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

R. Rawlinson, LL.D. R. & A. Ss.

Recorde published several mathematical books, which are mostly in dialogue, between the master and scholar. They are as follow: 1. “The Pathway to Knowledge, containing the first principles of Geometric, as they may moste aptly be applied unto practise, bothe for use of Instrumentes Geometricall and Astronomicall, and also for projection of Plattes much necessary for all sortes of men,” Lond. 1551 and 1574, 4to. 2. “The Ground of Arts, teaching the perfect worke and practice of Arithmeticke, both in whole numbers and fractions, after a more easie and exact forme then in former time hath beene set forth,” 1549, 1558, 1561, and 1571, 8vo. This work went through many other editions, and was corrected and augmented by several other persons; as first by the famous Dr. John Defe; then by John Mellis, a schoolmaster, 1590 and 1618; next by Robert Norton; then by Robert Hartwell, practitioner in mathematics, in London; and lastly, by R. C. and printed in 8vo, 1623. In the “Archaeologia,” vol. XIII. may be seen a specimen of the author’s method of illustrating an example, which exhibits a strange jumble of Arabic and Roman notation. The former was not much in use in his days. 3. “The Castle of Knowledge, containing the Explication of the Sphere bothe Celestiall and Materiall, and divers other things incident thereto. With sundry pleasaunt proofes and certaine newe demonstrations not written before in any vulgare woorkes,” Lond. 1551, 4to, 1556, fol. and 1596, 4to. 4. “The Whetstone of Witte, which is the seconde part of Arithmetike: containing the extraction of Rootes; the Cossike practise, with the rules of Equation: and the woorkes of Surde Nombers,” Lond. 1557, 4to. An analysis of this work on Algebra, with an account of what is new in it, is given in Dr. Hutton’s Dictionary, art. Algebra. 5. “The Urinal of Physic, and the Judicial of Urines,” 4to, 1548, 1567,1574, 1582, and 165 1, the two last in 8vo. Bale and Pits mention some writings of his on the eucharist, auricular confession, the image of a true commonwealth, &c. He also collated the first and third editions of Fabian’s Chronicle, translated Euclid, and undertook the ancient description of England and Ireland; but we know not that these were published.

The merit of the writings of Reid, with regard to the future labours of the philosopher, and the progress of the science of mind, by illustrating the true mode of philosophising, and setting the first example of the practice, is the chief point which Mr. Stewart has endeavoured to illustrate. But there is another species of utility possessed by these writings whi x ch deserves to be pointed out; their unrivalled efficacy in leading a young mind to think. By the perspicuity of expression which Reid employs, and the uncommon clearness of his conceptions, he excites the reflection of his readers upon their own mental operations so skilfully, that they are scarcely sensible of the exertion. And unquestionably the finest school for this most important and difficult of all acquirements, the powe.r of reflecting on the operations of our own minds, is the writings of Dr. Reid.

In his pictures is exhibited a total inattention to the taste of the antique; he is even said to have made it a subject of ridicule, and to have jocosely denominated a collection of old armour and rich dresses, which he had collected and employed to study and paint from, “his antiques.” These he evidently used as his models, though frequently in most heterogeneous combination; but by an innate power of seizing the most striking effects produced by light and shade, superadded to the most perfect mastery over the materials of the pallet, he always excited an interest, either by ori-r ginality or beauty.

, an English prelate of great eminence and talents, the son of Austin Reynolds, one of the customers of Southampton, was born there in November 1599, and educated at the free-school. In 1615 he became post-master of Merton-college, Oxford, and in 3620 probationer-fellow, for which preferment he was indebted to his proficiency in the Greek language, and his talents as a disputant and orator. After he had taken his master’s degree he went into orders, and was made preacher at Lincoln r s-inn, where he acquired much popularity. He also was preferred to the rectory of Braynton in Northamptonshire. Finding himself inclined to acquiesce in the breach that was to be made in the church at least, if not the state, when the rebellion broke out in 1642, he joined the presbyterian party? and in 1643 was nominated one of the assembly of divines, took the covenant, and frequently preached before the long parliament. That he was in their eyes a man of high consideration, appears from their naming him, in September 1646, one of the seven divines authorized by parliament to go to Oxford, and to preach in any church of that city, in lieu of the preachers appointed by the university.

In many respects, both as a man and a painter, sir Joshua Reynolds cannot be too much studied, praised, and imitated by every one who wishes to attain the like eminence. His incessant industry was never wearied into despondency by miscarriage, nor elated into neglect by success. Either in his painting-room, or wherever else he passed his time, his mind was devoted to the charms of his profession. All nature, and all art, was his academj r and his reflection was ever on the wing, comprehensive, vigorous, discriminating, and retentive. With taste to perceive all* the varieties of the picturesque, judgment to select, and skill to combine what would serve his purpose, few have ever been empowered by nature to do more from the fund of their own genius: and none ever endeavoured more to take advantage of the labours of others. He made a splendid and useful collection, in which no expence wa? spared. His house was filled, to the remotest corners, with casts from the antique statues, pictures, drawings, and prints, by various masters of all the different schools. Those he looked upon as his library, at once objects of amusement, of study, and competition. After his death they were sold by auction, with his unclaimed and unfinished works, and, together, produced the sum of 16,947l. 7s. 6d. The substance of his whole property, accumulated entirely by his pencil, and left behind after a life in which he freely parted with his wealth, amounted to about 80,000l.

His first wife was Martha Wilde, daughter of Mr. Ailington Wilde, printer, in Clerkenwell, by whom he had five sons and a daughter, who all died young. His second wife (who survived him many years) was Elizabeth sister of Mr. Leake, bookseller, of Bath. By her he had a son and five daughters. The son died young; but four of the daughters survived him; viz. Mary, married in 1757 to Mr. Ditcher, an eminent surgeon of Bath; Martha, married in 1762 to Edward Bridgen, esq. F. R. and A. Ss.; Anne, unmarried; and Sarah, married to Mr. Crowther, surgeon of Boswell-court. All these, are now dead.

His only son, Robert Richardson, D. D. F. R. S. and S. A. was prebendary of Lincoln, rector of St. Anne’s Westminster, and of Wallington in Hertfordshire, which last was given to him by sir Joseph Yorke, with whom he resided as chaplain many years at the Hague. Whilst in that employment, the papers on both sides, previous to the trial of the great cause, Douglas against Hamilton, being sent over to his excellency, Dr. Richardson, for his own curiosity, digested them, and drew up the state of the question, which was printed in 4to for private distribution, and so well approved by the gentlemen of the bar, that it was put into the hands of the counsel for the party he espoused as their brief; of which perhaps there never was a similar instance. He had the honour to see the opinion he supported confirmed by the House of Peers. After the trial he was offered 400l. in the handsomest manner, but declined accepting it. He died Sept. 27, 1781, at his house in Dean-street, Soho, in his fiftieth year. He printed only two occasional sermons.

His easel-pictures were either few, or the greater part must have perished one of the most remarkable, in the house of Werdmiiller, is Job emaciated and diseased, listening patiently to the invectives of his wife; a picture which, even on close inspection, differs little in handling and tone from the best works of Spaguoletto. But perhaps the most valuable remains of Ririggli are his designs, generally drawn with the pen, and washed with bister or India ink; these are sometimes of considerable size, and chiefly biblical or allegorical subjects. That of our Saviour’s burial, Susannah with the Elders, the royal Father shot at by his Sons from the “Gesta Romanorum,” Faith sheltered from the storms of Persecution, and many more of mystic content, are remarkable for beauties of composition, light, shade, and outline, but perhaps obscure in their meaning: they were in Fuessli’s possession once, but now are probably dispersed in different collections. He etched several things in an easy picturesque manner, generally marked by a monogram of the letters G. and R, He died in 1635.

, an eminent botanist and physician, was the son of a learned physician and critic, Andrew Bachmann, whose name in Latin became Rivinus. He was born at Leipsic in 1652. After a successful course of study he became professor of physiology and botany in his native university. He was also a member of various learned societies, and died in 1723 r aged seventyone.

Mr. R. is said to have been the author of a useful tract, published in 178 1, “On Culinary Poisons.” In 1782, he published an elegant little volume for the improvement of young people in reading, entitled “An Introduction to the study of Polite Literature.” This performance was mentioned as the first volume of an intended series on the same subject; but the second never appeared, owing, as it is supposed, to part of it having been reprinted in a tract, for the use of Sunday-schools, without his consent, by archdeacon Paley . In the same year he revised and published a medical work of his friend sir Clifton Wintringham, “De Morbis quibusdam Commentarii,” in one vol. 8vo; to which a second volume was afterwards added in 1791.

“Among lord Peterborough’s papers she found his memoirs, written by himself, in which he declared he had been guilty of such actions as would have reflected very much upon his character. For which reason she burnt them; this, however, contributed to complete the excellency of her principles, though it did not fail giving offence to the cu-r rious inquirers after anecdotes of so remarkable a character as that of the earl of Peterborough.”

, wife of one of the republican ministers of France, who signed the order for the execution of the king, was born at Paris in 1754. She was the daughter of an engraver, and acquired some skill in music and painting, and a general taste for the fine arts. In 1780 she married Roland, and in 1787 visited Switzerland and England, and in these countries is said to have acquired that ardent attachment to the principles of liberty, which was in general so little understood by her countrymen. M. Roland having been appointed inspector of the manufactories at Lyons, was deputed to the constituent assembly, to obtain from it succours necessary for the payment of the debt of that town. Madame Roland at this period settled with her husband in the capital, and took delight in making her house the rendezvous of the Brissotine party, and among them acquired such superiority, that her biographers would have us believe that, for a time, she was the secret power that directed the whole government of France; perhaps one reason why it was so ill directed. Jn Marcji 1792, when the king endea r voured to allay the public discontents, by appointing 3, popular administration, Roland was chosen minister or the interior, and what kind of minister he was may be conjectured from a speech of Danton’s. When Roland resigned, and was urgently pressed by the assembly to resume his functions, Dan ton exclaimed, “if we give an invitation to Roland, we must give one to his wife too. I know all the virtues of the minister, but we want men who see otherwise than by their wives.” Indeed this lady, who had a remarkably good opinion of herself, informs us in her memoirs that she was in fact the minister without the name; and revised, or perhaps dictated, the letter which Roland addressed to the king on going out of office; “if he had written sermons,” said she, “I should have done the same.” On the 7th of December, 1792, having appeared at the bar of the national convention, to repel a denunciation made against her, she spoke with ease and eloquence, and was afterwards admitted to the honours of a sitting. She presented herself there again, when the decree was passed against her husband; but then, her eloquence having lost its charms, she was refused a hearing, and was herself sent to the Abbaye. From this prison she wrote to the assembly, and to the minister of the interior; her section also demanded her liberty, but it was in vain; and on the 24th of June, 1793, she was sent to the convent of St. Pelagic, which had been converted into a prison, where she passed her time in consoling her fellow prisoners, and composing an account of her own life, which has since been published. At length she was called before the revolutionary tribunal, and on Nov. 8, was condemned to death for having conspired against the unity and indivisibility of the republic. Her execution immediately followed. On passing the statue of liberty, in the Place de la Revolution, she bent her head towards it, exclaiming, “O Liberty, how many crimes are perpetrated in thy name.” She left one daughter, whose only provision was her mother’s writings, which are as follows: “Opuscules,” on moral topics, which treat of the soul, melancholy, morality, old age, friendship, love, retirement, &c. “Voyage en Angleterre et en Suisse;” and when in prison she composed what she entitled “Appel a Timpartiale Posterite”,“containing her own private memoirs, a strange mixture of modern philosophy and the current politics of the revolution, with rhapsodies of romance, and every thing that can shew the dangers of a <* little learning.” Although this work was written when. she was in hourly expectation of death, its principal characteristics are levity and vanity. She was unquestionably a woman of considerable abilities, and might have been, what we are told she was very ambitious of, a second Macauley, without exciting the envy of the amiable part of her sex; but she would be the head of a political party that was to guide the affairs of a distracted nation, and she fell a sacrifice to the confusion of principle in which she had assisted.

At the time of his decease, he had projected the following: “History of the Isle of Man,” in 1 vol. afterwards published in 1773, 8vo; and “History of the British Empire in North America,” in six volumes. And after his death were published, for the benefit of his widow, “Select Pieces of the late R. Rolt (dedicated, by permission, to the Right Hon. Lady Sondes, by Mary Rolt), 1772,” small 8vo.

After passing three winters at Glasgow, he attended thecourts of law in Edinburgh, and here obtained an introduction to the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith, who was so highly pleased with him, that as long as he resided in Edinburgh,, Mr. Rose was constantly invited to the literary circle of that eminent philosopher. His subsequent intimacy with Cowper appears in Mr. Hayley’s interesting volumes, and perhaps Cowper’s visit to Mr. Rose in Chancery-lane is one of the most affecting incidents in the eventful history of that poet. Mr. Rose had the misfortune to lose his ex* cellent father, while he was pursuing his studies in the North; but a loss so unseasonable did not induce him to shrink from the first irksome labours of an arduous profes^ sion. Having entered his name at LincolnVInn, Nov. 6, 3786, he devoted himself to the law, for which he seemed equally prepared by nature and education. With a mind acute and powerful, with a fund of classical learning, and of general knowledge, with an early command of language, and with manners, as we have already noticed, peculiarly conciliating, he had every thing to hope. Though his spirit was naturally ardent, he submitted to the most tire-r some process of early discipline in his profession, placing himself under a special pleader in 1787, and attending him three years. Being called to the bar in 1796, he attached himself to the home circuit, and to the sessions of Sussex. His first opportunity of displaying professional ability occurred in Chichester, where, having a clergyman for his client, he conciliated the esteem of his audience byexpatiating with propriety, eloquence, and success, on the character of a divine. He was still more admired for the rare talent of examining a witness with a becoming ture of acuteness and humanity; and upon the whole his friends were persuaded, from this first display of his talents^ that he was destined to rise l>y sure, though slow degrees, to the highest honours of his profession.

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

, a man of learning and ingenuity, the son of Christopher Russel, esq. of Minorca, was born in 1728. He was bred at Westminster-school, and in 1746 was admitted a member of St. Mary’s hall, Oxford. He commenced a poet in 1744, or before; for in his collection are verses on seeing lady Elizabeth Boyle dance at Marston on her father’s birth-day in that year. In April 1750 he was admitted bachelor of arts, but. did not determine or complete his decree until 1752. About 1753 he obtained the rectory of Skull, in the diocese of Cork, in Ireland, by r the patronage of John, fifth earl of Oork and Orrery. With that nobleman he appears to have lived in intimacy, as well as with his second son, Hamilton Boyle, and frequently visited Marston. He died in 1767; and two years after, were published, in 2 vols. 8vo, “The Works^of the late Rev. George Russel, Rector of Skull, in the diocese of Cork.” From the few specimens Mr. Malone has given, he seems justified in saying that these work?, though little known, owing probably to their having been published only in Ireland, have very considerable merit.

, D. D. a man whose history affords a very striking example of the folly of party spirit, was the son of Joshua Sacheverell of Marlborough, clerk, who died rector of St. Peter’s church in Marlborough, leaving a numerous family in very low circumstances. By a letter to him from his uncle, in 1711, it appears that he had a brother named Thomas, and a sister Susannah. Henry was put to school at Marlborough, at the charge of Mr. Edward Hearst, an apothecary, who, being his godfather, adopted him as his son. Hearst’s widow put him afterwards to^Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he became demy in 1687, at the age of 15. Here he soon distinguished himself by a regular observation of the duties of the house, by his compositions, good manners, and genteel behaviour; qualifications which recommended him to that society, of which he became fellow, and, as public tutor, had the care of the education of most of the young gentlemen of quality and fortune that were admitted of the college. In this station he had the care of the education of a great many persons eminent for their learning and abilities; and was contemporary and chamberfellow with Addison, and one of his chief intimates till the time of his famous trial. Mr. Addison’s “Account of the greatest English' Poets,” dated April 4, 1694, in a farewell-poem to the Muses on his intending to enter into holy orders, was inscribed <c to Mr. Henry Sacheverell,“his then dearest friend and colleague. Much has been said by Sacheverell’s enemies of his ingratitude to his relations, and of his turbulent behaviour at Oxford; but these appear to have been groundless calumnies, circulated only by the spirit of party. In his younger years he wrote some excellent Latin poems, besides several in the second and third volumes of the” Mus as Anglicanae,“ascribed to his pupils; and there is a good one of some length in the second volume, under his own name (transcribed from the Oxford collection, on queen Mary’s death, 1695). He took the degree of M. A. May 16, 1696; B. D. Feb. 4, 1707; D. D. July 1, 1708. His first preferment was Cannock, or Cank, in the county of Stafford. He was appointed preacher of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, in 1705; and while in this station preached his famous sermons (at Derby, Aug. 14, 1709; and at St. Paul’s, Nov. 9, in the same year) and in one of them was supposed to point at lord Godolphin, under the name of Volpone. It has been suggested, that to this circumstance, as much as to the doctrines contained in his sermons, he was indebted for his prosecution, and eventually for his preferment. Being impeached by the House of Commons, his trial began Feb. 27, 1709-10; and continued until the 23d of March: when he was sentenced to a suspension from preaching for three years, and his two sermons ordered to be burnt. This prosecution, however, overthrew the ministry, and laid the foundation of his fortune. To sir Simon Harcourt, who was counsel for him, he presented a silver bason gilt, with an elegant inscription, written probably by his friend Dr. Alterbury. Dr. Sacheverell, during his suspension, made a kind of triumphal progress through various parts of the kingdom; during which period he was collated to a living near Shrewsbury; and, in the same month that his suspension ended, had the valuable rectory of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, given him by the queen, April 13, 1713. At that time his reputation was so high, that he was enabled to sell the first sermon preached after his sentence expired (on Palm Sunday) for the sum of 100l.; and upwards of 40,000 copies, it is said, were soon sold. We find by Swift’s Journal to Stella, Jan. 22, 1711-12, that he had also interest enough with the ministry to provide very amply for one of his brothers; yet, as the dean had said before, Aug. 24, 1711,” they hated and affected to despise him.“A considerable estate at Callow in Derbyshire was soon after left to him by his kinsman George Sacheverell, esq. In 1716, he prefixed a dedication to” Fifteen Discourses, occasionally delivered before the university of Oxford, by W. Adams, M. A. late student of Christ-church, and rector of Staunton upon Wye, in Oxfordshire.“After this publication, we hear little of him, except by quarrels with his parishioners. He died June 5, 1724; and, by his will, bequeathed to Bp. Atterbury, then in exile, who was supposed to have penned for him the defence he made before the House of Peers , the sum of 500l. The duchess of Maryborough describes Sacheverell as” an ignorant impudent incendiary; a man who was the scorn even of those who made use of him as a tool.“And Bp. Burnet says,” He was a bold insolent man, wiih a very small measure of religion, virtue, learning, or good sense; but he resolved to force himself into popularity and preferment, by the most petulant railings at dissenters and low-church men, in several sermons and libels, written without either chasteness of style or liveliness of expression." Whatever his character, it is evident that he owed every thing to an injudicious prosecution, which defeated the purposes of those who instituted it, and for many years continued those prejudices in the public mind, which a wiser administration w r ould have been anxious to dispel.

In 1562, he presided at a national synod at Orleans, and then went to Berne, and finally to Geneva, where he was associated with the ministers of that place. Henry IV. who had a great respect for him, gave him an invitation to his court, which, after some hesitation, from his aversion to public life, he accepted, and was chaplain at the battle of Courtray, and had the charge of a mission to the pro^ testant princes of Germany; but unable at length to bear the fatigues of a military life, which he was obliged to pass with his royal benefactor, he retired to Geneva in 1589, and resumed his functions as a preacher, and undertook the professorship of Hebrew until his death, Feb. 23, 1591, Besides his sermons, which were highly popular and persuasive, he aided the cause of reformation by taking an active part in the controversies which arose out of it, and by writings of the practical kind. One French biographef tells us that Sadeel was an assumed name, but in all other authorities, we find him called by that name only with the addition of Chandæus, which alluded to his ancestors, who were barons of Chandieu. Accordingly his works are entitled “Antonii Sadeelis Chandaei, nobilissimi viri, opera theologica,” Geneva, 1592, folio; reprinted 1593, 4to; and 1599 and 1615, folio. They consist, among others, of the following treatises published sepa-r rately, “De verbo Dei scripto,” Gen, 1592. “De vera peccatorum remissione,” ibid. 1591. “De unico Christi sacerdotio et sacrincio,” ibid. 1692. “De spirituali et sacramentali manducatione Corporis Christi;” two treatises, ibid. 1596. “Posnaniensium assertionum refutatio,” ibid. 1596. “Refutatio libelli Claudii de Sainctes, intitulati, Examen doctrinae Calvinianae et Bezanae de ccena Domini,” ibid. 1592. He wrote also, in French, “Histoire des persecutions et des martyrs de Peglise de Paris, depuis Fan 1557, jusqu'au regne de Charles IX.” printed at Lyons, in 1563, 8vo, under the name of Zamariel. He wrote also “Metamorphose de Ronsard en pretre,” in verse, part of a controversy he had with that writer, who in his work on the troubles during the minority of Charles IX. had attributed them to the reformers. His life, by James Lectius, was prefixed to his works, and published separately at Geneva in 1593, 8vo. The substance of it is given in our first authority.

In the same year, 1540, he lost his patron Cromwell, who was beheaded; but he retained his favour with Henry, and in 1541 was again sent to Scotland, to detach the king from the pope and the. popish clergy, and to press upon him the propriety of a personal meeting with Henry. This however the king of Scotland appears to have evaded with considerable address, and died the following year of a broken heart, in consequence of hearing of the fatal battle of Solway. The crown was now left to James V.'s infant daughter Mary; and sir Ralph Sadler’s next employment was to lend his aid to the match, projected by Henry VIII. between his son Edward and the young queen. But this ended so unsuccessfully, that Sadler was obliged to return to England in Dee 1543, and Henry declared war against Scotland. In the mean time he was so satisfied with Sadler’s services, even in this last negociation, that he included him, by the title of sir Ralph Sad ley r, knight, among the twelve persons whom he named as a privy-council to the sixteen nobles to whom, in his will, he bequeathed the care of his son, and of the kingdom. When this will was set aside by the protector duke of Somerset, and it became necessary to reconcile the king’s executors and privy-counsellors, by wealth and honours, sir Ralph Sadler received a confirmation of all the church-lands formerly assigned to him by Henry, with splendid additions.

, an ingenious and laborious writer, was born at the Hague in 1694. His father was receiver-general of Walloon Flanders, and of an ancient and considerable family. He was educated with great care, and sent at a proper age to Leyden; where he studied history under Perizonius, philosophy under Bernard, and law under Voetius and Noodt. Having finished his academical studies with honour, he returned to his parents at the Hague, and was admitted an advocate in the court of Holland. After the peace of Utrecht in 1713 r he went to France; and spent some time at Paris in visiting libraries, and in cultivating friendships with learned men. In 1716, he was made counsellor to the princess of Nassau; and, the year after, commissary of the finances of the States General. He went again to France in 1717; and two years after to England, where he was elected fellow of the Royal Society, in the list of which he is called “Auditor-Surveyor of the Bank of Holland.” He was author of several publications, which shewed parts, learning, and industry; and without doubt would, if he had lived, have been of great use and ornament to the republic of letters; but, catching the small-pox, he died in 1723, in his thirtieth year.

Of Sallust there are many excellent editions. His works were first printed at Venice, in 1470, and reprinted thirty times before the conclusion of that century, but these editions are of great rarity. The best of the more modern are the Aldus of 1521, 8vo, the Variorum of 1690, 8vo, Wasse’s excellent edition, printed at Cambridge in 1710, 4to; Cortius’s edition, 1724, 4to; Havercamp’s, 1742, 2 vols. 4to; the prize edition of Edinburgh, 1755, 12mo; the Bipont, 1779, 8vo that very accurate one by Mr. Homer, Lond. 1789, 8vo and one by Harles, 1799, 8vo. The late Dr. Rose of Chiswick, published a very correct translation of Sallust in 1751, 8vo, with Cicero’s Four Orations against Catiline; and more recently Sallust has found a translator, and an acute and learned commentator and advocate, in Heury Steuart, LL.D. F.R. S. and S. A.E. who published in 1806, in 2 vols. 4to, “The Works of Sallust. To which are prefixed, two Essays on the Life, literary character, and writings of the historian with notes historical, biographical, and critical.”

, a Spanish prelate, admired for his writings in the fifteenth century, was born at Santa Maria de Nieva, in the diocese of Segovia, in 1404. After being instructed in classical learning, and having studied the canon law for ten years at Salamanca, he was honoured with the degree of doctor in that faculty; but afterwards embraced the eqclesiasUca! profession, received priest’s orders, and was made successively archdeacon of Trevino in the diocese of largos, dean of Leon and dean of Seville. The first preferment he held twenty years, the second seven, and the third two years. Ahout 1440, John II. king of Castille, appointed him envoy to the emperor Frederick III. and he was also afterwards employed in similar commissions or embassies to other crowned heads. When Calixtus III. became pope, Henry IV. king of Castille, sent him to congratulate his holiness, which occasioned him to take up his residence at Rome. In all his embassies, he made harangues to the different princes to whom he was sent, which are still preserved in ms. in the Vatican library. On the accession of pope Paul II. he made Sanchez governor of the castle of St. Angelo, and keeper of the jewels and treasures of the Roman church, and afterwards promoted him to the bishoprics of Zamora, Calahorra, and Palencia. These last appointments, however, were little more than sinecures, as he never quitted Rome, and employed what time he could spare from his official duties in that city in composing a great many works, of which a list of twenty-nine may be seen in our authorities. He died at Rome Oct. 4, 1470$ and was interred in the church of St. James of Spain. Although so voluminous a writer, by far the greater part of his works remain in ms. in the Vatican and other libraries ) we know of three only which were published, 1. his history of Spain, “Historiae Hispanise partes quatuor.” This Marchand seems to think was published separately, but it was added to the “Hispania Illustrata” of Bel and Schott, published at Francfort in 1579, and again in 1603. 2. “Speculum vitse humaoce, in quo de omnibus omnium vitte ordinum ac conditionum commodis ac incommodis tractatur,' r Rome, 1468, folio, which, with three subsequent editions, is accurately described in the” Bibliotheca Speuceriana.“This work contains so many severe reflections on the clergy of the author’s time, that some protestant writers have been disposed to consider him as a brother in disguise. It is certainly singular that he could hazard so much pointed censure in such an age. 3.” Epistola de expugnatione Nigroponti>,“folio, without date, but probably before the author’s death. A copy of this likewise occurs in the” Bibl. Spenceriana." Those who are desirous of farther information respecting Sanchez or his works may be amply gratified in Marchand, who has a prolix article on the subject.

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

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

Dr. Whitaker, whose late life of archbishop Sandys we have irs general followed, as the result of much research and reflection, observes that after all the deductions which truth and impartiality require, it will still remain incontestable, that Sandys was a man of a clear and vigorous understanding, of a taste, in comparison, above that of the former age or the next, and, what is more, of his own: that he was a sincere Christian, a patient sufferer, an indefatigable preacher, an intrepid and active ecclesiastical magistrate. W r hat was his deportment in private life, we are no where told. On the other hand, it cannot be denied, that the man who after his advancement to the episcopal order, in three successive stations, either, kindled the flames of discord, or never extinguished them, who quarrelled alike with protestants and papists, with his successor in one see (Aylmer) and with his dean in another, who in his first two dioceses treated the clergy with a harshness which called for the interposition of the metropolitan, and who drew upon himself from two gentlemen of the country, the extremity of violence and outrage, must have been lamentably defective in Christian meekness and forbearance *. In every instance, indeed, he had met with great provocation, and in the last the treatment he received was atrocious; but such wounds are never gratuitously in-, flicted, and rarely till after a series of irritations on both sides. In doctrinal points his biographer attempts, by various extracts from his sermons, to prove archbishop Sandys less inclined to Calvinism than some of his contem­* We know not if Mr. Lodge has be. easy elegance of a courtier trith as

, a celebrated German physician and philosopher, was born March 3, 1649, at Jena,.;ui was son of Christopher Schelhamm T, a it an- lessor of anatomy and surgery in that city, and fir where he was also physician to the duke of Holstei“uthier died January 11, 1716, in his sixtyseventieth year leaving” Introductio in artem medicam," Hali. 1726, 4to, and a great number of valuable and learned wor > physu;, of which it is to be wished that a complete co: v'Jtion was published. He published also some botanical dissertations, and first described the peculiar change wliici during germination, takes place in the cotyledon of palms. The Schelhammera, in botany, was so called in honour of him. His life, by Scheffelius, in Latin, Visnr*r, 17 % 8vo, is prefixed to the letters written to him by several of the literati.

Mr. Scott, the father, with his family, lived many years abroad, in a public character; and he had three sons born while residing at the court of Hanover. The eldest of these was our author, George Lewis, named, in both these names, after his god-father, the elector, who was afterwards George I. George Lewis Scott was a gentleman of considerable talents and general learning; he was well-skilled also in the mathematical sciences , for which he manifested at times a critical taste, as may be particularly seen in some letters which, in 1764, passed between him and and Dr. Simson, of Glasgow, and are inserted in Dr. Trail’s account of “The Life and Writings of Dr. Simson.” Mr. Scott was also the author of the “Supplement to Chambers’s Dictionary,” in 2 large folio volumes, which was much esteemed, and for which he received 1,500l. from the booksellers, a considerable price at the time of that publication. Mr. Scott was sub-preceptor, for the Latin language, to his present majesty when prince of Wales. After that he was appointed a commissioner of excise; a situation which his friends considered as not adequate to his past deserts, and interior to what he probably would have had, but for the freedom of his political opinions. From some correspondence with Gibbon, to whom, in particular, he wrote an excellent letter of directions for mathematical studies, we may infer that he did not differ much from that gentleman in matters of religious belief. Mr. Scott died. Dec. 1730. He was elected F. S. A. in 1736, and F. R. 8. in 1737.

In 1643, he afforded every proof of his adherence to the republican party, by taking the covenant; and the same year, was by the parliament appointed keeper of the records in the Tower. In 1644, he was elected one of the twelve commissioners of the admiralty and nominated to the mastership of Trinity- college, in Cambridge, which he did not think proper to accept. In this year, he published his treatise “De Anno civili et Calendario Judaico,” 4to. In 1646, the parliament was so sensible of his services that they voted him the sum of 5000l. in consideration of his sufferings. What these were we have already related. In 1647, he published his learned “Dissertation annexed to (a book called) Fleta,” which he discovered in the Cottonian library. A second edition was published in 1685, but in both are said to be many typographical errors. In 1771, R. Kelham Esq. published a translation with notes. This work contains many curious particulars relating to those ancient authors on the laws of England, Bracton, Britton, Fleta, and Thornton, and shews what use was made of the imperial law in England, whilst the Romans governed here, at what time it was introduced into this nation, what use our ancestors made of it, how long it continued, and when the use of it totally ceased in the king’s courts at Westminster.

Several other works of his were printed after his death, or left in manuscript. I. “God made man, A Tract proving the nativity of our Saviour to be on the 25th of December,” Lond. 1661, 8vo, with his portrait. This was answered in the first postscript to a treatise entitled tc A brief (but true) account of the certain Year, Month, Day, and Minute of the birth of Jesus Christ,“Lond. 1671, 8vo, by John Butler, B. D. chaplain to James duke of Ormonde, and rector of Litchborow, in the diocese of Peterboroup-h. 2.” Discourse of the office of Lord Chancellor of England,“London, 1671, in fol. printed with Dugdale’s catalogue of lord chancellors and lord keepers of England from the Norman conquest. 3, Several treatises, viz.” England’s Epinomis;“already mentioned, published 1683, in fol. by Redman Westcot, alias Littleton, with the English translation of Selden’s” Jani Anglorum Facies altera.“4.” Ta. ble talk: being the discourses or his sense of various maU ters of weight and high consequence, relating especially to Religion and State,“London, 1689, 4to, published by Richard Mil ward, amanuensis to our author. Dr. Wilkins observes, that there are many things in this book inconsistent with Seiden’s great learning, principles, aud character. It has, however, acquired popularity, and still continues to be printed, as an amusing and edifying manual. 5.” Letters to learned men;“among which several to archbishop Usher are printed in the collection of letters at the end of Parr’s life of that prelate; and two letters of his to Mr. Thomas Greaves were first published from the originals by Thomas Birch, M. A. and F. R. 8. in the life prefixed to Birch’s edition of the” Miscellaneous works of Mr. John Greaves,“Lond. 1737, in two volumes, 8vo. 6.” Speeches, Arguments, Debates, &c. in Par! lament.“7. He had a considerable hand in, and gave directions and advice towards, the edition of” Plutarch’s Lives,“printed in 1657, with an addition of the year of the world, and the year of our Lord, together with many chronological notes and explications. His works were collected by Dr. David Wiljvins, and printed at London in three volumes fol. 1726. The two first volumes contain his Latin works, and the third his English. The editor has prefixed a long life of the author, and added several pieces never published before, particularly letters, poems, &c. In 1675 there was printed at London in 4to,” Joannis Seldeni Angli Liber de Nummis, &c. Huic accedit Bibliotheca Nummaria.“But this superficial tract was not written by our author, but by Alexander Sardo of Ferrara, and written before Selden was born, being published at Mentz, 1575, in 4to. The” Bibliotheca Nummaria" subjoined to it was written by father Labbe the Jesuit.

, eminent as a Christian, a scholar, and a gentleman, one of the sons of Dr. Thomas Sharp, and grandson to the archbishop, was born in 1734. He was educated for the bar, but did not practise at it. When he quitted the legal profession, he obtained a place in the ordnance office, which he resigned at the commencement of the American war; of the principles of which he did not approve. He now took chambers in the Temple, and devoted himself to a life of study; at the same time, laying himself out for public utility. He first became known to the public in the case of a poor and friendless negro, of the name of Somerset. This person had been brought from the West Indies to England, and falling into bad health, was abandoned by his master, and turned into the streets, either to die, or to gain a miserable support by precarious charity. In this destitute state, almost, it is said, on the point of expiring on the pavement of one of the public streets of London, Mr. Sharp chanced to see him. He instantly had him removed to St. Bartholomew’s hospital, attended personally to his wants, and in a short time had the happiness to see him restored to health. Mr. Sharp now clothed him, and procured him comfortable employment in the service of a lady. Two years had elapsed, and the circumstance almost, and the name of the poor negro, had escaped the memory of his benefactor, when Mr. Sharp received a letter from a person, signing himself Somerset, confined in the Poultry Compter, stating no cause for his commitment, but intreating his interference to save him from a greater calamity even than the death from which he had before rescued him. Mr. Sharp instantly went to the prison, and found the negro, who in sickness and misery had been discarded by his master, sent to prison as a runaway slave. Mr. Siiarp went immediately to the lord major, William Nash, esq. who caused the parties to be brought before him; when, after a long hearing, the upright magistrate decided that the master had no property in the person of the negro, in this country, and gave the negro his liberty. The master instantly collared him, in the presence of Mr. Sharp and the lord mayor, and insisted on his right to keep him as his property. Mr. Sharp now claimed the protection of the English law, caused the master to be taken into custody, and exhibited articles of peace against him for an assault and battery. After various legal proceedings, supported by him with most undaunted spirit, the twelve judges unanimously concurred in an opinion that the master had acted criminally. Thus did Mr. Sharp emancipate for ever the race of blacks from a state of slavery, while on British ground, and in fact banished slavery from Great Britain. Such an incident could not fail deeply to impress a benevolent mind; and slavery, in every shape and country, became the object of his unceasing hostility. In 17G9, he published a work, entitled “A Representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of toleratinaSlavery, or of admitting the least claim of private property in the persons of men in England. 7 ' Having succeeded in the case of an individual negro, he interested himself in the condition of the many others who were seen wandering about the streets of London, and at his own expence collected a number of them, whom he sent back to Africa, where they termed a colony on the river Sierra Leone. He performed a still more essential service to humanity, by becoming the institutor of the” Society for the abolition of the Slave trade;“which, after contending against a vast mass of opposition, at length succeeded, as far as this country was concerned, and it is hoped will soon be universal. Similar principles led Mr. Sharp to use his endeavours to restrain the practice of marine impressment; and a citizen of London having been carried off by a press-warrant, Mr. Sharp obtained a habeas corpus from the court of king’s bench, to bring him back from a vessel at the Nore; and by his arguments obliged the court to liberate him. His political principles led him to become the warm advocate of” parliamentary reform,“and he published” A Declaration of the people’s natural right to a share in the legislature, which is the fundamental principle of the British constitution of state." In this he proposed to restore the ancient tithing$, hundreds, &c. and the whole body of the people were to form a national militia, each thousand to constitute a regiment, the alderman or magistrate to be the colonel; and each hundred to constitute a company, the constable of each fo.r the time being to be their captain. So many of the thousands to be summoned once in every year, by their magistrate, as would have a right to vote in their respective hundreds, before the constable, in the choice of their part of the representative legislature. After stating that the division of this kingdom into tithings and hundreds was instituted by the immortal Alfred, he endeavours to prove that such a division is consistent with the most perfect state of liberty that man is capable of enioying, and yet fully competent to answer all the purposes of mutual defence, to secure the due execution of the laws, and maintain public peace. Mr. Sharp was educated in the principles of the established church, and through life shewed a warm attachment to them. This led him to recommend an episcopal church in America; and he introduced the first bishops from that country to the archbishop of Canterbury for consecration.

, D. D. F. R. and A. Ss. master of the Temple, and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, was born in Yorkshire in 1713, and, after passing some time at the grammar-school of Hull, came to Westminster, where he studied under the celebrated Dr. Freind. While here, he fell into a youthful mistake, which rendered his continuance at the seminary uneasy to himself and his relations, who becoming acquainted with the late Principal Blackwell, then at London, they settled Mr. Sharpe with him in the summer of 1731. Mr. Blackwell was at that time Professor of Greek in the Marischal College of Aberdeen, and was publishing his “Enquiry into the Life and Writings of Homer,” so that Mr. Sharpe’s friends judged he might have a fair opportunity of making a considerable proficiency in the Greek language under a person so eniinently skilled in it. Mr. Sharpe was boarded in his house four years without stirring out of Scotland; and after he had finished his studies, returned to England, and in a few years entered into orders. When Dr. Seeker was promoted to the deanery of St. Paul’s, Mr. Sharpe was appointed minister of the Broad -way chapel, St. James’s, in which he continued till the death of Dr. Nicholls, of the Temple, when, on account of his great learning, he was declared the Doctor’s successor, and in this station he was at his death, which happened at the Temple-house, Jan. 8, 1771. The Doctor never was married. His abilities and attainments in every kind of useful knowledge were conspicuous, and his skill in the Oriental languages extensive and uncommon.

Dr. Shaw’s fame, which had already beamed forth in Oxford, now began to shine with effulgence in London; for about this time he was becoming popular as a lecturer, and admired as an author. His lectures at the Leverian Museum, both before and after that rich and incomparable collection was removed from Leicester-house, never failed to attract a numerous and scientific audience. An elegant production, entitled “The Naturalist’s Miscellany,” made its appearance in 1789: this work was published monthly, in numbers, and had extended at the time of the decease of Dr. Shaw as far as No. 286. A posthumous number, with an index, closed this beautiful and extensive production, which comprises, in one thousand and sixty-four plates, figures of the more curious and remarkable productions of the three kingdoms of Nature, more particularly of the animal kingdom, with descriptions in English and Latin. In this year also Dr. Shaw was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, an honour which few among its members have better deserved, and none ever more justly prized. A periodical work appears to have been projected by him in 1790, entitled “Speculum Linnseum, or Linnsean Zoology,” 4to: one number only appeared. A vacancy happening in the British Museum in 1791, Dr. Shaw became a candidate for the office of a librarian upon that great national establishment; and his eminent qualifications procured him the appointment of assistant keeper of the Natural History. The melancholy scenes and the disagreeable effluvia of a sick chamber, had given him a disgust for the practice of a profession whose studies he had pursued with considerable ardour and delight. Upon this appointment, therefore, he resigned with cheerfulness whatever prospects he might have had as a physician, for the narrow income of an office which afforded him the most enlarged opportunities of prosecuting his researches into that science to which he was most devoted. Between the years 1792 and 1796 appeared “Musei Leveriani explicatio Anglica et Latina, opera et studio Georgii Shaw, M.D. R.S.S. Adduntur figurae eleganter sculptse et coloratas. Irnpensis Jacobi Parkinson.” In 1794 a splendid publication was undertaken by Dr. Shaw, in conjunction with sir James Smith and Mr. Sowerby, illustrative of the accessions which had been made to natural science by the discoveries of those who had attempted to explore the undefined shores of New Holland. The animals peculiar to that country were described by Dr. Shaw, in a work published in one volume 4to, entitled “The Zoology of New Holland;” the beautiful and accurate figures which adorned it were delineated by Mr. Sowerby: the botanical part, which formed another portion of this work, was written by sir James Smith, and published under the title of “The Botany of New Holland.” Sixty large and beautiful prints, published by J. Miller, the celebrated editor of the Gardener’s Dictionary, under the title of “Various subjects in Natural History, wherein are delineated Birds, Animals, and many curious Plants,” not meeting with a quick sale, from want of letter-press containing descriptions of the plates, Dr. Shaw was applied to, to supply the deficiency. This work was published in 1796, under the following title: “Cimelia Physica: Figures of rare and curious Quadrupeds, Birds, &c. together with several most elegant Plants, engraved and coloured from the subjects themselves: with descriptions by Geo. Shaw, M. D. F. R. S.” This, and the Museum Leverianum, are amongst the most magnificent publications England has produced.

A course of Zoological lectures was read by Dr. Shaw at the Royal Institution in the years 1806 and 1807; and the same course, with little alteration, was delivered in 1809 at the Surrey Institution. These were published in 1809, in two volumes 8vo. In the first nine lectures the author compresses the substance of what he had already published in his General Zoology. The last three lectures have now become more particularly valuable, as they not only contain materials which have hitherto been almost untouched, but may be further considered as a sketch of what he intended to accomplish in completing his General Zoology. In 1807, upon the death of Dr. Gray, keeper of the natural history in the British Museum, Dr. Shaw was promoted to that office. An Abridgment of the Philosophical Transactions, in 18 vols. 4to, by Dr. Charles Button, Dr. George Shaw, and Dr. R. Pearson, made its appearance in 1809. All the papers relating to natural history, and these amounted to near fifteen hundred, were abridged by Dr. Shaw, and were rendered more interesting than they app'eared in their original form, by the insertion of the Linnaean generic and specific names, and still further so by occasional annotations, pointing out where the subject has been more fully investigated in some of the subsequent volumes of the Transactions, or in other works. After this, no new undertaking engaged his pen. His time was altogether employed upon his two progressive works, his Naturalist’s Miscellany, and his General Zoology, when death, upon a short warning, terminated his useful labours on July 22, 1813, in the sixty-second year of his’age. His illness, which was but of a few days’ continuance, originated in a constipation of the bowels. In this he had relief, and confident hopes of his recovery were beginning to be entertained, when an abscess formed on a portion of the intestines, and brought on speedy dissolution. His senses and his recollection only forsook him with his breath. He died as he had lived, with a philosophic composure and serenity of mind, which neither the acute pains which he endured, nor the awful change which he was about to experience, could in any visible degree disturb.

, a physician of the last century, was the author of several works which enjoyed a considerable reputation in their day. His first professional publication, was entitled “New Practice of Physic,” in two volumes, and first printed in 1726: it contained a brief description of diseases and the methods of treating them, and was often reprinted, the 7th edition in 1763. His next work was an “Enquiry into the Virtues of Scarborough Spaw Waters,” which he visited during the season; it was printed in 1734-. In the same year he published also “Chymical Lectures publicly read in London 1731, 1732, and Scarborough 1733.” This was deemed a scientific and valuable work, and was translated into French. He published some minor works: “A Portable Laboratory,” 1731; “On Scurvy,” 1736; “Essays on Artificial Philosophy,” 1731 “On the Juice of the Grape,” 1724; and he edited the “Dispensatory of the College of Physicians of Edinburgh,” in 1727. Dr. Shaw was elected F. R. S. in 1755, an honour which he seems to have merited by his “Abridgment of Boyle’s Philosophical works,” 3 vols. 4to. and of “Lord Bacon’s” in the same form: he translated also Hoffman on Mineral Waters, Strahl’s Chemistry, and Boerhaave’s Elementa Chemica, in conjunction with Chambers. Notwithstanding these multifarious labours, he had an extensive share of practice, and was physician in ordinary to his present majesty, but resigned in favour of his son-in-law, Dr. Richard Warren, some time 'before his death, which happened March 15, 1763. He also left Dr. Warren his fortune.

In the Summer of 1791, Mr. Shaw retired to his father’s house at Hartshorn. Here still amusing himself with topographical researches, he soon afterwards, during his fre-r quent visits into Staffordshire, conceived the idea of undertaking the history of that county. The scheme at first appeared bold even to the partiality of his friends; but he persevered, and his mild and inoffensive manners procured attention to the assistance he asked; his acquaintance every day enlarged, and his materials accumulated. Instead of confining himself merely to the dry investigations of antiquarian lore, he conciliated by an attention awake to every thing which the title of his work could comprehend. Natural history, agriculture, scenery, manufactories, and arts, all excited his curiosity, and flattered the various turns of those by whom the acquisition of his materials was facilitated.

, a celebrated traveller, son of Mr. Gabriel Shaw, was born at Kenda!, in Westmorland, about 1692. He received his education at the grammar-school of that place; was admitted of Queen’s-college, Oxford, Oct. 5, 1711, where he took the degree of B. A. July 5, 1716; M. A. Jan. 16, 1719; went into orders, and was appointed chaplain to the English factory at Algiers. In this station he continued several years, and thence took opportunities of travelling into several parts. During his absence he was chosen fellow of his college, March J 6, 1727 and at his return in 1733 took the degree of doctor in divinity, July 5, 1734, and in the same year was elected F. R. S. He published the first edition of his “Travels” at Oxford in 1738, and bestowed on the university some natural curiosities, and some ancient coins and busts (three of which are engraved among the “Marmora Oxoniensia”) which he had collected in his travels. On the death of Dr. Felton in 1740, he was nominated by his college principal of St. Edmund-hall, which he raised from a ruinous condition by his munificence; and was presented at the same time to the vicarage of Bramley in Hants. He was also regius professor of Greek at Oxford till his death, which happened Aug. 15, 1751. He was buried in Bramley church, where a monument was erected to his memory, with an inscription written by his friend Dr. Browne, provost of Queen’s-college, Oxford. His “Travels” were translated into French, and printed in 1743, 4to, with several notes and emendations communicated by the author. Dr. Richard Pocock, afterwards bishop of Ossory, having attacked those “Travels” in his “Description of the East,” our author published a supplement, by way of vindication, in 1746. In the preface, to the “Supplement” he -says, the intent and design of it is partly to vindicate the Book of Travels from some objections that have been raised against it by the author of “The Description of the East, &c.” He published <c A farther vindication of the Book of Travels, and the Supplement to it, in a Letter to the Right reverend Robert Clayton, D. D. lord bishop of Clogher.“This letter consists of six folio pages, and bears date in 1747. After the doctor’s death, an improved edition of his book came out in 1757, under the title of” Travels or Observations relating to several parts of Barbary and the Levant, illustrated with cuts. The second edition, with great improvements. By Thomas Shaw, D. D. F. R. S. regius professor of Greek, and principal of St. Edmund Hall, in the university of Oxford." The contents of the supplement are interwoven in this edition; and the improvements wero made, and the edition prepared for the press, by the author himself, who expressly presented the work, with these additions, alterations, and improvements, to the public, as an essay towards restoring the ancient geography, and placing in a proper light the natural and sometimes civil history of those countries where he travelled. The Sliawia in botany received its name in honour of Dr. Shaw, who has given a catalogue, in alphabetica order, accompanied with rude plates, of the rarer plants observed by him in Barbary, Egypt, and Arabia. The species amount to 632, and the catalogue is enriched witli several synonyms, as well as occasional descriptions and remarks. His dried specimens are preserved at Oxford. The orthography of the name is attended with difficulty to foreigners, our w being as unmanageable to them, as their multiplied consonants are to us. Some of them blunder into Schawia, Shaavia, or Shavia. Perhaps the latter might be tolerated, were it not for the ludicrous ambiguity of Shavius itself, applied by facetious Oxonians to the above famous traveller and his namesakes.

In consequence of this tumult he was obliged to place the management of his ravaged playhouse in other hands for the ensuing season, and come himself to England, where he continued till the opening of the winter of the year 1756, when the spirit gf party being in some degree subsided, and Sheridan’s personal opponents somewhat convinced of the impetuous rashness of their proceedings, he returned to his native country, and having preceded his first appearance on the stage by a public apology for such parts of his conduct as might have been considered as exceptionable, he was again received with the highest favour by the audience. But now his reign, which had been thus disturbed by an insurrection at home, was yet to undergo a second shock from an invasion from abroad. Two mighty potentates from England, viz. Mr. Barry and Mr. Woodward, having found means to sound the disposition of the people of Dublin, with whom the former, exclusive of his allowed theatrical merit, had great interest by being their countryman, and finding it the opinion of many that a second theatre in that city would be likely to meet with eocouragenaent, if supported by good performers, immediately raised a large subscription among the nobility and gentry, set artificers to work, erected a new play-house in Crow-street during the summer season, and, having engaged a company selected from the two theatres of London, were ready for opening by the beginning of the ensuing winter. And now, at a time when Mr. Sheridan needed the greatest increase of theatrical strength, he found himself deserted by some of his principal performers, who had engaged themselves at the r>ew house and, at the same time, some valuable auxiliaries which he had engaged from England, among whom were Mr. Theophilus Gibber and Mr. Maddox the wire-dancer, lost their lives in the attempt to come to Ireland, being driven by a storm and cast away on the coast of Scotland. This completed that ruin which had begun to take place, and had been so long impending over his head. He was now compelled entirely to throw up his whole concern with that theatre, and to seek out for some other means of providing for himself and family.

dation that bishop Sherlock would have lived long enougn to know by expeexpunged the Athnn:i<ian creed to re- r.ence the truth of what xve are taught,

But the first work of importance which he published, and that which rendered him most famous, was his “Critical History of the Old Testament,” which appeared in 1678, but was immediately suppressed by the Messieurs du Port Royal; who alleged, that it. contained things false and dangerous to religion and the church. It was reprinted the year after, and was so much admired for excellent learning and admirable criticism, that it became an object of attention to foreigners; and was published, in Latin, at Amsterdam 1681, and in English at London 1682, by R. H. i. e. R. Hampden (son of the celebrated John Harnpden), who, we are told, declared on his death-bed, that father Simon’s works had made him a sceptic.

After, however, he took leave of astrology and its emoluments, he was driven to hardships for the subsistence of his family, having married the taylor’s widow with two children, who soon brought him two more. He, therefore, came up to London in 1735 or 1736, and for some time wrought at his business in Spitalfields, and taught mathematics when he had any spare time. His industry soon became so productive, that he was enabled to bring up his wife and children to settle in London. The number of his scholars increasing, and his abilities becoming in some measure known to the public, he issued proposals for publishing, by subscription, “A new Treatise of Fluxions, wherein the Direct and Inverse Method are demonstrated after a new, clear, and concise manner; with their application to Physics and Astronomy. Also the Doctrine of infinite Series and reverting Senes universally and amply explained; fluxionary and exponential Equations solved,” &c. When he first proposed his intentions of publishing such a work, he did not know of any English book founded on the true principles of fluxions, that contained any thing material, especially the practical part; and, though some progress had been made by several learned and ingenious gentlemen, the principles were nevertheless left obscure and defective, and all that had been done by nny of them in “infinite series” very inconsiderable. The book was not published till 1737, 4to; the author having been frequently interrupted from furnishing the press so fast as he could have wished, through his unavoidable attention to his pupils for his immediate support. In 1740 he published “A Treatise on the Nature and Laws of Chance,” in 4to; to which are annexed full and clear Investigati ns of two important Problems added in the second edition of Mr. De Moivre’s “Book on Chances, and two new Methods for summing of Series.” His next performance was, “Essays on several curious and useful subjects in speculative and mixed Mathematics. Dedicated to Francis Blake, esq. since fellow of the Royal Society, and his very good Friend and Patron,” 174-0, 4to. Soon after the publication of this book he was chosen a member of the Royal Academy at Stockholm. Our author’s next work appeared in 1742, 8vo, “The Doctrine of Annuities and Reversions deduced from general and evident Principles: with useful Tables, shewing the values of single and joint lives, &c. at different rates of interest,” &c. This, in 1743, was followed by “An Appendix, containing some Remarks on a late Book on the same subject (by Mr. Abr. De Moivre, F. R. S.) with answers to some personal and malignant representations in the Preface thereof.” To this De Moivre never thought fit to reply. In 1743 he published also “Mathematical Dissertations on a variety of Physical and Analytical subjects,” 4to. This work he dedicated to Martin Folkes, esq. president of the Royal Society. His next book was, “A Treatise of Algebra, wherein the fundamental principles are fully and clearly demonstrated, and applied to the solution of a variety of problems.” To which he added, “The Construction of a great number of geometrical Problems, with the method of resolving them numerically.” This work was designed for the use of young beginners; inscribed to William Jones, esq. F. R. S. and printed in 1745, 8vo. A new edition appeared in 1755, with additions and improvements. This is dedicated to James earl of Morton, F. R. S. Mr. Jones being dead; and there was a sixth edition in 1790. His next work was, “Elements of Geometry, with their application to Mensuration of Superficies and Solids, to the determination of Maxima and Minima, and to the construction of a great variety of Geometrical Problems,” 1747, 8vo, reprinted in 1760, with large alterations and additions, designed for young beginners; particularly for the gentlemen at the king’s academy at Woolwich, and dedicated to Charles Frederick, esq. surveyor-general of the ordnance; and other editions have appeared since*. In 1748 came out his “Trigonometry, Plane and Spherical, with the construction and application of Logarithms,” 8vo. This little book contains several things new and useful. In 1750 appeared in 2 vols. 8vo, “The doctrine and application of Fluxions, containing, besides what is common on the subject, a number of new improvements in the Theory,and the solution of a variety of new and very interesting Problems, in different branches of the Mathematics.” In the preface the author offers this to the world as a new book rather than a second edition of that published in 1737; in which he acknowledges, that, besides errors of the press, there are several obscurities and defects, for want of experience, in his first attempt. This work is dedicated to George earl of Mat-clesfield. In 1752 appeared in 8vo, “Select Exercises for young proficients in Mathematics,” dedicated to John Bacon, esq. F. R. S. His “Miscellaneous Tracts,” printed in 1757, 4to, was his last legacy to the public; a most valuable bequest, whether we consider the dignity and importance of the subjects, or his sublime and accurate manner of treating them. These are inscribed to the earl of Macclesfield, and are ably analyzed in Dr. Hutton’s Dictionary.

joined to his edition of Euclid’s Ele- ma<\c at the r ud of the preface to Mr.

About 1758, a pamphlet appeared in Dublin, entitled “An Appeal to the common sense of all Christian people,” an artful defence of Arianism, an answer to which was written by Mr. Skelton, in the opinion of his biographer, in a masterly manner and style, exceeding any of hi* former compositions. But as the “Appeal” sunk into obscurity, the answer was not inserted in the edition of his works published in 1770. Here, however, maybe found a description of Longh-Derg, which he wrote about this time, a place much visited by the superstitious. In 1758, Dr. Clayton, bishop of Clogher, died, and was succeeded by Dr. Garnet, who treated Mr. Skelton with the respect he deserved, and in 1759 gave him the living of Devenish, in the county of Fermanagh, near Enniskillen, worth about 300l. a year, and thus he was brought once more into civilized society. When leaving Pettigo, he said to the poor, “Give me your blessing now before I go, and God’s blessing be with you. When you are in great distress, come to me, and I '11 strive to relieve you.” In this new charge, he exerted the same zeal to instruct his flock both in public and private, and the same benevolence toward the poor which had made him so great a benefit to his former people. W r e must refer to his biographer for numerous proofs, for which his memory continues still to be held in high veneration. In 17oG, the bishop of Clogher removed him from Devenish to the living of Fintona, in the county of Tyrone, worth at least 100l. more than the other. He was now in the fifty-ninth year of his age. “God Almighty,” he used to say, “was very kind to me: when I began to advance in years and stood in need of a horse and servant, he gave me a living. Then he gave me two livings, one after another, each of which was worth a hundred a year more than the preceding. I have therefore been rewarded by him, even in this world, far above my deserts.”

In the same year he published a small miscellany of “Poems on several occasions,” at the conclusion of which he complains again of the reviewers, and betrays that irritability of self-conceit which is frequently observed to precede, and sometimes to accompany derangement of mind. In other respects these poems added little to his fame, and, except one or two, have not been reprinted. In 1764, he published “Hannah,” an oratorio, the music of which was composed by Worgan, and -soon after in the same year, “An Ode to tht Earl of Northumberland,” on his bein<r appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, with some other pieces. In all these his imagination, although occasionally fine, went often into wild excesses, and evinced that his iniiui had never recovered its sober tone. In his intervals of health and regularity, he still continued to write, and although he perhaps formed too high an opinion of his effusions, he spared no labour when employed by the booksellers, and formed, in conjunction with them, many schemes of literary industry which he did not live to accomplish. In 1765, he published “A Poetical Translation of the Fables of PliEedrus,” with the appendix of Gudius, and an accurate original text on the opposite page. This translation appears to be executed with neatness and fidelity, but has never become popular. His “Translation of the Psalms,” which followed in the same year, affords a melancholy proof of want of judgment and decay of powers. Many of his psalms scarcely rise above the level of Sternhold and Hopkins, and they had the additional disadvantage of appearing at the same time with Merrick’s more correct and chaste translation. In 1767, our poet republished his Horace, with a metrical translation, in which, although we find abundance of inaccuracies, irregular rhymes and redundancies, there are some passages conceived in the true spirit of the original.

In 1754 he visited Holland, and travelling on foot, or in the trechschuyts, made himself acquainted with most of the works of art in the Low Countries. In December 1752 the Eddystone lighthouse was burned down, and Mr. Smeaton was recommended to the proprietor, by lord Macclesfield, then president of the Royal Society, as the person best qualified to rebuild it. This great work he undertook immediately, and completed it in the summer of 1759. An ample and most interesting account is given of the whole transaction in a folio volume, published by himself, in 1791, entitled “A narrative of the building and a description of the construction of the Eddystone Lighthouse with stone, to which is subjoined an Appendix, giving some account of the Lighthouse on the Spurn Point, built upon a sand. By John Smeaton, civil engineer, F. R. S.” This publication may be considered as containing an accurate history of four years of his life, in which the originality of his genius, with his great alacrity, industry, and perseverance, are fully displayed. It contains also an account of the former edifices constructed in that place, and is made, by the ingenuity of the writer, an entertaining, as well as an instructive work.

, a learned Scotch divine, and principal of the college of Glasgow, was born at Cask, near Perth, in 1536. He was educated at the university of St. Andrew’s, and afterwards studied for some time at Paris. He then went to Rome, and during a residence of three years there, entered into the society of the Jesuits. After returning to Scotland, on account of some private business, he again visited Paris, where he remained until 1571. At this time Mr. Thomas Maitland, a younger brother of Lrtoington’s, prevailed on Mr. Smeton to accompany him to Italy, where Maitland died. After his death, Smeton went to Geneva, and by conversing with the reformers, was confirmed in an intention he had before meditated, of quitting the church of R<me. From Geneva he travelled to Paris, where he narrowly escaped the massacre, and came home with the English ambassador, sir Thomas Walsingham. Immediately on his arrival, he publicly renounced popery, and settled at Colchester in Essex, as a school-master. In 1578, he returned to Scotland, joined Knox and the other reformers, was appointed minister of Paisley, and member of the general assembly which met at Edinburgh in the same year, and was chosen moderator in the assembly of 1579. He was soon after made principal of the college of Glasgow, and died in 1583, Archbishop Spotswood says, he was a man “learned in the languages, and well seen in the ancient fathers.” His only publication is entitled “Responsio ad Hamiltonii dialogum,” Edinb. 1579, 8vo, a defence of the presbyterians; to which is added, his “Eximii viri Joannis Knoxii, Scoticanae ecclesiae instauratoris, vera extremse vitac et obitus historia.”

It now became necessary to exert her faculties again as a means of support; and she translated a little novel of abbe Prevost; and made a selection of extraordinary stories from “Les Causes Celebres” of the French, which she entitled “The Romance of Real Life.” Soon after this she was once more left to herself by a second flight of her husband abroad; and she removed with her children to a small cottage in another part of Sussex, whence she published a new edition of her “Sonnets,” with many additions, which afforded her a temporary relief. In this retirement, stimulated by necessity, she ventured to try her powers of original composition in a novel called “Emmeline, or the Orphan of the Castle,” 1788. This, says her biographer, *' displayed such a simple energy of language, such an accurate and lively delineation of character, such a purity of sentiment, and such exquisite scenery of a picturesque and rich, yet most unaffected imagination, as gave it a hold upon all readers of true taste, of a new and captivating kind “The success of this novel encouraged her to produce others for some successive years,” with equal felicity, with an imagination still unexhausted, and a command of language, and a variety of character, which have not yet received their due commendation.“” Ethelinde“appeared in 178!;” Celestina“in 1791;” Desmond“in 1792; and” r \ ht- Old Manor House“in 1793. To these succeeded” The Wanderings of Warwick“the” Banished Man;“”Momalbert;“”Marchmont;“” The young Philosopher,“and the” Solitary Wanderer," making in all 38 volumes. They weie not, however, all equally successful. She was led by indignant feelings to intersperse much of her private history and her law-suits; and this again involved her sometimes in a train of political sentiment, which was by no means popular, and had it been just, was out of place in a moral fiction.

The year following her death an additional volume of her poetry was published under the title of “Beachy Head and other Poems,” which certainly did not diminish her wellearned and acknowledged reputation as a genuine child of genius. Her novels ma,y be forgotten, and, we believe, are in a great measure so at present; but we agree with her kind eulogist, that of her poetry it is not easy to speak in terms too high. “There is so much unaffected elegance: so much pathos and harmony in it: the images are so soothing, and so delightful; and the sentiments so touching, so consonant to the best movements of the heart, that no readt-r of pure tasir can grow weary of perusing them.” It was reported that her family intended to publish memoirs of her life, and a collection of her letters; but as at the distance of almost ten years nothing of this kind has appeared, we presume that the design, for whatever reason, has been abandoned.

, bishop of Gloucester, a very learned prelate, was born in the city of Hereford, and became, about the year 1568, a student in Corpus Christi college, Oxford; from which college he transferred himself to Brasen Nose, and took the degrees in arts, as a member of that house. He was afterwards made one of the chaplains, or petty canons of Christ-church, and was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity, whilst he belonged to that royal foundation. In process of time he was raised to the dignity of canon residentiary of the cathedral church of Hereford: he was created doctor of divinity in 1594; and, at length, in 1612, advanced to tke see of Gloucester, and consecrated on the 20th of September in that year. His knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Oriental languages was so extraordinary, that, upon this account, he was described, by a learned bishop of the kingdom, as a, “very walking library.” He used to say of himself, that he was “covetous of nothing but books.” It was particularly for his exact and eminent skill in the Eastern tongues, that he was thought worthy, by king James the First, to be called to that great work, the last transiation by authority of our English Bible. In this undertaking he was esteemed one of the principal persons. He began with the first, and was the last man in the translation of the work: for after the task was finished by the whole number appointed to the business, who were somewhat above forty, the version was revised and improved by twelve selected from them; and, at length, was referred to the final examination of Bilson bishop of Winchester, and our Dr. Smith. When all was ended, he was commanded to write a preface, which being performed by him, it was made public, and is the same that is now extant in our Church Bible. The original is said to be preserved in the Bodleian library. It was for his good services in this translation, that Dr. Smith was appointed bishop of Gloucester, and had leave to hold in commendam with his bishopric his former livings, namely, the prebend of Hinton in the church of Hereford, the rectories of Upton-onSevern, Hartlebury in the diocese of Worcester, and the first portion of Ledbury, called Overhall. According to Willis he died October 20; but W r ood says, in the beginning of November, 1624, and was buried in his own cathedral. He was a strict Calvinist, and of course no friend to the proceedings of Dr. Laud. In 1632, a volume of sermons, transcribed from his original manuscripts, being fifteen in number, was published at London, in folio, and he was the editor of bishop Babington’s works, to which he prefixed a preface, and wrote some verses for his picture. One of bishop Smith’s own sermons was published in octavo, 1602, without his knowledge or consent, by Robert Burhill, under the title of “A learned and godly Sermon, preached at Worcester, at an assize, by the Rev. and learned Miles Smith, doctor of divinitie.”

"Tell me youi company and I‘ll describe your manners, is a proverbial apothegm among our neighbours, and the maxim will generally hold good; but we apprehend the adage might be more justly turned to this purpose, Name your enemies, and I ’11 guess your character. If the Complete History of England were to be judged in this manner, we imagine the author would gladly submit to the determination of the public. Let us tnen see who are the professed enemies of that production: the saye, the patriot, the sedate Dr. Shebbeare: the serene Griffiths and 'his spouse, proprietors and directors of the Monthly Review: the profound, the candid, the modest Dr. Hill: the wise, the learned, and the temperate Thomas Comber, A. B. whose performance we are at present to consider. This is indeed a formidable group of adversaries, enough to daunt the heart of any young adventurer in the worLi of letters; but the author of the Complete History.^ E.igland has been long familiar with such seas o<* troubl-. Tae assault, however, which he has sustained from some of these heroes was not altogether unprovoked. Shebbeare had been chastised in the Critical Review for his insolent and seditious appeals to the public. He took it for granted that the lash was exercised by the author of the Complete History of England, therefore he attacked that performance tooth and nail. He declared that there was neither grammar, meaning, composition, or reflection, either in the plan or the execution of the work itself. Griffiths was enraged against the same gentleman, because he was supposed to have set up the Critical Review, in opposition to the Monthly, of which he (Griffiths) was proprietor: accordingly he employed an obscure grub, who wrote in his garret, to bespatter the History of England. Hill, for these ten years, has by turns praised and abused Dr. Smollett, whom he did not know, without being able to vanquish that silent contempt in which this gentleman ever held him and all his productions: piqued at this indifference and disdain, the said Hill has, in a weekly paper, thrown out some dirty insinuations against the author of the Complete History of England. We cannot rank the proprietors of R n * and other histories, among the personal enemies of Dr. Smollett, because they were actuated by the dictates of self-interest to decry his performance. This, however, they have pursued in the most sordid, illiberal, and ridiculous manner: they have caballed: they have slandered: they have vilified: they have prejudiced, misrepresented, and used undue influence among their correspondents in different parts of the kingdom: they have spared neither calumny nor expence to prejudice the author and his work: they have had the effrontery to insinuate in a public advertisement that he was no better than an inaccurate plagiary from Rapin: and they have had the folly to declare that Rapin’s book was the most valuable performance, just immediately after they had taxed Dr. Smollett with having, by a specious plan, anticipated the judgment of the public. Finally, finding all their endeavours had proved abortive, we have reason to believe they hired the pen of the Rev. Thomas Comber of York, A. B. to stigmatize and blacken the character of the work which has been to them such a source of damage and vexation. Accordingly this their champion has earned his

*Most of the names in this passage are printed only with the initial and final letters, except that of Rapin which follows. This R a may mean Eobertcon, whose first history was then in the press. wages with surprising eagerness and resolution: he has dashed through thick and thin, without, fear of repulse, without dread of reputation. Indeed he writes with a degree of acrimony that seems to be personal perhaps, if the truth was known, hewould be found one of those obscure authors, who have occasionally received correction in some number of the Critical Review, and looks upon Dr. Smollett as the n.iministrator of that correction; but

by the right worshipful the proprietors of R n, to renew

, a celebrated naturalist, the pupil of Linnæus, and the friend of sir Joseph Banks, was a native of the province of Nordland in Sweden, where his father was minister. He was born Feb. 28, 1736, and studied at Upsal, where he appears to have taken his degree of doctor in inedicine. Linnseus, who during his residence in England, had formed an intimacy with Mr. Peter Collinson, advised his pupil to visit England, and probably recommended him to that gentleman. Dr. Solander arrived in England in 1760, and in October 1762, was strongly recommended by Mr. Collinson to the trustees of the British Museum, as a person who had made natural history the study of his life, and was particularly qualified to draw up a catalogue of that part of their collection. Three years after, he obtained a closer connection with that institution, being appointed one of the assistants in the department of natural history. In 1764 he became a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1766, he drew up for Mr. Brander, the scientific descriptions of his Hampshire fossils, then published in a thin volume, 4to, entitled “Fossilia Hantoniensia, collecta, et in Musseo Britanmco deposita, a Gustavo Brander, R. S. et S. A. S. Mus. Brit. Cur.” Of his obligations to Dr. Solander, this gentleman thus speaks in his preface: “And now I think I have nothing more to do, than to acknowledge myself indebted for the scientific description of them to the learned and ingenious Dr. Solander, one of the officers of the British Museum, who is at this time employed by the trustees to compose a systematical catalogue of the natural productions of that entire collection.” It does not appear that this catalogue was ever completed.

“Dr. Solander, who had more than once crossed the mountains which divide Sweden from Norway, well knew that extreme cold, especially when juined with fatigue, produces a torpor and sleepiness that are almost irresistible: he therefore conjured the company to keep moving, whatever pain it might cost them, and whatever relief they might be promised by an inclination to rest. Whoever sits down, says he, will sleep; and whoever sleeps will wake no more. Thus, at once admonished and alarmed, they set forward but while they were still upon the naked rock, and before they had got among the bushes, the cold became suddenly so intense, as to produce the effects that had been dreaded. Dr. Solander himself was the first who found the inclination, against which he had warned others, irresistible; and insisted upon being suffered to lie down. Mr. Banks intreated and remonstrated in vain; down he lay upon the ground, though it was covered with snow; and it was with great difficulty that his friend prevented him from sleeping. Richmond also, one of the black servants, began to linger, having suffered from the cold in the same manner as the doctor. Mr. Banks, therefore, sent five of the company, among whom was Mr. Buchan, forward to get a fire read)', at the first convenient place they could find; and himself, with four others, remained with the doctor and Richmond, whom, partly by persuasion and intreaty, and partly by force, they brought on; but when they had got through the greatest part of the birch and swamp, they both declared they could go no farther. Mr. Banks had recourse again to entreaty and expostulation, but they produced no effect; when Richmond was told that if he did not go on he would in a short time be frozen to death; he answered, that he desired nothing but to lie down and die. The doctor did not so explicitly renounce his life; he said, he was willing to go on, but that he must first take some sleep, though he had bet >re told the company that to sleep was to perish. Mr. Banks and the rest found it impossible to carry them, and there being no remedy, they were both suffered to sit down, being partly supported by the bushes, and in a few minutes they fell into a profound sleep: soon after, some of the people who had been sent forward returned, with the welcome news that a fire was kindled about a quarter of a mile further on the way. Mr. Banks then endeavoured to wake Dr. Solander, and happily succeeded; but, though he had not slept five minutes, he had almost lost the use of liis limbs, and the muscles were so shrunk, that the shoes fell from his feet; he consented to go forward with such assistance as could be given him; but no attempts to relieve poor Richmond were successful. Mr. Banks, with much difficulty, at length got the doctor to the fire.” Richmond and a seaman finally perished from the cold; the remainder of the party, to the number of ten, happily regained the ship, alter the utmost difficulties and hazards. The “Dictionnaire Historique” affirms, that Dr. Solan. tier had a salary of 400l. sterling a year, during this voyage. “Whatever he had must have been t'ri>tn the munificence of Mr. Banks, as he had no public appointment. There can be no doubt that the zeal and generosity of that friend rewarded him very amply, both for the time employed in the voyage, and for that which he afterwards spent in arranging and describing the vast collection of plants which they had made. In 1773, Dr. Solander was advanced from the office of assistant to be one of the under-librarians in the British Museum. He died in consequence of a stroke of apoplexy, onMay Ui, 178 1. Dr. Pulteney, in his” Sket> of the progress of Botany in England,“regards the arrival of Dr. Solander in this country as an acra of importance in that history.” At this juncture,“he says,” it is material, among those circumstances which accelerated the progress of the new system, to mention the arrival of the late muchlamented Dr. Solander, who came into England on the 1st of July, 1760. His name, and the connection he was known to bear, as the favourite pupil of his great master, had of themselves some share in exciting a curiosity which led to information; while his perfect acquaintance with the whole scheme enabled him to explain its minutest parts, and elucidate all those obscurities with which, on a superficial view, it was thought to be enveloped. I add to this that the urbanity of his manners, and his readiness to afford every assistance in his power, joined to that clearness and energy with which he effected it, not only brought conviction of its excellence in those who were inclined to receive it, but conciliated the minds, and dispelled the prejudices, of many who had been averse to it.“It is testified of him by others, who knew him intimately, that to a very extensive knowledge he added a mode of communication, not only remarkable for its readiness, but for so peculiar a modesty, that he contrived almost to appear to receive instruction when he was bestowing it in the most ample manner. There are said to be some papers by him scattered in the various memoirs of philosophical societies; but in the transactions of the Royal Society of London, there is only one letter, which is in vol. LI I. p. 654, and is entitled,” Account of the Gardenia (Jasminoides), in a Letter to Philip Carteret Webb, esq. F. R. S. from Daniel C. Solander, M. D." Nor, though his time was always usefully employed, do we know of any other production of which he was the author. He was a short, fair man, rather fat with small eyes, and a good-humoured expression of countenance.

Before the king’s departure for Holland, in the summer of the year 1697, his majesty communicated to lord Somers a proposition made by count Tallard, to prevent a war about the succession to the crown of Spain, upon the death of the then monarch of that kingdom; and the chancellor afterwards received a letter from his majesty, then in Holland, informing him, that fresh offers had been made to the same purpose; and requiring him to dispatch full powers, under the great seal, with the names in blank, to empower his majesty to treat with the before mentioned Count. This order he accordingly complied with; and the negociations being immediately entered upon, a treaty was concluded. This was the first Partition-treaty; and in the next session of parliament, which began Nov. 16, 1699, great complaints were made in the House of Commons against the chancellor; and the House being resolved, on Dec. 6, to push the resumption of the grants of the Irish forfeited estates, by tacking it to the land-tax-bill, an address was concerted on April 10, 1700, praying, that “John lord Somers, lord chancellor of England, should be removed for ever from his majesty’s presence and councils;” but the majority of the House voted against any such address. However, the parliament being prorogued the next day, his majesty sent for the lord chancellor, and desired him to surrender the seals voluntarily; but this his lordship declined, thinking that it would imply a consciousness of guilt, He told the king, however, that whensoever his majesty should send a warrant under his hand, commanding him to deliver them up, he would immediately obey it. Accordingly an order was brought to him for this purpose by lord Jersey, upon which the seals were sent to the king. Thus was lord Somers removed from the post of chancellor, the duties of which he had discharged with great integrity and ability; and although this was contrary to the king’s inclinations to make such a sacrifice, “was not sufficient to appease the tory party, who now formed a design to impeach him. This his lordship in some measure anticipated, by sending, os> April 14, 1701, a message to the House of Commons, in which,” having heard tiiat the House was in a debate concerning him, he desired that he might be admitted and heard.“This was granted, and a chair being set by the Serjeant, a little wittiin the bar on the left hand, he had directions to acquaint lord Somers r that he might come in; and on his entrance the Speaker informed him, that he might repose himself in the chair provided for him. His lordship then defended himself with respect to his share in concluding the partition-treaty, which was the principal charge against him in that House, and, according to Burnet,” spoke so fully aud clearly, that, upon his withdrawing, it was believed, if the question had been quickly put, the whole matter had b*>en soon at an end, aud that the prosecution would have been let fall. But his enemies drew out the debate to such a length, that the impression, which his speech had made, was much worn out; and the House sitting till it was past midnight, they at last carried it by a majority of seven or eight to impeach him."

, founder of the celebrated college called after him, was born October 9, 1201, at Sorbonne, otherwise Sorbon, a little village of Rhetelois in the diocese of Rheinis, whence he had his name. His family was poor and obscure, and not of the blood royal as Dupleix imagined. He distinguished himself as a student at Paris, and after having taken a doctor’s degree, devoted his whole attention to preaching and religious conferences, by which he soon became so celebrated that St. Louis wished to hear him. This prince immediately conceived the highest esteem for Sorbonne, invited him to his own table, took great pleasure in his conversation, and in order to have him more constantly about his person, appointed him his chaplain and confessor. Robert, being made canon of Cambray about 1251, and reflecting on the pains it had cost him to obtain a doctor’s degree, determined to facilitate the acquisition of learning to poor scholars. For this purpose he judged that the most convenient and efficacious plan would be to form a society of secular ecclesiastics, who, living in a community, and having the necessaries of life provided for them, should be wholly employed in study, and teach gratis. All his friends approved the design, and offered to assist him both with their fortunes and their advice. With their assistance, Robert de Sorbonne founded, in 1253, the celebrated college which bears his name. He then assembled able professors, those most distinguished for learning and piety, and lodged his community in the rue des deux portes, opposite to the palace des Thermes. Such was the origin f the famous college of Sorbonne, which proved the model of all others, there having been no society in Europe before that time where the seculars lived and taught in common, 'i he founder had two objects in view wi tins establishment, theology and the arts; but as his predilection was to the former, he composed his society principally of doctors and bachelors in divinity. Some have said that his original foundation was only for sixteen poor scholars (boursiers) or fellows; but it appears by his statutes that from the first establishment, it consisted of doctors, bachelor-fellows, bachelors not fellows, and poor students as at present, or at least lately. The number of fellows was not limited, but depended on the state of the revenues. The number in the founder’s time appears to have been about thirty, and he ordered that there should be no other members of his college than guests and associates (hospites et socii), who might be chosen from any country or nation whaieu-r. A guest, or perhaps as we should call him, a commoner, was required to be a bachelor, to maintain a thesis, tailed, from the founder’s name, Robertine, and was to be admitted by a majority of votes after three different scrutinies. These hospites remained part of the establishment until the last, were maintained and lodged in the house like the rest of the doctors and bachelors, had a right to study in the library (though without possessing a key), and enjoyed all other rights and privileges, except that they had no vote in the assemblies, and were obliged to quit the house on becoming doctors. For an associate, Socius, it was necessary, besides the Robertine thesis, to read a course of philosophical lectures gratis. In 1764, when the small colleges were united with that of Louis-le-grand, the course of philosophy was discontinued, and a thesis substituted in its place, called the second Robertine.

, Sotwellus, but properly Southwell (Nathaniel), was an English Jesuit of the seventeenth century, and is entitled to some notice, as one of the historians of his order, but we have no particulars of his own life. Being employed to write the lives of eminent authors among the Jesuits, he carried on the plan of llibadeneira and Alegambe down to his own times, that is, the latter part of the seventeenth century. His improved edition was published under the title of “Bibliotheca scriptorum societatis Jesu, opus inchoatum a R. P. Petro Ribadeneira, et productum ad annum 1609: continuatum a Philippo Alegambe ad annum 1643; recognitum, et productum ad annum 1675, a Nathanaelo Sotvvello,” Rome, 1676, fol. This is, of course, reckoned the best edition of this collection of biography, but some prefer that of Alegambe, on account of its superior correctness.

Afterwards he had a sinecure in Wales bestowed upon him by his patron the earl of Clarendon and, at that earl’s retirement into France in 1G67, became chaplain to James duke of York. In 1670, he was made canon of Christ church, Oxibrd. In 1676, he attended as chaplain Laurence Hyde, esq. ambassador extraordinary to the king of Poland; of which journey he gave an account, in a letter to Dr. Edward Pocock, dated from Dantzick the 16th of Dec. 1677; which is printed in the “Memoirs of his Life.” In 167S, iie was nominated by the dean and chapter of Westminster to the rectory of Islip in Oxfordshire; and, in 16SO, rebuilt the chancel of that church, as he did afterwards the rectory-house. He also allowed an hundred pounds per annum to his curate, and expended the rest in educating and apprenticing the poorer children of the parish. Jn I6bl he exhibited a remarkable example of accommodating his principles to those of the times. Being now one of the king’s chaplains in ordinary, he preached before his majesty upon these words, “The lot is cast into the lap, but the disposing of it is of the Lord.” In this sermon he introduced three remarkable instances of unexpected advancements, those of Agathocles, Massaniello, and Oliver Cromwell. Of the latter he says, “And who that had beheld such a bankrupt beggarly fellow as Cromwell, first entering the parliament house with a threadbare torn cloak, greasy hat (perhaps neither of them paid for), could have suspected that in the space of so few years, he should, by the murder of one king, and the banishment of another, ascend the throne r” At this, the king is said to have fallen into a violent tit of laughter, and turning to Dr. South’s patron, Mr. Laurence Hyde, now created lord Rochester, said, “Odds fish, Lory, your chaplain must be a bishop, therefore put me in mind of him at the next death!”

About the time that he disposed of the unsold copies of his “Glossary,” sir William Dugdale acquainted sir Henry Spelman, that many learned men were desirous to see the second part published, and requested of him to gratify the world with the work entire. Upon this, he shewed sir William the second part, and also the improvements which he had made in the first; but told him, at the same time, the discouragement he had met with in publishing the first part. Upon his death, all his papers came into the hands of sir John Spelman, his eldest son; a gentleman, who had abilities sufficient to complete what his father had begun, if death had not prevented him. After the restoration of Charles II. archbishop Sheldon and chancellor Hyde inquired of sir William Dugdale, what became of the second part, and whether it was ever finished; and, upon his answering in the affirmative, expressed a desire that it might be printed. Accordingly it was published by sir William in 1664; but, as Gibson says, “the latter part in comparison of the other is jejune and scanty; and everyone must see, that it is little more than a collection, out of which he intended to compose such discourses, as he has all along given us in the first part, under the words of the greatest import and usefulness.” It was surmised, for it never was proved, that because sir William Dugdale had the publishing of the second part, he inserted many things of his own, which were not in sir Henry Spelman’s copy; and particularly some passages, which tend to the enlargement of the prerogative, in opposition to the liberties of the subject. This- is noticed by Mr. Atwood, in his “Jus Anglorum ab antique” and the authenticity of it is vindicated, and some curious particulars are related concerning it, by Dr. Brady, in his “Animadversions on Jani Anglorum f'acies nova,” Bishop Gibson also assures us, that the very copy from which it was printed, is in the Bodleian library in sir Henry’s own hand, and exactly agrees with the printed book; and particularly under the word “Parlamentum,” and those other passages, upon which the controversy was raised. So far then as the copy goes, for it ends at the word “Riota,” it is a certain testimony, that sir William Dugdale did no more than mark it for the printer, and transcribe here and there a loose paper; and, though the rest of the copy was lost before it carne to the Oxford library, on which account there is not the same authority for the Glossary’s being genuine of the letter R; yet it is not likely, that sir William had any more share in these last letters of the alphabet, than he had in any of the rest. There was a third edition in 1687, illustrated with commentaries, and much enlarged. In 1627, sir Henry compiled a history of the civil affairs of the kingdom, from the conquest to Magna Charta, taken from the best historians, and generally in their own words. This was printed by Wilkins at the end of his edition of the Saxon laws. His next great work was his “Collection of the Councils, Decrees, Laws, and Constitutions of the English church from 1066 to 1531.” In this he was particularly encouraged by the archbishops Abbot, Laud, and especially Usher. The deceased bishop Andrews had suggested this scheme to Dr. Matthew Wren, who had made some progress, but desisted when he heard that sir Henry Spelman was engaged in the same design. Archbishop Abbot lived to see some part of the copy, and greatly approved of it. He branched his undertaking into three parts, assigning an entire volume to each division: I. “From the first plantation of Christianity to the coming in of the Conqueror in 1066.” 2. “From the Norman conquest to the casting off the pope’s supremacy, and the dissolution of monasteries by Henry VIII.” 3. “The History of the Reformed English Church, from Henry VIII. to his own time.” The volume, which contained the first of these heads, was published in 1639, about two years befoiv death, with his own annotations upon the more difficult places. The second volume of the “Councils,” was put into the hands of sir William Dugdale, by the direction of Sheldon and Hyde. Sir William made considerable additions to it ont of the archbishop’s registers and the Cottonian library; and it was published in 1664, but with abundance of faults, occasioned by the negligence of either the copier, or corrector, or both. His revival of Saxon literature was of great importance to the study of antiquities. He had found the excellent use oi" that language in the whole course of his studies, and much lamented the neglect of it both at home and abroad; which was so very general, that he did not then know one man in the world, who perfectly understood it. This induced him to found a Saxon lecture in the university of Cambridge, allowing lOl. per annum to Mr. Abraham Wheelocke, presenting him to the vicarage of Middleton in the county of Norfolk, and giving him likewise the profits of the impropriate rectory of the same church; both which were intended by him to be settled in perpetuity as an endowment of that lecture: but sir Henry and his eldest son dying in the compass of two years, the civil wars breaking forth, and their estate being sequestered, the family became incapable of accomplishing his design.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in Scotland, was descended from an ancient and distinguished family in that country. His grandfather was killed in the battle of Floddon-field with his king, James IV.* He was born in 1565; and the writer of his life telU us, as something very important, that among the rest r were present at his birth, “not ordinary gossipers,” says he, “but women of good note,” there was one who, in a sober, though prophetic fit, taking the child in her arms, called aloud to the rest in these or the like terms, “You may all very well rejoice at the birth of this child-, for he will become the prop and pillar of this church, and the main and chief instrument in defending it.” He shewed from his childhood a very ready wit, great spirit, and a good memory; and, being educated in the university of Glasgow, arrived so early to perfection, that he received his degree in his sixteenth year. Having made himself a thorough master of profane learning, he applied himself to sacred; and became so distinguished in it, that at eighteen he was thought fit to succeed his father, who was minister of Calder.

of the quarrel betwixt H. S. and the Answer to ‘.!’f.vtt.>r of Dr. Henry

He was soon distinguished in this house, as he had been in the lower, by his talent for speaking, which indeed he exerted with more success as a peer than as a commoner. “Lord Chesterfield’s eloquence,” says Dr. Maty, “though the fruit of study and imitation, was in great measure his own. Equal to most of his contemporaries in elegance and perspicuity, perhaps surpassed by some in extensiveness and strength, he could have no competitors in choice of imagery, taste, urbanity, and graceful irony. This turn might originally have arisen from the delicacy of his frame, which, as on one hand it deprived him of the power of working forcibly upon the passions of his hearers, enabled him, on the other, to affect their finer sensations, by nice touches of raillery and humour. His strokes, however poignant, were always nnd r the controui of decency and good sense. He reasoned best when he appeared most witty; and while he gained the affections of his hearers, he turned the laugh on his opposers, and often forced them to join in it. It might, in some degree, be owing to this particular turn that he was not heard with so much applause in the lower, as in the upper house.” Besides being eminent as a speaker in parliament, lord Chesterfield had the credit of being intimate with all the wits of his time. The friendship of Pope in particular, with whom he passed much time at Twickenham, led to the very best society which could then be enjoyed. He was known also to Algarotti, Voltaire, and Montesquieu, when they visited England, and with the latter he formed a friendship, and established a correspondence.

r~ O *

Walter de Stapledon was not more eminent for the judgment and firmness which he displayed as a statesman, in times of peculiar difficulty, than for his love of learnia<r. After he had engaged Hart, or Hart-hall, for the accommodation of his scholars, he purchased a tenement on the scite of the present college, called St. Stephen’s hall, in 1315, and having purchased also some additional premises, known then by the names of Scot-hall, Leding- Park-Hall, and Baltaye-Hall, he removed the rector and scholars of Stapledon, or Hart-hall to this place, in pursuance of the same foundation charter which he had obtained of the king for founding that hall in the preceding year. According to the statutes which he gave to this society, the number of persons to be maintained appears to have been thirteen, one to be instructed in theology or canon law, the rest in philosophy. Eight of them were to be of the archdeaconries of Exeter, Totness, and Barnstaple, four of the archdeaconry of Cornwall, and one, a priest, might be nominated by the dean and chapter of Exeter from any other part of the kingdom. In 1404, Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, a great benefactor, changed the name from Stapledon to Exeter Hall, but it did not rise to the consequence of a corporate body until the time of sir William Petre, who, in 1565, procured a new body of statutes, and a regular deed of incorporation, increasing also the number of fellowships, &c.

These favours, however honourable to the king’s taste and discernment, were ultimately of disadvantage to Robert, by exciting the jealousy of the Sorbonnists, who could not endure that his majesty should bestow his confidence on a man whom they suspected of being unsound in the faith, and therefore sought occasion to convict him of heresy. Grounds for this they thought were to be found in the new edition of the Bible which Robert published in 1545, and which had a double Latin version, and the notes of Vatablus. Leo Juda, well known to be a Zuinglian, was the translator of one of these versions; and they farther alleged that Robert had corrupted the notes of Vatablus. This was, in those days, a serious accusation, and the king had again to interpose between him and his enemies. His majesty died about this time, and Robert, as a mark of gratitude, printed with particular care, Duchatel’s funeral oration on Francis L in which that orator happened to say that the king was “translated from the present life to eternal glory.” This expression, although common in every eulogium of the kind, was now made the subject of an accusation by the Sorbonnists, who asserted that it was contrary to the doctrine of the church respecting purgatory. Robert, therefore, soon perceived that he could no longer depend on the protection he had hitherto received, and after some years struggling against the machinations of his enemies, determined to remove to Geneva with his family. He accordingly took his leave of Paris, and arrived at Geneva in the beginning of 1552. There he printed the same year, in partnership with his brother-in-law Conrad Radius, the New Testament in French. He afterwards set up a printing-house of his own, from which some valuable works issued. He was chosen a burgher of Geneva in 1556, and died there Sept. 7, 1559. Robert is said to have been a man of a firm and decided character; but it has been objected by his popish biographers, that he did not allow that liberty to other* which he had taken himself, and that he disinherited one of his children for not embracing the reformed religion. Beza, Dorat, and St. Marthe, have given him the highest character. Thuanus places him above Aldus Manutius, and Froben, and asserts that the Christian world was more indebted to him than to all the great conquerors it had produced, and that he contributed more to immortalize the reign of Francis I. than all the renowned actions of that prince. His mark was an olive with branches, and the device, Noli altum sapere, to which sometimes were added the words sed time. The works he executed as King’s printer, are marked with a lance, round which a serpent is entwined, and a branch of olive, and underneath a verse of Homer, “B<nXi raya&ia xgaltfjca r‘ai%/*>iV’” to the good king and the valiant soldier.“All the printers who afterwards were permitted to use the royal Greek types adopted the same emblems. The works which he printed at Geneva are marked only with the olive, and these words, Oliva Roberti Stephani. It was not Robert, however, as has been commonly said, who first divided the Bible into verses, which he is said to have done inter equitandum, while riding from Paris to Lyons. That mode of division had been used in the Latin Bible of Pagninus in 1527, 4to, in the” Psalterium quintuples," 1509, and in other works. Another report concerning him is untrue, namely, that when he left Paris, he carried with him the Greek types belonging to the royal printing-house. The fact seems to have been that the matrices employed in casting those types were already at Geneva, and were the property of the family of Robert, and probably given to him by Francis I.; for when the French clergy in 1619 were about to reprint the Greek fathers, they requested that the king would demand of the state of Geneva the matrices used in casting the Greek types for Francis I. The answer was, that they might be bought for the sum of 3000 livres, to be paid either to the state of Geneva, or to the heirs of Robert Stephens.

, brother to the preceding, and third son of Henry, the founder of the family, received also a liberal education, and afterwards studied medicine, and was received as a doctor of the faculty of Paris. Lazarus Baif engaged him to be tutor to his son. >nrJ likewise to accompany him in his embassies to Germany and Italy, that he might continue to instruct his pupil. During his being at Venice, he formed a friendship wit a Pnul Manutius, who speaks of him in some of his letters, in very honourable terms. It was not until 1551 that he began the business of printing, and his rirst w>rk was an edidition of “Appian” from manuscripts in the royal iib r ary, and executed with Garamond’s types. He appears also to have been honoured with the 'itle of king’s printer John Maumont, in a letter to Scaliger, represents Charles Stephens as an avaricious man, jealous of his brethren and even of his nephews, whom he endeavoured to injure on every occasion. He was, however, unsuccessful in business, and was imprisoned for debt in the Chatelet in 1561, and died there in 1564. Maittaire says that the fine editions of Charlt-s Stephens have never been surpassed, that in point of erudition he was not inferior to the most learned printers, and that in his short space few of them printed more books. Among the most valuable are, 1. “De re vesiiaria, de vasculis ex Bayfio excerpt.” Paris, 1535, 8vo. 2. “Abrege de l'Histoire des vicomtes et dues de Milan,” 1552, 4to, with portraits. 3. “Paradoxes ou propos contre la commune opinion, debattus en forme de declamations forenses, pour exciter les jeunes esprits en causes difficiles,” Paris, 155 4-, 8vo, a very rare work and an imitation of the “Paradossi” of Ortensio Lando. 4. “Dictionarium Latino-Graecum,” ibid. 1554, 4to, compiled, as the author allows, for the most part, from the notes of G. Buddseus. 5. “Dictionarium Latino-Galhcum,” ibid. 1570, fol. the best and most complete edition, but not a work in much demand. 6. “Preedium rusticum, &c.” ibid. 1554, 8vo. Of this he published a French translation under the title of “Agriculture et Maison rusti^ue, de M. Charles Estienne,” and it has been since translated into Italian, German, English, &c. 7. “Thesaurus Ciceronis,” ibid. 1556, fol. This work, whatever its merit, was a most unfortunate speculation, as the expences attending it obliged him to borrow large sums, for which he was at last arrested. 8. “Dictionarium Historico-geographico-poeticum,” Geneva, 1566, 4to. This did not appear until after his death. It was much improved by subsequent editors to a large folio, whence it was translated into English by Lloyd, and twice published at Oxford in 1670, and at London in 1686.

Lawrence remained at Halifax till about the latter end of the above year, and in the following, was admitted of Jesus-college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree, January 1736, and that of master in 1740. During this time he was ordained, and his uncle Jaques Sierne, LL. D. prebendary of Durham, &c. procure.; him the living of Sutton, and afterwards a prebend of York, and by his wife’s means (whom he married in 1741), he got the living of Stillington. He 'resided, houever, principally, and for above twenty years, at Sutton, where, as he informs us, his chief amusements were painting, fiddling, and shooting. Here, however, he must have employed a considerable part of his time in reading, as some of the works which he afterwards published plainly evince the study of many voluminous and neglected authors. He had also before he quitted Sutton, published in 1747, a charity sermon for the support of the charity-school at York, and in 1756 an assize sermon, preached at the cathedral, York. in 1759 he published at York the first two volumes of his “Tristram Shandy,” anci in 1760 took a house at York. Tin: same year he went up to London to republish the above volumes, and to print two volumes of' his “Sermons;” and this year also lord Falconbridge presented him to the ciftacy of Coxwold. In 1762 he went to France, and two years after to Italy. In 1767 he left York, and came to London to publish the “Sentimental Journey;” but his health was now fast declining, and, aftt-r a short but severe struggle with his disorder, he died at his lodgings in Bond-street, March 18, 1768, and was buried in the new burying-ground belonging to the parish of St. George Hanover-square.

To this account, as given in the last edition of this work, we may add that when Stone had obtained the duke of Argyle’s patronage, he probably was enabled to come to London, as we find he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society in 1725, a year before the publication of his “Mathematical Dictionary,” and his subsequent works were all published in London: but in what capacity he lived or how supported, we know not. Io 1742 or 1743 his name was withdrawn from the list of the Royal Society. In 1758 he published “The Construction and Principal Uses of Mathematical Instruments, translated from the French of M. Bion, chief instrument -maker to the French king. To which are added, the construction and uses of such instruments as are omitted by M. Bion, particularly of those invented or improved by the English. By Edmund Stone,” folio. Here he omits the title of F. R S. which appeared to his former publications. From the introductory part of an account of this work in the Critical Review, it would appear that he was known to the writer of that article, and that he was now old and neglected. “Since the commencement of our periodical labours,” says the critic, “none of Mr. Stone’s works have passed through our hands. It is with pleasure we now behold this ingenious gentleman breaking a silence, for the service of the publick, which we were ready to attribute to his sense of its ingratitude. There is hardly a person the least tinctured with letters in the British dominions, who is unacquainted with the extraordinary merit of our author. Untutored, and self-taught, he ascended from the grossest ignorance, by mere dint of genius, to the sublimest paths of geometry. His abilities are universally acknowledged, his reputation unblemished, his services to the public uncontested, and yet he lives to an advanced age unrewarded, except by a mean employment that reflects dishonour on the donors.” What this employment was, we know not, but the work itself is said to be a second edition, and that the first had a rapid sale. In 1767, was published a pamphlet entitled “Some reflections on the the uncertainty of many astronomical and geographical positions, with regard to the figure and magnitude of the earth, &c. &c. By Edmund Stone,” 8vo. We have not seen this production, but from the account given of it in the Monthly Review, it must have been written either by a Mr. Edmund Stone of far inferior abilities and good sense to our author, or by our author in his dotage.

Mr. Stow’s success, however, in the Affair probably ani­* This curate, called Sir Stephen, one c<>mii>- n I e/\p bumr them. Mr. became so contemptible by his furious Slow heat <J 'his sermon, an I saw the zeal, that he was forced to leave the effec’s of it. Another rmrk of the city, and retire tosome unknown place curate’s imprudent zeal w.< his takin the country. “Mr. Stow has re- ing; /ccasion from that church’s name corded some things of him, which Un ^rshaft., as superstitions^ ^iv>n it, though not attended with such fata! to i!<-r are his judgment that thr titles consequences as that already men- of cnurches should be altered, and that tioned, were evidences of his exclusive even the names of the days of the week big‘ try. In a sermon, which he ought to be changed from those ht;apreached before a areat auditory at St. then ones which had been given them; Paul’s Cross, he inveighed bitterly nud that Fridays and Saturdays should against a long may-pole, called -haft, be no more fish-days, but others subin the next parish to his own, which stituted for such in thei>- place from thence was named *r. Andrew that Lent should he kept ai>nv Undershaft. This he insisted upon time than between Shrove-ti e and being an idol; and so warmly did he Raster. Another t.’id ).ia<-tice of this declare against it, that the zeal of many cut ate was, to go out of the pulpi> into of his hearers being excited thereby, the church- yard, and II.Oum' nu h gh they wt-nt in the afternoon of the same elm that grew there and p ea; h from day, and pulled the may-pole do MI tbttnce to his audience, and then return from the place where it hung upon to the church, and say or-ire the hooks, and then sawed it ii to divers English service, not at th,- a^tar. as pieces, each housekeeper taking as w. is usual, but upon a tomb, whit much of it as hung over his door or placed northward of it.” Strype’s Life stall, and then casting the pieces into of Stow. mated him in his antiquarian researches, as he had now demonstrated the practical benefit arising from them. It was about 1560, that he turned his thoughts to the compiling an English chronicle, and he spent the greater part of his future life in collecting such materials relating to the kingdom at large, as he esteemed worthy to be handed down to posterity. But after he had been eagerly employed for a while in these studies, perceiving how little profit he was likely to reap from them, he was on the point of diverting his industry into the channel of the occupation he had been bred to; and the expensiveness of purchasing manuscripts was an additional motive to this resolution. Archbishop Parker, however, himself an excellent antiquary, and a bountiful patron of all who had the same turn, persuaded him to goon, and liberally contributed to lessen his expences, while his grace lived.

Much has been said of his religion. He was first, in all probability, a favourer of popery: this appears from the jealousy the state had of him in 1568, which occasioned an order of council to Grindal, bishop of London, to have his library searched f;>r superstitious books’; of which sort several were found there. And it is very likely that his notorious bias this way, might be the ground of the troubles he underwent either in the ecclesiastical commission court, or star-chamber; for it is certain that about 1570, he was accused before the ecclesiastical commissioners of no less than a hundred and forty articles, preferred against him by one that had been his servant. This miscreant had before defrauded him of his goods, and now sought to deprive him of his life also. A far less number would hate been sufficient to despatch a man out of the world in those mistrustful times, hut the witnesses against him weie of such exceptionable characters, that his judges were too upright to condemn him upon their testimony. Some of them had been detected of perjury, and others burnt in the hand for felony. The perfidious servant, who was at the head of them as the informer, was no other than his younger brother Thomas, a man of great profligacy, as was evident both by this unprincipled prosecution of his nearest relation, and by his subsequent behaviour to him. For instead of manifesting any shame or repentance for his crime, he swore that he never committed it, and persisted in defaming his reputation, and threatening his life.

Sir John Strange married Susan, eldest daughter, and coheir of Edward Sis oreemvich, in the county of Kent, esq. She died in 1747, and was buried in the same vault with her husband in Leyton church-yard. Two sons survived him, of whom Matthew, the eldest, died in 1759, and John, who died March 19, 1799, aged sixty-seven. He was educated at Clare hall, Cambridge, and was British resident at Venice for some years, and in his own country LL. D. F. R. S. and F. S. A. He was also a member of the academies of Bologna, Florence, and Montpelier, and the Leopolcline academy of the Curiosorum Naturae. He was a very able antiquary and naturalist, and contributed various papers both to the Archacologia, and to the Philosophical Transactions. He accumulated an xcellent library, a very extensive museum, and a fine collection of pictures, all which were sold after his death, as directed by his will.

, a German Luthe-an divine and mathematician, but in this country known only as a chronologist, was born in 1632, at Wittemberg. He studied at Leipsic, and was afterwards professor of theology at Wittemberg, and at Dantzick. He was frequently involved in theological disputes, both with the Roman catholics and the Calvinists, from his intemperate zeal in favour of Lutheranism. He died at Wittemberg in 1682. He published some mathematical works; but was chiefly distinguished for his chronological and historical disquisitions, of which he published a considerable number from 1652 to 1680. One of the best and most useful, his “Breviarium Chronologicum,” was long known in this country by three editions (with improvements in each) of an English translation, by Richard Sault, called in the title F. R. S. but his name does not occur in Dr. Thomson’s list of the members of the Royal Society. Locke’s high commendation of this work probably introduced it as a useful manual of chronology. The edition of 1745, which, we believe, was the last, received many improvements and corrections, but it has since given way to lesser chronological systems.

As his years increased, knowledge attended their progress: he acquired a great proficiency in the Greek language; and his unparalleled strength of mind carried him into a familiar association with most of the sciences, and principally that of architecture. His stature was of the middle size, but athletic. He possessed a robust constitution, invincible courage, and inflexible perseverance. Of this the following fact is a proof: a wen, in his forehead, had grown to an inconvenient size; and, one day, being in conversation with a surgeon, he asked him how it could be removed. The surgeon acquainted him with the length of the process; to which Mr. Stuart objected, on account of the interruption of his pursuits, and asked whether he could not cut it out, and then it would be only necessary to heal the part. The surgeon replied in the affirmative, but mentioned the very excruciating pain and danger of such an operation. Mr. Stuart, after a minute’s reflection, threw himself back in his chair, and said, “I will sit stil! do it now.” The operation was performed with success. With such qualifications, although yet almost in penury, he conceived the design of visiting Rome and Athens; but the ties of filial and fraternal affection induced him to postpone his journey, till he could insure a certain provision for his mother, and his brother and second sister. His mother died: he was soon after enabled to place his brother and sister in a situation that was likely to produce them a comfortable support; and then, with a very scanty pittance in his pocket, he set out on foot for Rome; and thus he performed the greatest part of his journey travelling through Holland, France, &c. and stopping through necessity at Paris, and several other places in his way, where, by his ingenuity as an artist, he procured some moderate supplies, towards prosecuting the rest of his journey. When arrived at Rome, he soon formed an intimate acquaintance with Mr. Nicholas Revett, an eminent painter and architect. From this gentleman Mr. Stuart first caught his ideas of that science, in which (quitting the profession of a painter) he afterward made such a conspicuous figure. During his residence at Rome, he studied architecture and fortification; and in 1748 they jointly circulated “Proposals for publishing an authentic description of Athens, &c.” For that purpose, they quitted Rome in March 1750, but did not reach Athens till March 1751, where, in about two months, they were met by Mr. Wood and Mr. Dawkins, whose admiration of his great qualities and wonderful perseverance secured to him their patronage. Dawkins was glad to encourage a brother in scientific investigation, who possessed equal ardour with himself, but very unequal resources for prosecuting those inquiries in which they were both engaged; having at the same time so much similarity of disposition, and ardour of pursuit. During his residence at Athens Mr. Stuart became a master of architecture and fortification; and having no limits to which his mind would be restricted, he engaged in the army of the queen of Hungary, where he served a campaign voluntarily, as chief engineer. On his return to Athens, he applied himself more closely to make drawings, and take the exact measurements of the Athenian architecture. He left Athens in 1755, still accompanied by his friend Revett; and after visiting Thessalonica, Smyrna, and the islands of the Archipelago, arrived in England in the beginning of 1755. The result of their classical labours was the appearance, in 1762, of the first volume in folio of “The Antiquities of Athens measured and delineated, by James Stuart, F. R. S. and S.A. and Nicholas Revett, painters and architects.” This work is a very valuable acquisition to the lovers of antiquities and the fine arts, and is a proper companion to the noble descriptions of Palmyra and Balhec, by Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Wood, by whom the two artists were early encouraged in the prosecution of a design so worthy of the most distinguished patronage. To this work, and the long walk which the author performed to compose it, he has been indebted for the name of the Athenian Stuart, universally decreed to him by the learned of this country.

, an antiquary of much celebrity, descended from an antient family in Lincolnshire, was born at Holbech in that county, November 7, 1687. After having had the first part of his education at the free-school of that place, under the care of Mr. Edward Kelsal, he was admitted into Bene't-college in Cambridge, Nov. 7, 1703, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Favvcett, and chosen a scholar there in April following. While an under-graduate, he often indulged a strong propensity for drawing and designing; and began to form a collection of antiquarian books. He made physic, however, his principal study, and with that view took frequent perambulations through the neighbouring country, with the famous Dr. Hales, Dr. John Gray of Canterbury, and others, in search of plants; and made great additions to Ray’s “Catalogus Plantarum circa Cantabrigiam;” which, with a map of the county, he was solicited to print; but his father’s death, and various domestic avocations, prevented it. He studied anatomy under Mr. Rolfe the surgeon attended the chemical lectures of signor Vigani and taking the degree of M. B. in 1709, made himself acquainted with the practical part of medicine under the great Dr. Mead at St. Thomas’s hospital. He first began to practise at Boston in his native county, where he strongly recommended the chalybeate waters of Stanfield near Folkingham. In 1717 he removed to London, where, on the recommendation of his friend Dr. Mead, he was soon after elected F. R. S. and was one of the first who revived that of the Antiquaries in 1718, to which last he was secretary for many years during his residence in town. He was also one of the earliest members of the Spalding society. He took the degree of M. D. at Cambridge in 1719, and was admitted a fellow of the College of Physicians in the year following, about which time (1720) he published an account of “Arthur’s Oon” in Scotland, and of “Graham’s dyke,” with plates, 4to. In the year 1722, he was appointed to read the Gulstonian Lecture, in which he gave a description and history of the spleen, and printed it in folio, 1723, together with some anatomical observations on the dissection of an elephant, and many plates coloured in imitation of nature. Conceiving that there were some remains of the Eleusinian mysteries in free-masonry, he gratified his curiosity, and was constituted master of a lodge (1723), to which he presented an account of a Roman amphitheatre at Dorchester, in 4to. After having been one of the censors of the College of Physicians, of the council of the Royal Society, and of the committee to examine into the condition of the astronomical instruments of the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, he left London in 1726, and retired to Grantham in Lincolnshire, where he soon came into great request. The dukes of Ancaster and Rutland, the families of Tyrconnel, Gust, &c. &c. and most of the principal families in the country, were glad to take his advice. During his residence here, he declined an invitation from Algernon earl of Hertford, to settle as a physician at Marlborough, and another to succeed Dr. Hunter at Newark. In 1728 he married Frances daughter of Robert Williamson, esq. of Allington, near Grantham, a lady of good family and fortune. He was greatly afflicted with the gout, which used generally to confine him during the winter months. On this account, for the recovery of his health, it was customary with him to take several journeys in the spring, in which he indulged his innate love of antiquities, by tracing out the footsteps of Caesar’s expedition in this island, his camps, stations, &c. The fruit of his more distant travels was his “Itinerarium Curiosum; or, an Account of the Antiquities and Curiosities in his Travels through Great Britain, Centuria I.” adorned with one hundred copper-plates, and published in folio, London, 1724. This was reprinted after his death, in 1776, with two additional plates; as was also published the second volume, (consisting of his description of the Brill, or Caesar’s camp at Pancras,“IterBoreale,” 1725, and his edition of Richard of Cirencester , with his own notes, and those of Mr. Bertram of Copenhagen, with whom he corresponded, illustrated with 103 copper-plates engraved in the doctor’s lifetime. Overpowered with the fatigue of his profession, and repeated attacks of the gout, he turned his thoughts to the church; and, being encouraged in that pursuit hy archbishop Wake, was ordained at Croydon, July 20, 1720; and in October following was presented by lord-chancellor King to the living of All-Saints in Stamford . At the time of his entering on his parochial cure (1730), Dr. Rogers of that place had just invented his Oleum Artbriticum; which Dr. Stukeley seeing oihers use with admirable success, he was induced to do the like, and with equal advantage for it not only saved his joints, but, with the addition of a proper regimen, and leaving off the use of fermented liquors, he recovered his health and limbs to a surprising degree, ind ever after enjoyed a firm and active state of body, beyond any example in the like circumstances, to a good old age. This occasioned him to publish an account of the success of the external application of this oil in innumerable instances, in a letter to sir Hans Sloane, 1733; and the year after he published also, “A Treatise on the Cause and Cure of the Gout, from a new Rationale;” which, with an abstract of it, has passed through several editions. He collected some remarkable particulars at Stamford in relation to his predecessor bishop Cumberland; and, in 1736, printed an explanation, with an engraving, of a curious silver plate of Roman workmanship in basso relievo, found underground at Risley Park in Derbyshire; wherein he traces its journey thither, from the church of Bourges, to which it had been given by Exsuperius, called St. Swithin, bishop of Toulouse, about the year 205. He published also the same yea.- his “Palæographia Sacra, No. I. or, Discourses on the Monuments of Antiquity that relate to Sacred History,” in 4to, which he dedicated to sir Richard Kllys, bart. “from whom he had received many favours.” In this work (uhich was to have been continued in succeeding numbers) he undertakes to shew, how Heathen Mythology is derived from Sacred History, and that the Bacchus in the Poets is no other than the Jehovah in the Scripture, the conductor of the Israelites through the wilderness. In his country retirement he disposed his collection of Greek and Roman coins according to the order of the Scripture History; and cut out a machine in wood (on the plan of an Orrery), which shews the motion of the heavenly bodies, the course of the tide, &c. In 1737 he lost his wife and in 1738, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of Dr. Gale, dean of York, and sister to his intimate friends Roger and Samuel Gale, esquires; and from this time he often spent his winters in London. In 1740, he published an account of Stonehenge, dedicated to the duke of Ancaster, who had made him one of his chaplains, and given him the living of Somerby near Grantham the year before. In 1741, he preached the Thirtieth of January Sermon before the House of Commons; and in that year became one of the founders of the Egyptian society, composed of gentlemen who had visited Egypt. In 1743 he printed an account of lady Roisia’s sepulchral cell, lately discovered at Royston, in a tract, entitled “Palseographia Britannica, No. I.” to which an answer was published by Mr. Charles Parkin, in 1744. The doctor replied in “Palasographia Britannica, No. II.” 1746, giving an account of the origin of the universities of Cambridge and Stamford, both from Croylandabbey; of the Roman city Granta, on the north-side of the river, of the beginning of Cardike near Waterbeach, &c. To this Mr. Parkin again replied in 1748; but it does not appear that the doctor took any further notice of him. In 1747, the benevolent duke of Montagu (with whom he had become acquainted at the Egyptian society) prevailed on him to vacate his preferments in the country, by giving him the rectory of St. George, Queen-square, whence he frequently retired to Kentish-town, where the following inscription was placed over his door:

He had the misfortune to lose his patron in 1749 on whose death he published some verses, with others on his entertainment at Boughton, and a “Philosophic Hymn on Christmas-day.” Two papers by the doctor, upon the earthquakes in 1750, read at the Royal Society, and a sermon preached at his own parish-church on that alarming occasion, were published in 1750, 8vo, under the title of “The Philosophy of Earthquakes, natural and religious;” of which a second part was printed with a second edition of his sermon on “the Healing of Diseases as a Character of the Messiah, preached before the College of Physicians Sept. 20, 1750.” In 1751 (in “Palaeographia Britannica, No. III.”) he gave an account of Oriuna the wife of Carausius; in Phil. Trans, vol. XLVIII. art. 33, an account of the Eclipse predicted by Thales; and in the Gentleman’s Magazine, 1754, p. 407, is the substance of a paper read at the Royal Society in 1752, to prove that the coral-tree is a sea-vegetable. On Wednesday the 27th of February, 1765, Dr. Stukeley was seized with a stroke of the palsy, which was brought on by attending a full vestry, at which he was accompanied by serjeant Eyre, on a contested election for a lecturer. The room being hot, on their return through Dr. Stukeley’s garden, they both caught their deaths; for the serjeant never was abroad again, and the doctor’s illness came on that night. Soon after this accident his faculties failed him; but he continued quiet and composed until Sunday following, March 3, 1765, when he departed in his seventy eighth year, which he attained by remarkable temperance and regularity. By his own particular directions, his corpse was conveyed in a private manner to East- Ham in Essex, and was buried in the church-yard, just beyond the east end of the church, the turf being laid smoothly over it, without any monument. This spot he particularly fixed on, in a visit he paid some time before to the vicar of that parish, when walking with him one day in the church-yard. Thus ended a valuable life, daily spent in throwing light on the dark remains of antiquity. His great learning and profound skill in those researches enabled him to publish many elaborate and curious works, and to leave many ready for the press. In his medical capacity, his “Dissertation on the Spleen” was well received. His “Itinerariutn Curiosum,” the first-fruits of his juvenile excursions, presaged what might be expected from his riper age, when he had acquired more experience. The curious in these studies were not disappointed; for, with a sagacity peculiar to his great genius, with unwearied pains and industry, and some years spent in actual surveys, he investigated and published an account of those stupendous works of the remotest antiquity, Stonehenge and Abury, in 1743, and has given the most probable and rational account of their origin and use, ascertaining also their dimensions with the greatest accuracy. So great was his proficiency in Druidical history, that his familiar friends used to call him “the arch-druid of this age.” His works abound with particulars that shew his knowledge of this celebrated British priesthood; and in his Itinerary he announced a “History of the Ancient Celts, particularly the first inhabitants of Great Britain,” for the most part finished, to have consisted of four vplumes, folio, with above 300 copper-plates, many of which were engraved. Great part of this work was incorporated into his Stonehenge and Abury. In his “History of Carausius,” 1757, 1751), in two vols. 4to, he has shewn much learning and ingenuity in settling the principal events of that emperor’s government in Britain. To his interest and application we are indebted for recovering from obscurity Richard of Cirencester’s Itinerary of Roman Britain, which has been mentioned before. His discourses, or sermons, under the title of “Palaeographia Sacra, 1763, on the vegetable creation,” bespeak him a botanist, philosopher, and divine, replete with antient learning, and excellent observations; but a little too much transported by a lively fancy and invention. He closed the last scenes of his life with completing a long and laborious work on ancient British coins, in particular of Cunobelin; and felicitated himself on having from them discovered many remarkable, curious, and new anecdotes, relating to the reigns of that and other British kings. The twenty-three plates of this work were published after his decease; but the ms. (left ready for publishing) remained in the hands of his daughter Mrs. Fleming, relict of Richard Fleming, esq. an eminent solicitor, who was the doctor’s executor, and died in 1774. By his fii^t wife Dr. Stukeley had three daughters; of whom one died young; the other two survived him; the one, Mrs. Fleming already mentioned; the other, wife to the Rev. Thomas Fairchild, rector of Pitsey, in Essex. They both died in 1782. By his second wife, Dr. Stukeley had no child. To the great names already mentioned among his friends and patrons, may be added those of Mr. Folkes, Dr. Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne (with whom he corresponded on the subject of Tar* water), Dr. Pocock bishop of Meath, and many others of the first rank of literature at home: and amou. the eminent foreigners with whom he corresponded wete Dr. Heigertahl, Mr. Keysler, and the learned father Montfaucon, who inserted some of his designs (sent him by archbishop Wake) in his “Antiquity explained.” A good account of Dr. Stukeley was, with his own permission, printed in 1725, by Mr. Masters, in the second part of his History of Corpus Christi college; and very soon after his death a short but just character of him was given in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1765, by his friend Peter Collinson. Of both these, Mr. Nichols availed himself; and was favoured with several additional particulars from Dr. Ducarel and Mr. Gough. After his decease, a medal of him was cast and repaired by Gaub; on one side, the head adorned with oak leaves, inscribed Rev. Gvl. Stvkeley, M.D.S. R. & A. s. Exergue, act. 54. Reverse, a view of Stonehenge, Ob. Mar. 4, 1765, Æt. 84; [but this is a mistake, for he was in fact but 78]. There is a portrait of him, after Kneller, in mezzotino, by;J". Smith in 172 i, before he took orders, with his arms, viz. Argent, a spread-eagle double-headed Sable. Mrs. Fleming had another portrait of him in his robes, by Wills; and Mrs. Parsons (relict of Dr. James Parsons) had a fine miniature, which was esteemed a good likeness.

, one of the best painters hi his time which the French nation had produced, was born at Paris in 1617, and studied the principles of his art under Simon Vouet, whom he infinitely surpassed; and although he was never out of France, carried the art to a very high degree of perfection. His style was formed upon antiquity, and after the best Italian masters. He invented with ease, and his execution was always worthy of his designs. His attitudes are simple and noble, and his ex r pression well adapted to the subject. His draperies are designed after the manner of Raphael’s last works. Although he knew little of the local colours, or the chiaro scuro, he was so much master of the other parts of painting, that there was a great likelihood of his throwing off Vuuet’s manner entirely, had he lived longer. Immediately aiter Vouet’s death, he perceived that his master had led him out of the way: and by considering the antiques that were in France, and the designs and prints of the best Italian masters, particularly Raphael, he contracted a more refined style and happier manner. Le Brun could not forbear being jealous of Le Sueur, who did not mean, however, to give any man pain; for he had great simplicity of manners, and much candour, and probity. He died at Paris April 30, 1655, at no more than thirty-eight years of age. The life of St. Bruno, in twenty pictures, originally preserved in the Chartreux, and which employed him for three years, have, as Mr. Fuseli informs us, been “lately consigned to the profane clutch of restoration in the attic of the Luxembourg, and are now little more than the faint traces of what they were when issuing from the hand of their master. They have suffered martyrdom more than once.It is well that the nature of the subject permitted little more than fresco in the colouring at first, and that the great merit of their execution consisted in that breadth of vehicle which monastic drapery demands, else we should have lost even the fragments that remain.‘ The old man in the fore-ground, the head of St. Bruno, and some of the disputants in the back-ground of the Predication; the bishop and the condemned defunct in the funeral; the apparition of St. Bruno himself in the camp; the female figure in the eleemosinary scene, and what has suffered least of all, the death of St. Bruno, contain the least disputable marks of the master’s primitive touch. The subject of the whole, abstractly considered, is the personification of sanctity, and it has been represented in the series with a purity which seems to place the artist’s heart on a level with that of his hero. The simplicity which tells that tale of resignation and innocence, despises all contrast of more varied composition, though not always with equal success, St. Bruno on his bed, visited by angels, building or viewing the plan for building his rocky retreat; the hunting-scene, and’ the apotheosis; might probably have admitted happier combinations. As, in the different re* touchings, the faces have suffered most, the expression must be estimated by those that escaped; and from what still remains, we may conclude that it was not inferior to the composition.”

namely that Syilrnbam was not ca- king. There was r,olhing therefore in

Dr. Sykes had been married many years to Mrs. Elizabeth Williams, a widow lady, and a native of Bristol, but had no children by her. He left the whole of his fortune, which was considerable, to her for life, and afterwards to his brother the rev. George Sykes, rector of Rayleigh in Essex, and vicar of Preston in Kent. Mrs. Sykes died in January 1763, and was buried near her husband in St r James’s church.

, an ancient fathei: and bishop of the Christian church, flourished at the beginning of the fifth century. He was born at Cyrene in Africa, a town situated upon the borders of Egypt, and afterwards travelled to th neighbouring country for improvement, where he happily succeeded in his studies under the celebrated female philo-r sopher Hypatia, who presided at that time over the Platonic school at Alexandria, where also the eminent mathematicians Theon, Pappus, and Hero taught. Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, who wrote annotations on a piece of Synesius, called “De insomniis,” represents him as a man of prodigious parts and learning and says, that “there was nothing he did not know, no science wherein he did not excel, no mystery in which he was not initiated and deeply versed.” His works are in high esteem with the curious; and his epistles, in Suidas’s opinion, are admirable, and in that of Photius, as well as Evagrius, “elegant, agreeable, sententious, and learned.' 1 Synesius was a man of noble birth, which added no less weight to his learning, than that reflected lustre on his quality; and both together procured him great credit and authority. He went, about the year 400, upon an embassy, which lasted three years, to the emperor Arcadius at Constantinople, on the behalf of his country, which was miserably harassed by the auxiliary Goths and other barbarians; and it was then, as he himself tells \is, that” with greater boldness than any of the Greeks, he pronounced before the emperor an oration concerning government.“About the year 410, when the citizens of Ptolemais applied to Theophilus of Alexandria for a bishop, Synesius was appointed and consecrated, though he took all imaginable pains to decline the honour. He declared himself not at all convinced of the truth of some of the most important articles of Christianity. He was verily persuaded of the existence of the soul before its union with the body; he could not^ conceive the resurrection of the body; nor did he believe that the world should ever be destroyed. He also owned himself to have such an affection for his wife, that he would not consent, either to be separated from her, or to Jive in a clandestine manner with her; and told Theophilus, that, if he did insist upon making him a bishop, he must leave him in possession of his wife and all his notions. Theophilus at length submitted to these singular terms,” upon a presumption,“it is said,” that a man, whose life and manners were in every respect so exemplary, could not possibly be long a bishop without being enlightened with heavenly truth. Nor,“continues Cave,” was Theophilus deceived; for Synesius was no sooner seated in hit bishopric, than he easily acquiesced in the doctrine of the resurrection.“Baronius says in his Annals,” that he does not believe these singularities of Synesius to have been his real sentiments; but only that he pretended them, with a view of putting a stop to the importunities of Theophilus, and of warding off this advancement to a bishopric, which was highly disagreeable to him." That the advancement was highly disagreeable to Synesius, is very certain; but it is likewise as certain, that Baronius’s supposition is without all foundation. There is extant a letter of Synesius to his brother, of which an extract may be given, as illustrative of his character and opinions.

Bishop Tanner’s character seems to have descended to posterity without any blemish. His virtues are acknowledged by his contemporaries, and of his learning as an antiquary, which was very extensive, he was most readily communicative to all who were engaged in publications of that nature. He had a considerable hand in the second edition of Wood’s “Athemr,” but appears to have given offence to some of Wood’s friends, by softening certain of his prejudices as well as his coarse language. This produced something like a controversy, which the reader may find detailed in the life of A. Wood, prefixed to his “Annals,” or in the preface to the new edition of the “Athenac,” by Mr. Bliss. Of the publications more particularly belonging to himself, the first appeared before he was twenty years old. It formed an excellent compendium of our religious houses, setting forth, when and by whom they were founded, their dedications, orders, and value; and v\as entitled, “Notitia Monastica, or a short History the Religious Houses in England and Wales,” 1695, 8vo. This was so favourably received that it became very scarce, and at the request of his friends he set about revising and enlarging it in 1715, but the duties of his station, and afteruarcls his infirmities, prevented him from leaving it quite complete. It appeared, however, under the care of the rev. John Tanner, his brotht-r, in 1744, folio, under the title of “Notitia Monastica; or an Account of all the Abbies, Priories, and House* of Friers, heretofore in England and Wales; and also of all the Colleges and Hospitals founded before A. D. 1511. By the right rev. Dr. Thomas Tanner, late lord bishop of St. Asaph. Published by John Tanner, A. M. vicar of Lowestoft in Suffolk, and precentor of the cathedral church of St. Asaph.” Of this a much improved edition was published in 1787, by Mr. Nasmith; but the greater part of the impression having been consumed in Mr. Nichols’s fire, it now ranks among scarce books. His “Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica,” which employed him forty years, was published in 1748, folio, with a posthumous preface by Dr. Wilkins. He left large collections for the county of Wilts, and large notes on Richard Hegge’s Legend of St. Cuthbert, 1663. His immense and valuable collections are now in the Bodleian library at Oxford. His portrait was engraved by Vertue in 1736, at the expence of the Society of Antiquaries. The portrait prefixed to the “Notitia,” is inscribed, “Reverendus admodum Thomas Tanner, Asaphensis Episcbpus, PilmaevEB Antiquitatis Cultor. G. Vertue sculp. 1743.” This print was a copy of that engraved by Vertue, with some difference in the decoration, and this addition to the inscription: “Hoc ectypum fratris sui dignissimi antiquis moribus ornati posteris sacratum esse voluit Soc. Ant. Lond. 1736.”

His works are, 1. his “Secchia rapita,” or rape of the bucket, which the Italians in general consider as the first model of a mock-heroic poem that was given in their language. It seems, say the critics of that nation, that the graces clothed this poem with all their ornaments. A delicate burlesque, with the art of joining great things to small; an unaffected lightness, and consummate elegance, concurred in it to form a complete Italian model of an heroi-comic poem, which will in time be admired by strangers. The edition most valued is that of Ronciglione iti 1624. It was translated into French by Peter Perrault, 1678, in two vols. 12mo; and again by M. de Cedars, in 1759, in three volumes. 2. “Considerazione sopra il Petrarca.” He thought Petrarch, great as he was, too much imitated, and tried in this publication to lessen the rage for that kind of imitation. In that he succeeded. 3. He published also “Pensieri diversi,” which he made a very amusing book. His attack upon the imitators of Petrarch occasioned a contest between him and Gius. Aromatari; and that produced finally, 4. “La Tenda rossa, risposta di Girolamo Nomisenti (Alessandro Tassoni) ai dialoghi de Falcidio Melampodio,” (Giuseppe de gli Aromatori,) Francfort, 1613, 8vo. His will is also cited as a piece of humour, and there are some productions by him still remaining in manuscript; among the rest, one entitled “Esequie della monarchia di Spagna.” Many interesting particulars respecting Tassoni, accompanied with contemporary literary history, and much sound criticism, has just been given in “Memoirs of Aiessandro Tassoni, &c. By the late Joseph Cooper Walker, esq. M. R. I. A.” 1815, 8vo; edited by his brother, Sam. Walker, esq. No other reference can hereafter be wanting.

Many historians have spoken highly of the abilities and learning of this father, particularly Euscbius, who says that he was one of the ablest Latin writers, and particularly insists upon his being thoroughly conversant in the Roman laws; which may incline us to think that, like his scholar, Cyprian, he was bred to the bar. Cyprian used every day to read part of his works, and, when he called for the book, said, “Give me my master,” as Jerome relates. Lactantius allows him to have been skilled in all kinds of learning, yet censures him as an harsh, inelegant, and abstruse writer. Jerome, i n his Catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, calls him a man of a quick and sharp wit; and says, in his epistle to Magnus, that no author had more learning and subtlety; but in other places he reprehends his errors and defects; and, in his apology against Ruffinus, “commends his wit, but condemns his heresies.” Vicentius Lirinensis gives this character of him: “Tertullian was,” says he, “among the Latins, what Origen was among the Greeks; that is to say, the first and most considerable man they had. For who is more learned than he r who more versed both in ecclesiastical and profane knowledge? Has he not comprised in his vast capacious mind all the philosophy of the sages, the maxims of the different sects, with their histories, and whatever pertained to them? Did he ever attack any thing which he has not almost always either pierced by the vivacity of his wit, or overthrown by the force and weight of his reasonings? And who can sufficiently extol the beauties of his discourse, which is so well guarded and linked together by a continual chain of arguments, that he even forces the consent of those whom he cannot persuade? His words are so many sentences; his answers almost so many victories.”

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

“Perception is a passive affection, produced by some external object, either in the intellectual sense, or in the inclination of the will. Essence is that without which a thing cannot be perceived. God is not perceived by the intellectual sense, but by the inclination of the will: for creatures affect the brain; but God, the heart. All creatures are in God: nothing is exterior to him. Creation is extension produced from nothing by the divine power. Creatures are of two kinds, passive and active; the former is mattr r; the latter, spirit. Matter is dark and cold, and capable of being acted upon by spirit, which is light, warm, and active. Spirit may subsist without matter, but desires a union with it. All bodies consist of matter and spirit, and have therefore some kind of life. Spirit attracts spirit, and thus sensibly operates upon matter united to spirit. This attraction in man is called love; in other bodies, sympathy. A finite spirit may be cgnsidcred as a limited sphere in which rays, luminous, warm, and active, flow from a centre. Spirit is the region of the body to which it is united. The region of finite spirits is God. The human soul is a ray From the divine nature; whence it desires union with God, who is love. Since the essence of spirit consists in action, and of body in passion, spirit may exist without thought: of this kind are light, ether, and other active principles in nature.” Fortunately, says a very judicious writer, this jargon is as unintelligible as the categories of Kant, and the blasphemies of Spinosa.

Our author took his degree of M. A. on April 7, 1750, and as his father wished him to make physic his profession, he took the degree of bachelor in that faculty, May 18, 1754 but his bent, like that of Colman, was not to the severer studies, and they about this time “clubbed their wits” to establish the periodical paper entitled “The Connoisseur.” As they did not distinguish their respective papers by any mark, Thornton’s share cannot now be ascertained, but it is believed to be less than that of his partner. His habits were early relaxed, and although not naturally indolent, he was easily led from regular pursuits, and was consequently not remarkable for punctuality in his periodical supplies. Of this we have the following instance: when the Connoisseur, No. 101, came to town for publication, Colman, who happened to be in London, saw it at the publisher’s, and found it contained the production of a correspondent of very inferior merit, which Thornton had sent to press to save himself the trouble of writing one. But as the day for the appearance of this paper was the first of January, Colman was enraged at this carelessness and inattention to so remarkable an opportunity for a good essay, and came to Mr. Say’s printing-office late at night to inquire if it was possible to have a paper printed in time for next day’s publication. Being told that it was barely possible, he immediately sat down in his publisher (Mr. R. Baldwin’s) parlour, and wrote the paper which now stands as the 101st, cancelling the other.

, son of the preceding, and also an antiquary, was born in 1714, and educated at Ludsdown in Kent, whence he removed to University-college, Oxford, where he took his masters degree iii 1738, and had an intention to have studied physic, but was diverted from the pursuit, and seems to have devoted his Life to the study of antiquities. He was elected F. S. A. in 1755, and published from his father’s Mss. and indeed what his father had in a great measure prepared, the “Registrum Roffense, or a collection of ancient records, &c. necessary for illustrating the ecclesiastical history and antiquities of the diocese and cathedral church of Rochester, &c. by John Thorpe, late of Rochester, M. D, F. R. S. and published by his son John Thorpe, esq. A. M. F. S. A.” Lond. 1769, fol. Pursuing the same plan, he published in 1788, in another sumptaous folio, the “Custumale Koffense, from the original Mss. in the archives of the dean and chapter of Rochester.”

It does not appear that Dr. Threlkeld published any other book than his “Synopsis Stirpium Hibernicarum alphabetice dispositarum, sive Commentatio de Plantis indigenis, praesertim Dubliniensibus, instituta” 1727, 12mo, being a short treatise of native plants, especially such as grow spontaneously in the vicinity of Dublin, with, their Latin, English, and Irish names, and an abridgment of their virtues, with several new discoveries; with an appendix of observations made upon plants by Dr. Molyneux, physician to the state in Ireland, the first essay of this kind in the kingdom of Ireland. In this work, after a dedication of his book to the archbishop of Armagh, and a preface, which, though written in a quaint stile, proves him to be a man of considerable erudition, he enumerates all the plants he had observed in the environs of Dublin, by giving, first, the old Latin name, generally from Caspar Bau-r hine’s Pinax; then the English name, and afterwards the Irish; subjoining, wherever it seems necessary, some ac count of the quality of the plant, and its use in medicine and (Economy. Besides these he has here and there thrown, in a curious observation: to instance, under the word be* tula, he says, “The Irish grammarians remark that all the names of the Irish letters are names of trees.” He appears, however, to have been better acquainted with the history of plants than with plants themselves; as he seems not to have studied them in a systematic way. He incurred the displeasure of the learned professor Dr. Dillenius, by having thrown out, in this hook, three or four criticisms npou that gentleman’s introduction of new names into botany, in his edit on of Mr. Hay’s “Synopsis,” published about three years before, and also on his multiplying the species of plants unnecessarily but Dillenius did not think him an antagonist formidable enough for a reply.

, a topographical writer, whose writ* ings, where they occur, may probably excite some curi-r osity alter his name, was born in 1740. Of his early history we have no account. He was for many years parish clerk of St. Martin’s Leicester, and a man of fine natural parts, and much laudable curiosity. During the vicissi* tudes of a life remarkably checquered, he rendered himself conspicuous as a draughtsman and topographer. He attempted many expedients for the maintenance of a numerous family, few of which answered his purpose; and his last days would have been shaded with penury and disappointment, hut for the assistance of those friends who knew his worth, and justly appreciated him as a man of honesty, integrity, and merit. He died Feb. 3, 1803, ai>ed sixtythree, and is recorded, on a tablet over the vestiy door at Sl Ma tin’s, to have been “of a peaceable disposition; who lived respected, and died an humble member of the church of Christ.” His publications were, 1. “The Me* moirs of the Town and County of Leicester,” 1777, 6 vols. 12mo. 2. “Select Views in Leicestershire, from original Drawings,” 1789, 4to, 3. “A Supplementary volume to the Leicestershire Views, containing a series of Excursions, in 1790, to the villages and places of note in the county,” J 790, 4to. 4. “The History and Antiquities of the ancient town of Leicester,” 1791, 4to. 5. “Letters on the Roman Cloaca at Leicester,” 1793. It is almost needless to add, that all these works on Leicestershire have been since superseded by Mr. Nichols’s elaborate history of that county. 6. “Thoughts on the Provincial Corps raised, and now raising, in support of the British constitution at this awful period,” 1795, 8vo. 7. “Thoroton’s History of Nottinghamshire, re-published with large additions, and embellished with picturesque and select views of seats of the nobility and gentry, towns, villages, churches, and ruins,” 1797, 3 vols. 4to.

Pellegrino Tibaldi is considered, and with sufficient evidence from his works, as the greatest designer of the Bolognese and Lombard schools. He approaches the line of Michael Angelo nearer than all the rest of his imitators; but, as he had decidedly adopted the technic without always penetrating the moral principle* of his model, the manner of the master frequently became the style of the pupil; though it cannot be denied that he often united energy of attitude and grandeur of line with sublimity of conception and dignity of motive. Of these he has given no where more signal proofs than in the cielings and compartments ef the Academical Institute at Bologna; they represent various scenes of the Odyssey in a kind of monumental style, which it would be improper to judge by the established rules of regular history. Polypheme waking under the pangs of the fiery point nestling itself into his eye, though with a sentiment of original expression, is evidently imitated from the new-created figure of Adam in the Sistina; but the same Cyclops groping at the entrance of his eave to prevent the escape of Ulysses and his associates, is in conception of the whole, and in the detail of all the parts, a self-invented being; a form, than which Michael Angelo himself never conceived one of savage energy, provoked by sufferings and revenge, with expression, atti-r tude, and limbs, more in unison. With these may be placed that wonder of foreshortening, of conglobation, and eccentricity, the figure of Elpenor on one of the archi-r traves of the Salotto, represented in the moment when, yet dreaming, he loses his hold and is precipitated from the roof. The air of originality which this figure every where presents, and the elegance with which the imitator has reversed the figure in the Last Judgment of M. Angelo, from which he borrowed the principal limb of his own, place him on a level with the inventor.

, archbishop of Canterbury, wag descended of a family anciently of the name of Tilston, of Tilston in Cheshire, and born at Sowerby in Yorkshire, in Oct. 1630. His father, Mr. Robert Tillotson, wasaconsiderable clothier there, a man of good understanding, and uncommon knowledge of the Scriptures; but so zealously attached to the system of Calvin, as not to be moderated by the reasonings of his son, whom he lived to see dean of Canterbury. He gave his son, however, a liberal education, vv, o,;fu-r passing through a school, was sent in 1647 to Onn. bridge, being then seventeen; and admitted a penftiooer oi C'are-hall. He took his bachelor of arts degree in 1650, and his master’s in 1654, having been chosen fellow of his college in 1651.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, one of the most celebrated Protestant divines of the 16th century, was born at Breslau, in Silesia, July 28, 1534. He had already made a considerable progress, for one so young, when he was sent to Wittemberg in 1550, where he studied seven years, and, as his father was not rich, he was assisted by gratuities both private and public, and by the profits of taking pupils. At the same time, he applied himself so closely to study, that he acquired great skill both in poetry, lan-r guages, philosophy, and divinity. Melancthon, who was the ornament of that university, had a particular esteem and friendship for him. Ursinus accompanied him in 1557 to the conference of Worms, whence he went to Geneva, and afterwards to Paris, where he made some stay, in order to learn French, and improve himself in Hebrew under the learned John Mercerus. He was no sooner returned to Melancthon at Wittemberg, than he received letters from the magistrates of Breslaw in September 1558, offering him the mastership of their great school; and having accepted it, he discharged the duties of his employment in so laudable a manner, that he might have continued in it as long as he pleased, had he not been prosecuted by the clergy, the instant they perceived he was not a Lutheran. When he explained Melancthon’s book, “De examine ordinandorum ad Ministerium,” he handled the subject of the Lord’s supper in such a manner, as made the demagogues or factious orators (for so the author of his Life calls them) term him Sacramentarian. He wrote, however, a justification of himself, in which he discovered what his opinions were with regard to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and when he found that this did not pacify his adversaries, he obtained an honourable leave from the magistrates; and as he could not retire to his master Melancthon, he being dead a little before, in April 1560, he went to Zurich, where Peter Martyr, Bullinger, Simler, Gesner, and some other eminent personages, had a great friendship for him. From this place he was soon removed by the university of Heidelberg, which was in want of an able professor; and in September 1561 was settled in the Collegium Sapientiae (College of Wisdom) to instruct the students. He also attempted to preach, but finding he had not the talents requisite for the pulpit, he laid that aside. As a professor, he evinced, in the most eminent elegree, the qualifications requisite: a lively genius, a great fund of knowledge, and a happy dexterity in explaining things, and therefore, besides the employment he already enjoyed, he exercised the professorship of the loci communes, or common places in that university. To qualify him for this place, it was necessary for him, agreeably to the statutes, to be received doctor of divinity, and accordingly he was solemnly admitted to that degree the 25th of August, 1562, and he was professor of the common places till 1568. It was he who wrote the Catechism of the Palatinate, which was almost universally adopted by the Calvinists, and drew up an apology for it by ordtr of the elector Frederic III. in opposition to the clamours which Flacius Illyricus, Heshusius, and some other rigid Lutherans, had published in 1563. The elector, finding himself exposed, not only to the complaints of the Lutheran divines, but likewise to those of some princes, as if he had established a doctrine concerning the Eucharist, which was condemned by the Augsburg Confession, was obliged to cause to be printed an exposition of the une doctrine concerning the Sacraments. Ursinus the following year was at the conference of Maulbrun, where he spoke with great warmth against the doctrine of Ubiquity. He afterwards wrote on that subject, and against some other tenets of the Lutherans. The plan and statutes which he drew up for the elector, for the establishment of some schools, and several other services, raised him so high in his esteem, that finding him resolved to accept of a professorship in divinity at Lausanne in 1571, he wrote a letter to him with his own hand, in which he gave several reasons why it would not be proper for him to accept of that employment. This prince’s death, which happened in 1577, produced a great revolution in the palatinate; prince Lewis, his eldest son, who succeeded him, not permitting any clergyman to be there, unless he was a sound Lutheran; so that Ursinus and the pupils educated by him in the Collegium Sapientiae were obliged to quit it. He retired to Neustadt, to be divinity-professor in the illustrious school which prince Casimir, son to Frederic III. founded there at that time. He began his lectures there the 26th of May, 1578. He also taught logic there in his own apartment; published some books, and was preparing to write several more, when his health, which had been frequently and strongly attacked, occasioned by his incredible application to study, yielded at last to a long sickness, of which he died in Neustadt, the 6th of March, 1583, in the forty-ninth year of his age. His works were collected after his death, by the care of his only son, a minister, and by that of David Pareus and Quirinus Reuterus, his disciples; and to the last of these we are indebted for the publication of them in 1612, 3 vols. folio.

Valerianus published also at different times two volumes of Latin poems, among which were “Amorum libri <juin- r que.” It may be proper to observe here, that Valerianus’s Christian name was Petej; but changed, according to the custom of those times, by one of his masters into Pieritls, in allusion to Pierides, a name of the Muses, and therefore probably done as a compliment to his talents for poetry.

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

At length, on the death of Dr. Smith in 1788, Dr. Vincent (who had taken his doctor’s degree in 1776), was nominated to succeed him r.s head-master an appointment which gave great satisfaction to the friends of the school, though the whole extent and force of his talents were far from being completely known. Particular attention seems to have been first paid to a sermon he preached at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, for a charity-school. This was in 1792, a period of great political turbulence and danger; and this sermon, being remarkable for the clear and powerful statement of principles favourable to social order, and for explaining the necessity of the gradations of rich and poor, was welcomed on its publication by all the zealous friends of the Britisu constitution, and to render it more serviceable, the patriotic association against republicans and levellers obtained leave from the author to reprint the principal part of it, for circulation among the people; and twenty thousand copies were thus distributed in London, and throughout the country, probably with excellent effect. We have seen already that the first publication of Dr. Vincent, though anonymous, was a defence of sound principles, against factious measures and artifices: and, as that tract was never afterwards owned, there cannot be any possible suspicion that the author wrote it with a view to praise or emolument; or otherwise than from the honest impulse of his heart, and the clear conviction of his mind. The principles which he there discovered, remained unaltered through life; and were felt with particular force when the movements of faction called for opposition. It cannot be floubted, therefore, that he must have felt the liveliest satisfaction in having his discourse thus circulated, in a, more attractive form than a sermon might have borne, for the general instruction of the people.

Dr. Vincent had long been diligently employed upon a much more arduous task, and more connected with the studies, to which he was by preference attached. In 1797, he published the result of those labours r in his celebrated commentary on Arrian’s “Voyage of Nearchus,” which formed the basis of our author’s reputation. On a work so well known, it is not necessary that we should expatiate at any great length. Nearchus’s voyage is related by Arrian of Nicomedia (See Arrian), and is comprised in his “ludica,” or general account of India, and is professedly taken from the journal of Nearchus himself. The authenticity of the narrative had indeed been questioned by some learned men; but it is so victoriously defended by Dr. Vincent, in the concluding section of his preliminary Disquisitions, that Schmieder, the latest editor of Arrian, has translated the whole of his arguments into Latin; and has subjoined them to the objections of Dodwell, as a complete and satisfactory refutation. So strongly was Schmieder himself of the same opinion, that in his preface to the Indica he says, that “they who deny the genuineness of this account are hardly worth refuting.”

Da Vinci composed a great number of discourses upon several curious subjects, among whichwere, “A Treatise of the Nature, Equilibrium, and Motion, of Water” “A Treatise of Anatomy” “The Anatomy of a Horse” “A Treatise of Perspective” “A Treatise of Light and Shadows” and, “A Treatiseof Painting.” None of these have found their way to the press, but the “Treatise of the Art of Painting;” a noble edition of which was published by R. du Fresne at Paris in 1651, with figures by Nicholas Poussin. It was also published in English in 1721, 8vo, and reprinted in 1796, with a life of the author prefixed; from which we have extracted chiefly this account of him.

The genuine and undisputed works of this poet are, ten “Eclogues, or Bucolics,” four books of “Georgics,” and the “Æneid,” in twelve books. The “Culex,” the “Ciris,” and some smaller pieces, called “Catalecta,” are subjoined to some editions of his works; particularly to that of Masvicius, with the notes of Servius, at JLeewarden, 1717, in 2 vols. 4to; which is, perhaps, the best edition of Virgil, although that of Burman, at Amsterdam, 1746, in 4 vols. 4 to., bears a higher price. There are, besides these 4 several good ones; as the “Elzevir” in 1636, 12mo; “Da la Cerdu’s” in 1642, folio; that “in Usum Delphini a Ruæo, 1675,” 4to; the “Variorum” edition at Leyden, 1680, 3 vols. 8vo and the edition of Heyne, republished in London in 1793. The versions of, and commentaries upon, his works are innumerable; those into our own lair* guage by Ogilby, Dryden, and Trapp, are well known: but Dr. Warton’s edition in Latin and English, referred to above, is preferable to any of these, not on account of th translation only, but because the Latin text is correctly printed with it. The “Bucolics” and “Georgics” have also been published by Dr. John Martyn, F. R. S. professor of botany in Cambridge, with an English version in prose, and with useful and curious notes.

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

, a learned physician and medical writer, was born at Powick, in Worcestershire, 1708. He was the son of Mr. John Wall, an opulent tradesman of the city of Worcester, who served the office of mayor in 1703. He received the early part of his education at a grammar-school at Leigh-Sinton, and at the college school of Worcester, whence he was elected scholar of Worcester-college, Oxford, in June 1726. In 1735, he was elected fellow of Merton -college, soon after which he took the degree of bachelor of physic, and removed to the city of Worcester, where he was many years settled in practice. In 1759, he took the degree of M. D. Besides an ingenious “Treatise on the virtues of Malvern-waters,” which he brought into reputation, he enriched the repositories of medical knowledge with many valuable tracts, which, since his death, have been collected into an octavo edition, by his son, the present learned Dr. Martin Wall, F. R. S. clinical-professor of. the university, and were printed at Oxford in 1780. He married Catherine youngest daughter of Martin Sandys, esq. of the city of Worcester, barrister at law, and uncle to the first lord Sandys. Dr. Wall was a man of extraordinary genius, which he improved by early and indefatigable industry in the pursuit of science; but he was more particularly eminent in those branches of natural philosophy which have an immediate connexion with the arts, and with medicine. He was distinguished likewise through his whole life by an uncommon sweetness of manners, and cheerfulness of disposition, which, still more than his great abilities, made his acquaintance courted, and his conversation sought, by persons of all ranks and ages. His practice, as a physician, was extended far beyond the common circle of practitioners in the country, and he was particularly eminent for benevolence, courtesy, penetration, and success. His native country still boasts many monuments of the application of his eminent talents to her interests. To his distinguished skill in chemistry, and his assiduous researches (in conjunction with some other chemists) to discover materials proper for the china-ware, the city of Worcester owes the establishment of its porcelain-manufacture. Besides the improvements he suggested and put in execution for the accommodation of visitors at Malvern, it was to his zeal and diligence the county of Worcester is in no small degree indebted for the advantages of the infirmary, which he regularly attended during his whole life. His principal amusement was painting; and it has been said of him, that, if he had not been one of the best physicians, he would have been the best painter of his age. This praise is perhaps too high, yet his designs for the two frontispieces to “Hervey’s Meditations,” that for Cambridge’s “Scribleriad,” and for the East window of the chapel of Oriel-college, Oxford, are very creditable specimens of his talents. He died at Bath, after a lingering disorder, June 27, 1776, and lies buried in the abbey-church. The tracts published by his son, are, 1. “Of the extraordinary effects of Musk in convulsive disorders.” 2. “Of the use of the Peruvian Bark in the small-pox.” 3. “Of the cure of the putrid sore-throat.” 4. “Mr. Oram’s account of the Norfolk-boy.” 5. “Observations on that case, and on the efficacy of oil in wormcases.” 6. “Experiments and Observations on the Mal­* vern- waters.” 7. “Letters to Sir George Baker, &c. on the poison of lead, and the impregnation of cyder with that metal.” 8. “A Letter to Dr. Heberden on the Angina Pectoris.” 9. “Supplement; containing an account of the epidemic fever of 1740, 1741, and 1742.” The editor has enriched this publication with various notes, which discover an extensive acquaintance with the subjects in question, and a candid and liberal turn of mind. To the treatise on Malvern-waters Dr. Martin Wall has also subjoined an appendix of some length, containing an experimental inquiry into their nature; from which it appears, that the Holywell-water at Malvern owes its virtues principally to its extreme purity, assisted by the fixed air which it contains.

From his twenty-eighth to. his thirty-fifth year, he wrote his pieces on the reduction of Sallee on the reparation of St. Paul’s; to the King on his navy the panegyric on the Queen mother; the two poems to the earl of Northumberland; and perhaps others, of which the time cannot be discovered. When he had lost all hopes of Sacharissa, he looked round him for an easier conquest, and gained a lady of the family of Bresse, or Breaux. The time of his marriage is not exactly known. It has not been discovered that his wife was won by his poetry; nor is any thing told of her, but that she brought him many children, He doubtless, says Johnson, praised some whom he would have been afraid to marry, and perhaps married one whom he would have been ashamed to praise. Many qualities contribute to domestic happiness, upon which poetry has no colours to bestow; and many airs and sallies may delight imagination, “which he who flatters them never can approve. There are charms made only for distant admiration. No spectacle is nobler than a blaze. Of this wife, however, his biographers have recorded that she gave him five sons and eight daughters, aud Aubrey says that she was beautiful and very prudent. During the long interval of parliament, he is represented as living among those with whom it was most honourable to converse, and enjoying an exuberant fortune with that independence of liberty of speech and conduct which wealth ought always to produce. Being considered as the kinsman of Hampden, he was therefore supposed by the courtiers not to favour them; and when the parliament was called in 1640, it appeared that, his political character had not been mistaken. The king’s demand of a supply produced from him a speech full” of complaints of national grievances, and very vehement; but while the great position, that grievances ought to be redressed before supplies are 'granted, is agreeable enough to law and reason, Waller, if his biographer may be credited, was not such an enemy to the king, as not to wish his distresses lightened; for he relates, “that the king sent particularly to Waller, to second his demand of some subsidies to pay off the army; and sirHenry Vane objecting against first voting a supply, because the king would not accept unless it came up to his proportion, Mr. Waller spoke earnestly to sir Thomas Jermyn, comptroller of the household, to save his master from the effects of so bold a falsity: c for,‘ he said, ’ I am but a country gentleman, and cannot pretend to know the king’s mind:' but sir Thomas durst not contradict the secretary; and his son, the earl of St. Alban’s r afterwards told Mr. Waller, that his father’s cowardice ruined the king.”

the advantage he had of sir John; par-r allusions to several parts of theZEneid,

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

“Seen him I have, but in his happier hour Of social pleasure, ill exchang‘d for pow’r; Seen him, uncumber'd with the venal tribe, Smile without art, and win without a bribe.”

By Mr. Coxe’s memoirs, lord Walpole is placed in a far more important point of view than he had heretofore ob-r tained, and it appears that no one could be more intrusted with the secret springs of ministerial action; but ne partook of the obloquy which followed his brother, and has consequently been misrepresented by those compilers of history who depend for their information on party pamphlets. Lord Hardwicke said of him, that “he negociate'd with firmness and address; and with the love of peace, which was the system of his brother, he never lost sight of that great object, keeping up the sources of national strength and wealth, He was a great master of the commercial and political interests of this country, and deservedly raised to the peerage.” Mr. Coxe adds, that his moral conduct was irreproachable; that he was sincere in his belief of Christianity, and zealous and constant in performing the duties of religion and that he maintained an unimpeachable character for truth and integrity, as well in his public as in his private capacity.

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

After this, a general acquaintance with the laws of his country seems to have been his leading acquirement, and hence, when he became a representative in parliament, he was nominated one of the eight chief managers in the impeachment of the duke of Buckingham. The account of Mr. Wandesforde’s share in that transaction, as given by llushworth, is much to the credit of his moderation and prudence. In the new parliament, which met March 17, 1628, he made a conspicuous figure, and acted a truly constitutional part, supporting the privileges of the people when attacked, and when these were secured by a confirmation of the petition of right, adhering to his sovereign. About 1633, it was proposed by Charles I. to send Mr. Wandesforde ambassador to Spain; but this honour was declined, from his not wishing to engage in any public employment. Soon after, however, when his friend lord Wentworth was fixed on to go as lord-deputy.to Ireland, Mr. Wandesforde was persuaded to accompany him as master of the rolls, from motives of personal regard. He arrived at Dublin in July 1633, where he built a new office of the rolls at his own cost. In 1636 he was made one of the lords justices of Ireland, in the absence of lord Wentworth, and knighted. Retiring to his seat at Kil r dare, he completed his book of “Instructions to his Son,” which bears date Get, 5, 1636. He soon after sold Kildare to lord Wentwortb, and purchase^ the estate of Castlecomer, where he established a manufactory for cottons, and founded a colliery. In 164-0 he was appointed lord-deputy in the place of lord Strafford, and gave such satisfaction to the king by his* conduct in that high station, that he was created baron Mowbray and Musters, and viscount Castle^ comer. On the receipt of the patent, however, he exclaimed, “Is it a fit time for a faithful subject to appear higher than usual, when his king, the fountain of honours, is likely to be reduced lower than ever?” He therefore ordered the patent to be concealed, and his grandson was the first who assumed its privileges.

Mr. Warburton married twice: one of his wives was a widow with children, for he married her son, when a minor, to one of his daughters. Amelia, another, married Oct. 23, 1750, to captain John Elphinston, afterwards viceadmiral and commander-in-chief of the Russian fleet, who died very greatly respected by the late empress, Catherine IL who created him knight of the order of St. George: he was deservedly honoured and beloved by all who knew him. This gallant officer died in November 1789, at Cronstat, after a short illness. By his last wife, our author had John Warburton, esq. who resided many years in Dublin, and was pursuivant to the court of exchequer in Ireland: he married, in 1756, Ann-Catherine, daughter of the rev. Edward-Rowe Mores, rector of Tunstal in Kent, and sister of Edward-Rowe Mores, esq. M.A. and F.R. and A. S., so well known for his skill in antiquity, and the large collections of choice Mss. and books he left at his death, which were sold by Mr. Paterson in 1779. This Mr. W T arbarton, leaving Dublin, became one of the exons belonging to his majesty’s yeomen of the guard at St. James’s. Mr. Noble says, that going into France since the troubles in that kingdom, he was one of the few English who fell victims to the sanguinary temper of the usurpers, being guillotined for a pretended sedition, by order of the national convention committee at Lyons, in December 1793; but a correspondent in the Gentleman’s Magazine says that the Mr. Warburton, who was guillotined, was the nephew and not the son of the herald.

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

“Warburton’s whole constitution, bodily as well as mental, seemed to indicate that he was born to be an extraordinary man: with a large and athletic person he prevented the necessity of such bodily exercises as strong constitutions usually require, by rigid and undeviating abstinence. The time thus saved was uniformly devoted to study, of which no measure or continuance ever exhausted his understanding, or checked the natural and lively flow of his spirits. A change in the object of his pursuit was his only relaxation; and he could pass and n pass from fathers and philosophers to Don Quixote, in the original, with perfect ease and pleasure. In the mind of Warburton the foundation of classical literature had been well laid, yet not so as to enable him to pursue the science of ancient criticism with an exactness equal to the extent in which he grasped it. His master-faculty was reason, and his master-science was theology; the very outline of which last, as marked out by this great man, for the direction of young students, surpasses the attainments of many who have the reputation of considerate divines. One deficiency of his education he had carefully corrected by cultivating logic with great diligence. That he has sometimes mistaken the sense of his own citations in Greek, may perhaps be imputed to a purpose of bending them to his own opinions. After all, he was incomparably the worst critic in his mother tongue. Little acquainted with old English literature, and as little with those provincial dialects which yet retain much of the phraseology of Shakespeare, he has exposed himself to the derision of far inferior judges by mistaking the sense of passages, in which he would have been corrected by shepherds and plowmen. His sense of humour, like that of most men of very vigorous faculties, was strong, but extremely coarse, while the rudeness and vulgarity of his manners as acontrovertist removed all restraints of decency or decorum in scattering his jests about him. His taste seems to have been neither just nor delicate. He had nothing of that intuitive perception of beauty which feels rather than judges, and yet is sure to be followed by the common suffrage of mankind: on the contrary, his critical favours were commonly bestowed according to rules and reasons, and for the most part according to some perverse and capricious reasons of his own. In short, it may be adduced as one of those compensations with which Providence is ever observed to balance the excesses and superfluities of its own gifts, that there was not a faculty about this wonderful man which does not appear to have been distorted by a certain inexplicable perverseness, in which pride and love of paradox were blended with the spirit of subtle and sophistical reasoning. In the lighter exercises of his faculties it may not unfrequently be doubted whether he believed himself; in the more serious, however fine-r spun his theories may have been, he was unquestionably honest. On the whole, we think it a fair subject of speculation, whether it were desirable that Warburton’s education and early habits should have been those of other great scholars. That the ordinary forms of scholastic institution would have been for his own benefit and in some respects for that of mankind, there can be no doubt. The gradations of an University would, in part, have mortified his vanity and subdued his arrogance. The perpetual collisions of kindred and approximating minds, which constitute, perhaps, the great excellence of those illustrious seminaries, would have rounded off‘ some portion of his native asperities; he would have been broken by the academical curb to pace in the trammels of ordinary ratiocination; he would have thought always above, yet not altogether unlike, the rest of mankind. In short, he would have become precisely what the discipline of a college was able to make of the man, whom Warburton most resembled, the great Bentley. Yet all these advantages would have been acquired at an expence ill to be spared and greatly to be regretted. The man might have been polished and the scholar improved, ’but the phenomenon would have been lost. Mankind might not have learned, for centuries to come, what an untutored mind can do for itself. A self-taught theologian, untamed by rank and unsubdued by intercourse with the great, was yet a novelty; and the manners of a gentleman, the formalities of argument, and the niceties of composition, would, at least with those who love the eccentricities of native genius, have been unwillingly accepted in exchange for that glorious extravagance which dazzles while it is unable to convince, that range of erudition which would have been cramped by exactness of research, and that haughty defiance of form and decorum, which, in its rudest transgressions against charity and manners, never failed to combine the powers of a giant with the temper of a ruffian.”

, knight of the order of the polar star, secretary to the royal academy of sciences at Stockholm, F. R. S. one of the eight foreign members of the academy of sciences at Paris, and member of the academies of St. Petersburg, Upsal, Gottingen, Copenhagen, and Drontheim, was born Sept. 22, 1717, and became secretary to the Stockholm academy in 1749. In this country he is probably most known from his tables for computing the eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites, which are annexed to the Nautical Almanac of 1779. We know not that he has published any separate work but in the “Transactions of the Stockholm Academy,” are 52 memoirs by him, besides several in the “Philosophical Transactions,” and in the “Acta Societatis Upsaliensis.” He died at the observatory at Stockholm, Dec. 13, 1783.

In March 1503-4, bishop Warham was translated to the see of Canterbury, in which he was installed with great solemnity, Edward duke of Buckingham officiating as his steward on that occasion. He was likewise, on May 28, 1506, unanimously elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, being then, and ever after, a great friend and benefactor to that university, and to learning in general. In 1509, Henry VII. died, and was succeeded by his son Henry VIII. from whose promising abilities great expectations were formed. Archbishop Warham’s high rank in the church, and the important office he held in the state, as lord chancellor, naturally caused him to preside at the council-board of the young king, and his rank and talents certainly gave him great authority there. One of the first matters of importance, in the new reign, was the marriage of the king, which, from his tender age, and his aversion to it r had not yet taken place, and it was now necessary that his majesty should decide to break it off, or conclude it. Warham still continued to oppose it, and Fox, as before, contended for it; and it, accordingly, was performed June 3, 1509; and on the 24th of the same month, the king and queen were crowned at Westminster by archbishop W r arham. In the years 1511 and 1512, we find our prelate zealously persecuting those who were termed heretics; and although the inttances of his interference with the opinions of the reformation are neither many, nor bear the atrocious features of a Bonner or a Gardiner, they form no small blemish in his character.

, an eminent surgeon, was born in the island of Antigua, in 1717, on the family estate, which he inherited, together with a ring, famous in history, as the one given by queen Elizabeth to the earl of Essex, and which in the hour of impending danger he entrusted to the countess of Nottingham, who never delivered it to the queen, and this, according to the story, was the cause of Essex’s losing his life. By some means this ring had regularly descended, together with the estate, in the Warner family. Mr. Warner was sent to England at an early age, and educated at Westminster school. At the age of seventeen he was apprenticed to the celebrated surgeon, Samuel Sharpe, and after residing seven years with him, was admitted joint lecturer in anatomy at St. Thomas’s hospital with Mr. Sharpe, after whose resignation Mr. Warner continued the lectures for several years. In 1746, during the rebellion in Scotland, he volunteered his professional services, and joined the royal army under the duke of Cumberland, In the course of that campaign he was recalled to London to fill the office of surgeon to Guy’s hospital, a situation which he held, with increasing reputation, and great professional success, for the long period of forty-four years. During this time his private practice became extensive, and his fame was increased by his valuable treatises on the cataract, the hydrocele, &c. and his still more va-r luable volume of “Cases in Surgery,” 1754, &c. In 1756 he was elected a fellow of the royal society, in whose Transactions a number of his communications were published. In 1764 he was elected a -member of the court of assistants of the then corporation of surgeons, and in 1771, became one of the court of examiners, in which office he continued to discharge his duty most punctually until the last month of his life.

The office of poet laureate was accepted by him this year, as it was offered at the express desire of his majesty, and he filled it with credit to himself and to the place. Whitehead, his immediate predecessor, had the misfor r tune to succeed Gibber, and could with difficulty make the public look seriously on the periodical labours of the laureate, yet by perseverance he contrived to restore some degree of respect to the office. Warton succeeded yet better by varying the accustomed modes of address, and by recalling the mind to gothic periods, and splendid events* The facetious authors, indeed, of the “Probationary Odes” (n set of political satires) took some freedoms with his name, but they seemed to be aware that another Gibber would have suited their purpose better; and Warton, who possessed a large share of humour, and a quick sense of ridicule, was not to be offended because he had for once been the “occasion of wit in other men *.”

From his resignation till the month of July 1798, he lived in retirement at Mount Vernon. At this latter pe r riod it became necessary for the United States to arm, They had endured with a patience of which there is no example in the history of states, all the contumely and wrong which successive administrations in France had heaped upon them. Their ships were every where captured, their ministers were detained in a sort of imprisonment at Paris; while incendiaries, cloathed in the sacred character of ambassadors, scattered over their peaceful provinces the firebrands of sedition and civil war. An offer was made to terminate this long course of injustice, by a bribe to the French ministers. This offer was made by persons who appeared to be in the confidence of M. Talleyrand, who professed to act by his authority, but who have been since disavowed by him. In the mean time the United States resolved to arm by land and sea. The command of the army was bestowed on general Washington, which he accepted because he was convinced that “every thing we hold dear and sacred was seriously threatened;” though he had flattered himself “that he had quitted for ever the boundless field of public action, incessant trouble and high responsibility, in which he had long acted so conspicuous a part.” In this office he continued during the short period of his life which still remained. On Thursday the 12th December 1799, he was seized with an inflammation in his throat, which became considerably worse the next day; and of which, notwithstanding the efforts of his physicians, he died on Saturday the 14th of December 1799, in the sixty-eighth year of his age, and in the twenty-third year of the independence of the United States, of which he may be considered as the founder. The same calmness, simplicity, and regularity, which had uniformly marked his demeanour, did not forsake him in his dying moments. Even the perfectly well-ordered state of the most minute particulars of his private business, bore the stamp of that constant authority of prudence and practical reason over his actions, which was a distinguishing feature of his character. He died with those sentiments of piety, which had given vigour and consistency to his virtue, and adorned every part of his blameless and illustrious life.

In 1714, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, at the exercise for which he gave a proof of no common abilities. He chose for his first question, upon which consequently his thesis was made, “Whether Arian subscription be lawful?” a question, says Mr. Seed, worthy of him who abhorred all prevarications, and had the capacity to see through and detest those evasive arts, with which some would palliate their disingenuity. When Dr. James, the professor, had endeavoured to answer his thesis, and embarrass the question with the dexterity of a person long practised in all the arts of a subtle disputant, he immediately replied in an extempore discourse of about half an hour long, with such an easy flow of proper and significant words, and such an undisturbed presence of mind, as if he had been reading, what he afterwards printed, “The case of the Arian subscription considered.” He unravelled the professor’s fallacies, reinforced his own reasoning, and shewed himself so perfect a master of the language, the subject, and himself, that all agreed no one ever appeared to greater advantage. He was on this occasion happy in a first opponent Mr. (afterwards the celebrated bishop) Sherlock, who gave full play to his abilities, and called for all that strength of reason of which he was master. One singular consequence is said to have followed this exercise. I)r. Clarke, in the second edition of his “Scripture Doctrige,” &c. published in 17 19, omitted the following words, which were in his former edition of that book: “It is plain that a man may reasonably agree to such forms (of subscription to the thirty-nine articles) whenever he can in any sense at all reconcile them with scripture.” This is remarked by our author in the preface to his vindication of Christ’s divinity, as redounding to Dr. Clarke’s honour, and it is well known that Dr. Clarke afterwards constantly refused subscription.

By long and hard service in a unfavourable climate, he found his health much impaired, two or three years before he left India; and therefore, in 1785, he put affairs in a train of settlement, in order to return to England, to try the effects of his native air. In the spring of 1786, he embarked on board the Deptford Indiaman; but the flux and a bilious complaint with which he had sometimes been afflicted, so much reduced him by the time he reached St. Helena, that he was not able to prosecute his voyage in that ship. This island is remarkable for the salubrity of its air, of which the colonel soon found the benefit but the importunity of his friends, or his own impatienceto see England, got the better of his prudence, for as soon as he began to gather strength, he took his passage in the Asia; the consequence was a relapse, which weakened him to such a degree by the time he arrived at Dover, that he lingered but a short time, and at that place departed this life on September 17, 1786. He was buried in a vault made in the body of the church at Dover, on the 22d of the same month, in a private manner. His death mHy be accounted a national loss. No English engineer, since Mr. Benjamin Robins, F. R. S. possessed equal abilities. The same climate proved fatal to both: Mr. Robins died at Madras in the company’s service; and it may be said of the colonel, that after he had quitted it, he lived but just long enough to bring his bones to England.

R. W."

“A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Landaff in June 1805,” was published in that year; and another in 1808: “Two Apologies, one for Christianity against Gibbon, and the other for the Bible against Paine, published together with two Sermons and a Charge in Defence of Revealed Religion,” in 1806, 8vo: “A Second Defence of Revealed Religion, in two Sermons; preached in the Chapel-royal, St. James’s, 1807.” “Communica r tion to the Board of Agriculture, on Planting and Waste Lands,” 1808. His lordship’s latest publication was a collection, of “Miscellaneous Tracts on Religious, Political, and Agricultural subjects,” 1815, 2 vols. 8vo. Some articles by him occur in the Transactions of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, of which he was one of the earliest members, During the last years of his life his lordship employed his leisure upon a history of his own times, after the manner of bishop Burnet’s celebrated work; and left directions for its publication after his decease. Such a performance from so, eminent a character will, of course, be expected with no ordinary anxiety by the political as well as the literary world, and will throw light on those parts of his own character and conduct which have been the subject of some difference of opinion. In the mean time it may be said of him, that he was an excellent public speaker, both in the pulpit and in the senate; his action graceful, his voice full and harmonious, and his delivery chaste and correct. As far as his influence extended, he was invariably the patron of merit. As a writer, bishop Watson united the knowledge of a scholar with the liberality of a gentlemaa, and in the course of a long, active, and conspicuous life, his lordship’s demeanour was marked by the characteristics of a very superior mind. His partiality to unlimited toleration in regard to religious opinion called down upon him the applauses of one part of the community, and the censures of the other. He uniformly exerted his endeavours to procure the abolition of the corporation and test-acts. In his private deportment, though somewhat reserved, he was remarkable for the simplicity of his manners, and the equality of his temper; enjoying all the emoluments of his stations, and the fame arising from his writings, in rural retirement, at Calgarth-park, Westmorland, a beautiful sequestered situation on the celebrated Lakes, a retreat which he had not only adorned and improved, but in some measure created, and where he passed much of his time in the indulgence of those deep studies to which his whole life was addicted. His plantations here were very extensive, and in 1789 gained him a premium from the Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce. On the whole, Dr. Watson may justly be pronounced a prelate of distinguished abilities, learning, research, and industry. He had a numerous family, and many distinguished personages were attached to him by the ties of friendship; amongst whom, the late duke of Grafton, to the close of his life, was long one of the most conspicuous.

, a nonconformist divine of considerable eminence, was educated at Emmanuel college, Cambridge, where he was remarked to be a very hard student. In 1646, he became rector of St. Stephen’s, W r albrook, by the sequestration of his predecessor, and was a preacher of great fame and popularity until the restoration, when he was ejected for nonconformity. In other respects he was a man rather of loyal principles, and besides a vigorous opposition to the measures adopted against the life of Charles 1. and a remonstrance to Cromweli r against the murder of that sovereign, he was concerned in what was called Love’s plot to bring in Charles II. and was for some time imprisoned in the Tower on that account. After his ejectment from St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, he occasionally preached where he could with safety, until undulgence being granted in 1672, he fitted up the great hall in Crosby House, Bishopsgate-street, which then belonged to sir John Langham, a nonconformist, and preached there several years. At length he retired to Essex, where he died sud* denly, as is supposed about 1689 or 1690. The time, either of his birth or death, is no where mentioned. He published a variety of small works on practical subjects, particularly “The Art of Divine Contentment,” which has gone through several editions; but his greatest work is his “Body of Divinity,” 1692, fol. consisting of a series of sermons on the Assembly’s Catechism, reprinted a few years ago in 2 vols. 8vo.

, a pious prelate, the son of a clergyman at Bromham in Wiltshire, was born there in 1581, and was entered first of University-college, Oxford, in 1598; but became the same year a scholar of Corpus-college. Here he took his degrees in arts r entered into holy orders, and was made minister of Steeple Aston in Wiltshire, where he also kept a grammar-school, as he afterwards did at Bath. In 1621 he was inducted to the rectory of St. Peter and St. Paul in Bath, being then bachelor in divinity. In 1624 he proceeded D. D. On the accession of Charles I. he was made one of his chaplains in ordinary, and in 1629 baptised his majesty’s first child, which died immediately after. He was consecrated bishop of Limerick, in Ireland, in December 1634. Before his death he was confined by the rebels in Limerick castle, where he died in the latter end of 1641, and was permitted by them to be buried in St. Munchin’s church-yard in Limerick. “He was a person of a strict life and conversation,” and esteemed the best preacher at the court of king Charles; and his published compositions are in a more pure and elegant style than those of most of his contemporaries. His principal work ishis “Practice of Quietness, directing a Christian to live quietly in this troublesome world.” We have not discovered when this was first published, but it had reached a third edition in 1631, and was afterwards often reprinted. The best edition is that of 1705, cr. 8vo, with his portrait and an engraved title-page. It is a work which gives a high idea of the author’s placid temper and pious resignation, amidst the confusions he lived to witness. His other publications are, 1. “A brief exposition of the principles of the Christian religion,” Loud. 1612, 8vo. 2. <c Arraignment of an unruly tongue, wherein the faults of an evil tongue are opened, the danger discovered, and remedies prescribed, &c.“ibid. 1619, 12mo. 3.” Agur’s prayer, or the Christian choice, &c.“ibid. 1621, 12mo. 4.” Catalogue protestantium: or the Protestant’s Calendar; containing a survey of the protestant religion long before Luther’s days,“ibid. 1624, 4to. 5.” Lessons and exercises out of Cicero ad Atticum," 1627, 4to. He published also some other books for grammar-schools, a Latin and English edition of two of Terence’s comedies; and several sermons, which appeared from 1609 to 1619.

His works consisted of paintings and drawings; the former were chiefly landscapes, though he painted some figures representing the inhabitants of the South-Sea islands, but they were deficient in the drawing. His landscapes were pleasing, and carefully finished, but with rather too much attention to the minutiae, and the colouring frequently too gaudy. There is a picture painted by him in the council-chamber of the Royal Academy; but the best production of his hand is a small view, in the possession of Mr. Farington, R. A.

Weaver’s “Funeral Monuments” is a work of great information. It contains a variety of the most useful and entertaining matter, which must have cost the author much labour, but which he has not, as some say, executed with the greatest fidelity and diligence, being indeed very deficient in point of accuracy, especially in the numeral letters and figures. The title of the work is, “Ancient Fvnerall Monvments within the Vnited Monarchie of Great Britaine, Ireland, and the islands adiacent, with the dissolued monasteries therein contained: their founders, and what eminent persons haue beene in the same interred, etc. Intermixed and illustrated with variety of historicall observations, annotations, and briefe notes, extracted out of approued authors, infallible records, lieger bookes, charters, rolls, old manuscripts, and the collections of iudicious antiquaries, etc.: composed by the studie and trauels of John Weever. Spe labor levis. London, printed by Thomas Harper, 1631. And are to be sold by Lawrence Sadler, at the signe of the Golden Lion in Little Britaine.” Prefixed is an engraved title by Cecill: it contains pp. 871, exclusive of the dedication to king Charles, epistle to the reader, and index; and is illustrated with wood-cuts. The author dates his epistle “from my house in Clerkenwell-close, this 28th of May, 1631.” It appears that, had he lived, he intended to have published Modern Monumental Inscriptions, as a companion to his former work, of which a second edition appeared 1661, Lond. folio, with a head of Weever, and a third in 1766, 4to, with some improvements, by the rev. William Tooke, F.R.S. There are many of his original Mss. in the library of the Society of Antiquaries, and he is supposed to have been the author of a “History of Christ in verse,” noticed in the Censura Literaria.

, one of the most learned men of the fifteenth century, was born at Groningen about 1419, and having lost his friends in his infancy, was sent by a benevolent lady, along with her only son, to be educated at a college at Swoll, which at that time happened to be in greater estimation than that of Groningen. This college was superintended by a community of monks, and Wesselus had at one time an inclination to have embraced the order, but was disgusted by some superstitious practices. After having studied here with great diligence, he removed to Cologne, where he was much admired for his proficiency, but already betrayed a dislike to the sentiments of the schoolmen. Being invited to teach theology at Heidelberg, it was objected that he had not received his doctor’s degree; and when he offered to be examined for that degree, he was told that the canons did not permit that it should be bestowed on a layman. Having therefore a repugnance to take orders, he confined his services to the reading of some lectures in philosophy; after which he returned to Cologne; and afterwards visited Louvain and Paris. The philosophical disputes being carried on then with great warmth between the realists, the formalists, and the nominalists, he endeavoured to bring over the principal champions of the formalists to the sect of the realists, but at lasthimself sided with the nominalists. He appears, however, to have set little value on any of the sects into which philosophy was at that time divided; and to a young man who consulted him concerning the best method of prosecuting his studies, he said, “You, young man, will live to see the day when the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and other modern disputants of the same stamp, will be exploded by all true Christian ditines, and when the irrefragable doctors themselves will be little regarded.” A prediction, says Brucker, which discovers so much good sense and liberality, that Wessel ought to be immortalized under the appellation of the Wise Doctor. Brucker admits him in his History of Philosophy, from the penetration which, in the midst of the scholastic phrenzy of his age, enabled him to discover the futility of the controversies which agitated the followers of Thomas, Scotus, and Occam. Some say that Wesseltis travelled into Greece, to acquire a more perfect acquaintance with the Greek and Hebrew languages than was then to be found in Europe. It is certain that he gained the esteem and patronage of Francis della Rovera, afterwards pope Sixtus IV. who, in an interview at Rome, offered him preferment. Wesselus desired only a copy of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek; and when the pope asked why he did not solicit for a bishopric, our philosopher replied, “Because I do not want one,” On his return he taught philosophy and philology at Groningen with great approbation, and died here Oct. 4, 1489. On his death-bed he was perplexed with doubts, which were soon relieved. His biographer says, that, “Being visited, in the sickness which brought him to his end, by a friend, who inquired after his health, he replied, that ‘he was pretty well, considering his advanced age, and the nature of his indisposition but that one thing made him very uneasy, viz. that being greatly perplexed with various thoughts and arguments, he began to entertain some little doubts with respect to the truth of the Christian religion.’ His friend was much surprised, and immediately exhorted him to direct all his thoughts to Christ the only Saviour; but, finding that such an admonition was displeasing, he went away deeply afflicted. But an hour or two after, Wesselus seeing his friend come back to him, he said, with an air of as much satisfaction and joy as one in his weak condition cpuld discover, < God be praised all those vain doubts are fled and now, all I know is Jesus Christ, and Rim crucified' after which confession he resigned his soul to God.” It appears that his religious sentiments were in many respects contrary to those of the Romish church, and some even called him the forerunner of Luther. Many of his Mss. were burnrd after his death by the contrivance of the monks, but what his friends saved were published at Groningen in 1614, consisting of “Tractatus de Oratione -r- de cohibendis cogitationibus de causis incarnationis de sacramento euchanstiae Farrago rerum Theologicarum epistolsp,” &c. Foppens, however, mentions an edition prior to this, published by Luther in 1525, and another at Marpurg in 1617, 4to.

On the accession of queen Anne, his lordship was removed from his employments, and in December 1702 he was one of the managers for the lords in the conference with the House of Commons relating to the bill against occasional conformity, which he opposed on all occasions with great vigour and address. In April 1705 he attended the queen at Cambridge, when her majesty visited that university, and was admitted, among other persons of r.ank, to x the honorary degree of doctor of laws. In the latter end of that year, his lordship opened the debate in the House of Lords for a regency, in case of the queers demise, in a manner which was very much admired. He had not been present at the former debate relating to the invitation of the princess Sophia to come over and live in England; but, he said, he was much delighted with what he heard concerning it; since he had ever looked upon the securing a Protestant succession to the crown, as that which secured the nation’s happiness. His proposition for the regency contained these particulars, that the regents should be empowered to act in the name of the successor, till he should send over orders: that, besides those whom the parliament should name, the next successor should send over a nomination, sealed up, and to be opened when that accident should happen, of persons who should act in the same capacity with the persons named by parliament. This motion being supported by all the Whig lords, a bill was ordered to be brought into the House upon it.

J>r. Salter, the learned master of the Wharton. The answer was to this

r' quest to lord Wharton, but without we have not character enough our­>iccess and the answer Wharton is selves.“*aid to have given, which was never in his character, at the same time that they used their utmost industry and invention to derogate from it; but that it was for his honour, that those who were then his enemies, were always so; and that he had acted in so much consistency with himself, and promoted the interests of his country in so uniform a manner, that even those who. would misrepresent his generous designs for the public good, could not but approve the steadiness and intrepidity with which he pursued them. The annotator on this character quotes an eminent historian as saying that lord Wharton” had as many friends as the constitution, and that only its enemies were his that he made no merit of his zeal for his country and that he expended above 80,000l. for its service," &c.

While thus employed abroad, his duchess, who had been neglected by him, died in England, April 14, 1726, and left no issue behind her. Soon after this, he fell vio-r lently in love with madam Obyrne, then one of the maids of honour to the queen of Spain. She was daughter of an Irish colonel in that service, who being dead, her mother lived upon a pension the king allowed her; so that this lady’s fortune consisted chiefly in her personal accomplishments. Many arguments were used, by their friends on both sides, to dissuade them from the marriage. The queen of Spain, when the duke asked her consent, represented to him, in the most lively terms, that the consequence of the match would be misery to them both; and absolutely refused her consent. Having now no hopes of obtaining her, he fell into a deep melancholy, which brought on a lingering fever. This circumstance reached her majesty’s ear: she was moved with his distress, and sent him word to endeavour the recovery of his health; and, as soon as he was ahle to appear abroad, she would speak to him in a more favourable manner than at their last interview. The duke, upon receiving this news, ima-> gined it the best way to take advantage of the kind disposition her majesty was then in; and summoning to his assistance his little remaining strength, threw himself at her majesty’s feet, and begged of her either to give him M. Obyrne, or order him not to live. The queen consented,' but told him he would soon repent it. After the solemnization of his marriage, he passed some time at Rome; where he accepted of a blue ribband, affected to appear with the title of duke of Northumberland, and for a while enjoyed the confidence of the exiled prince. But, as he could not always keep himself within the bounds of Italian gravity, and having no employment to amuse his active temper, he soon ran into his Usual excesses; which giving offence, it was thought proper for him to remove from that city for the present, lest he should at last fall into actual disgrace.

, an English divine, of most uncommon abilities, was born Nov. 9, 1664, at Worstead in Norfolk; of which parish his father Edmund, who survived him, was vicar. He was educated under his father; and made such a progress in the Greek and Latin tongues, that, from his first entrance into the university, he was thought an extraordinary young man. On Feb. 17, 1679—80, he was admitted into 'Caius-college, Cambridge, of which his father had been fellow, under the tuition of John, afterwards sir John Ellys, one of the senior fellows. Here he prosecuted his studies with the greatest vigour, and was instructed in the mathematics by Mr. (afterwards sir) Isaac Newton, then fellow of Trinity-college and Lucasian professor, amongst a select company, to whom that great man read lectures in his own private chamber. He took a bachelor of arts degree in 1683-4, and resided in the college till 1686, was a scholar on the foundation of his great uncle Stockys, but, observing no probability of a vacancy among the fellowships, he left it, and was recommended by Dr. Barker, afterwards chaplain to archbishop Tillotson, to Dr. Cave, whom he assisted in compiling his “Historia Literaria.” Of the nature of that assistance, and the manner in which he conducted himself, we shall have occasion to speak afterwards. In 1687 he was ordained deacon; and the same year proceeded master of arts by proxy; which favour was indulged him on account of being then dangerously ill of the small-pox at Islington. About this time the reputation he had acquired recommended him to the notice of Dr. Tenison, vicar of St. Martin’s in the Fields, London, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who employed him to prepare for the press a manuscript on “The incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome,” written in Latin by Placette of Hamburgh. This Wharton translated into English and epitomized. Tenison also recommended him to lord Arundel of Trerice, as tutor for his son. Soon after being presented to archbishop Sancroft, his grace put into his hands, in April 1788, the manuscript of archbishop Usher’s dogmatical history of the Holy Scriptures, which he published, in 4to, under the title, “J. Usserii, &c. Hist. Dogmatica controversial inter orthodoxos et pon-r tificios de scripturis, &c.” to which he added an “auctarium,” or supplement. He also published before and about this time several treatises against popery, among which are, 1. “The Speculum Ecclesiasticum considered, inits false reasonings and quotations,” Lond. 1687, 4to. The “Speculum Ecclesiasticum” was a production of Thomas. Ward, whom we have noticed already. 2. “A treatise proving Scripture to be the rule of Faith, writ by Reginald Pecock, bishop of Chichester, before the reformation, about 1450,” Lond* 1688, 4to. This, to which Mr. Wharton prefixed a preface on the same subject, is the only production of that learned prelate which has been pub-, lished. 3. “A treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy, wherein its rise and progress are historically considered, 7 * ibid. 1688, 4to. In this he proves that the celibacy of the clergy was not enjoined either by Christ or his apostles; that it has nothing excellent in itself; that the imposition of it is unjust, and that, in point of fact, it was never universally imposed or practised in the ancient church. 5. A, translation of Dellon’s” History of the Inquisition of Goa. n 6. About the same time he translated some homilies of St. Macarius, the prologue and epilogue of Euronius to his “Apologetic Treatise” (formerly transcribed by him out of a manuscript of Dr. Tenison) with a treatise of “PseudoDorotheus,” found by Mr. Dodwell jn the Bodleian library, out of Greek into Latin, and the famous Bull “in Ccena Domini” out of Latin into English annexing a short preface containing some reflections- upon the Bull, and animadversions on the account of the proceedings of the parliament of Paris. 7. He gave his assistance likewise to a new edition of Dr. Thomas James’s “Corruption of the Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers, by the Prelates of the Church of Rome for the maintenance of Popery;” and at the request of Mr. Watts he revised the version of “Philalethe & Philirene,” fitting it for the press. 8. “A brief declaration of the Lord’s Supper, written by Dr. Nicholas Ridley, bishop of London, during his imprisonment. Witfo some other determinations and disputations concerning the same argument, by the same author. To which is annexed an extract of several passages to the same purpose out of a book entitled * Diallecticon,' written by Dr. John Poynet, bishop of Winton in the reigns of Edward VI. and queen Mary,” 1688, 4to. 9. “The Enthusiasm of the Church of Rome demonstrated in some observations upon the Life of Ignatius Loyola,” 1688, 4to.

, an English divine of great name, was descended of an ancient and good family in the county of Salop, and was the sixth son of Christopher Whichcote, esq. at Whichcote-hall in the parish of Stoke, where he was born March 11, 1609-10. He was admitted of Emanuel-college, Cambridge, in 1626, and took the degrees in arts: that of bachelor in 1629; and that of master in 1633. The same year, 1633, he was elected fellow of the college, and became a most excellent tutor; many of his pupils, as Wallis, Smith, Worthington, Cra,­dock, &c. becoming afterwards men of great eminence. Jn 1636 he was ordained both deacon and priest at Buckden by Williams bishop of Lincoln; and soon after set up an afternoon-lecture on Sundays in Trinity church at Cambridge, which, archbishop Tillotson says, he served near twenty years. He was also appointed one of the university-preachers; and, in 1643, was presented by the master and fellows of his college to the living of North-Cadbury in Somersetshire. This vacated his fellowship; and upon this, it is presumed, he married, and went to his living; but was soon called back to Cambridge, being appointed to succeed the ejected provost of King’s-college, Dr. Samuel Collins, who had been in that office thirty years, and was also regius professor of divinity. This choice was perfectly agreeable to Dr. Collins himself; though not so to Dr. Whichcote, who had scruples about Accepting what was thus irregularly offered him: however, after some demurring, he complied, and was admitted pro-r vost, March 16, 1644. He had taken his bachelor of divinity’s degree in 1640; and he took his doctor’s in 1649. He now resigned his Somersetshire living, and was presented by his college to the rectory of Milton in Cambridgeshire, which was void by the death of Dr. Collins. Jt must be remembered, to Dr. Whichcote’s honour, that, during the life of Dr. Collins, one of the two shares out of the common dividend allotted to the provost was, not only with Dr. Whichcote’s consent, but at his motion, paid punctually to him, as if he had still been provost. Dr. Whichcote held Milton as long as he lived; though, after the Restoration, he thought proper to resign, and resume it by a fresh presentation from the college. He still continued to attend his lecture at Trinity, church with the same view that he had at first set it up; which was, to preserve and propagate a spirit of sober piety and rational religion in the university of Cambridge, in opposition to the style of preaching, and doctrines then in vogue: and he may be said to have founded the school at which many eminent (divines after the Restoration, and Tillotson among them, who had received their education at Cambridge, were formed, and were afterwards distinguished from the more orthodox by the epithet latitudinarian. In 1658 he wrote verses upon the death of Oliver Cromwell, which, his biographer supposes, were done entirely out of form, and not put of any regard to the person of the protector. Nor had Dr. Whichcote ever concurred with the violent measures of those times by signing the covenant, or by any injurious sayings or actions to the prejudice of any man. At the Restoration, however, he was removed from his provostship by especial order from the king; but yet he was not disgraced or frowned upon. On the contrary, he went to London, and in 1662 was chosen minister of St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, where he continued till his church was burned down in the dreadful fire of 1666. He then retired to Milton for a while; but was again called up, and presented by the crown to the vicarage of St. Lawrence Jewry, vacant by the promotion of Dr. VVilkins to the see of Chester. During the building of this church, upon invitation of the court of aldermen, in the mayoralty of sir William Turner, he preached before the corporation at Guildhall chapel, with great approbation, for about seven years. When St. Lawrence’s was rebuilt, he preached there twice a week, and had the general love and respect of his parish, and a very considerable audience, though not numerous, owing to the weakness of his voice in his declining age. A little before Easter in 1683, he went down to Cambridge; where, upon taking cold, he fell into a distemper, which in a few days put an end to his life. He died at the house of his ancient and learned friend Dr. Cuclworth, master of Christ’s-college, in May 1683 and was interred in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry. Dr. Tillotson, then lecturer there, preached his funeral-sermon, where his character is drawn to great advantage. Burnet speaks of him in the following terms: “He was a man of a rare temper; very mild and obliging. He had credit with somewhat had been eminent in the late times; but made all the use he could of it to protect good men of all persuasions. He was much for liberty of conscience; and, being disgusted with the dry systematical way of those times, he studied to raise those who conversed with him to a nobler set of thoughts, and to consider religion as a seed of a deiform nature (to use one of his own phrases) . In order to this, he set young students much on reading the ancient philosophers, chiefly Plato, Tully, and Piotin; and on considering the Christian religion as a doctrine sent from God, both to elevate and sweeten human nature, in which he was a great example as well as a wise and kind instructor. Cudworth carried this on with a great strength of genius, as well as a vast compass of learning.” Baxter numbers him with “the best and ablest of the conformists.”

In 1773 we find Mr. Whi taker the morning preacher of Berkeley chapel, London; to which office he had been appointed in November, by a Mr. Hughes; but in less than two months he was removed from that situation. This gave occasion to “The Case between Mr. W. and Mr. Hughes, relative to the Morning Preachership of Berkeley Chapel;” in which Mr. W. declares himself “unalterably determined to carry the matter into Westminster-hall.” But the fervour of his resentment threw him off his guard; and he expressed himself so indiscreetly, that his Case was considered as a libel by the Court of King’s Bench. During his residence in London, he had an opportunity of conversing with several of our most celebrated writers; among whom were Dr. Johnson, and Gibbon, the historian of the Roman Empire. It does not appear, indeed, that Johnson was much attached to Whitaker. Both strong in understanding, equally tenacious of opinion, and equally impassioned in conversation, it is not probable that they should amicably coalesce on all occasions. In the Ossianic controversy they were decidedly hostile. With Gibbon Mr.Whitaker was well acquainted; and the ms. of the first volume of “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” was sub r rnitted to his inspection. But he was greatly surprised when, as he read the same volume in print, that chapter which has been so obnoxious to the Christian world, was then first introduced to his notice! That chapter Gibbon had suppressed in tjie ms. overawed by Mr. Whitaker’s high character, and afraid of his censure. And, in fact, that the deist should have shrunk from his indignant eye, may well be conceived, when we see his Christian principle and his manly spirit in the rejection of a living of considerable value, which was at this time offered him by an Unitarian patron. Of his integrity, however, some recompense was now at hand: and about 1778, he succeeded as fellow of Corpus Christi college, to the rectory of RuanLanyhorne, one of the most valuable livings in the gift of that College; and into Cornwall he went, to reside upon his rectory. There, it might have been expected that retirement and leisure would greatly favour the pursuits of literature; and that, though “the converser” (to use an expression of Mr. Whitaker’s) had disappeared, the author would break forth with new energies. But Ruan-Lany-r home was, for several years, no tranquil seat of the muses. That pleasant seclusion was now the scene of unavoidable contest. Mr. W. had proposed a tithe-composition with his par shiontTs, by no means unreasonable. This they refused to pay: but he was steady to his purpose. A rupture ensued between the parties; the tithes were demanded in kind; disputes arose upon disputes; animosities were kindled; and litigations took place. That Mr. Whitaker was finally victorious, afforded pleasure to the friends of the rector, and to the friends of justice and truth; yet it was long before harmony was restored to Ruan-Lanyhorne. That his literary schemes had been so sadly interrupted, was the subject of general regret. But the conscientious pastor looked with a deeper concern to the spiritual welfare of his parishioners. He saw with sorrow their aversion to his preaching; their indifference to his instructions; their repugnance“to his authority; and” he laboured more abundantly;“till, after a few years, he had the satisfaction to perceive a visible alteration in the behaviour of the principal parishioners; and a mutual good understanding was established between the pastor and his flock. His cordial, his familiar manner, indeed, was always pleasing to those whom prejudice had not armed against him; and, in proportion as they became acquainted with his kind disposition, the transitoriness of his resentments, and, after injuries, his promptness to forgive, and anxious wish to be forgiven; they endeavoured more and more to cultivate his friendship, and at length loved and revered him as their father. Kothing can more fully display the warmth of his affections, his zeal as a minister of Christ, or his impassioned style of eloquence, than those” Sermons“upon death, judgment, heaven, and hell, which he published in 1783, after having preached them to his parishioners, we doubt not, with a voice and manner calculated to penetrate the conscience. That he should have published so little in the line of his profession, is perhaps to be regretted. His” Origin of Arianism,“however, is a large volume, full of erudition and ingenious argumentation. We have read no other work of Mr. W. in divinity, except” The Real Origin of Government“(expanded into a v considerable treatise, from a sermon which he had preached before bishop Buller, at his lordship’s primary visitation), and” The Introduction to FlindelPs Bible.“This has been much admired as a masterly piece of eloquence. In the mean time the antiquary was not at rest. His” Mary, queen of Scots,“published in 1787, in three octavo volumes; his” Course of Hannibal over the Alps“his” Ancient Cathedral of Cornwall;“and his” Supplement to Polwhele’s Antiquities of Cornwall;“furnish good evidence of an imagination continually occupied in pursuits which kindled up its brightest flame; though not always of that judgment, discretion, or candour, which (if human characters had been ever perfect) we should have expected from a Whitaker. But not even here were his antiquarian stores exhausted.” The Life of St Neot,“”The History of Oxford,“and” The History of London," were works all at once projected, and no sooner projected than executed in imagination, and more than half executed in reality.

, an eminent Oriental scholar, canon of Christ Church, Regius professor of Hebrew, and Laudian professor of Arabic in the university of Oxford, was born in 1746, of parents in low circumstances in Gloucester, where his father was a journeyman-weaver, and brought up his son to the same business. Being however a sensible man, he gave him what little learning was in his power at one of the charity-schools at Gloucester. This excited a thirst for greater acquisitions in the young man, who employed all the time he could spare in the study of such books as fell in his way. His attainments at length attracted the notice of a neighbouring gentleman of fortune, who sent him to the university of Oxford, where he was entered of Wadham college. He took the degree of M. A. Feb. 19, 1773; and about that time engaged in the study of the Oriental languages, to which he was induced by the particular recommendation of Dr. Moore, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. He had before acquired a tolerable share of Hebrew learning, by which his progress in the other Oriental languages was greatly facilitated. In 1775, he was appointed archbishop Laud’s professor of Arabic; on entering upon which office he pronounced a masterly oration, which was soon afterwards printed with the title of f ' De Utilitate Ling. Arab, in Studiis Theologicis, Oratio habita Oxoniis in Schola Linguarum, vii Id. Aprilis, 1775,“4to. He was at this time fellow of his college, being elected in 1774. In 1778, Mr. White printed the Syriac Philoxenian version of the Four Gospels (the ms. of which Dr. Gloster Ridley had given to New college), entitled, <c Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. Mss. Ridleianis in Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. repositis, nunc primum edita, cum Interpretatione et Annotationibus Josephi White,” &c. 2 vols. 4to. On November 15, 1778, he preached a very ingenious and elegant sermon before the university, which was soon afterwards printed, under the title of “A revisal of the English translation of the Old Testament recommended. To which is added, some account of an antient Syriac translation of great part of Origen’s Hexaplar edition of the LXX. lately discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan,” 4to. About this time he was appointed one of the preachers at Whitehall chapel. In 1779, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity; and in the same year published “A Letter to the bishop of London, suggesting a plan for a new edition of the LXX; to which are added, Specimens of some inedited versions made from the Greek, and a Sketch of a Chart of Greek Mss.” In 1780, Mr. White published, “A Specimen of the Civil and Military Institutes of Tjmour, or Tamerlane; a work written originally by that celebrated Conqueror in the Magul language, and since translated into Persian. Now first rendered from the Persian into English, from a ms. in the possession of William Hunter, M.D.; with other Pieces,” 4to. The whole of this work appeared in 1783, translated into English by major Davy, with Preface, Indexes, Geographical Notes, &c. by Mr. White, in one volume, 4to. In Easter term, 1783, he was appointed to preach the Bampton lecture for the following year. As soon as he was nominated, he sketched out the plan; and finding assistance necessary to the completion of it in such a manner as he wished, called to his aid Mr. Samuel Baclcork and Dr. Parr. Although his own share of these labours was sufficient to entitle him to the celebrity which they procured him, he bad afterwards to lament that he had not acknowledged his obligations to those elegant scholars, in a preface to the volume, when it was published. As soon as the lectures were delivered, the applause with which they were received was general throughout the university. They were printed the same year, and met with universal approbation. A second edition appeared in 1785; to which the author added a sermon, which he had recently preached before the university, on the necessity of propagating Christianity in the East Indies. Mr. White’s reputation was now established, and he was considered as one of the ablest vindicators of the Christian doctrines which modern times had witnessed. Lord Thnrlow, then lord chancellor, without any solicitation, gave him a prebend in the cathedral of Gloucester, which at once placed him in easy and independent circumstances. In 1787 he took his degree of D. D. and was looked up to with the greatest respect in the university, as one of its chief ornaments. In the year 1788, the death of Mr.Badcock was made the pretence for an attack on Dr. White’s character both as an author and a man, by the late Dr. R. B. Gabriel, who published a pamphlet, entitled, “Facts relating to the Rev. Dr. White’s Bampton Lectures.” By this it appears that there was found among the papers of the deceased Mr. Badcock, a promissory note for 500l. from Dr. White for literary aid; the payment of which was demanded, but refused by him on the ground that it was illegal in the first instance, as not having the words “value received,' 7 and, secondly, it was for service to be rendered in the History of Egypt, which the doctor and Mr. Badcock had projected. The friends of the deceased, however, were of a different opinion; and the doctor consented to liquidate the debt. This he informs us he did,” partly because he apprehended that his persisting to refuse the payment of it might tend to the disclosure of the assistance which Mr. Badcock had given him in the Bampton Lectures; and partly, because he was informed that the note, by Mr. Badcock’s death, became a part of his assets, and, as such, could legally be demanded.“But whoever reads Dr. White’s” Statement of Literary Obligations“must be convinced that he was under no obligation to have paid this money, and that his opponents availed themselves of his simplicity and the alarm which they excited for his literary character. Gabriel, however, a man neither of literary talents or character, was at the head of an envious junto who were determined to injure Dr.White if they could; and notwithstanding his payment of the money, printed all Mr, Badcock’s letters in the above pamphlet, in order, as he said, to vindicate the character of the deceased, as well as his own, both of which he ridiculously pretended had been assailed on this occasion. In consequence of this publication, Dr. White printed” A Statement of his Literary Obligations to the Rev. Mr. Samuel Badcock, and the Rev. Samuel Parr, LL.D,“By this it appeared, that, though Mr. Badcock’s share in the Lectures was considerable, yet that it was not in that proportion which had been maliciously represented, the plan of the whole, and the execution of the greatest part, being Dr. White’s, and Dr. Parr’s being principally literal corrections. This statement gave sufficient satisfaction to the literary world at large. But the malice of his enemy was not yet satiated, as may appear by the following correspondence, which having been circulated chiefly at Oxford, may be here recorded as an additional defence of Dr. White. ”A printed paper, entitled ‘Minutes of what passed at three interviews which lately took place between Dr. White and Dr. Gabriel in London and in Bath,’ and signed

R. B. Gabriel.

No farther steps were taken against the author of “Man-r ners;” the whole process, indeed, was supposed to be intended rather to intimidate Pope than to punish Whitehead; and it answered that purpose: Pope became cautious, “willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,” and Whitehead for some years remained quiet. The noise, however, which this prosecution occasioned, and its failure as to the main object, induced Whitehead’s enemies to try whether he might not be assailed in another way, and rendered the subject of odium, if not of punishment. In this pursuit the authors of some of the ministerial journals published a letter from a Cambridge student who had been expelled for atheism, in which it was intimated that Whitehead belonged to a club of young men who assembled to encourage one another in shaking off what they termed the prejudices of education. But Whitehead did not suffer this to disturb the retirement so necessary in his present circumstances, and as the accusation had no connection with his politics or his poetry, he was content to sacrifice his character with respect to religion, which he did not value, in support of the cause he had espoused. That he was an infidel seems generally acknowledged by all his biographers; and when he joined the club at Mednam Abbey, it mustbe confessed that his practices did not disgrace his profession.

In 1644 he was constituted lieutenant-governor of Windsor castle, and the same year he was again appointed one, of the commssioners for peace at Oxford. On this occasion the king expressed much esteem for Mr. vVmtelocke, and Mr. Holies, and said he believed them sincere in their wishes for peace. As they were about to take leave, the king desired they would set down in writing what they apprehended might be proper for him to reuiru in answer to the propositions that they had brought from the parliament, and what they thought most likely to promote a peace between turn and them. At first they were somewhat averse to this, thinking it rather inconsisU'n; i.i the trust repostd in tu m by parliament. But the king urging it, they at length complied with his request, and going into a private room, and disgiusing his huuVinteiocke wrote down wli.it ne and Holies judge i iu Ik iu r the sub-, stance of his majesty’s answer to t-,o piUjVi^iLs of peace they had brought, and left it upon the ublcj of his withdrawing-room. Fair as this proceeding might be considered by men really disposed to peace, it met with a very different reception from the parliamentary party. Lord Savile, who was then with the king at Oxford, but afterwards went over to the parliament, having heard of the transaction, sent to the House of Commons in July 1645, an accusation of high treason against Whitelocke and Holies. They were accordingly prosecuted, but after a long and strict examination, were acquitted by a vote of the House, July 21, of any misdemeanour in this business; and were left at liberty to prosecute Lord Savile, then a prisoner in the Tower, for the injury he had done them in this accusation. About this time Whitelocke was nominated attorney of the dutchy of Lancaster; and in 1645 was made steward of the revenues of Westminster college, and one of the commissioners of the admiralty. The same year he was appointed one of the commissioners at the treaty of Uxbricige, and attended there.

r,i.H.-w

* si r William 25

fWare, James ^ f.^ fi |i^. *.j. 137 * Robert,. ,. . . r 145

He was now, by particular appointment from the archbishop of Canterbury, writing his “Answer to the Admonition,” which requiring more leisure than his office as master of Trinity college could admit, he desired to leave the university, but this the 'other heads of houses succeeded in preventing. He had a little before expelled Cartwright from his fellowship for not taking orders in due time, according to the statute; and before the expiration of the year 1572 published his “Answer to the Admonition to the Parliament,” 4to. The “Admonition” was drawn up by Field, minister of Aldermary, London, and Mr. Wilcox. As archbishop Parker was the chief person who encouraged Whitgift to undertake the “Answer,” he likewise gave him considerable assistance, and other prelates and learned men were also consulted, and every pains taken to make it, what it has been generally esteemed, as able a defence of the Church of England against the innovations of the puritans, as bishop Jewel’s was against the doctrines of the Church of Rome. A second edition appeared in 1573, with the title “An answer to a certain libel, entitled An Admonition to the Parliament, newly augmented by the author, as by conference shall appear.” To this a reply being published by Cartwright, Dr. Whitgift published his defence, fol. 1574, Cartwright published in 1574, 4to, “The second Reply of T. C. against Dr. Whitgift’s second Answer touching Church-Discipline.” What the opinion of Dr. Whitaker, who was thought to be a favourer of puritawsm, was concerning tjiis book of Mr. Cartwright, will appear from the following passage in a Latin letter of his preserved by Dr. Richard Bancroftand sir George Paule in his “Life of archbishop Whitgift.” “I have read a great part of that book, which Mr. Cartwright hath lately published. I pray God I live not, if I ever saw any thing more loosely written, and almost more <$ildishly. It is true, that for words he hath great store, and those both fine and new; but for matter, as far as I can judge, he is altogether barren. Moreover, he doth not only think per-r versely of the authority of princes in causes ecclesiastical, but also flyeth into the papists holds, from whom he would be thought to dissent with <a. mortal hatred. But in this point he is not to be endured, and in other points also h& borroweth his arguments from the papists. To conclude, as Jerom said of Ambrose, he playeth with words, and is lame in his sentiments, and is altogether unworthy to be confuted by any man of learning.” And Whitgift, being advised by his friends to let Cartwright’s “Second Reply” pass as unworthy of his notice, remained silent.

About the same time, Dr. Whitgift appeared in opposition to a design then meditated, for abolishing pluralities, and taking away the impropriations and tithes from bishops and spiritual (not including temporal) persons, for the better provision of the poorer clergy. He did not, howv ever, proceed farther in this than to express his sentiments in private to the bishop of Ely, who had proposed the scheme, which does not appear to have been brought for-r ward in any other shape, probably in consequence of the arguments he advanced against it. In March 1577 he was made bishop of Worcester; and as this diocese brought him into the council of the marches of Wales, he was presently after appointed vice-president of those marches in the absence of sir Henry Sidney, lord president, and now lord-lieutentxnt of Ireland. In June following he resigned the mastership of Trinity college; and just before procured a letter from the chancellor, in order to prevent the practice then in use, of taking money for the resignation of fellowships.

His works are very voluminous, yet he seems not to have engaged in any great work. They are, more properly speaking, tracts, some of which were written in Latin, and some in English; some were on school-questions; others on subjects of more general knowledge; but the greatest part on divinity. Mr. Gilpin has given a list of the more remarkable. Bale has a more particular account. Some are preserved in Trinity and Corpus colleges, Cambridge, a few in Trinity college, Dublin, in the Bodleian, and in the British museum. Mr. Baber, in his late edition of the New Testament, has given the fullest and most accurate account of these. The following list comprises all that have been printed 1. “Trialogus,” a dialogue in Latin, between Truth, Falsehood, and Wisdom,“printed somewhere in Germany, about 1525, 4to, pp. 175. This is very scarce, having been mostly destroyed by the Romanists , but a new edition of it was printed at Frankfort, 1733, 4to. 2.” Wicklif’s Wicket, or, a learned and godly treatise of the Sacrament,“Norimberg, 1546, 8vo, and Oxford, 1612, 4to. 3.” The pathway to perfect knowledge, or Wickliffe’s Prologue to the Bible,“published by Robert Crowley, 1550, 12mo. 4.” The dore of the Holy Scripture,“1540, 8vo. 5.” De Christianorum villicatione,“in English, published in 1582, under the name of R. Wimbledon. 6.” A Complaint of John Wickliffe, exhibited to the king and parliament.“7.” A Treatise of John Wickliffe against the order of Friars.“These two were published together at Oxford in 1608, 4to, by Dr. James, from two ms copies, one in Bene't college, Cambridge, the other in the Bodleian library. 8.” Why poor Priests have no Benefices,“published by Mr. Lewis in his life of Wickliffe, Who has also published there, his Determination, Confessions, and large extracts from his works remaining in ms. together with his New Testament. His opinions are also particularly detailed in Dr, Thomas James’s” Apologie for John Wickliffe, shewing his conformitie with the pew Church of England;" collected chiefly out of his ms works in the Bodleian library, and printed at Oxford, 1608, 4to, now very scarce.

We have mentioned Lewis’s edition of Wickliffe’s New Testament. Of this a new, elegant, and very correct second edition was published in 1810 by the rev, Henry Hervey Baber, M. A. F. R. S. librarian of printed books in the British museum, in a 4to volume. To this are prefixed “Memoirs of the Life, opinions, and writings” of Wickliffe, to which we would refer our readers for much original information and ingenious research and a very learned “Historical account of the Saxon and English versions of the Scriptures, previous to the opening of the fifteenth century.” It was the intention of this excellent editor to have attempted an edition of Wickliffe’s translation of the Old Testament, but no sufficient encouragement, we add with surprize and shame, has yet been offered to so important an addition to our translations of the Holy Scriptures.

Mr. Noble, from whose “Memoirs of Cromwell” we have borrowed the above account, says that sir Thomas published in 1660 “Analecta Eborensia, or some remains of the ancient city of York,” &c. but this is a mistake. He only left a ms. account, under the title of <r Analecta Eboracentia or some remains of the ancient city of York, collected by a citizen of York.“Mr. Gough informs us that the above ms. was in the hands of Thomas Fairfax of Menston, eq, Sir Thomas began his researches in Charles I's time, and after the restoration ohWed to print this work, and dedicate it to the city of York, who seem to have refused it on account of the indifference he shewed to their interests when he represented them in Cromwell’s parliament. Upon this he is said to have expressly forbid his descendants to publish it. Besides the Menston ms. there was another copy at Durham, in the Shaftoe family, one of whom married a daughter of the author Mr. Drake had the use of one among the city records, and another from sir Richard Smyth of St. Edmund’s Bury, which he thinks was prepared by the author himself for the press, and might have passed through different hands on the death of lord Fairfax, and dispersion of his effects. Another copy, or perhaps one of those just mentioned, is among Mr. Gough’s topographical treasures in the Bodleian library. There are some of sir Thomas’s public speeches in Rushworth’s” Collections," and others, according to Wood, were printed separately.

At an early period of life he was a reviewer of the Philosophical Transactions, in which trust, as well as several others committed to his care and inspection, he so well acquitted himself, that he was solicited to become a member of the royal society; but this honour he very modestly declined, in a letter to the then president, remarking, amongst other things, “that his ambition had never led him to visit the metropolis; and if he accepted the honour of being one of that learned society, he should wish, not to be a passive, but an active member; to be which he supposed that it would be necessary for him to come forward in the world, which he had not the least inclination to do, preferring his village retirement infinitely beyond the `busy hum of men,‘ and to be styled `the humble village pastor,’ without the addition of the initials F. R. S.” He was intimately acquainted, by correspondence, with many learned men (for he scarcely ever saw any of them), particularly with Dr. Hutton, for whom he entertained a very high esteem.

The increase of his professional avocations, which had compelled him some time before to resign his office in the Finsbury Dispensary, led him, in 1800, to wish to lessen the fatigue of his duties at the Public Dispensary; and accordingly his friend and pupil, t)r. T. A. Murray, wa appointed his colleague in that year. This active and intelligent physician, through whose exertions, aided by the society for bettering the condition of the poor, the Fever institution of the metropolis was established, was unfortunately cut off in February 1802, by the contagion of fever, caught in the infected apartments of the first patients who were admitted into the institution. Dr. Willan, who had strenuously recommended this establishment, wat nominated one of its physicians extraordinary. In December 1803, finding his private practice incompatible with a proper attention to the concerns of the Dispensary, which he had now superintended for the space of nearly twenty-­one years, he resigned his office. The governors of the charity, in testimony of their gratitude for his services and esteem for his character, nominated him consulting physician, and made him a governor for life, and likewise presented him with a piece of plate, of the value of fifty guineas, inscribed with a testimonial of their attachment and respect .

During the troubles in Ireland, at the latter end of the reign of king James II. he found it necessary to return to London in 1687, and resided in London. Here he was of great use upon a very critical occasion. Some of the court agents at that time endeavoured to bring the dissenters in the city to address the king upon his dispensing with the penal laws. In a conference at one of their meetings upon that occasion, in the presence of some of the agents, Mr. Williams declared, “That it was with him past doubt, that the severities of the former reign upon the protestant dissenters were, rather as they stood in the way ^arbitrary power, than for their religious dissent, So it were better for them to be reduced to their former hardships, than declare for measures destructive of the liberties of their country; and that for himself, before he would concur in such an address, which should be thought an approbation pf the dispensing power, he would choose to lay down his liberty at his majesty’s feet.” He pursued the argument with such clearness and strength, that all present rejected the motion, and the emissaries went away disappointed. There was a meeting at the same time of a considerable number of the city clergy, waiting the issue of their deliberation, who were greatly animated and encouraged by this resolution of the dissenting ministers. Very recent experience has shewn how much Mr. Williams differs in this matter from his descendants, many of whom have been the professed advocates fqr what is called catholic eman r cipation.

* When about to visit that country in perhaps I make the time shorter than his official capacity, he called on Dr. it was. Such conversation I shall not Johnson and in the course of con- have again till I come back to the reversation lamented that he should be gions of Literature, and there Windunder the necessity of sanctioning ham is inter stellas luna. minores.“Alpractices of which he could not ap- though e have said that illness was prove.” Don't be afraid, sir,“said the cause of Mr. Windham’s resignathe tioctor, with a pleasant smile, tion, his biographer affords some rea­”you will soon in -ke a very pretty son to think that it really arose from rascal.“Dr. Johnson in a letter to the conscientious scruples which Dr. Dr. Bruckle.-'by, written an Ashbourne Johnson thought might soon vanish, in 1784 says:” Mr. Wjiuiham has and that it was owing to his being been here to see me he came, [ dissatisfied with some part of the lord think, forty miles ou of his Vay, lieutenaut’s conduct, and staid about a day aud a half; Although from the time of his coming into parliament, he usually voted with the opposition of that day, he never was what is called a thorough party-man, frequently deviating from those to whom he was in general attached, when, in matters of importance, his conscience directed him to take a different course from them; on which account his virtues and talents were never rightly appreciated by persons of that description, who frequently on this ground vainly attempted to undervalue him. After thq rupture between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, in consequence of the French revolution, Mr. Windham attached himself wholly to the latter, with whom he had for many years lived in the closest intimacy; and of whose genius and virtues he had always the highest admiration. Being with him thoroughly convinced of the danger then impending over his country from the measures adopted by certain classes of Englishmen, in consequence of that tremendous convulsion, he did not hesitate to unite with the duke of Portland, lord Spencer, and others, in accepting offices under the administration in which Mr. Pitt then presided. On this arrangement Mr. Windham was appointed secretary at war, with a seat in the cabinet, an honourable distinction which had never before been annexed to that office. This station he continued to fill with the highest reputation from that time (17S4) till 1801, when he, lord Spencer, lord Grenville, and Mr. Pitt, resigned their offi-r ces; and shortly afterwards Mr. Addington (now lord viscount Sidmouth) was appointed chancellor of the exchequer and first lord of the treasury. On the preliminaries of peace with France being acceded to by that statesman aod his coadjutors, in 1801, Mr. Windham made his celebrated speech in parliament, which was afterwards (April 1802) published, with an Appendix, containing a character of the Usurper of the French throne, which will transmit to posterity the principal passages of his life up to that period, in the most lively colours. On Mr. Addington being driven from the helm, in 1805, principally by the battery of Mr, Windham’s eloquence, a new administration was again formed by Mr. Pitt, which was dissolved by his death, in 1806; and shortly afterwards, on lord Grenville’s accepting the office of first lord of the Treasury, Mr. Windham was appointed secretary of state for the war department, which he held till his majesty in the following year thought fit to constitute a new administration. During this period he carried into a law his bill for the limited service of those who enlist in our regular army; a measure which will ever endear his name to the English soldiery. But it is not our purpose to detail the particular measures which either originated from him, or in which he took a part. This indeed would be impossible within any prescribed limits; and would involve the history of perhaps the whole of the war. It may suffice to notice that his genius and talents were universally acknoxvledged. He was unquestionably not inferior, in many respects, to the most admired characters of the age that is just gone by. He had been in his earlier years a very diligent student, and was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar. In his latter years, like Burke and Johnson, he was an excursive reader, but gathered a great variety of knowledge from different books, and from occasionally mixing, like them, with very various classes and descriptions of men. His memory was most tenacious. In his parliamentary speeches his principal object always was to convince the understanding by irrefragable argument, which he at the same time enlivened by a profusion of imagery, drawn sometimes from the most abstruse parts of science, but oftener from the most familiar objects of common life. But what gave a peculiar lustre to whatever he urged, was his known and uniform integrity, and a firm conviction in the breasts of his hearers, that he always uttered the genuine and disinterested sentiments of his heart. His language, both in writing and speaking, was always simple, and he was extremely fond of idiomatic phrases, which he thought greatly contributed to preserve the purity of our language. He surveyed every subject of importance with a philosophic eye, and was thence enabled to discover and detect latent mischief, concealed under the plausible appearance of public advantage. Hence all the clarnourers for undefined and imaginary liberty, and all those who meditate the subversion of the constitution under the pretext of Reform, shrunk from his grasp; and persons of this description were his only enemies. But his dauntless intrepidity, and his noble disdain of vulgar popularity, held up a shield against their malice; and no fear of consequences ever drove him from that manly and honourable course, which the rectitude and purity of his mind induced him to pursue. As an orator, he was simple, elegant, prompt, and graceful. His genius was so fertile, and his reading so extensive, that there were few subjects on which he could not instruct, amuse, and persuade. He was frequently (as has justly been observed) “at once entertaining and abstruse, drawing illustrations promiscuously from familiar life, and the recondite parts of science; nor was it unusual to hear him through three adjoining sentences, in the first witty, in the second metaphysical, and in the last scholastic.” But his eloquence derived its principal power from the quickness of his apprehension, and the philosophical profundity of his mind. In private life no man perhaps of any age had a greater number of zealous friends and admirers. In addition to his extraordinary ta-^ lents and accomplishments, the grace and happiness of his address and manner gave an irresistible charm to his conversation; and few, it is believed, of either sex (for his address to ladies was inimitably elegant and graceful) ever partook of his society without pleasure and admiration, or quitted it without regret. His brilliant imagination, his various knowledge, his acuteness, his good taste, his wit, his dignity of sentiment, and his gentleness of manner (for he never was loud or intemperate) made him universally admired and respected. To crown all these virtues and accomplishments, it mav be added, that he fulfilled all the duties. of life, the lesser as well as the greatest, with the most scrupulous attention; and was always particularly ardent in vindicating the cause of oppressed merit. But his best eulogy is the general sentiment of sorrow which agitated every bosom on the sudden s and unexpected stroke which terminated in his death. During the nineteen days of his sickness, his hall was daily visited by several hundred successive inquirers concerning the state of his health; and that part of Pall Mall in which his house was situated, was thronged with carriages filled with ladies, whom a similar anxiety brought to his door. Every morning, and also at a late hour every evening, when his physicians and surgeons attended, several apartments in his house were filled with friends, who anxiously waited to receive the latest and most accurate accounts of the progress or abatement of his disorder. This sympathetic feeling extended almost through every class, and even reached the throiio, for his majesty frequently inquired concerning the state of his health, pronouncing on him this high eulogy, that “he was a genuine patriot, and a truly honest man.” Of the fatal malady which put an end to his invaluable life, erroneous accounts have been published, but the fact was, that on the 8th of July 1809, Mr. Windham, returningon foot at twelve o'clock at niiht from the house of a friend, as he passed by the end of Conduit-street, saw a house on fire, and instantly hastened to the spot, with a view to assist the sufferers; and soon observed that the house of the Hon. Mr. Frederic North was not far distant from that which was then on fire. He therefore immediately undertook to save his friend’s library, which he knew to be very valuable. With the most strenuous activity he exerted himself for four hours, in the midst of rain and the playing of the fire-engines, with such effect that, with the assistance of two or three persons whom he had selected from the crowd assembled on this occasion, he saved four parts out of five of the library; and before they could empty the fifth book room, the house took fire. The books were immediately removed, not to Mr. Windham’s house, but to the houses of the opposite neighbours, who cook great care of them. In removing same heavy volumes he accidentally fell, and suffered a slight contusion on his hip, of which, however, he unfortunately took no notice for some months, when an indolent encysted tumour was formed, which, after due consultation, it was judged proper to cut out. The operation was accordingly performed apparently with success on May 17, 1810, but soon after unfavourable symptoms came on, and terminated fatally June 4, to the unspeakable regret of all who knew him.

In 1745, he was presented by Trinity college to the rectory of Rotherfield Greys, in the county and diocese of Oxford; and on May 10, 1748, he was appointed Radcliffe librarian. In 1750, he published his “Catalogue of the Coins in the Bodleian library,” folio, which he had designed, and taken subscriptions for, above twenty years before, but through the smallness of his income he was unable to bear the expense of engravings, &c. This work he dedicated to his friend and patron the earl of Guildford, and in it has given some yiews of his house and gardens at Ellesfield. After this period he resided chiefly in this pleasing retreat, and pursued his researches into antiquity. In 1758, he printed in 4to, “Some Enquiries concerning the first inhabitants, learning, and letters of Europe, by a member of the Society of Antiquaries, London;” and in 1764, another work in 4to, entitled “History and Chronology of Fabulous Ages considered.” No name is prefixed to these performances, but at the end of each we have the initials F. W. R. L. (Francis Wise, Radcliffe librarian). These were his last publications. He was after this period much afflicted with the gout, and lived quite retired at Ellesfield till his death, which happened Oct. 6, 1767. He was buried in the churchyard of that place, and by his own direction, no stone or monument perpetuates his memory. In his life-time he had been a benefactor to the Bodleian library by supplying from his own collections many deficiencies in the series of their coins; and after his death, his surviving sister, who resided at Oxford, and was his executrix, generously gave a large and valuable cabinet of his medals, &c. to the Radcliffe library.

These two plots having miscarried, and Wishart still continuing to preach with his usual boldness and success, the cardinal summoned a synod of the clergy to meet Jan. 11, 1546, in the Blackfriars church, Edinburgh, and to consider of means for putting a stop to the progress of heresy, and while thus employed, he heard that Wishart was in the house of Ormiston, only about eight miles from Edinburgh, where he was seized by treachery, and conducted to the castle of Edinburgh, and soon after to the castle of St. An-r drew’s. Here, being completely in the hands of the cardinal, he was put upon his trial March 1, before a convocation of the prelates and clergy assembled for that purpose in the cathedral, and treated with the utmost barbarity, every form of law, justice, or decency, being dispensed with. He endeavoured to answer the accusations brought against him, and to shew the conformity between the doctrines he had preached and the word of God; but this was denied him, and he was condemned to be burnt as an obstinate heretic, which sentence was executed next day on the castle green. The cardinal seems to have been sensible that the minds of men would be much agitated by the fate of this amiable sufferer, and even to have apprehended that some attempt might be made to rescue him from the flames. He commanded all the artillery of the castle to be pointed towards the scene of execution; and, either to watch the ebullitions qf popular indignation/to display his Contempt of the reformers, or to satiate himself by contemplating the destruction of a man, in whose grave he hoped that their principles would be buried, he openly, with the prelates who accompanied him, witnessed the melancholy spectacle. In many accounts which we have of Wishart’s death, it is mentioned that, looking towards the cardinal, he predicted, “that he who, frooi yonder place (pointing to the tower where he sat), beholdeth us with such pride, shall, within a few days, lie in the same as ignominiously as now he is seen proudly to rest.” In our account of Beaton we have noticed the evidence for this fact, and the opinion of historians upon it, to which may now be added the opinions of some able writers (noticed in our references) who have appeared since that article was drawn up. Concerning Wishart, we may conclude, with Dr. Henry, that his death was a loss to his persecutors as well as to his friends. If he had lived a few years longer, the reformation, it is probable, would have been carried on with more regularity and less devastation. He had acquired an astonishing power over the minds of the people; and he always employed it in restraining them from acts of violence, inspiring them with lave to one another, and with gentleness and humanity to their enemies.

, a good astronomer and mathematician, was born in 1728. He was maternally descended from the celebrated clock and watchmaker, Daniel Quare, in which business he was himself brotignt up, and was educated in the principles of the Quakers, all his progenitors for many generations having been of that community, whose simplicity of manners he practised through life. It appears that he cultivated the study of astronomy at a very early age, as he had a communication on that subject in the “Gentleman’s Diary” for 1741, which must have been written when he was thirteen years of age. Soon after this he became a frequent writer both in the Diaries and in the Gentleman’s Magazine, sometimes under his own name, but oftener with the initials G. W. only. In 1764 he published a map, exhibiting the passage of the moon’s shadow over England in the great solar eclipse of April 1, that year; the exact correspondence of which to the observations gained him great reputation. In the following year he presented to the commissioners of longitude a plan for calculating the effects of refraction and parallax, on the, moon’s distance from the sun or a star, to facilitate the discovery of the longitude at sea. Having taught mathematics in London for many years with much reputation, he was in 1767 elected F. R. S. and appointed head master of the royal naval academy at Portsmouth, where he died of a paralytic stroke in 1785, aged fiftyseven.

, a name well known among the readers of old English poetry, and revived, of late, by the taste and judgment of some eminent poetical antiquaries, was born at Bentworth, near Alton in Hampshire, June 11, 1588. He was the only son of George Wither of Bentworth (by Anne Serle), who was the second son of John Wither of Manydowne near W r otton St. Lawrence in that county, at which' seat Mr. Bigg Wither, the heir (not the heir male, hut the heir female, who has taken the name), still resides. The poet was educated under John Greaves of Colemore, a celebrated schoolmaster, whom he afterwards commemorated with gratitude in a poem published in 1613. About 1604- he was sent to Magdalen college, Oxford, under the tuition of John Warner, afterwards bishop of Rochester. Here he informs us, in the proemium to his “Abuses stript and whipt,” that he found the v art of logic, to which his studies were directed, first dull and unintelligible; but at the moment it began all at once to unfold its mysteries to him, he was called home “to Jiold the plough.” He laments that he was thus obliged to forsake “the Paradise of England” to go “in quest of care, despair, and discontent.”

, a polite scholar, and under-secretary of state in 1764, has a right to a place here, for his very curious “Essay on the original Genius of Homer.” Of the particulars of his life, the proper subject for our pages, we reluctantly confess ourselves ignorant; but shall observe, that in 1751, he made the tour of Greece, Egypt, and Palestine, in company with Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Bouverie; and at his return published a splendid work, in folio, entitled “The Ruins of Palmyra, otherwise Tedmor in the Desert,” being an account of the ancient and modern state of that place; with a great number of elegant engravings of its ruins by Fourdrinier, from drawings made on the spot. This was followed by a similar work respecting Balbec. Speaking of the abovementioned friends, he says, “Had I been so fortunate as to have enjoyed their assistance in arranging and preparing for the public the substance of our many friendly conversations on this subject (Homer) I should be less anxious about the fate of the following work: but, whatever my success may be in an attempt to contribute to the amusement of a vacant hour, I am happy to think, that, though I should fail to answer the expectations of public curiosity, I am sure to satisfy the demands of private friendship; and that, acting as the only sur^ vivor and trustee for the literary concerns of my late fellow-r travellers, I am, to the best of my judgment, carrying into execution the purpose of men for whose memory I shall ever retain the greatest veneration; and though I may do injustice to those honest feelings which urge me to this pious task, by mixing -an air of compliment in an act of duty, yet I must not disown a private, perhaps an idle consolation, which, if it be vanity to indulge, it would be ingratitude to suppress, viz. that, as long as my imperfect descriptions shall preserve from oblivion the present state of the Troade, and the remains of Balbec and Palmyra, so long will it be known that Dawkins and Bouverie were my friends.”

, a divine and poet, eldest son of Robert Woodford, of Northampton, gent, was born in the parish of All-hallows on the Wall, London, April 15, 1636; became a commoner of Waclham college in 1653; took one degree in arts in 1656; and in 1658 returned to the Inner Temple, where he was chamber-fellow with the poet Flatman. In 1660, he published a poem “On the return of king Charles II.” After that period, he lived first at Aldbrook, and afterwards at Bensted in Hampshire, ift^i married and secular condition, and was elected F. R. S. in Nov. 1664. He took orders from bishop Morley, and was soon after presented by sir Nicolas Stuart, bart. to the rectory of Hartley-Maudet in Hampshire. He was installed prebend of Chichester May 27, 1676; made D. D. by the diploma of archbishop Sancroft in 1677; and prebendary of Winchester, Nov. 8, 1680, by the favour of his great patron, the bishop of that diocese. He died in 1700. His poems, which have some merit, are numerous. His “Paraphrase on the Psalms, in five books,” was published in 1667, 4to, and again in 1678, 8vo. This “Paraphrase,” which was written in the Pindaric and other various sorts of verse, is commended by R. Baxter in the preface to his “Poetical Fragments,” 1681 and is called by others “an incomparable version,” especially by his friend Flatman, who wrote a Pindaric ode on it, and a copy of verses on Woodford’s “Paraphrase on the Canticles,” 1679, 8vo. With this latter paraphrase are printed, 1. “The Legend of Love, in three cantos.'. 12.” To the Muse,“a Pindaric ode. 3.” A Paraphrase upon some select Hymns of the New and Old Testament.“4.” Occasional compositions in English rhymes," with some translations out, of Latin, Greek, and Italian, but chiefly out of the last;. some of which compositions and translations were before falsely published by a too-curious collector of them, from very erroneous copies, against the will and knowledge of their author. Dr. Woodford complains, that several of his translations of some of the moral odes had been printed after the same incorrect manner.

Woodhead was considered as one of the ablest controversial writers, on the popish side, in his time, aqd some protestants have paid respect to his abilities and candour. Most of his works were printed at Mr. Obadiah Walker’s private press, and some of them have been attributed to him. Wood gives a long list of about twenty-three articles, some of which are translations. The principal of his original writings is his “Guide in controversies,” or more fully, “A rational account of the doctrine of catholics, concerning the ecclesiastical guide in controversies of religion: reflecting on the late writings of protestants, particularly of archbishop Laud, and doctor Stillingfleet, on this subject; in four discourses” under the initials R. H. 1666, 1667, and 1673, 4to. Wood adds, “Many stick not to say, which is a wonder to me^ that he was the author of” The Whole Duty of Man“and of all that goes under the name of that author.” The protestant writers with whom he was involved in controversy, and in whose lives or writings his name occurs, were, Peter Heylyn, Stillingfleet, archbishop Wake, Drs. Aldrich, Smalridge, Harrington, Tully, Hooper, and Whitby.

In the mean time Woodward’s “Essay” occasioned no small controversy. Some of its errors were pointed out by Dr. Martin Lister, in three distinct pieces; and Mr. Robinson, a clergyman of Cumberland, soon after published some “Observations on the natural history of the world of matter, and the world of life,” in which he accused Woodward of plagiarism, and mentioned the authors from whom, as he said, he had borrowed most of his notions. But these different works received an answer in a single treatise published by Mr. Harris, in 1697; and the dispute was compromised that same year, in a pamphlet written by Dr. Arbuthnot, in which, after an impartial examination of Woodward’s hypothesis, he decided that though it seemed liable to many just exceptions, yet the whole was not to be exploded. Hitherto the author himself had made no reply to any of the objections against his “Essay;” but in 1704, a Latin translation of it being published at Zurich, he was led into a controversy, by letters on the subject, with some of his learned correspondents abroad, and particularly with the celebrated Leibnitz. This controversy continued some years, and when ended, a fresh attack was made on our author’s hypothesis, by Elias Camerarius, professor of physic at Tubingen, in some Latin dissertations printed in 1712. On this Dr. Woodward published in 1714, “Naturalis historia telluris illustrata et aucta,” in the preface to which he declares, that what had been urged by his antagonists, before Camerarius, was not of such force as to deserve a distinct reply; that every thing considerable in their objections was now proposed by Camerarius, with some additions of his own entirely new, and that the present might be considered as a general answer. In this work, therefore, he supplied the main defects and omissions of his Essay, and endeavoured to vindicate his hypothesis. The dispute with Catnerarius was closed in a very friendly address from that learned professor, which was published in the German Ephemerides in 1717, though not without some intimation of his continuing still in his first sentiments. In 1726, Mr. Benjamin Holloway, F. R. S. having translated the “Naturalis Historia telluris” into English, doctor Woodward readily embraced this opportunity of strengthening his opinion by some additional papers with which he furnished the translator.

Dr. Woodward declined in his health a considerable time before he died; and though he had all along continued to prepare materials for his large work, relating to the Natural History of the Earth, yet it was never finished; but only some collections, said to have been detached frooi it, were printed at different times, as enlargements upon particular topics in his essay. He was confined first to his house, and afterwards to his bed, many months before his death. During this time, he not only drew up instructions for the disposal of his books and other collections, but alsocompleted and sent to the press his “Method of Fossils,” in English; and lived to see the whole of it printed, except the last sheet. He died in Gresham-college April 25, 1728; and was buried in Westminster-abbey, where is a monument to his memory. After his death, the two following* works were published, 1. “Fossils of all kinds, digested into a Method suitable to their mutual relation and affinity,” &c. 8vo. 2. “A Catalogue of Fossils in the Collection of John Woodward, M. D.” in 2 vols. 8vo. By his last will, he founded a lecture in the university of Cambridge, to be read there upon his “Essay towards the Na-r tural History of the Earth, his Defence of it, his Discourse of Vegetation, and his State of Physic;” for which he ordered lands of 150l. per annum in South-Britain to be purchased and conveyed to that university, and out of this a hundred pounds per annum to the lecturer, who, after the death of his executors Dixie Windsor, Hugh Bethel, Richard Graham, esqrs. and colonel Richard King, is to be chosen by the archbishop of the province, the bishop of the diocese, the presidents of the College of Physicians and of the Royal Society, the two members of parliament, and the whole senate of the university. This lecturer to be a bachelor; to have no other preferment to read four lectures a year in English or Latin, of which one is to be printed; to have the custody of the two cabinets of fossils given by the doctor to the university, to shew them three days in ach week gratis; and to be allowed ten pounds per annum for making experiments and observations, and keeping correspondence with learned men. Some of these conditions it would not be easy to fulfil, yet the professorship continues, and has been held by men of talents. Dr. Conyers Middleton was the first appointed to the office, who opened the lectures with an elegant Latin oration in praise of the founder, and upon the usefulness of his institution.

* It does not appear very clearly Clarke, to persuade him to go with me whether this was at the intercession of to lord Townsend (th‘e secretary of Wbiston. Winston informs us of his state) but he refused, alledging that having applied sto theattorney-gene- the report would then go abroad, that ral, sir Philip Yorke, who said that he the kmij supported blasphemy. Howwould not’ proceed unless the secretary ever, no farther progress was made i of state sent himan order so to do. Mr. Woolston’s trial. “1 then,” addsWhiston, “went to Dr. foundation of the letter, to raise spiritual meanings, and to allegorize by way of moral application; and they did this,­not only upon the miracles of Christ, but upon almost all the historical facts of the Old and New Testament: but they never denied the miracles or the facts. This strange and enthusiastic scheme of Woolston was offensive enough of itself, but infinitely more so from his manner of conducting it; for he not 'only argues against the miracles of Christ, but treats them in a most ludicrous and outrageous way: expressing himself in terms of astonishing insolence and scurrility. Such conduct raised a general disgust: and many books and. pamphlets, berth from bishops and inferior clergy, appeared against his discourses; and a second prosecution was commenced and carried on with vigour, against which there seemed to be now little or no opposition, he having by his disingenuity of argument and scurrility of manner, excluded himself from all the privileges of a fair reasoner. At his trial in Guildhall before the lord chief-justice Raymond, he spoke several times himself; and among other things urged, that” he thought it very bard to be tried by a set of men, who, though otherwise very learned and worthy persons, were yet no morejudges of the subjects on which he wrote than he himself was a judge of the most crabbed points of law.“He was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Iool He purchased the liberty of the rules of the King’s Bench, where he continued after the expiration of the year, being unable to pay the fine. Dr. Samuel Clarke had begun his solicitations at court for the releasement of Woolston, declaring that he did not undertake it as an approver of his doctrines, but as an advocate for that liberty which he himself had always contended for; but he was hindered from effecting it by his death, which happened soon after Woolston’s commitment. The greatest obstruction to his deliverance from confinement was the obligation of giving security not to offend by any future writings, he being resolved to write again as freely as before. While some supposed this author not in earnest, but meaning to subvert Christianity under a pretence of defending it; others believed him disordered, and not perfectly in his right mind; and many circumstances concurred to persuade to the latter of these opinions; but how, in either case, a prosecu-r tion for blasphemy comes to* be considered as persecution for religion, remains yet to be explained. Such a construction, however, appears to have been put upon it by the Clarkes and Lardners of those days, and by their successors in our own. As the sale of Woolston’s books was very great (for such blasphemies will find readers as well as advocates for the publication of them), his gains arising from them must have been proportionable; but he defrayed all the expences, and those not inconsiderable, to which his publishers were subjected by selling. He died January 27, 1732-3, after an illness of four days; and, a few minutes before his death, uttered these words:” This is a struggle which all men must go through, and which I bear not only patiently, but with willingness." His body was interred in St. George’s church-yard, Southwark.

, a man of taste and learning, was born Nov. 28, 1701, in the parish of St. Botolph, Aldersgate. His father, sir Daniei Wray, was a London citizen, who resided in Little Britain, made a considerable fortune in trade (as a soap-boiler), and purchased an estate in Essex, near Ingatestone, which his son possessed aftr r him. Sir Daniel served the office of sheriff for that county, and was knighted in 1708 on presenting a loyal address to queen Anne. His son was educated at the Charter-house, and was supposed in 1783 to have been the oldest survivor of any person educated there. In 1718 he went to Queen’s college, Cambridge, as a fellow commoner. He took his degree of B. A. in 1722, after which he made the tour of Italy, accompanied by John, earl of Morton, and Mr. King, the son of lord chancellor King, who inherited his title. How long he remained abroad between 1722 and 1728 is not precisely ascertained, except by the fact that a cast in bronze, by Pozzo, was taken of his profile, in 1726, at Home. It had this inscription upon the reverse, “Nil actum reputans, si quid superesset agendum,” which line is said to have been a portrait of his character, as he was in all his pursuits a man of uncommon diligence and perseverance. After his return from his travels, he became M.A.-in 1728, and was already so distinguished in philosophical attainments, that he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society in March 1728-9. He resided however generally at Cambridge, though emigrating occasionally^ to London, till 1739, or 1740, in which latter year, January 1740-41, he was elected F. S. A. and was more habitually a resident in town. In 1737 commenced his acquaintance and friendship with the noble family of Yorke; and in 1745, Mr. Yorke, afterwards earl of Hardwicke, as teller of the exchequer, appointed Mr.Wray his deputy teller, in which office he continued until 1782, when his great punctuality and exactness in any business he undertook made the constant attendance of the office troublesome to him. He was an excellent critic in the English language; an accomplished judge of polite literature, of virtft, and the fine arts; and deservedly a member of most of our learned societies; he was also an elected trustee of the British Museum. He was one of the writers of the “Athenian Letters” published by the earl of Hardwicke; and in the first volume of the Archaeologia, p. 128, are printed “Notes on the walls of antient Rome,” communicated by him in 1756; and “Extracts from different Letters from Rome, giving an Account of the Discovery of a most beautiful Statue of Venus, dug up there 1761.” He died Dec. 29, 1783, in his eighty. second year, much regretted by his surviving friends, to whose esteem he was entitled by the many worthy and ingenious qualities. which he possessed. Those of his heart were as distinguished as those of his mind; the rules of religion, of virtue, and morality, having regulated his conduct from the beginning to the end of his days. He was married to a lady of merit equal to his own, the daughter of Barrel, esq. of Richmond. This lady died at Richmond, where Mr.Wray had a house, in May 1803. Mr. Wray left his library at her disposal and she, knowing his attachment to the Charter-house, made the governors an offer of it, which was thankfully accepted and a room was fitted up for its reception, and it is placed under the care of the master, preacher, head schoolmaster, and a librarian. The public at large, and particularly the friends of Mr. Wray, will soon be gratified by a memoir of him written by the lare George Hardinge, esq. intended for insertion in Mr. Nichols’s “Illustrations of Literature.” This memoir, of which fifty copies have already been printed for private distribution, abounds with interesting anecdotes and traits of character, and copious extracts from Mr. Wray’s correspondence, and two portraits, besides an engraving of the cameo.

He was succeeded in dignity and estate by his eldest son, sir Charles Wyndham, who succeeded to the titles of earl of Egremont, and baron of Cockermouth, by the death of his grace, Algernon, duke of Somerset, without heir male, who had been created earl of Egremont, and baron of Cockermouth, in the county of Cumberland, by George II. with limitation of these honours to \r Charles Wyndham. His lordship, whilst he was a commoner, was elected to parliament as soon as he came of age, for the borough of Bridgewater in Somersetshire. He sat afterwards for Appleby, in Westmoreland, Taunton,. in Somersetshire, and Cockermouth, in Cumberland. In 1751 he was appointed lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Cumberland. In April 1761 he was nominated the first of the three plenipotentiaries on the pnrfc of Great Britain to the intended congress at Augsburg, for procuring a general pacification between the belligerent powers; and in the same year was constituted one of the principal secretaries of state, in which it was his disadvantage to succeed Mr. Pitt (afterwards lord Chatham). In 1762 he was made lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Sussex. He died of an apoplectic fit in June 1763. He was succeeded by his son, George, the second and present earl of Egremont.

, usually mentioned with the epithet Ephesius, from the place of his birth, to distinguish him from the above Xenophon Socraticus, is the author of five books “Of the loves of Habrocomes and Anthia,” which are entitled “Ephesiaca,” although they have no more to do with the town of Ephesus than the “Ethiopics of Heliodorus,” which is a love-romance also, have with the affairs of Ethiopia. His late editor thinks that Xenophon lived about the end of the second, or the beginning of the third century of the Christian jera. It is at least very probable that he is one of the most ancient of the Authores Erotici, from the purity and simplicity of his style, in which there is little of those affected ornaments so common in writers of a later period. The only Mss. in which the history of Habrocomes and Anthia has been transmitted to posterity, is preserved in the Benedictine abbey of Monte Cassino, at Florence, and is written in so small a character, that the whole work is comprised in no more than nine leaves, 4to. The first person who copied it was Salvini, who likewise, in 1723, translated this romance into the Italian language. Of the Greek text itself, the first edition was prepared by the celebrated physician Anthony Cocchi, and published at London in 1726, 4to, although his late editor baron Locellst asserts that London was put in the title instead of Florence. But the fact was that it was printed at London by Bowyer, as is proved in Mr. Nichols’s life of that celebrated printer. Two other editions, of 1781 and 1793, have likewise appeared, but they are all incorrect. At length in 1796 the work was rendered not unworthy of the classical scholar, by baron Locella, a gentleman, not a philologist by profession, but a man of business, who dedicated the leisure of his declining years to the Greek muses. His edition, which was elegantly printed at Vienna, 4to, is entided, “Xenophontis Ephesii de Anthia et Habrooome Ephesiacorum libri quinque, Gr. et Lat. Recensuit et supplevit, emendavit, Latine vertit, ad notationibus aliorum et suis illustravit, indicibus instruxit Aloys. Emerie. Liber Baro Locella, S. C. R. A. M. a cons, aulae.”

After he had executed the high office of lord high chancellor about seventeen years, in times and circumstances of accumulated difficulty and danger, he was, in April 1754, advanced to the rank of an earl of Great Britain, with the titles of viscount Royston, and earl of Hardwicke. This favour was conferred unasked, by his sovereign, who treated him through the whole of his reign with particular esteem and confidence, and always spoke of him in a manner which shewed that he set as high a value on the man as on the minister. His resignation of the great seal, in November 1756, gave ah universal concern to the nation, however divided at that time in other respects. But he still continued to serve the public in a more private station; at council, at the House of Lords, and upon every occasion where the course of public business required it, with the same assiduity as when he rilled one of the highest offices in the kingdom. He always felt and expressed the truest affection and reverence for the laws and constitution of his country: this rendered him as tender of the just prerogatives invested in the crown, for the benefit of the whole, as watchful to prevent the least incroachment upon the liberty of the subject. The part which he acted in planning, introducing, and supporting, the “Bill for abolishing the heritable Jurisdictions in Scotland,” and the share which he took, beyond what his department required of him, in framing and promoting the other bills relating to that country, arose from his zeal to the Protestant succession, his concern for the general happiness and improvement of the kingdom, and for the preservation of this equal and limited monarchy which were the governing principles of his public conduct through life. And these, and other bills which might be mentioned, were strong proofs of his talents as a legislator. In judicature, his firmness and dignity were evidently derived from his consummate knowledge and talents; and the mildness and humanity with which he tempered it, from the most amiable disposition. He was wonderfully happy in his manner of debating causes upon the bench. His extraordinary dispatch of the business of the court of chancery, increased as it was in his time beyond what had been known in any former, was an advantage to the suitor, inferior only to that arising from the acknowledged equity, perspicuity, and precision, of his decrees. The manner in which he presided in the House of Lords added order and dignity to that assembly, and expedition to the business transacted there. His talents as a speaker in the senate as well as on the bench, were universally admired: he spoke with a natural and manly eloquence, without false ornaments or personal invectives; and, when he argued, his reasons were supported and strengthened by the most apposite cases and examples which the subject would allow. His manner was graceful and affecting; modest, yet commanding his voice peculiarly clear and harmonious, and even loud and strong, for the greater part of his time. With these talents for public speaking r the integrity of his character gave a lustre to his eloquence, which those who opposed him felt in the debate, and which operated most powerfully on the minds of those who heard him with a view to information and convictions, is<

His lordship through life was attentive to literature, and produced several useful works, besides the assistance which he rendered on various occasions to authors who have acknowledged their obligations to him. On the death of queen Caroline, in 1738, he inserted a poem amongst the Cambridge verses printed on that occasion. Whilst a member of the university of Cambridge, he engaged with several friends in a work similar to the celebrated Travels of Anacharsis into Greece, by Monsieur Barthelemi. It was entitled “Athenian Letters; or the Epistolary Correspondence of an Agent of the Kin r of Persia residing at Athens during the Peloponnesian War,” and consisted of letters supposed to have been written by contemporaries of Socrates, Pericles, and Plato. A few copies were printed in 1741 by Bettenbam, and in 1782 a hundred copies were reprinted; but still the work was unknown to the public at large. At length, an elegant, correct, and authenticated edition, under the auspices of the present earl of Hardwicke, was published in 1798, in two volumes, 4to, and an advertisement prefixed to the first volume, attributes its having been so long kept from the public to an ingenuous diffidence which forbad the authors of it, most of them extremely young, to obtrude on the notice of the world what they had considered merely as a preparatory trial of their strength, and as the best method of imprinting on their own minds some of the immediate subjects of their academical studies. The friends who assisted in this publication were, the hon. Charles Yorke, afterwards baron Morden, who died in 1770; Dr. Rooke, master of Christ’s college, Cambridge; Dr. Green, afterwards bishop of Lincoln; Daniel Wray, esq., the rev. Mr. Heaton, of Bene't college; Dr. Heberden, Henry Coventry, esq., the rev. Mr. Laury, Mrs. Catherine Talbot, Dr. Birch, and Dr. Salter.

He was now far advanced in years: but amidst the languors of age, he still occasionally employed his pen, producing in 1759, “Conjectures on original Composition.” This was followed by “Resignation, a Poem,” in which there is a visible decay of powers. In 1761 he was appointed clerk of the closet to her royal highness the princess dowager of Wales, which he did not long enjoy. He died at Welwyn, April 1765, in the eighty-fourth year of his age, and was buried under the communion-table of his parish church. After the death of his * r ite, he thought proper to entrust the whole management of his household affairs to a housekeeper, who is said to have attained an improper ascendancy over him, when his faculties began to decay. He left the bulk of his property to his son, of whom, as well as of his father, much additional information may be found in our references, and may yet be procurable perhaps elsewhere. Notwithstanding the narrative by sir Herbert Croft in Johnson’s collection, which is not always candid, nor always perspicuous, there is room for a new life of Young, and anew appreciation of his character, both as a man and a writer. In his conduct there were great inconsistencies, but the foundation appears to have been good. He sought long for happiness, but seems to have found it at last, where only it can be found.

, the very learned bishop of Clonfert and Kilmacduacb, in Ireland, was of a respectable family in the county of Hoscommon, where he was born in 1750. He was admitted of Trinity college, Dublin, in 1766, and was elected fellow of x the college in 1775, and took orders. He became early an enthusiastic admirer of the Newtonian philosophy, and even at his examination for his fellowship, displayed an unexampled knowledge and comprehension of it; but although it was his favourite subject, his actjve mind, in rapid succession, embraced the most dissimilar objects; and these he pursued with unceasing ardour, amidst his various duties as a fellow and tutor, and the freest intercourse with society, which he was formed at once to delight and instruct. His love of literary conversation, and the advantages he experienced from it. in the pursuit of science, led him early to engage in forming a society whose chief object was the improvement of its members in theological learning. It consisted of a small number of his most intimate college friends, and continued to exist for a series of years, with equal reputation and advantage. Out of this association grew another, somewhat more extensive, whose labours were directed to S'lilosophical researches, and in the formation of which r. Young was also actively engaged: and this itself became the gerrn of the royal Irish academy, which owes its existence to the zeal and exertions of the members of that society, among whom Dr. Young was particularly distinguished. In the intervals of his severer studies, he applied himself to modern languages: and the result of his labours may be seen in the transactions of the royal Irish academy, to which he also contributed largely on mathematical and philosophical subjects. Besides these he published the following learned and ingenious works: 1. “The phendmena of Sounds and Musical Strings,” 1784, 8vo. 2. “The force of Testimony,” &c. 4to. 3. “The number of Primitive Colours in Solar light on the precession of the Equinoxes; Principles of Natural philosophy,” 1800, 8vo, being his last publication, and containing the substance of his lectures in the college.

That in his several employments he acquitted himself with great application and industry,' appears from the catalogue of his works, which consist of “Regiae Bibliothecae Matritensis codices Graeci Mss. Joan Yriarte ejusdem custos excussit, recensuit, notis, indicibus, auecdotis pluribus evulgatis illustravit,” 1769, folio, vol. I.; vol II. hr left in manuscript “Regiae Mat. Bibl. Geographica & Chronologica,” 1729; “R. M. Bibl. Mathematical 1730; corrections and improvements of Antonio’s” Bibliotheca Hispana,“and Don Miguel Casiri’s” Bibl. Arabieo-Hispana-­Escurial;“” Palseographia Graeca,“a ms. 4to; his collection of Spanish treaties of peace; near 600 articles intended for a Castilian Dictionary; a treatise on the orthography and grammar of the Castdian idiom; his immense collections of materials for a general alphabetical library, in many folios, of all the authors who have treated of the geography, history, politics, literature, biography, trade, &c. of Spain and for a history of the Canary islands, which was 10 consist of six quarto volumes at least. He wrote also a great number of articles inserted in the” Diario de los literatos,“a critical journal. In 1774, his” Select Works“were published in 2 vols. 4to,” for the benefit of literature, at the expence of several noblemen, lovers of genius and merit.“This collection,” Obras Sueltas,“contains some works of imagination, his sacred and prophane Latin poems, or translations; and his Latin translations of a number of Castilian proverbs, and of some oratorical and critical discourses. Juan de Yriarte was probably related to Don Tomas de Yriarte, whose ingenious” Literary Fables“were published at Madrid in 1782, and were lately well translated into English verse by John Belfour, esq; but of this Don Tomas we have not found any biographical memoir. His poem” La Musica" has gone through many editions, and is much admired in Spain.

, queen of Palmyra, and one of the most illustrious women that have swayed the sceptre, declared herself to be descended from the Ptolemies and Cleopatras. She was instructed in the sciences by the celebrated Longinus, and made such progress, that she spoke the Egyptian tongue in perfection, as well as the Greek. She also understood the Latin, although she scrupled to speak it. She protected learned men; and was so well acquainted with the history of Egypt, and that of the East, that she wrote an epitome of it. This princess had also read the Greek and Roman history, and was justly admired for her beauty, chastity,-sobriety, and extraordinary courage. She married Odenatus, a Saracen prince, and contributed greatly to the most signal victories he gained over the Persians, which preserved the East to the Romans, when, after the taking of Valerian, it was highly probable that Sapr would dispossess them of all that country. Gallienus, in return for such important services, declared her Augusta, and, in the year 264, created Odenatus emperor. After her husband’s death, Zenobia reigwed with great bravery and glory; for, her sons Herennianus and Timor laus, on account of their tender age, had only the name and ornaments of emperor. She preserved the provinces that had been under the obedience of Odenatus, conquered Egypt, and was preparing to make other conquests, when the emperor Aurelian made war against her; and, having gained two battles, besieged her in Palmyra, where r!enobia defended herself with great bravery; but at length, finding that the city would be obliged to surrender, she quitted it privately; but the emperor, who had notice of her escape, caused her to be pursued with such diligence, that she was overtaken just as she got into a boat to cross the Euphrates. This happened in the year 272. Aurelian spared her life, although he made her serve to adorn his triumph, and gave her a country-house near Rome, where she spent the remainder of her life in tranquillity with her children. Her daughters formed noble alliances, and her race was not extinct in the fifth century. All histonsnl bestow the most magnificent praises on this princess; and yet they suspect her of having consented that Maeonius should assassinate Odenatus, her husband, for shewing [ess fondness for her sons than for Herod, his son by another wife. She has also been censured for protecting Paulus Samosatenus, who had been condemned in the council of Antioch, and by that means preventing his being driven from his church so long as she reigned. But P. Jouve, who published her Life, 1753, 12mo, endeavours, not unsuccessfully, to clear her from all these imputations. She must be distinguished from Zenobia, wife of Hhadamistus, king of Iberia, who fled from the Armenians, and took her with him. This princess being near the time of her delivery, begged Rhadamistus to kill her. He reluctantly yielded to Zenobia’s earnest entreaties, and wounded her with a sword; but she was found by some shepherds, who saved her life, in the year 51. Zenobia being afterwards conducted to Tiridates, he ordered her to be treated as a queen.

An epidemic fever, which reigned in Switzerland in 1763, 1764, and 1765, and which, in the latter year, changed into a dysentery, produced his “Treatise on the Dysentery,” which gained him great reputation. This was the last medical work that he composed, though he continued to write short treatises on occasional topics. It should not be omitted, that his friend Dr. Tissot, by addressing to him his own letters on the prevailing epidemic, contributed to extend his professional fame. Nor was he less attentive to his interest, although in some efforts to serve him he was disappointed. At length, however, the vacant pest of physician to the king of Great Britain at Hanover, which had been offered to Dr. Tissot, was, by his interest, procured for Zimmermann; and being accepted, he removed to Hanover in 1768. But this new situation was far from procuring the accession of happiness wbich was expected from it. A disorder which had commenced while he resided at Brugg (and which appears to have been a species of hernia), constantly increased, and was accompanied with acute pains, which sometimes rendered irksome the execution of his duty. Besides some incidental c\r t -> cumstances, which occasioned a number of those slight irritations he would not have felt when in health, but which the state of his nerves now rendered insupportable, he had the misfortune, in 1770, of losing his wifr-; a Deprivation which affected him very sensibly. His complaint growing worse, his friend Tissot advised him to seek the best cliirurgical assistance, and persuaded him, in 1771, to go to Berlin, and put himself under the care of the celebrated Meckel. He was received into this surgeon’s house, and underwent a, successful operation. The time of his convalescence was ope of the most agreeable in his life. He made a number of acquaintances among distinguished characters at Berlin, was presented to the king, and was honoured by him with particular notice. His reception on his return to Hanover was equally pleasing. He now again plunged into business, and again professional and domestic cares brought on hypochondriacal complaints. In 1775, by way of vacation, he made a journey to Lausanne, where his daughter was placed for education, and spent five weeks with Dr. Tissot. As this was the first time that these intimate friends, of twenty years standing, had seen each other, it will be pleasing to translate some of Tissot, his biographer’s, observations on this circumstance: “I had, at length, the pleasure of seeing him; I shall not say of knowing him. I found that I knew him already;‘ th’6 friend conversing reminded me every moment of the friend writing, and perfectly resembled the portrait which I had drawn of him. I saw the man of genius, who, with promptitude seizes an object under all its relations, and whose imagination knows how to present it under jhe most agreeable form. His conversation tfas instructive, brilliant, sprinkled with a number of interesting facts and pleasant narrations, and animated by an expressive countenance. He spoke of every thing with great precision. When medicine was our subject, as was frequently the case, I found his principles solid, and his notions clear. When I took him to see patients under severe indispositions, or read to him consultations on the mOst difficult cases, T always found in him the greatest sagacity in discovering Causes, and explaining symptoms, great justice in forming indications, and an exquisite judgment in the choice of remedies, of which he employed few, but all efficacious. In fine, on every occasion, I saw the man of sincerity, rec­”titude, a,nd virtue. His stay was much shorter than I could have wished."

Eight volumes of Zollikofer’s “Sermons,” which are in the highest estimation in Germany, have lately been known in this country by a translation, of great purity and elegance, by the rev. William Took e, F. R. S. who has prefixed some memoirs of the author to the “Sermons on the Dignity of Man,” published in 1802. In these sermons there is no display of the theological learning of their author, and little that is explanatory in regard to peculiar texts of scripture; they discuss not human creeds and systems of divinity: their aim is to explain the nature and grounds of Christian morality, and reconcile it with the best dictates of philosophy to reveal man to himself; and they discover a talent seldom possessed a knowledge of the human heart.