buildings, and new houses require new furniture.” It is chiefly on account of this taste and munificence that he deserves notice, as he is not known in the literary world, unless by five occasional sermons of no distinguished merit.

, an English Roman catholic of considerable eminence as a controversial writer, was born in Northamptonshire, about 1560, and brought up in lord Vaux’s family, whence he was sent for education to the English colleges at Doway and Rheims, and afterwards, in 1582, to Rome, where he remained about seven years, and acquired the reputation of a very able divine. In 1589, he was invited to Rheims to lecture on divinity, and, proceeding in his academical degrees, was created D. D. and, in 1606, had the dignity of rector magnificus, or chancellor of the university, conferred upon him. After being public professor at Rheims for twelve years, he returned to Doway in 1613, and a few months after was declared president of the college, by a patent from Rome. In this office he conducted himself with great reputation, and ably promoted the interests of the college. He died Jan. 21, 1641. Among his works are, 1. “Survey of the new religion/' Doway, 1603, 8vi. 2.” A reply to Sutcliffe’s answer to the Survey of the new religion,“Rheims, 1608, 8vi. 3.” Oratio coram Henrico IV. rege Chris4. “The Gagg of the reformed gospel.” This, the catholics tell us, was the cause of the conversion of many protestants. It was answered, however, by Montague, afterwards bishop of Chichester, in a tract called “The new Gagger, or Gagger gagged/ 7 1624. Montague and he happened to coincide in so many points that the former was involved with some of his brethren in a controversy, they thinking him too favourable to the popish cause. 5.” Examen reformations, prajsertim Calvinisticae,“8vo, Doway, 1616. 6.” The right and jurisdiction of the prince and prelate,“1617, 1621, 8vo. This he is said to have written in his own defence, having been represented at Rome as a favourer of the oath of allegiance. In the mean time the work was represented to king James I. as allowing of the deposing power, and of murdering excommunicated princes, and his majesty thought proper to inquire more narrowly into the matter; the result of which was, that Dr. Kellison held no such opinions, and had explained his ideas of the oath of allegiance with as much caution as could have been expected. 7.” A treatise of the hierarchy of the church: against the anarchy of Calvin,“1629, 8vo. In this treatise, he had the misfortune to differ from the opinion of his own church in some respect. His object was, to prove the necessity of episcopal government in national churches; and he particularly pointed at the state of the catholics in England, who were without such a government. Some imagined that the book would be censured at Rome, because it seemed indirectly to reflect upon the pope, who had not provided England with bishops to govern the papists there, although frequently applied to for that favour; and because it seemed to represent the regulars as no part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and consequently not over-zealous in supporting the dignity of the episcopal order. The court of Rome, however, took no cognizance of the matter; but others attacked Dr. Kellison’s work with great fury. The controversy increasing, the bishops and clergy of France espoused his cause, and condemned several of the productions of his antagonists, in, which they had attacked the hierarchy of the church. Dr. Kellison’s other works were, 8.” A brief and necessary Instruction for the Catholics of England, touching their pastor,“1631. 9.” Comment, in tertiam partem Summse Sancti Thomas,“1632, fol. 10.” A Letter to king James I." in ms. Sutcliife and Montague were his principal antagonists among the protestants.

, an English divine, remarkable for piety and learning, was born at North-Allerton in Yorkshire, March 10, 1653. He was grounded in classical learning in the free-school of that town, and sent to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, in 1670. Five years after, he was chosen fellow of Lincoln college, through the interest of Mr. George Hickes, who was fellow of the same, where he became eminent as a tutor. He entered into orders as soon as he was of sufficient age, and distinguished himself early by an uncommon knowledge in divinity. He was very young when he wrote his celebrated book, entitled “Measures of Christian Obedience:” he composed it in 1678, though it was not published till 1681. Dr. Hickes, to whom he submitted it for correction, advised him to dedicate it to bishop Compton, intending, by that means, to have him settled in London and, accordingly, it came out at first with a dedication to his lordship but when that prelate appeared in arms against James II. Kettlewell gave orders to have the dedication razed out of the copies unsold, and also to have it omitted in the subsequent editions. In the mean time, this book occasioned him to be so much taken notice of, that the old countess of Bedford, mother of the unfortunate William lord Russel, appointed him, on that account, to be one of her domestic chaplains; and a greater favour he received, upon the same consideration, from Simon lord Digby, who presented him, July 1682, to the vicarage of Coleshill in Warwickshire. After he had continued above seven years at this place, a great alteration happened in his condition and circumstances; for, at the Revolution, being one of those conscientious men who refused to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to king William and queen Mary, he was deprived of his living in 1690, However, he did not spend the remainder of his days in indolence; but, retiring to London with his wife, whom he had married in 1685, he continued to write and publish books, as he had done during his residence in the country. There, amongst other learned men, he was particularly happy in the friendship of Mr. Nelson, with whom he concerted the “Model of a fund of charity for the needy suffering, that is, the nonjuring, clergy:” but being naturally of a tender and delicate frame of body, and inclined to a consumption, he fell into that distemper in his 42d year, and died April 12, 1695, at his lodgings in Gray’s-inn Jane. He was buried, three days after, in the same grave where archbishop Laud was before interred, in the parish church of Allhallows- Barking, where a neat marble monument is erected to his memory. Mr. Nelson, who must needs have known him very well, has given this great and noble character of him, in a preface to his “Five Discourses/' &c. a piece printed after his decease” He was learned without pride wise and judicious without cunning; he served at the altar without either covetousness or ambition he was devout without affectation sincerely religious without moroseness courteous and affable without flattery or mean compliances just without rigour charitable without vanity and heartily zealous for the interest of religion without faction.“His works were collected and printed in 1718, in two volumes, folio they are all upon religious subjects, unless his” Measures of Christian Obedience,“and some tracts upon” New Oaths,“and the” Duty of Allegiance," &c. should be rather considered as of a political nature.

This prelate died Nov. 1703, in his palace at Wells, and was privately bur- ed in the cathedral. Through a most unhappy accident, in the night between the 26th and 27th of that month, he was killed in his bed, with his lady, by the fall of a stack of chimneys, occasioned by the great storm. It is reported that his heirs were sued for dilapidations! He was a very clear, elegant, learned writer; and one of the best divines of his time.

Mr. King had not been many years at the Temple, when he had acquired as high a reputation for his knowledge in law, as he had before for his knowledge in divinity; and, in 1699, obtained a seat in the House of Commons, as representative for the borough of Beer- Alston, in. Devonshire; and the same honour was continued to him, not only in the ensuing and last parliament of king William, but in the five succeeding parliaments of queen Anne. In the mean time he published his inquiries into church history, and the history of early opinions, and having completed some collections he had already made, and digested them into proper order, he published, in 1702, “The History of the Apostles’ Creed, with critical Observations on its several articles,” 8vo; a treatise written with judgment and learning. Peter de Coste, who sent an abstract of it in French to Bernard, to be published in his “Nouvelles de la Republique de Lettres” for November and December, 1702, has related a very remarkable particular concerning it. He tells us that an English prelate, distinguished for his erudition, fancying it could only be a compilation from several discourses already printed, or perhaps an abridgment of Pearson’s “Exposition of the Creed,” who seemed to have exhausted the subject, began to read it with this disadvantageous prepossession; but was quickly convinced of his mistake, and surprized to find so many curious things, not to be met with in Pearson, and to observe so little borrowed from that writer’s “Exposition.”

The deanery of St. Patrick’s becoming vacant at this time, Dr. King was elected to it; and appeared so active in supporting the Revolution, which had now taken place, that, after the landing of king James in Ireland in 1689, he was twice confined in Dublin-castle. He was attacked, not long after, in a weekly “paper called” The Abhorrence,“with an intent to render him more obnoxious; and was also assaulted in the street, where a musket with a lighted match was levelled at him. He was likewise disturbed in the performance of divine service at his church several times, particularly on Candlemas-day; when seven officers who were there swore aloud that they would cut his throat. All this did not discourage him; but he still persisted, and took his doctor’s degree this same year, 1689. Upon king James’s retreat to France, after the battle of the Boyne in 1690, he preached a thanksgiving-sermon on that occasion in November; and, January following, was promoted to the bishopric of Derry. In 169 1 he published at London in 4to,” The State of the Protestants in Ireland, under the late King James’s Government; in which their carriage towards him is justified; and the absolute necessity of their endeavouring to be freed from his government, and of submitting to their present majesties, is demonstrated.“The third edition, with additions, was printed at London the year after, in 8vo. Burnet speaks of this book in the following terms:” This copious history is so well received, and so universally acknowledged to be as truly as it is finely written, that I refer my readers to the account of those matters, which is fully and faithfully given by that learned and zealous prelate.“It was attacked, however, the same year, by Mr. Charles Lesley; who asserted, that” there is not one single fact he has inquired into, but he found it false in whole or in part, aggravated or misrepresented, so as to alter the whole face of the story, and give it perfectly another air and turn; insomuch that, though many things he says were true, yet he has hardly spoke a true word, that is, told truly and nakedly, without a warp." Though few 7 as we imagine, will form their judgment of King’s book from this account of it by Lesley yet all may allow, that there is a kind of colouring peculiar to, and characteristic of, each party and that the very same facts, when related by an historian of different political principles, shall have a very different appearance, and also make a very different impression upon a reader.

In 1702 he published at Dublin, in 4to, his celebrated treatise “De Origine Mali,” which was republishecl the same year at London in 8vo; in which he endeavours to shew how all the several kinds of evil with which the world abounds, are consistent with the goodness of God, and may be accounted for without the supposition of an evil principle. We do not find that any exceptions were made at first to this work at home; but it fell under the cognizance of some very eminent foreigners. Mr. Bernard having given an abridgment of it in his “Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres” for May and June 1703, that abridgment fell into the hands of Mr. Bayle, who, observing his Manichean system to be in danger from it, did not tay till he could see and consult the book itself, but examined the hypothesis of our author as it was represented in Bernard’s extracts, and in a passage cited by the writers of the “Acta Eruditorum Lipsiae,” which had been omitted by Bernard. Bayle was blamed for this by Bernard, and not without reason, as he had manifestly mistaken the prelate’s meaning in many particulars, and attacked him upon principles which he would have denied but the dispute did not end so Bayle afterwards replied to Bernard and, having procured the bishop’s book, made several new observations upon it, which were published in the fifth tome of his “Reponse,” &c. Leibnitz also wrote “Remarks” on this work, which, however, he styles “a work full of elegance and learning.” These remarks, which are in French, were published by DeMaizeaux, in the third volume of the “Recueil de diverses Pieces sur la Philosophic, &c. par Mess. Leibnitz, Clarke, Newton, &c.” at Amsterdam, 1720, in three vols. 12mo. In the mean time, the bishop, though he did not publicly and formally reply to these writers, left a great number of manuscript papers, in which he considered their several objections to his system, and laboured to vindicate it. These papers were afterwards communicated to Mr. Edmund Law, M. A. fellow of Christ’s college in Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Carlisle, who had translated the bishop’s book, and written notes upon it; and who then printed a second edition of his translation, in the notes to which he inserted the substance of those papers. The whole came out with this title, “An Essay on the Origin of Evil, by Dr. William King, late lord archbishop of Dublin: translated from the Latin, with Notes, and a Dissertation concerning the Principle and Criterion of Virtue, and the Origin of the Passions. The second edition. Corrected and enlarged from the author’s manuscripts. To which are added, two Sermons by the same author the former concerning Divine Prescience the latter on the Fall of Man.” Lond. 1732, 2 vols. 8vo. A third edition was published in 1739, and it was for some years a book in great vogue at Cambridge, but its reputation has been declining for a much longer period.

, an useful and agreeable French writer, was born Jan. 3, 1709, at Vauxcouleurs, in Champagne, where his father was a magistrate. He studied in his native place, but particularly at Pont-a-mousson, where he was called “the prince of philosophers,” an academical title given to those who distinguished themselves by their talents and application. Being intended for the church, he was sent to the seminary of St. Louis in Paris, where he remained five years. He afterwards took the degree of bachelor of divinity, was admitted of the house of the Sorbonne in 1734, and of the society in 1736, being then in his licentiateship; but after finishing that career with equal ardour and reputation, he was placed in the second rank, among more than 140 competitors. He took a doctor’s degree June 1738, and afterwards served the curacy of Greux, and Dom-Remi, to which he had been nominated by his bishop. This prelate proposed to have M. Ladvocat near him, fix him in his chapter, and place his whole confidence in him; but the Sorbonne did not give the bishop time to execute his plan for one of their royal professorships becoming vacant by the resignanation of M. Thierri, chancellor of the church and university of Paris, they hastened to appoint M. Ladvocat to it, January 11, 1740. Our new professor was unable to continue his lectures more than two years and a half, from a disorder of his lungs, thought by the physicians to be incurable, but of which he at length cured himself by consulting the best authors. In the mean time he wrote two tracts, one “on the Proofs of religion,” the other, “on the Councils,” both which are valued by catholics. In October 1742, he resigned his chair to be librarian to the Sorbonne, an office then vacant by the premature death of the abbe Guedier de St. Aubin, and made use of the leisure this situation afforded, to improve himself in the learned languages, which he had never neglected in the midst of his other studies. He was often consulted by Louis, duke of Orleans, first prince of the blood, who, among other things, wished to become acquainted with the original language of the holy scriptures. M. Ladvocat took advantage of his situation with this prince to represent to him what great and important benefits religion would derive from the establishment of a professor who should explain the holy scriptures according to the Hebrew text. M. the duke immediately comprehending all the good which would result from this professorship, realized it in 1751, and chose M. Ladvocat to fulfil its duties; desiring that for that time only, without any precedent being drawn from it in future, the offices of librarian and professor, which till then had been incompatible, might center in one person. M. Ladvocat was no sooner appointed to this professorship, than he considered by what means he might procure scholars to it; in which he was again seconded by the pious liberality of its august founder. The seminary of the Holy Family, endowed by Anne of Austria, offered choice subjects; the duke assembled them, and revived that seminary by paying the debts which had been necessarily contracted in repairing its buildings. The extinct, or suspended fellowships, rose to new existence, and were no longer given but to deserving competitors; an emulation for understanding scripture inspired the most indifferent, and. all the students in divinity hastened to receive lectures from the Orleans professor. The example was followed by some other communities, and this school, which seemed at first likely to be deserted, had the credit of training up many men of great talents. M. Ladvocat died at Paris, December 29, 1765, by which event the house and society of the Sorhonne lost one of its most learned members, the faculty of theology one of its most ingenious doctors, and religion one of its ablest defenders. There is scarce any kind of knowledge which he had not pursued; philosophy, mathematics, the learned languages, history, theology, the holy scripture, all fixed his attention. Assiduous and deliberate study had made the Greek and Latin fathers familiar to him: no monument of ecclesiastical antiquity had escaped his researches; but his peculiar study was to find the true sense of the sacred books; and the theses which he caused to be maintained on the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, at which the most distinguished among the learned were present, prove the utility of his labours. A genius lively and penetrating, uncommon and extensive, accurate and indefatigable; a ready and retentive memory, a delicate and enlightened feeling, a decided taste formed from the best models of antiquity, a clear and impartial judgment, a fertile, singular, and natural imagination, and a conversation, which, without seeking for ornaments of style, never failed to prove agreeable and interesting, characterized the scholar in M. Ladvocat, and gained him the regard and esteem of all with whom he had any intercourse or connections. He was frequently consulted on the most intricate and important points, by persons of the greatest distinction in different departments, while his uniform conduct, full of candour and simplicity, tender and compassionate, honest and virtuous, rendered him, though always far from affluence, the resource of indigent men of letters, and made him a kind relation, an excellent friend, beloved by all who had any intercourse with him, and a most valuable member of society in general. His works are, “A Hebrew Grammar,” 1758, 8vo; “The Historical Dictionary,” 4 vols. 8vo, reprinted several times during his lite; “Tractatus de Consiliis” a “Dissertation on Psalm, 67, Exurgat Deus;” “Lettres sur FAutorite des Textes originaux de FEcriture Sainte;” “Jugemens sur qoelques nouvelles Traductions de ‘lEcriture Sainte, d’apres le Texte Hebreu.” The four last were published after his death. M. Ladvocat assisted in the “Dict. Geographique,” which has appeared under the name of M. the abbé de Vosgiens, the best edition of which is that of 1772, 8vo. He had planned several other works which ke had not time to finish, but which were impatiently expected even in foreign countries.

, a pious English prelate, brother to sir Thomas Lake, knt. principal secretary of state to James I. and son of Almeric Lake or Du Lake, of Southampton, was born in St. Michael’s parish, and educated for some time at the free-school in that town. He was afterwards removed to Winchester school, and thence was elected probationer fellow of New college, Oxford, of which he was admitted perpetual fellow in 1589. in 1594 he took his degrees in arts, and being ordained, was made fellow of Winchester college about 1600, and in 1603 master of the hospital of St. Cross. In 1605 he took his degrees in divinity, and the same year was installed archdeacon of Surrey. In 1608 he was made dean of Worcester, and in December 1616, consecrated bishop of Bath and He Was a man of great learning and extensive rej f particularly in the fathers and schoolmen, then a cf study; and as a preacher was greatly admired, says he obtained his preferments “not so much by the power of his brother (the secretary) as by his own desert, as one whose piety may be justly exemplary to all of his order. In all the places of honour and employment which he enjoyed, he carried himself the same in mind and person, showing by his constancy, that his virtues were virtues indeed; in all kinds of which, whether natural, moral, theological, personal, or paternal, he was eminent, and indeed one of the examples of his time. He always lived as a single man, exemplary in his life and conversation, and very hospitable.” Walton confirms this character; he says Dr. Lake was “a man whom I take myself bound in justice to say, that he made the great trust committed to him the chief rare and whole business of his life. And one testimony of this truth may be, that he sat usually with his chancellor in his consistory, and at least advised, if not assisted, in most sentences for the punishing of such offenders as deserved church censures. And it may be noted, that after a sentence of penance was pronounced, he did very rarely or never allow of any commutation for the offence, but did usually see the sentence for penance executed; and then, as usually, preached a sermon of mortification and repentance, and so apply them to the offenders that then stood before him, as begot in them a devout contrition, and at least resolutions to amend their lives; and having done that, he would take them, though never so poor, to dinner with him, and use them friendly, and dismiss them with his blessing and persuasions to a virtuous life, and beg them for their own sakes to believe him. And his humility and charity, and all other Christian excellencies, were all like this.”

This worthy prelate died May 4, 1626, and was buried in the cathedral of Wells, It does not appear that he published any thing in his life-time; but after his death, Wood informs us, there were published several volumes of his “Sermons” an “Exposition of the first Psalm;” an “Exposition of the fifty-first Psalm,” and “Meditations,” all of which were collected in one vol. fol. Lond. 1629, with the title of “Sermons, with religious and divine Meditations,” and a life and portrait of the author. Bishop Lake was a considerable benefactor to the library of New caiege, ' where he also endowed two lectureships, one for the Hebrew language, and another for the mathematics.

Several of our ancient historians who were almost his contemporaries, speak in very advantageous terms of the genius and erudition of Lanfranc; and some of them who were personally acquainted with him, represent him as the most learned man of the age in which he flourished. His charity is said to have been so great, that he bestowed in that way no less than 500l. a year, a very great sum in those days, and equal to 1500l. in ours. Besides this he rebuilt the cathedral of Canterbury, re-established the chapter there, founded the hospitals of St. Nicholas at Herbaldown and St. John at Canterbury, repaired several churches and monasteries in his diocese, obtained a restoration of the estates of the church which had been alienated, and maintained the ecclesiastical immunities. A remarkable suit, which he carried against Odo, bishop of Bayeux and earl of Kent, put him in possession of five and twenty estates, which had been usurped by that prelate. Lanfranc, besides his piece against Berenger already mentioned, wrote several others, which were published in one volume, folio, in 1647, by father Luke D'Achery, a Benedictine monk, of the congregation of St. Maur. They consist of commentaries on the epistles of St. Paul, and on the Psalms a treatise on confession, letters, &C.

Our author was much esteemed by several learned men of his time, and held a literary correspondence with Usher and Selden. He was screened from the persecutions of the then prevailing powers, to whom he so far submitted as to continue quiet without opposing them, employing himself in promoting learning, and preserving the discipline of the university, as well as that of his own college. With what spirit he did this, is best seen in the following passages of two letters, one to Usher, and the other to Selden. In the first, dated from Queen’s-college, Feb. 9, 1646-7, he gives the following account of himself: “For myself, I cannot tell what account to make of my present employment. J have many irons in the fire, but of no great consequence. I do not know how soon I shall be called to give up, and am therefore putting my house in order, digesting the confused notes and papers left me by several predecessors, both in the university and college, which I purpose to leave in a better method than I found them. At Mr. Patrick Young’s request, I have undertaken the collation of Constantino’s Geoponics with two Mss. in our public library, upon which I am forced to bestow some vacant hours. In our college I am ex officio to moderate divinity-disputations once a week. My honoured friend Dr. Duck has given me occasion to make some inquiry after the law; and the opportunity of an ingenious young man, come lately from Paris, who has put up a private course of anatomy, has prevailed with me to engage myself for his auditor and spectator three days a week, four hours each time. But this I do ut explorator, non ut transfuga. For, though 1 am not solicitous to engage myself in that great and weighty calling of the ministry after this new way, yet I would lothe to be teiTrorautriit as to divinity. Though I am very insufficient to make a master-builder, yet I could help to bring in materials from that public store in our library, to which I could willingly consecrate the remainder of my days, and count it no loss to be deprived of all other accommodations, so I might be permitted to enjoy the liberty of my conscience, and study in that place. But if there be such a price set upon the latter as I cannot reach without pawning the former, I am resolved. The Lord’s will be done.” The other letter to Selden, is dated Nov. 8, 1653; “I was not so much troubled to hear of that fellow, who lately, in London, maintained in public that learning is a sin, as to see some men, v.onld he accounted none of the meanest among ourselves here at home, under pretence of piety, go about to banish it th university. I cannot make any better construction of a late order made by those whom we call visitors, upon occasion of an election last week at All-Souls college to this effect, that for the future, no scholar be chosen into any place in any college, unless he bring a testimony, under the hands of four persons at least (not electors) known to these visitors to be truly godly men, that he who stands for such a place is himself truly godly; and by arrogating to themselves this power, they sit judges of all men’s consciences, and have rejected some, against whom they had no other exceptions, (being certified by such to whom their conversations were best known, to be unblameable, and statutably elected, after due examination and approbation of their sufficiency by that society), merely upon this account, that the persons who testified in their behalf are not known to these visitors to be regenerate. I intend (God willing) ere long to have an election in our college, and have not professed that I'will not submit to this order. Howl shall speed in it, I do not pretend to foresee; but if I be baffled, I shall hardly be silent.” Dr. Langbaine’s works were, 1. his Longinus, Oxon. 1636 and 1638, 8vo. 2. “Brief Discourse relating to the times of Edward VI.; or, the state of the times as they stood in the reign of King Edward VI. By way of Preface to a book intituled The true subject to the rebel: or, the hurt of sedition, &c. written by sir John Cheek.” Oxford, 1641, in 4to. To this Dr. Langbaine prefixed the life of sir John Cheek. 3. “Episcopal Inheritance; or, a Reply to the humble examination of a printed abstract; or the answers to nine reasons of the House of Commons against the votes of bishops in Parliament,” Oxford, 1641, 4to. To which is added, “A determination of the late learned Bishop of Salisbury (Davenant) Englished.” These two pieces were reprinted at London in 1680. 4. “A Review of the Covenant: wherein the original, grounds, means, matter, and ends of it are examined; and out of the principles of the remonstunce*, declarations, votes, orders and ordinances of trie prime covenanters, or the firmer grounds of scripture, law, and reason, disproved,” 1644. It was reprinted at London, 1661, in 4to. 5. “Answer of the Chancellor, master and scholars of the university of Oxford, to the petition, articles of grievance, and reasons of the city of Oxford; presented to the committee for regulating the University of Oxford, 24 July 1649,” Oxford, 1649, 4to; reprinted in 1678, with a book entitled “A defence of the rights and privileges of the University of Oxford,” &c. published by James Harrington, then bachelor (soon after master) of arts, and student of Christ-church, at Oxford, 1690, 4to. 6. “Quacstiones pro more solenni in Vesperiis propositac ann. 1651,” Oxford, 1658, 4to. Published by Mr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards Bp. of Lincoln, among several little works of learned men. 7. “Platonicorum aliquot, qui etiamnum supersunt, Authorum, Graecorum, imprimis, mox Latinorum, syllabus alphabeticus,” Oxford, 1607, 8vo, drawn up by our author at the desire of archbishop Usher, but left imperfect; which being found among his papers, was, with some few alterations, placed at the end of “Alcini, in Plutonicam Philosophiam Introductio,” published by Dr. John Fell, dean of Christ-church. 8. There is also ascribed to our author, “A View of the New Directory, and a Vindication of the ancient Liturgy of the Church of England: in answer to the reasons pretended in the ordinance and preface for the abolishing the one, and establishing the other,” Oxford, 1645, 4to, pages 112, Dr. Langbaine also published, 1. “The Foundation of the university of Oxford, with a Catalogue of the principal founders and special benefactors of all the colleges, and total number of students,” &c. London, 165I,4to f mostly taken from the Tables of John Scot of Cambridge, printed in '622. 2. “The Foundation of the University of Cambridge, with a Catalogue,” &c. printed with the forme? Catalogue, and taken from Mr. Scot’s Tables. He likewise laboured very much in finishing archbishop Usher’s book, entitled “Chronologia Sacra,” but died when he had almost completed it, which was done by Barlow. He translated into Latin “Reasons of the present judgment of the university concerning the solemn League and Covenant,” and assisted Dr. Robert Sanderson, and Dr. Richard Zouch, in the drawing up of those Reasons. He translated into English “A Review of the Council of Trent, written in French by a learned Roman catholic,” Oxford, 1638, fol. in which is represented the dissent of the Gallican church from several conclusions of the Council. He left behind him thirteen 4tos, and eight 8vos, in manuscript, with innumerable collections in loose papers, collected chiefly from ancient manuscripts in the Bodleian library, &c, He had also made several catalogues of manuscripts in various libraries, and of printed books likewise, with a view, as was supposed, to an universal Catalogue. Dr. Fuller tells us that he took a great deal of pains in the continuation of Brian Twyne’s “Antiq. Academ. Oxon.” and that he was intent upon it when he died. But Mr. Wood observes, that Dr. Thomas Barlow and Dr. Lamplugh, who looked over his library after his death, assured him that they saw nothing done towards such a design. Dr. Langbaine assisted Dr. Arthur Duck in composing his book “De usu & authoritate Juris Civilis Homanorum in Dominiis Principum Christianorum,” London, 1653, 8vo. In Parr’s collection of Usher’s letters, are several letters of our author to that prelate.

His conduct hitherto had been becoming his station, but we have now to record one action of his which, as Anthony Wood says, it is impossible to defend. This was the removal of the celebrated John Wickliff from his situation as head of a hall at Oxford, called Canterbury-hall, founded by his predecessor Simon Islip. Whether his holding tenets which might then be deemed heretical was the archbishop’s true reason for ejecting him, does not appear. That which he avowed was, that having a desire that the hall should be a college for the education of monks, he thought a secular priest (between whom and the monastic order it is well known a considerable jealousy subsisted) would be an improper person for their governor. But although this might have been the opinion of the prelate, it does not appear to have been that of the society; the fellows of which convened a meeting, in whichfthey drew up a spirited remonstrance against the tyranny of their superior. This was so ill receded by him, and their subsequent conduct considered as so contumacious, that he sequestered a large portion of their revenue. War was now declared on both sides. The society appealed to the pope, the archbishop sent an agent to Rome to answer for him; and he had interest enough to induce his holiness to confirm the decree by which Wickliff and some other refractory members of the fraternity were removed, and their places filled with those who were more steady adherents to nonachism, and consequently more devoted to the will of the archbishop.

The character of this prelate, as given by Flete, the historian of the abbey, is, “that he was a man of great capacity, very wise, and very eloquent:” a character which, even allowing for the prejudice of monachism toward so eminent a benefactqr to the church, will not be disputed, if we consider also that he filled some of the highest departments of the state, under a monarch who is, by all historians, allowed to have been as eminent for his wisdom and discernment as he was for his courage and military glory.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the thirteenth century, a native of England, was educated at the university of Paris, where he afterwards taught divinity, and explained the Scriptures with much reputation. His character stood so high, that he was chosen chancellor of that university, canon of Paris, and dean of Rheims. He was afterwards sent for to Rome by pope Innocent III. and created a cardinal. In 1207, the monks of Canterbury having, upon a vacancy taking place in that see, made a double return, both parties appealed to the pope, and sent agents to Rome to support their respective claims. His holiness not only determined against both the contending candidates, but ordered the monks, of Canterbury, then, at Rome, immediately to proceed to the election of an archbishop, and, at the same time, commanded them to choose cardinal Stephen Langton. After various excuses, which the plenitude of papal power answered, by absolving these conscientious monks from all sorts of promises, oaths, &c. and by threatening them with the highest penalties of the church, they complied; and Langton was consecrated by the pope at Viterbo. As soon as the news arrived in England, king John was incensed in the highest degree both against the pope and monks of Canterbury, which last experienced the effects of his indignation. He sent two officers with a company of armed men to Canterbury, took possession of the monastery, banished the monks out of the kingdom, and seized all their property. He wrote a spirited letter to the pope, in which he accused him of injustice and presumption, in raising a stranger to the highest dignity in his kingdom, without his knowledge. He reproached the pope and court of Rome with ingratitude, in not remembering that they derived more riches from England than from all the kingdoms on this side the Alps. He assured him, that he was determined to sacrifice his life in defence of the rights of his crown; and that if his holiness did not immediately repair the injury he had done him, he would break off all communication with Rome. The pope, whom such a letter must have irritated in the highest degree, returned for answer, that if the king persisted in this dispute, he would plunge himself into inextricable difficulties, and would at length be crushed by him, before whom every knee must bow, &c. All this may be deemed insolent and haughty, but it was not foolish. The pope knew the posture of king John’s affairs at home he knew that he had lost the affections of his subjects by his imprudence his only miscalculation was respecting the spirit of the people for when, which he did immediately, he laid the kingdom of England under an interdict, and two years after excommunicated the king, he was enraged to find that the great barons and their followers adhered with so much steadiness to their sovereign, that, while he lay under the sentence of excommunication, he executed the only two successful expeditions of his reign, the one into Wales, and the other into Ireland a proof that if he had continued to act with firmness, and had secured the affections of his subjects by a mild administration, he might have triumphed over all the arts of Rome. Such, however, was not the policy of John; and in the end, he submitted to the most disgraceful terms. In 1213, cardinal Langton arrived in England, and took possession of the see; and though he owed all his advancement to the pope, yet the moment he became an English baron, he was inspired with a zealous attachment to the liberties and independence of his country. In the very year in which he came over, he and six other bishops joined the party of the barons, who associated to resist the tyranny of the king; and at length they were successful in procuring the g eat charter. Langton was equally zealous in opposing the claims of the papal agents, particularly of the pope’s legate, who assumed the right of regulating all ecclesiastical affairs in the most arbitrary manner. In the grand contest which took place between king John and the barons about the charter, the archbishop’s patriotic conduct gave such offence to the pope, that, in 1215, he laid him under a sentence of suspension, and reversed the election of his brother Simon Langton, who had been chosen archbishop of York. Yet in the following year we find Langton assisting at a general council held at Rome; and during his absence from England at this time, king John died. In 1222, he held a synod at Oxford, in which a remarkable canon was made, prohibiting clergymen from keeping concubines publicly in their houses, or from going to them in other places so openly as to occasion scandal. In the following year, he, at the head of the principal nobility, demanded an audience of king Henry III. and demanded of him a confirmation of the charter of their JiberTheir determined manner convinced the king that their demand was not to be refused, and he instantly gave s lor the assembling of parliament. The archbishop shewed, in several instances, that he was friendly to the legal prerogatives of the crown; and by a firm conduct, in a case of great difficulty, he prevented the calamity of a civil war. He died in 1228, leaving behind him many works, which prove that he was deserving the character of being a learned and polite author. He wrote “Commentaries” upon the greatest part of the books of the Old and New Testament. He was deeply skilled in Aristotelian dialectics, and the application of them to the doctrines of Scripture. The first division of the books of the Bible into chapters is ascribed to this prelate. The history of the translation of the body of Thomas a Becket was printed at the end of that archbishop’s letters, at Brussels, 1682; and there are various Mss. of his in our public libraries. His letter to king John, with the king’s answer, may be seen, in d'Achery’s Spicilegium.

These advantages increased the credit of the protestant party in Cambridge, of which Bilney and Latimer were the leaders; and great was the alarm of the popish clergy, of which some were the heads of colleges, and senior part of the university. Frequent convocations were held, tutors were admonished to have a strict eye over their pupils, and academical censures of all kinds were inflicted. But academical censures were found insufficient. Latimer continued to preach, and heresy to spread. The heads of the popish party applied to the bishop of Ely, Dr. West, as their diocesan; but that prelate was not a man for their purpose; he was a papist indeed, but moderate, tie, however, came to Cambridge, examined the state of religion, and, at their intreaty, preached against the heretics; but he would do nothing farther; only indeed he silenced Mr. Latimer, which, as he had preached himself, was an instance of his prudence. But this gave no check to the reformers; for there happened at this time to be a protestant prior in Cambridge, Dr. Barnes, of the Austinfriars, who, having a monastery exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, and being a great admirer of Latimer, boldly licensed him to preach there. Hither his party followed him; and, the late opposition having greatly excited the curiosity of the people, the friars’ chapel was soon incapable of containing the crowds that attended. Among others, it is remarkable, that the bishop of Ely was often one of his hearers, and had the ingenuousness to declare, that Latimer was one of the best preachers he had ever heard. The credit to his cause which Latimer had thus gained in the pulpit, he maintained by the piety of his life. Bilney and he did not satisfy themselves with acting unexceptionably, but were daily giving instances of goodness, which malice could not scandalize, nor envy misrepresent. They were always together concerting their schemes. The place where they used to walk, was long afterwards known by the name of the Heretics’ Hill. Cambridge at that time was full of their good actions; their charities to the poor, and friendly visits to the sick and unhappy, were then common topics. But these served only to increase the heat of persecution from their adversaries. Impotent themselves, and finding their diocesan either unable or unwilling to work their purposes, they determined upon an appeal to the higher powers; and heavy complaints were carried to court of the increase of heresy, not without formal depositions against the principal abettors of it.

His enemies, however, were not thus silenced. The party against him became daily stronger, and more inflamed. It consisted in general of the country priests in those parts, headed by some divines of more eminence. These persons, after mature deliberation, drew up articles against him, extracted chiefly from his sermons; in which he was charged with speaking lightly of the worship of saints; with saying there was no material fire in hell; and that he would rather be in purgatory than in Lollard’s tower. This charge being laid before Stokesley bishop of London, that prelate cited Latimer to appear before him; and, when he appealed to his own ordinary, a citation was obtained out of the archbishop’s court, where Stokesley and other bishops were commissioned to examine him. An archiepiscopal citation brought him at once to a compliance. His friends would have had him fly for it; but their persuasions were in vain. He set out for London in the depth of winter, and under a severe fit of the stone and cholic; but he was more distressed at the thoughts of leaving his parish exposed to the popish clergy, who would not fail to undo in his absence what he had hitherto done. On his arrival at London, he found a court of bishops and canonists ready to receive him; where, instead of being examined, as he expected, about his sermons, a paper was put into his hands, which he was ordered to subscribe, declaring his belief in the efficacy of masses for the souls in purgatory, of prayers to the dead saints, of pilgrimages to their sepulchres and reliques, the pope’s power to forgive sins, the doctrine of merit, the seven sacraments, and the worship of images; and, when he refused to sign it, the archbishop with a frown begged he would consider what he did. “We intend not,” says he, “Mr. Latimer, to be hard upon you; we dismiss you for the present; take a copy of the articles, examine them carefully; and God grant that, at our next meeting, we may find each other in a better temper!” At the next and several succeeding meet ings the same scene was acted over again. He continued inflexible, and they continued to distress him. Three times every week they regularly sent for him, with a view either to draw something from him by captious questions, or to teaze him at length into compliance. Of one of these examinations he gives the following account: “1 was brought out,” says he, “to be examined in the same chamber as before; but at this time it was somewhat altered: for, whereas before there was a fire in the chimney, now the fire was taken away, and an arras hanged over the chimney, and the table stood near the chimney’s end. There was, among these bishops that examined me, one with whom I have been very familiar, and whom I took for my great friend, an aged man; and he sat next the table-end. Then, among other questions, he put forth one, a very subtle and crafty one; and when I should make answer, * I pray you, Mr. Latimer,‘ said he, * speak out, I am very thick of hearing, and there be many that sit far off.’ I marvelled at this, that I was bidden to speak out, and began to misdeem, and gave an ear to the chimney; and there I heard a pen plainly scratching behind the cloth. They had appointed one there to write all my answers, that I should not start from them. God was my good Lord, and gave me answers I could never else have escaped them.” At length he was tired out with such usage and when he was next summoned, instead of going himself, he sent a letter to the archbishop, in which, with great freedom, he tells him, that “the treatment he had of late met with, had fretted him into such a disorder as rendered him unfit to attend that day that, in the mean time, he could not help taking this opportunity to expostulate with his grace for detaining him so long from the discharge of his duty; that it seemed to him most unaccountable, that they, who never preached themselves, should hinder others; that, us for their examination of him, he really could not imagine what they aimed at; they pretended one thing in the beginning, and another in the progress; that, if his sermons were what gaveofTence, which he persuaded himself were neither contrary to the truth, nor to any canon of the church, he was ready to answer whatever might be thought exceptionable in them; that he wished a little more regard might be had to the judgment of the people; and that a distinction might be made between the ordinances of God and man; that if some abuses in religion did prevail, as was then commonly supposed, he thought preaching was the best means to discountenance them; that he wished all pastors might be obliged to perform their duty: but that, however, liberty might be given to those who were willing; that, as for the articles proposed to him, he begged to be excused from subscribing them; while he lived, he never would abet superstition: and that, lastly, he hoped the archbishop would excuse what he had written; he knew his duty to his superiors, and would practise it: but, in that case, he thought a stronger obligation laid upon him.”

Upon the lord-chancellor Kllesmere’s decline, in 1610, Laud s interest began to rise at court, so that, in November that year, the king gave him the deanery of Gloucester; and as a farther instance of his heing in favour, he was selected to attend the king in his journey to Scotland, in 1617. Some royal directions were by his procurement sent to Oxford, for the better government of the university, before he set out on that journey, the design of which was to bring the church of Scotland to an uniformity with that of England; a favourite scheme of Laud and other divines: but the Scotch were resolute in their adherence to the presbyterian form of church government, and the only fruit of this expensive journey was, that the king found his commands nugatory, and his authority contemned. Laud, however, seems to have advanced in favour with his majesty, for on his return from Scotland, Aug. 2, 1617, he was inducted to the rectory of Ibstock, in Leicestershire; and Jan. 22, 1620-1, installed into a prebend of Westminster. About the same time, there was a general expectation at court, that the deanery of that church would have been conferred upon him; but Dr. Williams, then dean, wanting to keep it in commendam with the bishopric of Lincoln, to which he was promoted^ procured that Laud should be promoted to the bishopric of St. David’s. The day before his consecration, he resigned the presidentship of St. John’s, in obedience to the college-statute; but was permitted to keep his prebend of Westminster in corrimendam, through the lord-keeper Williams’s interest, who, about a year after, gave him a living of about 120l. a year, in the diocese of St. David’s, to help his revenue; and in January 1620, the king gave him also the rectory of Creeke, in Northamptonshire. The preachers of those times introducing in their sermons discussions on the doctrines of predestination and election, and even the royal prerogative, the king published, August 1622, directions concerning preachers and preaching, in which L;iud was said to have a hand, and which, being aimed at the puritans and lecturers, occasioned great clamour among them, and was one of the first causes of Laud’s unpopularity. This year also, our prelate held his famous conference with Fisher the Jesuit, before the marquis of Buckingham and his mother, in order to confirm them both in the protestant religion, in which they were then wavering. The conference was printed in 1624, and produced an intimate acquaintance between him and the marquis, whose special favourite he became at this time, and to whom he is charged with making himself too subservient; the proof of which is said to be, that Buckingham left him his agent at court, when he went with the prince to Madrid, and frequently corresponded with him.

, an English prelate, and very eminent scholar, was descended from a family long settled in Wiltshire, and was born at the parsonage- house of Mildenhall, in the above county, and baptised Jan. 18, 1683, his grandfather, Constable, being then rector of that parish. Joseph, father to bishop Lavington, is supposed to have exchanged his original benefice of Broad Hinton, in Wiltshire, for Newton Longville, in Bucks, a living and a manor belonging to New college, in Oxford. Transplanted thither, and introduced to the acquaintance of several members of that society, he was encouraged to educate the eldest of his numerous children, George, the subject of this article, at Wykeham’s foundation, near Winchester, from whence he succeeded to a fellowship of New college, early in the reign of queen Anne. George, while yet a schoolboy, had produced a Greek translation of Virgil’s eclogues, in the style and dialect of Theocritus, which is still preserved at Winchester in manuscript. At the university he was distinguished by his wit and learning, and equally so by a marked attachment to the protestant succession, at a period when a zeal of that kind could promise him neither preferment nor popularity. But if some of his contemporaries thought his ardour in a good cause excessive, still their affection and esteem for him remained undiminished by any difference of political sentiment. In 1717, he was presented by his college to their rectory of Hayford Warren, in the diocese of Oxford. Before this his talents and principles had recommended him to the notice of many eminent persons in church and state. Among others Talbot, then bishop of Oxford, intended him for the benefice of Hook Norton, to which his successor, bishop Potter, collated him. Earl Coningsby not only appointed him his own domestic chaplain, but introduced him in the same capacity to the court of king George I. In this reign he was preferred to a stall in the cathedral church of Worcester, which he always esteemed as one of the happiest events of his life, since it laid the foundation of that close intimacy which ever after subsisted between him and the learned Dr. Francis Hare, the dean. No sooner was Dr. Hare removed to St. Paul’s, than he exerted all his influence to draw his friend to the capital after him; and his endeavours were so successful that Dr. Lavington was appointed in 1732, to be a canon residentiary of that church, and in consequence of this station, obtained successively the rectories of St. Mary Aldermary, and St. Michael Bassishaw. In both parishes he was esteemed a minister attentive to his duty, and an instructive and awakening preacher. He would probably never have thought of any other advancement, if the death of Dr. Stillingfleet, dean of Worcester, in 1746, had not recalled to his memory the pleasing ideas of many years spent in that city, in the prime of life. His friends, however, had higher views for him; and, therefore, on the death of bishop Clagget, lord chancellor Hardwick, and the duke of Newcastle, recommended him to the king, to till the vacancy, without his solicitation or knowledge. From this time he resided at Exeter among his clergy, a faithful and vigilant pastor, and died universally lamented, Sept. 13, 1762; crowning a life that had been devoted to God’s honour and service, by a pious act of resignation to his will; for the last words pronounced by his faultering tongue, were Ao<* in 0sa> “Glory to God.” He married Francis Maria, daughter of Lave, of Corf Mullion, Dorset, who had taken refuge in this kingdom from the popish persecution in France. She survived the bishop little more than one year, after an union of forty years. Their only daughter is the wife of the rev. N. Nutcombe, of Nutcombe, in Devonshire, and chancellor of the cathedral at Exeter. Bishop Lavington published only a few occasional sermons, except his “Enthusiasm of the Methodists and Papists compared,” three parts; which involved him in a temporary controvery with Messrs. Whitfield and Wesley.

We know not where a more just character of this singular man can be found than in the “Miscellaneous Works” of Gibbon, the historian, who has for once praised a churchman and a man of piety, not only without irony, but with affection. “In our family,” says Gibbon, “he left the reputation of a worthy and pious man, who believed all that he professed, and practised all that he enjoined. The character of a nonjuror, which he maintained to the last, is a sufficient evidence of his principles in church and state; and the sacrifice of interest to conscience will be always respectable. His theological writings, which our domestic connection has tempted me to peruse, preserve an imperfect sort of life, and I can pronounce with more confidence and knowledge on the merits of the author. His last compositions are darkly tinctured by the incomprehensible visions of Jacob Behmen; and his discourse? on the absolute unlawfulness of stage-entertainments is sometimes quoted for a ridiculous intemperance of sentiment and language. But these sallies of religious phrensy must not extinguish the praise which is due to Mr. William Law as a wit and a scholar. His argument on topics of less absurdity is specious and acute, his manner is lively, his style forcible and clear; and, had not his vigorous mind been clouded by enthusiasm, he might be ranked with the most agreeable and ingeniotfs writers of the times. While the Bangorian controversy was a fashionable theme, he entered the lists on the subject of Christ’s kingdom, and the authority of the priesthood; against the Plain account of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper‘ he resumed the combat with bishop Hoadly, the object of Whig idolatry and Tory abhorrence; and at every weapon of attack and defence, the nonjuror, on the ground which is common to both, approves himself at least equal to the prelate. On the appearance of the Fable of the Bees,’ he drew his pen against the licentious doctrine that private vices are public benefits, and morality as well as religion must join in his applause. Mr. Law’s masterwork, the ‘Serious Call,’ is still read as a popular and powerful book of devotion. His precepts are rigid, but they are founded on the gospel; his satire is sharp, but it is drawn from the knowledge of human life; and many of his portraits are not unworthy of the pen of La Bruyere *. If he finds a spark of piety in his reader’s mind, be will soon kindle it to a flame; and a philosopher must allow that he exposes, with equal severity and truth, the strange contradiction between the faith and practice of the Christian world.”

Archbishop Leighton is celebrated by all who have written his life, or incidentally noticed him, as a striking example of unfeigned piety, extensive learning, and unbounded liberality. Every period of his life was marked with substantial, prudent, unostentatious charity; and that be might be enabled to employ his wealth in this way, he practised the arts of frugality in his own concerns. He enjoyed some property from his futher, but his income as bishop of Dunblane was only 200l., and as archbishop of Glasgow about 400l.; yet, besides his gifts of charity during his life, he founded an exhibition in the college of Edinburgh at the expence of 150l. and three more in the college of Glasgow, at the expence of 400l. and gave 300l. for the maintenance of four paupers in St. Nicholas’s hospital. He also bequeathed at last the whole of his remaining property to charitable purposes. His library and Mss. he left to the see of Dunblane. His love for retirement we have often mentioned; he carried it perhaps to an excess, and it certainly unfitted him for the more active duties of his high station. Although a prelate, he nnver seemed to have considered himself as more than a parish priest, and his diocese a large parish. He was not made for the times in which he lived, as a public character. They were too violent for his gentle spirit, and impressed him with a melancholy that checked the natural cheerfulness of his temper and conversation* As a preacher, he was admired beyond all his contemporaries, and his works have not yet lost their popularity. Some of them, as his “Commentary on St. Peter,” have been often reprinted, but the most complete edition, including many pieces never before published, is that which appeared in 1808, in 6 vols. 8vo, with a life of the author by the Rev. G. Jerment. Of this last we have availed ourselves in the preceding sketch, but must refer to it for a more ample account of the character and actions of this revered prelate.

This event, as his illness before had, was deemed a national misfortune, greatly lamented by contemporaries, and by succeeding ages. On his demise, Leland’s papers were sought after by persons of the lirst rank and learning in the kingdom. King Edward, aware of their value, committed them to the custody of sir John Cheke, his tutor, who probably would have made some important use of them had he not been hindered by the confusions which followed the death of his sovereign. Sir John, being then obliged to go abroad, left four folio volumes of Leland’s collections to Humphrey Purefoy, esq. and these descended to Burton, the author of the History of Leicestershire, who obtained possession also of eight other volumes of Leland’s Mss. called his “Itinerary,” all which he deposited, in 1632, in the Bodleian library. The only other portion of Leland’s Mss. is in the Cottonian collection. Of all these, Holinshed, Drayton, Camden, Dugdale, Stowe, Lambard, Battely, Wood, &c. &c. have made much use in their historical researches; but we cannot too deeply regret that the author did not live to execute his own plans. His collections were in truth but labores incepti, begun, not completed. In that light he mentions them himself in an address to archbishop Cranmer, intreating the favour of that prelate’s protection of his indigested papers. Yet in this imperfect state they have been justly deemed a national treasure, have always been consulted by our best antiquaries, and their authority is cited as equal, if not superior to any, in points that concern antiquities. Dr. Tanner had once formed a plan for publishing Leland’s papers, but various avocations prevented him: at length Hearne undertook the task, and produced those two invaluable collections, the “Itinerary,” and “Collectanea,” both too well known to require a more minute description. To these may be added a work not so well edited, “Commentarii tie scriptoribus Britannicis,” Oxon. 1709, 2 vols. 8vo.(See Amthony Hall.) Some unpublished Mss. still remain, and it appears that Leland had prepared a large work entitled “De Antiquitate Britannica, sive, Historia Civilis.” It also appears that he had made large collections towards the antiquities of London, but these have long been lost to the public, as well as his quadrate table on silver, mentioned in the preceding note, and the “Description of England,” which he said would be published in twelve months.

, a learned English prelate, was born at Norwich in 1665, and educated at St. Paul’s school, London, whence he removed to Catherine-hall, Cambridge; and took his degrees of A. B. in 1636, A.M. 1690, and B. D. 1698. He was, in 1708, presented to the rectory of Beddington in Surrey, by sir Nicholas Carew, bart. who had been his pupil; and he was appointed chaplain to king George I. who also promoted him to the see of Norwich in 1723. He died Oct. 26, 1727, of the small-pox, which he caught at the coronation of George II. He lies buried in the church of St. Margaret, Westminster, where is a monument to his memory. Richardson, in his continuation of Godwin, calls him a man of the first-rate genius and abilities. In 1695, he published two of the comedies of Aristophanes, the “Plutus” and “Nubes,” Gr. & Lat. 8vo, with notes; and in 1719 preached the sermons at Boyle’s lecture, which are printed, as are a set of his sermons preached at Tunbridge, and a few others upon occasional subjects. He was editor also of one of the most magnificent and correct editions of “Terence,” that printed at Cambridge in 1701, 4to. For this he consulted thirteen manuscripts, and many ancient editions, and enriched the work with critical notes, and a dissertation “De ratione et licentia metri Terentiani.” It was reprinted at Cambridge, in octavo, 1701 and 1723, which last Dr. Harwood thinks the best editon. Dr. Leng corrected and revised the sixth edition of sir Roger L'Estrange’s translation of Cicero de Officiis, an employment which we are surprized he should have undertaken, who could with more ease and elegance have given a new one.

Soon after his arrival, he was appointed one of the senators of the college of justice, and sworn into the privycouncil. In 1564, the abbey of Lundores was conferred upon him; and, upon the death of Sinclair bishop of Ross, he was promoted to that see. This advancement was no more than he merited from the head of the Roman church in Scotland, in whose defence he was always an active and able disputant with the reformed party. His learning was not inferior to his other attainments; nor was his attention so entirely absorbed in ecclesiastical matters, as to prevent his introducing some important improvements in the civil state of the kingdom. To this end, having observed that all the ancient laws were growing obsolete, for want of being collected into a body, he represented this matter to the queen, and prevailed with her majesty to appoint proper persons for the work. Accordingly, a commission was made out, granting to Lesley, and fifteen others, privycounsellors and advocates in the law, authority to print the same. Thus it is to the care principally of the bishop of Ross, that the Scots owe the first impression of their laws at Edinburgh, in 1566, commonly called the black acts of parliament, from their being printed in the black Saxon character. Upon the queen’s flying into England from her protestant subjects, who had taken up arms against her, queen Elizabeth appointed commissioners at York to examine the case between her and them, and bishop Lesley was one of those chosen by Mary, in 1568, to defend her cause, which he did with great vigour and strength of reasoning; and, when this method proved ineffectual, appeared afterwards in the character of ambassador at the English court, to complain of the injustice done to his queen. Finding no notice taken of his public solicitations, he began to form schemes to procure her escape privately, and at the same time seems to have been concerned with foreign courts in conspiracies against queen Elizabeth. With a view, however, to serve queen Mary, he hit upon the unfortunate expedient of negotiating her marriage with the duke of Norfolk; which being discovered, the duke was convicted of treason, and executed. Lesley being examined upon it, pleaded the privileges of an ambassador; alleging, that he had done nothing but what his place and duty demanded for procuring the liberty of his princess; and that he came into England with sufficient warrant and authority, which he had produced, and which had been admitted. It was answered, that the privileges of ambasjadors could not protect those who offended against the majesty of the princes to whom they were sent; and that they werfe to be considered in no other light than as enemies who practised rebellion against the state. To this our prelate replied, that he had neither raised nor practised rebellion; but, perceiving the adversaries of queen Mary countenanced, and her deprived of all hope of liberty, he could not abandon his sovereign in her afflictions, but do his best to procure her freedom; and that it would never be found that the privileges of ambassadors were violated, via juris, by course of law, but only via facti, by way of fact, which seldom had good success.

“But farther, Burnet bishop of Sarum was an excellent scholar, and well-readj as every one knows, in the works of foreign divines. Is it conceivable, that this prelate, when smarting under the lash of Leslie, would have let slip so good an opportunity of covering with disgrace his most formidable antagonist, had he known that antagonist to be guilty of plagiarism from the writings of the abbé St. Réal? Let it be granted, however, that Burnet was a stranger to these writings and to this plagiarism; it can hardly be supposed that Le Clerc was a stranger to them likewise. Yet this author, when, for reasons best known to himself, he chose (1706) to depreciate the argument of the” Short Method,“and to traduce its author as ignorant of ancient history, and as having brought forward his four marks for no other purpose than to put the deceitful traditions of popery on the same footing with the most authentic doctrines of the gospel, does not so much as insinuate that he borrowed these marks from a popish abbe, though such a charge, could he have established it, would have served his purpose more than all his rude railings and invective. But there was no room for such a charge. In the second volume of the works of St. Real, published in 1757, there is indeed a tract entitled” Methode courte et aisee pour combattre les Deistes,“and there can be little doubt but that the publisher wished it to be considered as the work of his countryman. Unfortunately, however, for his design, a catalogue of the abbe’s works is given in the first volume; and in that catalogue the * Methode courte et aisee' is not mentioned.”

As to his rabbinical learning, he was excelled by none, and had few equals; and foreigners who came to England for assistance in their rabbinical studies, usually paid their court to him, as one of the most eminent scholars in that branch. Among these were Frederic Miege and Theodore Haak, who were peculiarly recommended also to Dr. Pocock, with whom our author had a correspondence as also Dr. Marshal of Lincoln-college, in Oxford Samuel Clarke, keeper of the Bodleian library Dr. Bernard, of St. John’s; and the famous Buxtorf were all correspondents of his. Castell acknowledges his obligations to him, when he had little encouragement elsewhere. It is true, he is charged with maintaining some peculiar opinions t; of which he says, “Innocua, ut spero, semper proponens;” yet he bore the reputation of one of the most ingenious as well as learned of our English commentators, and has been of great service to his successors. He bequeathed his whole library of rabhinical works, oriental books, &c. to Harvard college, in America, where the whole were burnt in 1769. The doctor was twice married; his first wife, already mentioned, brought him four sons and two daughters. His eldest son, John, who was chaplain to Bryan Walton, bishop of Chester, died soon after that prelate. His second was Anastasius, who had also these additions to that name, Cotton us Jackson us, in memory of sir Rowland Cotton and sir John Jackson, two dear friends of our author; he was minister of Thundridge, in Hertfordshire, and died there, leaving one son. His third son was Anastasius too, but without any addition; he was brought up to trade in London. His fourth son was Thomas, who died young. His daughters was Joice and Sarah, the former of whom was married to Mr. John Duckfield, rector of Aspeden, in Hertfordshire, into whose hands fell the doctor’s papers, which he communicated to Mr. Strype. The other married Mr. Coclough, a Staffordshire gentleman. This lady died in 1656, and was interred in the church of Munden, in Hertfordshire. The doctor’s second wife was relict of Mr. Austin Brograve, uncle of sir Thomas Brograve, bart. of Hertfordshire, a gentleman well versed in rabbinical learning, and a particular acquaintance of our author. He had no issue by her. She also died before him, and was buried in Munden church.

According to Mr. Blount, Lilly was deserving of the highest encomiums. He styles him, in his title-page, “the only rare poet of that time, the witty, comical, facetiously quick and unparalleled John Lilly” and in his epistle dedicatory, says, “that hep sate at Apollo’s table that Apollo gave him a wreath of his own bayes without snatching, and the lyre he played on had no borrowed strings.” If, indeed, what has been said with regard to his reformation of the English language had been true, he certainly would have had a claim to the highest hor ours from his countrymen; but those eulogiums are far from well founded, since his injudicious attempts at improvement produced only the most ridiculous affectation. The style of his Euphues exhibits the absurdest excess of pedantry, to which nothing but the most deplorable bad taste could have given even a temporary approbation. Lilly was the author of a famous pamphlet against Martin Mar-prelate and his party, well known to collectors, entitled “Pap with a Hatchet, alias a fig for my godson, &c.” published about 1589, and attributed to Nashe, but was certainly Lilly’s. His prose work, or rather his two prose works intended to reform the English language, were entitled “Euphues and his England,” Lond. 1580, and “Euphues, the Anatomy of Wit,” 1581. Some differences of opinion as to the times of publishing these, may be found in our authorities.

After receiving all these honours, as attestations and reyards of superior merit in his profession, he resolved to change it for that of divinity. To this study he applied himself in the latter part of his life; and, entering into the priesthood, obtained the rectory of Mersham, October 1509; but, resigning it within a month, he was installed into the prebend of Eaton in the church of Wells, and afterwards, in 1518, into another of York; he was alsa precentor in the latter church, but resigned it in half a year. He had other preferments in the church, some of which he received from archbishop Warham, as he gratefully acknowledges in a letter to that prelate. Dr. Knight informs us, that he was a prebendary of St. Stepiien’s, Westminster; and bishop Tanner writes, that he was also rector of Wigan, in Lancashire. He died of the stone, in great pain and torment, Oct. 20, 1524, and was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral; where a handsome monument was afterwards erected to his memory by his admirer and successor in fame, Dr. Caius.

, a Socinian writer, was born at Middlewich, in Cheshire, June 20th, 1723, old style. His father, Mr. Robert Lindsey, was an opulent proprietor of the salt-works in that neighbourhood; his mother’s name was Spencer, a younger branch of the Spencer family, in the county of Buckingham. Theophilus was the second of three children, and so named after his godfather, Theophilus earl of Huntingdon. He received the rudiments of grammar-learning at Middlewich, and from his early attachment to books, and the habitual seriousness of his mind, he was intended by his mother for the church. He lost some time by a change of schools, until he was put under the care of Mr. Barnard of the free-school of Leeds, under whom he made a rapid progress in classical learning. At the age of eighteen he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, where, by exemplary diligence and moral conduct, he obtained the entire approbation of his tutors. As soon as he had finished his studies at college, taken his first degree, and had been admitted to deacon’s orders, he was nominated by sir George Wheler to a chapel in Spital-square London. Soon after this, he was, by the recommendation of the earl of Huntingdon, appointed domestic chaplain to Algernon duke of Somerset. The duke, from a great regard for his merit, determined to procure him a high rank in the church, but an early death deprived Mr. Lindsey of his illustrious patron. In 1754, be accompanied the present duke of Northumberland to the continent, and on his return he supplied, for some time, the temporary vacancy of a good living in the north of England, called Kirkby-Wisk: here he became acquainted with Mr. archdeacon Blackburne, and in 1760 married his daughter-in-law. From Kirkby Mr. Lindsey went to Piddletown, in Dorsetshire, having been presented to the living of that place by the earl of Huntingdon: this, through the interest of the same patron, he exchanged, in 1764, for the vicarage of Catterick, in Yorkshire. Here he resided nearly ten years, an exemplary pattern of a primitive and conscientous pastor, highly respected and beloved by the people committed to his charge. Besides his various and important duties as a parish clergyman, Mr. Lindsey was ever alive, and heartily active, in every cause in which a deviation from the formularies and obligations of the church was considered as necessary. With this view, in 1771 he zealously co-operated with Mr. archdeacon Blackburne, Dr. John Jebb, Mr. Wyvil, and others, in endeavouring to obtain relief in matters of subscription to the thirty-nine articles. Mr. Lindsey had, probably, for some years, entertained doubts with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, and other leading topics of the established faith; and these pressed so heavy upon him that he could no longer endure to remain in a church, partaking of its emoluments, which he could not deserve, and preaching its doctrines, which he could not believe. He therefore, in November 1773, wrote to the prelate of his diocese, informing him of his iateiuion to quit the church, and signifying, that in a few days he should transmit to him his deed of resignation. The bishop endeavoured to persuade him to remain at his post, but he had made up his mind that duty required the sacrifice, and he was resolved to bear the consequences. When the act was done, he said he felt himself delivered from a load which had long lain heavy upon him, and at times nearly overwhelmed him. Previously to his quitting Catterick, Mr. Lindsey delivered a farewell address to his parishioners, in which he stated his motives for quitting them in a simple and very affecting manner, pointing out the reasons why he could no longer conduct, nor join in their worship, without the guilt of continual insincerity before God, and endangering the loss of his favour for ever. He left Catterick about the middle of December, and after visiting some friends in different parts of the country, he arrived in London in January 1774, where he met with friends, who zealously patronized the idea which he entertained of opening a place of worship, devoted entirely to unitarian principles. A large room was at first fitted up for the purpose in Essex-street in the Strand, which was opened April 17, 1774. The service of the place was conducted according to the plan of a liturgy which had been altered from that used in the established church by the celebrated Dr. Samuel Clarke, whose conscience was not quite so delicate as that of Mr. Lindsey. Mr. Lindsey published the sermon which he preached on the opening of his chapel, to which was added an account of the liturgy made use of. About the same time he published his “Apology,” of which several editions were called for in the course of a few years. This was followed by a still larger volume, entitled “A Sequel to the Apology,” which was intended as a reply to his various opponents, and likewise to vindicate and establish the leading doctrines which he professed, and on account of which he had given up his preferment in the church. This work was published in 1776; and in 1778 he was enabled, by the assistance of his friends, to build the chapel of Essex-street, and to purchase the ground on which it stands. Till the summer of 1793, Mr. Lindsey, with the aid of his friend the Rev. Dr. Disney, conducted the services of the place, upon strict unitarian principles, to a numerous congregation. He then resigned the whole into the hands of his coadjutor, notwithstanding the, earnest wishes of his hearers that he should still continue a part of the services, Though he had quitted the duties of the pulpit, he continued to labour in the cause, by his publications, till he had attained his 80th, year. In 1802, he published his last work, entitled “Conversations on the Divine Government, shewing that every thing is from God, and for good to all.” The professed object of this piece is to vindicate the Creator from those gloomy notions which are too often attached to his providence, and to shew that the government of the world is the wisest that could have been adopted, and that afflictions and apparent evils are permitted for the general good. From this principle Mr. Lindsey derived consolation through life, and upon it he acted in every difficult and trying scene. On his death-bed he spoke of his sufferings with perfect patience and meekness, and when reminded, by a friend, that he doubtless was enabled to bear them with so much fortitude in the recollection of his favourite maxim, that “Whatever is, is right; w “No,” said he with an animation that lighted up his countenance, “Whatever is, is best.” This was the last sentence which he was able distinctly to articulate: he died Novembers, 1808. Besides the works already referred to, he published two dissertations: 1. On the preface to St. John’s Gospel; 2. On praying to Christ:” An Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship from the Reformation to our own Times;“and several other pieces. Among controversial writers Mr. Lindsey takes a place as his” Vindiciae Priestleianae,“and his” Examination of Mr. Robinson’s Plea for the Divinity of Christ," will shew. Two volumes of his Sermons have been published since his death.

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

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

, a very learned oriental scholar, was the second son of sir Adam Loftus, and great grandson of Dr. Adam Loftus, who was archbishop of Armagh, then of Dublin, and one of the lords justices, and lord chancellor of Ireland. He was born in 1618, at Rathfarnam, near Dublin, a stately castle built by his ancestor the archbishop, and was educated in Trinity college, where he was admitted fellow- commoner in 1635. About the time he took his first degree in arts, the extraordinary proficiency he had made in languages attracted the notice of arciibishop Usher, who earnestly advised his father to send him to Oxford, where he might improve his oriental learning, a matter which that worthy prelate considered as highly important in the investigation of the history and principles of the Christian religion. Mr. Loftus was accordingly sent by his father to Oxford, and entered of University college, where he was incorporated B. A. in November 1639, About this time he commenced the study of the law, with a view to take his bachelor’s degree in that faculty, but at the persuasion of his friends in University college, took his degree of master of arts in 1641, and then returned to Ireland at the moment the rebellion broke out. His father, who was at that time vice-treasurer, and one of the privy council, procured a garrison to be placed in his castle of Rathfarnam, and gave the command of it to his son Dudley, who displayed his skill and courage, by defending the city from the incursions of the Irish inhabiting the neighbouring mountains. He was afterwards made one of the masters in chancery, vicargeneral of Ireland, and judge of the prerogative court and faculties, all which offices he held to the time of his death. He was also a doctor of the civil law, and esteemed the most learned of any of his countrymen in that faculty. Towards the latter part of his life, his talents and memory were very much impaired, and when about seventy-six years of age, he married a second wife, but died the year following, in June 1695, and was buried in St. Patrick’s church, Dublin.

Mr. Loftus’s greatest excellence lay in the knowledge of various languages, especially the oriental; and it is said, that when only twenty years of age, he was able to translate as many languages into English. Among archbishop Usher’s letters is one from him to that prelate, which, although short, shews his avidity to search out oriental books and Mss.; as well as his high respect and gratitude to Usher, who first directed his attention to the treasures of the Bodleian library. Yet his character in other respects does not correspond with his parts or learning. He was accounted, says Harris, an improvident and unwise man, and his many levities and want of conduct gave the world too much reason to think so. The same biographer mentions “a great, but free-spoken prelate,” who said of Mr. Loftus, that “he never knew so much learning in the keeping of a fool.”

, a learned prelate, was born in 1473 at Henley in Oxfordshire, and educated at Magdalen -college, Oxford, where he was much esteemed as a man of eloquence, and of a regular life. His character is recorded in the East window of the founder’s chamber over the great gate of this college, in these lines:

, a very learned and eminent prelate, and second son to the preceding, was born Nov. 27, 1710. He received his education at Winchester-school, und while there gave the first specimen of his“great abilities, in a poem, entitled” The Genealogy of Christ, as it is represented on the East window of Winchester-college chap-el,“since inserted in Pearch’s Collection of Poems. He also, as an exercise, in 1729, wrote another poem, entitled” Catharine Hill," the place where the Winchester scholars are allowed to play on holidays. From Winchester he was elected to New-college, Oxford, in 1730, where he took his degree of M. A. June 8, 1737. At Oxford he was not more distinguished for proficiency in his studies, than for the excellence of his taste, and the politeness of his manners: and being now more immediately under Wykeham’s roof, he conceived the design, which he afterwards so ably accomplished, of investigating the history of his college, and writing the life of that wise and munificent founder. The first distinction he obtained in the university was the office of professor of poetry, which was conferred upon him in 1741, on the resignation of his friend Mr. Spence. In performing the duties of this office he struck out a new path, by giving a course of lectureg on Hebrew poetry, which have since added so much to hii reputation.

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

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

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

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

Of the historical works of Manni v relative to other places, and more general subjects, we shall only mention his “History of the Jubilees,” published in 1750, in which he did justice to his subject in a philosophical and political light, by shewing who were the most distinguished persons who had ever visited Rome on those occasions, and how far, on their return to their native countries, they grafted on those countries the manners and practices of Italy. He also illustrated every particular by curious anecdotes, medals, fac-similes, &c. In biography, Manni wrote a singular work, but perhaps of local interest, entitled “Le Veglie Piacevoli,” &c. or “Agreeable Evenings,” being the lives of the most jocose and eccentric Tuscans. This was published in 1757, in 4 vols. 4to. He wrote also the “Life of the well-deserving prelate, Nicholas Steno, of Denmark,” published in 1775. Manni’s publications, not of the historical or biographical kind, were few, and none of them added much to his fame, except his “Lectures on Italian Eloquence,” 1758, 2 vols. 4to.

, a very learned Italian prelate, and voluminous editor, was born at Lucca, Feb. 16, 1692. At school and college he made rapid progress in every branch of study, but became particularly attached to ecclesiastical history and biography. He was for some years professor of theology at Naples; but the greater part of his life was spent in reading, and carefully exploring the contents of the Italian libraries, particularly the manuscripts, from all which he amassed a fund of information on subjects connected with ecclesiastical history, of vast extent and importance. His first station in the church was that of a clerk-regular in the congregation of the Mother of God; and from this, in 1765, at the age of seventy-two, he was promoted to the archbishopric of Lucca, by pope Clement XIII. who had a high esteem for him. He died Sept. 27, 1769. His life, in our authority, is little more than an account of his works, which indeed must have occupied the whole of his time. His first publication was entitled “Tractatus de casibus, et excommunicationibus episcopis reservatis, confectusad normam label lae Lucanse,” Lucca, 1724. He then published a translation into Latin of Calmet’s “Dictionary of the Bible,*' with additions; an, edition of Thomasini” De veteri et nova ecclesise disciplina,“3 vols. folio; a Latin translation of Calmet’s” Commentaries on the Bible,“1731, &c. 7 vols. an edition of Baronius’s annals, with great additions, in 30 vols. folio a new edition of the Councils, including Labbe, Cossart, &c. 1759, &c. 30 vols. folio; anew edition of yneas Sylvius (pope Pius II.) orations, with many hitherto unpublished, 1755, 2 vols. 4to. He was the editor of some other ecclesiastical collections and theological pieces of inferior note; but we must not omit the work by which he is perhaps best known in this country, his excellent edition of Fabricius’s” Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis," 6 vols. 4to, generally bound in three, printed at Padua, in 1754. This alone is sufficient to place him in the first rank of literary antiquaries.

, a once celebrated Italian poet, was born at Naples in 1569; and made so great a progress in his juvenile studies, that he was thought qualified for that of the civil law at thirteen. His father, who was a lawyer, intended him for that profession, as the properest means of advancing him; but Marini had already contracted a taste for poetry, and was so far from relishing the science to which he was put, that he sold his law-books, in order to purchase books of polite literature. This so much irritated his father, that he turned him out of doors, and obliged him to seek for protectors and supporters abroad. Having acquired a reputation for poetry, he happily found in Inico de Guevara, duke of Bovino, a friend who conceived an affection for him, and supported him for three years in his house. The prince of Conca, grand admiral of the kingdom of Naples, next took him into his service, in quality of secretary; and in this situation he continued five or six years; but having assisted a friend in a very delicate intrigue, he was thrown into prison, and very hardly escaped with his life. Thence he retired to Rome, where, after some time spent in suspense and poverty, he became known to Melchior Crescendo, a prelate of great distinction, who patronized him, and provided him with every thing he wanted.

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

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

, an English divine, was born at Barkby in Leicestershire, about 1621, and educated there in grammar learning, under the vicar of that town. He was entered of Lincoln college, Oxford, in 1640; and, about the same time, being a constant hearer of archbishop Usher’s sermons in All-hallows church in that university, he conceived such a high opinion of that prelate, as to wish to make him the pattern of his life. Soon after, Oxford being garrisoned upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he bore arms for the king at his own charge; and therefore, in 1645, when he was a candidate for the degree of bachelor of arts, he was admitted to it without paying fees. Upon the approach of the parliamentary visitors, who usurped the whole power of the university, he went abroad, and became preacher to the company of English merchants at Rotterdam and Dort. In 1661, he was created bachelor of divinity; and, in 1663, chosen fellow of his college, without his solicitation or knowledge. In 1669, while he was at Dort in Holland, he was made doctor of divinity at Oxford; and, in 1672, elected rector of his college, in the room of Dr. Crew, promoted to the bishopric of Oxford. He was afterwards appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, rector of Bladon near Woodstock in Oxfordshire, in May 1680, and was installed dean of Gloucester on April 30, 1681. He resigned Bladon in the year 1682. He died at Lincoln-college in 1685. By his will he gave to the public library at Oxford all such of his books, whether manuscript or printed, as were not then in the library, excepting such only as he had not other-­wise disposed of, and the remaining part to Lincoln-college library; in which college also he fitted up the common room, and built the garden-wall.

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

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

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of John Matthew, a merchant of Bristol, and born in that part of the city which lies in Somersetshire, in 1546. He received the first rudiments of learning in the city of Wells, and at the age of thirteen became a student in the university of Oxford, in the beginning of 1558-9. In Christ Church college he took the degree of bachelor of arts, Feb. 11, 1563, and in June 1566, was made master of arts; about which time he entered into holy orders, and was greatly respected for his learning, eloquence, conversation, friendly disposition, and the sharpness of his wit. On the 2nd of November 1569, he was unanimously elected public orator of the university; which office he filled with great applause. In 1570, he was made canon of the second stall in the cathedral of Christy-church, and November 28 following was admitted archdeacon of Bath. In 1571, he petitioned for his degree of bachelor of divinity, but was not admitted to it for two years. In 1572, he was made prebendary of Teynton-Regis with Yalmeten in the church of Salisbury; and in July following was elected president of St. John’s college, Oxford: at which time, being in high reputation as a preacher, he was appointed one of the queen’s chaplains in ordinary. On December lOth, 175S, he was admitted bachelor of divinity; and next year, May 27, proceeded doctor. On the 14th of June, 1576, being archdeacon at Bath, he was commissioned by archbishop Grindal, with some others, to visit the church, city, and deanry of Bristol. In the same year, he was made dean of Christ-church; and then obtained, from the pen of Camden, the distinguished character of " Theologus praestantissimus/' Camden adds, that learning and piety, art and nature, vied together in his composition. Sir John Harrington is also full of his praises, and even Campian the Jesuit speaks highly of his learning and virtues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, an eminent prelate a ntt statesman, in the reign of Henry VII. was the eldest son of Richard Morton, of Milbourtie St. Andrew’s in Dorsetshire, and was born in 1410 at Bere in that county. The first part of his education he received among the monks of Cerne abbey, and thence removed to Baliol college, Oxford, where in 1446 he was one of the commissaries of that university, and had been also moderator of the civil law school, and principal of Peckwater inn in 1453. In 1458 he was collated to the prebend of Fordington with Writhlington in the cathedral of Salisbury, which he resigned in 1476. In the same year he was installed prebendary of Covingham in the church of Lincoln, and on this occasion. resigned the sub-deanery to which he had been collated in 1450. In October 1472 he was collated by archbishop Bouchier to the rectory of St. Dunstan’s in the East, London, which he held only two years; and the same month was collated to the prebend of Isledon in the church of St. Paul, which he exchanged in the following year for that of Chiswick in the same church.

Archbishop Morton’s character is highly spoken of by his contemporaries and successors, as a statesman of great talents and a man of learning, probity, liberality, and spirit. His life was written by Dr. John Budden in 1607, 8vo; but the eulogium that confers most honour upon him is that which occurs in sir Thomas More’s “Utopia,” and in some of the lives of that illustrious man, who, as we have noticed in our account, was educated by Morton. Parker may also be consulted in his “Antiq. Ecclesiast.” Although he derived much unpopularity from the high favour he enjoyed with king Henry VII. yet it was owing to his advice and interference that the exactions made by that monarch were not far more severe; and he had at all times the courage to give the king his fair and honest opinion on such measures. The life of Richard III. attribated to Sir Thomas More, is said to have been written by our prelate.

The works of this prelate were, 1. “Apologia Catholica,” parti. Lond. 1605, 4to, dedicated to Dr. Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury. 2. “An exact Discovery of Romish Doctrine in the case of Conspiracy and Rebellion or Romish Positions and Practices,” &c. Lond. 1605, 4to, occasioned by the discovery of the gunpowdertreason-plot. 3. “Apologia Catholica,” part II. Lond. 1606, 4to. 4. “A full Satisfaction concerning a double Romish Iniquitie, hainous Rebellion, and more than heathenish Æquivocation containing three parts. The two former belong to the Reply upon the Moderate Answer: the first for confirmation of the discovery in these two points, treason and equivocation; the second is a justification of protestants touching the same points. The third part is a large discourse confuting the reasons and grounds of other priests, both in the case of rebellion and ^equivocation: published by authoritie,” Lond. 1606, 4to. Father Robert Parsons, the Jesuit, undertook to vindicate his friend, the writer of the “Moderate Answer:” in a book published under the name of P. R. and entitled “ATreatise, tending to Mitigation towards Catholic subjects in England, against Tho. Morton,” 1607, 4to. To this our author returned an answer, entitled, 5. “A Preamble unto an Incounter with, P. R. the author of the deceitful Treatise of Mitigation,” Lond. 1608, 4to. To this book and some others of our

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

A life of this eminent lawyer is still a desideratum, but with the lapse of time, the means of procuring materials are placed farther and farther beyond the reach of modern, inquiry. Mr. Holliday, in his lately published “Life,” has done much, perhaps as much as can be done; but curiosity requires a knowledge of lord Mansfield in the more early and brilliant periods of his career, and that, perhaps, it may be impossible now to acquire. We shall, however, conclude our article with Dr. Kurd’s well-drawn statement of a part of his character, which first appeared in that prelate’s preface to Warburton’s works.

, a learned Spanish physician, divine, and botanist, was born at Cadiz in 1734. He studied medicine at his native place and at Seville, and having obtained much reputation, was appointed professor of anatomy at Madrid, where he signalized himself by his physiological knowledge. In 1760 the marquis della Vega, being appointed viceroy of New Granada, solicited Mutis to accompany him as his physician. On his arrival at Santa Fe de Bogota, the capital of New Granada, Mutis, by permission of the viceroy, undertook to introduce the mathematics as a branch of study in the university, and his lectures on that subject were heard with attention and admiration, and he was at length, by the authority of the Spanish government, established professor of philosophy, mathematics, and natural history, at Santa Fe. While enjoying this post, some unfortunate speculations in the mines, which exhausted his pecuniary resources, occasioned his taking orders in the church, and his clerical duties now shared a considerable portion of his time. Part of it likewise was employed in botanical researches, and he corresponded with Linnæus, to whom he sent numerous specimens [of his own discover) 7 particularly the Mutisia, so named in honour of him by Linnæus. In 1776 he settled at Sapo, in the government of Mariquita, where he had many enviable opportunities of discovering and collecting singular plants and flowers. In 1778 don Antonio Caballeroy Gorgora, the new archbishop, on his arrival at Santa Fe, discovered the superior merits of Mutis, and determined to extricate him from his difficulties, and procure him a pension, with the appointment of botanist and astronomer to the king. Accordingly, under the patronage of this liberal prelate, he became the superintendant of a botanical school for investigating the plants of America. In 1783, attended by some of his pupils, and several draughtsmen, he made a tour through the kingdom of New Granada; and by his diligence much new light was thrown upon the history of the Peruvian bark, and its various species. He also taught his countrymen the culture and the value of indigo. His health having suffered from the climate of Mariquita, he was directed to repair to Santa F, and to fix on some of his pupils, whose y; uth and constitutions might be more adequate to such labours. In 1797 he had an opportunity to visit Paris, to consult with Jussieu, and the other eminent botanists of that capital, concerning the composition of a “Flora Bogotensis,” and to make himself master of all the new improvements and discoveries. He remained at Paris till 1801, when he went back to Madrid. Whether he subsequently returned to his native country, we know not, but in 1804 he was appointed to the professorship of Botany, and superintendance of the royal garden at Madrid. Although his advancing age made repose now in some measure necessary, he continued to be serviceable to the government of his native country, and to the prosperity of that in which he had so long been naturalized. He lived to an advanced age, but of the precise date of his death we are not informed.

, a celebrated bishop of the catholics in Holland, known by the title of bishop of Castoria, was born at Gorcum in 1626. He entered the congregation of the oratory at Paris, and, having finished his plan of education there, went to be professor of philosophy at Saumur, then of divinity at Mechlin, and was afterwards archdeacon of Utrecht, and apostolical provincial. James de la Torre, archbishop of Utrecht, being dead, M. de Neercassel was elected in his place by the chapter of that city; but, Alexander VII. preferring M. Catz, dean of the chapter of Harlem, they agreed between them, as a means to preserve peace, that M. Catz should govern the diocese of Harlem under the title of archbishop of Philippi, and M. de Neercassel that of Utrecht, under that of bishop of Castoria. This agreement being approved by the nuncio of Brussels, they were both consecrated in the same day at Cologn, September 9, 1662; but, M. Catz dying a year after, M. de Neercassel remained sole bishop of all the catholics in Holland, of which there were above four hundred thousand. He governed them with great prudence, and, after having discharged the duties of his office in the most exemplary manner, died June 8, 1686, aged sixty, in consequence of the fatigues attending the visitation of his churches. This prelate left three tracts in Latin, the first “On reading of the Holy Scriptures;” to which he has added a dissertation “On the Interpretation of Scripture;” the second “On the worship of the Saints and the Holy Virgin;” the third, enticed “Amor Prerii tens.” This last is a treatise on the necessity of the love of God in the sacrament of penitence. The two first have been translated into French by M. le Roy, abbot of Haute- Fontaine, 2 vols. 8vo, and the third by Peter Gilbert, a Parisian, 1741, 3 vols. 12mo. The best Latin edition of “Amor Pcenitens” is that of 1684, 2 vols. 8vo; the second part of the Appendix, which is in this edition, was written by M. Arnauld, and only approved by M. de Neercassel. The above three tracts having some expressions which were thought to favour the errors of Jansenius, an attempt was made to get the “Amor Prenitens” condemned at Rome but pope Innocent XL to whom the application was addressed, declared that “the book contained sound doctrine, and the author was a holy man.”

Mr. Nelson’s tutor, Dr. George Bull, bishop of St. David’s, dying before the expiration of this year, he was easily prevailed upon, by that prelate’s son, to draw up an account of his father’s life and writings. He had maintained a long and intimate friendship with the bishop, which gave him an opportunity of being acquainted with his solid and substantial worth; had frequently sate at his feet, as he was a preacher, and as often felt the force of those distinguishing talents which enabled him to shine in the pulpit. But, above all, he had preserved a grateful remembrance of those advantages, which he had received, from him in his education and he spared no pains to embalm his memory. The life was published in 1713. He had, for some time, laboured under an asthma and dropsy in the breast; and the distemper grew to such a height soon after the publication of that work, that, for the benefit of the air, he retired at length to his cousin’s, Mrs. Wolf, daughter of sir Gabriel Roberts, a widow, who lived at Kensington, where he expired Jan. 16, 1714-15, aged fifty-nine .

His publications were, 1. “Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture; or, the Protestant’s Answer to the Seeker’s Request, 1688.” This was at the same time that his lady engaged on the popish side of the controversy. 2. “A. Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, 1704,” 8vo, and large impressions of it several times since. 3. “A Letter on Church Government, in answer to a pamphlet entitled The Principles of the Protestant Reformation,” 1705, 8vo. 4. “Great duty of frequenting the Christian Sacrifice,” &c. 1707, 8vo. Dr. Waterland observes, that, in this piece, our author, after Dr. Hickes, embraced the doctrine of a material sacrifice in the symbols of the eucharist, which was first stated among the protestants in 1635, by the famous Mede, and, having slept for some years, was revived by Dr. Hickes, in 1697. Waterland’s Christian Sacrifice explained,“&c. p. 37, 42d. edit. 1738, 8vo. 5.” The Practice of true Devotion, &c. with an office for the Communion,“1708, 8vo. 6.” Life of Bishop Bull,“&c. 1713, 8vo. 7.” Letter to Dr. Samuel Clarke,“prefixed to” The Scripture doctrine of the most holy and undivided Trinity vindicated against the misrepresentations of Dr. Clarke,“1713, 8vo. To this Clarke returned an answer; in which he highly extols Mr. Nelson’s courtesy and candour; which he had likewise experienced in a private conference with him upon this subject. 8.” An Address to Persons of Quality and Estate,“&c. 1715, 8vo. 9.” The whole Duty of a Christian, by way of question and answer, designed for the use of the charity-schools in and about London.“10. Thomas a Kempis’s Christian Exercise.” 11.“The archbishop of Cambray (Fenelon’s) Pastoral Letter.” 12. “Bishop Bull’s important points of Primitive Christianity maintained” and other posthumous pieces of that learned prelate.

, an eminent prelate, descended from a non-conformist family, was born at Barton-le-Clay, in Bedfordshire, April 10, 1729, and educated at Abingdon school. In 1745 he entered of Pembroke college, Oxford, but removed some time after to Hertford college, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1753, and became a tutor of considerable eminence. Among other pupils who preserved a high respect for his memory, was the late hon. Charles James Fox. In 1765 he took his degrees of B. D. and D. D. and was appointed chaplain to the earl of Hertford, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, who conferred on him, withiti a year, the see of Dromore. In 1775, he was translated to Ossoryj and in 1778 produced his first workj “An Harmony of the Gospels,” which involved him in a controversy with Dr. Priestley respecting the duration of our Lord’s ministry, Dr. Priestley confining it to one year, while the bishop extended its duration to three years and a half. In 1779 Dr. Newcome was translated to the see of Waterford; and in 1782 published “Observations on our Lord’s conduct as a divine Instructor, and on the excellence of his moral character.” This was followed, ia 1785, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the Twelve Minor Prophets,” 4to, and in 1788, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the prophet Ezekiel,” 4to. He published also about the same time “A Review of the chief difficulties in the Gospel history respecting our Lord’s Resurrection,” 4to, the purpose of which was to correct some errors in his “Harmony.” In 1792 he published at Dublin one of his most useful works, “Art historical view of the English Biblical translations; the expediency of revising by authority our present translation; and the means of executing such a work,” 8vo. Concerning the latter part of this scheme there are many differences of opinion, and in the learned prelate’s zeal to effect a new translation, he is thought, both in this and his former publications, to have been too general in his strictures on the old. He lived, however, to witness Dr. Geddes’s abortive attempt towards a new translation, and the danger of such a work falling into improper hands. For the historical part, the bishop is chiefly indebted to Lewis, but his arrangement is better, and his list of editions more easily to be consulted, and therefore more useful. Except a very valuable Charge, this was the last of Dr. Newcorae’s publications which appeared in his life-time. In January 1795 he was translated to the archbishopric of Armagh. He died at his house in St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, Jan. 11, 1800, in the seventy-first year of his age; and was interred in the new chapel of Trinity college. Soon after his death was published his “Attempt towards revising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or the New Covenant of Jesus Christ,” &c. The writer of his life in the Cyclopaedia says that this work “has been made the basis of an” Improved Version of the New Testament, published by a Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, &c.“much to the mortification, as we have heard, of some of the archbishop’s relatives;” nor will our readers fail to sympathize with them, when they are told that this “Improved version” is that which has been so ably and justly censured and exposed by the Rev. Edward Nares, in his “Remarks on the Version of the New Testament lately edited by the Unitarians,” &c. 1810, 8vo. Archbishop Newcome’s interleaved Bible, in four volumes folio, is in the library at Lambeth-palace. He was, unquestionably, an excellent scholar, and well-qualified for biblical criticism; but either his zeal for a new version, or his views of liberality, led him to give too much encouragement to the attempts of those witb whom he never could have cordially agreed, and who seem to consider every deviation from what the majority hold sacred, as an improvement.

, an eminent English prelate, was born at Lichfield Jan. 1, 1704, N. S. His father, John Newton, was a considerable brandy and cyder merchant, a man of much industry and integrity; his mother was the daughter of Mr. Rhodes, a clergyman, and died when this, ber only son, was about a year old. He received the first part of his education in the free-school of Lichfield, which, at that time flourished greatly under the direction of Mr. Hunter, and at all times has sent forth several persons of eminence, from bishop Smalridge to Dr. Johnson When he was of an age to be sent out into the world, his father married a second wife, the daughter of the rev. Mr. Trebeck of Worcester, and sister to Dr. Trebeck, the first rector of St. George’s, Hanover-square; and by the advice of Pr. Trebeck, and the encouragement of bishop Smalrulge, young Newton was removed from Lichfield to Westminster school in 1717. Here he was placed at the lower- end of the fourth form, and the year following became a king’s scholar, being admitted into the college by the nomination of bishop Smalridge.

, a learned English prelate and antiquary, was both by the father and mother’s side of Cumberland extraction. His grandfather was Joseph Nicolson, of Averas Holme in that county, who married Radigunda- Scott, heiress to an estate at Park Broom, in the parish of Stanvvix which estate descended to Catherine eldest surviving daughter of our prelate. His father, who married Mary daughter of John Brisco of Grofton, esq. was a clergyman, of Queen’s college, Oxford; and rector of Orton near Carlisle. He was born at Orton in 1655, and in 1670 was entered of Queen’s college, under the tuition of Dr. Thos. Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, and took his degree of B. A. in 1676. While here he became known to sir Joseph Williamson, then secretary of state, the great benefactor to Queen’s college, and the patron of many of its scholars, who in 1678 sent him to Leipsic to learn the septentrional languages. While there he translated into Latin an essay of Mr. Hook’s, containing a proof of the motion of the earth from the sun’s parallax, which was printed at Leipsic by the professor who had recommended the task.

In 1702, on the eve of Ascension day, our author was elected bishop of Carlisle, confirmed June 3, and consecrated June 14, at Lambeth. This promotion he owed to the interest of the house of Edenhall. On Sept. 15, 1704, the celebrated Dr. Atterbury, who had reflected with much harshness on some parts of the “Historical Library,” waited upon bishop Nicolson at Rose, for institution to the deanery of Carlisle; but the letters patent being directed to the chapter, and not to the bishop, and the date thereof being July 15, though the late dean (Grahme,) did not resign till the 5th of August, and some dispute also arising about the regal supremacy, institution was then refused. The bishop, however, declared at the same time that the affair should be laid forthwith before the queen; and that, if her majesty should, notwithstanding these objections, be pleased to repeat her commands for giving Dr. Atterbury possession of the deanery, institution should be given, which was accordingly done in consequence of her intimation to the bishop through the secretary of state. This preferment, however, was followed by many unpleasant consequences, as we shall have occasion to notice, a^ter enumerating the remaining productions of our learned prelate.