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

These transactions passed chiefly during the building of the college, which the aged founder often inspected. In 1442, it was capable of receiving the warden and fellows, who had hitherto been lodged at the archbishop’s expense in a hall and chambers hired for that purpose. The chapel was consecrated, early in the same year, by the founder, assisted by the bishops of Lincoln (Alnwick), Worcester (Bourchier), Norwich (Brown), and others who were suffragans. The whole of the college was not finished before the latter end of 1444, and the expense of building, according to the accounts of Druell and Keys, may be estimated at 41 56l. 6s. 3jd The purchases of ground, books, chapel furniture, &c. amounted to 4302l. 3s. Sd. The subsequent history of this college is amply detailed in our authorities.

, a divine of the church of England, celebrated for his controversial talents, was the son of William Chillingworth, citizen, afterwards mayor of Oxford, and born there October 1602. He was baptized on the last of that month, Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, but then fellow of St. John’s -college, being his godfather. After he had been educated in grammar learning at a private school in that city, he was admitted a scholar of Trinity-college, June 2, 1618, and elected fellow June 10, 1628; after having taken his degrees of B A. and M. A. in the regular way. He did not confine his studies to divinity: he applied himself with great success to mathematics; and, what shews the extent of his genius, he was also accounted a good poet. Accordingly, sir John Suckling has mentioned him in his Session of the Poets"

In the mean time he had refused preferment, which was offered him by sir Thomas Coventry, keeper of the great seal, because his conscience would not allow him to subscribe the thirty-nine articles. Considering that, by subscribing the articles, he must not only declare, willingly, and ex animo, that every one of the articles is agreeable to the word of God, but also that the book of common prayer contained nothing contrary to the word of God; that it might lawfully be used; and that he himself would use it: and conceiving at the same time that, both in the articles and in the book of common prayer, there were some things repugnant to the scripture, or which were not lawful to be used, he fully resolved to lose for ever all hopes of preferment, rather than comply with the subscriptions required. One of his chief objections to the common prayer related to the Athanasian dreed, the damnatory clauses of which he lodked upon as contrary to the word of God. Another objection concerned the fourth corttmantlmentj which, by the prayer subjoined to it, f; Lord, have mercy updn us,“&c. appeared to him to be mfcde a part of the Christian law, and consequently to bind Christians to the observation of the Jewish sabbath. These scruples of but authoi'j about subscribing the articles, furnished his antagonist Knott with an objection against him, as an improper champion for the protestant caw&e. To which he answers in the close of his preface to the” Religion of Protestants.“He expresses here not only his readiness to subscribe, but also what he conceives to be the sense and intent of such a subscription; that is, a subscription of peace or union, and not of belief or assent, as he formerly thought it was. This was also the sense of archbishop Laud, with which he could not then be unacquainted; and of his friend Sheldon, who laboured to convince him of it, and was, no doubt, the person that Brought him at last into it. For there is in Des Maizeaux’s Account, a letter which he wrote to Sheldon upon this occasion; and it seems there passed several letters between them upon this subject. Such at least is the apqjqgy which his biographers have offered for his ready subscription, after it had appeared to every impartial person that his objections were insurmountable. The apology we tiring as weak, as his subscription was strong and decisive, running in the usual language,” omnibus hisce articulis et singulis in iisdem contentis volens, et ex animo subscribe, et conspnsum meum iisdem praebeo.“The distinction, after such a declaration, between peace and union, and belief and assent, is, we fear, too subtle for common understandings. When, by whatever means, he had got the better of his scruples, he was prompted to the chancellorship of Salisbury, with the prebend of Bri$wqrth, in Northamptonshire, annexed and, as appears from the subscription-book of the church of Salisbury, upon July 20, 1638, complied with the usual subscription, in the manner just related. About the same time he was appointed master of Wigston’s hospital, in Leicestershire” both which,“says Wood,” and perhaps some other preferments, he kept to his dying day.“In 1646 he was deputed by the chapter of Salisbury their proctor in convocation. He was likewise deputed to the convocation which met the same year with the new parliament, and was opened Nov. 4. In 1642 he was put into the roll with some others by his majesty, to be created D. D.; but the civil war breaking out, he never received it. He was zealously attached to the royal party, and at the siege of Gloucester, begun Aug. 10, 1643, was present in the king’s army, where he advised and directed the making certain engines for assaulting the town, after the manner of the Roman testudines cum pluteis, but which the success of the enemy prevented him from employing. Soon after f having accompanied the lord Hopton, general of the king’s forces ip the west, to Arundel castle, in Sussex, and choosing to repose himself in that garrison, on account of an indisposition, occasioned by the severity of the season, he was taken prisoner Dec, 9, 1643, by the parliament forces under the command of sir William Waller, when the castle surrendered. But his illness increasing, and not being able to go to London with the garrison, he obtained leave to be conveyed to Chichester; where he was lodged in the bishop’s palace; and where, after a short illness, he died. We have a very particular account of his sickness and death, written by his great adversary, Mr. Cheynell, in his” Chillingworthi Novissima, or the sickness, heresy, death, and burial, of William Chillingworth, &c.“London, 1644, 4to. Cheynell accidentally met him at Arundel castle, and frequently visited him at Chichester, till he died. It was indeed at the request of this gentleman, that our author was removed to Chichester; where Cheynell attended him constantly, and behaved to him with as much compassion and charity as his bigotted and uncharitable principles would suffer him. There is no reason, however, to doubt the truth of Cheynell’s account, as to the most material circumstances, which prove that Chillingworth was attended during his sickness, and provided with all necessaries, by one 1 lieutenant Golledge, and his wife Christobel, at the command of the governor of Chichester; that at first he refused the assistance of sir William Waller’s physician, but afterwards was persuaded to admit his visits, though there were no hopes of his recovery; that his indisposition was increased by the abusive treatment he met with from most of the officers who were taken prisoners with him in Arundel castle, and who looked upon him as a spy set over them and their proceedings; and that during his whole illness he was often teased by Cheynell himself, and by an officer of the garrison of Chichester, with impertinent questions and disputes. And on the same authority we may conclude that lord Clarendon was misinformed of the particulars of his death for, after having observed that he was taken prisoner in Arundel castle, he adds” As soon as his person was known, which would have drawn reverence from any noble enemy, the clergy that attended that army prosecuted him with all the inhumanity imaginable; so that by their barbarous usage, he died within a few days, to the grief of all that knew him, and of many who knew him not, but by his book, and the reputation he had with learned men." From this it appears that the noble historian did not know, or had forgot, that he was sent to Chichester, but believed that he died in Arundel castle, and within a few days after the taking of it by sir William Waller. Wood tells us also, that the royal party in Chichester looked upon the impertinent discourses of Cheynell to our author, as a shortening of his days. He is supposed to have died Jan. 30, though the day is not precisely known, and was buried, according to his own desire, in the cathedral church of Chichpster, Cheynell appeared at his funeral, and gave that instance of bigotry and buffoonery which we have related already under his article.

For his character Wood has given the following: “He was a most noted philosopher and orator, and, without doubt, a poet also; and had such an admirable faculty in reclaiming schismatics and confuting papists, that none in his time went beyond him. He had also very great skill in mathematics. He was a subtle and quick disputant, and would several times put the king’s professor to a push. Hobbes of Malmesbury would often say, that he was like a lusty fighting fellow, that did drive his enemies before him, but would often give his own party smart back-blows; and it was the current opinion of the university, that he and Lucius lord Falkland,” who by the way was his most intimate friend, “had such extraordinary clear reason, that, if the great Turk or devil were to be converted, they were able to do it. He was a man of little stature, but of great soul: which, if times had been serene, and life spared, might have done incomparable services to the church of England.” Archbishop Tillotson has spoken of him in the highest terms: “I know not how it comes to pass,” says that eminent prelate, “but so it is, that every one that offers to give a reasonable account of his faith, and to establish religion upon rational principles, is presently branded for a Socinian; of which we have a sad instance in that incomparable person Mr. Chillingworth, the glory of this age and nation: who, for no other cause that I know of, but his worthy and successful attempts to make the Christian religion reasonable, and to discover those firm and solid foundations upon which our faith is built, has been requited with this black and odious character. But, if this be Socinianism, for a man to inquire into the grounds and reasons of Christian religion, and to endeavour to give a satisfactory account why he believes it, I know no way, but that all considerate and inquisitive men, that are above fancy and enthusiasm, must be either Socinians or atheists.” Mr. Locke has also spoken of Chillingworth with equal commendation. In a small tract, containing “Some thoughts concerning reading and study for a gentleman,” after having observed that the art of speaking well consists chiefly in two things, namely, perspicuity and right reasoning, and proposed Dr. Tillotson as a pat tern for the attainment of the art of speaking clearly, he adds: “Besides perspicuity, there masjt-be also right reasoning, without which, perspicuity serves but to expose the speaker. And for attaining of this, I should propose the constant reading of Chillingworth, who, by his example, will teach both perspicuity and the way of right reasoning, better than any book that I know: and therefore will deserve to be read upon that account over and over again; not to say any thing of his argument.”

Besides the works already noticed, there are extant of Mr. Chillingworth’s, “Nine Sermons on occasional subjects,” 1664, 4to; and a tract called “The Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy,” 1644, 4to. It was also added to an edition of a tract on the same subject, by Dr. Morton, bishop of Durham, entitled “Confessions and proofs of protestant divines,” 1644, 4to. A volume of his manuscript tracts, chiefly of the controversial kind, is among the manuscripts in the Lambeth library, which archbishop Tenison purchased of Mr. Henry Wharton. Mr. Chillingworth left his relations residuary legatees to his property, after a few trifling legacies, and the sum of 400l. to the corporation of Oxford for charitable purposes.

and Attributes of God: in answer to a Eternity, as also the Self-Existence, Postscript, &c. By the author of the necessary Existence, and Unity of the first Defence,“London, 1732, in 8vo. DivineNature, by Edmund Law,M. A.” The same year was published a pam- the other entitled, “An Examination pbk-t, entitled,” Dr. Clarke’s notion of Dr. Clarke’s notion of Space, by Joof Space examined ia vindication of seph Clarke, M. A.“Mr. John Clarke; the translation of archbishop King’s author of the two Defences of Dr. ' Origin of Evil:V being an answer to Clarke’s Demonstration, having pubtwo late pamphlets entitled, A Defence, lished a third, Mr. Joseph Clarke pub­&c.” Mr. John Jackson published a lished “A farther Examination of Dr. piece, entitled,” The Existence and Clarke’s notions of Space, with some Unity of God, proved from his Nature considerations on the possibility of and Attributes: being a Vindication of Eternal Creation: in reply to Mr. 3)r. Claike’s Demonstration of the John Clarke’s third Defence, &c. To lleing and Attributes of God,“London, which are added, some remarks oa 1734, in 8vo. The same year appeared Mr. Jackson’s exceptions to Dr. Clarke’s two pamphlets, printed at Cambridge notions of Space examined in his Exone entitled,” An Enquiry into the v istence and Unity,“&c, ideas x of Space, Time, Immensity, and remarks on a pretended demonstration of the immateriality and natural immortality of the soul, in Mr. Clarke’s answer to his late epistolary discourse, &c. They were afterwards all printed together; and the answer to Toland’s Amyntor added to them. In the midst of all these labours he found time to shew his regard to mathematical and physical studies, which were not a little improved by the friendship of sir Isaac Newton, at whose request he translated his” Optics" into Latin in 1706. With this version sir Isaac was so highly pleased, that he presented him with the sum of 500l. or 100l. for each child, Clarke having then five children.

A considerable number of these “Select Psalms and Hymns” having been dispersed by the Society for promoting Christian knowledge, before the alteration of the doxologies was taken notice of, he was charged with a design of imposing upon the society, whereas it was answered that the edition of them had been prepared by him for the use of his own parish only, before the society had thoughts of purchasing any of the copies: and as the usual forms of doxology were not established by any legal authority, ecclesiastical or civil, in this he had not offended. Robinson, however, bishop of London, so highly disliked this alteration, that he thought proper to publish a letter to the incumbents of all churches and chapels in his diocese, against their using any new forms of doxology. The letter is dated Dec. 26, 1718, and begins thus: “Reverend brethren, there is an instance of your care and duty, which I conceive myself at this time highly obliged to offer, and you to regard, as necessary for the preservation of the very foundations of our faith. Some persons, seduced, I fear, by the strong delusions of pride and self-conceit, have lately published new forms of doxology, entirely agreeable to those of some ancient heretics, who impiously denied a trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead, I do therefore warn and charge it upon your souls, as you hope to obtain mercy from God the Father through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord, and by the sanctification of the Holy Ghost, three persons and one God blessed for ever, that you employ your best endeavours to prevail with your several flocks, to have a great abhorrence for the abovementioned new forms, and particularly that you do not suffer the same to be used, either in your churches, or in any schools, where you are to prevent that most pernicious abuse, &c.” This letter was animadverted upon by Whiston, in “A Letter of Thanks to the right reverend the lord bishop of London, for his late letter to his clergy against the use of new forms of Doxology, &c.” Jan. 17, 1719; and in a pamphlet entitled “An humble apology for St. Paul and the other apostles; or, a vindication of them and their doxologies from the charge of heresy. By Cornelius Paets,” 1719. Soon after came out an ironical piece entitled “A Defence of the Bishop of London, in answer to Winston’s Letter of Thanks, &c. addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury. To which is added, a Vindication of Dr. Sacheverell’s late endeavour to turn Mr. Winston out of his church.” Winston’s Letter of Thanks occasioned likewise the two following pieces; viz. “The lord bishop of London’s Letter to his Clergy vindicated, <kc. by a Believer, 1719;” and “A seasonable review of Mr. Winston’s account of primitive Doxologies, &c. by a Presbyter, &c. 1719.” This presbyter was supposed to be Dr. William Berriman. To the latter Whiston replied in a second letter to the bishop of London; and the author of “The seasonable Review, &c.” answered him in a second Review, &c. As to Clarke’s conduct in this affair, we are not surprised to find Whiston declaring it to be one of the most Christian attempts towards somewhat of reformation, upon the primitive foot, that he ever ventured upon: but he adds,“that the bishop of London, in the way of modern authority, was quite too hard for Dr. Clarke, in the way of primitive Christianity.”

, a learned divine and antiquary, was horn at Haghmon abbey, in Shropshire, in the year 1696, and was educated at Shrewsbury school, under the care of Mr. Lloyd, for whom he always entertained the greatest regard. From Shrewsbury he was removed to St. John’s college, in the university of Cambridge, where he became a fellow, Jan. 22, 1716-17. His election at so early a period of life was owing to a number of vacancies, occasioned by the removal of several non-juring fellows, in consequence of an act of parliament. He commenced B. A. 1715; in 1719 became M. A.; and the reputation which he acquired when young was such, that he was chosen to be chaplain to Dr. Adam Ottley, bishop of St. David’s: but this prelate dying in 1723, he does not appear to have received any advantage from the appointment. He was afterwards domestic chaplain to Thomas Holies, duke of Newcastle; in which situation he did not continue long, as in 1724, he was presented by archbishop Wake to the rectory of Buxted, in Sussex, without any solicitation of his own, partly on account of his extraordinary merit, and partly from a regard to the special recommendation of the learned Dr. William Wotton, whose daughter he married. In 1738, he was made prebendary and residentiary of the prebend of Hova Villa in the cathedral church of Chichester, Some years before this he had given to the public a specimen of his literary abilities, in a preface to his father-in-law Dr. Wotton’s “Leges Walliae Ecclesiastical,” 1730; and it is thought that an excellent “Discourse on the Commerce of the Romans,” which was highly extolled by Dr. Taylor, in his “Elements of the Civil Law,” came either from his hand or from that of his friend Mr, Bowyer. It is reprinted in that gentleman’s “Miscellaneous Tracts,” and in “The Progress of Maritime Discovery,” by Mr. Clarke’s grandson. But Mr. Clarke’s chief work was “The Connexion of the Roman, Saxon, and English Coins; deducing the antiquities, customs, and manners of each people to modern times; particularly the origin of feudal tenures, and of parliaments: illustrated throughout with critical and historical remarks on various authors, both sacred and profane,” 1767, 4to, dedicated to the duke of Newcastle. It had been perused in manuscript by Arthur Onslow, esq. speaker of the house of commons, who honoured him with some useful hints and observations: but he was chiefly indebted to Mr. Bowyer, who superintended the publication, drew up several of the notes, wrote part of the dissertation on the Roman sesterce, and formed an admirable index to the whole. By this work our author acquired great reputation. Mr. Pinkerton, in his Essay on Medals, says that a student cannot begin with a better book in this science.

In 1768 Mr. Clarke obtained from archbishop Cornwallis permission to resign the rectory of Buxted (after having held it more than thirty-four years), to his son Edward, through the unsolicited interest of the late marquis Cornwallis, who recollected on this occasion the intimacy that had subsisted between himself and the rev. Edward Clarke in the island of Minorca. In June 1770, he was installed chancellor of the church of Chichester, to which office the rectories of Chittingley and Pevensey are annexed; and in August that year was presented to the vicarage of Amport. These preferments he did not long enjoy, as he died Oct. 21, 1771. In the “Anecdotes of Bowyer” are many letters and extracts of letters, written to that learned printer and other persons, by Mr. Clarke, which exhibit him to great advantage as a man of piety, a friend, and a scholar. Besides the writings already mentioned, Mr. Clarke joined with Mr. Bowyer in the translation of Trapp’s Lectures on poetry, and in annotations on the Greek Testament; and was the author of several of the notes subjoined to the English version of Bleterie’s Life of the Emperor Julian. He left behind him a considerable number of manuscripts, among which are some volumes of excellent sermons, the best of which were given to the late Ashburnham, bishop of Chichester, and at his death were inadvertently burnt with some other papers. Bishop Bagot had strongly recommended the publication of a selection of Mr. Clarke’s sermons.

, a nonconformist divine of considerable celebrity, and one of the tutors of archbishop Tiilotson, was the son of Robert Clarkson of Bradford in Yorkshire, where he was born February 1622, and educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge^and was some time fellow of that college. He was then tutor to Tiilotson, who succeeded him in his fellowship in 1651. He was, according to Baxter, a divine of extraordinary worth for solid judgment, healing moderate principles, acquaintance with the fathers, great ministerial abilities, and a godly upright life. He held for some time the living of Mortlake in Surrey, from which he was ejected for nonconformity in August 1662. After this he shifted about, according to Neal, from one place of obscurity to another, until, in 1682, he was chosen co-pastor with Dr. Owen, whom he succeeded the year following. He died June 14, 1686. Of his works, which principally consist of occasional Sermons, and a volume of “Sermons” in folio, the most remarkable were, one entitled “No evidence of Diocesan Episcopacy in the primitive times,” 1681, 4to, in answer to Dr. Stillingfleet; and another on the same subject, printed after his death, under the title of “Primitive Fpiscopacy,” 1688; this was answered by Dr. Henry Maurice in 1691, in his “Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy.” Tiilotson, notwithstanding Clarkson’s nonconformity, always preserved a very high respect for him.

Besides these works, there are preserved some pieces of Clemens, of a smaller kind; as an homily entitled “Quis dives salvetur?” What rich man can be saved? Paris, 1672, and Oxford, 1683, with some other fragments in Greek and Latin. All these have been printed in the latter editions of his works; the best of which is that published in two volumes, folio, by Potter, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, at Oxford in 1715, a most splendid and elaborate edition.

, one of the popes so called, whose proper name was Bertrand de Gouth, or de Goth, was appointed bishop of Comminges, then archbishop of Bourdeaux by Boniface VIII. and afterwards elected pope at Perugia, June 5, 1305. The ceremony of his coronation was performed at Lyons, Sunday, November 10, but interrupted by a wall giving way, from being overloaded with spectators: by which accident John II. duke of Bretany was ^killed, the king wounded, and the tiara thrown from the pope’s head. This accident was considered as a presage of the misfortunes which afflicted Italy and all Christendom during the pontificate of Clement V. He was the first pope who resided at Avignon. In 1311, he held the general council of Vienne, appropriated to himself the first year’s revenue of all the English benefices, which was the origin of first fruits, abolished the order of templars, and made the collection of what are called the “Clementine Constitutions” of which there are some scarce editions; Mentz, 1460, 1467, and 1471, fol. They formed afterwards part of the body of canon law. Clement V. died at Roquemaure on the Rhone, April 20, 1314, as he was going to Bourdeaux for change of air. It is generally allowed that he was a reproach to the church, and the high office he held in it.

In 1696 he published the two first volumes of what is said to have been his Favourite work, his “Ars Critica,” to which he added, in 1699, his “Epistolae Criticae & Ec clesiasticae,” as a third volume. The censures he passes upon Quintus Curtius at the end of the second volume, involved him in a controversy with certain critics; and Perizonius in particular. His third volume is employed chiefly in defending himself against exceptions which had been made by the learned Dr. Cave to some assertions in the tenth volume of his “Bibliotheque Universelle,” and elsewhere, Le Clerc had said, that Cave, in his “Historia Literaria,” had concealed many things of the fathers, for the sake of enhancing their credit, which an impartial historian should have related; and that, instead of lives of the fathers, he often wrote panegyrics upon them; Le Clerc had also asserted the Arianism of Eusebius. Both these assertions Cave endeavoured to refute, in a Latin dissertation published at London, in 1696, which, with a defence of it, was reprinted in the second edition of his “Historia Literaria.” To this dissertation Le Clerc’s third volume is chiefly an answer and the first six letters, containing the matters of dispute between him and Cave, are inscribed to three English prelates, to whom Le Clerc thought fit to appeal for his equity and candid dealing; the first and second to Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury; the third and fourth to Burnet, bishop of Salisbury; and the fifth and sixth to Lloyd, bishop of Worcester. The seventh, eighth, and ninth, are critical dissertations upon points of ecclesiastical antiquity; and the tenth relates to an English version of his additions to Hammond’s annotations on the New Testament; wherein the translator, not having done him justice, exposed him to the censure of Cave and other divines here. At the end of these epistles, there is addressed to Limborch, what he calls an ethical dissertation, in which this question is debated, “An semper respondendum sit calurnniis theologorurn;” but the previous question should undoubtedly have been whether the answers of his opponents deserved the name of calumnies? The fourth edition of the “Ars Critica,” which had been corrected and enlarged in each successive edition, was printed at Amsterdam in 1712.

In 1694, he published his “Life of Cardinal Richelieu,” 2 vols. 8vo, of which a second edition appeared in 1696, and a third in 1714. In 1696 he also published two tracts on “Lotteries,” and on “Incredulity.” In 1697, his “Compendium of Universal History” appeared, and although merely an abridgment of Petavius, has been found so useful as to pass through several editions. In 1698, he published his Latin translation of Hammond’s “Paraphrase and Notes on the New Testament,” 2 vols. fol. but took many liberties, as already noticed, with Hammond’s sentiments. This was again reprinted in 1714. In 1699, he published, with a dedication to Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, his “Harmonia Evangelica,” Gr. and Lat. and in the same year the first of his “Parrhasiana” or thoughts upon various subjects, moral and literary. This does not appear to have given universal satisfaction, and involved him in a long dispute with Bayle on the principles of the Manicheans, and in another with the same gentleman, on the system of plastic natures advanced by Cudworth and Dr. Grew. We are not of opinion that a longer account of these disputes would now be very interesting, yet those who have patience to peruse the several attacks and replies of the combatants, will be frequently struck with their talents, ingenuity, and perseverance.

, third earl of Cumberland, and father to the preceding, was very eminent for his skill in navigation. He was born at Brougham castle, We*stmoreland, Aug. 8, 1558, and educated at Peterhouse, Cajnbridge, where his tutor was the celebrated John Whitgift^ afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In this place he applied himself chiefly to the study of the mathematics, to which his genius led him, and by which he became qualified for the several great expeditions he afterwards undertook. His first public employment, of a melancholy kind indeed, was in 1586, when he was one of the peers who sat in judgment upon Mary queen of Scots. But having a greater inclination to act by sea than by land, and, according to the fashion of the times, being bent on making foreign discoveries, and defeating the ambitious designs of the court of Spain, then preparing the armada that was to conquer England, he fitted out, at his own charge, a little fleet, consisting of three ships and a pinnace, with a view to send them into the South Sea, to annoy the Spanish settlements there. They sailed from Gravesend, June 26, 1586, and from Plymouth Aug. J7; but were forced back hy contrary winds into Dartmouth, from whence putting out again on the 29th, they fell in with the coast of Barbary the 17th September, and the next day sailed into the road of Santa Cruz. On the 25th they came to the river Oro, just under the northern tropic, where they anchored. Searching upwards the next day, they found that river to be as broad all the way for fourteen or fifteen leagues, as at the mouth, which was two leagues over; but met with no town nor house. On the last of September they departed for Sierra Leone; where they arrived the 2 1st of October, and going on shore, they burned a town of the negroes, and brought away to their ships about fifteen tons of rice; and having furnished themselves with wood and water, they sailed the 2 1st of November from Sierra Leone, making the straights of Magellan. The 2d of January 1587 they discovered land; and on the 4th of that month fell in with the American shore, in 30 deg. 40 min. south lat. Continuing their course southward, they took, January 10, not far from the river of Plata, a small Portuguese ship; and the next day another; out of which they furnished themselves with what necessaries they wanted. The 12th of January they came to Seal Island, and two days after to the Green Island, near which they took in water. Returning to Seal Island, a consultation was held on the 7th of February, whether they should continue their course for the South Sea, and winter in the straights of Magellan, or spend three or four months upon the coast of Brazil, and proceed on their voyage in the spring. The majority being for the former, they went as far as 44 degrees of southern latitude. But meeting with storms and contrary winds, they took a final resolution, on the 21st of February, to return to the coast of Brazil. Accordingly they fell in with it the 5th of April, and, after taking in water and provisions in the bay of Camana, came into the port of Baya the llth. Eight Portuguese ships being there, they found means to carry off four of them, the least of which were of a hundred and thirty tons, notwithstanding all the resistance made by the enemy; and also brought a supply of fresh provision from the shore. In this spirited manner, the earl undertook no less than eleven expeditions, fitted out at his own expence, in which he made captures to a prodigious amount 5 and, on his return, was graciously received by his royal mistress, who created him knight of the garter in 1591. In 1601 he was one of the lords that were sent with forces to reduce the earl of Essex to obedience. He departed this life at the Savoy in London, Oct. 30, 1605, and was buried at Skipton, in Yorkshire, the 30th of March following; where a fine toinb was afterwards erected to his memory.

In 1732, she wrote a poem on occasion of “the Busts set up in the Queen’s Hermitage,” which was afterwards printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine, for May 1737, with some alterations, which she thought to its disadvantage. About two years after, she wrote “Remarks upon some writers in the controversy concerning the foundation of Moral Duty and Moral Obligation; particularly the translator of archbishop King’s Origin of Moral Evil, and the author of the Divine Legation of Moses: to which are prefixed, some cursory thoughts on the controversies concerning necessary existence, the reality and infinity of space, the extension and place of spirits, and on Dr. Watts’s notion of substance.” These remarks continued in manuscript till the year 1743, when they were printed in “The History of the Works of the Learned.” She had the misfortune this year to lose a daughter; and it appears also, that she had at this time a son in Germany, in some office connected with the army, and who was afterwards clerk of the cheque at Chatham.

, a learned Dominican, and bishop of Dardania in partibus, was born at St. Calais on the Maine, in 1574. He rose by his merits to the first charges of his order, and died in 1623, after having been named to the bishopric of Marseilles, by Lewis XIII. He was eloquent in his sermons, and wrote ^Hh purity, considering the age. His principal pieces are a Roman history from Augustus to Constantine, folio, which was read with pleasure in the seventeenth century. It was published in 1647, fol. He translated Florus, and was chosen by Henry IV. of Francej at the recommendation of cardinal du Perron, to answer the book which James I. of England had published; and at the instance of Gregory XV. he wrote against Duplessis Mornay, and Marc. Anton, de Dominis, archbishop of Spalatro his answer to the latter was entitled “Pro sacra monarchia ecclesiae catholic^, &c. libri quatuor Apologetici, adversus Rempublicam M. A. de Dominis, &c.” Paris, 1623, 2 vols. fol.

After this marriage, by which he became allied to some of the noblest houses in the kingdom, preferments flowed in upon him apace. The cities of Coventry and Norwich chose him their recorder; the county of Norfolk, one of their knights in parliament; and the house of commons, their speaker, in the thirty-fifth year of queen Elizabeth. The queen likewise appointed him solicitor-general, in 1592, and attorney-general the year following. Some time after, he lost his wife, by whom he had ten children; and in 1598 he married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Jord.Burleigh, afterwards earl of Exeter, and relipt of sir William Hatto.n. As this marriage was the source of many troubles to both parties, so the very celebration of it occasioned no small noise and disquiet, by an unfortunate circumstance that attended it. There had been the same year so much notice taken of irregular marriages, that archbishop Whitgift had signified to the bishops of his province to prosecute strictly all that should either offend in point of time, place, or form. Whether Coke looked upon his own or the lady’s quality, and their being married with the consent of the family, as placing them above such restrictions, or whether he did not advert to them, it is certain that they were married in a private house, without either banns or license; upon which he and his new married lady, the minister who officiated, Thomas lord Burleigh, and several other persons, were prosecuted in the archbishop’s court; but upon their submission by their proxies, were absolved from excommunication, and the penalties consequent upon it, because, says the record, they had offended, not out of contumacy, but through ignorance of the law in that point. The affair of greatest moment, in which, as attorney-general, he had a share in this reign, was the prosecution of the earls of Essex and Southampton, who were brought to the bar in Westminster-hall, before the lords commissioned for their trial, Feb. 19, 1600. After he had laid open the nature of the treason, and the many obligations the earl of Essex was under to the queen, he is said to have closed with these words, that, “by the just judgment of God, he of his earldom should be Robert the last, that of a kingdom thought to be Robert the first.”

, a person of considerable learning in the sixteenth century, was born at Godshill in the Isle of Wight, and educated in Wykeham’s school near Winchester. From thence he was chosen to New college, Oxford, of which he became perpetual fellow in 1523, and studying the civil law, took the degree of bachelor in that faculty, March 3, 1529-30. He then travelled into Italy, and improved himself in his studies at Padua, being a zealous Roman catholic, but upon his return to England, he acknowledged king Henry VIII. to be the supreme head of the church of England. In 1540, he took the degree of doctor of the civil law; and the same year resigned his fellowship, being then settled in London, an advocate in the court of arches, prebendary of Yatminster Secunda in the church of Sarum, and about the same time was made archdeacon of Ely. In September, 1540, he was admitted to the rectory of Chelmsford in Essex; and in October following, collated to the prebend of Holbora, which he resigned April 19, 1541; and was the same day collated to that of Sneating, which he voiding by cession in March ensuing, was collated to the prebend of Wenlakesbarne. In 1542 he was elected warden of New College; and in 1545 made rector of Newton Longville in Buckinghamshire. Soon after, when king Edward VI. came to the crown, Dr. Cole outwardly embraced, and preached up the reformation, but altering his mind, he resigned his rectory of Chelmsford in 1547; and in 1551 his wardenship of New College; and the year following, his rectory of Newton Longville. After queen Mary’s accession to the crown, he became again a zealous Roman catholic and in 1554 was made provost of Eton college, of which he had been fellow. The same year, June 20, he had the degree of D. D. conferred on him, and was one of the divines that disputed publicly at Oxford with archbishop Cranmer, and bishop Ridley. He also preached the funeral sermon before archbishop Cranmer' s execution. He was appointed one of the commissioners to visit the university of Cambridge; was elected dean of St. Paul’s the llth of December, 1556; made (August 8, 1557) vicar-general of the spiritualities under cardinal Pole, archbishop of Canterbury; and the first of October following, official of the arches, and dean of the peculiars; and in November ensuing, judge of the court of audience. In 1558 he was appointed one of the overseers of that cardinal’s will. In the first year of queen Elizabeth’s reign he was one of the eight catholic divines who disputed publicly at Westminster with the same number of protestants, and distinguished himself then and afterwards, by his writings in favour of popery, for which he was deprived of his deanery, fined five hundred marks, and imprisoned. He died in or near Wood -street compter, in London, in December, 1579. Leland has noticed him among other learned men of our nation. He is called by Strype “a person more earnest than wise,” but Ascham highly commends him for his learning and humanity. It is evident, however, that he accommodated his changes of opinions to the times, although in his heart he was among the most bigotted and implacable opponents of the reformed religion. His writings were, 1. “Disputation with archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley at Oxford,” in 1554. 2. “Funeral Sermon at the Burning of Dr. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury.” Both these are in Fox’s Acts and Monuments. 3. “Letters to John Jewell, bishop of Salisbury, upon occasion of a Sermon that the said bishop preached before the queen’s majesty and her honourable council, anno 1560,” Lond.1560, 8vo, printed afterwards among Bishop Jewell’s works. 4. “Letters to bishop Jewell, upon occasion of a Sermon of his preached at Paul’s Cross on the second Sunday before Easter, in 1560.” 5. “An Answer to the first proposition of the Protestants, at the Disputation before the lords at Westminster.” These last are in Burnet’s History of the Reformation.

Here he read public lectures on St. Paul’s epistles, without stipend or reward; which, being a new thing, drew a vast crowd of hearers, who admired him greatly. And here he strengthened his memorable friendship with Erasmus, who came to Oxford in 1497, which remained unshaken and inviolable to the day of their deaths. He continued these lectures three years; and in 1501 was admitted to proceed in divinity, or to the reading of the sentences. In 1502 he became prebendary of Durnesford, in the churcfa of Sarum, and in Jan. 1504, resigned his prebend of Good Easter. In the same year he commenced D. D. and in May 1505, was instituted to the prebend of Mora in St. Paul’s, London. The same year and month he was made dean of that church, without the least application of his own; and being raised to this high station, he began to reform the decayed discipline of his cathedral. He introduced a new practice of preaching himself upon Sundays and great festivals, and called to his assistance other learned persons, such as Grocyn, and Sowle, whom he appointed to read divinity-lectures. These lectures raised in the nation a spirit of inquiry after the holy scriptures, which had long been laid aside for the school divinity; and eventually prepared for the reformation, which soon after ensued. Colet was unquestionably in some measure instrumental towards it, though he did not live to see it effected; for he expressed a great contempt of religious houses, exposed the abuses that prevailed in them, and set forth the danger of imposing celibacy on the clergy. This way of thinking, together with his free and public manner of communicating his thoughts, which were then looked upon as impious and heretical, made him obnoxious to the clergy, and exposed him to persecution from the bishop of London, Dr. Fitzjames; who, being a rigid bigot, could not bear to have the corruptions in his church spoken against, and therefore accused him to archbishop Warham as a dangerous man, preferring at the same time some articles against him. But Warham, well knowing the worth and integrity of Colet, dismissed him, without giving him the trouble of putting in any formal answer. The bishop, however, not satisfied with that fruitless attempt, endeavoured afterwards to stir up the king and the court against him; nay, we are told in bishop Latimer’s sermons, that he was not only in trouble, but would have been burnt, if God had not turned the king’s heart to the contrary.

Of his writings, those which he published himself, or which have been published since his death, are as follow: 1. “Oratio habita a doctore Johanne Colet, decano sancti Pauli, ad clerum in convocatione, anno 1511.” This being hardly to be met with, except in the Bodleian library at Oxford, among archbishop Laud’s Mss. was reprinted by Knight in his appendix to the life of Colet; where also is reprinted an old English translation of it, supposed to have been done by the author himself. 2. “Rudimenta grammatices a Joanne Coleto, decano ecclesioe sancti Pauli Londin. in usum scholae ab ipso institutae:” commonly called “Paul’s Accidence, 1539,” 8vo. 3. “The construction of the eight parts of speech, entitled Absolutissimus de octo orationis partium constructione libellus:” which, with some alterations, and great additions, makes up the syntax in Lilly’s grammar, Antwerp, 1530, 8vo. 4. “Daily Devotions or, the Christian’s morning and evening sacrifice.” This is said not to be all of his composition. 5. “Monition to a godly Life,” 1534, 1563, &c. 6. “Epistolae ad Erasmum.” Many of them are printed among Erasmus’s epistles, and some at the end of Knight’s Life of Colet. There are still remaining in ms. others of his pieces, enumerated in the account of his Life by Knight. It is probable that he had no intention of publishing any thing himself; for he had an inaccuracy and incorrectness in his way of writing, which was likely to expose him to the censures of critics; and besides, was no perfect master of the Greek tongue, without which he thought a man was nothing. The pieces above mentioned were found after his death in a very obscure corner of his study, as if he had designed they should lie buried in oblivion; and were written in such a manner as if intended to be understood by nobody but himself. With regard to sermons, he wrote but few; for he generally preached without notes.

, one of the members of the French academy, was born at Paris in 1598, and died in the same city February 10, 1659, aged sixty-one, leaving scarcely enough to bury him. Cardinal Richelieu appointed him one of the five authors whom he selected to write for the theatre. Colletet alone composed “Cyminde,” and had a part in the two comedies, the “Blindman of Smyrna,” and the “Tuilleries.” Reading the monologue in this latter piece to the cardinal, he was so struck with six bad lines in it, that he made him a present of 6uO livres; saying at the same time, that this was only for the six verses, which he found so beautiful, that the king was not rich enough to recompense him for the rest. However, to shew his right as a patron, and at the same time his judgment as a connoisseur, he insisted on the alteration of one word for another. Colletet refused to comply with his criticism; and, not content with defending his verse to the cardinal’s face, on returning home he wrote to him on the subject. The cardinal had just read his letter, when some courtiers came to compliment him on the success of the king’s arms, adding, that nothing could withstand his eminence!—“You are much mistaken,” answered he smiling; “for even at Paris I meet with persons who withstand me.” They asked who these insolent persons could be? “It is Colletet,” replied he; “for, after having contended with me yesterday about a word, he will not yet submit, as you may see here by this long letter he has been writing to me.” This obstinacy, however, did not so far irritate the minister as to deprive the poet of his patronage. Colletet had also other benefactors. Harlay, archbishop of Paris, gave him a handsome reward for his hymn on the immaculate conception; by sending him an Apollo of solid silver. Colletet took for his second wife, Claudine his maid servant; and, in order to justify his choice, published occasionally pieces of poetry in her name; but, this little artifice being presently discovered, both the supposititious Sappho, and the inspirer of her lays, became the objects of continual satire. This marriage, in addition to two subsequent ones, to the losses he suffered in the civil wars, and to his turn for dissipation, reduced him to the extreme of poverty. His works appeared in 1653, in 12mo.

In 1710 he published “A vindication of the Divine Attributes, in some remarks on the archbishop of Dublin’s (Dr. King) sermon, entitled, Divine predestination and foreknowledge consisting with the freedom of man’s will.” March 1711, he went over to Holland, where he became acquainted with Le Clerc, and other learned men; and returned to London the November following, to take care of his private affairs, with a promise to his friends in Holland, that he would pay them a second visit in a short time. In 1713 he published his “Discourse of Freethinking, occasioned by the rise and growth of a sect called Free-thinkers;” which was attacked by several writers, particularly by Hoadly, afterwards bishop of Winchester, in some “Queries recommended to the authors of the late discourse of Free-thinking,” printed in his collection of tracts in 1715, 8vo and by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, in “Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free-thinking, in a letter to F. H. D. D.” This Phileleutherus Lipsiensis was the learned Bentley; and the person to whom this performance is addressed, Hare, afterwards bishop of Chichester. The first part of these remarks gave birth to a pamphlet said to be written by Hare, entitled, “The clergyman’s thanks to Phileleutherus for his remarks on the late Discourse of Freethinking: in a letter to Dr. Bentley, 1713.” The late Mr. Cumberland, in his “Life of himself,” informs us, that when Collins had fallen into decay of circumstances, which, however, we find no where else mentioned, Dr. Bentley, suspecting he had written him out of credit by his “Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,” secretly contrived to administer to the necessities of his baffled opponent in a manner that did no less credit to his delicacy than his liberality. Of all this Dr. Bentley we believe was capable, but it is certain that Collins lived and died in opulence. Soon after the publication of this work, Collins made a second trip to Holland; which was ascribed to the general alarm caused by the “Discourse of Free-thinking,” and himself being discovered by his printer. This is taken notice of by Hare: who, having observed that the least appearance of danger is able to damp in a moment all the zeal of the free-thinkers, tells us, that “a bare inquiry after the printer of their wicked book has frightened them, and obliged the reputed author to take a second trip into Holland; so great is his courage to defend upon the first appearance of an opposition. And are not these rare champions for free-thinking? Is not their book a demonstration that we are in possession of the liberty they pretend to plead for, which otherwise they durst ne'er have writ? And that they would have been as mute as fishes, had they not thought they could have opened with impunity? M Hare afterwards tells us, that” the reputed author of free-thinking is, for all he ever heard, a sober man, thanks to his natural aversion to intemperance; and that,“he observed,” is more than can be said of some others of the club:“that is, the club of free-thinkers, which were supposed to meet and plan schemes in concert, for undermining the foundations of revealed religion. The” Discourse of Free-thinking“was reprinted at the Hague, with some considerable additions, in 1713, 12mo, though in the title-page it is said to be printed at London. In this edition the translations in several places are corrected from Bentley’s remarks; and some references are made to those remarks, and to Hare’s” Clergyman’s thanks."

, or Colomesius, a learned French protestant, was born at Rochelle in 1638, where his father was a physician, and where he was probably educated. His application to various reading must evidently have been very extensive, and although he has no decided claims to originality, his works ranked in his own day, and some of them may still, as ably illustrating the history of learning and learned men. He faithfully treasured what he found in old, scarce, and almost unknown authors, and knew how to render the reproduction of learned curiosities both agreeable and useful. His great intimacy and high regard for Vossius, induced him to visit England, where Vossius was then canon of Windsor, and by his interest or recommendation he was appointed librarian at Lambeth, with a competent salary. This, however, he lost at the revolution, when his patron, archbishop Bancroft, was deprived for not taking the oaths to the new government. After this it is said that he fell into poverty, and died in Jan. 1692; and was buried in St. Martin’s church-yard. His principal works are, 1. “Gallia Orientalis,” reprinted at Hamburgh, 1709, in 4to, under the care of the learned Jabricius; and containing an account of such French as were learned in the Oriental languages. 2. “Hispania & Italia Orientalis,” giving an account of the Spanish and Italian Oriental scholars. 3. “Bibliotheque Choisie;” reprinted at Paris, 1731, with notes of M. de la Monnoye, 12mo. This was published at Hamburgh, 4to, by Christ. Wolf, an useful work, and of great erudition. 4. “Theologorum Presbyterianorum Icon,” in which he shews his attachment to episcopacy; and for which he was attacked by Jurieu (who had not half his candour and impartiality) in a book entitled “De P esprit d'Arnauld.” 5. “Des opuscules critiques & historiques,” collected and published in 1709, by Fabricius. 6. “Melanges Historiques,” &c. 7. “La vie du pere Sirmond,” &c. His “Colomesiana,” make a volume of the collection of Anas.

Early in 1663, he accepted an invitation to the house of his late preceptor Mr. Holland, now rector of All-hallows Staining, London, and being ordained deacon Aug. 18, he read prayers for Mr. Holland, and employed the week in studying at Sjon college. Soon after he was invited to be curate to the rev. Gilbert Bennet, who held the living of Stonegrave in Yorkshire, and who promised, if he liked him, to resign in his favour in a year or two, as he was possessed of other preferment. Having accepted this offer, he was next year ordained priest at York minster by archbishop Sterne, and no objection, was made to his age (twenty years) on account of his uncommon qualifications; and when this circumstance, which had not passed unobserved, was afterwards objected to the archbishop, as an irregularity, he declared he had found no reason to repent. In 1666 he was admitted at Cambridge to his master’s degree by proxy, the plague then raging at the university. At Stonegrave, his character having recommended him to the notice of Mr. Thornton of East-Newton in Yorkshire, he was invited to reside at that gentleman’s house, and he afterwards married one of his daughters. While he lived with this family, he wrote various theological pieces, and also amused himself with poetical compositions. In 1669 Mr. Bennet resigned the living of Stonegrave, and Mr, Comber was inducted in October of that year.

Having long been an admirer of the church-service, ne determined to recommend* it to the public, which at that time was frequently interested in disputes respecting set forms and extempore prayer; and with this view published, about 1672, the first part of his “Companion to the Temple;” in 1674 the second part; and in 1675, the third part, of which a different arrangement was adopted in the subsequent editions. In 1677, he was installed prebend of Holme in the metropolitan church of York, and the same year, so rapid was the sale, a third edition of his “Companion to the Temple” was published, and at the same time a new edition of a very useful tract, to which he did not put his name, entitled “Advice to the Roman Catholics,” and his first book of “The Right of Tithes,” &c. against Elwood the quaker, and also without his name, The same year appeared his “Brief Discourse on the Offices of Baptism, Catechism, and Confirmation,” dedicated to Tillotson. In 1678 the living of Thornton becoming vacant, he was presented to it by sir Hugh Choimeley; and as this place was only ten miles from Stonegrave, he found no difficulty in obtaining a dispensation from the archbishop of Canterbury, who also created him, by patent, D. D. In 1680 we find him combating an adversary, on the subject of tithes, far more considerable than Elwood, namely, John Selden, so justly celebrated for his learning and abilities. In confutation of Selden’s “History of Tithes,” he now published the first part of his “Historical Vindication of the Divine right of Tithes,” and in 1681, the second part. Some time in this year, he published a tract, entitled “Religion and Loyalty,” which he informs us was intended to convince the duke of York, that no person in succession to the throne of England ought to embrace popery; and to persuade the people of England not to alter the succession. As in this pamphlet he seemed to favour the doctrine of non-resistance, he was attacked by the popular party as an enemy to freedom; but his biographer has defended him with success against such charges.

Some inferior preferments, obtained by Dr. Comber, were followed (in 16S3) by a grant of the dignity of precentor of York. He was in this situation when a series of imprudent and arbitrary measures roused that national spirit which drove James II. from his throne. The precentor was not slow in promoting this spirit; and, when the prince and princess of Orange had been called to the throne, he vindicated the legality of the new government against the calumnies of the Tory party. His patriotic exertions were not unrewarded; for he was promoted in 1691 to the valuable deanry of Durham, partly by the interest of archbishop Tillotson, but was not a little affected in owing the vacancy to the deprivation of his friend Dr. Dennis Grenville, a nonjuror. He would probably have been at length advanced to the episcopal dignity, had not a consumption put an end to his life in 1699, before he had completed his fifty-fifth year.

Besides the works already noticed, Dr. Comber wrote, 1. “A Scholastical History of the primitive and general use of Liturgies in the Christian Church; together with an Answer to Mr. David Clarkson’s late Discourse concerning Liturgies,” Lond. 1690, dedicated to king William and queen Mary. 2. “A Companion to the Altar; or, an Help to the worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper, by Discourses and Meditations upon the whole Communionoffice.” 3. “A brief Discourse upon the Offices of Baptism, Catechism, and Confirmation,” printed at the end of the Companion to the Altar.“4.” A Discourse on the occasional Offices in the Common Prayer, viz. Matrimony, Visitation of the Sick, Burial of the Dead, Churching of Women, and the Commination.“5.” A Discourse upon the Manner and Form of making Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,“London, 1699, 8vo, dedicated to archbishop Tenison. 6.” Short Discourses upon the whole Common Prayer, designed to inform the judgment, and excite the devotion of such as daily use the same;“chiefly byway of paraphrase, London, 1684, 8vo, dedicated to Anne, princess of Denmark, to whom the author was chaplain. 7. f Roman Forgeries in the Councils during the first four Centuries; together with an Appendix, concerning the forgeries and errors in the annals of Baronius,” ibid. 1689, 4to. It seems doubtful whether the edition of Fox’s “Christus Triumphans,” which appeared in 1672, was published by him. From his correspondence, and from a ms account of his life left in his family, his great grandson, the rev. T. Comber of Jesus college, Cambridge, published in 1799, an interesting volume, entitled “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Comber, D. D. some time dean of Durham; in which is introduced a candid view of the scope and execution of the -several works of Dr. Comber, as well printed as ms.; also a fair account of his literary correspondence.” Of this we have availed ourselves as to the preceding facts, and must still refer to it for a more satisfactory detail of Dr. Comber’s public services and private character. He was unquestionably a pious, learned, and indefatigable supporter of the doctrine and discipline of the church of England; and his private character added a very striking lustre to his public professions. His principal works, not of the controversial kind, are those he wrote on the various parts of the liturgy, which, although in less reputation now than formerly, unquestionably were the first of the kind, and rendered the labours of his successors Nichols, Wheatley, &c. more easy. His style is in general perspicuous, although void of ornament, and the phraseology, somewhat peculiar; but these liturgical commentaries are chiefly valuable for the accumulation of learned references and authorities. As to his private character, his biographer assures us, that “his modesty and inambition were singularly remarkable. Content with a moderate fortune, he was desirous of continuing in a private station, though possessed of abilities and integrity capable of adorning the most exalted and splendid rank. Insensible equally to the calls of ambition and the allurements of wealth, we behold him declining situations of honour and emolument, to obtain which thousands have made shipwreck of their honour and conscience. When the importunity of his friends had at last prevailed on him to lay aside his thoughts of continuing in obscurity, and induced him to step forward into a more public life, we see him respected by all the great and good men of his time, and frequently receiving public marks of esteem from the lips of royalty itself. The same modesty which had made him desirous of continuing in a private station, still adhered to him when preferred to an eminent dignity in the church: unassuming and humble in private life, in public he was dignified without pride, and generous without ostentation.”

King Charles now caused him to be sworn one of his privy council; and committed to his care the educating of his two nieces, the princesses Mary and Anne, which important trust he. discharged to the nation’s satisfaction. They were both confirmed by him upon January 23> 1676; and it is somewhat remarkable that they were both likewise married by him: the eldest, Mary, with William prince of Orange, November 4, 1677; the youngest, Anne, with George prince of Denmark, July 28, 1683. The attachment of these two princesses to the protestant religion was owing, in a great measure, to their tutor Compton; which afterwards, when popery came to prevail at the court of England, was imputed to him as an unpardonable crime. In the mean time he indulged the hopeless project of bringing dissenters to a sense of the necessity of an union among protestants; to promote which, he held several conferences with his own clergy, the substance of which he published in July 16SO. He further hoped, that dissenters might be the more easily reconciled to the church, if the judgment of foreign divines should be produced against their needless separation: and for that purpose he wrote to M. le Moyne, professor ef divinity at Leyden, to M. de PAngle, one of the preachers of the protestant church at Charenton near Paris, and to M. Claude, another eminent French divine. Their answers are published at the end of bishop Stillingfleet’s “Unreasonableness of Separation,” 1681, 4to; all concurring in the vindication of the church of England from any errors in its doctrine, or unlawful impositions in its discipline, and therefore in condemning a separation from it as needless and uncharitable. But popery was what the bishop most strenuously opposed; and while it was gaining ground at the latter end of Charles the lid’s reign, under the influence of the duke of York, there was no method he left untried to stop its progress. This zeal was remembered and resented on the accession of James II.; when, to his honour, he was marked out as the first sacrifice to popish fury, being immediately dismissed from the council-table; and on December 16, 1685, from being dean of the royal chapel. Means were also devised to entrap him into some measure which might affect his office as bishop of London, nor could this be difficult in the case of a man so firm and conscientious. The following is a striking instance of the intentions of the court to overturn the national church. Dr. John Sharp, rector of St, Giles’s in the Fields, afterwards archbishop of York, having in some of his sermons vindicated the doctrine of the church of England against popery; the king sent a letter, dated June 14, 1686, to bishop Compton, “requiring and commanding him forthwith to suspend Dr. Sharp from further preaching in any parish church or chapel within his diocese, until he had given the king satisfaction.” In order to understand how Sharp had offended the king, it must be remembered, that king James had caused the directions concerning preachers, published in 1662, to be now reprinted; and reinforced them by a letter directed to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, given at Whitehall, March 5, 1686, to prohibit the preaching upon controversial points; that was, in effect, to forbid the preaching against popery, which Sharp had done. The bishop refusing to suspend Dr. Sharp, because, as he truly alleged, he could not do it according to law, was cited to appear, August y, before the new ecclesiastical commission: when he was charged with not having observed his majesty’s command in the case of Sharp, whom he was ordered to suspend. The bishop, after expressing some surprise, humbly begged a copy of the commission, and a copy of his charge; but was answered by chancellor Jefferies, “That he should neither have a copy of, nor see, the commission neither would they give him a copy of the charge.” His lordship then desired time to advise with counsel; and time was given him to the 16th, and afterwards to the 3 1st of August. Then his lordship offered his plea to their jurisdiction: which being overruled, he protested to his right in that or any other plea that might be made for his advantage; and observed, “that as a bishop he had a right, by the most authentic and universal ecclesiastical laws, to be tried before his metropolitan, precedently to any other court whatsoever.” But the ecclesiastical commissioners would not upon any account suffer their jurisdiction to be called in question; and therefore, in spite of all that his lordship or his counsel could allege, he was suspended on Sept. 6 following, for his disobedience, from the function and execution of his episcopal office, and from all episcopal and other ecclesiastical jurisdiction, during his majesty’s pleasure; and the bishops of Durham, Rochester, and Peterborough, were appointed commissioners to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction within, the diocese of London. But the court did not think fit to meddle with his revenues. For the lawyers had settled that benefices were of the nature of freeholds; therefore, if the sentence had gone to the temporalities, the bishop would have had the matter tried over again in the king’s bench, where he was likely to find justice.

While this matter was in dependence, the princess of Orange thought it became her to interpose in the bishop’s favour; and wrote to the king, earnestly begging him to be gentle tp the bishop, who she could not think would offend willingly. She also wrote to the bishop, expressing the great share she took in the trouble he was fallen into; as did also the prince. The king wrote an answer to the princess, reflecting severely on the bishop, not without some sharpness on her for meddling in such matters. The bishop in the mean time acquiesced in his sentence; but being suspended only as a bishop, and remaining still whole in his other capacities, he made another stand against the king, as one of the governors of the Charter-house, in refusing to admit one Andrew Popham, a papist, into the first pensioner’s place in that hospital. While he was thus sequestered from his episcopal office, he applied himself to the improvement of his garden at Fulham; and having a great genius -for botany, enriched it with a variety of curious plants, domestic and exotic*. His suspension, however, was so flagrant a piece of arbitrary power, that the prince of Orange, in his declaration, could not omit taking notice of it; and when there was an alarm of his highness’s coming over, the court was willing to make the bishop reparation, by restoring him, as they did on Sept. 23, 1688, to his episcopal function. But he made no haste to resume his charge, and to thank the king for his restoration; which made some conjecture, and, as appeared afterwards with good reason, that he had no mind to be restored in that manner, and that he knew well enough what had been doing in Holland. On Oct. 3, 1688, however, he waited upon king James, with the archbishop of Canterbury, and seven other bishops, when they suggested to his majesty such advice as they thought conducive to his interest, but this had no effect. The first part the bishop acted in the revolution, which immediately ensued, was the conveying, jointly with the earl of Dorset, the princess Anne of Denmark safe from London to Nottingham; lest she, in the present confusion of affairs, might have been sent away into France, or put under restraint, because the prince, heir consort, had left king James, and was gone over to the prince of Orange.

Dr. Conybeare’s connection with bishop Gibson, and the Talbot family, has already been mentioned. Amongst his most intimate private friends may be reckoned Dr. Hayter, successively bishop of Norwich and London, Dr. Atwell, and the famous Dr. Rundle (afterwards bishop of Derry.) The latter gentleman is understood to have been instrumental in recommending our author to the notice of the Talbots. There subsisted, likewise, a great intimacy between Dr. Conybeare and Dr. Seeker. When Seeker entered himself a gentleman commoner at Exeter college, with a view of taking a degree at the university of Oxford, Mr. Conybeare was appointed his nominal tutor. The present Dr. William Conybeare enjoys the rectory of St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate, as an option of archbishop Seeker’s.

His most accurate biographer, Mr. Gilchrist, to whom, this sketch is greatly indebted, has collected many particulars illustrative of his character, which are, upon the whole, favourable. Living in turbulent times, when the church was assailed from every quarter, he conducted himself with great moderation towards the recusants, or puritans; and although he could not disobey, yet contrived to soften by a gracious pleasantry of manner, the harsher orders received from the metropolitan Laud. In his principles he inclined to the Arminianism of Laud, in opposition to the Calvinism of his predecessor, archbishop Abbot; and it is evident from his poems, entertained a hearty contempt for the puritans, who, however, could not reproach him for persecution. As he published no theological works we are unable to judge of his talents in his proper profession, but his munificence in matters which regarded the church has been justly extolled. When St. Paul’s cathedral stood in need of repairs, he not only contributed four hundred pounds from his own purse, but dispersed an epistle to the clergy of his diocese, soliciting their assistance. This epistle, which Mr. Gilchrist has published, is highly characteristic of his propensity to humour, as well as of the quaint and quibbling style of his age.

, Was born at Limoges in 1570, and at an early age discovered a considerable turn for literary pursuits, but the death of his father restricted him to trade until he was about thirty years of age, when a change of circumstances enabled him to indulge his original propensity. He entered into the society of Jesuits at Avignon; but a series of ill health obliged him to quit their seminary, and to pursue his studies privately. He afterwards became a canon, of his native place, and a collector of rare and valuable books. He was himself an author and editor of considerable reputation and after his death, which happened in 1642, his library was purchased by cardinal Mazarine. He was editor of the works of Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims; and of the works of George Cassander. He translated father Paul’s “History of the Differences between Pope Paul V. and the republic of Venice;” and likewise Camillo Portio’s “History of the Troubles in the kingdom of Naples, under Ferdinand I.”

In the list of examiners there appear a prince, an archbishop, three monsigneurs, the pope’s physician, abati, avocati, all of high rank in literature and criticism. These, severally, gave her subjects, which, besides a readiness at versification in all the measures of Italian poetry, required science, reading, and knowledge of every kind. In all these severe trials, she acquitted herself to the satisfaction and astonishment of all the principal personages, clergy, literati, and foreigners then resident at Rome; among the latter was our sovereign’s brother, the duke of Gloucester. Near fifty sonnets by different poets, with odes, canzoni, terse rime, ottave, canzonette, &c. produced on the subject of this event, are inserted at the end of this narrative and description of the order and ceremonials of this splendid, honourable, and enthusiastic homage, paid to poetry, classical taste, talents, literature, and the fine arts.

Dr. Cosin wrote a great number of books, from all which he has sufficiently confuted the calumny of his being a papist, or popishly affected. Besides his “Collection of Private Devotions,” mentioned above, he published “A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture; or, the certain and indubitable books thereof, as they are received in the Church of England,” Condon, 1657, 4to, reprinted in 1672. This history, which is still in esteem, is deduced from the time of the Jewish church, to the year 1546, that is, the time when the council of Trent corrupted, and made unwarrantable additions to, the ancient Canon of the Holy Scriptures, and was written by the author during his exile at Paris. He dedicated it to Dr. M. Wren, bishop of Ely, then a prisoner in the Tower. Dr. P. Gunning had the care of the edition. Since the bishop’s decease the following books and tracts of his have been published: 1. “A Letter to Dr. Collins, concerning the Sabbath,” dated from Peterhouse, Jan. 24, 1635, printed in the “Bibliotheca Literaria,” 1723, 4to; in which he proves, that the keeping of our Sunday is immutable, as being grounded upon divine institution and apostolical tradition, which he confirms by several instances. 2. “A Letter from our author to Mr. Cordel, dated Paris, Feb. 7, 165O,” printed at the end of a pamphlet entitled “The Judgment of the Church of England, in the case of Laybaptism, and of Dissenters baptism,' 1 a second edition of which was published in 1712, 8vo. 3.” Regni Anglise Religio Catholica, prisca, casta, defoecata: omnibus Christianis monarchis, principibus, ordinibus, ostensa, anno MDCLII.“i. e. A short scheme of the ancient and pure doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. Written at the request of sir Edward Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon, and printed at the end of Smith’s Life of bishop Cosin. 4.” The History of Popish Transubstantiation,“&c. written in Latin by the author at Paris, for the use of some of his countrymen, who were frequently attacked upon that point by the papists. It was published by Dr. Durrell, at London, 1675, 8vo, and translated into English in 1676, by Luke de Beaulieu, 8vo. There is a second part still in manuscript. 5.” The differences in the chief points of religion between the Roman Catholics and us of the Church of England; together with the agreements which we, for our parts, profess, and are ready to embrace, if they, for theirs, were as ready to accord with us in the same. Written to the countess of Peterborough, “printed at the end of bishop Bull’s” Corruptions of the Church of Rome.“6.” Notes on the Book of CommonPrayer.“Published by Dr. William Nicholls, at the end of his Comment on the Book of Common-Prayer, Lond. 171O, fol. 7.” Account of a Conference in Paris, between Cyril, archbishop of Trapezond, and Dr. John Cosin;“printed in the same book. 8.” A Letter from Dr. Cosin to bishop Moreton his predecessor, giving an account of his studies and employment when an exile abroad;“and,” A Memorial of his, against what the Romanists call the Great General Council of Lateran under Innocent III. in 1215,“both published by Des Maizeaux in vol. VI. of” The Present State of the Republic of Letters,“1730. 9.” An Apology of Dr. John Cosin,“in answer to Fuller’s misrepresentations of him in that author’s Church History, printed at the end of the first part of Heylin’s” Examen Historicum.“The following pieces were also written by bishop Cosin, but never primed: I.” An Answer to a Popish pamphlet pretending that St. Cyprian was a Papist.“2.” An Answer to four queries of a Roman Catholic, about the Protestant Religion.“3. ti An Answer to a paper delivered by a Popish BifUop to the lord Inchiquin. ' 4.” Annales Ecclesiastic!,“imperfect. 5.” An Answer to Father Robinson’s Papers concerning the validity of the Ordinations of the Church of England.“6.” Historia Conciliorum,“imperfect. 7.” Against the foraakers of the Church of England, and their seducers in this time of her tryal.“8.” Chronologia Sacra,“imperfect. 9.” A Treatise concerning the abuse of auricular confession in the Church of Rome." Some few of Dr. Cosin’s letters are extant among Dr. Birch’s collections in the British Museum.

In 1654, when the archbishop of Embrun retired into his diocese, he took Cotelerius along with him, as one who would be an agreeable companion in his solitude, and with him he remained four years; but afterwards, when he returned to Paris, complained heavily of the want of books and conversation with learned men in that retreat. He do dined going into orders, and spent his time wholly in ecclesiastical antiquity. The Greek fathers were his chief study, whose works he read, both in print and manuscript, with great exactness; made notes upon them, and translated some of them into Latin. In 1660 he published “Four homilies of St. Chrysostom upon the Psalms,” and his “Commentary upon Daniel,” with a Latin translation and notes. He then commenced his “Collection of those Fathers who lived in the apostolic age;” which he published in two vois. folio, at Paris, 1672, reviewed and corrected from several manuscripts, with a Latin translation and notes. The editor’s notes, which are learned and curious, explain the difficulties in the Greek terms, clear up several historical passages, and set matters of doctrine and discipline in a perspicuous light. He would have published this work some years sooner, but was interrupted by being appointed, with Du Cange, to review the Mss. in the king’s library. This task he entered upon by Colbert’s order in 1667, and it occupied his time for five years.

, a Jesuit, born in 1564, at Neronde near the Loire, of which place his father was governor, distinguished himself early in life by his zeal for the conversion of protestants, and by his success in the pulpit. He was called to the court of Henry IV. at the instance of the famous Lesdiguieres, whom he had converted, and the king pleased with his wit, manners, and conversation, appointed him his confessor. M. Mercier censures the king, for “having too peculiar a deference for this Jesuit, a man of very moderate talents, solely attached to the narrow views of his order;” and it was commonly said, “Our prince is good, but he has cotton in his ears.” Henry was desirous of making him archbishop of Aries, and procuring him a cardinal’s hat; but Cotton persisted in refusing his offers. His brotherhood, after their recall, unable easily to settle themselves in certain towns, that of Poitiers especially, started great difficulties, and Cotton wished to persuade the king that this opposition was the work of Sulli, governor of Poitou; but Henry having refused to listen to this calumny, and blaming Cotton for having adopted it with too much credulity: “God forbid,” said Cotton, “that I should say any harm of those whom your majesty honours with his confidence! But, however, I am able to justify what I advance. I will prove it by the letters of Sulli. I have seen them, and I will shew them to your majesty.” Next day, however, he was under the necessity of telling the king that the letters had been burnt by carelessness. This circumstance is related in the “Cours d'histoire de Condillac,” tom. XIII. p. 505. After the much lamented death of Henry, Cotton was confessor to his son Louis XIII, but the court being a solitude to him, he asked permission to quit it, and obtained it in 1617, so much the more easily as the duke de Luynes was not very partial to him. Mezerai and other historians relate, that when Ravaillac had committed his parricide, Cotton went to him and said: “Take care that you do not accuse honest men!” There is room to suppose that his zeal for the honour of his society prompted him to utter these indiscreet words, and his notions on the subject appear to be rather singular. We are told that Henry IV. having one day asked him, “Would you reveal the confession of a man resolved to assassinate me?” he answered “No; but I would put my body between you and him.” The Jesuit Santarelli having published a work, in which he set up the power of the popes over that of kings, Cotton, then provincial of Paris, was called to the parliament the 13th of March 1626, to give an account of the opinions of his brethren. He was asked whether he thought that the pope can excommunicate and dispossess a king of France “Ah” returned he, “the king is eldest son of the church and he will never do any thing to oblige tae pope to proceed to that extremity” “But,” said the first president. “are you not of the same opinion with your general, who attributes that power to the pope?” —“Our general follows the opinions of Rome where he is and we, those of France where we are.” The many disagreeable things experienced by Cotton on this occasion, gave him so much uneasiness, that he fell sick, and died a few days afterwards, March 19, 1626. He was then preaching the Lent-discourses at Paris in the church of St. Paul. This Jesuit wrote, “Traite du Sacrifice de la Messe;” “Geneve Plagiaire,” Lyons, 1600, 4to; “L'Institution Catholique,” 1610, 2 torn, fol; “Sermons,” 1617, 8vo; “La Rechute de Geneve Plagiaire;” and other things, among which is a letter declaratory of the doctrine of the Jesuits, conformable to the doctrine of the council of Trent, which gave occasion to the “Anti Cotton,” 1610, 8vo, and is found at the end of the history of D. Inigo, 2 vols. 12mo. This satire, which betrays more malignity than wit, was attributed to Dumoulin and to Peter du Coignet, but is now given to Caesar de Plaix, an advocate of Paris. Fathers Orleans and Rouvier wrote Cotton’s Life, 12mo, and as well as Gramont, give him a high character, which from the society of the Jesuits, at least, he highly deserved.

Letter from Dr. Samuel Harsnet, archbishop of York, to sir Henry Vane, ambassador at the Hague, dated London, Nov. 6, 1629.

In 1547 we find him preaching at St. Paul’s with such effect against certain anabaptists, that they are said to have recanted their opinions. On the 14th of August, 1551, he succeeded Dr. John Harman, or Voysey, in the see of Exeter, his collocation, with licence of entry, bearing date July of that year, and it was expressly stated that king Edward VI. had promoted him “on account of his extraordinary knowledge in divinity, and his unblemished character.” When lord Russel was sent down to quell the rebellion in the West of England in 1549, he was attended by Coverdale to preach among them, and it was probably the influence of his preaching in composing the religious differences in that quarter, which pointed him out as a fit person to succeed Hartnan, a bigotted papist, who seldom resided, and took little care of his diocese, and to whom, some time before, Coverdale had been appointed coadjutor, an office not uncommon in those days. On his appointment to this bishopric, Coverdale was so poor as to be unable to pay the first fruits, which, therefore, the king, at the solicitation of archbishop Cranmer, excused. In the same year he was nominated one of the commissioners for compiling a new body of ecclesiastical laws, a favourite object with Cranmer, which, however, did not then take effect.

On the accession of queen Mary, and the consequent re-establishment of popery, he was ejected from the see and thrown into prison, out of which he was released after two years confinement, at the earnest request of the king of Denmark. Coverdale and Dr. John Machabseus, chap­* Dr. Weston does not occur in Le Neve’s List of Chancellors, bu.1 there can be no doubt of the fact. lain to that monarch, had married sisters, and it was at his chaplain’s request that the king interposed, but was obliged to send two or three letters be Core he could accomplish his purpose. By one of these, dated April 25, 1554, it would appear that Coverdale was imprisoned in consequence of being concerned in an insurrection against the queen, but this is not laid to his charge in the queen’s answer, who only pretended that he was indebted to her concerning his bishopric. As the first fruits had been forgiven by Edward VI. this must be supposed to allude to his tenths; and Coverdale’s plea, as appears by the king of Denmark’s second letter, was, that he had not enjoyed the bishopric long enough to be enabled to pay the queen. This second letter bears date Sept. 24, 1554, and, according to Strype, the queen’s grant of his request was not given till Feb. 18, 1555. Strype, therefore, from his own evidence, is erroneous in his assertion that in 1554 Coverdale was preacher to a congregation of exiled protestants at Wesel, until he was called by the duke of Deux Fonts, to be preacher at Bergzabern . On his release, which was on the condition of banishing himself, he repaired to the court of Denmark, where the king would fain have detained him, but as he was not so well acquainted with the language as to preach in Danish, he preferred going to the places above mentioned, where he could preach with facility in Dutch; and there and at Geneva he passed his time, partly in teaching and partly in preaching. He also, while here, joined some other English exiles, Goodman, Gilby, Whittingham, Sampson, Cole, &c. in that translation of the Bible usually called the “Geneva translation;” part of which, the New Testament, was printed at Geneva, by Conrad Badius, in 1557, and again in 1560, in which last year the whole Bible was printed in the same place by Rowland Harte. Of this translation, which had explanatory notes, and therefore was much used in private families, there were above thirty editions in folio, quarto, and octavo, mostly printed in England by the king’s and queen’s printers, from the year 1560 to 1616. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he returned from his exile, but, unfortunately for the church, had imbibed the principles of the Geneva reformers, as far as respected the ecclesiastical habits and ceremonies. In 1559, however, we find him taking his turn as preacher at St. Paul’s Cross, and he assisted also at the consecration of archbishop Parker, in which ceremony, although he performed the functions of a bishop, he wore only a long black cloth gown. This avowed non-compliance with the habits and ceremonies prevented his resuming his bishopric, or any preferment being for some time offered to him. In 1563 bishop Grindal recommended him to the bishopric of Llandaff; and in 1564, Coverdale had the honour to admit that prelate to his doctor’s degree, by a mandate from the vicechancellor of Cambridge, a proof that he was still in high estimation. Grindal, particularly, had a great regard for him, and was very uneasy at his want of preferment. On one occasion he exclaimed, “I cannot excuse us bishops.” He also applied to the secretary of state, “telling him, that surely it was not well that father Coverdale,” as he styled him, “qui ante nos omnes fuit in Christo,” “who was in Christ before us all,” should be now in his age without stay of living.“It was on this occasion that Grindal recommended him to the bishopric of Llandaff, as already noticed, but it is supposed Coverdale’s age and infirmities, and the remains of the plague, from which he had just recovered, made him decline so great a charge. In lieu of it, however, the bishop collated him to the rectory of St. Magnus, London Bridge; and here again the good man’s poverty presented an obstruction, as appears from some affecting letters he wrote to be excused from the first fruits, amounting to 60l. which he was utterly incapable of paying: one of these letters, in which he mentions his age, and the probability of not enjoying the preferment long, he concludes with these words:” If poor old Miles might be thus provided for, he should think this enough to be as good as a feast." His request being granted, he entered upon his charge, and preached about two years; but resigned it in 1566, a little before his death. He was very much admired by the puritans, who flocked to him in great numbers while he officiated at St. Magnus’s church, which he did without the habits, and when he had resigned it, for it does not appear that he was deprived of it, as Neal asserts, his followers were obliged to send to his house on Saturdays, to know where they might hear him the next day, which he declined answering lest he should give offence to government. Yet, according to Strype, he had little to fear; for, Fox, Humphrey, Sampson, and others of the same way of thinking, were not only connived at, but allowed to hold preferments. He died, according to Richardson in his edition of Godwin, May 20, 1565 and according to Neal in his History of the Puritans, May 20, 1567 but both are wrong. The parish register proves that he was buried Feb. 19, 1568, in the chancel of the church of St. Bartholomew, Exchange, with the following inscription on his tombstone, which was destroyed at the great fire along with the church.

, a learned divine of the church of Rome, who was long resident in England, was born at Vernon in “Normandy, in the year 1681, and being educated for the church, became canon regular and librarian of the abbey of St. Genevieve, a situation extremely favourable to the prosecution of his studies, as the library of which he had the care is a very considerable one. Among other theological inquiries, he engaged in one, which was productive of very important consequences respecting his future life. Having been employed in reading abbe Reuaudot’s” Memoire sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois,“inserted in abbe Gould’s” La veritable croyance de T'eglise Catholique,“he was induced to enter into a farther examination of that subject. Accordingly he drew up a memoir upon it, for his own satisfaction only, but which grew insensibly into a treatise; and at the instance of some friends to whom it was communicated, he was at length prevailed with to consent to its publication. He therefore made the usual application for permission to print it; and obtained the approbation of Mons. Arnaudin, the royal licenser of the press. Some persons, however, afterwards found means to prevail on the chancellor to refuse to affix the seal to the approbation of the licenser. Terms were proposed to father Courayer, to which he could not accede, and he gave up all thoughts of publishing. Some of his friends, however, being in possession of a copy, resolved to print it; and this obliged him to acquiesce in the publication. When he first wrote his treatise, all his materials were taken from printed authorities, and he had no acquaintance or correspondence in England. But sundry difficulties, which occurred to him in the course of his inquiries, suggested to him the propriety of writing to England, in order to obtain clearer information on some points; and knowing that a correspondence had been carried on between Dr. Wake, then archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Dupin, on the project of re-uniting the churches of England and France, he took the liberty, in 1721, although entirely unknown to that prelate, to desire his information respecting some particulars. The archbishop answered his inquiries with great readiness, candour, and politeness, and many letters passed between them on this occasion. Father Courayer’s book was at length published in 1723, in two volumes small 8vo, entitled,” Dissertation sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois, et sur la Succession des Evesques de l'Eglise Anglicane: avec les preuves justificatives des faits avancez dans cet ouvrage.“It was printed at Nancy, though Brussels is placed in the title. It was afterwards translated into English, by the rev. Mr. Daniel Williams, and published at London in one volume 8vo, under the title” A Defence of the validity of the English Ordinations, and of the Succession of the Bishops in the Church of England: together with proofs justifying the facts advanced in this treatise.“Father Courayer’s work was immediately attacked by several popish writers, particularly by father le Quien and father Hardouin. But in 1726 he published, in four volumes 12mo,” Defense de la Dissertation sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois, coutre les differentes reponsesqui y out 6te faites. Avec les preuves justiticatives des faits avancez dans cet ouvrage. Par l'Auteur de la Dissertation.“An English translation of this also was afterwards published at London, in two volumes 8 vo, under the following title:” A Defence of the Dissertation on the validity of the English Ordinations," &c.

But father Courayer was not only attacked by those writers who published books against him: he was likewise censured both by the mandates and by the assemblies of several bishops, and particularly by cardinal de Noaiiles, archbishop of Paris, and the bishop of Marseilles. During this time he retired from Paris into the country, but was recalled by his superior to reside at the priory of Hennemonte, four leagues from Paris. Here he received a diploma for the degree of doctor in divinity from the university of Oxford, dated Aug. 28, 1727: and from hence he returned his thanks to the University in an elegant Latin letter, dated Dec. 1, the same year, both of which he afterwards printed. But though his book had procured this honourable testimonial of his merit from an English university, his enemies in France were not satisfied with publishing censures and issuing episcopal mandates against him, but proceeded to measures for compelling him to recant what he had written, and to sign such submissions as were inconsistent with the dictates of his conscience. In this critical state of things, he resolved to quit his native country, and to seek an asylum in England. He was the more inclined to embrace this resolution in consequence of the warm and friendly invitations which he had received from archbishop Wake, who had conceived a great regard for him. After having spent four months very disagreeably at Hennemonte, he obtained leave to remove to Senlis; but, instead of going thither, he took the road to Calais in the common stage-coach, from thence got safely over to Dover, and arrived in London on the 24tlr of January, 1728.

He was well received in England: the marquis of Blandford made him a present of fifty pounds, and he obtained a pension of one hundred pounds a year from the court. In 1729 he published, at Amsterdam, in two vols. 12mo, “Relation Historique et Apologetique des sentimens et de la conduite du P. le Courayer, chanoine regulier de Ste. Genevieve: avec les preuves justificatives des faits avancez dans l'ouvrage.” In this work he entered into a farther justification of his sentiments and of his conduct, and shewed the necessity that he was under of quitting France, from the virulence and power of his enemies. In 1733 he was at Oxford, and was present in the theatre at the public act that year, and made a speech there upon the occasion, which was afterwards printed both in Latin and English. In 1726 he published at London, in two vols. folio, a translation, in French, of “Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent;” with notes critical, historical, and theological. He dedicated this work to queen Caroline, and speaks of it as having been undertaken by her command; and he expresses, in the strongest terms, his gratitude to her majesty for her patronage, and for the liberality which she liad manifested towards him. A list of subscribers is prefixed, in which are found the names of the prince of Wales, the duke of Cumberland, the prince and princess of Orange, the princesses Amelia and Caroline, the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord Chancellor, lord Hardwicke, then chief Justice of the King’s Bench, sir Robert Walpole, and many of the nobility, andother persons of distinction. By the sale of this work he is said to have gained fifteen hundred pounds, and the queen also raised his pension to two hundred pounds per annum. He gave sixteen hundred pounds to lord Feversham, for an annuity of one hundred pounds per annum, which he enjoyed forty years. By these means he came into very easy circumstances, which were rendered still more so by the reception which his agreeable and instructive conversation procured him, among persons of rank and fortune, with many of whom it was his custom to live for several months at a time. He wrote some other works in French, besides those that have been mentioned; and, in particular, he translated into that language Sleidan’s “History of the Reformation.” His exile from his own country was probably no diminution of his happiness upon the whole; for he appears to have passed his time in England very agreeably, and he lived to an uncommon age. Even in his latter years, he was distinguished for the cheerfulness of his temper and the sprightliness of his conversation. He died in Downingstreet, Westminster, after two days illness, on the 17th of October, 1776, at the age of ninety-five. Agreeably to his own desire, he was buried m the cloister of Westminsterabbey, by Dr. Bell, chaplain to the princess Amelia. In his will, which was dated Feb. 3, 1774,* he declared, “That he died a member of the Catholic church, but without approving of many of the opinions and superstitions which have been introduced into the Romish church, and taught in their schools and seminaries, and which they have insisted on as articles of faith, though to him they appeared to be not only not founded in truth, but also to be highly improbable.” It is said, that soon after he came to England, he went to a priest of the Romish church for confession, and acquainted him who he was. The priest would not venture to take his confession, because he was excommunicated, but advised him to consult his superior of Genevieve. Whether he made any such application, or what was the result, we are not informed bat it is certain that, when in London, he made it his practice to go to mass; and when in the country, at Ealing, he constantly attended the service of the parish-church, declaring, at all times, that he had great satisfaction in the prayers of the church of England. In discoursing on religious subjects he was reserved and cautious, avoiding controversy as much as possible. He left 500l. to the parish of St. Martin; and gave, in his life-time, his books to the library there, founded by archbishop Tenison. He bequeathed 200l. to the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, and a handsome sum of money to the poor of Vernon, in Normandy; and, after many legacies to his friends in England, the remainder to two nephews of his name at Vernon. During his lifetime, he was occasionally generous to some of his relations in France, and in England was very liberal to the poor. He had two sisters, who were nuns; and a brother at Paris, in the profession of the law, to whom he gave a handsome gold snuff-box, which had been presented to him by queen Caroline.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of king Richard II. was the fourth son of Hugh Courtney, earl of Devonshire, by Margaret, daughter of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of king Edward I. and was born in the year 1341. He had his education at Oxford, where he applied himself to the study of the civil and canon law. Afterwards, entering into holy orders, he obtained three prebends in three cathedral churches, viz. those of Bath, Exeter, and York. The nobility of his birth, and his eminent learning, recommending him to public notice, in the reign of Edward III. he was promoted in 1369 to the see of Hereford, and thence translated to the see of London, September 12, 1375, being then in the 34th year of his age. In a synod, held at London in 1376, bishop Courtney distinguished himself by his opposition to the king’s demand of a subsidy; and presently after he fell under the displeasure of the high court of chancery, for publishing a bull of pope Gregory II. without the king’s consent, which he was compelled to recall. The next year, in obedience to the pope’s mandate, he cited Wickliff to appear befofe his tribunal in St. Paul’s church: but that reformer being accompanied by John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and other nobles, who favoured his opinions, and appeared openly in the bishop’s court for him, and treated the bishop with very little ceremony, the populace took his part, went to the duke of Lancaster’s house in the Savoy, plundered it, and would have burnt it to the ground, had not the bishop hastened to the place, and drawn them off by his persuasions. The consequences of this difference with so powerful a nobleman as John of Gaunt, were probably dreaded even by Courtney; for, with respect to Wickliff, he at this time proceeded no farther than to enjoin him and his followers silence. In 1378, it is said by Godwin, but without proper authority, that Courtney was made a cardinal. In 1381, he was appointed lord high chancellor of England. The same year, he was translated to the see of Canterbury, in the room of Simon Sudbury; and on the 6th of May, 1382, he received the pall from the hands of the bishop of London in the archiepiscopal palace at Croydon. This year also he performed the ceremony of crowning queen Anne, consort of king Richard II. at Westminster. Soon after his inauguration, he restrained, by ecclesiastical censures, the bailiffs, and other officers, of the see of Canterbury, from taking cognizance of adultery and the like crimes, which then belonged to the ecclesiastical court. About the same time, he held a synod at London, in which several of Wickliff’s tenets were condemned as heretical and erroneous. In 1383, he held a synod at Oxford, in which a subsidy was granted to the king, some of WicklifT's followers obliged to recant, and the students of the university to swear renunciation of his tenets. The same year, in pursuance of the pope’s bull directed to him for that purpose, he issued his mandate to the bishop of London for celebrating the festival of St. Anne, mother of the blessed virgin. In 1386, the king, by the advice of his parliament, put the administration of the government into the hands of eleven commissioners, of whom archbishop Courtney was the first; but this lasted only one year. In 1387, he held a synod at London, in which a tenth was granted to the king. The same year, it being moved in a parliament held at London on occasion of the dissension between the king and his nobles, to inflict capital punishment on some of the ringleaders, and it being prohibited by the canons for bishops to be present and vote in cases of blood, the archbishop and his suffragans withdrew from the house of lords, having first entered a protest in relation to their peerage and privilege to sit upon all other matters. In 1399, he held a synod in St. Mary’s church in Cambridge, in which a tenth was granted to the king, on condition that he should pass over into France with an army before the 1st of October following. This year, archbishop Courtney set out upon his metropolitical visitation, in which he was at first strongly opposed by the bishops of Exeter and Salisbury; but those prelates being at last reduced to terms of submission, he proceeded in his visitation without farther opposition: only, at the intercession of the abbot of St. Alban’s, he refrained from visiting certain monasteries at Oxford. The same year, the king directed his royal mandate to the archbishop, not to countenance or contribute any thing towards a subsidy for the pope. In a parliament held at Winchester in 1392, archbishop Courtney, being probably suspected of abetting the papal encroachments upon the church and state, delivered in an answer to certain articles exhibited by the commons in relation to those encroachments, which is thought to have led the way to the statute of pr&munire. The same year, he visited the diocese of Lincoln, in which he endeavoured to check the growth of Wickliff’s doctrines. In 1395, he obtained from the pope a grant of four-pence in the pound on all ecclesiastical benefices; in which he was opposed by the bishop of Lincoln, who would not suffer it to be collected in his diocese, and appealed to the pope. But before the matter could be decided, archbishop Courtney died, July 31, 1396, at Maidstone in Kent, where he was buried, but has a monument in the cathedral church of Canterbury, on the south side, near the tomb of Thomas Becket, and at the feet of the Black Prince. His remains at Maidstone, only a few bones, were seen some years ago. This prelate founded a college of secular priests at Maidstone. He left a thousand marks for the repair of the cathedral church of Canterbury also to the same church a silver- gilt image of the Trinity, with six apostles standing round it weighing 160 pounds some books, and some ecclesiastical vestments. He obtained from king Richard a grant of four fairs to be kept at Canterbury yearly within the site of the priory. The character of archbishop Courtney, weighed in the balance of modern opinions, is that of a persecuting adherent to the church of Rome, to which, however, he was not so much attached as to forget what was due to his king and country. He appears to have exhibited in critical emergencies, a bold and resolute spirit, and occasionally a happy presence of mind. One circumstance, which displays the strength and firmness of Courtney’s mind in the exercise of his religious bigotry, deserves to be noticed. When the archbishop, on a certain day, with a number of bishops and divines, had assembled to condemn the tenets of Wickliff, just as they were going to enter upon business, a violent earthquake shook the monastery. Upon this, the terrified bishops threw down their papers, and crying out, that the business was displeasing to God, came to a hasty resolution to proceed no farther. “The archbishop alone,” says Mr. Gil pin in his Life of Wickliff, “remained unmoved. With equal spirit and address he chid their superstitious fears, and told them, that if the earthquake portended any thing, it portended the downfall of heresy; that as noxious vapours are lodged in the bowels of the earth, and are expelled by these violent concussions, so by their strenuous endeavours, the kingdom should be purified from the pestilential taint of heresy, which had infected it in every part. This speech, together with the news that the earthquake was general through the city, &s it was afterwards indeed found to have been through the island, dispelled their fears Wickliff would often merrily speak of this accident; and would call this assembly the council of the herydene; herydene being the old English word for earthquake.”

In the Parliamentary History, some notice is taken of the speech which, as chancellor of England, Courtney made at the opening of the parliament in 1382. The words which he took for his theme were rex convenire fecit cojisitium, and it is said that he made a notable oration upon it in English. He applied his text to the good and virtuous government of the kingdom during his reign. No reign, the archbishop affirmed, could long endure, if vice ruled in it, to remedy which evil the parliament was called, the laws then in being not having been found effectual to that purpose.

, in Latin, Cognatus, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, was born at Nozeret, in Franche-Comte, Jan. 21, 1506. Having a turn for the law, he went to study at Dole in 1526, but not relishing it after six months application, he entered upon a course of divinity, and being introduced to Erasmus, was employed by him as an amanuensis or copyist. Erasmus also instructed him in the learned languages and in polite literature. In 1535 the prince of Orange conferred on him a canonry of St. Antony at Nozeret, in consequence of which preferment, he was obliged to leave Erasmus, who expressed a very high regard for him in several of his letters. When established at Nozeret, he appears to have taught school. In 1553, he accompanied the archbishop of Besancon on a tour into Italy; but being soon after suspected of heresy, he was arrested by order of pope Pius V. and thrown into prison, in which he died in 1567. It is generally agreed that he inclined in some measure to the sentiments of the reformers. His works, of which a collection was published in 1562, 3 ' vols. folio, at Basle, consist of translations from various authors, a treatise on grammar, erroneously ascribed to St. Basil Latin dissertations letters historical and critical treatises, &c. Niceron has an elaborate article on this author; and in 1775 was published at Altorf, “Commentatio de vita Gilberti Cognati, et Commentatio de scriptis,” by Schwartz, 4to. Cousin’s notes upon Lucian are in Bourdelot’s edition of that classic, 1615, folio, but had been published before by himself, in an edition printed at Basil, 1563, and reprinted in 1602, and 1619, 4 vols. 8vo.

, a learned and eminent civilian, was born at Ernsborough, in Devonshire, about 1554; educated at Eton school; and elected a scholar of King’s college in Cambridge, in 1570. He was afterwards chosen fellow of that college; and, by the advice of Bancroft bishop of London, applied himself particularly to the study of ci-vil law. He was regularly admitted to the degree of LL.D. in his own university; and, in 1600, was incorporated into the same degree at Oxford. Soon after he was made the king’s professor of civil law in Cambridge, and about the same time master of Trinity-hall. His patron, Bancroft, being advanced to the see of Canterbury in 1604, and beginning to project many things for the service of the church and state, put him upon that laborious, work the “Interpreter,” or an explanation of law-terms, which he published at Cambridge in 1607, 4to. It was reprinted in 1609, and several times since, particularly in 1638, for which archbishop Laud was reflected upon; and it was made an article against him at his trial, as if the impression of that book had been done by his authority, or at least with his connivance, in order to countenance king Charles’s arbitrary measures. In 1677 and 1684 it was published with large additions by Thomas Manley of the Middle Temple, esq. and again in 1708, with very considerable improvements, by another hand: in all which later editions the exceptionable passages have been corrected or omitted.

In the mean time Bancroft was so satisfied with the abilities and learning shewn in the “Interpreter,” that he appointed the author his vicar-general in 1608: nor was this performance censured for some time. But at last great offence was taken at it, because, as was pretended, the author had spoken too freely, and with expressions even of sharpness, of the common law, and some eminent professors of it, Littleton in particular: and this irritated sir Edward Coke especially, who was not only privately concerned for the honour of Litileton, whom he had commented upon, but also valued himself as the chief advocate of his profession. Sir Edward took all occasions to affront him, and used to call him in derision Doctor Cow-heel; and, not satisfied with this, he endeavoured to hurt him with the king, by suggesting that Dr. Cowell “had disputed too nicely upon the mysteries qf this our monarchy, yea, in some points, very derogatory to the supreme power of this crown and had asserted that the king’s prerogative is in some cases limited.” This was touching James ia a most tender part, and had probably ruined Cowell, if the archbishop had not stood his friend. The common lawyers, however, whose contests with the civilians then ran very high, finding that they coukl not hurt him with the king, resolved to try what they could do with the people, and represented him now as a betrayer of the rights and liberties of the people; in consequence of which a complaint was carried up against him in the house of commons, and the author was committed to custody, and his book publicly burnt. The commons also complained of him to the lords, as equally struck at; and he was censured by them for asserting, 1. That the king was solutus a legibus, and not bound by his coronation-oath. 2. That it was not ex necessitate, that the king should call a parliament to make laws, but might do that by his absolute power: for that voluntas regis with him was lex populi. 3. That it vvas a favour to admit the consent of his subjects in giving of subsidies. 4. That he draws his arguments from the imperial laws of the Roman emperors, which are of no force in England." The commons were therefore very desirous to proceed criminally against him, if the king had not interposed. But upon his majesty’s promise to condemn the doctrines of the book as absurd, together with the author of them, they proceeded no farther. In both prosecutions of this work, the malice of Cowell’s enemies was obvious, for the same book could not have had a tendency to infringe upon the prerogative of the king and the liberties of the subject.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Whaddon in Buckinghamshire, of mean parentage, in the year 1499. He had probably his first education in the small priory of Snelshall, in the parish of Whaddon; but being afterwards sent to Eton-school, he was elected into a scholarship at King’s college in Cambridge, of which he became fellow in the year 1519. Having the same year taken his bachelor of arts degree, and being eminent for his piety and learning, he was invited to Oxford by cardinal Wolsey, to fill up his new foundation. He was accordingly preferred to be one of the junior canons of Cardinal college; and on the 7th of December, 1525, was incorporated bachelor of arts at Oxford, as he stood at Cambridge. Soon after, having performed his exercises, he took the degree of M. A. July 2, 1526, and at this time was reputed one of the greatest scholars of his age; and even his poetical compositions were in great esteem. His piety and virtue were not inferior to his learning, and commanded the respect of all impartial persons. But shewing himself averse to many of the popish superstitions, and declaring freely for some of Luther’s opinions, he incurred the displeasure of his superiors, who stripped him of his preferment, and threw him into prison on suspicion of heresy. When he was released from his confinement, he left Oxford; and, some time after, was chosen master of Eton-school, which flourished under his care. In 1537, he commenced doctor in divinity at Cambridge, and December 4, 1540, was made archdeacon of Ely; as he was also appointed in 1541, the first prebendary in the first stall of the same cathedral, upon its being new founded by king Henry VIII. September 10, 1541. He was likewise, June 3, 1542, presented by the same king to the prebend of Sutton with Buckingham in the church of Lincoln, and installed the llth of that month, but this he surrendered up in 1547. In the year 1543, he supplicated the university of Oxford, that he might take place among the doctors of divinity there, which was unusual, because he was not then incorporated in that degree, but this took place in June 1545. When a design was formed, of converting the collegiate church of Southwell into a bishopric, Dr. Cox was nominated bishop of it. On the 8th of January, 1543-4, he was made the second dean of the new-erected cathedral of Osney near Oxford; and in 1546, when that see was translated to Christ church, he was also made dean there. These promotions he obtained by the interest of archbishop Cranmer and bishop Goodrich, to the last of whom he had been chaplain; and, by their recommendation, he was chosen tutor to the young prince Edward, whom he instructed with great care in the true principles of religion, and formed his tender mind to an early sense of his duty, both as a Christian and a king. On that prince’s accession to the throne, he became a great favourite at court, and was made a privy-counsellor, and the king’s almoner. The 2 1st of May, 1547, he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford; installed July 16, 1548, canon of Windsor; and the next year made dean of Westminster. About the same time he was appointed one of the commissioners to visit the university of Oxford, in which he and his brother commissioners destroyed some of the most valuable treasures in the libraries, from a notion that they encouraged popery and conjuration *. In 1550, he was ordered to go down into Sussex, and endeavour by his learned and affecting sermons, to quiet the minds of the people, who had been disturbed by the factious preaching of Day bishop of Chichester, a violent papist: and when the noble design of reforming the canon law was in agitation, he was appointed one of the commissioners. Both in this and the former reign, when an act passed for giving all chantries, colleges, &c. to the king, through Dr. Cox’s powerful intercession, the colleges in both universities were excepted out of that act. In November 1552, be resigned the office of chancellor of Oxford and soon after queen Mary’s accession to the crown, he was stripped of his preferments and on the 15th of August, 1553, committed to the Marshalsea. He was indeed soon discharged from this confinement; but foreseeing the inhuman persecution likely to ensue, he resolved to quit the realm, and withdraw to some place where he might enjoy the free exercise of his religion, according to the form established in the reign of king Edward. With this view he went first to Strasburgh in Germany, where he heard with great concern of some English exiles at Francfort having thrown aside the English Liturgy, and set up a form of their own, framed after the French and Geneva models. On the 13th of March 1555, he came to Francfort in order to oppose this innovation, and to have the Common- Prayer-Book settled among the English congregation there, which he had the satisfaction to accomplish. Then he returned to Strasburgh for the sake of conversing with Peter Martyr, with whom he had contracted an intimate friendship at Oxford, and whom he loved and honoured for his great learning and moderation. After the death of queen Mary he returned to England; and was one of those divines who were appointed to revise the Liturgy. When a disputation was to be held at Westminster between eight papists and eight of the reformed clergy, he was the chief champion on the protestants’ side. He preached often before queen Elizabeth in Lent; and, in his sermon at the opening of her first parliament, exhorted them in most affecting terms to restore religion to its primitive purity, and banish all the popish innovations and corruptions. These excellent discourses, and the great zeal he had shewn in support of the English liturgy at Francfort, so effectually recommended him to the queen’s esteem, that in June 1559, she nominated him to the bishopric of Norwich; but altering her mind, preferred him to the see of Ely in July 1559, in the room of Dr. Thirlby, who was deprived. Before his consecration (Dec. 19) he joined with Dr. Parker, elect archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops elect of London, Chichester, and Hereford, in a petition to the queen, against an act lately passed for the alienating and exchanging the lands and revenues of the bishops; and sent her several arguments from scripture and reason against the lawfulness of it; observing withal, the many evils and inconveniencies both to church and state that would thence arise. In 1559 we find him again appointed one of the visitors of the university of Oxford, but this visitation was conducted so moderately as to obtain a letter of thanks to queen Elizabeth for the services of the commissioners. He enjoyed the episcopal dignity about twenty-one years and seven months, and was justly considered one of the chief pillars and ornaments of the church of England, having powerfully co-operated with archbishop Parker, and his successor Grindal, in restoring our church in the same beauty and good order it had enjoyed in king Edward’s reign. He indeed gave some offence to the queen by his zealous opposition to her retaining the crucifix and lights on the altar of the Chapel Royal, and his strenuous defence of the lawfulness of the marriage of the clergy, to which the queen was always an enemy. He was a liberal patron to all learned men whom he found well affected to the church; and shewed a singular esteem for Dr. Whitgift, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, made him his chaplain, and gave him the rectory of Teversham in Cambridgeshire, and a prebend of Ely. He did his utmost to get a body of ecclesiastical laws established by authority of parliament; but through the opposition of some of the chief courtiers, this design miscarried a third time. As he had, in his exile at Francfort, been the chief champion against the innovations of the puritans, he still continued, with some vigour and resolution, to oppose their attempts against the discipline and ceremonies of the established church. At first he tried to reclaim them by gentle means; but finding that they grew more audacious, and reviled both church and bishops in scurrilous libels, he wrote to archbishop Parker, to go on vigorously in reclaiming or punishing them, and not be disheartened at the frowns of those court-favourites who protected them; assuring him that he might expect the blessing of God on his pious labours to free the church from their dangerous attempts, and to establish uniformity. When the privycouncil interposed in favour of the puritans, and endeavoured to screen them from punishment, he wrote a bold letter to the lord- treasurer Burieigh in which he warmly expostulated with the council for meddling with the affairs of the church, which, as he said, ought to be left to the determination of the bishops; admonished them to keep within their own sphere; and told them he would appeal to the queen if they continued to interpose in matters not belonging to them. He is blamed by some for giving up several manors and other estates belonging to his see, while others thought he deserved commendation for his firmness in resolving to part with no more, and for being proof against the strongest solicitations and most violent attacks which he had to encounter, even from those who were most in favour at court, and who were backed by royal command and authority. In the years 1574- and 1575, sir Christopher Hatton, a noted favourite of the queen, endeavoured to wrest Ely-house in Holborn from him; and in order to preserve it to his see he was forced to have a long and chargeable suit in chancery, which was not determined in 1579. The lord North also attempted, in 1575, to oblige him to part with the manor of Somersham, in Huntingdonshire, one of the best belonging to his bishopric; and with Downham park; which he refusing to yield, that lord endeavoured to irritate the queen against him, and to have him deprived. For that purpose, North, and some others of the courtiers, examined and ransacked his whole conduct since his first coming to his see, and drew tip a large body of articles against him addressed to the privy-council. But the bishop, in his replies, so fully vindicated himself, that the queen was forced to acknowledge his innocence, though the lord North boasted he had found five prsemunires against him. Vexed, however, with the implacable malice of the lord North, and other his adversaries, he desired, in 1577, leave to resign his bishopric, which the queen refused. North, though disappointed in his former attempt, yet not discouraged, brought three actions against the poor old bishop for selling of wood, on which the bishop offered again, in 1579, to resign, provided he had a yearly pension of two hundred pounds out of his see, and Donnington (the least of five country houses belonging to Ely bishopric) for his residence during life. The lord- treasurer Burieigh, at the bishop’s earnest desire, obtained leave of the queen for him to resign; and in February 1579-80, upon the bishop’s repeated desires, forms of resignation were actually drawn up. But the court could not find any divine of note who would take that bishopric on their terms, of surrendering* up the best manors belonging to it. The first offer of it was made to Freak, bisbop of Norwich; and, on his refusal, it was proffered to several others; but the conditions still appeared so ignominious that they all rejected it; by which means bishop Cox enjoyed it till his death, which happened on the 22d of July 1581, in the eighty-second year of his arge. By his will he left several legacies, amounting in all to the sum of 945l.; and died worth, in good debts, 2,322l. He had several children. His body was interred in Ely cathedral, near bishop Goodrich’s monument, under a marble stone, with an inscription, now nearly effaced. His character is said to have been that of a man of a sound judgment and clear apprehension, and skilled in all polite and useful learning. He wanted no advantages of education, and improved them with such diligence and industry, that he soon became an excellent proficient both in divine and human literature. The holy scriptures were his chief study; and he was perfectly well versed in the original language of the New Testament. He was extremely zealous for the true interest of the reformed church, and a constant and vigorous defender of it against alj, the open, assaults of all its enemies. He is accused by some of having been a worldly and covetou’s person; and is said to have made a great havock and spoil of his woods and parks, feeding his family with powdered venison to save expences. Several complaints and long accusations were exhibited against him and his wife, in 1579, to queen Elizabeth upon these accounts, but the bishop fully vindicated himself, and shewed that all these complaints were malicious calumnies. It is likewise said, that he appears to have been of a vindictive spirit, by reason of his prosecution of, and severity to, the deprived catholics in his custody; and especially by his complaints against Dr. Feckenham, the last abbot of Westminster. But the bishop alleges in his own excuse, that these complaints were well founded; and that his endeavours to convert him were by order of the court. It must be remembered of this bishop, that he was the first who brought a wife to live in a college; and that he procured a new body of statutes for St, John’s college in Cambridge, of which, as bishop of Ely, he was, visitor.

, an eminent writer among the nonconformists, was born in 1620, but where we do not find. He was educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow, and was presented to the college living of North Cadbury in Somersetshire, worth 300l. a year. When he kept the bachelor of divinity’s act, at the public commencement in 1651, his performance was highly applauded. He was ejected for nonconformity in 1662, but his wants were soon supplied by the death of a relation, who left him a good estate at Wickham Brook in Suffolk, on which he resided for twenty-six years, occasionally preached, and kept an academy for teaching young nonconformists those branches of science usually taught at the universities. Dr. Calamy, who was one of his pupils, gives him a high character for learning and piety, and Granger remarks that he has never seen two different characters of Mr. Cradock. He was so good and inoffensive, that every body spoke well of him, when it was usual for men of all religions to speak ill of each other. Nothing was ever objected to him but his nonconformity. In the reign of Charles II. he drew up a vindication of himself and others who kept private academies, notwithstanding their having taken an oath to the contrary at the university; a copy of it may be seen in Calamy. In his 79th year he became pastor of a congregation at Bishop Stortford in Hertfordshire, where he died October 7, 1706, in his 86th year, and was buried at Wickham Brook. His works, which were recommended by bishop Reynolds and archbishop Tillotson, are still in high esteem with the orthodox dissenters. They consist of, 1. “Knowledge and Practice,” a system of divinity, folio. 2. “The Harmony of the Four Evangelists,” folio, revised by Dr. Tillotson, who preserved it from the flames in the fire of London. 3. “The Apostolical History, containing the Acts, &c. of the Apostles,” folio. 4. “A Catechism on the principles of the Christian Faith.” 5. “The Old Testament History methodized.” 6. “A plain and brief Exposition on the Revelation.” Most of these have been often reprinted.

, the first Protestant archbishop of Canterbury, was the son of Thomas Cranmer, esq. and of Agnes, daughter of Laurence Hatfield, of Willoughby, in Nottinghamshire. He was born at Aslacton, in that county, July 2, 1489, and educated in grammar learning, under a rude and severe parish-clerk, of whom he learned little, and endured much. In 1503, at the age of fourteen, he was admitted into Jesus college, in Cambridge; of which he became fellow, and where he studied such learning as the times afforded, till the age of twenty-two, For the next four or five years he applied himself to polite literature; and for three years more, to the study of the Scriptures. After he was M. A. he married a gentleman’s daughter named Joan, living at the Dolphin, opposite Jesus-lane, and having by this match lost his fellowship, he took up his residence at the Dolphin, and became reader of the common lecture in Buckingham, now Magdalen college; but his wife dying in child-bed within a year, he was again admitted fellow of Jesus college. Upon cardinal Wolsey’s foundation of his new college at Oxford, Cranmer was nominated to be one of the fellows; but he refused the offer, or, as some say, was on the road to Oxford, when he was persuaded to return to Cambridge. In 1523, he was made D. D. reader of the theological lecture in his own college; and one of the examiners of those that took the degrees in divinity. The most immediate cause of his advancement to the greatest favour with king Henry VIII. and, in consequence of that, to the highest dignity in the church of England, was the opinion he gave in the matter of that king’s divorce. Having, on account of the plague at Cambridge, retired to Waltham-abbey, in Essex, to the house of one Mr. Cressy, to whose wife he was related, and whose sons were his pupils at the university; Edward Fox, the king’s almoner, and Stephen Gardiner, the secretary, happened accidentally to come to that house, and the conversation turning upon what then was a popular topic, the king’s divorce, Cranmer, whose opinion was asked, said, that “it would be much better to have this question, e whether a man may marry his brother’s wife, or no?' decided and discussed by the divines, and by the authority of the word of God, than thus from year to year prolong the time by having recourse to the pope; and that this might be done as well in England in the universities here, as at Rome, or elsewhere.” This opinion being communicate-d by Dr. Fox to the king, his majesty approved of it much; saying, in his coarse language, that Cranmer “had the sow by the right ear.” On this, Cranmer was sent for to court, made the king’s chaplain, ordered to write upon the subject of the divorce, furnished with books for that purpose, and placed in the family of Thomas Boleyn, earl of Wiltshire and Ormond. When he had finished his book, he went to Cambridge to dispute upon that point, and brought several over to his opinion, which was, that, according to the Scriptures, general councils, and ancient writers, the pope had no authority to dispense with the word of God. About this time he was presented to a living, and made archdeacon of Tauntpn. In 1530 he was sent, with some others, into France, Italy, and Germany, to discuss the affair of the king’s marriage. At Rome he got his book presented to the pope, and offered to dispute openly against the validity of king Henry’s marriage; but no one chose to engage him. While he was at Rome, the pope constituted him his pcenitentiary throughout England, Ireland, and Wales. In Germany he was sole embassador on the same affair; and in 1532 concluded a treaty of commerce between England and the Low Countries. He was also employed on an embassy to the duke of Saxony, and other Protestant princes. During his residence in Germany, he married at Nuremberg a second wife, named Anne, niece of Osiander’s wife. Upon the death of archbishop Warham, in August 1532, Cranmer was nominated for his successor; but, holding still to his opinion on the supremacy, he refused to accept of that dignity, unless he was to receive it immediately from the king, without the pope’s intervention Before his consecration, the king so far engaged him in the business of his divorce, that he made him a party and an actor almost in every step he took in that affair. He not only pronounced the sentence of divorce between king Henry and queen Catherine, at Dunstable, May the 23d, 1533, but, according to Parker, married him to Anne Boleyn; although lord Herbert says they were privately married by Rowland Lee, afterwards bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, in the presence of lady Anne’s father, mother, and brother, Dr. Cranmer, and the duke of Norfolk. However this may be, on March 30th, 1533, he was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, by the bishops of Lincoln, Exeter, and St. Asaph, when he made an unusual protestation. His design was by this expedient to save his liberty, to renounce every clause in his oath which barred him doing his duty to God, the king, and his country. Collier, who often argues as if he were fee'd by the church of Rome, thinks there was something of human infirmity in this management, because it was not made at Koine to the pope, nor by Cranmer’s proxies there, before the obtaining of the bulls, not perceiving that Cranmer’s opposition to the power of the pope was as uniform as it had been early, and the effect of conviction. The temporalities of the archbishopric were restored to Cranmer the 29th of April following. Soon after, he forbad all preaching throughout his diocese, and visited it this year in December. The pope threatening him with excommunication, on account of his sentence against queen Catherine, he appealed from his holiness to a general council, and in the ensuing parliaments, strenuously disputed against the pope’s supremacy. All along he showed himself a zealous promoter of the reformation; and, as the first step towards it, procured the convocation to petition the king that the Bible might be translated into English. When that was obtained, he diligently encouraged the printing and publication of it, and caused it to be recommended by royal authority, and to be dispersed as much as he possibly could. Next, he forwarded the dissolution of the monasteries, which were one of the greatest obstacles to a reformation *. He endeavoured also to restore the church of England to its original purity. In 1535 he performed a provincial visitation, in order to recommend the king’s supremacy, and preached upon that subject in several parts of his diocese, urging that the bishop of Rome was not God’s vicar upon earth, as supposed, and that that see so much boasted of, and by which name popes affected to be styled, was but a holiness in name, and that there was no such holiness at Rome, as he easily proved from the vices of the court of Rome. In

1537 he visited his diocese, and endeavoured to abolish the superstitious observation of holidays. In 1538, he was in a commission against the anabaptists, and visited the diocese of Hereford. The next year, he and some of the bishops fell under the king’s displeasure, because they could not be brought to give their consent in Parliament, that the monasteries should be suppressed for the king’s sole use. He also strenuously opposed the Act for the six articles, in the house of lords. It has been observed by a late biographer, that he never appeared in a more truly Christian light than on this occasion. In the midst of so general a defection (for there were numbers in the house who had hitherto shewn great forwardness in reformation), he alone made a stand. Three days he maintained his ground, and baffled the arguments of all opposers. But argument was not their weapon, and the archbishop saw himself obliged to sink under superior power. Henry ordered him to leave the house. The primate refused “It was God’s business,” he said, “and not man’s.” And when he could do no more, he boldly entered his protest, and upon the passing of the statute, sent his wife into Germany. In 1540 he was one of the commissioners for inspecting into matters of religion, and explaining some of its chief doctrines. The result of their commission was the book entitled “A necessary erudition of any Christian man.” After lord Cromwell’s death (in whose behalf he had written to the king), he retired, and lived in great privacy, meddling not at all with state affairs. In 1541, he gave orders, pursuant to the king’s directions, for taking away superstitious shrines; and exchanging Bishopsbourn for Bekesbourn, united the latter to his diocese. In 1542 he procured the “Act for the advancement of true religion, and the abolishment of the contrary,” which moderated the rigour of the six articles. But, the year following, some persons preferring accusations against him, for being an enemy to popery, he would have been ruined, had not the king interposed in his behalf. He was complained of in the house of commons, and in the privycouncil, and was very near being sent to the Tower; but the king protected him, and gave him his ring, as a token that he took the affair into his own hands. The substance of the accusations against him, which were contrived by Gardiner, the implacable enemy to the reformation, was.

Vol.X. H H “that he, with his learned men, had so infected the whole realm with their unsavoury doctrine, that three parts of the land were hecome abominable heretics. And that it might prove dangerous to the king, being likely to produce such commotions and uproars as were sprung up in Germany. And therefore, they desired that the archbishop might be cojnmitted to the Tower, till he could be examined.” In 1545 he undertook to reform the canonlaw; but the book he compiled upon that subject, was, through bishop Gardiner’s artifices, never confirmed by the king. He likewise corrected some service, or prayerbooks. Upon king Henry’s decease, he was one of the executors of his will, and one of the regents of the kingdom. February the 20th, 1545-6, he crowned king Edward VI. to whom he had been godfather; as he was also to the lady Elizabeth. Soon after, he took out a commission for executing his office of archbishop; and caused the Homilies to be composed, being himself the author of some of them; and likewise encouraged the translation of Erasmus’s paraphrase on the New Testament. He also laboured earnestly in the reformation of religion; and for that purpose, procured the repeal of the Six Articles, the establishment of the Communion in both kinds, and a new office for that sacrament, the revisal and amendment of the rest of the offices of the church, frequent preaching, a royal visitation to inspect into the manners and abilities of the clergy, and visited his own diocese himself for the same purpose. He likewise showed himself a patron to the universities, in defending their rights, securing their revenues, and encouraging learning. In 1549, he was one of the commissioners for examining bishop Bonner, with a power to imprison or deprive him of his bishopric. Upon the insurrection in Devonshire, he expressed hie zeal for religion and his prince, by giving an excellent" and full answer to the rebels’ articles, and ordered sermons to be composed and preached upon that occasion. The same year he ordained several priests and deacons according to the new form of ordination in the Common-prayer book; which, through the archbishop’s care, was now finished and settled by act of parliament*. A review was made of this

bishop of Canterbury; Nicolas Rid- Lincoln; John Skip, bishop of Hereley, bishop of Rochester, afterwards ford; Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Westbook towards the end of the next year, and several things changed or amended that were thought to savour too much of superstition. In 1552, it was printed again with amendments and alterations, by the archbishop’s care, and authorized by parliament. This same year, he and some others compiled the articles of religion, and caused them, to be enjoined by the king’s authority. He confined not his care to the church of England, but extended it also to those protestant foreigners who fled to England, by obtaining churches for them, and recommending them to the favour and protection of the crown.

His palace at Lambeth, says Mr. Gilpin, might be called a seminary of learned men; the greater part of whom persecution had driven from home. Here, among other celebrated reformers, Martyr, Bucer, Aless, Pha.je, found sanctuary. Martyr, Bucer, and Phage, were liberally pensioned by the archbishop, till he could otherwise provide for them. It was his wish to fix them in the two universities, where he hoped their great knowledge and spirit of inquiry would forward his designs of restoring learning; and he at length obtained professorships for them all. Bucer and Phage were settled at Cambridge; where they only shewed what might have been expected from them, both dying within a few months after their arrival. But at Oxford, Martyr acted a very conspicuous part; and contributed to introduce among the students there a very liberal mode of thinking. Aless had been driven from Scotland, his native country, for the novelty of his opinions. The cause in which he suffered, added to his abilities and learning, so far recommended him to the university of Leipsic, to which he retired, that he was chosen a professor there. At this place he became acquainted with Melancthon, who, having written a treatise on some part of the controversy between the papists and protestants, was desirous of consulting the archbishop on a few points; and engaged Aless, otherwise not averse to the employment, to undertake a voyage into England for that purpose. In the course of the conference, the archbishop was

minster, afterwards of Ely; George Paul’s; Dr. Thomas Robertson, archDay, bishop of Chichester; Dr. John deacon of Leicester, afterwards dean Taylor, dean, afterwards bishop of of Durham; Dr. Simon Heines, dean Lincoln; Dr. Richard Cox, chancellor of Exeter; and Dr. John Rednflayne, of Oxford, and dean of Christ-church master of Trinity-college, in Camand Westminster, afterwards bishop of bridge. Ely Dr. Willia'm May, dean of St. so much taken with his simplicity and learning, that he settled a pension on him, and retained him in his family. The misfortunes of the times drew Alasco also into England, where the archbishop became an early patron to him; and shewed on this occasion at least, the candour and liberality of his sentiments, by permitting a person who held many opinions very different from his own, to collect his brethren, and such as chose to communicate ttith him, into a church. At the head of this little assembly Alasco long presided, exhibiting an eminent example of piety and decency of manners. Among other learned foreigners, John Sleidan was under particular obligations to the archbishop. Sleidan was at that time engaged in writing the “History of the Reformation,” a work from which much was expected; and which the archbishop, by allowing him a pension, and opportunities of study, enabled him to prosecute with less difficulty than Jiad attended the beginning of his labours.

Another point that much employed Cranmer’s thoughts, was, to preserve the revenues of the church, which the courtiers were parcelling out among themselves. As the archbishop had in 1534- endeavoured to save the lives of bishop Fisher and sir Thomas More so now, when Tonjtall bishop of Durham came into trouble, and a bill was brought into the house of lords for attainting him for misprision of treason, Cranmer spoke freely, and protested against it, though they two were of different persuasions. In 1533, he opposed the new settlement of the crown upon lady Jane Gray, and would no way be concerned in that affair, (though at last, through many importunities, he was prevailed upon to set his hand to it,) neither would he join in any of Dudley’s ambitious projects. However, upon king Edward the Vlth’s decease, he appeared for Jane Gray. Soon after, it being reported that he had offered to sing mass at the funeral of the late king, he vindicated himself in a declaration.

After queen Mary’s accession to the throne, so obnoxious an enemy to popery could not long escape, and accordingly he was first ordered to appear before the council, and bring an inventory of his goods; which he did August the 27th, when he was commanded to keep his house, and be forth-coming. September the 13th, he was again summoned before the council, and enjoined to be at the Starchamber the next day, when he was committed to the Tower; partly, for setting his hand to the instrument of the lady Jane’s succession; and, partly, for the public offer he had made a little before, of justifying openly“the religious proceedings of the late king. Some of his friends, foreseeing the storm that was likely to fall upon him, advised him to fly, but he absolutely refused, as unworthy of his character and the station he held. In the ensuing parliament, on November the 3d, he was attainted, and at Guildhall found guilty of high treason; on which the fruits of his archbishopric were sequestered; yet, upon his humble and repeated application, he was pardoned the treason, but it was resolved he should be proceeded against for heresy. In April 1554, he, and Ridley and Latimer, were removed to Oxford, for a public disputation with the papists on the subject of the sacrament; which was accordingly held there towards the middle of the month, with great noise, triumph, and confidence on the papists’ side, and with as much gravity, learning, modesty, and argument on the side of the protestant bishops. The 20th of April, two days after the end of these disputations, Cranmer and the two others were brought before the commissioners, and asked, whether they would subscribe (to Popery)? which they unanimously refusing, were condemned as heretics. From this sentence the archbishop appealed to the just judgment of the Almighty; and wrote to the council, giving them an account of the disputation, and desiring the queen’s pardon for his treason, which it seems was not yet remitted. By the convocation, which met this year, his” Defence of the true and Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ," was ordered to be burnt. Some of his friends petitioned the queen in his behalf; putting her in mind, how he had once preserved her, by his earnest intercessions for her, when her father had determined to send her to the Tower, and make her suffer for disobedience to the laws; so that she had reason to believe he loved her, and would speak the truth to her, more than all the rest of the clergy. But all these endeavours were ineffectual. The sentence pronounced against him by Weston at Oxford being void in law, because the Pope’s authority was not yet re-established in England, a new commission was sent from Rome for his trial and conviction. Accordingly, on September the 12th, 1555, he appeared before the commissioners; viz. Brooks bishop of Gloucester, for the pope; and Drs. Martin and Story for the queen: the commission was opened at St. Mary’s church, Oxford, and Cranmer was accused of blasphemy and heresy, for his writings against popery; of perjury, for breaking his oath to the pope; and of incontinency, or adultery, on account of his being married: against all which he vindicated himself. At last, he was cited to appear *at Rome within eighty days, to answer in person; which he said he would do, if the king and queen would send him, but this was not done, and therefore the pope dispatched, on December the 14th, his letters executory to the king and queen, and to Bonner and Thirlby bishops of London and Ely, to degrade and deprive him. In these letters, Cranmer was declared contumacious, for not appearing at Rome within eighty days, according to his citation; as if he could have appeared at Rome, when he was all the while kept a prisoner. Upon the arrival of the letters, Bonner and Thirlby, with Dr. Martin and Dr. Story the king’s and queen’s proctors, went to Oxford to degrade him. They dressed him in all the garments and ornaments of an archbishop, only in mockery every thing was of canvass and old clouts: and then he was, piece by piece, stripped of all again. When they came to take the crosier gut of his hand, he refused to part with it, and appealed to the next general council. After he was degraded, they put him on a poor yeoman -beadle’s gown, thread- bare, and a towns-man’s cap, and remanded him to prison. From thence he wrote letters to the queen, to give her an impartial account of vyhat had passed at his degradation, to prevent mis-reports, and to justify himself in what he had said and done; and hitherto he manifested a great deal of courage and wisdom in his sufferings; but at last human frailty made him commit what he felt as the greatest blemish of his life. For, through flatteries, promises, importunities, threats, and the fear of death, he was prevailed upon to sign a recantation *, wherein he renounced the Protestant

* Strype informs us that archbishop have received the pope’s authority Cranmcr was subtilly drawn in by the within this realm, I am content to subpapists to subscribe six different pa- mit myself to their laws herein, and to pers the fust being expressed in am- take the pope for chief head of this biguous words, capable of a favoura- chuich of England, so far as God’s ble construction, tiVe five following were laws, and the laws and customs of thi| added as explanations of it. That first realm, will permit.“In the nrxt, he recantation was in these words,” For submitted himself to the Catholic as much as the king’s and queen’s ma- church of Clirist, and unto the pope, jesties, by consent of their parliament, supreme head of the same church. In religion, and embraced again all the errors of popery; which, recantation was immediately printed and dispersed about by his enemies. Notwithstanding that, the merciless queen, not satisfied with this conquest, resolved to glut her revenge, by committing Cranmer to the flames. Accordingly, she sent for Dr. Cole, provost of Eton, and gave him instructions to prepare a sermon for that mournful occasion; and on the 24th of February a writ was signed for the execution. The 2 1st day of March, the fatal day, he was brought to St. Mary’s church, and placed on a kind of stage over against the pulpit, where Dr. Cole was to preach. While Cole was haranguing, the unfortunate Cranmer expressed great inward confusion; often lifting up his hands and eyes to heaven; and frequently pouring out floods of tears. At the end of the sermon, when Cole desired him to make an open profession of his faith, as he had promised him he would; he, first, prayed in the most fervent manner; then made an exhortation to the people present, not to set their minds upon the world; to obey

the third, he submitted to the king and qii'vn, and to all their laws, as well concerning the pope’s supremacy, as others: and promised, that he would stir and move all others to live in quietness and obedience to their majesties. As for his book, he was content to submit to the judgment of the Catholic church, and the next general council. Tiiis was followed by a fourth, wherein be- professed firmly, stedfastly, and assnndly to believe in all articles and points of the Christian religion and Catholic faith, as the Catholic church doih believe. Moreover, as concerning the sacraments, he declared he believed uiiiVig-iiediy in all poinis as the said Catholic church did. In the fifth paper, which is that in Fox, and has been thought to be his only recantation, they required of him, to renounce and anathematize all Lutheran and Zumglian heresies and errors; to acknowledge the one only Catholic church, to be that whereof the pope is the head; and to declare him Christ’s vicar. Then followed an express acknowledgment of transubstantiation, the seven sacraments, and of all the doctrines of the church of Rome in general. A sixth was still required of him, which was drawn up in so strong terms, that nothing was capable of being added to it. For it contained a large acknowledgment of all the popish errors and corruptions, and a most grievous accusation of himself as a blasphemer, enemy of Christ, and murderer of souls, on account of his being the author of king Henry’s divorce, and of all the calamities, schisms, and heresies of which that was the fountain. This was subscribed on the 18lh of March. These six papers were, soon after his death, sent to the press by Bonner, and published with the addition of another, which they had prepared for him to speak at St. Mary’s, before his execution: and though he then spoke to a quite contrary effect, and revoked his former recantations, Bonner had the confidence to publish this to the world, as if it had been approved and made use of by the archbishop. In 1736, William Whiston, M. A. published a little book, entitled “An Enquiry into the Evidence of Archbishop Cranmer’s Recantation: or reasons for a suspicion that the pretended copy of it is not genuine.” In this he supposes, that what Cranmer signed, was only the first part of the Recantation printed in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments,” as far as the words -“without which there is no Salvation,” that the rest was added by the papists, but that Cranmer never set his hand to it. the king and queen; to love each other; and to be charitable. After this he made a confession of his faith, beg nning with the Creed, and concluding with these words, “And I believe every word and sentence taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, his apostles and prophets, in the Old and New Testament. And now,” added he, “I come to the great thing, that so much troubleth my conscience more than any thing I ever did or said in my whole life-; and that is the setting abroad a writing contrary to the truth, which 1 here now renounce as things written with my hand contrary to the truth which 1 thought in my heart, and written for fear of death, and to save my life if it might be; that is, all such bills and papers which I have written or signed with my hand since my degradation, wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished; for, may I come to the fire, it shall be first burned. As for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine. And as for the Sacrament, I believe as I have taught in my book against the bishop of Winchester.” Thunderstruck as it were with this unexpected declaration, the enraged popish crowd admonished him not to dissemble: “Ah,” replied he with tears, “since I lived hitherto, I have been a hater of falsehood, and a lover of simplicity, and never before this time have I dissembled.” On this, they pulled him off the stage with the utmost fury, and hurried him to the place of his martyrdom, over against Baliol-college; where he put off his clothes in haste, and standing in his shirt, and without shoes, was fastened with a chain to the stake. Some pressing him to agree to his former recantation, he answered, showing his hand, “This is the hand that wrote it, and therefore it shall first suffer punishment.” Fire being applied to him, he stretched out his right hand into the flame, and held it there unmoved (except that once with it he wiped his face) till it was consumed, crying with a loud voice, “This hand hath offended;” and often repeating, “This unworthy right hand.” At last, the fire getting up, he soon expired, never stirring or crying out all the while, only keeping his eyes fixed to heaven, and repeating more than once, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Such was the end of the renowned Thomas Cranmer, in the 67th year of his age, a man who deservedly ranks high among the most illustrious characters in ecclesiastical history, although his conduct was not in all respects free from blame. Of the two instances in which Cranmer has been accused of retaining the spirit of persecution, after he had got rid of every other attribute of popery, Mr. Gilpin gives the following account: “Joan Bocher and George Paris were accused, though at different times, one for denying the humanity of Christ the other for denying his divinity. They were both tried, and condemned to the stake: and the archbishop not only consented to these acts of blood; but even persuaded the aversion of the young king into a compliance.” Your majesty must distinguish (said he, informing his royal pupil’s conscience) between common opinions, and such as are the essential articles of faith. These latter we must on no account suffer to be opposed.“Mr. Gilpin justly observes, that” nothing even plausible can be suggested in defence of the archbishop on this occasion; except only that the spirit of popery was not yet wholly repressed." That he was not, however, a man of blood, and that in every case of personal injury he was the most placable of human beings, is amply confirmed by all authorities. The last act of Henry’s reign, says the same biographer, was an act of blood; and gave the archbishop a noble opportunity of shewing, how well he had learned that great Christian lesson of forgiving an enemy. Almost without the shadow of justice, Henry had given directions to have the duke of Norfolk attainted by an act of parliament. The king’s mandate stood in lieu of guilt; and the bill passed the house with great ease. No man, except the bishop of Winchester, had been so great an enemy to the archbishop as the duke of Norfolk. He had always thwarted the primate’s measures; and oftener than once had practised against his life. How many would have seen with secret pleasure the workings of Providence against so rancorous an enemy; satisfied in having themselves no hand in his unjust fate! But the archbishop saw the affair in another light; he saw it with horror: and although the king had in a particular manner interested himself in this business, the primate opposed the bill with all his might; and when his opposition was vain, he left the house with indignation, and retired to Croydon.

Bishop Burnet takes notice of some malevolent accusations that had been privately brought to the king against Cranmer, with a view to ruin him, including a charge of heresy, and on which subject his majesty conversed with him; and the bishop adds: “His candour and simplicity wrought so on the king, that he discovered to him the whole plot that was laid against him; and said, that instead of bringing him to any trial about it, he would have him try it out, and proceed against those his accusers. But he excused himself, and said it would not be decent for him to sit judge in his own cause. But the king said to him, he was resolved none other should judge it, but those he should name. So he named his chancellor and his register; to whom the king added another: and a commission being given them, they went into Kent, and sat three weeks to find out the first contrivers of this accusation. And now every one disowned it, since they saw he was still firmly rooted in the king’s esteem and favour. But it being observed, that the commissioners proceeded faintly, Cranmer’s friends moved, that some man of courage and authority might be sent thither, to canvass this accusation more carefully. So Dr. Lee, dean of York, was brought up about Allhallow-tide, and sent into Kent.And he, who had been well acquainted with the arts of discovering secrets, when he was one of the visitors of the abbies, managed it more vigorously. He ordered a search to be made of all suspected persons; among whose papers letters were found, both from the bishop of Winchester, and Dr. London, and some of those whom Cranmer had treated with the greatest freedom and kindness, in which the whole plot against him was discovered. But it was now near the session of parliament: and the king was satisfied with the discovery, but thought it not fit to make much noise of it. And he received no addresses from the archbishop to prosecute it further: who was so noted for his clemency, and following our Saviour’s rule of doing good for evil, that it was commonly said, the way to get his favour was to do him an injury. These were the only instances in which he expressed his resentments. Two of the conspirators against him had been persons signally obliged by him. The one was the bishop suffragan of Dover; the other was a civilian, whom he had employed much in his business. But all the notice he took of it was to shew them their letters, and to admonish them to be more faithful and honest for the future. Upon which he freely forgave them, and carried it so to them afterwards, as if he had absolutely forgotten what they had contrived against him. And a person of quality coming to him about that time, to obtain his favour and assistance in a suit, in which he was to move the king, he went about it, and had almost procured it: but the king calling to mind that he had been one of his secret accusers, asked him whether he took him for his friend. He answered that he did so. Then the king said, the other was a knave, and his mortal enemy; and bad him, when he should see him next, call him knave to his face. Cranmer answered, that such language did not become a bishop. But the king sullenly commanded him to do it; yet his modesty was such, that he could not obey so harsh a command. And so he passed the matter over. When these things came to be known, all persons, that were not unjustly prejudiced against him, acknowledged, that his behaviour was suitable to the example and doctrine of the meek and lowly Saviour of the world: and very well became so great a bishop, and such a reformer of the Christian religion; who in those sublime and extraordinary instances practised that which he taught others to do.”

As archbishop Cranmer was a learned man hiinself, so he was also a great patron of all solid learning, and of whatever he thought calculated to promote it. Mr. Gilpin observes, that the archbishop always thought himself much interested in the welfare of both the universities, but of Cambridge in particular; and though he does not appear to have bad any legal power there, yet such was his interest at court, and such was the general dependence of the more eminent members of that society upon him, that scarcely any thing was d,one there, either of a public or a private nature, without consulting him. It was his chief endeavour to encourage, as much as possible, a spirit of inquiry; and to rouse the students from the slumber of their predecessors; well knowing, the libertas philosophandi was the great mean of detecting error, and that true learning could never be at variance with true religion. Ascham and Cheke, two of the most elegant scholars of that age, were chiefly relied on, and consulted by the archbishop in this work. Leia'.id, also, the first British antiquary, was among the archbishop’s particular friends. Leland had a wonderful facility in learning languages, and was esteemed the first linguist in Europe. The archbishop soon took notice of him; and, with his usual discernment, recommended him to be the king’s librarian. His genius threw him on the study of antiquities; and his opportunities, on those of his own country. The archbishop, in the mean time, by procuring preferment for him, enabled him to make those inquiries to which his countrymen have been so much indebted.

Among others, who were under obligations to the archbishop’s generosity, was the amiable bishop Latimer, who not choosing to be reinstated in his old bishopric, and having made but an indifferent provision for his future necessities, spent a great part of his latter life with the archbishop, at Lambeth; and besides this intimacy with learned men at home, the archbishop held a constant correspondence with most of the learned men in Europe. The great patron of Erasmus had been archbishop Warham; than whom, to give popery its due, few churchmen of those times led a more apostolical life. When Cranmer succeeded Warham, Erasmus was in the decline of age. He found, however, during the short time he lived, as beneficent a friend under the new archbishop, as he had lost in the old one. The primate corresponded also with Osiander, Melancthon, and Calvin. His foreign correspondence, indeed, was so large, that he appointed a person with a salary at Canterbury, whose chief employment it was, to forward and receive his packets.

Of the learning of archbishop Cranmer, Mr. Gilpin remarks, that it was chiefly confined to his profession. He had applied himself in Cambridge to the study of the Greek and Hebrew languages; which though esteemed at that time as the mark of heresy, appeared to him the only sources of attaining a critical knowledge of the scriptures. He had so accurately studied canon-law, that he was esteemed the best canonist in England: and his reading in theology was so extensive, and IiHi collections from the fathers so very voluminous, that there were few points in which he was not accurately informed; and on which he could not give the opinions of the several ages of the church from the times of the apostles. f< If I had not seen with my own eyes,“says Peter Martyr,” I could not easily have believed, with what infinite pains and labour he had digested his great reading into particular chapters, under the heads of councils, canons, decrees, &c. His parts were solid, rather than shining; and his memory such, that it might be called an index to the books he had read and the collections he had made.

He was a sensible writer, rather nervous than elegant. His writings were entirely confined to the great controversy which then subsisted; and contain the whole sum of the theological learning of those times. His library was filled with a very noble collection of books; and was open to all men of letters. “I meet with authors here,” Roger Ascham would say, “which the two universities cannot furnish.” At the archbishop’s death, the greater part of his original Mss. were left at his palace of Ford near Canterbury, where they fell into the hands of his enemies. In the days of Elizabeth, archbishop Parker, who had an intimation that many of them were still in being, obtained an order from lord Burleigh, then secretary of state, in 1563. to search for them in all suspected places; and recovered a great number of them. They found their way afterwards into some of the principal libraries of England; but the greatest collection of them were deposited in Bene't-college in Cambridge.

In his sermons to the people he was very plain and instructive; insisting chiefly on the essentials of Christianity. Sir Richard Morrison, a gentleman who had been much employed in embassies abroad, both under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, gives us this character of the archbishop’s sermons, of which he was a frequent auditor: “The subjects of his sermons, for the most part, were, from whence salvation is to be fetched and on whom the confidence of man ought to lean. They insisted much on doctrines of faith and works; and taught what the fruits of faith were, and what place was to be given to works. They instructed men in the duties they owed their neighbour; and that every one was our neighbour, to whom we might any way do good. They declared, what men ought to think of themselves, after they had done all; and lastly, what promises Christ hath made; and who they are, to whom he will make them good. Thus he brought in the true preaching of the Gospel, altogether different from the ordinary way of preaching in those days, which was to treat concerning saints, to tell legendary tales of them, and to report miracles wrought for the confirmation of transubstantiation, and other popish corruptions. And such a heat of conviction accompanied his sermons, that the people departed from them with minds possessed of a great hatred of vice, and burning with a desire of virtue.”

He was a very amiable master in his family; and admirably preserved the difficult medium between indulgence and restraint. He had, according to the custom of the times, a very numerous retinue; among whom the most exact order was observed. Every week the steward of his household held a kind of court in the great hall of his palace, in which all family affairs were settled; servants wages were paid; complaints were heard; and faults examined. Delinquents were publicly rebuked, and after the third admonition discharged. His hospitality and charities were great and noble, equal to his station, greater often than his abilities. A plentiful table was among the virtues of those days. His was always bountifully covered. In an upper room was spread his own; where he seldom wanted company of the first distinction. Here a great many learned foreigners were daily entertained, and partook of his bounty. In his great hall a long table was plentifully covered, every day, for guests and strangers of a lower rank; at the upper end of which were three smaller tables, designed for his own officers, and inferior gentlemen. The learned Tremellius, who had himself often been an eye-witness of the archbishop’s hospitality, gives this character of it: “Archiepiscopi domus, publicum erat doctis, et piis omnibus hospitium; quod ipse hospes, Mcecenas, et pater, talibus semper patere voluit, quoad vixit, aut potuit homo piXofevo; nee minus <pi*o*oyoj.”

Among other instances of the archbishop’s charity, we have one recorded which was truly noble. After the destruction of monasteries, and before hospitals were erected, the nation saw no species of greater misery, than that of wounded and disbanded soldiers. For the use of such miserable objects, as were landed on the southern coasts of the island, the archbishop fitted up his manor-house of Beckesburn in Kent. He formed it indeed into a complete hospital; appointing a physician, a surgeon, nurses, and every thing proper, as well for food as physic. Nor did his charity stop here. Each man, on his recovery, was furnished with money to carry him home, in proportion to the distance of his abode.

It has been taken notice of, that after the passing of the act for the six articles, archbishop Cranmer sent his wife into Germany. But she afterwards returned again to England; and Mr. Strype informs us, that " in the time of king Edward, when the marriage of the clergy was allowed, he brought her forth, and lived openly with- her. 7 ' He left behind him a widow and children but as he always kept his family in obscurity, for prudential reasons, we know little about them. They had been kindly provided for by Henry VIII.; who, without any solicitation from the primate himself, gave him a considerable grant from the abbey of Welbeck in Nottinghamshire; which his family enjoyed after his decease. King Edward made some addition to his private fortune: and his heirs were restored in blood by an act of parliament, in the reign of Elizabeth.

His printed works are, 1. An account of Mr. Pole’s book, concerning king Henry Vlllth’s Marriage. 2. Several Letters to divers persons to king Henry VIII. to secretary Cromwell to sir William Cecil to foreign divines. 3. Three discourses upon his review of the king’s book, entitled “The Erudition of a Christian man.” 4. Other Discourses of his. 5. The Bishops’ Book, in which he had a part. 6. Answers to the fifteen articles of the rebels in Devonshire in 1549. 7. The examination of most points of religion. 8. A form for the alteration of the mass into a communion. 9. Some of the homilies. 10. A catechism, entitled “A short Instruction to Christian Religion, for the singular profit of children and young people.” 11. Against unwritten verities. 12. A defence of the true and catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ; with a confutation of sundry errors concerning the same. Grounded and established upon God’s holy word, and approved by the consent of the most ancient doctors of the church. This was translated into Latin by John Young. In opposition to it, Gardiner published “An Explication and Assertion of the true Catholic Faith touching the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, with the Confutation of a book wrote against the same.” 13. Cranmer replied in the following book, “An Answer by the reverend father in God, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, unto a crafty and sophistical caviilation, devised by Stephen Gardiner, doctor of law, late bishop of Winchester, against the true and godly doctrine of the most Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ. Wherein is also, as occasion serveth, answered such places of the book of Dr. Richard Smith, as may seem any thing worthy the answering. Also a true Copy of the book written, and in open court delivered by Dr. Stephen Gardiner, not one word added or diminished, but faithfully in all points agreeing with the original,” London, 1551, reprinted in 1580. It was translated into Latin by sir John Cheke. An answer was also made to this book by Stephen Gardiner, under the feigned name of Marcus Antonius Constantinus, and entitled “Confutatio cavillationum, quibus sacrosanctum Eucharistiae Sacramentum ab impiis Capernaitis impeti soiet.” Paris, 1552. 14. Craumer began an Answer to this, and finished three parts of it, but lived not to complete the whole. 15. Preface to the English translation of the Bible. 16. A Speech in the house of lonls, concerning a general council. 17. Letter to king Henry VIII. in justification of Anne Boleyn, May 3, 15‘35. Is. The Reasons that led him to oppose the Six Articles. For this he had like to come into great trouble, as may be seen in Fox. 19. Resolution of some questions concerning the Sacrament. 20. Injunctions given at his visitation within the diocese of Hereford. ’Jl. A collection, of passages out of the canon law, to shew the necessity of reforming it. 22. Some queries in order to the correcting of several abuses. 23. Concerning a farther reformation, and against sacrilege. 24. Answers to some queries concerning confirmation. 25. Some considerations offered to king Edward VI. to induce him to proceed to a farther reformation. 26. Answer to the lords of the privy-council. 27. Manifesto against the Mass.

After the restoration, and the marriage of king Charles II. queen Catharine appointed our author, who was then become one of the mission in England, her chaplain, and from that time he resided in Somerset-house, in the Strand. The great regularity of his life, his sincere and unaffected piety, his modest and mild behaviour, his respectful deportment to persons of distinction, with whom he was formerly acquainted when a protestant, and the care he took to avoid all concern in political affairs or intrigues of state, preserved him in quiet and safety, even in the most troublesome times- He was, however, a very zealous champion in the cause of the church of Rome, and was continually writing in defence of her doctrines, or in answer to the books of controversy written by protestants of distinguished learning or figure; and as this engaged him in a variety of disputes, he had the good fortune to acquire great reputation with both parties, the papists looking upon him to be one of their ablest advocates, and the protestants allowing that he was a grave, a sensible, and a candid writer. Among the works he published after his return to England, were: 1. “A non est inventus returned to Mr. Edward Bagshaw’s enquiry and vainly boasted discovery of weakness in the Grounds of the Church’s Infallibility,” 1662, 8vo. 2. “A Letter to an English gentleman, dated July 6th, 1662, wherein bishop Morley is concerned, printed amongst some of the treatises of that reverend prelate,” 3. “Roman Catholic Doctrines no Novelties; or, an answer to Dr. Pierce’s court-sermon, miscalled The primitive rule of Reformation,” 1663, 8vo; answered by Dr. Daniel Whitby. But that which contributed to make him most known, was his large and copious ecclesiastical history, entitled “The Church History of Britanny,” Roan, 1668, fol. which was indeed a work of great pains and labour, and executed with much accuracy and diligence. He had observed that nothing made a greater impression upon the people in general of his communion, than the reputation of the great antiquity of their church, and the fame of the old saints of both sexes, that had flourished in this island; and therefore he judged that nothing could be more serviceable in promoting what he styled the catholic interest, than to write such a history as might set these points in the fairest and fullest light possible. He had before him the example of a famous Jesuit, Michael Alford, alias Griffith, who had adjusted the same history under the years in which the principal events happened, in four large volumes, collected from our ancient historians; but, as this was written in Latin, he judged that it was less suited to the wants of common readers, and therefore he translated what suited his purpose into English, with such helps and improvements as he thought necessary. His history was very much approved by the most learned of his countrymen of the same religion, as appears by the testimonies prefixed to it. Much indeed may be said in favour of the order, regularity, and coherence of the facts, and the care and punctuality shewn in citing his authorities. On the other hand, he has too frequently adopted the superstitious notions of many of our old writers; transcribing from them such fabulous passages as have been long ago exploded by the inquisitive and impartial critics of his own faith. The book, however, long maintained its credit among the Romanists, as a most authentic ecclesiastical chronicle, and is frequently cited by their most considerable authors. He proposed to have published another volume of this history, which was to have carried it as low as the dissolution of monasteries by king Henry VIII. but he died before he had proceeded full three hundred years lower than the Norman conquest. Dodd, however, informs us that a considerable part of the second volume was preserved in ms. in the Benedictine monastery at Douay, and that it was never published “upon account of some nice controversies between the see of Rome, and some of our English kings, which might give offence.” While engaged on this work, he found leisure to interfere in all the controversies of the times, as will presently be noticed. His last dispute was in reference to a book written by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet, afterwards bishop of Worcester, to which, though several answers were given by the ablest of the popish writers, there was none that seemed to merit reply, excepting that penned by father Cressey, and this procured him the honour of a very illustrious antagonist, his old friend and acquaintance at Oxford, Edward earl of Clarendon. Being now grown far in years, and having no very promising scene before his eyes, from the warm spirit that appeared against popery amongst all ranks of people, and the many excellent books written to confute it by the most learned of the clergy, he was the more willing to seek for peace in the silence of a country retirement; and accordingly withdrew for some time to the house of Richard Caryll, esq. a gentleman of an ancient family and affluent fortune, at East Grinstead, co. Sussex, and dying upon the 10th of August 1674, being then near the seventieth year of his age, was buried in the parish church there. His loss was much regretted by those of his communion, as being one of their ablest champions, ready to draw his pen in their defence on every occasion, and sure of having his pieces read with singular favour and attention. His memory also was revered by the protestants, as well on account of the purity of his manners, and his mild and humble deportment, as for the plainness, candour, and decency with which he had managed all the controversies that he had been engaged in, and which had procured him, in return, much more of kindness and respect, than almost any other of his party had met with, or indeed deserved. It is very remarkable, however, that he thought it necessary to apologize to his popish readers for the respectful mention he made of the prelates of our church. Why this should require an apology, we shall not Inquire, but that his candour and politeness deserve the highest commendation will appear from what he says of archbishop Usher: “As for B. Usher, his admirable abilities in ‘chronological and historical erudition,’ as also his faithfulness and ingenuous sincerity in delivering without any provoking reflection*, what with great labour he has observed, ought certainly at least to exempt him from being treated by any one rudely and contemptuously, especially by me, who am moreover always obliged to preserve a just remembrance of very many kind effects of friendship, which I received from, him.” We have already taken notice of his inclination to the mystic divinity, which led him to take so much pains about the works of father Baker, and from the same disposition he also published “Sixteen revelations of divine love, shewed to a devout servant of our Lord, called mother Juliana, an anchorete of Norwich, who lived in the days of king Edward Hi.” He left also in ms. “An Abridgment of the book called The cloud of unknowing, and of the counsel referring to the same.” His next performance, was in answer to a famous treatise, written by Dr. Stillingfleet, against the church of Rome, which made a very great noise in those days, and put for some time a stop to the encroachments their missionaries were daily making, which highly provoked those of the Roman communion. This was entitled “Answer to part of Dr. Stillingfleet’s book, entitled Idolatry practised in the church of Rome,” 1672, 8vo, and was followed by “Fanaticism fanatically imputed to the Catholic Church by Dr. Stillingfleet, and the imputation refuted and retorted,” &c. 1672, 8vo, and “Question, Why are you a Catholic? Question, Why are you a Protestant?” 1673, 8vo. In support of Dr. Stillingfleet, the earl of Clarendon wrote “Animadversions” upon our author’s answer; in which he very plainly tells him and the world, that it was not devotion, but necessity and want of a subsistence, which drove him first out of the church of England, and then into a monastery. As this noble peer knew him well at Oxford, it may be very easily imagined that what he said made a very strong impression, and it was to efface this, that our author thought tit to send abroad an answer under the title of “Epistle apologetical to a person of honour, touching his vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet,' 1 1674, 8vo. In this work he gives a large relation of the state and condition of his affairs, at the time of what he styles his conversion, in order to remove the imputation of quitting his faith to obtain bread. The last work that he published was entitled” Remarks upon the Oath of Supremacy."

, bishop of Durham, the fifth sen of John lord Crewe, of Stean, co. Northampton, by Jemima, daughter and coheir of Edward Walgrave, of Lawford, in Essex, esq. was born at Stean, the 3 1st of January, 1633; and in 1652 admitted commoner of Lincoln college, in Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. Feb. 1, 1655-6; soon after which he was chosen fellow of that college. On June 29th, 1658, he took the degree of M. A. At the restoration he declared heartily in favour of the crown and hierarchy; and in 1663 was one of the proctors of the university. The year following, on the 2d of July, he took the degree of LL. D.; and soon after went into holy orders. August the 12th, 1668, he was elected rector of Lincoln -college, upon the decease of Dr. Paul Hood. On the 29th of April, 1669, he was installed dean of Chichester, and held with that dignity, the praecentorship, in which he had been installed the day before. He was also appointed clerk of the closet to king Charles II. In 1671, upon the translation of Dr. Blandford to the see of Worcester, he was elected hishop of Oxford in his room, on the 16th of June, confirmed June the ISth, consecrated July the 2d, and enthroned the 5th of the same month; being allowed to hold with it, in commendam, the living of Whitney, and the rectorship of Lincoln college, which last he resigned in October 1672. In 1673 he performed the ceremony of the marriage of James duke of York with Maria of Este; and through that prince’s interest, to whom he appears to have been subservient, he was translated, the 22d of October, 1674, to the bishopric of Durham. In the beginning of J6.75, he baptized Katharina- Laura, the new-born daughter of James duke of York. The 26th of April, 1676, he was sworn of the privy council to king Charles II. and upon the accession of king James II. to the crown, he was in great favour with that prince; he was made dean of his majesty’s royal chapel in 1685, in the room of Compton, bishop of London, who had been removed; and within a few days after, was admitted into the privy council. In 1686 he was appointed one of the commissioners in the new ecclesiastical commission erected by king James, an honoqr which he is said to have valued beyond its worth. By virtue of that commission, he appeared on the 9th of August, at the proceedings against Henry bishop of London, and was for suspending him during the king’s pleasure; though the earl and bishop of Rochester, and chief justice Herbert, were against it. Immediately after that bishop’s suspension, commissioners were appointed to exercise all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the diocese of London, of which bishop Crewe was one. The 20th of November following, he was present at, and consenting to, the degradation of Mr. Samuel Johnson, previously to the most severe punishment that was inflicted on that eminent divine; and countenanced with his presence a prosecution carried on, in May 1687, against Dr. Peachy, vice-chancellor of Cambridge, for refusing to admit one Alban Francis, a Benedictine monk, to the degree of master of arts in that university, without taking the oaths. In July the same year, he offered to attend the pope’s nuncio at his public entry into London; but we are told his coachman refused to "drive lijm that way. His name was put again in a new ecclesiastical commission issued out this year, in October; in which he acted, during the severe proceedings against Magdalen college in Oxford, for refusing to elect one Anthony Farmer their president, pursuant to the king’s mandate. The bishop continued acting as an ecclesiastical commissioner till October 1688; when that commission was abolished. Towards the end of the year 1687, he was employed, with the bishops of Rochester and Peterborough, to draw up a form of thanksgiving for the queen’s being with child. But finding that the prince of Orange’s party was likely to' prevail, he absented himself from the council-board, and told the archbishop of Canterbury, that he was sorry for having so long concurred with the courtand desired now to be reconciled to his grace, and the other bishops. Even in the convention that met January 22, 1688-9, to consider of filling the throne, he was one of those who voted, on the 6th of February, that king James II. had abdicated the kingdom. Yet his past conduct was too recent to be forgotten, and therefore he was excepted by name out of the pardon granted by king William and queen Mary, May 23, 1690, which so terrified him, that he went over to Holland, and returned just in time to take the oaths to the new government, and preserved his bishopric. But, in order to secure to himself the possession of that dignity, he was forced to permit the crown to dispose of, or at least to nominate to, his prebends of Durham, as they should become vacant. By the death of his two elder brothers, he became in 1691, baron Crewe of Stean; and, about the 21st of December the same year, he married, but left no issue. During the rest of king William’s reign, he remained quiet and unmolested; and in the year 1710, he was one of the lords that opposed the prosecution then carried on against Dr. Sacheverell, and declared him not guilty; and likewise protested against several steps taken in that affair. He applied himself chiefly, in the latter part of his life, to works of munificence and charity. Particularly, he was a very great benefactor to Lincoln college, of which he had been fellow and rector; and laid out large sums in beautifying the bishop’s palace at Durham; besides many other instances of generosity and munificence of a more private nature. At length, his lordship departed this life on Monday September 18, 1721, aged eighty-eight; and was buried in his chapel at Stean, the 30th of the same month, with an inscription on his monument. He held the see of Durham forty-seven years. Dying without issue, the title of Baron Crewe of Stean became extinct with him.

, abbot of Westminster in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, was born in Normandy, of a considerable family, and educated in the monastery of Bee, under Lanfranc, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who was then prior of that convent, and taught the liberal arts with great reputation. In this seminary Crispin became a monk, under Anselm, who was at that time abbot. He was much esteemed by both these eminent men, the former of whom, after his advancement to the see of Canterbury, sent for him to England, and made him abbot of St. Peter’s, Westminster, and Lanfranc parted with him reluctantly, and continued to correspond with him as long as he lived. Crispin was abbot of Westminster thirty-two years, during which he was sent on different embassies by king Henry I. Leland says, that he was some time at Rome, probably on some ecclesiastical errand. He died in 1117, and was buried in the south part of the great cloisters. Leland, Bale, and Pits, who give him the character of a very learned and pious ecclesiastic, attribute a great many works in divinity to him, of which we know of one only that was published, “De fide ecclesise, contra Judasos,” Cologne, 1537, and Paris, 1678, with Anselm’s works. This was occasioned by a disputation which he held with a very learned Jew at Mentz, whose arguments, with his own, he drew up in the form of a dialogue.

, in Latin Crocus, one of the revivers of classical learning, was a native of London, educated at Eton, and admitted scholar of King’s college, Cambridge, April 4, 1506. During the time of his scholarship he went to Oxford, and was instructed in the Greek language by Grocyn. He then went to Paris and some other parts of Europe for further improvement, and continued abroad about twelve years, supported chiefly by the liberality of Warham, archbishop of Canterbury. During his residence there he received a very high honour, that of being chosen Greek professor at Leipsic, being the fiirt that ever taught Greek in that university. Camerarius was one of his pupils here. He resided at Leipsic from 1514 to 1517, and afterwards for some time at Louvain in the same capacity. But as now the study of the Greek language began to be encouraged in our own universities, and as they could ill spare a scholar of Croke’s accomplishments, he was invited home, and in 1519, by the interest of Fisher, bishop of Rochester, was chosen public orator, and lecturer or teacher of Greek in that university. Here, likewise, as well as at Leipsic, he was the first who publicly and by authority taught Greek, Erasmus, who preceded him, having only made some private attempts; yet, in some respect he may be said to have succeeded that eminent scholar, as in his oration in praise of Greek learning, he makes honourable mention of Erasmus, and speaks modestly of himself as unworthy to succeed him. Erasmus had so good an opinion of him, that knowing he was poor, he desired dean Colet to assist him. In 1524, having proceeded in divinity, he became doctor in that faculty, and Henry VIII. being informed of his abilities, employed him as tutor to his natural son, the duke of Richmond. This promotion led to higher; for, being introduced at court when the question respecting the king’s divorce was agitated, Dr. Croke was thought a proper person to be sent abroad, in order to influence the university of Padua to the king’s side; which he successfully accomplished, although the enemies of that divorce say, not in the most honourable manner. From Collier we learn that Croke owns, in a letter to his royal master, that he had paid various sums to at least five of the members of the universities of Padua and Bologna, in order to keep them steady to the cause. But Burnet appears to explain this matter more to Croke’s honour.

On his return to England, the university of Oxford invited him to settle there, with which he complied in 1532, and taught Greek in Peckwater school (on the site of which Peckwater quadrangle is built), and soon after he was made a canon of Cardinal Wolsey’s college, which he held until 1545, when he removed to Exeter college on a pension of 26l. 135. 6d. per annum, from the smallness of which it has been inferred that he had not now the same interest at court as formerly but long before this, in 1532 f when, upon the death of dean Higden, the canons supplicated his majesty, through lord Cromwell, that he might be appointed to that office, the request was denied, nor was he afterwards made a canon of the college upon the new foundation by Henry VIII. when it had the name of the King’s college. It appears by his will that he had only the living of Long Buckby, in Northamptonshire, which Dodd supposes was conferred upon him in queen Mary’s time. The same historian thinks that in king Edward’s reign he did not go all the lengths of the reformers, and gives as a proof some reflections against Leland on account of his inconstancy in religion. There can be no doubt, however, of Dr. Croke’s remaining Jinn in the popish religion, for we find him enumerated among the witnesses appointed to discover heresy in archbishop Cranmer’s writings. Dr. Croke died at London in 1558, but where buried is not known. His writings are, 1. “Oratio de Groecarum disciplinarum laudibus,” dated July 1519, and probably printed about that time, 4to. It is dedicated to his fellow collegian, Nicholas West, bishop of Ely; and the date shows the error of those biographers who inform us that he was not chosen Greek professor at Cambridge until 1522. With this is printed “Oratio qua Cantabrigienses est hortatus, ne Grascarum literarum desertores essent.” Before, and at the end of these orations, Gilbert Ducher wrote an epistle in praise of Croke’s learning. 2. “Introductiones ad Grascam linguam,” Cologn, 1520, 4to. 3. “In Ausonium annotationes.” 4. “Elementa Gr. Gram.” 5. “De Verborum constructione.” His Letters from Italy to Henry VIII. on the subject of the divorce may be seen in Burnet’s History of the Reformation, with a full account of his proceedings there, which gives us no very favourable notion of the liberality of his royal employer, and proves that Collier’s accusation of bribery has not much foundation. Croke is also said to have made some translations from the Greek of Theodore Gaza and Elysius Calentinus. Hody says that he and Erasmus translated Gaza’s Greek Grammar in 1518, which may be the same mentioned above; and we suspect that the work “De Verborum constructione” is also from Gaza. Bale and Pits are seldom to be depended on in the titles of books. The fame of Croke has been recently revived on the continent by John Gott. Boehmius, in his “Specimen Literature Lipsicae Saeculo XVI.” 1761, 4to, in which he notices Croke as the reviver of Greek literature in that university. The same author, in his “Opuscula Academica de Litteratura Lipsiensi,” has published Croke’s “Encomium Academic Lipsiensis.”

, earl of Essex, an eminent statesman in the sixteenth century, was the son of Walter Cromwell, a blacksmith, at Putney, near London, and in his latter days a brewer; after whose decease, his mother was married to a sheerman in London. What education he had, was In a private school: and all the learning he attained to, was (according to the standard of those times), only reading and writing, and a little Latin. When he grew up, having a very great inclination for travelling, he went into foreign countries, though at whose expence is not known; and by that means he had an opportunity of seeing the world, of gaining experience, and of learning several languages, which proved of great service to him afterwards. Coming to Antwerp, where was then a very considerable English factory, he was by them retained to be their clerk, or secretary. But that office being too great a confinement, he embraced an opportunity that offered in 1510, of taking a journey to Rome. Whilst he remained in Italy he served for some time as a soldier under the duke of Bourbon, and was at the sacking of Rome: and at Bologna he assisted John Russel, esq. afterwards earl of Bedford, in making his escape, when he had like to be betrayed into the hands of the French, being secretly in those parts about our king’s affairs. It is also much to his credit, as an early convert to the reformation, that, in his journey to and from Rome, he learned by heart Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament. After his return from his travels he was taken into the family and service of cardinal Wolsey, who is said to have first discovered him in France, and who made him his solicitor, and often employed him in business of great importance. Among other things, he had the chief hand in the foundation of the two colleges begun at Oxford and Ipswich by that magnificent prelate; and upon the cardinal’s disgrace in 1529, he used his utmost endeavours and interest to have him restored to the king’s favour: even when articles of high-treason against him were sent down to the house of commons, of which Cromwell was then a member, he defended his master with so much wit and eloquence, that no treason cauld be laid to his charge: which honest beginning procured Cromwell great reputation, and made his parts and abilities to be much taken notice of. After the cardinal’s household was dissolved, Cromwell was taken into the king’s service (upon the recommendation of sir Christopher Hales, afterwards master of the rolls, and sir John Russel, knt. above-mentioned) as the fittest person to manage the disputes the king then had with the pope; though some endeavoured to hinder his promotion, and to prejudice his majesty against him, on account of his defacing the small monasteries that were dissolved for endowing Wolsey’s colleges. But he discovering to the king some particulars that were very acceptable to him respecting the submission of the clergy to the pope, in derogation of his majesty’s authority, he took him into the highest degree of favour, and soon after he was sent to the convocation, then sitting, to acquaint the clergy, that they were all fallen into a praemunire on the above account, and the provinces of Canterbury and York were glad to compromise by a present to the king of above 100,000l. In 1531 he was knighted; made master of the king’s jewel-house, with a salary of 50l. per annum; and constituted a privy-counsellor. The next year he was made clerk of the Hanaper, an office of profit and repute in chancery; and, before the end of the same year, chancellor of the exchequer, and in 1534, principal secretary of state, and master of the rolls. About the same time he was chosen chancellor of the university of Cambridge; soon after which followed a general visitation of that university, when the several colleges delivered up their charters, and other instruments, to sir Thomas Cromwell. The year before, he assessed the fines laid upon those who having 40l. per annum estate, refused to take the order of knighthood. In 1535 he was appointed visitor-general of the monasteries throughout England, in order for their suppression; and in that office is accused of having acted with much violence, although in other cases promises and pensions were employed to obtain the compliance of the monks and nuns. But the mode, whatever it might be, gave satisfaction to the king and his courtiers, and Cromwell was, on July 2, 1536, constituted lord keeper of the privy seal, when he resigned his mastership of the rolls . On the 9th of the same month he was advanced to the dignity of a baron of this realm, by the title of lord Cromwell of Okeham in Rutlandshire; and, six days after, took his place in the house of lords. The pope’s supremacy being now abolished in England, lord Cromwell was made, on the 18th of July, vicar-general, and vicegerent, over all the spirituality, under the king, who was declared supreme head of the church. In that quality his lordship satin the convocation holden this year, above the archbishops, as the king’s representative. Being-invested with such extensive power, he employed it in discouraging popery, and promoting the reformation. For that purpose he caused certain articles to be enjoined by the king’s authority, differing in many essential points from the established system of the Roman-catholic religion; and in September, this same year, he published some injunctions to the clergy, in which they were ordered to preach up the king’s supremacy; not to lay out their rhetoric in extolling images, relics, miracle*, or pilgrimages, but rather to exhort their people to serve God, and make provision for their families: to put parents and other directors of youth in mind to teach their children the Lord’s-prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments in their mother-tongue, and to provide a Bible in Latin and English, to be laid in the churches for every one to read at their pleasure. He likewise encouraged the translation of the Bible into English; and, when finished, enjoined that one of the largest volume should be provided for every parish church, at the joint charge of the parson and parishioners. These alterations, with the dissolution of the monasteries, and (notwithstanding the immense riches gotten from thence) his demanding at the same time for the king subsidies both from the clergy and laity, occasioned very great murmurs against him, and indeed with some reason. All this, however, rather served to establish him in the king’s esteem, who was as prodigal of money as he was rapacious and in 1537 his majesty constituted him chief justice itinerant of all the forests beyond Trent and on the 26th of August, the same year, he was elected knight of the garter, and dean of the cathedral church of Weils. The year following he obtained a grant of the castle and lordship of Okeham in the county of Rutland; and was also made constable of Carisbrook-castle in the Isle of Wight. In September he published new injunctions, directed to all bishops and curates, in which he ordered that a Bible, in English, should be set up in some convenient place in every church, where the parishioners might most commodiously resort to read the same: that the clergy should, every Sunday and holiday, openly and plainly recite to their parishioners, twice or thrice together, one article of the Lord’s Prayer, or Creed, in English, that they might learn the same by heart: that they should make, or cause to be made, in their churches, one sermon every quarter of a year at least, in which they should purely and sincerely declare the very gospel of Christ, and exhort their hearers to the works of charity, mercy, and faith not to pilgrimages, images, &c. that they should forthwith take clown all images to which pilgrimages or offerings were wont to be made: that in all such benefices upon which they were not themselves resident, they should appoint able curates: that they, and every parson, vicar, or curate, should for every church keep one book of register, wherein they should write the day and year of every wedding, christening, and burying, within their parish; and therein set every person’s name that shall be so wedded, christened, or buried, &c. Having been thus highly instrumental in promoting the reformation, and in dissolving the monasteries, he was amply rewarded by the king in 1539, with many noble manors and large estates that had belonged to those dissolved houses. On the 17th of April, the same year, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Essex; and soon after constituted lord high chamberlain of England. The same day he was created earl of Essex he procured Gregory his son to be made baron Cromwell of Okeham. On the 12th of March 1540, he was put in commission, with others, to sell the abbey-lands, at twenty years’ purchase: which was a thing he had advised the king to do, in order to stop the clamours of the people, to attach them to his interest, and to reconcile them to the dissolution of the monasteries. But as, like his old master Wolsey, he had risen rapidly, he was now doomed, like him, to exhibit as striking an example of the instability of human grandeur; and au unhappy precaution to secure (as he imagined) his greatness, proved his ruin. Observing that some of his most inveterate enemies, particularly Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, began to be more in favour at court than himself, he used his utmost endeavours to procure a marriage between king Henry and Anne of Cleves, expecting great support from a queen of his own making; and as her friends were Lutherans, he imagined it would bring down the popish party at court, and again recover the ground he and Cranmer had now lost. But this led immodiaieiy to his destruction; for the king, not liking the queen, began to hate Cromwell, the great promoter of the marriage, and soon found an opportunity to sacrifice him; nor was this difficult. Cromwell was odious to all the nobility by reason of his low binh: hated particularly by Gardiner, and the Roman catholics, for having been so busy in the dissolution of the abbies: the reformers themselves found he could not protect them from persecution; and the nation in general was highly incensed against him for his having lately obtained a subsidy of four shillings in the pound from the clergy, and one tenth and one fifteenth from the laity; notwithstanding the immense sums that had flowed into the treasury out of the monasteries. Henry, with his usual caprice, and without ever considering that Cromwell’s faults were his own, and committed, if we may use the expression, for his own gratification, caused him to be arrested at the council table, by the duke of Norfolk, on the 10th of June, when he least suspected it. Being committed to the Tower, he wrote a letter to the king, to vindicate himself from the guilt of treason; and another concerning his majesty’s marriage with Anne of Cleves; but we do not find that any notice was taken of these: yet, as his enemies knew if he were brought to the bar he would justify himself by producing the king’s orders and warrants for what he had done, they resolved to prosecute him by attainder; and the bill being brought into the house of lords the 17th of June, and read the first time, on the 19th was read the second and third times, and sent down to the commons. Here, however, it stuck ten days, and at last a new bill of attainder was sent up to the lords, framed in the house of commons: and they sent back at the same time the bill the lords had sent to them. The grounds of his condemnation were chieHy treason and heresy; the former very confusedly expressed. Like other falling favourites, he was deserted by most of his friends, except archbishop Cranmer, who wrote to the king in his behalf with great boldness and spirit. But the duke of Norfolk, and the rest of the popish party, prevailed; and, accordingly, in pursuance of his attainder, the lord Cromwell was brought to a scaffold erected on Tower-hill, where, after having made a speech, and prayed, he was beheaded, July 28, 1540. His death is solely to be attributed to the ingratitude and caprice of Henry, whom he had served with great faithfulness, courage, and resolution, in the most hazardous, difficult, and important undertakings. As for the lord Cromwell’s character, he is represented by popish historians as a crafty, cruel, ambitious, and covetous man, and a heretic; but their opponents, on better grounds, assert that he was a person of great wit, and excellent parts, joined to extraordinary diligence and industry; that his apprehension was quick and clear; his judgment methodical and solid; his memory strong and rational; his tongue fluent and pertinent; his presence stately and obliging; his heart large and noble; his temper patient and cautious; his correspondence well laid and constant; his conversation insinuating and close: none more dextrous in finding out the designs of men and courts; and none more reserved in keeping a secret. Though he was raised from the meanest condition to a high pitch of honour, he carried his greatness with wonderful temper; being noted in the exercise of his places of judicature, to have used much moderation, and in his greatest pomp to have taken notice of, and been thankful to mean persons of his old acquaintance. In his whole behaviour he was courteous and affable to all; a favourer in particular of the poor in their suits; and ready to relieve such as were in danger of being oppressed by powerful adversaries; and so very hospitable and bountiful, that about two hundred persons were served at the gate of his house in Throgmorton-strcet, London, twice every day, with bread, meat, and drink sufficient. He must be regarded as one of the chief instruments in the reformation; and though he could not prevent the promulgation, he stopped the execution, as far as he could, of the bloody act of the six articles. But when the king’s command pressed him close, he was not firm enough to refuse his concurrence to the condemnation and burning of John Lambert. In his domestic concerns he was very regular; calling upon his servants yearly, to give him an account of what they had got under him, and what they desired of him; warning them to improve their opportunities, because, he said, he was too great to stand long; providing for them as carefully, as for his own son, by his purse and credit, that they might live as handsomely when he was dead, as they did when he was alive. In a word, we are assured, that for piety towards God, fidelity to his king, prudence in the management of affairs, gratitude to his benefactors, dutifulness, charity, and benevolence, there was not any one then superior to him in England.

In his public way of living, there was a strange kind of splendour at Whitehall; for sometimes his court wore an air of stately severity; at other times he would unbend himself, and drink freely never indeed to excess, but only so far as to have an opportunity of sounding men’s thoughts in their unguarded moments. Sometimes, in the midst of serious consultations, he started into buffoonery; sometimes the feasts that were prepared for persons of the first distinction, were, by a signal of drums and trumpets, made the prey of his guards. There was a kind of madness in his mirth, as well as of humour in his gravity, and much of design in all. Some have commended him for keeping up a great face of religion in his court and through the nation: but it is not easy to know what they mean: certain it is, that religion never wore so many faces as in his time; nor was he pleased to discover which face he liked best. The presbyterians he hated; the church of England he persecuted; against the papists he made laws; but the sectaries he indulged. Yet some of the presbyterian divines he courted affected kindness to a few of the ministers of the church of England and entered into some very deep intrigues with the papists. This made sir Kenelm Digby’s favourite father White write in defence of his government, and even of his conduct; and the popish primate of Ireland sent precepts through all his province under his seal, to pray for the health, establishment, and prosperity of the protector Cromwell and his government. With regard to personal religion, it would be difficult to find, or even to conceive, an instance of more consummate, impudent hypocrisy than Cromwell exhibited, or a more unfeeling contempt for every thing that deserves the name of religion, when it interfered with the purposes of his ambition. As for the judges in Westminster-hall, he differed with St. John, and was sometimes out of humour with Hale. He set up high courts of justice unknown to the law, and put Dr. Hewett to death for not pleading before one of them, though he ottered to plead, if any one that sat there, and was a lawyer, would give it under his hand, that it was a legal jurisdiction; and Whitlocke himself owns, that, though he was named in the commission, he would never sit, because he knew it was not lawful. His majors-general, while they acted, superseded all law; and thv protector himself derided Magna Charta, so much respected by our kings. He was indeed kind to some learned men. Milton and Marvel were his secretaries. He would have hired Meric Casaubon to have written his history; and have taken the famous Hobbes into his service for writing the Leviathan, probably because in that celebrated work power is made the source of right and the basis of religion the foundation on which Cromwell’s system, as well as Hobbes’s, was entirely built. He gave archbishop Usher a public funeral in Westminster-abbey; yet he paid but half the expence, and the other half proved a heavy burden upon that prelate’s poor family. And when all this is allowed to so inflexible a tyrant, how much is deducted from the infamy that attaches to his character? The most execrable of mankind are never uniform in villainy.

In 1651 he took the degree of D. D. and in 1654 was chosen master of Christ’s college, in Cambridge; in which year also he married. He spent the remainder of his life in this station, proving highly serviceable to the university, and the church of England. Jan. 1657, he was one of the persons nominated by a committee of the parliament, to be consulted about the English translation of the Bible. The lord commissioner Whitlocke, who had the care of this business, mentions him among others and says, that “this committee often met at his house, and had the most learned men in the oriental tongues, to consult with in this great business, and divers learned and excellent observations of some mistakes in the translation of the Bible in English, which yet was agreed to be the best of any translation in the world.” Our author had a great share in the friendship and esteem of John Thurloe, esq. secretary of state to the protectors Oliver and Richard Cromwell; who frequently corresponded with him, and consulted him about such persons in the university as were proper to be employed in political and civil affairs. Besides several letters of recommendation remaining in ms. there is a printed one in Thurloe’s “State Papers” in which he recommends to the secretary, for the place of chaplain to the English merchants at Lisbon, Mr. Zachary Cradock, afterwards provost of Eton college, and famous for his uncommon learning and abilities as a preacher. Upon the restoration of Charles II. he wrote a copy of verses, which were published in “Academic Cantabrigiensis Σωτηρια, sive ad Carolum II. reducem, &c. gratulatio;” and in 1662 he was presented by Sheldon, then bishop of London, to the vicarage of Ashwell, in Hertfordshire. In 1678 he was installed a prebendary of Gloucester; and in this year it was that he published at London, in folio, his celebrated work entitled “The true Intellectual System of the Universe; the first part, wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and its impossibility demonstrated.” The imprimatur by Dr. Samuel Parker, chaplain to archbishop Sheldon, is dated May 29, 1671, seven years before the publication of this work, owing to the opposition of some people at court, who used all their endeavours to destroy its reputation on account of certain singularities in it, which brought some of his opinions under suspicion. He appeared indeed so much to affect impartiality, as to incur the imputation of betraying the cause he meant to defend, which certainly was far from his intention. Dryden tells us, that “he raised such strong objections against the being of a God and providence, that many thought he had not answered them:” and lord Shaftesbury says that “though the whole world were no less satisfied with his capacity and learning, than with his sincer ty in the cause of the Deity; yet was he accused of giving the upper hand to the atheists, for having only stated their reasons and those of their adversaries fairly together.” Bayle, in his “Continuation des pensees diverses sur les Cometes,” observed, that Cud worth by his plastic nature gave great advantage to the atheists; and laid the foundation of a warm dispute between himself and Le Clerc upon this subject. Le Clerc frequently expressed his wishes, that some man of learning would translate the “Intellectual System” into Latin; but this design, though formed or entertained and attempted by several persons in Germany, was never executed till 1733, when the learned Mosheim published his translation of it. A second edition of the English was published by Birch, 1743, in 2 vols. 4to, in which were first supplied, chiefly from Mosheim’s Latin edition, references to the several quotations in the “Intellectual System,” which before were very obscure and imperfect, but Mosheim had been at the pains to search them all out, and to note them very accurately. In Birch’s edition, there are, besides the “Intellectual System,” the following pieces of our author, viz. the “Discourse concerning the true notion of the Lord’s Supper,” and “Two Sermons,” on 1 John ii. 3, 4, and 1 Cor. xv. 57, to all which is prefixed an account of the life and writings of the author, by Dr. Birch.

, a very learned divine, and bishop of Peterborough, the son of an honest citizen of London, who by his industry acquired a competent, though not a great fortune, was born in the parish of St. Anne, near Aldersgate, July 15th, 1632. He was educated at St. Paul’s school, under the care of Mr. John Langley, and was moved from thence to Magdalen-college, in Cambridge, probably in 1649, where he was contemporary with some very worthy and learned persons; such as Dr. Hezekiah Burton, his intimate friend and acquaintance, a very learned and pious divine; Dr. Hollings, an eminent physician at Shrewsbury; sir Samuel Moreland, admired for his skill in the mathematics; the celebrated Mr. Pepys, secretary to the admiralty; and the lord keeper Bridgeman, to whom himself, and his friend Dr. Burton, were chaplains at the same time. He was very remarkable, while fellow of his college, for his diligent application to his studies, as well as for the unaffected piety and unblemished probity of his life. He took his degree of B. A. in 1653, and in 1656 he became M. A. at which time he had thoughts of applying himself to physic, which he actually studied for some time. He was incorporated M. A. in the university of Oxford, July 14th, 1657, and went out B. D. at a public commencement at his own university, A. D. 1663, with universal applause. His first preferment was the rectory of Brampton, in the deanery of Haddon, in the archdeaconry and county of Northampton, which was given him by sir John Norwich, a gentleman who descended of a most ancient and noble family, and was advanced to the dignity of a baronet by king Charles the First. Mr. Cumberland was admitted December 3d, 1658, upon the demise of the reverend Mr. John Ward; and after the restoration, having never had the least scruple to the authority of the church, he had a legal institution, and read the Thirty-nine Articles, as directed by law, November 24th, 1661, and was the same year appointed one of the twelve preachers in the university of Cambridge. This, however, was a temporary avocation only, owing to the high character he had raised by the masterly manner in which he had performed all academical exercises, and from which he quickly returned to the duties of his parochial charge. In this rural retirement he minded little else than the duties of his function, and his studies. His relaxations from these were very few, besides his journies to Cambridge, which he made frequently, to preserve a correspondence with his learned acquaintance in that place. Here he might probably have remained during the course of his whole life, if his intimate friend and kind benefactor, sir Orlando Bridgeman, upon his receiving the seals in 1667, had not sent for him up to London, made him his chaplain, and soon after bestowed upon him the living of Alhallows, in Stamford. He discharged the functions of his ministry in that great town with indefatigable diligence; for, besides the duties incumbent upon him by his parochial charge, he accepted of the weekly lecture, and then preached three times every week in the same church, and at the same time cultivated his philosophical, mathematical, and philological studies. He gave a noble proof of this, and one which equally demonstrated the soundness of his morals and the solidity of his parts, in publishing his work “De Legibus Naturae Disquisitio philosophica,” Lond. 1672, 4to, written while he was chaplain to sir Orlando Bridgeman, to whom it was dedicated, and there is prefixed to it a short preface to the reader, by the author’s friend and fellow chaplain to the lord-keeper, Dr. Hezekiah Burton. Dr. Cumberland being at a distance from the press when this book was published, it came into the world very incorrectly printed, and in subsequent editions these faults were multiplied in a very surprizing manner. We may hence form an idea of the excellency of a work that could, notwithstanding, support its author’s reputation both at home and abroad, and be constantly esteemed one of the best performances that ever appeared, and that too upon one of the nicest and most important subjects. Mr. Payne says very justly, that it was one of the first pieces written in a demonstrative way on a moral subject, and at the same time the most perfect. It is indeed on all hands admitted, that Hobbes was never so closely handled, or his notions so thoroughly sifted, as by Dr. Cumberland. He has, however, taken a new road, very different from Grotius, Puffendorff, and other writers, more difficult, and less entertaining indeed, but at the same time much more convincing. It was desired that a piece of such general utility should be made better known by being put into an easier method, and translated into the English language. This the author would not oppose, though he did not undertake it; being very sensible that the obscurity complained of by some, was really in the subject itself, and would be found so by those who meddled with it. The project, however, was pursued by James Tyrrel, esq. grandson to the famous archbishop Usher, who published his performance under the following title: “A brief Disquisition of the Law of Nature, according to the principles and method laid down in the reverend Dr. Cumberland’s (now lord bishop of Peterburgh’s) Latin treatise on that subject, &c.” London, 1692, 8vo. Mr. Payne had also an intention to have translated it, but was anticipated by the rev. John Maxwell, in a translation published at London, 1727, 4to; and in 1750 appeared a third translation by the rev. John Towers, D. D. prebendary of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, 4to, Dublin, with large explanatory notes, &c. In 1744, Barbeyrac published a French translation.

Among his productions of the more serious cast may be included his “Version of Fifty of the Psalms of David,” upon which he bestowed great attention: and his religious and argumentative tract entitled “A few plain Reasons why we should believe in Christ, and adhere to his Religion;” a copy of which he presented, with due deference, to the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London, the latter of whom honoured him with a very gracious ac^ knowledgement by letter. He wrote also as many sermons as would make a large volume, some of which have been delivered from the pulpit; and was for some years in the habit of composing an appropriate prayer of thanksgiving for the last day in the year, and of supplication for the first clay of the succeeding year. He was accustomed also to select passages from the Old Testament, and turn them into verse; of which he has given a specimen in his “Memoirs.”

, bart. a man of considerable talents, unhappily, in some respects, misapplied, was the son of Alexander Cuming of Coulter, who was created a baronet in 1695, and was born probably about the beginning of the last century. It appears by his Journal, which was in the possession of the late Isaac Reed, esq. that he was bred to the law of Scotland, but was induced to quit that profession in consequence of a pension of 300l. per annum being assigned him by government, either, as he intimates, for services done by his family, or expected from himself. This pension was withdrawn in 1721, at the instance, according to his account, of sir Robert Walpole, who had conceived a pique against his father, for opposing him in parliament. It is mors probable, however, that he was found too visionary a schemer to fulfil what was expected from him. In 1129 he was induced, by a dream of lady Cunaing’s, to undertake a voyage to America, for the purpose of visiting the Cherokee nations. He left England on Sept. 13, and arrived at Charlestown Dec. 5. On March 11 following, he set out for the Indians country; and on April 3, 1730, he was crowned commander, and chief ruler of the Cherokee nations in a general meeting of chiefs at Nequisee among the mountains; he returned to Charlestown April 13, with six Indian chiefs, and on June 5, arrived at Dover. On the 18th he presented the chiefs to George II. at Windsor, where he laid his crown at his majesty’s feet: the chiefs also did homage, laying four scalps at the king’s feet, to show that they were an overmatch for their enemies, and five eagles’ tails as emblems of victory. These circumstances are confirmed by the newspapers of that time, which are full of the proceedings of the Cherokees whilst, in England, and speak of them as brought over by sir Alexander Cuming. Their portraits were engraved on a single sheet. Sir Alexander says in his Journal, that whilst he was in America in 1729, he found such injudicious notions of liberty prevail, as were inconsistent with any kind of government, particularly with their dependence on the British nation. This suggested to him the idea of establishing banks in each of the provinces dependent on the British exchequer, and accountable to the British parliament, as the only means of securing the dependency of the colonies. But it was not till 1748 (as it appears) that he laid his plans before the minister (the right hon. Henry Pelham) who treated him as a visionary enthusiast, which his journal indeed most clearly indicates him to have been. He connected this scheme with the restoration of the Jews, for which he supposed the time appointed to be arrived, and that he himself was alluded to in various passages of Scripture as their deliverer. He was not, like a late enthusiast, to conduct them to the Holy Land, but proposed to take them to the Cherokee mountains: wild as his projects were, some of the most learned Jews (among whom was Isaac Netto, formerly grand rabbi of the Portuguese synagogue) seem to have given him several patient hearings upon the subject. When the minister refused tollsten to his schemes, he proposed to open a subscription himself for 500,000l. to establish provincial banks in America, and to settle 300,000 Jewish families among the Cherokee mountains. From one wild project he proceeded to another; and being already desperately involved in debt, he turned his thoughts to alchemy, and began to try experiments on the transmutation of metal. He was supported principally by the contributions of his friends: till at length, in 1766, archbishop Seeker appointed him one of the pensioners in the Charter-house, where he died at a very advanced age in August 1775, and was buried at East Bavnet, where lady Cuming had been buried in 1743. He appears to have been a man of learning., and to have possessed talents, which, if they had not been under a wrong bias, might have been beneficial to himself and useful to his country. His son, who succeeded him in his title, became deranged in his intellects, and died some years ago, in a state of indigence, in the neighbourhood of Red-lionstreet, Whitechapel. He had been a captain in the army: the title became extinct at his death.

In 1683 Dacier married mademoiselle le Fevre; and in 1685 abjured with his lady the protestant religion. His marriage, which was styled “the union of Greek and Latin,” added considerably to his felicity, and procured him an able assistant in his studies and publications. In 1691 he was assisted by madame Dacier in a French translation of the moral reflections of the emperor Marcus Antoninus, with notes, in 2 vols. 12mo. In 1692 he published Aristotle’s Poetics, translated into French, with critical remarks, in 4to. This work was reprinted in Holland in 12mo; and some have considered it as Dacier’s masterpiece. In 1693 he published a French translation of the Oedipus and Electra of Sophocles, in 12mo; but not with the same success as the Poetics just mentioned. We have already noticed six publications of Dacier: the rest shall now follow in order; for the life of this learned man, like that of most others, is little more than a history of his works. He published, 7. Plutarch’s Lives, translated into French, with notes, Paris, 1694, vol. I. 8vo. This essay, which contains only five lives, is the beginning of a work, which he afterwards finished. 8. The works of Hippocrates, translated into French, with notes, and compared with the manuscripts in the king’s library, Paris, 1697, 2 vols. 12mo. The Journal des Sgavans speaks well of this version. 9. The works of Plato, translated into French, witli notes, and the life of that philosopher, with an account of the principal doctrines of his philosophy, 1699, 2 vols. 12mo. These are only some of Plato’s pieces. 10. The life of Pythagoras, his Symbols, and Golden Verses, the life of Hierocles, and his Commentary upon the Golden Verses, 1706, 2 vols. 12mo. In 1695, Dacier had succeeded Felibien in the academy of inscriptions, and Francis de Harlay, archbishop of Paris, in the French academy. In 1701 a new regulation was made in the academy of inscriptions, by which every member was obliged to undertake some useful work suitable to his genius and course of studies: and, in conformity to this order, Dacier undertook the above translation of the life of Pythagoras, &c. 11. The manual of Epictetus, with five treatises of Simplicius upon important subjects, relating to morality and religion, translated into French, with notes, 1715, 2 vols. 12mo. The authors of the “Europe Sgavante of Jan. 1718,” having criticised the specimen he had given of his translation of Plutarch’s Lives, he printed, 12. An Answer to them, and inserted it in the Journal des Sçavans of the 25th of June and the llth of July 1718. 13. Plutarch’s Lives of illustrious men, revised by the Mss. and translated into French, with notes historical and critical, and the supplement of those comparisons which are lost. To which are added, those heads which could be found, and a general index of matters contained in the work, Paris, 1721, 8 vols. 4to; Amsterdam, 1723, 9 vols. 8vo. This work was received with applause, and supposed to be well executed; yet not so, say the authors of the Bibliotheque Franchise, as to make the world at once forget the translation of Amyot, obsolete as it is. Dacier published some other things of a lesser kind, as, 14. A Speech made in the French academy, on his admission. 15. Answers, which he made, as director of the academy, to the speech of M. Cousin in 1697, and to that of M. de Boze in 1715, both inserted in the collections of the French academy. 16. A dissertation upon the origin of Satire, inserted in the second volume of the memoirs of the academy of Belles Lettres in 1717. 17. Notes upon Longinus. Boileau, in the preface to his translation of Longinus, styles these notes very learned and says, that “the author of them is not only a man of very extensive learning, and an excellent critic, but likewise a gentleman of singular politeness; which is so much the more valuable, as it seldom attends great learning.” Boileau has added them to his own notes upon Longinus; and they are printed in all the editions of his works. Dacier wrote also a commentary upon Theocritus, which he mentions in his notes upon Horace, ode xxix; and a short treatise upon religion, containing the reasons which brought him over to the church of Rome: but these two works were never printed.

He now applied himself with diligence to the duties of his function, and was noticed as an able preacher at the university, in which character he was employed by Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, as his assistant at St. James’s. In July 1750 he took his degrees of B. and D. D. for which he went out grand compounder, and about the same time, was presented to the rectory of St. Mary at Hill by the late duke of Somerset; and upon his recommendation, promoted by the king to a prebend of Worcester, at which place be died, July 21, 1763. He married a sister of sir Francis Gosling, an alderman of London, by whom he left no issue. He had published, 1. “A volume of Sermons,” 1757 and before that, 2. “Two Epistles,” 1744, 4to, written in 1735. 3. “A descriptive Poem, addressed to two ladies, at their return from viewing the coal-mines near Whitehaven;” to which are added some thoughts on building and planting, addressed to sir James Lowther, of Lowther-hall, bart. 1755, 4to. This entertaining poem, which is reprinted in Pearch’s collection, vol. I. describes the real descent of two fair heroines into the subterraneous, and indeed submarine, regions; the mines, which are remarkable for many singularities; Savery’s fire-engine; and the remainder is employed in a survey of the improvements in Whitehaven, by the great commerce which these mines occasion, and in a very elegant display of the beauties of the adjacent country. 4. “Remarks on twelve historical designs of Raphael, and the Museum Gr^ccum & Egvptiacum” illustrated by prints from his brother Mr. Richard Dalton’s drawings.

But the work which will longest perpetuate the name of father Daniel, is, “The History of France,” published at Paris, 1713, in 3 vols. fol. a second edition of which he brought out at Paris, 1722, in 7 vols. 4to, revised, corrected, augmented, and enriched with several authentic medals; and a very pompous edition of it was afterwards published, with a continuation, but in the way of annals only, from the death of Henry IV. in 1610, where father Daniel stopped, to the end of Lewis XIV. He was the author of some other works; of an answer to the Provincial Letters, entitled 1. Dialogues between Cleander and Eudoxus. This book in less than two years ran through twelve editions; it was translated into Latin by father Juvenci; and afterwards into Italian, English, and Spanish, but it is a weak attack, after all, on Pascal. 2. Two letters of M. Abbot to Eudoxus, by way of remarks upon the new apology for the Provincial Letters. 3. Ten letters to father Alexander, in which he draws a parallel between the doctrine of the Thomists and the Jesuits, upon the subjects of probability and grace. 4. The system of Lewis de Leon concerning the sacrament. 5. A defence of St. Augustin against a book supposed to be written by Launoi. 6. Four letters upon the argument of the book entitled A defence of St. Augustin. 7. A theological tract, touching the efficacy of grace, in two volumes. In the second volume, he answers Serry’s book, entitled “Schola Thomistica vindicata,” a remonstrance to the lord archbishop of Rheinia, occasioned by his order published July 15, 1G97. This performance of father Daniel’s was often printed, and also translated by Juvenci into Latin. He published other smaller works, which were all collected and printed in 3 vols. 4to.

, bishop of Salisbury in the seventeenth century, was born in Watling-street, London, where his father was an eminent merchant, but originally descended from the ancient family of the Davenants of Sible-Heningham, in Essex. What school he was educated in, we cannot find. But, on the 4th of July, 1587, he was admitted pensioner of Queen’s college, in Cambridge. He regularly took his degrees in arts; that of master in 1594. A fellowship was offered him about the same time; but his father would not permit him to accept of it, on account of his plentiful fortune: however, after his father’s decease he accepted of one, into which he was admitted September 2, 1597. Being thus settled in the college, he distinguished himself, as before, by his learning and other excellent qualifications. Tn 1601-he took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in 1609. This same year last-mentioned he was elected lady Margaret’s professor, which place he enjoyed till 1621. He was also one of her preachers in 1609 and 1612. On the 20th of October 1614, he was admitted master of his college, and continued in that station till April 20, 1622. And so considerable did he become, that he was one of those eminent English divines sent by king James I. to the synod of Dovt, in 1618. He returned to England in May 1619, after having visited the principal cities in the Low Countries. Upon the death of his brother-in-law, Dr. Robert Townson, he was nominated bishop of Salisbury; and was elected June 11, 1621, confirmed November 17 following, and consecrated the 18th of the same month. He continued in favour during the remainder of king James the First’s reign; but in Lent 1630-1, he incurred the displeasure of the court Cor meddling (in a sermon preached before the king at Whitehall) with the predestinarian controversy “all curious search” into which his majesty had strictly enjoined “to be laid aside.” In a letter to Dr. Ward, bishop Davenant gives the following account of this unpleasant affair. As soon as his sermon was ended, it was signified to him that his majesty was much displeased that he had stirred this question, which his majesty had forbidden to be meddled withal, one way or other: the bishop’s answer was, that he had delivered nothing but the received doctrine of our church, established in the 17th article, and that he was ready to justify the truth of what he had then taught. He was told, the doctrine was not gainsaid, but his majesty had given command these questions should not be debated, and therefore he took it more offensively that any should be so bold as in his own hearing to break his royal commands. To this he replied, that he never understood his majesty had forbidden the handling of any doctrine comprised in the articles of our church, but only raising of new questions, or adding of new sense thereunto, which he had not done, nor ever should do. Two days after, when he appeared before the privy-council, Dr. Sam. Harsnet, archbishop of York, made a speech nearly half an hour long, aggravating the boldness of bishop Davenant’s offence, and shewing many inconveniencies that it was likely to draw after it. When the archbishop had finished his speech, the bishop desired, that since he was called thither as an offender, he might not be put to answer a long speech upon the sudden; but that his grace would be pleased to charge him point by point, and so to receive his answer; for he did not yet understand wherein he had broken any commandment of his majesty’s, which was taken for granted. After some pause, the archbishop told him he knew well enough the point which was urged against him, namely, the breach of the king’s declaration. Then he stood upon this defence, that the doctrine of predestination, which he taught, was not forbidden by the declaration; 1st, Because in the declaration all the articles are established, amongst which, the article of predestination is one. 2. Because all ministers are urged to subscribe unto the truth of the article, and all subjects to continue in the profession of that as well as of the rest. Upon these and such like grounds, he gathered that it could not be esteemed amongst forbidden, curious, or needless doctrines; and here he desired that out of any clause in the declaration it might be shewed him, that keeping himself within the bounds of the article, he had transgressed his majesty’s command; but the declaration was not produced, nor any particular words in it; only this was urged, that the king’s will was, that for the peace of the church these high questions should be forborne. He added, that he was sorry he understood not his majesty’s intention; which if he had done before, he should have made choice of some other matter to treat of, which might have given no offence; and that for the time to come, he should conform himself as readily as any other to his majesty’s command; whereupon he was dismissed. At his departure he entreated the lords of the council to let his majesty understand that he had not boldly, or wilfully and wittingly, against his declaration, meddled with the fore-named point; and that now, understanding fully his majesty’s mind and intention, he should humbly yield obedience thereunto. But although he was dismissed without farther censure, and was even admitted to kiss the king’s hand, yet he was never afterwards in favour at court. He died of a consumption April 20, 1641, to which a sense of the melancholy event approaching did not a little contribute. Among other benefactions, he gave to Queen’scollege, in Cambridge, the perpetual advowsons of the rectories of Cheverel Magna, and Newton Tony, in Wiltshire, and a rent-charge of 3 1l. 10s. per annum, for the founding of two Bible-clerks, and buying books for the library in the same college. His character was that of a man humble and hospitable; painful in preaching and writing; and behaving in every station with exemplary gravity and moderation. He was a man of great learning, and an eminent divine; but strictly attached to Calvinism in the article of unconditionate predestination, &c. Whilst he was at the synod of Dort, he inclined to the doctrine of universal redemption; and was for a middle way between the two extremes, maintaining the certainty of the salvation of a certain number of the elect; and that offers of pardon were sent not only to all that should believe and repent, but to all that heard the Gospel; that grace sufficient to convince and persuade the impenitent (so as to lay the blame of their condemnation upon themselves) went along with these offers; that the redemption of Christ and his merits were applicable to these; and consequently there was a possibility of their salvation. He was buried in Salisbury cathedral.

, a learned Englishman, was born at Coventry, in Warwickshire, about 1598, and educated in grammar-learning at a school in that city. He was sent to Merton-college in Oxford at fifteen years of age; where, spending two years, he, upon an invitation from some Romish priest, afterwards went to Doway. He remained there for some time; and then going to Ypres, he entered into the order of Franciscans among the Dutch there, in 1617. After several removals from place to place, he became a missionary into England, where he went by the name of Franciscus a Sancta Clara; and at length was made one of the chaplains to Henrietta Maria, the royal consort of Charles I. Here he exerted himself to promote the cause of popery, by gaining disciples, raising money among the English catholics to carry on public matters abroad, and by writing books for the advancement of his religion and order. He was very eminent for his uncommon learning, being excellently versed in school-divinity, in fathers and councils, in philosophers, and in ecclesiastical and profane histories. He was, Wood tells us, a person of very free discourse, while his fellowlabourer in the same vineyard, Hugh Cressey, was reserved; of a lively and quick aspect, while Cressey was clouded and melancholy: all which accomplishments made him agreeable to protestants as well as papists. Archbishop Laud, it seems, had some knowledge of this person; for, in the seventh article of his impeachment, it is said, that “the said archbishop, for the advancement of popery and superstition within this realm, hath wittingly and willingly received, harboured, and relieved divers popish priests and Jesuits, namely, one called Sancta Clara, alias Davenport, a dangerous person and Franciscan friar, who hath written a popish and seditious book, entitled, ‘ Dens, Natura, Gratia,’ &c. wherein the thirtynine articles of the church of England, established by act of parliament, are much traduced and scandalized: that the said archbishop had divers conferences with him, while he was writing the said book,” &c. To which article, the archbishop made this answer: “I never saw that Franciscan friar, Sancta Clara, in my life, to the utmost of my memory, above four times or five at most. He was first brought to me by Dr. Lindsell: but 1 did fear, that he would never expound the articles so, that the church of England might have cause to thank him for it. He never came to me after, till he was almost ready to print another book, to prove that episcopacy was authorised in the church by divine right; and this was after these unhappy stirs began. His desire was, to have this book printed here; but at his several addresses to me for this, I still gave him this answer: That I did not like the way which the church of Rome went concerning episcopacy; that I would never consent, that any such book from the pen of a Romanist should be printed here; that the bishops of England are very well able to defend their own cause and calling, without any help from Rome, and would do so when they saw cause: and this is all the conference I ever had with him.” Davenport at this time absconded, and spent most of those years of trouble in obscurity, sometimes beyond the seas, sometimes at London, sometimes in the country, and sometimes at Oxford. After the restoration of Charles II. when the marriage was celebrated between him and Catherine of Portugal, Sancta Clara became one of her chaplains; and was for the third time chosen provincial of his order for England, where he died May 31, 1680, and was buried in the church-yard belonging to the Savoy. It was his desire, many years before his death, to retire to Oxford to die, purposely that his bones might be laid in St. Ebb’s churcb, to which the mansion of the Franciscans or grey-friars sometime joined, and in which several of the brethren were anciently interred, particularly those of his old friend John Day, a learned friar of his order, who was there buried in 165;s. He was the author of several works: 1. “Paraphrastiea expositio articulorum confessionis Anglicae:” this book was, w r e know not why, much censured by the Jesuits, who would fain have had it burnt; but beino-soon after licensed at Rome, all farther rumour about it stopped. 2. “Deus, Natura, Gratia sive, tractatus de praedestinatione, de mentis,” &c. this book was dedicated to Charles I. and Prynne contends, that the whole scope of it, as well as the paraphrastical exposition of the articles, reprinted at the end of it in 1635, was to reconcile the king, the church, and the articles of our religion, to the church of Rome. He published also a great number of other works, which are not now of consequence enough to be mentioned.

, elder brother of Christopher just mentioned, was born at Coventry in 1597, and sent from thence with his brother to Merton-college in 1613; but while Christopher went to Doway, and became a catholic, John went to London, and became a puritan. He was minister of St. Stephen’s in Coleman-street, and esteemed by his brethren a person of excellent gifts in preaching, and in other qualities belonging to a divine. About 1630 he was appointed one of the feoffees for the buying in impropriations, which involved him in a dispute with archbishop Laud; but that project miscarrying, he left his pastoral charge about 1633, under pretence of opposition from the bishops, and went to Amsterdam. Here, endeavouring to be a minister in the English congregation, and to join with them in all duties, he was opposed by John Paget, an elder, on account of some difference between them about baptism; upon which he wrote, in his own defence, “A Letter to the Dutch Classis, containing a just complaint against an unjust doer; wherein is declared the miserable slavery and bondage that the English church at Amsterdam is now in, by reason of the tyrannical government and corrupt doctrine of Mr. John Paget, their minister,” Amst. 1634. Two or three more pieces relating to this controversy were published by him afterwards; and such were his parts and learning, that he drew away from them many of their congregation, to whom he preached and prayed in private houses.

, the patron of Wales, was the son of Xantus or Santus, prince of Ceretica, now Cardiganshire, and born about the close of the fifth century. Being brought up to the church, he was ordained priest; he then retired to the Isle of Wight, and for some time lived in the accustomed solitude of those times. From this he at length emerged, and went into Wales, where he preached to the Britons. He built a chapel at Glastonbury, and founded twelve monasteries, the principal of which was in the vale of Ross, near Menevia. Of this monastery frequent mention is made in the acts of the Irish saints. The rules he established for his monasteries were, as usual; rigid, but not so injudicious or absurd as some of the early monastic statutes. One of his penances was manual labour in agriculture, and, for some time at least, there was no accumulation of worldly goods, for whoever was admitted as a member, was enjoined to leave every thing of that kind behind him. When the synod of Brevy in Cardiganshire was held in the year 519, St. David was invited to it, and was one of its chief champions against Pelagianism. At the close of this synod, St. Dubricius, archbishop of Caerleon upon Usk, resigned his see to St. David, who translated it to Menevia, now called St. David’s. Here he died about the year 544 in a very advanced age. He is praised by his biographers for his eloquence and powers in conversion, and has, according to them, been in all succeeding ages the glory of the British church. He wrote the “Decrees of the Synod of Victoria,” which he called soon after he became bishop; the “Rules of his Monasteries;” some “Homilies,” and “Letters to king Arthur,” all of which have perished.

, the son of a physician who practised in Wales, was born at Shrewsbury, and educated at Eton, whence he removed to King’s college, Cambridge, and regularly took the degrees of A. B. 1732, A. M. 1737, and D. D. 175y. He was early noticed by his school-fellow, Cornwallis, archbishop of Canterbury, when bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, who appointed him his chaplain, and collated him to a canonry of Lithfield, and in 1751 presented him to the mastership of St. John’s hospital, Lichfield. He was also archdeacon of Derby, and rector of Kingsland, in Herefordshire, in the gift of his family. He died Feb. 6, 1769, much esteemed for his learning and amiable disposition; and his numerous poems, both printed and manuscript, bear ample testimony to his talents. He wrote several of the anonymous imitations of Horace in Buncombe’s edition, 1767, and at the end of vol. IV. is given the character of the ancient Romans from a poem by him, styled “The Progress of Science.” He has many poems in Dodsley’s and Nichols’s collections, and one, in Latin, preserved in the “Alumni Etonenses.” Mr. Pennant also, in his “Tour in Wales,” vol. II. p. 422, has preserved some animated lines by Dr. Davies on Caractacus, which he says were delivered almost extempore at one of the annual meetings held on Caer Caradoc some years ago by gentlemen from different parts, to celebrate the name of that renowned British chieftain, in prose or verse.

, archbishop of York, the youngest son of sir John Dawes, baronet, by Jane his wife, the daughter and only child of Richard Hawkins, of Braintree, in the county of Essex, gent, was born Sept. 12, 1671, at Lyons, (a seat which came by his mother) near Braintree, and received the first rudiments of learning at Merchant-taylors’-school in London, from Mr. John Hartcliffe, and Mr. Ambr. Bonwicke, successively masters of that school; under whose care he made great proficiency in the knowledge of the classics, and was a tolerable master of the Hebrew tongue, even before he was fifteen years of age; which was chiefly owing to the additional care that Dr. Kidder, afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells, took of his education. In act term 1687, he became a scholar of St. John’s college in Oxford, and after his continuance there two years or upwards, was made fellow. But his father’s title and estate descending to him, upon the death of his two brothers, which happened about the same time, he left Oxford, and entering himself a nobleman in Catherine-hall, Cambridge, lived in his eldest brother’s chambers; and, as soon as he was of fit standing, took the degree of master of arts. His intention, from the very first, was to enter into holy orders; and therefore to qualify himself for that purpose, among other introductory works, he seems to have made some of our late eminent divines a considerable branch of his study, even before he was eighteen years of age: and he shewed always a serious and devout temper of mind, and a true sense and love of piety and religion. After he had taken his master of arts’ degree, not being of age to enter into holy orders, he thought it proper to visit the estate he was now become owner of, and to make a short tour into some other parts of the kingdom, which he had not yet seen. But his intended progress was, in some measure, stopped by Ims happening to meet with Frances, the eldest daughter of sir Thomas Darcy, of Braxstead-lodge, in Essex, baronet, a fine and accomplished woman, to whom he paid his addresses, and, not long after, married. As soon as he came to a competent -age, he was ordained deacon and priest by Dr. Compton, bishop of London. Shortly after, he was created doctor in divinity, by a royal mandate, in order to be qualified for the mastership of Catherine-hall; to which he was unanimously elected, in 1696, upon the death of Dr. John Echard. At his coming thither he found the bare case of a new chapel, begun by his predecessor; to the completion of which he contributed very liberally, and, among other beneficial acts to his college, he obtained, through his interest with queen Anne, and her chief ministers, an act of parliament for annexing the first prebend of Norwich which should become vacant, to the mastership of Catherine-hall for ever. Not long after his election, he became vice-chancellor of Cambridge, and discharged that dignity with universal applause. In 1696, he was made one of the chaplains in ordinary to king William; and, shortly after, was presented by his majesty without interest or solicitation, and merely, as the king said, by way of pledge of his future favour, to a prebend of Worcester, in which he was installed August 26, 1698, On the 10th of November 1698, he was collated by archbishop Tenison to the rectory, and, the 19th of December following, to the deanery, of Bocking in Essex, and behaved in that parish in a very charitable and exemplary manner. After queen Anne’s accession to the throne, he was made one of her majesty’s chaplains, and became so great a favourite with her, that he had a reasonable expectation of being advanced to some of the highest dignities in the church. Accordingly, though he happened accidentally to miss of the bishopric of Lincoln , which became vacant in 1705; yet her majesty, of her own accord, named him to the see of Chester, in 1707, upon the death of Dr. Nicholas Stratford: and he was consecrated February 8, 1707-8. In 1713-4, he was, by the recommendation of his worthy predecessor Dr. John Sharp, translated to the archiepiscopal see of York, being elected thereto February 26, and enthroned by proxy the 24th of March following. He continued above ten years in this eminent station, honoured and respected by all. At length a diarrhoea, to which he had been subject several times before, ending in an inflammation of his bowels, put a period to his life April 30, 1724, in the fifty-third year of his age. He was buried in the chapel of Catherine-hall, Cambridge, near his lady, who died December 22, 1705, in the twenty-ninth year of her age. By her he had seven children, William, Francis, William, Thomas, who all died young; and Elizabeth, Jane, and Darcy, who survived him. In person he was tall, proportionable, and beautiful. There was in his look and gesture something easier to be conceived than described, that gained every one’s favour, even before he spoke. His behaviour was easy and courteous to all; his civility free from formality; his conversation lively and cheerful, but without any tincture of levity. He had a genius well fitted for a scholar, a lively imagination, a strong memory, and a sound judgment. He was a kind and loving husband, a tender and indulgent parent, and so extraordinary good a master, that he never was observed to be in a passion; and took care of the spiritual as well as the temporal welfare of his domestics. In his episcopal capacity, he visited his large diocese with great diligence and constancy, Nottinghamshire one year, and Yorkshire another; but every third year he did not hold any visitation. He performed all the offices of his function with becoming seriousness and gravity. He took great care and caution, to admit none but sufficient labourers into the Lord’s harvest; and when admitted, to appoint them stipends adequate to their labour. He administered justice to all with an equal and impartial hand; being no respecter of persons, and making no difference between the poor and rich, but espousing all into the intimacy of his bosom, his care, his affability, his provision, and his prayers.

, a very eminent English printer in the sixteenth century, was born in St. Peter’s parish, Dunwich, in Suffolk, and is supposed to have descended from a good family in that county. From whom he learned the art of printing, is not clear, unless perhaps Gibson, one of whose devices Day frequently used. He first began printing about 1544, a little above Holborn Conduit, and at that time was in conjunction with William Seres. In 1549 he removed into Aldersgate-street, near St. Anne’s church, where he built a printing-office, but kept shops in various parts of the town, where his books were sold. It would appear that he forbore printing during the reign of queen Mary, yet continued improving himself in the art, as was evident by his subsequent publications. He was the first in England who printed the Saxon letter, and brought that of Greek to great perfection, as well as the Italic and other characters, of which he had great variety. Archbishop Parker, who frequently employed him, considered him as excelling his brethren in skill and industry. He was the first person admitted into the livery of the Stationers’ company, after they obtained their charter from Philip and Mary, was chosen warden in 1564, 1566, 1571, and 1575, and master in 1580. In 1583 he yielded up to the disposal of the company, for the relief of their poor, his right to certain books and copies. He died July 23, 1584, after having followed the business of a printer with great reputation and success for forty years, and was buried in the parish church of Bradley Parva, in the county of Suffolk, with a monument on which are inlaid the effigies of him, his wife, and family, and some lines, cut in the old English letter, intimating his services in the cause of the reformation by his various publications, especially of Fox’s Acts and Monuments; and that he had two wives, and numerous children by both. Besides Fox, he printed several valuable editions of the Bible, of the works of the martyrs, of Ascham, and other then accounted standard authors.

The noise their adventures made in Europe induced queen Elizabeth to invite Dee home, who, in May 1689, set out from Trebona towards England. He travelled with great pomp and solemnity, was attended by a guard of horse; and, besides waggons for his goods, had uo less than three coaches for the use of his family; for he had married a second wife, and had several children. He landed at Gravesend Nov. 23; and, Dec. 9, presented himself at Richmond to the queen, who received him very graciously. He then retired to his house at Mortlake; and collecting the remains of his library, which had been torn to pieces and scattered in his absence, he sat down to study. He had great friends; received many presents; yet nothing, it seems, could keep him from want. The queen had quickly notice of this, as well as of the vexations he suffered from the common people, who persecuted him as a conjuror, which at that time was not a title equivalent to an impostor. The queen, who certainly listened oftener to him than might have been expected from her good sense, sent him money from time to time: but all would not do. At length he resolved to apply in such a manner as to procure some settled subsistence; and accordingly, Nov. 9, 1592, he sent a memorial to her majesty by the countess of -Warwick, in which he very earnestly pressed her, that commissioners might be appointed to hear his pretensions, and to examine into the justness of his wants and claims. This had a good effect; for, on the 22d, two commissioners, sir Thomas Gorge, knt. and Mr. Secretary Wolley, were actually sent to Mortlake, where Dee exhibited a book, containing a distinct account of all the memorable transactions of his life, those which occurred in his last journey abroad only excepted; and, as he read this historical narration, he produced all the letters, grants, and other evidences requisite to confirm them, and where these were wanting, named living witnesses. The title of this work, the original of which still remains in the Cotton library, and a transcript of it among Dr. Smith’s written collections, runs thus: “The compendious rehearsal of John Dee, his dutiful declaration and proof of the course and race of his studious life for the space of half an hundred years now by God’s favour and help fully spent, and of the very great injuries, damages, and indignities which for these last nine years he hath in England sustained, contrary to her majesty’s very gracious will and express commandment, made unto the two honourable commissioners by her most excellent majesty thereto assigned, according to the intent of the most humble supplication of the said John, exhibited to her most gracious majesty at Hampton-court, ann. 1592, Nov. 9.” Upon the report made by the commissioners to the queen, he received a present, and promises of preferment; but these promises ending like the former in nothing, he engaged his patroness, the countess of Warwick, to present another short Latin petition to the queen, but with what success does not appear. In Dec. 1594, however, he obtained a grant to the chancellorship of St. Paul’s. But this did not answer his end: upon which he applied himself next to Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, by a letter, in which he inserted a large account of all the books he had either published or written: and in consequence of this letter, together with other applications, he obtained a grant of the vvardenshipof Manchester-college. Feb. 15D6, he arrived with his wife and family in that town, and was installed in his new charge. He continued there about seven years; which he is said to have spent in a troublesome and unquiet manner. June 1604, he presented a petition to king James, earnestly desiring him that he might be brought to a trial; that, by a formal and judicial sentence, he might be delivered from those suspicions and surmises which had created him so much uneasiness for upwards of fifty years. But the king, although he at first patronized him, being better informed of the nature of his studies, refused him any mark of royal countenance and favour; which must have greatly affected a man of that vain and ambitious spirit, which all his misfortunes could never alter or amend. November the same year he quitted Manchester with his family, in order to return to his house at Mortlake; where he remained but a short time, being now very old, infirm, and destitute of friends and patrons, who had generally forsaken him. We find him at Mortlake in 1607; where he had recourse to his former invocations, and so came to deal again, as he fancied, with spirits. One Hickman served him now, as Kelly had done formerly. Their transactions were continued to Sept. 7, 1607, which is the last date in that journal published by Casaubon, whose title at large runs thus: “A true and faithful relation of what passed for many years between Dr. John Dee, a mathematician of great fame in queen Elizabeth and king James their reigns, and some spirits, tending, had it succeeded, to a general alteration of most states and kingdoms in the world. His private conferences with Rudolph emperor of Germany, Stephen. king of Poland, and divers other princes, about it. The particulars of his cause, as it was agitated in the emperor’s court by the pope’s intervention. His banishment and restoration in part; as also the letters of sundry great men and princes, some whereof were present at some of these conferences, and apparitions of spirits to the said Dr. Dee, out of the original copy written with Dr. Dee’s own hand, kept in the library of sir Thomas Cotton, knt. baronet. With a preface confirming the reality, as to the point of spirits, of this relation, and shewing the several good uses that a sober Christian may make of all. By Meric Casaubon, D. D. Lond. 1659,” fol.

This book made a great noise upon its first publication; and many years after, the credit of it was revived by one of the ablest mathematicians and philosophers of his time, the celebrated Dr. Hooke; who believed, that not only Casaubon, but archbishop Usher, and other learned men, were entirely mistaken in their notions about this book; and that, in reality, our author Dee never fell under any such delusions, but being a man of great art and intrigue, made use of this strange method of writing to conceal things of a political nature, and, instead of a pretended enthusiast, was a real spy. But there are several reasons which will not suffer us to suppose this. One is, that Dee began these actions in England; for which, if we suppose the whole treatise to be written in cypher, there is no account can be given, any more than for pursuing the same practices in king James’s time, who cannot be imagined to have used him as a spy. Another, that he admitted foreigners, such as Laski, Rosenberg, &c. to be present at these consultations with spirits; which is not reconcileable with the notion of his being intrusted with political secrets. Lastly, upon the return of Dee from Bohemia, Kelly did actually send an account to the queen of practices against her life; but then this was in a plain and open method, which would never have been taken, if there had been any such mysterious correspondence between Dee and her ministers, as Hooke suggests. In the latter end of his life he became miserably poor. It is highly probable that he remained under these delusions to his death; for he was actually providing for a new journey into Germany, when, worn out by age and distempers, he died in 1608, aged eighty, and was buried at Mortlake. He left behind him a numerous posterity both male and female, and among these his eldest son Arthur, who is mentioned in our next article.

The books which Dee printed and published are, 1. “Propaedumata aphoristica; de prsestantiorib.ua quibustlam naturae virtutibus aphorismi,” Lond. 1558, 12mo. 2. “Monas hieroglyphica ad regem Romanorum Maxirnilianum,” Antwerp, 1564. 3. “Epistola ad eximium ducis Urbini mathematicum, Fredericum Commandinum, praefixa libello Machometi Bagdedini de superficierum divi­^ionibus, edita opera Devi et ejusdem Commandini Urbinatis,” Pisauri,!570. 4. “The British Monarchy, otherwise called the Petty Navy Royal,” 1576, a ms. in the Ashmolean museum. 5. “Preface Mathematical to the English Euclid, published by sir Henry Billingsley, knt.” where he says many more arts are wholly invented by name, definition, property, and use, than either the Grecian or Roman mathematicians have left to our knowledge, 1570. 6. “Divers and many Annotations and Inventions dispersed and added after the tenth book of the English Euclid,” 1570. 7. “Epistola prseiixa ephemeridibus Joannis Feldi a 1557, cui rationem declaraverat ephemericles conscribendi.” 8. “Parallaticee com mentation is praxeosque nucleus quidam,” Lond. 1573. This catalogue of Dee’s printed and published books is to be found in his Compendious Rehearsal, &c. as well as in his letter to archbishop Whitgift. Among them are, l.“The great volume of famous and rich discoveries, wherein also is the history of king Solomon every three years, his Ophirian voyage, the originals of presbyter Joannes, and of the first great charn and his successors for many years following. The description of divers wonderful isles in the northern, Scythian, Tartarian, and the other most northern seas, and near under the north pole, by record written 1200 years since, with divers other rarities,” 1576. 2. “The British complement of the perfect art of Navigation. A great volume. In which are contained our queen Elizabeth her tables gubernautic for navigation by the paradoxal compass, invented by him anno 1.557, and navigation by great circles, and for longitudes and latitudes, and the variation of the compass, finding most easily and speedily, yea, if need be, in one minute of time, and sometimes without sight of sun, moon, or stars, with many other new and needful inventions gubernautic,” 1576. 3. “De modo evangelii Jesu Christ! publicandi, propagandi, stabiliendique, inter infideles atlanticos. Volumen magnum libris distinctum qtiatuor: quorum primus ad serenissimam r.ostram potentissimamque reginam Elizabetham inscribiiur; secundus ad summos privati sutc sacra: majestatis consilii senatores; tertius ad Hispaniarum regem Philippum quartus ad pontificem Romanum,” 1591. 4. “Speculum unitatis, sive, apologia pro fratre llogerio Bacone Anglo; in quo docetur nihil ilium per daemoniorum fecisse auxilia, sed pbilosopbum fuisse maximum naturaliterque, et modis homini Christiano licitis maximas fecisse res, quas indoctum solet vulgus in dtemoniorum referre facinora, ' 1557. 5.” De nubium, soils, lunse, ac reliquorum planetarum, imo, ipsius stelliferi cceli, ab intimo ternc centro distantiis, mutuisque intervallis, et eorundem omnium magnitudine, liber anofeutTixo;, ad Edvardum Sextum, Anglisc regem,“1551. 6.” The philosophical and poetical original occasions of the configurations and names of the heavenly Asterisms written at the request of the honble. lady, lady Jane, duchess of Northumberland,“1553. 7.” De hominis corpore, spiritu, et anima: sive, microcosmicum totius naturalis philosophise compendium.“8.” De unico mago et triplice Herode, eoque antichristiano,“1570. 9.” Reipublicae Britannicoe synopsis,“in English, 1562. 10.” Cabbalæ Hebraicæ compendiosa tabella,“1562. 11.” De itinere subterraneo,“, lib. 2. 1560. 12.” Trochilica inventa," lib. 2. 1553, &c. &c.

, a clergymnn of Ireland, of considerable celebrity in his day, was born in that kingdom about 1686. His fatiior lived as a servant in the family of sir John fennel, an [rish judge, and afterwards rented a small farm, in which situation he is supposed to have continued to his decease; for, when our author came to be in prosperous circumstances, he was advised by Dr. Swift not to take his parents out of the line of life they were fixed in, but to render them comfortable in it. At what place, and under whom, young Delany received his grammatical education, we are not able to ascertain; but at a proper age he became a sizer in Trinity college, Dublin; went through his academical course; took the customary degree*; and was cnosen, first a junior, and afterwards a senior fellow of the college. During this time he formed an intimacy with Dr. Swift; and it appears from several circumstances, that he was one of the dean of St. Patrick’s chief favourites. It is not unreasonable to conjecture, that, besides his considerable merit, it might be some general recommendation to him, that he readily entered into the dean’s playful disposition. He joined with Swift and Dr. Sheridan in writing or answering riddles, and in composing other slight copies of verses, the only design of which was to pass away the hours in a pleasant manner; and several of Mr. Delany’s exertions on these occasions may be seen in Swift’s works. These temporary amusements did not, however, interfere with our author’s more serious concerns. He applied vigorously to his studies, distinguished himself as a popular preacher, and was so celebrated as a tutor, that by the benefit of his pupils, and ijis senior fellowship, with all its perquisites, he received every year between nine hundred and a thousand pounds. In 1724 an affair happened in the college of Dublin, with regard to which Dr. Delany is represented as having been guilty of an improper interference. Two under-graduates having behaved very insolently to the provost, and afterwards refusing to make a submission for their fault, wefe both of them expelled. On this occasion Dr. Delany took the part of the young men, and (as it is said) went so far as to abuse the provost to his face, in a sermon at the college-chapel. Whatever may have been his motives, the result of the matter was, that the doctor was obliged to give satisfaction to the provost, by an acknowledgement of the otfence. Our author’s conduct in this affair, which had been displeasing to the lord primate Boulter, might probably contribute to invigorate the opposition which the archbishop made to him on a particular occasion. In 1725 he was presented by the chapter of Christ-church, to the parish of St. John’s, in the city of Dublin, but without a royal dispensation he could not keep his fellowship with his new living. Archbishop Boulter, therefore, applied to the duke of Newcastle, to prevent the dispensation from being granted. In 1727 Dr. Delany was presented by the university of Dublin to a small northern living, of somewhat better than one hundred pounds a year; and about the same time, lord Carteret promoted him to the chancellorship of Christ-church, which was of equal value. Afterwards, 1730, his excellency gave him a prebend in St. Patrick’s cathedral, the produce of which did not exceed either of the other preferments. In 1729 Dr. Delany began a periodical paper, called “The Tribune,” which was continued through about twenty numbers. Soon after, our author engaged in a more serious and important work, of a theological nature, the intention of publishing which brought him to London in 1731; it had for title, “Revelation examined with candour,” the first volume whereof was published in 1732. This year appears to have been of importance to our author in a domestic as well as in a literary view; for on the 17th of July he married in England, Mrs. Margaret Tenison, a widow lady of Ireland, with a large fortune. On his return to Dublin, he manifested his regard to the university in which he was educated, and of which he had long been a distinguished member, by giving twenty pounds a year to be distributed among the students. In 1734 appeared the second volume of “Revelation examined with candour,” and so favourable a reception did the whole work meet with, that a third edition was called for in 1735. In 1738 Dr. Delany published a 30th of January sermon, which he had preached at Dublin before the lord-lieutenant, William duke of Devonshire. It was afterwards inserted in the doctor’s volume upon social duties. In the same year appeared one of the most curious of Dr. Delany’s productions, which was a pamphlet entitled, “Reflections upon Polygamy, and the encouragement given to that practice in the scriptures of the Old Testament.” This subject, however, has since been more ably handled by the late ingenious Mr. Badcock, in the two fine articles of the Monthly Review relative to Marian’s “Thelyphthora.” Dr. Deiany was led by his subject to consider in a particular manner the case of David; and it is probable, that he was hence induced to engage in examining whatever farther related to that great Jewish monarch. The result of his inquiries he published in “An historical account of the life and rei^n of David king of Israel.” The first volume of this work appeared in 1740, the second in 1712, and the third in the ame year. It would be denying Dr. Delany his just praise, were we not to say, that it is an ingenious and & learned performance. It is written witli spirit; there are some curious and valuable criticisms in it, and many of the remarks in answer to Bayle are well founded; but it has not been thought, on the whole, a very judicious production. It is not necessary to the honour of the sacred writings, or to the cause of revelation, to defend, or to palliate the conduct of David, in whatsoever respects he acted wrong. It is peculiar to the Scriptures, in the biographical parts, to exhibit warnings as well as examples.

Dempster was in his person a very tall, stout, and wellInade man, and possessed great personal courage. He appears to have been a man of warm passions, a zealous friend, and a violent enemy. His literary acquisitions were very considerable, as is manifest from his works; and it is said, that he was accustomed to study fourteen hours a day without intermission. His memory was uncommonly tenacious, so that he said of himself, that he knew not what it was to forget; and he was sometimes styled a speaking library; but his judgment was by no means equal to his erudition. Archbishop Usher says of him, that he was “homo multa? lectionis, sed nullius plane judicii,” but Vossius styles him, “eruditus Scotus, beneque de literis meritus.”

Two years after Dempster’s death, was published at Bologna, in 1627, in one volume 4to, from his manuscript, te Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Scotorum, Lib. XIX.“This work contains a very long list of Scottish saints, and accounts of some literary men; and, at the end of the book, a few particulars concerning Dempster himself were added by Matthaeus Peregrinus. But the disregard to truth which Dempster has displayed in this work, has justly exposed him to the censure of many writers, particularly Baillet, who says,” Thomas Dempster has given us an Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, in nineteen books, in which he speaks very much of the learned men of that country. But though he was in some respects an able man, he did not possess sound sense, or a solid judgment, nor was he very conscientious. He would have wished that all learned men had been Scotchmen. He forged the titles of books that never appeared in the world, in order to raise the glory of his country; and he committed several literary frauds, which have discredited him among men of learning.“Bishop Nicolson says that” Dempster reckons a great many writers of Scottish history, who are allowed to be counterfeits.“And sir James Ware remarks, that” Dempster, in his Catalogue of Scotch Authors, has not only inserted those of England and Wales, at his own pleasure; but, to prove his assertions, has also frequently quoted imaginary authors, and fictitious treatises, times, and places." Archbishop Usher repeatedly censures Dempster for his inventions and his falsehoods; and in one place speaks of it as being a practice of Dempster’s, to enumerate books which were never written, and that had no existence but in his own idle brain. Cave also speaks of Dempster with great contempt, on account of his fictions with respect to Scottish authors. Indeed, Dempster seems to have thought it highly meritorious to advance the grossest falsehoods, if those falsehoods would, in any degree, contribute to the honour of his country.

, D. D. an eminent divine and antiquary, descended from a family of good note in the county of Kent, was the eldest son of John Denne, gent, who had the place of woodreve to the see of Canterbury, by a patent for life from archbishop Tenison. He was born at Littlebourne, May 25, 1693, and brought up in the freeschools of Sandwich and Canterbury. He went thence to Cambridge, and was admitted of Corpus Christi college, under the tuition of Mr. Robert Dannye, Feb. 25, 1708; and was afterwards a scholar of the house upon archbishop Parker’s foundation. He proceeded B. A. in 1712; M. A. in 1716; and was elected fellow April 20, in the same year. Soon after, he took upon him the office of tutor, jointly with Mr. Thomas Herring, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury; and was ordained deacon on Trinity Sunday 1716, by bishop Trimnell; and priest Sept. 21, 1718. Not long afterwards he was nominated by the college to the perpetual cure of St. Benedict’s church, in Cambridge; whence he was preferred in 1721, to the rectory of Norton-Davy, alias Green’s Norton, in Northamptonshire, upon a presentation from the king; but this he exchanged, Sept. 30, 1723, for the vicarage of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, in London. In 1725 he was appointed preacher of Mr. Boyle’s lecture, and continued so for three years. His next promotion, immediately after taking the degree of D. D. was to the archdeaconry of Rochester, with the prebend annexed, being collated thereto July 22, 1728, by bishop Bradford, to whom he had been domestic chaplain for many years, and whose youngest daughter Susanna he married in 1724. He was instituted July 24, 1729, to the vicarage of St. Margaret’s, Rochester, but this he resigned, on taking possession of the rectory of Lambeth, Nov. 27, 1731, through the patronage of archbishop Wake. He died August 5, 1767, and was buried in the south transept of Rochester cathedral. His widow survived him upwards of thirteen years, dying on the 3d of December, 1780.

Dr. Denne was yet more frequently useful by his researches as an antiquary, and the valuable assistance he contributed to many eminent antiquaries in the publication of their works. At the time of his becoming a member of the chapter of Rochester, not a few of its muniments and papers were in much confusion; these he digested, and by that means rendered the management of the affairs of the dean and chapter easy to his contemporaries and their successors. He was particularly conversant in English ecclesiastical history; and this employment afforded him an opportunity of extending his knowledge to many points not commonly accessible. His attention to such matters began at a very early period; whilst a fellow of Corpus Christi college, he transmitted to Mr. Lewis, from M8S. in the libraries of the university of Cambridge, many useful materials for his “Life of Wicliff,” and when that learned divine was afterwards engaged in drawing up his “History of the Isle of Thanet,” he applied to Mr. Denne for such information as could be collected from archbishop Parker’s Mss. in his college. He also collated Hearne’s edition of the “Textus Rorfensis,” with the original at Rochester, and transcribed the marginal additions by I ambarde, Bering, e. carefully referred to the other Mss. that contain these instruments, as Reg. Temp. Ruff, and the Cotton library, with all which he furnished the late venerable Dr. Pegge. It was evidently his intention to have written a history of the church of Rochester, and his reading and inquiry were directed to that object, which, however, he delayed until his health would not permit the necessary labour of transcription and arrangement.

, knt. one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber to king Henry VIII., was the second son of Thomas Denny, of Cheshunt, in the county of Hertford, esq. by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Mannock. He had his education in St. Paul’s school, London, under the celebrated grammarian Lilly; and afterwards in St. John’s college, Cambridge; in both which places he so improved himself, that he became an excellent scholar, as well as a person of great worth. His merit having made him known at court, he was constituted by Henry VIII. one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber, groom of the stole, and a privy counsellor; and likewise received the honour of knighthood from that prince; with whom being in great favour, he raised a considerable estate on the ruins of the dissolved monasteries. In 1537, Henry gave him the priory of Hertford, together with divers other lands and manors; and in 1539, Dec. 15, the office of steward of the manor of Bedwell and Little Berkhamstead, in Herts; besides which sir Anthony also obtained the manor of Buttenvick, in the parish of St. Peter in St. Alban’s, the manors of the rectory and of the nunnery, in the parish of Cheshunt; and of Great Amwell, all in the county of Hertford. In 1541, there was a large grant made to him by act of parliament, of several lands that had belonged to the abbey of St. Alban’s, lately dissolved; and not content with all this, he found means to procure a thirty-one years’ lease of the many large and rich demesnes that had been possessed by Waltham-abbey, in Essex; of which his lady purchased aftenvards the reversion. In 1544 the king gave him the advantageous wardship of Margaret, the only daughter and heir of Thomas lord Audley, deceased. On the 31st of August, 1546, he was commissioned, with John Gate and William Clerk, esquires, to sign all warrants in the king’s name. Though somewhat rapacious, he was liberal; in this reign he did eminent service to the great school of Sedberg in Yorkshire, belonging to the college wherein he had received his education; the building being fallen to decay, and the lands appropriated thereto sold and embezzled, he caused the school to be repaired, and not only recovered, but also settled the estate so firmly, as to prevent all future alienations. He was also a more faithful servant than his brother courtiers, for when Henry VIII. was on his death-bed, he had the courage to put him in mind of his approaching end, and desired him to raise his thoughts to heaven, to think of his past life, and to call on God for mercy through Jesus Christ. So great an opinion had that capricious monarch of him, that he appointed him one of the executors of his will, and one of the counsellors to his son and successor Edward VI. and hequeathed him a legacy of 300l. He did not live long after this; for he died in 1.550. By his wife Joan, daughter of sir Philip Champeruon, of Modbury, in Devonshire, a lady of great beauty and parts, he had six children; of whom, Henry, the eldest, was father of Edward Denny, knighted in 1589, summoned to parliament in 1605, and advanced Oct. 24, 1626, to the dignity of earl of Norwich. Of sir Anthony Denny’s personal character, one of his contemporaries informs us, that his whole time and cares were employed about religion, learning, and the care of the public, and has highly commended him for his prudence and humanity. He was the early friend and patron of Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. The learned Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, wrote an excellent epitaph for him some years before his decease; tfnd sir John Cheke, who had a great esteem for him, honoured his memory with an elegant heroic poem.

, an eminent French dramatic writer, was born at Tours, in 1680, of a reputable family, which he left early in life, apparently from being thwarted in his youthful pursuits. This, however, has been contradicted; and it is said that after having passed through the rudiments of a literary education at Tours, he went, with the full concurrence of his father, to Paris, in order to complete his studies; that being lodged with a bookseller in the capital, he fell in love at sixteen with a young person, the relation of his landlord, the consequences of which amour were such, that young Destouches, afraid to face them, enlisted as a common soldier in a regiment under orders for Spain; that he was present at the siege of Barcelona, where he narrowly escaped the fate of almost the whole company to which he belonged, who were buried under a mine sprung by the besieged. What became of him afterwards, to the time of his being noticed by the marquis de Puysieulx, is not certainly known, but the common opinion was, that he had appeared as a player on the stage; and having for a long time dragged his wretchedness from town to town, was at length manager of a company of comedians at Soleure, when the marquis de Puysieulx, ambassador from France to Switzerland, obtained some knowledge of him by means of an harangue which the young actor made him at the head of his comrades. The marquis, habituated by his diplomatic function to discern and appreciate characters, judged that one who could speak so well, was destined by nature to something better than the representation of French comedies in the centre of Switzerland. He requested a conference with Destouches, sounded him on various topics, and attached him to his person. It was in Switzerland that his talent for theatrical productions first displayed itself; and his “Curieux Impertinent” was exhibited there with applause. His dramatic productions made him known to the regent, who sent him to London in 1717, to assist, in his political capacity, at the negotiations then on foot, and while resident here, he had a singular negociation to manage for cardinal Dubois, to whom, indeed, he was indebted for his post. That minister directed him to engage king George I. to ask for him the archbishopric of Cambray, from the regent duke of Orleans. The king, who was treating with the regent on affairs of great consequence, and whom it was the interest of the latter to oblige, could not help viewing this request in a ridiculous light. “How!” said he to Destouches, “would you have a protestant prince interfere in making a French archbishop? The regent will only laugh at it, and certainly will pay no regard to such an application.” “Pardon me, sire,” replied Destouches, “he will laugh, indeed, but he will do what you desire.” He then presented to the king a very pressing letter, ready for signature. “With all my heart, then,” said the king, and signed the letter; and Dubois became archbishop of Cambray. He spent seven years in London, married there, and returned to his country; where the dramatist and negociator were well received. The regent had a just sense of his services, and promised him great things; but dying soon after, left Destouches the meagre comfort of reflecting how well he should have been provided for if the regent had lived. Having lost his patron, he retired to Fortoiseau, near Melun, as the properest situation to make him forget the caprices of fortune. He purchased the place; and cultivating agriculture, philosophy, and the muses, abode there as long as he lived. Cardinal Fleury would fain have sent him ambassador to Petersburg; but Destouches chose rather to attend his lands and his woods, to correct with his pen the manners of his own countrymen; and to write, which he did with considerable effect, against the infidels of France. He died in 1754, leaving a daughter and a son; the latter, by order of Lewis XV. published at the Louvre an edition of his father’s works, in 4 vols. 4to. Destouch.es had not the gaiety of Regnard, nor the strong warm colouring of Moliere; but he is always polite, tender, and natural, and has been thought worthy of ranking next to these authors. He deserves more praise by surpassing them in the morality and decorum of his pieces, and he had also the art of attaining the pathetic without losing the vis comica, which is the essential character of this species of composition. In the various connections of domestic life, he maintained a truly respectable character, and in early life he gave evidence of his filial duty, by sending 40,000 livres out of his savings to his father, who was burthened with a large family.

, earl of Essex, memorable for having been a great favourite, and an unhappy victim to the arts of his enemies and his own ambition, m the reign of queen Elizabeth, was son of the preceding, and born Nov. 10, 1567, at Netherwood, his father’s seat in Herefordshire. His father dying when he was only in his 10th year, recommended him to the protection of William Cecil lord Burleigh, whom he appointed his guardian. Two years after, he was sent to the university of Cambridge by this lord, who placed him in Trinity college, under the care of Dr. Whitgift, then master of it, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. But Mr. Cole, for many reasons, is inclined to think that he was placed at Queen’s, under Dr. Chaderton. He was, however, educated with much strictness, and applied himself to learning with great diligence; though it is said that, in his tender years, there did not appear aoy pregnant signs of that extraordinary genius which shone forth in him afterwards. In 1583, he took the decree of M. A. and kept his public act, and soon after left Cambridge, and retired to his own house at Lampsie in South Wales, where he spent some time, and became so enamoured of his rural retreut, that he was with difficulty prevailed on to quit it. His first appearance at court, at least as a candidate for royal favour, was in his seventeenth year; and he brought thither a fine person, an agreeable behaviour, and an affability which procured him many friends. By degrees he so far overcame the reluctance he first shewed against the earl of Leicester, his father’s enemy, and now very strangely his father-in-law, that in 1585 he accompanied him to Holland, where we find him next year in the field, with the title of general of the horse. In this quality he gave the highest proofs of personal courage in the battle of Zutphen, fought in 1586; and, on his return to England, was made, the year after, master of the horse in the room of lord Leicester promoted. In 1588, he continued to rise, and indeed almost reached the summit of his fortune; for, when her majesty thought fit to assemble an army at Tilbury, for the defence of the kingdom against the Spanish invasion, she gave the command of it, under herself, to the earl of Leicester, and created the earl of Essex general of the horse. From this time he was considered as the favourite declared; and if there was any mark yet wanting to rix the people’s opinion in that respect, it was shewn by the queen’s conferring on him the honour of the garter.

* When Essex was no more than cellor, supported by that of archbishop

The ear) met with nothing in Ireland but disappointments, in the midst of which, an army was suddenly raised in England, under the command of the earl of Nottingham; nobody well knowing why, but in reality from the suggestions of the earl’s enemies to the queen, that he rather meditated an invasion on his native country, than the reduction of the Irish rebels. This and other considerations made him resolve to quit his post, and come over to England; which he accordingly did, and presented himself before the queen. He met with a tolerable reception; but was soon after confined, examined, and dismissed from all his offices, except that of master of the horse. In the summer of“1600, he recovered his liberty; and in the autumn following, he received Mr. Cuffe, who had been his secretary in Ireland (See Cuffe), into his councils. Cuffe, who was a man of his own disposition, laboured to persuade him, that submission would never do him any good; that the queen was in the hands of a faction, who were his enemies; and that the only way to restore his fortune was to obtain an audience, by whatever means he could, in order to represent his case. The earl did not consent at first to this dangerous advice; but afterwards, giving a loose to his passion, began to declare himself openly, and among other fatal expressions let fall this, that” the queen grew old and cankered; and that her mind was become as crooked as her carcase.“His enemies, who had exact intelligence of all that he proposed, and had provided effectually against the execution of his designs, hurried him upon his fate by a message, sent on the evening of Feb. 7, requiring him to attend the council, which he declined. This appears to have unmanned him, and in his distraction of mind, he gave out, that they sought his life kept a watch in Essex-house all night; and summoned his friends for his defence the next morning. Many disputes ensued, and some blood was spilt; but the earl at last surrendered, and was carried that night to the archbishop’s palace at Lambeth, and the next day to the Tower. On the 19th, he was arraigned before his peers, and after a long trial was sentenced to lose his head: upon which melancholy occasion he said nothing more than this, viz.” If her majesty had pleased, this body of mine might have done her better service; however, I shall be glad if it may prove serviceable to her any way.“He was executed upon the 25th, in his thirty-fourth year, leaving behind him one only son and two daughters. As to his person, he is reported to have been tall, but not very well made; his countenance reserved; his air rather martial than courtly; very careless in dress, and a little addicted to trifling diversions, He was learned, and a lover of learned men, whom he always encouraged and rewarded. He was sincere in his friendships, but not so careful as he ought to have been in making a right choice; sound in his morals, except in point of gallantry, and thoroughly well affected to the protestant religion. Historians inform us, that as to his execution, the queen remained irresolute to the very last, and sent sir Edward Carey to countermand it but, as Camden says, considering afterwards his obstinacy in refusing to ask her pardon, she countermanded those orders, and directed that he should die. There is an odd story current in the world about a ring, which the chevalier Louis Aubrey de Mourier, many years the French minister in Holland, and a man of great parts and unsuspected credit, delivers as an undoubted truth; and that upon the authority of an English minister, who might be well presumed to know what he said. As the incident is remarkable, and has made much noise, we will report it in the words of that historian:” It will not, I believe, be thought either impertinent or disagreeable to add here, what prince Maurice had from the mouth of Mr. Carleton, ambassador of England in Holland, who died secretary of state so well known under the name of lord Dorchester, and who was a man of great merit. He said, that queen Elizabeth gave the earl of Essex a ring, in the height of her passion for him, ordering him to keep it; and that whatever he should commit, she would pardon him when he should return that pledge. Since that time the earl’s enemies having prevailed with the queen, who, besides, was exasperated against him for the contempt he had shewed her beauty, now through age upon the decay, she caused him to be impeached. When he was condemned, she expected to receive from him the ring, and would have granted him his pardon according to her promise. The earl, finding himself in the last extremity, applied to admiral Howard’s lady, who was his relation; and desired her, by a person she could trust, to deliver the ring into the queen’s own hands. But her husband, who was one of the earl’s greatest enemies, and to whom she told this imprudently, would not suffer her to acquit herself of the commission; so that the queen consented to the earl’s death, being full of indignation against so proud and haughty a spirit, who chose rather to die than implore her mercy. Some time after, the admiral’s lady fell sick; and, being given over by her physicians, she sent word to the queen that she had something of great consequence to tell her before she died. The queen came to her bedBide i and having ordered all her attendants to withdraw, the admiral’s lady returned her, but too late, that ring from the earl of Essex, desiring to be excused for not having returned it sooner, since her husband had prevented her. The queen retired immediately, overwhelmed with the utmost grief; she sighed continually for a fortnight, without taking any nourishment, lying in bed entirely dressed, and getting up an hundred times a night. At last she died with hunger and with grief, because she had consented to the death of a lover who had applied to her for mercy." Histoire de Hollancle, p. 215, 216.

Though these labours of sir Symonds contributed not a little to illustrate the general history of Great Britain, as well as to explain the important transactions of one of the most glorious reigns in it, yet two or three circumstances of his life have occasioned him to have been set by writers in perhaps a more disadvantageous light than he deserved; not to mention that general one, common to many others, of adhering to the parliament during the rebellion. Having occasion to write to archbishop Usher in 1639, he unfortunately let fall a hint to the prejudice of Camden’s *' Britannia;“for, speaking of the time and pains he had spent in collecting materials for an accurate history of Great Britain, and of his being principally moved to this task, by observing the many mistakes of the common writers, he adds,” And indeed what can be expected from them, considering that, even in the so much admired ‘Britannia’ of Camden himself, there is not a page, at least hardly a page, without errors?“This letter of his afterwards coming to light, among other epistles to that learned prelate, drew upon him the heaviest censures. Smith, the writer of the Latin life of Camden, assures us, that his” Britannia“was universally approved by all proper judges, one only, sir Symonds D'Ewes, excepted; who,” moved,“says he,” by I know not what spirit of envy, gave out that there was scarce a page,“&c. Nicolson, in his account of Camden’s work, says, that” some early attempts were made by an envious person, one Brook or Brookmouth, to blast the deservedly great reputation of this work but they perished and came to nothing; as did likewise the terrible threats given out by sir Symonds D'Ewes, that he would discover errors in every page.“Bishop Gibson has stated the charge against this gentleman more mildly, in his Life of Camden, prefixed to the English translation of his Britannia.” In the year 1607,“says the bishop,” he put the last hand to his Britannia, which gained him the titles of the Varro, Strabo, and Pausanias of Britain, in the writings and letters of other learned men. Nor did it ever after meet with any enemies that I know of, only sir Symonds D‘Ewes encouraged us to hope for animadversions upon the work, after he had observed to a very great man, that there was not a page in it without a fault. But it was only threatening; and neither the world was the better, nor was Mr. Camden’s reputation e’er the worse for it." Sir Symonds was certainly not defensible for throwing out at random, as it should seem, such a censure against a work universally well received, without ever attempting to support it; yet some have excused him by saying that this censure was contained in a private letter; and that sir Symonds had a high sense of Camden’s merit, whom he mentions very respectfully in the preface to his Journals, &c.

, a celebrated physician and chemist, was son of William Dickinson, rector of Appleton in Berkshire, and born there in 1624. He acquired his classical learning at Eton, and from thence, in 1642, was sent to Merton-college in Oxford. Having regularly taken the degrees in arts, he entered on the study of medicine, and took both the degrees in that faculty. In 1655 he published his “Delphi Phcenicizantes, *kc.” a very learned piece, in which he attempts to prove that the Greeks borrowed the story of the Pythian Apollo, and all that rendered the oracle of Delphi famous, from the holy scriptures, and the book of Joshua in particular *. His work procured him much reputation both at home and abroad; and Sheldon (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) is said to have had so high a sense of its value, that he would have persuaded the author to have applied himself to divinity, and to have taken orders; but he was already fixed in his choice. To this treatise were added, 1. “Diatriba de Nore in Italiam adventu; ejusque nominibus ethnicis.” 2. “De origine Druidum.” 3. Oratiuncula pro philosophia liberanda,“which had been spoken, by him in the hall of Merton college, July 1653, and was the first tiling which made him known among the learned. 4.” /acharias Bogan Edmundo Dickinson;“a letter filled with citations from the most ancient authors in support of his opinions, and the highest commendations of his learning, industry, and judgment. The” Delphi Phoenicizantes,“&c. came out first at Oxford in 1655, 12mo, and was reprinted at Francfort, 1669, 8vo, and at Rotterdam in 1691, by Crenius, in the first volume of his” Fasciculus dissertation uo> Historico-critico-philologicarum," 12mo. Afterwards Dr. Dickinson applied himself to chemistry with much assiduity; and, about 1662, received a visit from Theodore Mundanus, an illustrious adept of France, who encouraged him mightily to proceed in the study of alchemy, and succeeded in persuading him of the possibility of the transmutation of metals, a credulity for which he probably paid first in his purse, and afterwards in his reputation. At length he left his college, and took a house in the High-street, Oxford, for the sake of following the business of his profession more conveniently. In. li>69 he married for the first time; but his wife dying in child- bed, and leaving him a daughter, he some time after married a second, who also died in a short time. His wives were both gentlewomen of good families.

Father Simon speaks advantageously of the writings of Lewis de Dieu in the 35th chapter of his “Critical History of the Commentators on the New Testament.” The estimation in which he was held by archbishop Usher, appears from the Letters of that excellent prelate, published by Dr. Parr. The titles of his learned writings are, 1. “Compendium Grammatica; Hebraicae,” Leyden, 1626, 4to. 2. “Apocalypsis S. Joanna Syriace ex manuscripto exemplari bibliothecce Jos. Scaligeri edita, &c.” Leyden, 1627, 4to. 3. “Grammatica trilinguis, Hebraica, Syriaca, et Chaldaica,” ibid. 1628, 4to. 4. “Animadversiones in quatuor evangelia,” ibid. 1631, 4to. 5. “Animadversiones in Acta Apostolorum,” ibid. 1634, 4to. 6. “Historia Christi et S. Petri Persice conscripta, &c.” ibid. 1639, 4to. 7. “Rudimenta linguae Persictc,” ibid. 1639, 4to. 8. “Animadversiones in Epistolam ad Romanes et reliquas Epistolas,” ibid. 1646, 4to. 9. “Animadversiones in omnes libros Veteris Testamenti,” ibid. 1648. 10. “Critica Sacra, sive animadversiones in loca qucedam difficiliora Veteris et Novi Testamenti,” Amst. 1693, folio. 11. “Grammatica Linguarum Orientalium ex recensione Davidis Clodii,” Francfort, 1683, 4to, in which the editor has collected all that De Dieu had published on the grammar of the Eastern languages. 12. “Aphorismi Theologi,” Utrecht, 1693. This and the two following were edited by professor Leydecker of Utrecht. 13. “Traite co‘ntre l’avarice, par Louis de Dieu, qui est le seul de tous ses ouvrages Flamans qu‘il ait souhaite qu’on publiat.” Deventer, 1695, 8vo. 14. “Khetorica Sacra.”

, who once enjoyed the reputation of a philosopher, the eldest son of sir Everard Digby, was born at Gothurst in Buckinghamshire, June 11, 1603. At the time of his father’s death, he was with his mother at Gothurst, being then in the third year of his age: but he seems to have been taken early out of her hands, since it is certain that he renounced the errors of popery very young, and was carefully bred up in the protestant religion, under the direction, as it is supposed, of archbishop Laud, then dean of Gloucester. Some have said, that king James restored his estate to him in his infancy; but this is an error; for it was decided by law that the king had no right to it. About 1618 he was admitted a gentleman-commoner of Gloucester-hall, now Worcester college, in Oxford; where he soon discovered such strength of natural abilities, and such a spirit of penetration, that his tutor, who was a man of parts and learning, used to compare him, probably for the universality of his genius, to the celebrated Picus de Mirandula. After having continued at Oxford between two and three years, and having raised the highest expectations of future eminence, he made the tour of France, Spain, and Italy, and returned to England in 1623; in which year he was knighted by the king, to whom he was presented at the lord Montague’s house at Hinchinbroke, October 23. Soon after, he rendered himself remarkable by the application of a secret he met with in his travels, which afterwards made so much noise in the world under the title of the “Sympathetic Powder,” by which wounds were to be cured, although the patient was out of sight, a piece of quackery scarcely credible, yet it was practised by sir Kenelm, and his patient Howell, the letter-writer, and believed by many at that time. The virtues of this powder, as himself assures us, were thoroughly inquired into by king James, his son the prince of Wales, the duke of Buckingham, with other persons of the highest distinction, and all registered among the observations of the great chancellor Bacon, to be added by way of appendix to his lordship’s Natural History; but this is not strictly true; for lord Bacon never published that Appendix, although he does give a story nearly as absurd.

After the death of James, he made as great a figure in the new court as he had done in the old; and was appointed a gentleman of the bed-chamber, a commissioner of the navy, and a governor of the Trinity-house. Some disputes having happened in the Mediterranean with the Venetians, he went as adoiiral thither with a small fleet in the summer of 1628; and gained great honour by his bravery and conduct at Algiers, in rescuing many English slaves, and attacking the Venetian fleet in the bay of Scanderoon. In 1632 he had an excellent library of Mss. as well as printed books left him by Ins tutor at Oxford; but, considering how much the Mss. were valued in that university, and how serviceable they might be to the students there, he generously bestowed them the very next year upon the Bodleian library. He continued to this time a member of the church of England; but, going some time afterwards into France, he began to have religious scruples, t-nd at length, in 1636, reconciled himself to the church of Rome. He wrote upon this occasion to Laud an apology for his conduct; and the archbishop returned him an answer, full of tenderness and good advice, but, as it seems, with very little hopes of regaining him. In his letter to the archbishop, he took great pains to convince him, that he had done nothing in this affair precipitately, or without due consideration; and he was desirous that the public should entertain the same opinion of him. As nothing also has been more common, than for persons who have changed their system of religion, to vindicate their conduct by setting forth their motives; so with this view he published at Paris, in 1638, a piece, entitled “A Conference with a lady about the choice of Religion.” It was reprinted at London in 1654, and is written in a polite, easy, and concise style. Some controversial letters of his were published at London in 1651.

After a long stay in France, where he was highly caressed, he came over to England; and in 1639 was, with sir Walter Montague, employed by the queen to engage the papists to a liberal contribution to the king, which they effected; on which account some styled the forces then raised for his majesty, the popish army. Jan. 1640, the house of commons sent for sir Kenelm in order to know how far, and upon what grounds, he had acted in. this matter; which he opened to them very clearly, without having the least recourse to subterfuges or evasions. Upon the breaking out of the civil war, being at London, he was by the parliament committed prisoner to Winchesterhouse; but at length, in 1643, set at liberty, her majesty the queen dowager of France having condescended to write a letter, with her own hand, in his favour. His liberty was granted upon certain terms; and a very respectful letter written in answer to that of the queen. Hearne has preserved a copy of the letter, directed to the queen regent of France, in the language of that country; of which the following is a translation: “Madam, the two houses of parliament having been informed by the sieur de Gressy, of the desire your majesty has that we should set at liberty sir Kenelm Digby; we are commanded to make known to your majesty, that although the religion, the past behaviour, and the abilities of this gentleman, might give some umbrage of his practising to the prejudice of the constitutions of this realm; nevertheless, having so great a regard to the recommendation of your majesty, they have ordered him to be discharged, and have authorized us farther to assure your majesty, of their being always ready to testify to you their respects upon every occasion, as well as to advance whatever may regard the good correspondence between the two states. We remain your majesty’s most humble servants, &c.” In regard to the terms upon which this gentleman was set at liberty, they will sufficiently appear from the following paper, entirely written, as well as subscribed by his own hand: “Whereas, upon the mediation of her majesty the queen of France, it hath pleased both houses of parliament to permit me to go into that kingdom; in humble acknowledgement of their favour therein, and to preserve and confirm a good opinion of my zeal and honest intentions to the honour and service of my country, I do here, upon the faith of a Christian, and the word of a gentleman, protest and promise, that I will neither directly nor indirectly negociate, promote, consent unto or conceal, any practice or design prejudicial to the honour or safety of the parliament. And, in witness of my reality herein, I have hereunto subscribed my name, this 3d day of August, 1643, Kenelm Digby.” Hovfever, before he quitted the kingdom, he was summoned by a committee of the house of commons, in order to give an account of any transactions he might be privy to between archbishop Laud and the court of Rome; and particularly as to an offer supposed to be made to that prelate from thence of a cardinal’s hat. Sir Kenelm assured the committee that he knew nothing of any such transactions; and that, in his judgment, the archbishop was what he seemed to be, a very sincere and learned protestant. During his confinement at Winchester-house, he was the author of two pieces at the least, which were afterwards made public; namely, 1. “Observations upon Dr. Browne’s Religio Medici,” 1643. 2. “Observations on the 22d stanza in the 9th canto of the 2d book of Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” 1644, containing, says his biographer, “a very deep philosophical commentary upon these most mysterious verses.” His appearance in France was highly agreeable to many of the learned in that kingdom, who had a great opinion of his abilities, and were charmed with the spirit and freedom, of his conversation. It was probably about this time that, having read the writings of Descartes, he resolved to go to Holland on purpose to see him, and found him in his retirement at Egmond. There, after conversing with him. upon philosophical subjects some time, without making himself known, Descartes, who had read some of his works, told him, that “he did not doubt but he was the famous sir Kenelm Digby!” “And if you, sir,” replied the knight, “were not the illustrious M. Descartes, I should not have come here on purpose to see you.” Desmaizeaux, who has preserved this anecdote in his Life of St. Evremond, tells us also of a conversation which then followed between these great men, about lengthening out life to the period of the patriarchs, which we have already noticed in our account of Descartes. He is also said to have had many conferences afterwards with Descartes at Paris, where he spent the best part of the ensuing winter, and employed himself in digesting those philosophical treatises which he had been long meditating; and which he published in his own language, but with a licence or privilege from the French king the year following. Their titles are, J. “A Treatise of the nature of Bodies.” 2. “A Treatise declaring the operations and nature of Man’s Soul, out of which the immortality of reasonable Souls is evinced/' Both printed at Paris in 1644, and often reprinted at London. He published also, 3.” Institutionum peripateticarum libri quinque, curn appendice theologica de origine mundi," Paris, 1651: which piece, joined to the two former, translated into Latin by J. L. together with a preface in the same language by Thomas Albius, \hat is, Thomas White, was printed at London in 4to, 1C69.

, an English nobleman of great parts, was son of the preceding, and born at Madrid, in October, 1612. In 1626 he was entered of Magdalencollege, in Oxford, where he lived in great familiarity with the well-known Peter Heylin, and gave manifest proofs of those great endowments for which he was afterwards so distinguished. In 1636 he was created M. A. there, just after Charles 1. had left Oxford; where he had been spendidly entertained by the university, and particularly at St. John’s college, by Dr. Laud, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In the beginning of the long parliament he was disaffected to the court, and appointed one of the committee to prepare a charge against the earl of Strafford, in 1640 but afterwards would not consent to the bill, “not only,” as he said, “because he was unsatisfied in the matter of law, but for that he was more unsatisfied in the matter of fact.” From that time he became a declared enemy to the parliament, and shewed his dislike of their proceedings in a warm speech against them, which he made at the passing' of the bill of attainder against the said earl, in April 1641. This speech was condemned to be burnt, and himself in June following, expelled the house of commons. In Jan. 1642, he went on a message from his majesty to Kingston-upon-Thames, to certain gentlemen there, with a coach and six horses. This they improved into a warlike appearance; and accordingly he was accused of high treason in parliament, upon pretence of his levying war at Kingston-upon-Thames. Clarendon mentions “this severe prosecution of a young nobleman of admirable parts and eminent hopes, in so implacable a manner, as a most pertinent instance of the tyranny and injustice of those times.” Finding what umbrage he had given to the parliament, and how odious they had made him to the people, he obtained leave, and a licence from his majesty, to transport himself into Holland; whence he wrote several letters to his friends, and one to the queen, which was carried by a perfidious confidant to the parliament, and opened. In a secret expedition afterwards to the king, he was taken by one of the parliament’s ships, and carried to Hull; but being in such a disguise that not his nearest relation could have known him, he brought himself off very dextrously by his artful management of the governor, sir John Hotham. In 1643 he was made one of the secretaries of state to the king, and high steward of the university of Oxford, in the room of William lord Say. In the latter end of 1645 he went into Ireland, and exposed himself to great hazards of his life, for the service of the king; from thence he passed over to Jersey, where the prince of Wales was, and after that into France, in order to transact some important matters with the queen and cardinal Mazarin. Upon the death of the king, he was exempted from pardon by the parliament, and obliged to live in exile till the restoration of Charles II. when he was restored to all he had lost, and made knight of the garter. He became very active in public affairs, spoke frequently in parliament, and distinguished himself by his enmity to Clarendon while chancellor. He died at Chelsea, March 20, 1676, after succeeding his father as earl of Bristol. Many of his speeches and letters are still extant, to he found in our historical collections and he wrote “Elvira,” a comedy, &c. There are also letters of his cousin sir Kenelm Digby, against popery, mentioned in our account of sir Kenelm yet afterwards he became a papist himself; which inconsistencies in his character have been neatly depicted by lord Orford. “He was,” says he, “a singular person, whose life was one contradiction. He wrote against popery, and embraced it; he was a zealous opposer of the court, and a sacrifice for it; was conscientiously converted in the midst of his prosecution of lord Strafford, and was most unconscientiously a prosecutor of lord Clarendon. With great parts he always hurt himself and his friends; with romantic bravery, he was always an unsuccessful commander. He spoke for the test act, though a Roman catholic, and addicted himself to astrology on the birth-day of true philosophy.”

, an English poet, was born in Ireland about 1633, while the government of that kingdom was under the first earl of Strafford, to whom he was nephew; his father, sir James Dillon, third earl of Roscommon, having married Elizabeth the youngest daughter of sir William Wentworth, of Wentworth-Woodhouse, in the county of York, sister to the earl of Stratford. Hence lord Roscommon was christened Wentworth. He was educated in the protestant religion, his father (who died at Limerick in 1619) having been converted by archbishop Usher from the communion of the church of Rome; and passed the years of his infancy in Ireland. He was brought over to England by his uncle, on his return from the government of Ireland*, and placed at that nobleman’s seat in Yorkshire, under the tuition of Dr. Hall, erroneously* said to have been afterwards bishop of Norwich. The celebrated Hall was at this time a bishop, and far advanced in years. By this Dr. Hall, whoever he was, he was instructed in Latin; and, without learning the common rules of grammar, which he could never remember, attained to write that language with classical elegance and propriety. When the cloud began to gather over England, and the earl of Strafford was singled out for an impeachment, he was, by the advice of Usher, sent to finish his education at Caen in Normandy, where the protestants had then an university, and studied under the direction of the learned Bochart; but at this time he could not have been more than nine years old. After some years he travelled to Rome, where he grew familiar with the most valuable remains of antiquity, applying himself particularly to the knowledge of medals, which he gained to perfection; and he spoke Italian with so much grace and fluency, that he was frequently mistaken there for a native.

, a Greek poet and musician, was the author of the words and music of three hymns, of which the first is addressed to Calliope, the second to Apollo, and the third to Nemesis. Of these the music has been preserved and published by Dr. Fell, bishop of Oxford, in 1672. This precious manuscript, which was found in Ireland, among the papers of the famous archbishop Usher, was bought, after his decease, by Mr. Bernard, fellow of St. John’s college, who communicated it to the editor, together with remarks and illustrations by the rev. Mr. Edmund Chilmead, of Christ church, who likewise redueed the ancient musical characters to those in common, use. It appears by the notes, that the music of these hymns was composed in the Lydian mode, and diatonic genus. Vincenzo Galilei, father of the great Galileo, first published these hymns with their Greek notes, in his “Dialogues upon Ancient and Modern Music,” printed at Florence, 1581, folio. He assures us, that he had them from a Florentine gentleman, who copied them very accurately from an ancient Greek manuscript, preserved in th library of cardinal St. Angelo, at Rome, which ms. likewise contained the treatises of music by Aristides Quintilianus, and Bryennius, since published by Meibomius and Dr. Wallis. The Florentine edition of these hymns entirely agrees with that printed at Oxford. In 1602, Hercules Bottrigari mentioned the same hymns in his harmonical discourse, called “Melone,” printed at Ferrara, in 4to. But he derived his knowlege of these pieces only from the Dialogues of Galilei; however, he inserted, in the beginning of his book, some fragments of them in common notes; but they were disfigured by a number of typographical errors. At length, in 1720, M. Burette published these three hymns in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions,” ton), v. from a copy found at the end of a Greek manuscript in the king of France’s library at Paris, No. 3221, which likewise contained the musical treatises of Aristides Quintilianus, and of Bacchius senior'. But though the words were confused, and confounded one with another, they appeared much more complete in this manuscript than elsewhere, particularly the hymn to Apollo, which had six verses more at the beginning; and that to Nemesis, which, though deficient at the end in all the other editions, was here entire, having fourteen verses, exclusive of the six first.

, a Polish historian, was born in Ml 5, at Brzeznich, a town in Poland, of which his father was governor. In his sixth year, his father being appointed governor of Korczyn, he was removed thither with the family, and began his education, which was continued in the different places of which his father was successively appointed governor, until he was sent to Cracow. Here and at other places he pursued his studies, with very little encouragement from his father, but found a friend in Zbigneus, bishop of Cracow, who was a patron of learned men. This prelate first placed him at the head of his chancery, after that of his house, and at last made him general manager of his affairs; and he acquitted himself so much to the satisfaction of the bishop, that on his death-bed he appointed him one of his executors. He had also ordained him priest at the age of twenty-five, and gave him some church preferment, particularly the living of St. Martin of Klobuczk, and a canonry of Cracow. He was afterwards promoted to be chanter, and treasurer of the church of Vissicza, canon of Sendomir, and got some other preferments less considerable. The only use he made of the wealth arising from these benefices, was to share it with poorer clergymen of talents and character;. or to bestow it on the poor, on the repairs of churches, and other pious purposes. Eugene IV. having appointed Zbigneus to the dignity of cardinal, and several impediments being thrown in the way of this preferment, Dlugoss went to Rome in 1449, and had these difficulties removed. Pope Nicholas V. employed him to carry the cardinal’s cap to the bishop, which he had the honour to put on his head in the cathedral of Cracovr, in the same year. In 1450 he took a journey to the land of Palestine, where he contemplated with veneration the places dignified by being the site of Scripture history. On his return to Poland, king Casimir IV. appointed him tutor to his sons, which office he filled for many years with great reputation. On the death of his early patron, cardinal Zbigneus, in April 1455, Dlugoss was accused by the brother of the deceased for having abused his confidence, a charge which he had little difficulty in repelling, but was less successful with the king, whose displeasure he incurred by espousing the cause of an ecclesiastic whom the pope had nominated bishop of Cracow, while the king had nominated another; and for this slight reason Dlugoss was exiled for the space of three years; at the end of which, however, he was recalled, and his majesty restored him to his favour, and not only consulted him on many public affairs of importance, but employed him to negociate in various parts of Europe, on matters respecting the interests of Poland. At length he was appointed archbishop of Leopold, but died before his consecration, May 29, 1480. His principal historical work is entitled “Historia Polonica,” the first volume of which was printed in 1615, fol. This edition, which is of rare occurrence, is one of the few scarce books which proceed from the private press of Herburt of Dobromil, It contains, however, only the first six books, bringing the history down to 1240; the rest remained in manuscript until 1711, when they were printed at Francfort, along with the preceding, under the title “J. Dlugossi historiie Polonicoe Hbri duodecim, &c.” This hrings the history down to 1444, but a continuation was published by J. G. Krause, which he called the thirteenth book, at Leipsic, 1712, folio, and which extends to 1480, the year of the author’s death. He is esteemed a very correct historian, although not free from the barbarism of his age. His other works are, 1. “Vita St. Stanislai episcopi et martyns,” Cracow, 1611 and 1666. 2. “Plocensium episcoporuin vita 1” which is inserted in “Stanislai Lubienski opera posthum^,” Antwerp, 1643, fol. 3.“Vitae episcoporum Postnajiiensium,” 1G'24, 4to and some other lives of bishops.

, usually styled the Decalogist, from his Commentary on the commandments, and called by Fuller, the “last of the Puritans,” was a native of Shotledge, in. Cheshire; in which county there were several ancient families of the Dods; but to which of them he belonged, we have not been able to ascertain. He was born, the youngest of seventeen children, in 1547, and sent to school at WestChester, but Mr. Cole says he was educated at Winchester, a name which he probably transcribed hastily for the other. In 1561, when he was fourteen years of age, he was entered of Jesus college, Cambridge, of which he was chosen fellow in 1585, according to a ms note of Mr. Baker; and Mr. Cole adds, that he was junior proctor in 1614; both which dates must belong to some other person, as it does not appear that he remained in all more than sixteen years at college. At what time he took his master’s degree is uncertain, but a few years after, being appointed to oppose in the philosophy act at the commencement, he exhibited such a display of talents, as highly gratified his hearers, and in consequence, he had liberal offers to remove to Oxford. These he declined, but was incorporated M. A. in that university in 1585. Associating much with Drs. Fulke, Chaclerton, and Whitaker, he imbibed the principles and strictness for which they were famous, and conceived an early dislike to some of the ceremonies or discipline of the church, but to what we are not told. After taking orders, he first preached a weekly lecture at Ely, until invited by sir Anthony Cope to be minister of Hanwell, in Oxfordshire, in 1577, where he became a constant and diligent preacher, and highly popular. Nor was his hospitality Jess conspicuous, as he kept an open table on Sundays and Wednesdays lecture days, generally entertaining on these occasions from eight to twelve persons at dinner. At Hanwell he remained twenty years, in the course cf which he married, and had a large family; but, owing to his nonconformity in some points, he was suspended by Dr. Bridges, bishop of Oxford. After this, he preached for some time at Fenny-Compton, in Warwickshire, and from thence was called to Cannons Ashby, in Northamptonshire, where he was patronized by sir Erasmus Dryden but here again he was silenced, in consequence of a complaint made by bishop Neale to king James, who commanded archbishop Abbot to pronounce that sentence. During this suspension of his public services, he appears to have written his Commentary on the Decalogue and Proverbs, which he published in conjunction with one Robert Cleaver, probably another silenced puritan, of whom we can find no account. At length, by the interest of the family of Knightley, of Northamptonshire, after the death of king James, he was presented in 1624, to the living of Fawesley, in that county. Here he recommended himself as before, not more by his earnest and affectionate services in the pulpit, than by his charity and hospitality, and particularly by his frequent visits and advice which last he delivered in a manner peculiarly striking. A great many of his sayings became almost proverbial, and remained so for above a century, being, as may yet be remembered, frequently printed in a small tract, or on a broad sheet, and suspended in every cottage. On the commencement of the rebellion he suffered considerably, his house being plundered, as the house of a puritan, although he was a decided enemy to the proceedings of the republicans. When they were about to abolish the order of bishops, &c. Dr. Brownrig sent to Mr. Dod, for his opinion, who answered, that “he had been scandalized with the proud and tyrannical practises of the Marian bishops; but now, after more than sixty years’ experience of many protestant bishops, that had been worthy preachers, learned and orthodox writers, great champions for the protestant cause, he wished all his friends not to be any impediment to them, and exhorted all men not to take up arms against the king; which was his doctrine, he said, upon the fifth commandment, and he would never depart from it.” He died in August, 1645, at the very advanced age of ninety-seven, and was buried on the I9th of that month, at Fawesley, in Northamptonshire. Fuller says, “with him the Old Puritan seemed to expire, and in his grave to be interred. Humble, meek, patient, charitable as in his censures of, so in his alms to others. Would I could truly say but half so much of the next generation!” “He was,” says the same author, “a passive nonconformist, not loving any one the worse for difference in judgment about ceremonies, but all the better for their unity of affections in grace and goodness. He used to retrench some hot spirits when inveighing against bishops, telling them how God under that government had given a marvellous increase to the gospel, and that godly men might comfortably comport therewith, under which learning and religion had so manifest an improvement.” He was an excellent scholar, particularly in the Hebrew language, which he taught to the celebrated John Gregory, of Christchurch, Oxford. The no less celebrated Dr. Wilkins was his grandson, and born in his house at Fawesley, in 1614, a date which seems to interfere with that given above as the date of Mr. Dod’s presentation to Fawesley, which we have taken from the register in Bridges’s Northamptonshire, but he might probably have resided there previous to the living becoming vacant. Of his works we know only that which conferred on him the name of the Decalogist, “A plain and familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments,” London, 1606, 4to; and “A plain and familiar Exposition” of certain chapters of the Book of Proverbs, 1606, 4to, published at different times; and the prefaces signed by Dod and Cleaver. There are some original letters by Dod in the British Museum, (Ayscough, No. 4275), addressed to lady Vere. They consist chiefly of pious exhortations respecting the confused state of public affairs. In one of them, dated Dec. 20, 1642, he says, he is “not far off ninety-five years old,” which has enabled us to ascertain his age, hitherto incorrectly given by his biographers.

In 1753 he received orders; and, being now settled in London, soon became a very popular and celebrated preacher. He obtained several lectureships that of West- Ham and Bow, that of St. James Garlickhithe, and that of St. Olave Hart-street; and was appointed to preach a course of lady Moyer’s lectures and he advanced his theological character greatly, by an almost uninterrupted publication of sermons and tracts of piety. And farther to keep up the profession of sanctity, and increase his popularky, he was very zealous in promoting and assisting at charitable institutions, and distinguished himself much in. regard to the Magdalen hospital, which was opened in August 1758: he became preacher at the chapel of this charity, for which he was allowed yearly I Oo/. But, notwithstanding his apparent attention to spiritual concerns, he was much more in earnest, and indeed in earnest only in cultivating his temporal interests; but all his expedients were not successful, and his subservient flattery was sometimes seen through. In 1759 he published in 2 vols. 12mo, bishop Hall’s Meditations, and dedicated them to Miss Talbot, who lived in the family of archbishop Seeker; and, on the honour the marquis of Granby acquired in Germany, addressed an ode to the marchioness. His dedication to Miss Talbot was too extravagant a piece of flattery not to miss its aim, and gave such offence to the archbishop, that, after a warm epistolary expostulation, his grace insisted on the sheet being cancelled in all the remaining copies.

, an eminent antiquary, the son of Matthew Dodsworth, registrar of York cathedral, and chancellor to archbishop Matthews, was born July 24, 1585, at Newton Grange, in the parish of St. Oswald, in Rydale, Yorkshire. He died in August 1654; and was buried at Rufrord, Lancashire. He was a man “of wonderful industry, but less judgment; always collecting and transcribing, but never published any thing.” Such is the report of him by Wood; who in the first part of it, Mr. Gough observes, drew his own character. “One cannot approach the borders of this county,” adds this topographer, in his account of Yorkshire, “without paying tribute to the memory of that indefatigable collector of its antiquities, Roger Dodsworth, who undertook and executed a work, which, to the antiquaries of the present age, would have been the stone of Tydides.” One hundred and twenty-two volumes of his own writing, besides original Mss. which he had obtained from several hands, making all together 162 volumes folio, now lodged in the Bodleian library, are lasting memorials what this county owes to him, as the two volumes of the Monasticon (which, though published under his and Dugdale’s names conjointly, were both collected and written totally by him) will immortalize that extensive industry which has laid the whole kingdom under obligation. The patronage of general Fairfax (whose regard to our antiquities, which the rage of his party was so bitter against, should cover his faults from the eyes of antiquaries) preserved this treasure, and bequeathed it to the library where it is now lodged. Fairfax preserved also the fine windows of York cathedral; and when St. Mary’s tower, in which were lodged innumerable records, both public and private, relating to the northern parts, was blown up during the siege of York, he gave money to the soldiers who could save any scattered papers, many of which are now at Oxford; though Dodsworth had transcribed and abridged the greatest part before. Thomas Tomson, at the hazard of his life, saved out of the rubbish such as were legible; which, after passing through several hands, became the property of Dr. John Burton, of York, being 1868, in thirty bundles. Wallis says they are in the cathedral library. Fairfax allowed Dodsworth a yearly salary to preserve the inscriptions in churches.

among archbishop Laud’s Mss, in the et commentario G. Musgrave. AcceBodleian library. Mr. Dodwell like- dit Dodwelli Epistola ad cl. Goezhim

, archbishop of York, was a prelate of considerable worth, abilities, and eminence, in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. a man who, to the courage and fidelity which had first deserved a military reward, united all those talents and qualifications which could justify his subsequent advancement to the honours of the church. He was born at Stanwick, in Northamptonshire, March 20, 1625, being the fifth in descent from William Dolben of Denbighshire; and descended from an ancient family of that name, settled at Segrayd, in the same county. Dr. William Dolben, the father of the archbishop, was at that time rector of Stanwick, and of Benefield, to both of which he was instituted in one day; and prebendary of Lincoln, through the interest of the lord keeper Williams, whose niece Elizabeth Williams he had married. Few marriages have been more fortunate in their issue: besides the subject of the present article, their second son William proved highly eminent in the profession to which he was educated. He became recorder of London, received the honour of knighthood, and in 1678 was appointed one of the judges in the court of common pleas. In 1683 he was removed from that situation, very highly to his honour, being the only judge that gave his opinion against the legality of dissolving corporations by quo warranto. His rank was justly restored by king William; who, in 1689, appointed him a judge of the king’s bench; and in that station he remained till his death, which happened in 1693, the 65th year of his age. He was buried in the Temple church, and left a character of high estimation for strict integrity, and the most penetrating discernment. Dr. William Dolben, however, neither lived to see the eminence of his sons, nor to complete his own career of advancement; for he died in 1631, when his eldest son John was only six years old, being himself nominated, at the time, for the succession to a vacant bishopric, but his death produced an affecting testimony to his merit, of no small value in the moral estimate , of honours. This was conferred by his parishioners of Stanwick, by whom he was so sincerely beloved, that on his falling ill at London of the sickness which proved fatal to him, they plowed and sowed his glebe lands at their own expence, that his widow might have the benefit of the crop which she accordingly received after his decease; an anecdote more felt and valued by his family than any thing that usually adorns the page of the biographer.

John Dolben, afterwards archbishop, was educated at Westminster-school, where he was admitted a king’s scholar in 1636; and in 1640 was elected to Christ church, Oxford, where he was admitted, in the same year, a student on queen Elizabeth’s foundation. It has been thought worthy of remark, as a strong instance of hereditary attachment to those seminaries, that he was the second in order, of six succeeding generations, which have passed through the same steps of education, and it has been remarked that since his time, Westminster-school has rarely been without a Dolben.

When the civil wars broke out, Mr. Dolben took arms for the royal cause in the garrison at Oxford, and served as an ensign in the unfortunate battle of Marston-Moor, in 1644, where he received a dangerous wound in the shoulder from a musquet-ball; but in the defence of York, soon after, he received a severer wound of the same kind in the thigh; which broke the bone, and confined him twelve months to his bed. In the course of his military service he was advanced to the rank of captain, and, according to Wood, of major. In 1646, when there appeared no longer any hope of serving the king’s cause by arms, when Oxford and his other garrisons were surrendered, and himself in the hands of his enemies, Mr. Dolben retired again to his college, and renewed his studies; a sense of duty had made him an active soldier; inclination and natural abilities rendered him at all times a successful student. In 1647 he took the degree of master of arts, and remained at college till ejected by the parliamentarian visitors in 1648. In the interval between this period and the year 1656, when he entered into holy orders, we have no account of him; but it is most probable that his time was, in general, studiously employed, and especially from the moment when he took up that design. From 1657, when he married Catharine daughter of Ralph, elder brother of archbishop Sheldon, to the time of the king’s restoration, he lived in Oxford, at the bouse of his father-in-law, in St. Aldate’s parish; and throughout that interval, in conjunction with Dr. Fell and Dr. Allestree, constantly performed divine service and administered the sacraments, according to the Liturgy of the church of England, to the great comfort of the royalists then resident in Oxford, particularly the students ejected in 1648, who formed a regular and pretty numerous congregation*. The house appropriated to this sacred purpose was then the residence of Dr. Thomas Willis, the celebrated physician, and is yet standing, opposite to Merton college. The attachment of Mr. Dolben to what he considered as the right cause had before been active and courageous; it was now firm and unwearied, with equal merit, and with better success.

When the regal government was restored, for the sake of which Mr. Dolben had so often hazarded his life, his zeal for the cause and sufferings in it were not forgotten by the king f. In that very year, 1660, he took his degree of D. D. on being appointed a canon of Christ Church, Oxford. In the same year he was also presented to the rectory of Newington-cum-Britwell, in Oxfordshire, in the gift of the archbishop of Canterbury. His preferments and honours now succeeded each other rapidly; the time of trial was past, and the time of reward had arrived. In 1661 he became a prebendary of St. Paul’s (the prebend of Cadington major), and was one of those who signed the revised Liturgy, which passed the house of convocation December iiotb, in that year. In 1662 he was appointed archdeacon of London, and presented to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate; but resigned both a short time after, with his other parochial preferment, on being installed dean of Westminster. He was chosen prolocutor of the lower house of convocation in 1664, and soon after became clerk of the closet to- the king. In 1666 he was consecrated bishop of Rochester, and allowed to hold the deanery of Westminster in commendam. In 1675 he was

piece Dr. Fell, Dr. Dolben, and Dr. f When the regicides were conAllestree, are represented in thrir <;a- deinned, Dr. Dolbeu and Dr. Barwiek uouical habits, as joining in the liturgy were appointed to visit some of them in of the church. A copy of this picture pn-s->n.See an account of this in Barlias lately been presented by sir WiU wick’s Life, p< l iy;>, &c. appointed lord high almoner; an office, says Wood, which he discharged with such justice and integrity as was for the great benefit of the poor. It would betray great ignorance of the ways of courts to suppose, that in all these steps he was not in part indebted to the interference and interest of archbishop Sheldon; yet where merit is conspicuous, the effect of patronage is greatly facilitated, which appears to have been the case in the instance now before us.

Translation to the see of York was the final gradation of his honours, and enjoyed only for a short time, as between the last advancement and his death something less than three years intervened. He was translated to York in August 1683, and then became, by an unusual transition, the ecclesiastical governor of that place which he had formerly assisted in defending by military force. His activity was not yet exhausted, though exerted in a different way; he diligently contributed to the good administration of the service in his cathedral, and in 1685 made a new regulation of archbishop Grindal’s order of preachers, and appointed a weekly celebration of the holy sacrament: and was, in all respects, as his epitaph expresses it, an example both to the flock and to the pastors under him. The death of archbishop Dolben was occasioned, not by natural decay, but by criminal neglect. At an inn on the North road he was suffered by the proprietors to sleep in a room where the infection of the small-pox remained; he there caught the disorder, which being of a virulent kind, and attended with lethargy, put an end to his life at Bishopthorp, on the 11th of April 1686, in the sixty-second year of his age, after a confinement to his bed of only four days. The body of the archbishop was deposited in the cathedral at York, where a handsome monument, with a very copious inscription, records his merits, and the principal circumstances of his life.

Anthony Wood says of archbishop Dolben, that “he was a man of a free, generous, and noble disposition, and of a natural, bold, and happy eloquence.” The latter circumstance is confirmed by the testimony of his epitaph; and by another, which we shall presently cite at large. The former, by the following instances of his liberality at the different places with which he was connected. The pulpit at Stanwick is inscribed as his gift when bishop of Rochester. He contributed one hundred pounds to the rebuilding of St. Paul’s cathedral, and two hundred and fifty to the repairs of Christ Church, Oxford. He rebuilt part of the episcopal palace at Bromley; and, when dean of Westminster, influenced the chapter to assign an equal share with their own, in the dividends of fines, to the repairs and support of that venerable church. At York he gave one hundred and ninety-five ounces of plate for the use of the cathedral.

The wife of archbishop Dolben (by whom he had three children, Gilbert and John, and a daughter Catharine, who died an infant), survived him till 1706, when she died at Finedon, in Northamptonshire, in her eightieth year. His eldest son, Gilbert, who furnished Dryden with the various editions of Virgil, when about to translate that poet, was afterwards created a baronet by queen Anne, and for many years represented the city of Peterborough in parliament. He was appointed a justice of the common pleas in Ireland by William III. and held that office for twenty years. He died in 1722. The probity and worth of the present representatives of this family are well known.

, archbishop of Spalato in Dalmatia, was born about 1561, at Arba, and educated at Padua. He was remarkable for a fickleness in religious matters, which at length proved his ruin; otherwise he was a man of great abilities and learning. He was entered early amongst the Jesuits, but left that society to be bishop of Segni, and afterwards archbishop of Spalato but instead of growing more firmly attached to the church of Rome on account of his preferment, he became every day more and more disaffected to it. This induced him to write his famous books “De Republica Ecclesiastica,” which were afterwards printed in London; and in which he aimed a capital blow at the papal power. These books were read over and corrected, before publication, by our bishop Bedell, who was then at Venice in quality of chaplain to sir Henry Wotton, ambassador there from James I. De Dominis coming to Venice, and hearing a high character of Bedell, readily discovered his secret, and commuicated his copy to him. Bedell took the freedom he allowed him, of correcting many improper applications of texts in scripture, and quotations of fathers: for that prelate, being ignorant of the Greek tongue (a common thing in those days even amongst the learned), had committed many mistakes both in the one and the other. De Dominis took all this in very good part, entered into great familiarity with Bedell, and declared his assistance so useful, and indeed so necessary to him, that he could, as he used to say, do nothing without him.

Besides his work, “De Republica Ecclesiastica,” 3 vols. fol. he was author of a work in optics, which obtained the applause of the illustrious sir I. Newton, and which is entitled “De Radiis Visus & Lucis in Vitris perspectives et Iride Tractatus.” Our great philosopher complimented the author of this tract so far as to declare, that he was the first person who had explained the phenomena of the colours of the rainbow. He wrote also, 1. “Dominis suae profectionis a Venetiis consilium exponit,” London, 1616, 4to, and published in English the same year. 2. “Predica fatta, la prima Domenica dell' Avvento 1617, in Londra nella Capella delta delli Mercian,” Lond. 1617, 12mo, published in English the same year, 4to. 3. “Sui Retiitus in Anglia consiliura exponit,” Rome, 1623, 4to, and in English the same year. 4. “De pace regionis, Epistola ad Josephum Hallum,” 1666, 4to. We are also indebted to him for father Paul’s “History of the Council of Trent,” the manuscript of which he procured for archbishop Abbot.

His prose works are numerous, but except the “PseudoMartyr,” and a small volume of devotions, none of them, were published during his life. The others are, 1. “Paradoxes, problems, essays, characters,” &c. 1653, 12mo. Part of this collection was published at different times before. 2. Three volumes of “Sermons,” in folio the first printed in 1640, the second in 1649, the third in 1660. Lord Falkland styles Donne “one of the most witty and most eloquent of our modern divines.” 3. “Essays in divinity,” &c. 1651, 12mo. 4. “Letters to several persons of honour,” 1654, 4to. Both these published by his son. There are several of Donne’s letters, and others to him from the queen of Bohemia, the earl of Carlisle, archbishop Abbot, and Ben Jonson; printed in a book, entitled, “A collection of Letters made by sir Tobie Matthews, knt. 1660,” 8vo. 5. “The ancient History of the Septuagint; translated from the Greek of Aristeas,” 1633, in 12mo. This translation was revised and corrected by another hand, and published in 1635, 8vo. His sermons have not a little of the character of his poems. They are not, indeed, so rugged in style, but they abound with quaint allusions, which now appear ludicrous although they probably produced no such effect in his days. With this exception, they contain much good sense, much acquaintance with human nature, many striking thoughts, and some very just biblical criticism.

, a French Jesuit, a native of Vernon, who died at Orleans Sept. 21, 1716, filled several high offices belonging to his order, and was said to have been the author of the famous problem levelled at the cardinal de Noailles, “Whom are we to believe? M. de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, condemning the exposition of faith, or M. de Noailles, bishop of Chalons, approving the moral reflections?” alluding to an apparent change in Noailles* opinions of the disputes between the Jansenists and Jesuits. Doucin was a member of the club or cabal which the Jansenists called the Norman cabal, and which was composed of the Jesuits Tellier, Lallemand, and Daniel; and his zeal and activity were of great service to them. During the dispute on the famous bull Unigenitus, he was sent to Rome, and was a powerful advocate for that measure. He wrote a very curious piece of ecclesiastical history, entitled “Histoire de Nestorianisme,” Paris, 1698, 4to another, entitled “Histoire de I'Origenisme,” 4to, and “Memorial abrege touchant l'etat et les progres de Jansenistne en Hollande,” written in 1697, when he accompanied the count de Creci to the congress at Ryswick. He was also the author of many pamphlets of the controversial kind, strongly imbued with the spirit of party.

, bishop of Dunkeld, eminent for his poetical talents, was descended from a noble family, being the third son of Archibald, earl of Angus, and was born in Scotland at the close of the year 1474, or the Beginning of 1475. His father was very careful of his education, and caused him to be early instructed in literature and the sciences. He was intended by him for the church; and after having passed through a course of liberal education in Scotland, is supposed to have travelled into foreign countries, for his farther improvement in literature, particularly to Paris, where he finished his education. Alter his return to Scotland, he obtained the office of provost of the collegiate church of St. Giles in Edinburgh, a post of considerable dignity and revenue; and was also made rector of Heriot church. He was likewise appointed abbot of the opulent convent of Aberbrothick; and the queenmother, who was then regent of Scotland, and about this time married his nephew the earl of Angus, nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. But he was prevented from obtaining this dignity by a violent opposition made to him at home, and by the refusal of the pope to confirm his appointment. The queen-mother afterwards promoted him to the bishopric of Dunkeld; and for this preferment obtained a bull in his favour from pope Leo X. by the interest of her brother, Henry VIII. king of England. But so strong an opposition was again made to him, that he could not, for a considerable time, obtain peaceable possession of this new preferment; and was even imprisoned for more than a year, under pretence of having acted illegally, in procuring a bull from the pope. He was afterwards set at liberty, and consecrated bishop of Dunkeld, by James Beaton, chancellor of Scotland, and archbishop of Glasgow. After his consecration he went to St. Andrew’s, and thence to his own church at Dunkeld; where the first day, we are told, “he was most kindly received by his clergy and people, all of them blessing God for so worthy and learned a bishop.” He still, however, met with many obstructions; and, for some time, was forcibly kept out of the palace belonging to his diocese; but he at length obtained peaceable possession. He soon after accompanied the duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, to Paris, when that nobleman was sent to renew the ancient league between Scotland and France. After his return to Scotland, he made a short stay at Edinburgh, and then repaired to his diocese, where he applied himself diligently to the duties of his episcopal office. He was also a promoter of public-spirited works, and particularly finished the stone bridge over the river Tay, opposite to his own palace, which had been begun by his predecessor. We meet with no farther particulars concerning him till some years after, when he was at Edinburgh, during the disputes between the earls of Arran and Angus. On that occasion bishop Douglas reproved archbishop Beaton for wearing armour, as inconsistent with the clerical character, but was afterwards instrumental in saving his life. During all these disorders in Scotland, it is said, that bishop Douglas behaved “with that moderation and peaceableness, which became a wise man and a religious prelate;” but the violence and animosity which then prevailed among the different parties in Scotland, induced him to retire to England. After his departure, a prosecution was commenced against him in Scotland; but he was well received in England, where he was treated with particular respect, on account of the excellency of his character, and his great abilities and learning. King Henry VII I. allowed him a liberal pension; and he became particularly intimate with Polydore Vergil. He died of the plague, at London, in 1521, or 1522, and was interred in the Savoy church, on the left side of the tomb-stone of Thomas Halsay, bishop of Laghlin, in Ireland; on whose tomb-stone a short epitaph for bishop Douglas is inscribed. Hume, of Godscroft, in his “History of the Douglases,” says, “Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld, left behind him great approbation of his virtues and love of his person in the hearts of all good men; for besides the nobility of his birth, the dignity and comeliness of his personage, he was learned, temperate, and of singular moderation of mind; and in these turbulent times had always carried himself among the factions of the nobility equally, and with a mind to make peace, and not to stir up parties; which qualities were very rare in a clergyman of those days.”

, an English divine and poet, of the sixteenth century, was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of bachelor in divinity in 1569. The same year he was admitted to the prebend of Firles in the cathedral of Chichester, June 27, and on July 2 to that of Chamberlaynward in St. Paul’s, and March 9 following, he was installed archdeacon of Lewes. He seems to have been chaplain to Grindall, when archbishop of York. He was a tolerable Latin poet, and translated the Ecclesiastes into Latin hexameters, 1572, 4to, and published two miscellanies of Latin poetry, the one entitled “Sylva,” and the other “Poemata varia et externa,” the last printed at Paris. In the “Sylva,” he mentions his new version of David’s psalms, which Wartou supposes to have been in English, and says, he had begun to translate the Iliad, but had gone no further than the fourth book. In 1566 he published what he called “A medicinable Morall, that is, the two bookes of Horace his satyres Englished, according to the prescription of St. Hierome,” &c. Lond. and in the following year appeared “Horace, his arte of Poetrie, Pistles, and Satyrs Englished.” This version, which Drant undertook in the character of a grave divine, and as a teacher of morality, is very paraphrastic, and sometimes parodical. His other publications are, 1. “Gregory Nazianzen his Epigrams and spiritual sentences,” 1568, 8vo. 2. “Shaklocki, epigrammatis in mortem Cuthberti Scoti, apomaxis,” Lond. 1565, 4to which occurs in Herbert’s Antiquities under the title “An Epygrame of the death of Cuthberte Skotte some tyme beshoppe of Chester, by Roger Shacklocke, and replyed against by Thomas Drant.” 3. “Thomae Drantae Angli, Advordingamiae Praesul,” 1575, 4to. These two last are in the British Museum. 4. “Three godly and learned Sermons, very necessary to be read and regarded of all men,” 1584, 8vo. Extracts from these are given in the Bibliographer. The time of his death is no where mentioned, but as the archdeaconry of Lewes was vacant in 1578, it might have been in consequence of that event.

, minister of the Calvinist church of Paris, was born July 1595, at Sedan; where his father had a considerable post. He passed through the study of polite literature and divinity at Sedan, but was sent to Saumur, to go through a course of philosophy there under professor Duncan. He was admitted minister in 1618, and discharged his function near Langres, till he was called by the church of Paris in 1620. He had all the qualifications requisite to a great minister. His sermons were very edifying; he was assiduous and successful in comforting the sick; and he managed the atTairs of the church with such skill, that he never failed of being consulted upon every important occasion. His first essay was a “Treatise of Preparation for the Lord’s Supper.” This, and his “Catechism,” the “Short View of Controversies,” and “Consolations against the fears of Death,” have, of all his works, been the most frequently reprinted. Some of them, his book upon death in particular, have passed through above forty editions; and have been translated into several languages, as German, Dutch, Italian, and English. His “Charitable Visits,” in 5 volumes, have served for a continual consolation to private persons, and for a source of materials and models to ministers. He published three volumes of sermons, in which, as in all the forementioned pieces, there is a vein of piety very affecting to religious minds. His controversial works are 1. “The Jubilee” 2. “The Roman Combat” 3. “The Jesuit’s Owl” 4. “An Answer to father Coussin” 5. “Disputes with the bishop of Bellai, concerning the honour due to the Holy Virgin” 6. “An answer to La Milletierre” 7. “Dialogues, against the Missionaries,” in several volumes 8. “The False Pastor Convicted,” 9. ; 'The False Face of Antiquity;“10.” The Pretended Nullities of the Reformation;“11.” An Answer to prince Ernest of Hesse;“12.” An Answer to the speech of the clergy spoken by the archbishop of Sens;“13.” A Defence of Calvin." He wrote some letters, which have been printed; one to the duchess of Tremouille, upon her husband’s departure from the protestant religion; one of consolation, addressed to Madam de la Tabariere; one upon the restoration of Charles II. king of Great Britain; some upon the English episcopacy, &c. He published also certain prayers, some of which were made for the king, others for the queen, and others for the dauphin. Bayle tells us, that what he wrote against the church of Rome, confirmed the protestants more than can be expressed; for with the arms with which he furnished them, such as wanted the advantage of learning, were enabled to oppose the monks and parish priests, and to contend with the missionaries. His writings made him considered as the scourge of the papists; yet, like mons. Claude, he was much esteemed, and even beloved by them. For it was well known that he had an easy access to the secretaries of state, the first president, the king’s advocate, and the civil lieutenant; though he never made any other use of his interest with them than to assist the afflicted churches. He was highly esteemed by the great persons of his own religion; by the duke de la Force, the marshals Chatillon, Gascon, Turenne, and by the duchess of Tremouille. They sent for him to their palaces, and honoured him from time to time with their visits. Foreign princes and noblemen, the ambassadors of England and France, did the same; and he was particularly esteemed by the house of Hesse, as appears from the books he dedicated to the princes and princesses of that name. He died Nov. 3, 1669.

In 1753 when a severe attack was made on the political character of his two intimate friends Mr. Stone and Mr. Murray, afterwards the great earl of Mansfield, the bishop vindicated his old school-fellows before a committee of the privy council, directed to inquire into the charge, with that persuasive energy of truth, which made the king exclaim on reading the examination, “That is indeed a man to make a friend of.” In May 1761 he was translated to the see of Salisbury, and when archbishop of York elect, in which dignity he was enthroned in the November following, he preached the coronation sermon of their present majesties, and soon after became lord high almoner, and a member of the privy council. In the former office he rectified many abuses, and rendered it more extensively beneficial, by preventing the royal bounty from being considered as a fund to which persons of high n;nk and opulence could transfer any just claims on their own private generosity. On one occasion, when applied to by a very rich peer in behalf of two of his cousins, he replied, “that he was sorry to say that the very reason which would induce himself to assist them, prevented his considering them as objects of his majesty’s charity their near relationship to his lordship.” His conduct in the metropolitan see of York is described with great spirit and truth by Mr. llastal, the topographer of Southwell, who styles him “peculiarly virtuous as a statesman, attentive to his duties as a churchman, magnificent as an archbishop, and amiable as a man.” This character appears to be confirmed by all who knew him. As a statesman he acted upon manly and independent principles, retiring from parliament in 1762, when new men and measures were promoted, averse, in his opinion, to that system of government under which the country had so long flourished. When, however, any question was introduced, in which the interference of a churchman was proper, he was sedulous in his attendance, and prompt in delivering his sentiments. His munificence in his see deserves to be recorded. When he was translated to York, he found the archiepiscopal palace, small, mean, and incommodious; and the parish church in a state of absolute decay. To the former he made many splendid additions, particularly in the private chapel. The latter he rebuilt from its foundation, with the assistance of a small contribution from the clergyman of the parish, and two or three neighbouring gentlemen. He died at his palace at Bishopsthorpe, Dec. 10, 1776, in the 66th year of his age, and was buried by his own desire, in a very private manner, under the altar of the church. Although his literary attainments were very considerable, he published only six occasional sermons, which were much admired, and of which his son, rev. George Hay Drummond, M. A. prebendary of York, published a correct edition in 1803: to this edition are prefixed “Memoirs of the Archbishop’s Life,” and it also contains “A Letter on Theological Study,” addressed to the son of an intimate friend, then a candidate for holy orders, which evinces an intimate acquaintance with many of the best writers on theological subjects. His own principles appear to have been rather more remote from those contained in the articles and homilies than could have been wished, because they are thereby not so consistent with some of the writers whom he recommends; and he speaks with unusual freedom of certain doctrines which have been held sacred by some of the wisest and best divines of the established church. Of the “Memoirs” prefixed to this new edition of his Sermons, we have availed ourselves in this brief record of a prelate whose memory certainly deserves to be rescued from oblivion. His Sermons are composed in an elegant and classical style, and contain many admirable passages, and much excellent advice on points of moral and religious practice.

, an illustrious English poet, was son of Erasmus Dryden, of Tichmersh, in Northamptonshire, third son of Erasmus Dryden, of Cannons-Ashbv, in the same county, baronet; and born at Aldwincle, near Oundle, in that county, according to the general opinion, August 9, 1631, although Mr. Malone seems inclined to remove his birth to a prior year. He was educated in grammarlearning at Westminster-school, being king’s scholar there, under Dr. Busby; and was thence elected, May II, 1650, a scholar of Trinity-college, Cambridge. During his stay at school, he translated the third satire of Persius for a Thursday night’s exercise, as he tells us himself, in an advertisement at the head of that satire and the year before he left it, wrote a poem on the death of the lord Hastings which however was but an indifferent performance, and particularly defective in point of harmony. He had before this, in 1649, wrote some verses, which have been preserved. In 1652 he was slightly punished for disobedience and contumacy. In January 1654, he took his degree of B. A. but not that of M. A. until June 17, 1668, and then by a dispensation from the archbishop of Canterbury, in consequence of a letter from Charles II. By the death of his father in 1654, he inherited a small estate in Northamptonshire, and after residing seven years at Cambridge, removed to London in 1657. In consequence of his kinsman, sir Gilbert Pickering, being a favourite of Oliver and Richard Cromwell, Dryden in 1658 published “Heroic Stanzas on the late lord Protector,” written after his funeral: and in 1660, “Astraea Redux,” a poem on the happy restoration and return of his sacred majesty Charles the Second. A remarkable distich in this piece exposed our poet to the ridicule of the wits:

His translations of Virgil, Juvenal, and Persius, and his Fables, were more successful, as we have observed already. But his poetical reputation is built chiefly upon his original poems, among which his Ode on Saint Caecilia’s Day is justly esteemed one of the most perfect pieces in any language. It has been set to music more than once, particularly in the winter of 1735, by Handel; and was publicly performed with the utmost applause, on the theatre in Covent-garden. Congreve, in the dedication of our author’s dramatic works to the duke of Newcastle, has drawn his character to great advantage. He represented him, in regard to his moral character, in every respect not only blameless, but amiable; and, “as to his writings,” says he, “no man hath written in our language so much and so various matter, and in so various manners, so well. Another thing I may say was very peculiar to him; which is, that his parts did not decline with his years, but that he was an improving writer to the last, even to near se* venty years of age; improving even in fire and imagination, as well as in judgment; witness his Ode on St. Caecilia’s Day, and his Fables, his latest performances. He was equally excellent in verse and in prose. His prose had all the clearness imaginable, together with all the nobleness of expression; all the graces and ornaments proper and peculiar to it, without deviating into the language or diction of poetry. I have heard him frequently own with pleasure, that if he had any talent for English prose, it was owing to his having often read the writings of the great archbishop Tillotson. His versification and his numbers he could learn of nobody; for he first possessed those talents in perfection in our tongue. In his poems, his diction is, wherever his subject requires it, so sublimely and so truly poetical, that its essence, like that of pure gold, cannot be destroyed. What he has done in any one species or distinct kind of writing, would have been sufficient to have acquired him a great name. If he had written nothing but his prefaces, or nothing but his songs or his prologues, each of them would have entitled him to the preference and distinction of excelling in his kind.” It may be proper to observe, that Congreve, in drawing this character of Dryden, discharged an obligation laid on him by our poet, in these lines:

, one of the martyrs to the cause of the protestant religion in France, in the sixteenth century, was a native of Auvergne, sou to Stephen du Bourg, comptroller general of the customs in Languedoc, and brother to Anthony du Bourg, president of the parliament of Paris, and afterwards chancellor of France. He was born in 1521, designed for the church, and ordained priest; but embracing the protestant religion, was honoured with the crown of martyrdom. He was a man of great learning, especially in the law, which he taught at Orleans with much reputation, and was appointed counsellor-clerk to the parliament of Paris in October 1557. In this high station, he declared himself the protector of the protestants, and endeavoured either to prevent or soften the punishments inflicted upon them. This alarmed some of Henry II.'s counsellors, who advised that monarch to get rid of the protestants, and told him that he should begin by punishing those judges who secretly favoured them, or others who employed their credit and recommendations to screen them from punishment. They likewise suggested that the king should make his appearance unexpectedly in the parliament which was to be assembled on the subject of the Mercurials, or Checks, a kind of board of censure against the magistrates instituted by Charles VIII. and called Mercurials from the day on which they were to be held (Wednesday). The king accordingly came to parliament in June 1559, when Du Bourg spoke with great freedom in his defence, and went so far as to attack the licentious manners of the court; on which the king ordered him to be arrested. On the 19th he was tried, and declared a heretic by the bishop of Paris, ordered to be degraded from the character of priest, and to be delivered into the hand of the secular power; but the king’s death, in July, delayed the execution until December, *vhen he was again condemned by the bishop of Paris, and the archbishop of Lyons, his appeals being rejected by the parliament. Frederick, elector Palatine, and other protestant princes of Germany, solicited his pardon, and probably might have succeeded, had it not been for the assassination, at this time, of the president M in art, whom Du Bourg had challenged on his trial; and it was not therefore difficult, however unjust, to persuade his persecutors that he had a hand in this assassination. He was accordingly hanged, and his body burnt Dec. 2O, 1559; leaving behind him the character of a pious and learned man, an upright magistrate, and a steady friend. At his execution he avowed his principles with great spirit; and the popish biographers are forced to allow that the firmness and constancy shown by him and others, about the same time, tended only to “make new heretics, instead of intimidating the old.”

Though disappointed in his wishes of entering into holy orders, he became intimately connected with the church He was elected commissary or official of the peculiar and exempt jurisdiction of the collegiate church or free chapel of St. Katharine, near the Tower of London, 1753; was appointed commissary and official of the city and diocese of Canterbury, by archbishop Herring, in December, 1758; and of the subdeanries of South Mailing, Pagham, and Terring, in Sussex, by archbishop Seeker, on the death of Dr. Dennis Clarke, in 1776. He was elected F. A. S. Sept. 22, 1737, and was one of the first fellows of the society nominated by the president and council on its incorporation 1755. He was also elected Aug. 29, 1760, member of the Society of Antiquaries at Cortona; on which occasion he sent them a Latin letter drawn up by his friend the late rev. Philip Morant. He was admitted F. R. S. Feb. 18, 1762; became an honorary fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Cassel, by diploma, dated in November, 1778; and of that of Edinburgh in 1781. In 1755, he solicited the place of sub-librarian at the Museum, in the room of Mr. Empsom; but it was pre-engaged.

The share he took in the Rowleian discovery and controversy, of which he entertained what is now the general opinion, may be seen in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. LVI. pp. 361, 362, 461 464, 544—547, 530, 859 where is printed, his correspondence with Mr. Chapman, rector of Weston near Bath, bishop Percy, Mr. Barrett, the historian of Bristol, whose credulity in these matters was notorious, and Mr. Whitaker. In 1776 was printed, for private use, “A list of various editions of the Bible and parts thereof, in English, from 1526 to 1776,” in a single sheet, 8vo; and an improved edition, 1778, at the expence of archbishop Cornwallis. This little tract owed its rise to a list of English Bibles copied from one compiled Ly Mr. Ames, from 1526 to 1757, presented by Dr. Gifford to the Lambeth library. It was completed by Dr. Ducarel from his own observations, and the later discoveries of his learned friends, Dr. Percy, bishop of Droniore, and Mr. Tutet. Mr. Nichols also, and Mr. Herbert, editor of the new edition of Ames’s “Typographical Antiquities,” contributed not a few articles from their own collections. The account of Dr. Stukeley and his writings prefixed to the second volume of his Itinerary, published 1776, was drawn up by Dr. Ducarel, who also prepared an epitaph for him.

Of all the honours Dr. Ducarel enjoyed, none gave him greater satisfaction than the commissariate of St. Katharine’s, a place to which he has done due honour in “The History of the Koyal Hospital and Collegiate church of St. Katharine, near the Tower of London, from its foundation, in 1273, to the present time, 1782,” 4to, with seventeen plates. This history was originally compiled by the doctor for the use of her present majesty, to whom a copy of it was presented in ms. a short time after her accession to the patronage of this collegiate church, the only ecclesiastical preferment in the gift of the queen consort of England. On a thorough repair of this curious old church in 1778, an empty vault was discovered in the chance.1, of a size that would hold two coffins, and no more. This spot the doctor claimed in virtue of his office; and has often pointed out to his friends, as a resting-place for his ashes and those of his lady; and the remains of both have been actually there deposited. Two additional plates to the history of St. Katharine’s, representing the curious grotesque carvings under the old stalls there, were engraved a little before his death, at his particular request, and were given to the public in 1790, with a short appendix to that history, in, the “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, No. LII.” In 1783, he published, as No. XII. of Bibliotheca Topograpica Britannica, “Some account of the Town, Church, and Archiepiscopal Palace of Croydon, in the county of Surrey, from its foundation to 1783,” 4to r originally drawn up by him in 1754, at the request of archbishop Herring. He also drew up in the “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, No. XXVII,” “The History and Antiquities of the Archiepiscopal Palace of Lambeth, from its foundation to the present time, 1785, 4to,” which was dedicated, by permission, to archbishop Moore; and, in 1786, he contributed largely to “The History and Antiquities of the parish of Lambeth, in the county of Surrey; including biographical anecdotes of several eminent persons; compiled from original records, and other authentic sources of information.” Some additions to this history were also, in 1790, printed in the same collection.

His memoirs of archbishop Hutton and his family, fairly written, were purchased at his sale, by the rev. Dr. Lort, for the Hutton family. In May 1757 he was appointed to the place of librarian at Lambeth (to which a salary of 30l. per annum is annexed) under archbishop Hutton; and the catalogues of that valuable collection are not a little benefited by his diligence and abilities. The catalogue begun by bishop Gibson, while librarian here, and continued by Dr. Wilkins with the greatest minuteness, was perfected by him to his own time; a distinct catalogue made of the books of archbishop Seeker, who expended above 300l. in arranging and improving the ms library and printed books here; and another, in three volumes folio, of the pamphlets and tracts bound up by the direction of archbishop CornwaLlis; and of the library of Mss. the catalogue begun by Dr. Wilkins, 720, and continued by succeeding librarians to No. 888, he extended to No. 1147, in two volumes. In 1757, he addressed to archbishop Seeker a letter concerning the first edition of archbishop Parker’s valuable book, “De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae,” now in the ms library at Lambeth, No. 959, giving an account of a great many ancient deeds, ms notes, &c. &c. contained therein. This letter is printed at large in the appendix to his “History of Lambeth Palace.”

He was engaged also in arranging and indexing above 30 folio volumes of leases, papers, &c. and such was his assiduity in whatever he undertook, that, besides the fair copy of the index by him taken of all the Lambeth registers, and the general index which he made to them, he reserved for himself another, which at his sale became the property of Mr. Gough, and at the sale of the latter was bought for the British Museum. It contains in 48 volumes folio, neatly bound, an account of every instrument relative to the see, province, and diocese of Canterbury, from Pecham to Herring; and, with a great variety of other materials amassed by the doctor, may be justly styled a fund of ecclesiastical antiquities for that province in particular, and for the kingdom at large. In this laborious undertaking he was materially assisted by the industry of his friend Mr. Howe-Mores; by Mr. Hall, his predecessor in the office of librarian; and by Mr. Pouncey, who for many years was his assistant, as clerk and deputy librarian. Dr. Ducarel had an intention of publishing his abstract of archbishop Pecham’s register; and the rough draught of a Latin title, with a preface or dedication to archbishop Herring, together with a copy of the abstract, and various notes by Mr. Mores, came to Mr. Gough by purchase, at Mr. Mores’ s sale.

In 1588, when the nation was alarmed with the apprehensions of the Spanish armada, lord Leicester was made lieutenant-general, under the queen, of the army assembled at Tilbury. This army the queen went to review in person, and there made this short and memorable speech “I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns: and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time my lieutenant-general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but, by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.” In such high favour did this noble personage stand to the last: for he died this year, Sept. 4, at his house at Cornbury in Oxfordshire, while he was upon the road to Kenilworth. His corpse was removed to Warwick, and buried there in a magnificent manner. He is said to have inherited the parts of his father. His ambition was great, but his abilities seem to have been greater. He was a finished courtier in every respect; and managed his affairs so nicely, that his influence and power became almost incredible. He differed with archbishop Grindal, who, though much in confidence of the queen, was by him brought first into discredit with her, and then into disgrace; nay, to such a degree was this persecution carried, that the poor prelate desired to lay down his archiepiscopal dignity, and actually caused the instrument of his resignation to be drawn: but his enemies, believing he was near his end, did not press the perfecting of it, and so he died, with his mitre on his head, of a broken heart. This shews the power the earl had in the church, and how little able the first subject of the queen was to bear up against his displeasure, though conceived upon none of the justest motives .

Upon the restoration of Charles II. Dugdale was, through chancellor Hyde’s recommendation, advanced to the office of Norroy king at arms; and in 1662 he published “The History of Imbanking and Draining of divers Fens and Marshes, both in foreign parts and in this kingdom, and of the improvement thereby. Extracted from records, manuscripts, and other authentic testimonies. Adorned with sundry maps, &c.” This work was written at the request of the lord Gorges, sir John Marsham, and others, who were adventurers in draining the Great Level, which extends itself into a considerable part of the counties of Cambridge, Huntingdon, Northampton, Norfolk, and Suffolk. About the same time he completed the second volume of sir Henry Spelman’s Councils, and published it in If64, under this title “Concilia, decreta, leges, constitutiones in re ecclesiarum orbis Britannici, &c. ah introitu Normannorum, A.D. 1066, ad exutum papam A. D. 1531. Accesserunt etiam alia ad rem ecclesiasricam spectantia,” &c. Archbishop Sheldon and lord Clarendon had been the chief promoters of this work, and employed Dugdale upon it; and what share he had in it will appear from hence, that out of 2 “4 articles, of which that volume consists, 191 are of his collecting; being those marked (*) in the list of the contents at the beginning of the volume. The same great personages employed him also to publish the second part of that learned knight’s” Glossary.“The first part was published in 1626, folio, and afterwards considerably augmented and corrected by sir Henry. He did not live to finish the second, but left much of it loosely written; with observations, and sundry bits of paper pinned thereto. These Dugdale took the pains to dispose into proper order, transcribing many of those papers;, and, having revised the first part, caused both to be printed together in 1664, under the title of” Glossariuin archaiologicum, continens Latino-barbara, peregrina, obsoleta, & novse significationis vocabula.“The second part, digested by Dugdale, began at the letter M; but Wood observes, that” it comes far short of the first." There was another edition of this work in 1687.

, an ingenious poetical and miscellaneous writer, youngest son of John Buncombe, esq. of Stocks, in the parish of Ahibury, Hertfordshire, and Hannah his wife, was born at his father’s house in Hatton-garden, London, Jan. 9, 1689-90, and owed his Christian name to the revolution principles of his father and family. On the same principles, his father in 1693 put his life into the tontine, or annuities increasing by survivorship, subscribing 100l. on it, for which \Ql. per annum was paid immediately, and from which, in the course of his long life, our author received some thousands. He was educated in two private seminaries, viz. at Cheney, in Bucks, and afterwards at Pinner, near Harrow-on-the- Hill, Middlesex, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Goodwin. In December 1706, Mr. Buncombe was entered as a clerk in the navy-office, and was advanced to a higher salary in January 1707-8. So early as 1715, we find a translation by him of the twenty-ninth ode of the first book of Horace, in the collection commonly known by the name of “The Wit’s Horace.” About this time, being acquainted with Mr. Jabefc Hughes, Mr. Buncombe was introduced to his brother John, author of the “Siege of Damascus,” and also to his sister (afterwards Mrs. Buncombe), who was a woman of excellent sense and temper. Our author’s translation of the Carmen Seculare of Horace was printed in folio in 1721, and was collected in 1731, in Concanen’s Miscellany, entitled “The Flower-piece.” This was followed in 1722, by a translation of the tragedy of “Athaliah” by Racine, which was published by subscription, and has gone through three editions. Having contracted an intimacy at the Navy-office with Mr. Henry Needier, a gentleman endued with a like taste, our author, by supplying him with proper books, enabled him to gratify his ardent thirst for knowledge; and, on his early death in 1718, hastened by his intense application, discharged the debt of friendship by collecting and publishing his “Original Poems, Translations, Essays, and Letters,” in 1724, one vol. 8vo, of which there have been also three editions. On Becember 3, 1725, Mr. Buncombe quitted his place at the Navy-office, and spent the remainder of a long and happy life, among his friends and his books, in literary 7 leisure;­Having a share in the “Whitehall Evening Post,” several of his fugitive pieces appeared occasionally in that paper; in particular, a translation of Buchanan’s “Verses on Valentine’s Day;” “Verses to Euryalus (Mr. John Carleton) on his coming of age;” “The Choice of Hercules,” fr.,;u Xenophon, (for which there was such a demand, that the paper was in a few days ont of print); and a “Defence of some passages in Paradise Lost,” from the hyper-criticism of M. de Voltaire. About the same time, numberless errors in a new edition of Chillingworth were pointed out by him, and translations of the “Letters between Archbishop Fenelon and M. de la Motte,” since republished in the appendix to archbishop Herring’s Letters, and of the “Adventures of Melesickton,” and other fables from Fenelon, were published in the London Journal. In the lottery of 1725, a ticket which Mr. Duncombe had in partnership with miss Elizabeth Hughes, sister of John Hughes, esq. author of “The Siege of Damascus,” was drawn a pnze of 1000l. a circumstance which probably hastened his m image with that amiable lady, which took place Sept 1, 1726, on which he removed to her mother’s house in Red-lion-street, Holborn.

In 1728, a letter by Mr. Duncombe, signed Philopropos, was printed in the London Journal of March 30, containing some animadversions on the “Beggar’s Opera,” then exhibiting with great applause at Lincoln’s-i-intheatre, shewing its pernicious consequences to the practice of morality and Christian virtue. And the same popular entertainment having been soon after most seasonably condemned in a sermon preached at Lincoln’s-inn chapel by Dr. Herring (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury), of whom Mr. Duncombe was a constant auditor, in a subsequent letter on the same subject in the London Journal of April 20, subscribed Benevolus, he paid a just compliment to the “clear reasoning, good sense, and manly rhetoric, the judicious criticism, as well as the Christian oratory,” there displayed. This introduced him to the acquaintance and friendship of that excellent divine, which continued without interruption till his grace’s death, in March 1757; this favour being gratefully acknowledged by him “as one of the most generous and disinterested offers of friendship which he ever received from any one since he was acquainted with the world.” In August of the same year, our author published a pamphlet (without a name) entitled “Remarks on M.Tindal’s Translation of M. de Rapin Thoyras’s History of England, in a letter to S. T. [Sigismund Trafford,] esq.” criticising Tindal’s style, which is certainly none of the best.

In the summer of 1732, Mr. Buncombe’s tragedy of “Lucius Junius Brutus” was read and approved by“the author’s friend, Mr. Mills senior, and by him introduced to the theatrical triumvirate, Booth, Gibber, and Wilks, who also approved it, and promised it should be performed. Booth regretted he could not act in it; and Wilks undertook the part of Titus; unfortunately he died in September following; and the revolt of the players, with the confusion that ensued, prevented its being brought on the stage till two years after, when Mr. Duncombe, unadvisedly, consented to Mr. Fleetwood’s proposal of bringing it on at Drury-lane in November, when the town was empty, the parliament not sitting, and Farinelli, the singer, highly popular at the Hay-market. The consequence was natural and obvious.” The quavering Italian eunuch (to use our author’s own words) proved too powerful for the rigid Roman consul.“Yet it was acted six nights with applause, and repeated in February following, and at the same time was printed in 8vo, with a dedication to lord chief justice Hardwicke. A second edition, in 12mo, with a translation of M. de Voltaire’s” Essay on Tragedy“prefixed, was published in 1747. In April 1735, Mr. Duncombe published, by subscription, in two volumes 12rno, the” Poems,“&c. of his deceased brother-in-law, John Hughes, esq. which were received by his friends and the public with the esteem due to Hughes’s merit. In January, 1735-6, our author’s domestic happiness received a severe shock by the death of his wife, which happened at Spring Grove, in Middlesex, the seat of his first cousin, Mrs. Ofley. In 1737 he collected and published, in one volume 8vo, the” Miscellanies in verse and prose“of Mr. Jabez Hughes, for the benefit of his widow, but the dedication (in her name) to the duchess of Bedford, was drawn up by the rev. Mr. Copping, dean of Clogher. In 1743, on the death of his learned friend, Mr. Samuel Say, a dissenting minister in Westminster, Mr. Duncombe undertook, for the benefit of his widow and daughter, to revise and prepare for the press some of his poems, and two prose essays, which were accordingly published in one volume 4to, in 1745. In 1744, the” Siege of Damascus,“and some other moral plays, having been acted by several persons of distinction for their amusement, Mr. Duncombe was induced to publish” An Oration on the usefulness of Dramatic Interludes in the education of youth,“translated from the Latin of M. Werenfels, by whom it was spoken before the masters and scholars of the university of Basil. On the breaking-out of the rebellion in 1745, our author endeavoured to second his honoured friend, the archbishop of York, by reprinting” A Sermon“(now known to have been written by Dr. Arbuthnot), supposed to be” preached to the people at the Mercat- cross of Edinburgh, on the subject of the union in 1706,“and to the sermon prefixed a preface, without his name, setting forth the advantages which have accrued to the kingdom of Scotland by its union with England. About the same time he also printed, with a preface, a tract, entitled,” The complicated Guilt of the Rebellion,“which had been written by Mr. Hughes in 1716, but was then suppressed, as the insurrection it related to was soon after quelled: this tract was judged by Mr. Duncombe to be equally applicable to the transactions of 1740. In the summer of 1749, being with his relation, Mr. Brooke, at York, Mr. Duncombe was accidentally instrumental to the detection of Archibald Bower, by transmitting to archbishop Herring an account of that adventurer’s escape from the inquisition, taken by memory from his own mouth, which being published the year following by Mr. Barron, a dissenting minister, was disavowed by Bower; though, when called upon, the mistakes which he was able to specify, were found to be few and trifling. This was the first impeachment of his integrity, and exposed him to the attacks of Dr. Douglas, who had before detected Lauder. To the periodical publication called” The World,“Mr. Duncombe contributed one paper, No. 84,” Prosperity and Adversity, an allegory." la

1754, Mr. Duncombe drew up “Remarks on lord Bolingbroke’s Notion of a God,” with some occasional notes; to which he annexed a translation, from Cicero, “De Natura Deorum,” of the arguments of Q Lucilius Balbus, the stoic, in proof of the being, and of the wisdom, power, and goodness, of God. These were read and approved by the archbishop, and others of the author’s friends, but were not published till 1763, when he allowed the late Dr. Dodd to insert them in the “Christian’s Magazine.” They have since been collected in the Appendix to archbishop Herring’s letters. Horace having always been Mr. Duncombe’s favourite author, he had amused himself for more than thirty years, at different times, with translating several of his odes, but without any intention of publishing them, or of giving a version of the whole to the world, till his son offered his assistance for completing the work; and undertook some of the odes and satires, all the epodes, and the first book of epistles, and added several imitations from Sanadon, Dacier, &c. Mr. Duncombe compiled notes to the whole, and published one volume 8vo, in 1757, and the second in 1759. Another edition, in four volumes, 12mo, with several additional imitations, appeared in 1764. On the death of his excellent friend, archbishop Herring, our author, as a token of his gratitude and affection, collected, in one volume 8vo, the “Seven Sermons on public occasions,” which his grace had separately printed in his life-time, and prefixed to them some memoirs of his life. This was his last publication. With a constitution naturally weak and tender, by constant regularity, and an habitual sweetness and evenness of temper, his life was prolonged to the advanced age of seventy-nine; when, without any previous painful illness, he died February 13, 1769, esteemed, beloved, and regretted, by all who knew him. He was interred near the remains of his wife, in, the burying-place of his family, in Aldbury church, Hertfordshire, and left one son, the subject of the next article.

, was born 1730, and when a child, was of an amiable disposition, had an uncommon capacity for learning, and discovered, very early, a genius for poetry. After some years passed at a school at Romford, in Essex, under the care of his relation, the rev. Philip Fletcher, afterwards dean of Kildare, and younger brother to the bishop of that see, he was removed to a more eminent one at Felsted, in the same county. At this school he was stimulated by emulation to an exertion of his talents; and, by a close application, he became the first scholar, as well as captain of the school, and gained the highest reputation; and by the sweetness of his temper and manners, and by a disposition to friendship, he acquired and preserved the love of all his companions, and the esteem of his master and family. He has, on some particular occasions, been heard modestly to declare, that he was never punished, during hib whole residence at either school, for negligence in his lessons or exercise, or for any other misdemeanor. He was very early qualified for the university, and constantly improved himself, when at home, by his private studies, and the assistance or his father, happy in the companionship of such a son, who was always dutiful and affectionate to him; and the first literary characters of that time associated with a father and son, whose polished taste and amiable manners rendered them universally acceptable. He was entered, at the age of sixteen, at Bene‘t-college, Cambridge, where Mr. Castle, afterwards dean of Hereford, was then master: and he was recommended to that college by archbishop Herring, whom we have mentioned as his father’s particular friend. The archbishop baptised his son, and promised to patronize him, if educated for the church, and therefore sent him to the college where he had completed his own education. At the university he continued to rise in reputation as a scholar and a poet, and was always irreproachable in his moral character: he had the happiness of forming some connections there with men of genius an ’< virtue, which lasted through life; but the first and strongest attachment, in which he most delighted, end which reflected honour on his own merit, was the uninterrupted friendship, and constant correspondence, which com.uued to the last, with Mr. Greene, a very respectable clergyman of the diocese of Norwich, a man whose character for learning and abilities, goodness and virtue, justly gained him the esteem and love of all who had the happiness of his acquaintance, whose testimony is real praise, who acknowledged the worth of his valuable friend, “and loved his amiable and benevolent spirit.”

He was, in 1750, with full reputation, chosen fellow of Bene't-college; was, in 1753, ordained at Kew chapel, by Dr. Thomas, bishop of Peterborough, and appointed, by the recommendation of archbishop Herring, to the curacy of Sundridge in Kent; after which he became assistant preacher at St. Anne’s, Soho, where his father resided, and Dr. Squire, afterwards bishop of St. David’s, was rector, with whom he lived in particular intimacy, and who gave him a chaplainship, and intended to patronize him; but in that instance, and several others, he experienced the loss of friends and patrons before they had been able to gratify their own intention, or bestow on him any thing considerable. His elegant discourses acquired him, as a preacher, great reputation; his language was always correct, his expression forcible, and his doctrine so pathetically delivered, as to impress his hearers with reverence and awaken their attention. His voice was harmonious; and rather by the distinct articulation, than from strength, he was better heard, in many large churches, and particularly in the choir of Canterbury cathedral, than some louder tones, having cultivated the art of speaking in the pulpit; and his sermons always recommended that moderation, truly Christian temper, and universal charity and philanthropy, which formed the distinguished mark of his character in every part of life; and he was totally free from all affectation, as well in the pulpit as in common conversation. He was a popular and admired preacher; but he had no vanity on that account, and was equally satisfied to fulfil his duty in a country parish, and an obscure village, as in a crowded cathedral, or populous church in the metropolis. But his merit was not much regarded by the attention of the great. He was, however, esteemed, honoured, and beloved, in the very respectable neighbourhood where he constantly resided; and the dignities and affluence he might reasonably have expected from his family connections, and early patronage, could only have displayed, in a wider sphere, that benevolence, and those viriues, which are equally beneficial to the possessor, in whatever station he may be placed, when exercised to the utmost of his ability.

After the death of bishop Squire, he was nominated chaplain to lord Corke, with whom he and his father had the honour of a particular friendship, as appears by that nobleman’s “Letters from Italy.” He was presented, in 1757, by archbishop Herring, to the united livings of St. Andrew and St. Mary Bredman, in Canterbury. This benefice was bestowed in the most friendly manner by his patron, who called it only something to begin with: but the archbishop lived not above two months afterwards; and with his life the prospect of future advancement seemed to disappear. However, no complaint against the slow preferment from his respected friend and patron, no murmur against the daily dispositions of benefices, to which he must be conscious his merit often gave him equal claim, ever was suffered to escape in conversation.

This living enabled him to fulfil a long engagement, or rather to obey the impulse of a long attachment, to miss Highmore, daughter of Mr. Highmore, who was known to the world, not only by his pencil, but by his other extensive knowledge, and literary pursuits. He was married at St. Anne’s church, 20th April 1763, by Dr. Squire, bishop of St. David’s. A similarity of taste and love of literature had early endeared their companionship; and a mutual affection was the natural consequence, which ensured to them twenty years happiness, rather increased than diminished by the hand of time! He settled at Canterbury; and, in 1766, archbishop Seeker appointed him one of the six preachers in that cathedral. In 1773, archbishop Cornwall is gave him the living of Herne, about six miles from Canterbury, which afforded him a pleasant recess in the summer months. His grace also granted him a chaplainship; and he had, previous to the last living, been entrusted with the mastership of Harbledown and St. John’s hospitals, places of trust only, not emolument: so that he had, in fact, three favours, though not any of them considerable, in succession, from three archbishops.

As he had many leisure hours, he passed much time in literary employments, though many were very cheeriully given to society. Among his published productions maybe mentioned, the “Feminead,” 1754, which passed through two editions, and has been reprinted both in tlu Poetical Calendar, and in Pearch’s Collection. Four Odes appeared in 1753, viz. “The Prophecy of Neptune;” “On the Death of the Prince of Wales;” “*Ode presented to the Duke of Newcastle” and one “*To the hon. James Yorke,” first bishop of St. David’s, and afterwards bishop of Ely. Between 1753 and 1756 came out separatelv, “*An Evening Contemplation in a College,” being a parody on Gray’s Elegy“reprinted in” The Repository.“Other detached poems of Mr. Duncombe’s are,” *Verses to the Author of Clarissa,“published in that work;” *Verses on the Campaign, 1759,“(addressed to Sylvanus Urban, and originally printed in the volume for that year);” *To Colonel Clive, on his arrival in England;“” *On the Loss of the Ramilies, Captain Taylor, 1760;“” Surrey Triumphant, or the Kentish Men’s Defeat, 1773,“4to; a parody on Chevy ­Chace; which, for its genuine strokes of humour, elegant poetry, and happy imitation, acquired the author much applause. This has been translated into” Nichols’s Select Collection of Poems, 1782,“where may be found, also, a poem of his on Stocks House; a translation of an elegant epitaph, by bishop Lowth; and an elegiac *' Epitaph at the Grave of Mr. Highmore.” Those pieces marked with a starare in the Poetical Calendar, vol. VII. together with a Prologue spoken at the Charter-house, 1752 a Poem on Mr. Garrick and translations from Voltaire. And in vol. X. “The Middlesex Garden” “Kensington Gardens” “Farevvel to Hope” “On a Lady’s sending the Author a Ribbon for his Watch” “On Captain Cornwallis’s Monument” “Prologue to Amalasont” “Epigrams.” He published three Sermons; one “On the Thanksgiving, Nov. 29, 1759,” preached at St. Anne’s, Westminster, and published at the request of the pa- 4 rishioners another, “preached at the Consecration of the parish-church of St. Andrew, Canterbury,” July 4, 1774; and one, “On a General Fast, Feb. 27, 1778,” also preached at St. Andrew’s, Canterbury; and so well approved, that by the particular desire of the parish, it appeared in print under the title of “The Civil War between the Israelites and Benjamites illustrated and applied.” He published with his father, in 1766, a translation of Horace, in 8vo; and in 1767, another edition, with many enlargements and corrections, in 4 vols. 12mo. He trans* lated the “Huetiana,” in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1771. In 1774, he translated Batteley’s “Antiquitates Rutupinte.” He wrote “The Historical Account of Dr. Dodd’s Life,” 1777*, 8vo; and was the translator of“Sherlock’s Letters of an English Traveller,” 1st edition, 4to. The 2d edition, 8vo, was translated by Mr. Sherlock himself. In 1778 he published *' An Elegy written in Canterbury Cathedral;“and in 1784,” Select Works of the Emperor Julian,“2 vols. 8vo. In 1784 he was principally the author of” The History and Antiquities of Keculver and Heme,“which forms the eighteenth number of the Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica to which work he also contributed in 1785, the thirtieth number, containing,” The History and Antiquities of the Three Archiepiscopal Hospitals in and near Canterbury,“which he dedicated to archbishop Moore. He was the editor of several other works; all of which were elucidated by his critical knowledge and explanatory notes; viz. 1.” Letters from several eminent persons, deceased, including the correspondence of John Hughes, esq. and several of his friends; published from the originals, with notes. Of these there have been two editions; the last in 3 vols. 2. “Letters from Italy; by the late right-hon. John earl of Corke and Orrery, with notes,” 1773. These have gone through two editions. 3. “Letters from the late archbishop Herring, to William Buncombe, esq. deceased; from 1728 to 1757, with notes, and an appendix,” 1777. He was also the author of a Letter signed “Rusncus,” in “The World,” vol. I. No. 36 of several Letters in “The Connoisseur,” being the “Gentleman of Cambridge, A. B.” mentioned in the last number. And in the Gentleman’s Magazine, his communications in biography, poetry, and criticism, during the last twenty years of his life, were frequent and valuable. Many of them are without a name; but his miscellaneous contributions were usually distinguished by the signature of Crito.

was born of noble parents at Glastonbury, in Somersetshire, in the year 925. Under the patronage of his uncle Aldhelm, archbishop of Canterbury, he was instructed in the literature and accomplishments of those times, and in consequence of his recommendation invited by king Athelstan to court, who bestowed on him lands near Glastonbury, where he is said to have spent some years in retirement. Edmund, the successor of Athelstan, appointed him abbot of the celebrated monastery which he began to rebuild in that place in the year 042, and by the munificence of the king, who gave him a new charter in the year 944, he was enabled to restore it to its former lustre. Among other legendary stories reported of St. Dunstan we are told that he had been represented to the king as a man of licentious manners; and dreading the ruin of his fortune by suspicions of this nature, he determined to repair past indiscretions by exchanging the extreme of superstition for that of licentiousness. Accordingly he secluded himself altogether from the world; and he framed a cell so small that he could neither stand erect in it, nor stretch out his limbs during his repose; and here he employed himself perpetually in devotion or manual labour. In this retreat his mind was probably somewhat deranged; and he indulged chimeras which, believed by himself and announced to the credulous multitude, established a character of sanctity among the people. He is said to have fancied that the devil, among the frequent visits which he paid him, was one day more earnest than usual in his temptations; till Dunstan, provoked hy his importunity, seized him by the nose with a pair of red-hot pincers as he put his head into the cell, and he held him there till the malignant spirit made the whole neighbourhood resound with his bellowings. The people credited and extolled this notable exploit, and it ensured to Dunstan such a degree of reputation, that he appeared again in the world, and Edred, who had succeeded to the crown, made him not only the director of that prince’s conscience, but his counsellor in the most important affairs of government. He was also placed at the head of the treasury; and being possessed of power at court, and of credit with the populace, he was enabled to attempt with success the most arduous enterprizes. Taking advantage of the implicit confidence reposed in him by the king, Dunstan imported into England a new order of monks, the Benedictines, who, by changing the state of ecclesiastical affairs, excited, on their first establishment, the most violent commotions. Finding also that his advancement had been owing to the opinion of his austerity, he professed himself a parti zan of the rigid monastic rules; and after introducing that reformation into the convents of Glastonbury and Abingdon, he endeavoured to render it universal in the kingdom. This conduct, however, incurred the resentment of the secular clergy; and these exasperated the indignation of many courtiers, which had been already excited by the haughty and over-bearing demeanour which Dunstan assumed. Upon the death of Edred, who had supported his prime-minister and favourite in all his measures, and the subsequent succession of Edwy, Dunstan was accused of malversation in his office, and banished the kingdom. But, on the death of Edwy, and the succession of Edgar, Dunstan was recalled and promoted first to the see of Worcester, then to that of London and about the year 959, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. For this last advancement it was requisite to obtain the sanction of the pope; and for this purpose Dunstan was sent to Rome, where he soon obtained the object of his wishes, and the appointment of legate in England, with very extensive authority. Upon his return to England, so absolute was his influence over the king, he was enabled to give to the Romish see an authority and jurisdiction, of which the English clergy had been before in a considerable degree independent. In order the more effectually and completely to accomplish this object, the secular clergy were excluded from their livings, and disgraced; and the monks were appointed to supply their places. The scandalous lives of the secular clergy furnished one plea for this measure, and it was not altogether groundless; but the principal motive was that of rendering the papal power absolute in the English church; for, at this period, the English clergy had not yielded implicit submission to the pretended successors of St. Peter, as they refused to comply with the decrees of the popes, which enjoined celibacy on the clergy. Dunstan was active and persevering, and supported by the authority of the crown, he conquered the struggles which the country had long maintained against papal dominion, and gave to the monks an influence, the baneful effects of which were experienced in England until the era of the reformation. Hence Dunstan has been highly extolled by the monks and partizans of the Romish church; and his character has been celebrated in a variety of ways, and particularly by the miracles which have been wrought either by himself or by others in his favour. During the whole reign of Edgar, Dunstan maintained his interest at court; and upon his death, in the year 975, his influence served to raise his son Edward to the throne, in opposition to Ethelred. Whilst Edward was in his minority, Dunstan ruled with absolute sway, both in the church and state, but on the murder of the king, in the year 979, and after the accession of Ethelred, his credit and influence declined; and the contempt with which his threatenings of divine vengeance were regarded by the king, are said to have mortified him to such a degree, that on his return to his archbishopric, he died of grief and vexation, May 19, 988. A volume of his works was published at Doway, in 1626. His ambition has given him a considerable place in ecclesiastical and civil history; and he appears to have been a man of extraordinary talents. Dr. Burney, in his history, notices his skill in music, and his biographers also inform us that he was a master of drawing, engraved and took impressions from gold, silver, brass, and iron, and that he even practised something like printing. Gervase’s words are, “literas formare,” which however, we think, means no more than that he cut letters on metal.

, an eminent ecclesiastical historian of the last century, was the son of a father of the same names, descended of a noble family in Normandy, by Mary Vitart, of a family in Champagne. He was born at Paris, June 17, 1657, and after being instructed in the rudiments of grammar by his father, and private tutors, was entered, at the age of ten, of the college of Harcourt, where, under professor Lair, he imbibed that thirst for general knowledge which he indulged during the whole of his studious life. In 1672 he was admitted to the degree of master of arts. Having made choice of the church as a profession, he went through the usual course of studies at the Soi bonne, and employed much of his time in perusing the fathers and ecclesiastical historians, but had no other view in this than to gratify his curiosity, while preparing himself for his licentiateship in divinity, which he was then too young to obtain. In 1680, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and in July 16S4, that of doctor. He soon after undertook to publish the work which has made him most known, his Universal Library of Ecclesiastical Writers, containing their lives, and a catalogue, critical account, and analysis of their works: a design of vast extent, which might have done credit to the labours of a society, yet was successfully accomplished by an individual, who was not only interrupted by professional duties, but wrote and published a great many other works. The first volume of his “Bibliotheque” was printed at Paris, 1686, 8vo, and the others in succession as far as live volumes, which contained an account of the first eight centuries. The freedom, however, which he had used in criticising the style, character, and doctrines of some of the ecclesiastical writers, roused the prejudices of the celebrated Bossuet, who exhibited a complaint against Dupin to Harlay, archbishop of Paris. The archbishop accordingly, in 1693, published a decree against the work, yet with more deliberation than might have been expected. His grace first ordered the work to be read by four doctors of divinity of the faculty of Paris, who perused it separately, and then combining their remarks, drew up a report which they presented to the archbishop, who, in his decree, says that he also examined the work, and found that it would be very prejudicial to the church, if it were suffered to be dispersed. Dupin was then summoned before the archbishop andthe doctors, and after several meetings, gave in a paper, in which he delivered his opinion on the objections made to his hook in such a manner as to satisfy them that, however liberal his expressions, he was himself sound; but the work itself they nevertheless thought must be condemned, as “containing several propositions that are false, rash, scandalous, capable of offending pious ears, tending to weaken the arguments, xvhich are brought from tradition to prove the authority of the canonical books of holy scripture, and of several other articles of faith, injurious to general councils, to the holy apostolic see, and to the fathers of the church; erroneous, and leading to heresy.” This sentence upon the work, however, will prove its highest recommendation to the protestant reader, who will probably, as he may very justly infer, that it means no more than that Dupin was too impartial and candid for his judges. With the above decree was published Dupin’s retractation, both of which were translated and printed at London in 1703, folio, by William Wotton, B. D. who observes that in Dupin’s retractation, “dread of farther mischief seems to be far more visible, in almost every article, than real conviction arising from an inward sense of the author’s having been in an error; at least, that it is so written, as to have that appearance.” Dupin, however, went on with his work, and by some means obtained a permission to print, with some small alteration in the title, from “Bibliotheque universelle” to “Bibliotheque nouvelle,” and the addition of the ecclesiastical history to the ecclesiastical biography. He thus went on, concluding with the beginning of the eighteenth century, the whole making 47 vols. 8vo, which were reprinted at Amsterdam, in 19 vols. 4to; but as most of these volumes were printed from the first editions, this edition is imperfect. It was also begun to be translated into Lathy, and the first three volumes printed at Amsterdam; but no farther progress was made. Monsieur Dupin was engaged at his death in a Latin translation, to which he intended to make considerable additions. This Bibliotheque was likewise translated into English, and printed at London in several volumes in folio, usually bound in seven. A much finer edition was printed in 3 vols. folio, by Grierson of Dublin. The translation appears to have been executed partly by Digby Cotes, and revised by Wotton. Dupin’s Bibliotheque was attacked by M.Simon in a book printed at Paris in 1730, in four volumes 8vo, under the following title “Critique cle la Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques & de Prolegomenes de la Bible publiez par M. Elies Dupin. Avec des eclaircissemens & des supplemens aux endroits, ou on les a juge necessaires, par feu M. Richard Simon, avec des remarques.” Simon has pointed out a considerable number of errors in Dupin, but when all deductions of this kind are made, it must be allowed that we have no book more generally valuable as a repository of ecclesiastical history and biography, making allowance for the author’s attachment to the principles of his church.

In addition to Dupin’s other literary labours, he was commissary in most of the affairs of the faculty of theology, was professor of divinity in the royal college, and for many years editor of the “Journal des Scavans,” carried on an extensive correspondence with learned men, and was often requested to prepare editions of works for the press, and to write prefaces. Yet notwithstanding all this, and his more urgent labours in preparing his own works, we are told that he divided his time judiciously, and had leisure to visit and receive the visits of his friends or strangers, whom he entertained with as much apparent ease as if his time was wholly unoccupied. His openness of temper, however, and the general impartiality of his works, procured him many enemies, whom the celebrated “Case of Conscience” afforded an opportunity of bringing him into fresh trouble. This “Case of Conscience” was a paper signed by forty doctors of the Sorbonne, in 1702, the purport of which allows some latitude of opinion with respect to the sentiments of the Jansenists. It occasioned a controversy of some length in France, and most of those who signed it were censured or punished. Dupin, in particular, was not only deprived of his professorship, but banished to Chatellerault, which last gave him most uneasiness, as it removed him from the seat of learning, and the company of learned men, always so delightful to him, and so necessary to the pursuit of his studies. At length he was induced to withdraw his subscription, and by the interest of some friends, was permitted to return; but his professorship was not restored to him. After he resumed his studies at Paris, he published many of those works of which we are about to give a catalogue, all of which had a. quick and extensive sale, although many of them prove that his accuracy was not equal to his diligence, and that by confining himself to fewer subjects, he would have better consuited his reputation. It must, however, be acknowledged that he possessed considerable taste, great freedom from common prejudices, a clear and methodical head, and most extensive reading. He corresponded with eminent men of different communions, and was much censured and threatened for a correspondence he carried on with archbishop Wake, respecting the union of the churches of Rome and England. Dupin and some other doctors of the Sorbonne were the first movers of this plan, although Mosheim, in his first edition, has represented Dr. Wake as offering the first proposals. This matter, however, is placed in a more clear light in the last edition of Mosheim, edited by Dr. Coote (1811) in the Appendix to which (No. IV.) the reader will find the whole correspondence, and probably be of opinion that while we admire the archbishop’s firmness and caution in stipulating for an emancipation from the papal yoke as a sine qua non, we have equal reason to admire the candour of Dupin in his review of the XXXIX Articles, and in the advances he endeavours to make to protestant sentiments. The czar of Muscovy, we are also told, consulted Dupin on an union with the Greek church. Dupin was an eager opponent of the constitution styled Unigenitus, and was the great leader of the opposition to it in the Sorbonne, the deputations, commissions, and memorials, all passing through his hands. At length, exhausted by his uninterrupted labours, and by a regimen too strict for health, he died June 6, 1719, in his sixtysecond year. It is said that, while he was in his last sickness, father Courayer of St. Genevieve came to see him with another of his brethren. Dupin began the conversation at first with mentioning the criticism, which had been published in the “Europe Savante,” upon the first volume of his “Bibliotheque des Auteurs separez de la Communion Romaine,” and spoke of it with great severity, not knowing that Courayer was the author of it. These fathers then went up to the chamber of Le Cointe, who had written in conjunction with Dupin, and was author of the answer to that criticism, which had been erroneously ascribed to Dupin himself. Le Cointe, who likewise knew not that Courayer was their antagonist, began upon the same subject, and told them, that if he lived, he would never desist from writing against those who had attacked Dupin, whom he styled his dear master; and though he had but a very small estate, would at his death leave money for a foundation to support those who should defend his memory; but Le Cointe died about fifteen days after, without performing his promise.

By his will he bequeathed several sums of money to charitable uses; particularly lands in Pembridge, in Herefordshire, which cost 250l. settled upon an alms-house there begun by his father; 500l. to be paid to the bishop of Sarum, to be bestowed upon an organ in that church, or such other use as the bishop shall think fittest; 500l. to the dean and chapter of Christ-church, in Oxford, towards the new buildings; 200l. to be bestowed on the cathedral church of Chichester, as the bishop and dean and chapter shall think fit; 200l. to the cathedral church at Winchester; 40l. to the poor of Lewisham, in Kent, where he was born; 40l. to the poor of Greenwich; 20l. to the poor of Westham, in Sussex, and 20l. more to provide communion-plate in that parish, if they want it, otherwise that 20l. also to the poor; 20l. to the poor of Witham, in Sussex; 10l. per annum for ten years to William Watts, to encourage him to continue in his studies; 50l. a-piece to ten widows of clergyman; 50l. a-piece to ten loyal officers not yet provided for; 200l. to All-souls’ college, in Oxford; 300l. to the repair of St. Paul’s cathedral; and above 3000l. in several sums to private friends and servants! so that the character given of him by Burnet, who represents him as not having made that use of his wealth that was expected, is not just. He wrote and published a few pieces: as, 1. “The soul’s soliloquies, and conference with conscience;” a sermon before Charles I. at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, on Oct. 25, being the monthly fast, 1648, 4to. 2. “Angels rejoicing for Sinners repenting;” a sermon on Luke xv. 10, 1648, 4to. 3. “A guide for the penitent, or, a model drawn up for the help of a devout soul wounded with sin,” 1660, 8vo. 4. “Holy rules and helps to devotion, both in prayer and practice, in two parts,” 1674, 12mo, with the author’s picture in the beginning. This was published by Benjamin Parry, of Corpus Christi college, in Oxford. The life of archbishop Spotsvvood is likewise said by some to have been written by bishop Duppa but, as Wood justly observes, that could not be, because it was written by a native of Scotland.

, a celebrated French cardinal, sprung of a noble family of Issoire, in Auvergne, appeared first at the bar of Paris. he was afterwards made lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of JMontferrant, then attoiv ney-general at the parliament of Toulouse. Rising from one post to another, he came to be first president of the parliament of Paris in 1507, and chancellor of France in 1515. He set out, it is said, by being solicitor at Cognac for the countess of Angouleme, mother of Francis I. This princess entrusted to him the education of her son, whose confidence he happily gained. Some historians pretend that Duprat owed his fortune and his fame to a bold and singular stroke. Perceiving that the count d'Angouleme, his pupil, was smitten with the charms of Mary, sister of Henry VIII. king of England, the young and beautiful wife of Louis XII. an infirm husband, who was childless; and finding that the queen had made an appointment with the young prince, who stole to her apartment during the night, by a back staircase; just as he was entering the chamber of Mary, he was seized all at once by a stout man, who carried him off confounded and dumb. The man immediately made himself known it was Duprat. “What!” said he sharply to the count, “you want to give yourself a master! and you are going to sacrifice a throne to the pleasure of a moment!” The count d'Angouleme, far from taking this lesson amiss, presently recollected himself; and, on coming to the crown, gave him marks of his gratitude. To settle himself in the good graces of this prince, who was continually in quest of money, and did not always find it, he suggested to him many illegal and tyrannical expedients, such as selling the offices of the judicature, and of creating a new chamber to the parliament of Paris, which, composed of twenty counsellors, formed what was called la Tournelle. By his influence also the taxes were augmented, and new imposts established, contrary to the ancient constitution of the kingdom, all which measures he pursued without fear or restraint Having attended Francis I. into Italy, he persuaded that prince to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction, and to make the Concordat, by which the pope bestowed on the king the right of nominating to the benefices of France, and the king granted to the pope the annates of the grand benefices on the footing of current revenue. While this concordat, which was signed Dec. 16, 1515, rendered him odious to the magistrates and ecclesiastics, he soon reaped the fruits of his devotion to the court of Rome; for, having embraced the ecclesiastical profession, he was successively raised to the bishoprics of Meaux, of Albi, of Valence, of Die, of Gap, to the archbishopric of Sens, and at last to the purple, in 1527. Being appointed legate a latere in France, he performed the coronation of queen Eleonora of Austria. He is said to have aspired to the papacy in 1534, upon the death of Clement VII.; but his biographers are inclined to doubt this fact, as he was now in years and very infirm. He retired, as the end of his days approached, to the chateau de Nantouillet, where he died July 9, 1535, corroded by remorse, and consumed by diseases. His own interests were almost always his only law. He sacrificed every thing to them; he separated the interests of the king from the good of the public, and sowed discord between the council and the parliament; while he did nothing for the dioceses committed to his charge. He was a long time archbishop of Sens, without ever appearing there once. Accordingly his death excited no regret, not even among his servile dependents. However, he built, at the HotelDieu of Paris, the hall still called the legate’s-hall. “It would have been much larger,” said the king, “if it could contain all the poor he has made.”

, in Latin Duroeus, was a divine of Scotland, in the seventeenth century, who laboured with great zeal to unite the Lutherans and Calvinists. He was bora educated for the ministry in Scotland. In 1624 he came to Oxford for the sake of the public library. Hovr long he remained there is uncertain; for his strong inclination for his great work, and his sanguine hopes of success in it, induced him to let his superiors know, that he could employ his talents better by travelling through the world, than if he was confined to the care of one flock. They agreed to his proposals, and permitted him to go from place to place, to negociate an accommodation between the protestant churches. He obtained likewise the approbation and recommendation of Laud archbishop of Canterbury; and was assisted by Bedell bishop of Kilmore, and also by Dr. Joseph Hall, bishop of Exeter, as he acknowledges in the preface to his “Prodromus.” He began by publishing his plan of union in 1634; and the same year appeared at a famous assembly of the evangelical churches in Germany at Francfort. The same year also the churches of Transylvania sent him their advice and counsel. Afterwards he negociated with the divines of Sweden and Denmark: he turned himself every way: he consulted the universities; he communicated their answers, and was not deterred by the ill success of his pains, even in 1661 . He appeared at that time as much possessed as ever with hopes of succeeding in this wild and impracticable scheme; and, going for Germany, desired of the divines of Utrecht an authentic testimony of their good intentions, after having informed them of the state in which he had left the affair with the king of Great Britain and the elector of Brandenburgh; and of what had passed at the court of Hesse, and the measures which were actually taken at Geneva, Heidelberg, and Metz. He desired to have this testimonial of the divines of Utrecht, in order to shew it to the Germans; and having obtained it, he annexed it to the end of a Latin work, which he published this year at Amsterdam, under the following title: “Johannis Dursei irenicorum tractatuum prodromus, &c.” The preface of this book is dated at Amsterdam, October 1, 1661.

, or Edmer, the faithful friend and historian of archbishop Anselm, was an Englishman, who flourished in the twelfth century, but we have no information respecting his parents, or the particular time and place of his nativity. He received a learned education, and very early discovered a taste for history, by recording every remarkable event that came to his knowledge. Being a monk in the cathedral of Canterbury, he had the happiness to become the bosom friend and inseparable companion of the two archbishops of that see, St. Anselm, and his successor Ralph. To the former of these he was appointed spiritual director by the pope; and that prelate would do nothing without his permission. In 1120 he was elected bishop of St. Andrew’s, by the particular desire of Alexander I. king of Scotland; but on the very day after his election, an unhappy dispute arose between the king and him respecting his consecration. Eadmer would be consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he regarded as primate of all Britain, while Alexander contended that the see of Canterbury had no pre-eminence over that of St. Andrew’s. After many conferences, their dispute becoming more warm, Eadmer abandoned his bishopric, and returned to England, where he was kindly received by the archbishop and clergy of Canterbury, who yet thought him too precipitate in leaving his bishopric. Eadmer at last appears to have been of the same opinion, and wrote a long and submissive letter to the king of Scotland, but without producing the desired effect. Whartort fixes his death in 1124, which was not long after this affair, and the very year in which the bishopric of St. Andrew’s was tilled up. Eadmer is now best known for his history of the affairs of England in his own time, from 1066 to 1122, in which he has inserted many original papers, and preserved many important facts that are nowhere else to be found. This work has been highly commended, both by ancient and modern writers, for its authenticity, as well as for regularity of composition and purity of style. It is indeed more free from legendary tales than any other work of this period, and affords many proofs of the learning, good sense, sincerity and candour of its author. The best edition is that by Selden, under the title of “Eadmeri monachi Cantuarensis Historiac Novorum, give sui Saeculi, Libri Sex,” Lond. 1623, fol. His other works are, 1. A Life of St. Auselm, from 1093 to 1109, often printed with the works of that archbishop, and by Wharton in the “Anglia Sacra.” 2. The Lives of St. Wilfrid, St. Oswald, St. Dunstan, &c. &c. and others inserted in the “Anglia Sacra,” or enumerated by his biographers, as in print or manuscript.

In 1719 he published, in a thin volume, 8vo, “Maxims and Discourses, moral and divine: taken from the works of archbishop Tillotson, and methodized and connected.” He was presented by king George I. to the livings of Rendlesham, Sudborn, and Alford, in Suffolk; at which places be lived about eight years; but in a Continual ill state of health. Finding himself grow worse, and being advised to go to Scarborough for the benefit of the waters, he set out, but, declining very fast, he was unable to proceed farther than Lincoln, where soon after his arrival, going out to take the air, he died in his chariot, on the 16th of August, 1730, and was interred in the chancel of St. Mary Magdalen’s church, but without any monument or memorial of him. He was a member of the Society of Antiquaries. He married two wives; first, Jane, daughter to the rev. Mr. Potter, of Yorkshire; and, "Secondly, a daughter of Mr. Robert Wooley, a gentleman of Lincolnshire: but he had no children by either of them.

Besides several single sermons, Mr. Edwards published 1. “An enquiry into four remarkable texts of the New Testament,” 1692, 8vo. 2. “A farther enquiry into several remarkable texts of the Old and New Testament,” 1692, 8vo. 3. “Of the truth and authority of Scripture,” 1693. 4. “Of the Style of Scripture,” 1694. 5. “Of the excellency and perfection of Scripture,” 1695. & “Thoughts concerning the causes and occasions of Atheism,” 1695. 7. “A Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God,” 1696. 8. “Socinianism unmasked; or the unreasonableness of the opinion concerning one article of faith only.” 9. “A brief Vindication of the fundamental Articles of the Christian faith;” and a discourse, entitled “The Socinian Creed,” 1696 and 1697: These three pieces, together with some part of the treatise concerning “The causes and occasions of Atheism,” were occasioned by Mr. Locke’s publication of “The Reasonableness of Christianity, as delivered in the Scriptures,” and by the writings of some professed Socinians. Mr. Edwards was the first person that encountered what he apprehended to be Mr. Locke’s dangerous notions of the “One sole Article of Faith.” This he did, in the beginning of the dispute, in a manner very respectful to Mr. Locke’s person and parts. But Mr. Locke, in his two Vindications of his doctrine, having treated our author with severity, he assumed, in his replies, an air of mirth and pleasantness, and chastised his antagonist with some smartness, and his attack upon Mr. Locke was approved and applauded by a number of learned men, both at home and abroad. He published also, 10. “Remarks on Mr. Whiston’s Theory of the Earth,” 1697. 11. “Twelve Sermons on special occasions and subjects,” 1698, 8vo. 12. “A Survey of the different dispensations of Religion, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things,” in two volumes, 1699. 13. “Exercitations, critical, philosophical, historical, theological, on several important places in the Old and New Testament,” in two parts, 1702, 8vo. 14. “The Preacher,” the first part, 1705; the second part, 1706. 15. “Veritas redux, or evangelical truths restored,” 1707. 16. “Treatise of Faith and Justification,” 1708. 17. “The Preacher,” the third part, 1709. 18. “Remarks on the archbishop of Dublin’s sermon,” 1710. 19. “An Answer to Dr. Whitby, concerning the Arminian doctrines,” 1711. 20. “Observations and reflections on Mr. Winston’s Primitive Christianity,” 1712. 21. “Animadversions on Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,” 1712, with a Supplement, 1713. 22. “Theologia Reformata, or the substance and body of the Christian religion,” 1713, 2 vols. folio. A third volume, in folio, was published in 1726, ten years after our author’s decease. 23. “Remains,” 1713, 8vo. The writings which Dr. Edwards left behind him in manuscript/ were nearly as many as those which have already been named. By some of his contemporaries he was censured for appearing too frequently from the press, while others said, that those who were just estimators of things cleared him of the imputation of writing too often, when they observed, that what he continually published exceeded rather than fell short of his former performances.

The early part of Mr. Edwards’s life was chiefly spent in town, and at Pitzhanger in Middlesex. But in 1739 he purchased an estate at Turrick, in the parish of Ellesborough, in Buckinghamshire, where he resided till his decease. This, however, did not prevent his frequent mixture with his literary friends, who were numerous and, respectable, both in rank and character. It appears that he was acquainted with Richard Owen Cambridge, esq. the honourable Philip Yorke (afterwards second earl of Hardwicke), Daniel Wray, esq. the honourable Charles Yorke, Isaac Hawkins Browne, esq. the lord chancellor Hardwicke, archbishop Herring, lord Willoughby of Parham, Mr. Samuel Richardson, George Onslow, esq. (now lord Onslow), Dr. Heberden, the right honourable Arthur Onslow, Mr. Highmore the painter, and other accomplished gentlemen. Dr. Akenside’s regard for him has already been displayed. Three of his letters to Dr. Birch may be perused in the fifty-third volume of the Gentleman’s Magazine;" and Mrs. Chapone, -when Miss Mulso, addressed an elegant ode to him, which he answered by a sonnet.

At the death of Dr. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, who was chancellor of the university of Oxford, on the 2d of Nov. 1610, lord Ellesmere was the next day unanimously elected into that honourable office; and on the 10th, installed in the bishop of Durham’s house in London. At this period, that university was in a very flourishing tate in point of the number of its members, which amounted to more than 2420 but many of> them, and those of the senior part, were tainted with factious principles, both of a civil and religious nature. Convinced how destructive these ideas and principles, inculcated on the minds of the youth of the university, who were to be called forth to fill the several departments of church and state, would be of the future health and prosperity of the constitution, he bent his earliest attention to eradicate and correct them.

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

On the 20th of May following, he was constituted one of the commissioners to treat with sir Noel Caroon, knight, ambassador for the States General, concerning the rendition of the cautionary towns into the hands of the States. On the 3d of June, the archbishop of Canterbury, and others, were appointed to inquire who were the authors of his being indicted of pr<emunirc, which was the leading cause of sir Edward Coke’s disgrace. He was one of the grand council, convened at Whitehall on the 6th of June, 1616, the king himself in council, before whom the twelve judges were summoned to appear, and accused of having, in the execution of their office, unconstitutionally trenched on the powers and prerogatives of the crown, in granting commcndams. The king himself took an active part in this business, and, after a judicial discussion of the question, in which the opinion of sir Francis Bacon, the attorney general, was seconded and confirmed by that of the chancellor, they were severely censured for having grossly and wilfully erred both in the matter and manner of their proceedings; particularly in not obeying the royal command delivered to them by the attorney general, and in not delaying to proceed in a cause in which the prerogative was concerned till they had consulted his majesty, and known his farther pleasure. They all submitted willingly, except the lord chief justice Coke (in the whole of which business he acted a very noble part), and were obliged to crave his majesty’s gracious favour and pardon npon their knees. On the 20tb, the king, in the star-chamber, asserted the authority of the chancellor as more especially his own; and on the 30th, lord chief justice Coke was degraded for several causes of offence, particularly those two which have been just mentioned, viz. his attack upon the chancellor, and the affair of the commendams.

His lordship’s illness increasing, the king, as a farther testimony of his affection and good- will, sent the earl of Buckingham and sir Francis Bacon on the 15th of March to signify his intention of honouring him with an earldom, accompanied with an annual pension. These honours he did not live to receive, but the king conferred the former upon his son, John Egerton, afterwards created earl of Bridgewater. The age in which he lived was a particular aera of the British annals, distinguished by many great and extraordinary public characters: but, whilst the misconduct or misfortune of a Devereux, a Raleigh, a Bacon, and a Coke, exposed them to public disgrace, or to an ignominious death; the prudence, discretion, and integrity of lord Ellesmere, secured him a safe and honourable retreat from this life; for, he died at York-house, in the Strand, on the 15th of March, 1617, in his seventy-seventh year, “in a good old age, and full of virtuous fame,” and in the words of Camden, “Forte quanto propius reipublicse mala viderat, ut integer honestum finem voluit.” To sum up his character, says bishop Hacket, the biographer of archbishop Williams, he was one “Qui nihil in vita nisi laudandum aut fecit, aut dixit, aut sensit.” He was buried at Doddleston, in Cheshire, on the 6th of April.

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

In 1601, Elizabeth held a conference with the marquis de Rosni, who is better known in history as s the celebrated Sully, for the purpose of establishing, in concurrence with England, a new system of European power, with a view of controlling the vast influence of the house of Austria, and producing a lasting peace. The queen coincided with his projects, and the French minister departed in admiration of the solidity and enlargement of her political views. The queen, having suppressed an insurrection in Ireland, and obliged all the Spanish troops sent to its assistance to quit the island, she turned her thoughts towards relieving the burdens of her subjects; she abolished a number of monopolies, and became extremely popular. But the execution o her favourite, the earl of Essex, gave a fatal blow to her happiness. When she learnt from the countess of Nottingham, that he had solicited her pardon, which had been concealed from her, she at first became furious with rage, and when the violence of anger subsided, she fell into the deepest and most incurable melancholy, rejecting all consolation, and refusing food and sustenance of every kind. She remained for days sullen and immoveable, “feeding,” says the historian, “her thoughts on her afflictions, and declaring life and existence an insufferable burden to her.” Few words she uttered, and they were all expressive of some inward grief, which she cared not to reveal: but sighs and groans were the chief vent which she gave to her despondency, and which, though they discovered her sorrows, were never able to ease or assuage them. Ten days and nights she lay upon the carpet, leaning on cushions which her maids brought her, and her physicians could not persuade her to allow herself to be put to bed, much less to make trial of any remedies which they prescribed to her. Her anxious mind at last had so long preyed on her frail body, that her end was visibly approaching; and the council being assembled, sent the keeper, admiral, and secretary, to know her will with regard to her successor. She answered with a faint voice, that, as she had held a regal sceptre, she desired no other than a royal successor. Cecil requesting her to explain herself more particularly, she subjoined, that she would have a king to succeed her, and who should that be, but her nearest kinsman, the king of Scots Being then advised by the archbishop of Canterbury to fix her thoughts upon God, she replied, that she did so, nor did her mind in the least wander from him. Her voice soon after left her her senses failed she fell into a lethargic slumber, which continued some hours, and she expired gently, without farther struggle or convulsion, in the 70th year of her age, and forty-fifth of her reign.

He received several donations towards his subsistence at Oxford from unknown hands, with anonymous letters informing him that those sums were in consideration of his father’s sufferings, and to encourage his progress in his studies; and he received several such presents and letters, both before and after his heingin orders, without his knowing whence they came; but after the restoration, he had some reason to believe he owed them to. Dr. Jeremy Taylor, and Dr. Hammond, being part of those collections of money put into their hands by charitable and welldisposed persons for the support and encouragement of such as had been plundered or oppressed by the republican government. Mr. Ellis, when he had taken orders, was patronized by William, marquis, and afterwards duke of Newcastle, who presented him to the rectory of Kirkhy in Nottinghamshire, of which he was a most laborious, useful, and exemplary minister. In 1693 he was appointed, by archbishop Sharp, a prebendary in the collegiate church of Southwell, merely in reward of his merits and usefulness. He died in 1700, aged about seventy. His writings in practical theology are distinguished for eminent and fervent piety, soundness of doctrine, and a vigorous, unaffected, and manly style. The principal are, 1. “The Gentile Sinner, or England’s brave gentleman characterised, in a letter to a friend,” 1660, 12mo, a work which was written in a fortnight, in the early part of the author’s life, and has considerable merit both in design and exe^ cution. It has gone through many editions. 2. A “Ca^ techism,” 1674, reprinted in 1738, 8vo, by ibr Rev. John Veneer, rector of St. Andrews, Chichester, with a life of the author, and other additions, by Veneer. 3. “The vanity of Scoffing-, in a letter to a witty gentleman,” 1674, 4to. 4. “Christianity in short, or the short way to be a good Christian,” 1682, 12mo, oftener reprinted than any of his works. He published some other pious, and some controversial tracts of less importance, enumerated by Wood, several single sermons, and two pieces of poetry, one on the death of George Pitt, esq. Oxford, 1653, 4to, the other on the Restoration, London, 1660, fol.

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

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

, an English gentleman, clerk of the house of commons in the reign of Charles I. was born at Battersea in Surrey, in 1598; being the eldest son of Henry Elsynge, esq. who was clerk of the house of lords, and a person of great abilities. He was educated at Westminster school; and thence, in 1621, removed to Christ Church, in Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. 1625. Then he travelled abroad, and spent at several times above seven years in foreign countries; by which he became a very accomplished person, and was greatly esteemed by men of the highestquality and bestjudgment. He was in particular so much valued by archbishop Laud, that his grace procured him the place of clerk of the house of commons, to which he proved of excellent use, as well as a singular ornament. For he was very dextrous in taking and expressing the sense of the house; and also so great a help to the speaker and to the house in stating the questions, and drawing up the orders free from exceptions, that it much conduced to the dispatch of business, and the service of the parliament. His discretion also and prudence were such, that though the long parliament was by faction kept in continual disorder, yet his fair and temperate carriage made him commended and esteemed by all parties, how furious and opposite soever they were among themselves. And therefore for these his abilities and good conduct) more reverence was paid to his stool, than to the speaker Lenthall’s chair; who, being obtioxious, timorous, and interested, was often much confused in collecting the sense of the house, and drawing the debates into a fair question; in which Elsynge was always observed to be so ready and just, that the house generally acquiesced in what he did of that nature. At length, when he saw that the greater part of the house were imprisoned and secluded, and that the remainder would bring the king to a trial for his life, he desired, the 26th Dec. 1648, to resign his place. He alleged for this his bad state of health; but most people understood his reason to be, and he acknowledged it to Wbitelock and other friends, because he would have no hand in the business against the king. After which, quitting his advantageous employment, he retired to his house at Hounslow, in Middlesex, where he presently contracted many bodily infirmities, of which he died in 1654. He was a man of very great parts, and very learned, especially in the Latin, French, and Italian languages he was, what was far above all these accomplishments, a very just and honest man and Whitelock relates, that the great Selden was particularly fond of him, which is no small circumstance to his honour.

After about ten weeks’ absence, though Mr. Emlyn received discouraging accounts of the rage that prevailed against him in Dublin, he thought it necessary to return, to his family. Finding that both his opinions and his person lay under a great odium among many who knew little of the subject in dispute, he wrote his “Humble Inquiry into the Scripture account of Jesus Christ: or, a short argument concerning his Deity and Glory, according to the Gospel.” A few days after this work was prinjted, our author intended to return to England; but some zealous dissenters, getting notice of his design, resolved to have him prosecuted. Two of them, one of whom was a presbyterian, and the other a baptist-church officer, were for presenting Mr. Emlyn; but, upon reflection, this method was judged to be too slow, and too uncertain in its operation. Mr. Caleb Thomas, therefore, the latter of the two dissenters, immediately obtained a special warrant from the lord chief justice (sir Richard Pyne) to seize our author and his books. Our author, with part of the impression of his work, being thus seized, was carried before the lord chief justice, who at first refused bail, but afterwards said that it might be allowed with the attorney-general’s consent; which being obtained, two sufficient persons were bound in a recognizance of eight hundred pounds for Mr. Emlyn’s appearance. This was in Hilary term, February 1703, at the end of which he was bound over to Easter term, when the grand jury found the bill, wherein he was indicted of blasphemy. To such a charge he chose to traverse. The indictment was altered three times before it was finally settled, which occasioned the trial to be deferred till June 14, 1703. On that day, Mr. Emlyn was informed, by an eminent gentleman of the long robe, sir Richard Levins, afterwards lord chief justice of the common pleas, that he would not be permitted to speak freely, but that it was designed to run him down like a wolf, without law or game; and he was soon convinced that this was not a groundless assertion. The indictment was for writing and publishing a book, wherein he had blasphemously and maliciously asserted, that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the father, to whom he was subject; and this with a seditious intention. As Mr. Emlyn knew that it would be difficult to convict him of being the author of the work, he did not think himself bound to be his own accuser, and the prosecutor not being able to produce sufficient evidence of the fact, at length sent for Mr. Boyse. This gentleman, being examined as to what Mr. K.mlyn had preached of the matters contained in the book, acknowledged that he had said nothing of tlu-tn in the pulpit directly, but only some things that gave ground of suspicion. Mr. Boyse being farther asked, what our author had said in private conference with the ministers, answered, “that what he had declared there was judged by his brethren to be near to Arianism.” Though this only proved the agreement of the book with Mr. Emlyn’s sentiment, it yet had a great effect upon the minds of the jury, and tended more than any other consideration to produce a verdict against him. The queen’s counsel, having thus only presumption to allege, contended,that strong presumption was as good as evidence; which doctrine was seconded by the lord chief justice, who repeated it to the jury, who brought him in guilty, without considering the contents of the book whether blasphemy or not, confining themselves, as it would appear, to the fact of publishing: for which some of them afterwards expressed their concern. The verdict being pronounced, the passing of the sentence was deferred to June 16, being the last day of the term. In the mean time Mr. Emlyn was committed to the common jail. During this interval, Mr. Boyse shewed great concern for our author, and used all his interest to prevent the rigorous sentence for which the attorney-general (Robert Kochford, esq.) had moved, viz. the pillory. It being thought proper that Mr. Emlyn should write to the lord chief justice, he accordingly did so; but with what effect we are not told. When he appeared to have judgment given against him, it was moved by one of the queen’s counsel (Mr. Brodrick) that he should retract: but to this our author could not consent. The lord chief justice, therefore, proceeded to pass sentence on him; which was, that he should suffer a year’s imprisonment, pay a thousand pounds fine to the queen, and lie in prison till paid; and that he should find security for good behaviour during life. The pillory, he was told, was the punishment due; but, on account of his being a man of letters, it was not inflicted. Then, with a paper on his breast, he was led round the four courts to l>e exposed. After judgment had been passed, Mr. Emlyn was committed to the sheriffs of Dublin, and was a close prisoner, for something more than a quarter of a year, in the house of the under-sheriff. On the 6th of October he was hastily hurried away to the common jail, where he lay among the prisoners in a close room filled with six beds, for about five or six weeks; and then, by an habeas corpus, he was upon his petition removed into the Marshalsea for his health. Having here greater conveniences, he wrote, in 1704, a tract, entitled “General Remarks on Mr. Boyse’s Vindication of the true Deity of our blessed Saviour.” In the Marshalsea our author remained till July 21, 1705, during the whole of which time his former acquaintances were estranged from him, and all offices of friendship or.civility in a manner ceased; especially among persons of a superior rank. A few, indeed, of the plainer tradesmen belonging to his late congregation were more compassionate; but not one of the dissenting ministers of Dublin, Mr. Boyse excepted, paid him any visit or attention. At length, through the zealous and repeated solicitations of Mr. Boyse, the generous interference of Thomas Medlicote, esq. the humane interposition of the duke of Ormond, and the favourable report of the lord chancellor (sir Richard Cox, to whom a petition of Mr. Emlyn had been preferred), and whose report was, that such exorbitant fines were against law, the fine was reduced to seventy pounds, and it was accordingly paid into her majesty’s exchequer. Twenty pounds more were paid, by way of composition, to Dr. Narcissus March, archbishop of Armagh, who, as queen’s almoner, had a claim of one shilling a pound upon the whole fine. During Mr. Emlyn’s confinement in the Marshalsea, he regularly preached there. He had hired a pretty large room to himself; whither, on the Sundays, some of the imprisoned debtors resorted; and from without doors there came several of the lower sort of his former people and usual hearers. Soon after his release Mr. Emlyn returned to London, where a small congregation was found for him, consisting of a few friends, to whom he preached once every Sunday. This he did without salary or stipend; although, in consequence of his wife’s jointure having devolved to her children, his fortune was reduced to a narrow income. The liberty of preaching which our author enjoyed, gave great offence to several persons, and especially to Mr. Charles Leslie, the famous nonjuror, and Mr. Francis Higgins, the rector of Balruddery, in the county of Dublin. Complaint was made upon the subject to Dr. Teniaon, archbishop of Canterbury, who was not inclined to molest him. Nevertheless, in the representation of the lower house of convocation to the queen in 1711, it was asserted, that weekly sermons were preached in defence of the Unitarian principles, an assertion which Mr. Emlyn thought proper to deny in a paper containing some observations upon it. After a few years, his congregation was dissolved by the death of the principal persons who had attended upon his ministry, and he retired into silent obscurity, but not into idleness; for the greater part of his life was diligently spent in endeavouring to support, by various works, the principles he had embraced, and the cause for which he had suffered. The first performance published by him, after his release from prison, was “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Willis, 'dean of Lincoln; being some friendly remarks on his sermon before the honourable house of commons, Nov. 5, 1705.” The intention of this letter was to shew that the punishment even of papists for religion was not warranted by the Jewish laws; and that Christians had been more cruel persecutors than Jews. In 1706 Mr. Emlyn published what his party considered as one of his most elaborate productions, “A Vindication of the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, on Unitarian principles. In anMver to what is said, on that head, by Mr. Joseph Boyse, in his Vindication of” the Deity of Jesus Christ. To which is annexed, an answer to Dr. Walerland on the same head.“Two publications came from our author in 1707, the first of which was entitled” The supreme Deity of God the Father demonstrated. In answer to Dr. Sherlock’s arguments fur the supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ, or whatever can be urged against the supremacy of the first person of the Holy Trinity.“The other was” A brief Vindication of the Bishop of Gloucester’s (Dr. Fowler) Discourses concerning the descent of the man Christ Jesus from Heaven, from Dr. Sherlock the dean of St. Paul’s charge of heresy. With a confutation of his new notion in his late book of The Scripture proofs of our Saviour’s divinity.“In 1708 Mr. Emlyn printed three tracts, all of them directed against Mr. Leslie. The titles of them are as follow: 1. Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 2. A Vindication of the Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 3. An Examination of Mr. Leslie’s last Dialogue relating to the satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Together with some remarks on Dr. Stillingfleet’s True reasons of Christ’s Sufferings. In the year 1710 he published” The previous question to the several questions about valid and invalid Baptism, Lay-baptism, &c. considered viz. whether there be any necessity (upon the principles of Mr. Wall’s History of infant baptism) for the continual use of baptism among the posterity of baptised Christians.“But this hypothesis, though supported with ingenuity and learning, has not obtained many converts. Our author did not again appear from the press till 1715, when he published” A full Inquiry into the original authority of that text, 1 John v. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven, &c. containing an account of Dr. Mill’s evidence, from antiquity, for and against its being genuine; with an examination of his judgment thereupon.“This piece was addressed to Dr. William Wake, lord archbishop of Canterbury, president, to the bishops of the same province, his grace’s suffragans, and to the clergy of the lower house of convocation, then assembled. The disputed text found an advocate in Mr. Martin, pastor of the French church at the Hague, who published a critical dissertation on the subject, in opposition to Mr. Emlyn’s Inquiry. In 1718 our author again considered the question, in” An Answer to Mr. Martin’s critical dissertation on 1 John v. 7; shewing the insufficiency of his proofs, and the errors of his suppositions, by which he attempts to establish the authority of that text from supposed manuscripts." Mr. Martin having published an examination of this answer, Mr. Emlyn printed a reply to it in 1720, which produced a third tract upon the subject by Mr. Martin, and there the controversy ended; nor, we believe, was it revived in a separate form, until within these few years by Mr. archdeacon Travis and professor Person.

, of Oppyck, in Holland, was born there in the latter part of the sixteenth century, and acquired great reputation for his knowledge of the oriental languages. He was also an able lawyer and divine, and took his degree of doctor in the latter faculty. He studied the oriental languages under Drusius and Erpenius, and after having been professor of theology and Hebrew at Harderwich for eight years, was, in 1627, made professor of Hebrew at Leyden, on which occasion he delivered an harangue on the dignity and utility of the Hebrew language, and it was his constant endeavour to diffuse a knowledge of that language, and of the Arabic and jSyriac, among his countrymen, that they might be the better enabled to combat the objections of the Jews to the Christian religion. In 1639, count Maurice, governor of Bresil, appointed him his counsellor. He died in June 1648, very soon after he had begun a course of theology at Leyden. He lived in much intimacy with Lewis de Dieu, Daniel Heinsius, and the Buxtorfs, who speak very highly of him. He offered at one time to superintend the printing of a Talmudical dictionary in Holland, and endeavoured to bring the younger Buxtorf to Leyden, who had undertaken to defend the vowel points against Lewis Cappel. We also find him corresponding with our excellent archbishop Usher. Constantine’s works are, 1 “Coinmentarius ad codicem Babylouicum, seu Tractatus Thalmudicus de mensuris Templi,” Leyden, 1630, 4to. 2. “Versio et Notae ad Paraphrasin Joseph! Jachiadae in Danielem,” Amst. 1633, 4to. 3. “Itinerarium D. Benjaminis,” Heb. and Lat. Leyden, 8vo. 4. “Moysis Kimchi Grammatica Chaldaica,” ibid. 8vo. 5. “Confutatio Abarbanelis et Alscheichi in caput liii. Isaia-,” ibid. 1631, 8vo, and Franc. 1685. 6. “Commentarius in Tractatum Thaimudicum, qui dicitur Porta, de legibus Hebraeorum forensibus,” Heb. and Lat ibid. 1637, 4to. 7. “Commentariuf ad Betramum de Republica Hebrseorum,” 1641, 8vo.

is a Spanish writer, who among biographers is classed under different names. In Moreri, we find him under that of Dryander, by which, perhaps, he is most generally known; but in France he took the name of Du Chesne, and by the Germans was called Evck, Eycken, or Eyckman. Referring to Marchand for a dissertation on these different names, it may suffice here to notice that Enzinas was of a distinguished family of Burgos, the capital of Old Castille, where he was probably born, or where at least he began his studies. He appears afterwards to have gone into Germany, and was the pupil of the celebrated Melancthon for some years, and thence into the Netherlands to some relations, where he settled. Having become a convert to the reformed religion, which was there established, he translated the New Testament into Spanish, and dedicated it to Charles V. It was published at Antwerp in 1543. He had met with much discouragement when he communicated this design to his friends in Spain, and was now to suffer yet more severely for his attempt to present his countrymen with a part of the scriptures in their own tongue. The publication had scarcely made its appearance, when he was thrown into prison at Brussels, where he remained from November 1543 to Feb. I, 1545, on which day finding the doors of his prison open, he made his escape, and went to his relations at Antwerp. About three years after, he went to England, as we learn from a letter of introduction which Melancthon gave him to archbishop Cranmer. About 1552 Melancthon gave him a similar letter to Calvin. The time of his death is not known. He published, in 1545, “A History of the State of the Low Countries, and of the religion of Spain,” in Latin, which was afterwards translated into French, and forms part of the “Protestant TYIartyrology,” printed in Germany. Mavchand points out a few other writings by him, but which were not published separately. Enzinas had two brothers, James and John. Of the former little is recorded of much consequence; but John, who resided a considerable time at Rome, and likewise became a convert to the protestant religion, was setting out for Germany to join his brother,' when some expressions which he dropped, relative to the corruptions and disorders of the church, occasioned his being accused of heresy, and thrown into prison. The terrors of a dungeon, and the prospect of a cruel death, did not daunt his noble sou), but when brought before the pope and cardinals to be examined, he refused to retract what he had said, and boldly avowed and justified his opinions, for which he was condemned to be burnt alive, a sentence which was put into execution at Rome in 1545.

As Erasmus had no where more friends and patrons than in England, be made frequent visits to this island. Of these the principal were, Warham, archbishop of Canterbury; Tonstall, bishop of Durham; Fox, bishop of Winchester; Colet, dean of St. Paul’s; lord Montjoy, sir Thomas More, Grocyn, andLinacer; and he often speaks of the favours he had received from them with 'pleasure and gratitude. They were very pressing with him to settle in England; and “it was with the greatest uneasiness that he left it, since,” as he tells Culet, in a letter dated Paris, June 19th, 1506, “there was no country which had furnished him with so many learned and generous benefactors as even the single city of London.” He had left it just before, and was then at Paris in his road to Italy, where he made but a short stay, lest he should be disappointed, as had been the case more than once already. He took a doctor of divinity’s degree at Turin; from whence he pro-, ceeded to Bologna, where he arrived at the very time it was besieged by Julius II. He passed on for the present to Florence, but returned to Bologna upon the surrender of the town, and was time enough to be witness to the triumphant entry of that pope. This entry was made Nov. 10, 1506, and was so very pompous and magnificent, that Erasmus, viewing Julius under his assumed title of Christ’s vicegerent, and comparing his entry into Bologna with Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, could not behold it without the utmost indignation. An adventure, however, befel him in this city which had nearly proved fatal. The town not being quite clear of the plague, the surgeons, who had the care of it, wore something like the scapulars of friars, that people fearful of the infection might know and avoid them. Erasmus, wearing the habit of his order, went out one morning; and, being met by some wild young fellows with his white scapular on, was mistaken for one of the surgeons. They made signs to him to get out of the way; but he, knowing nothing of the custom, and making no haste to obey their signal, would have been stoned, if some citizens, perceiving his ignorance, had not immediately run up to him, and pulled off his scapular. To prevent such an accident for the future, he got a dispensation from. Julius II. which vvas afterwards confirmed by Leo X. to change his regular habit of friar into that of a secular priest. Erasmus now prosecuted his studies at Bologna, and contracted an acquaintance with the learned of the place;, with Paul Bombasius particularly, a celebrated Greek.pro-> fessor, with whom he long held a correspondence by letters. He was strongly invited at Bologna to read lectures; but, considering that the Italian pronunciation of Latin was different from the German, he declined it lest his mode of speaking might appear ridiculous. He drew up, however, some new works here, and revised some old ones. He augmented his “Adagia” considerably; and, desirous of having it printed by the celebrated Aldus Manutius at Venice, proposed it to him. Aldus accepted the offer with pleasure; and Erasmus went immediately to Venice, after having staid at Bologna little more than a year. Besides his “Adagia,” Aldus printed a new edition of his translation of the Hecuba and Iphigenia of Euripides; and also of Terence and Plautus, after Erasmus had revised and corrected them. At Venice he became acquainted with several learned men; among the rest, with Jerome Aleander, who for his skill in the tongues was afterwards promoted to the dignity of a cardinal. He was furnished with all necessary accommodations by Aldus, and also with several Greek manuscripts, which he read over and corrected at his better leisure at Padua, whither he was obliged to hasten, to superintend and direct the studies of Alexander, natural son of James IV. king of Scotland, although Alexander was at that time nominated to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. Erasmus studied Pausanias, Eustathius, Theocritus, and other Greek authors, undor the inspection and with the assistance of Musurus, who was one of those Greeks that had brought learning into the West, and was professor of that science at Padua.

Not enjoying a very good state of health at Padua, he went to Sienna, where he drew up some pieces of eloquence for the use of his royal pupil; and soon after to Rome, leaving Alexander at Sienna. He was received at Rome, as Rhenanus tells us, with the greatest joy and welcome by all the learned, and presently sought by persons of the first rank and quality. Thus we find that the cardinal John de Medicis, afterwards Leo X. the cardinal Raphael of St. George, the cardinal Gritnani, and Giles of Viterbo, general of the Augustines, and afterwards a cardinal, had a generous contention among themselves who should be foremost in civility to Erasmus, and have the most of his company. There is something interesting in the manner he was introduced to cardinal Gritnani, as related by himself in one of his letters, dated March 17, 1531: “When I was at Rome,” says he, “Peter Bembus often brought me invitations from Grimani, that I would come and see him. I never was fond of such company; but at last, that I might not seem to slight what is usually deemed a very great honour, 1 went. On arriving at his palace, not a soul could I perceive, either in or about it. It was after dinner; so, leaving the horse with my servant, I boldly ventured by myself into the house. I found all the doors open; but nobody was to be seen, though I had passed through three or four rooms. At last I happened upon a Greek, as I supposed, and asked him whether the cardinal was engaged He replied, that he bad company but asking what was my business Nothing, said I, but to pay iny compliments, which I can do as well at any other time. I was going; but halting a moment at one of the windows to observe the situation and prospect, the Greek ran up to me, and asked my name; and without my knowledge carried it to the cardinal, who ordered me to be introduced immediately. He received me with the utmost courtesy, as if I had been a cardinal conversed with me for two hours upon literary subjects and would not suffer me all the time to uncover my head ^ and upon my offering to rise, when his nephew, an archbishop, came in to us, he ordered me to keep my seat, saying, it was but decent that the scholar should stand before the master. In the course of our conversation, he earnestly entreated me not to think of leaving Rome, and offered to make me partaker of his house and fortunes. At length he shewed me his library, which was full of books in all languages, and was esteemed the best iti Italy, except the Vatican. If I had known Grimani sooner, I certainly should never have left Rome; but I was then under such engagements to return to England, as it was not in my power to break. The cardinal said no more upon this point, when I told him that I had been invited by the king of England himself; but begged me to believe him very sincere, and not like the common tribe of courtiers, who have no meaning in what they say. It was not without some difficulty that I got away from him; nor before I promised him, that I would certainly wait on him again before I left Rome. I did not perform my promise; for I was afraid the cardinal by his eloquence would tempt me to break my engagements with my English friends. I never was more wrong in my life but what can a man do, when fate drives him on”

Erasmus was at Rome when Julius II. made his entry into that city from the conquest of Bologna; and this entry offended him as much as that at Bologna had done. For he could not conceive that the triumphs of the church, as they were called, were to consist in vain pomp and worldly magnificence, but rather in subduing all mankind to the faitti and practice of the Christian religion. While he was at Rome he was taken under the protection of the cardinal Raphael of St. George; and at his persuasion, employed on the ungrateful task of declaiming backwards and forwards upon the same argument. He was first to dissuade from undertaking a war against the Venetians; and then to exhort and incite to the war, upon every‘ variation of the pontiffV mind. When he was preparing to leave Rome, many temptations and arguments were ’used to detain him; and the pope offered him a place among his penitentiaries, which is reckoned very honourable, and a step to the highest preferments in that court. But his engagements in England prevented his staying at Rome; though, as we have already seen, he afterwards repented that he did not. He set out from Rome to Sienna, where he had left the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, his pupil; who, not willing to quit Italy without seeing Jlome, brought him back thither again. After a short stay they went to Cumae, to see the Sibyl’s cave; and there his pupil parted from him, being recalled to Scotland, where he was, killed in a battle fought against the English at Flodden-field in 1513. Erasmus has left a grand eulogium on this young nobleman in his “Adagia.”

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

In 1515 he was at Basil; and this year Martin Dorpius, a divine of Louvain, instigated by the enemies of Erasmus, wrote against his “Praise of Folly;” to whom Erasmus replied with much mildness, as knowing that Dorpius, who was young and ductile, had been put upon it by others. He was the first adversary who attacked him openly, but Erasmus forgave him, and took him into his friendship (see Dorpius), which he would not easily have done, if he had not been good-natured, and, as he says of himself, “irasci facilis, tamen ut placabilis esset.” He wrote this year a very handsome letter to pope Leo X. in which he speaks of his edition of St. Jerome, which he had a mind to dedicate to him. Leo returned him a very obliging answer, and seems not to refuse the offer of Erasmus, which, however, did not take effect; for the work was dedicated to the archbishop of Canterbury. Not content with writing to him, Leo wrote also to Henry VIII. of England, and recommended Erasmus to him. The cardinal of St. George also pressed him much to come to Rome, and approved his design of dedicating St. Jerome to the pope: but he always declined going to Rome, as he himself declared many years after, or even to the imperial court, lest the pope or the emperor should command him to write against Luther and the new heresies. And therefore, when the pope’s nuncio to the English court had instructions to persuade Erasmus to throw himself at the pope’s feet, he did not think it safe to trust him; having reason to fear that the court of Rome would never forgive the freedoms he had already taken.

Erasmus received this year, 1518, a considerable present from Henry VIII. as also an offer of a handsome maintenance in England for the rest of his life; he thanked the king, but without either accepting or refusing the favour. A little time after, he wrote to cardinal Wolsey, for whom, however, he had no great affection; and after some compliments, heavily complained of the malice of certain calumniators and enemies of literature, who thwarted his designs of employing human learning to sacred purposes. “These wretches,” says he, “ascribe to Erasmus every thing that is odious; and confound the cause of literature with that of Luther and religion, though thejt have no connection with each other. As to Luther, he is perfectly a stranger to me, and I have read nothing of his, except two or three pages not that I despise him, but because my own pursuits will not give me leisure and yet, as I am informed, there are some who scruple not to affirm, that I have actually been his helper. If he has written well, the praise belongs npt to me nor the blame, if he has written, ill since in all his works there is not a line that came from me. His life and conversation are universally commended and it is no small prejudice in his favour, that his morals are unblameable, and that calumny itself can fasten no reproach on his life. If I had really had time to peruse his writings, I am not so conceited of my own abilities, as to pass a judgment upon the performances of so eminent a divine. I was once against Luther, purely for fear he should bring an odium upon literature, which is too much suspected of evil already,” &c. Thus he goes on to defend himself here, as he does in many other places of his writings; where we may always observe his reserve and caution not to condemn Luther, while he condemned openly enough the conduct and sentiments of Luther’s enemies. Though Erasmus addressed himself upon this occasion to Wolsey, yet it was impossible for the cardinal to be a sincere friend to him, because he was patronized by Warham, between whom and Wolsey there was no good understanding; and because the great praises which Erasmus frequently bestowed upon the archbishop would naturally be interpreted by the cardinal as so many slights upon himself. In his preface to Jerome, after observing of Warham, that he used to wear plain apparel, he relates, that once, when Henry VIII. and Charles V. had an interview, Wolsey took upon him to set forth an order that the clergy should appear splendidly dressed in silk and damask; and that Warham alone, despising the cardinal’s authority, appeared in his usual habit.

His fame, however, chiefly now rests on what he wrote in ecclesiastical controversy. When at Heidelberg, a dispute having arisen respecting the sacrament, chiefly founded on the question, “Whether the terms flesh and blood ought to be understood literally or metaphorically' he published a book” De crena Domini,“in which he contended for the metaphorical sense. He had indeed all his life paid so much attention to contested points of divinity, that he was reckoned as good a divine as a physician; and for this reason, in 1564, when a conference was held between the divines of the palatinate, and those of Wittemberg, respecting the real presence in the sacrament, Erastus was ordered by the elector Frederic to be present at it. The work, however, which excited most attention, in this country, at least, if not in his own, was his book on ecclesiastical excommunication, in which he denies the power of the church to excommunicate, exclude, absolve, censure, in short, to exert what is called discipline. Denying the power of the keys, he compared a pastor to a professor of any science who can merely instruct his students; he would have all ordinances of the gospel open and free to all, and all offences, whether of a civil or religious nature, to be referred to the civil magistrate, consequently the church with him was merely a creature of the state. Some of our first reformers adopted these sentiments so far as to maintain, that no one form of church government is prescribed in scripture as a rule for future ages, as Cranmer, Redmayn, Cox, &c. and archbishop Whitgift, in his controversy with Cartwright, delivers the same opinion. The Erastians formed a party in the assembly of divines in 1643, and the chief leaders of it were Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Colman, Mr. Selden, and Mr. Whitlock; and in the house of cornmons there were, besides Selden and Whitlock, Oliver St. John, esq. sir Thomas Wicldrington, John Crew, esq. sir John Hipsley, and others. In the assembly, the Erastians did not except against the presbyterian government as a” political institution,“proper to be established by the civil magistrate, but they were against the claim of a” divine right.“Accordingly the clause of divine right was lost in the house of commons. It is almost needless to add, however, that after the restoration, these opinions, decayed, and we believe that at this time, there is no sect, however hostile in its opinions to the power of the established church, who has not, and does not assert a power of its own binding on all its members, in one shape or other. In Erastus’s life-time, he was opposed by Ursinus, his friend and colleague; and since has been answered by Hammond,” On the power of the Keys,“1647. But it is necessary to remark that what is called Erastus’s book on this subject was not published in his life-time. During that, indeed, he published his opinions in the form of theses, levelled at Caspar Olevianus and his colleagues, who wanted to introduce ecclesiastical discipline in the churches of the Palatinate; and Beza, who foresaw the mischiefs of this controversy, addressed himself both to Erastus and Olevianus, recommending peace. Having afterwards obtained a copy of the theses which Erastus had written, he determined to answer them; this excited Erastus to draw up a work in reply, but he declined printing it, lest he should disturb the peace of the churches. Six years after his death, however, it was published by one of his disciples, under the title” Explicatio questionis, utrum Excommunicatio, quatenus religionem intelligentes et amplexantes, a sacramentorum usu, propter admissum facinus arcet, mandato nitatur divino, an excogitata sit ab hominibus, &c.“Pesclavii (Puschlaw) apud Baocium Sultaceterum (fictitious names), 1589, 4to. By a letter of his in Goldast’s” Centuria Philologicarum Epistolarum,“it appears that Erastus pronounced his work unanswerable, but Beza very soon performed that task in his” Tractatus pius et moderatus," &c. Geneva, 1690, 4to, and to the general satisfaction of the divines of that period.

, a native of Antwerp, and secretary to the duke of Florence, was born at Antwerp in 1584, of protestant parents, said to be of the same family with Peter the Hermit, so celebrated in the history of the crusades. In his youth Scaliger had a great esteem for him, and recommended him in the strongest terms to Casaubon; who procured him employment, and endeavoured to get him into Mr. de Montaterre’s family, in quality of preceptor, and was likely to have succeeded, when Eremita found means to ingratiate himself with Mr. de Vic, who was going ambassador into Switzerland. In the course of their intimacy De Vic, a man of great bigotry, and fired with a zeal for making converts, soon won over Eremita, by means of a conference with a Portuguese monk; and fre became a Roman catholic, which gave Casaubon great uneasiness. Eremita, however, still retained a veneration for Scaliger, and, after his death, defended him against Scioppius, who in his answer, speaks with very little respect of Eremita, and informs us that after being at Rome in 1606, he disappeared for some time after, as it was supposed at first from poverty, but it afterwards was discovered that he had retired to Sienna, where he made his court to archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini, who recommended him to Silvio Piccolomini, great chamberlain to the great duke of Florence. By this means he obtained a pension from that prince, as a reward for a panegyric written on the nuptials of the great duke with Magdalen of Austria, and published in 1608, and at his earnest request he was sent into Germany with the deputy, to acquaint the several princes of the empire with the death of the great duke’s father. At his return to Florence, he affected to be profoundly skilled in allairs of government; and promised a commentary which should exceed whatever had been written upon Tacitus. As he looked upon the history of our Saviour as fabulous, so he took a delight in exclaiming against the inquisitors and the clergy; and had many tales ready upon these occasions, all which he could set off to advantage.

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

After four years spent in his travels, he returned to Leyden in July 1612, about which time there was a design to invite him to England, and to settle a liberal stipend on him; but in the February following, he was chosen by the curators of that university, professor of the Arabic. and other oriental tongues, except the Hebrew, of which there was already a professor. He filled this chair with, great applause, and soon after set up, at an extraordinary expence, a press for the eastern languages, at which he printed a great many excellent works. October 1616, he married a daughter of a counsellor in the court of Holland, by whom he had seven children, three of whom survived him. In 1619 the curators of the university erected a second chair for the Hebrew language, of which they appointed him professor. In 1620 he was sent by the prince of Orange and the states of Holland into France, to solicit Peter du Moulin, or Andrew Rivet, to undertake the professorship of divinity at Leyden but, not prevailing then, he was sent again the year following, and after six months stay in France, procured Rivet, with the consent of the French churches, to remove to Leyden. Some time after his return the states of Holland appointed him their interpreter, and employed him to translate the letters they received from the several princes of Africa and Asia, and also to write letters in the -oriental languages; and the emperor of Morocco was so pleased with the purity of his Arabic style, that he shewed his letters to his nobles, as a great curiosity, for their elegance and propriety. In the midst, of these employments, he was seized with a contagious disease, then epidemical, of which he died Nov. 13, 1621, aged only forty years. The learned of his time lamented him, and wrote the highest eulogiums upon him, as indeed he well deserved, for he was not only most eminent as a scholar, but as a man of great piety and benevolence. Besides the advantageous ofler made him in Italy, he rejected another from the king of Spain and the archbishop of Seville, who invited him into that kingdom to explain certain Arabic inscriptions. Gerard John Vossius made his funeral oration in Latin, which was printed at Leyden, 1625, in 4to; and the same year were published at the same place, in 4to, Peter Scriverius’s “Manes Erpeniani, cum epicediis variorum.”

The parliament, which met Dec. 14, 1537, appointed him by the title of “John Erskine of Dun, knight and provost of Montrose,” to go to the court of France, as one of the commissioners from Scotland, to witness the young queen’s (Mary) marriage with the dauphin, and to settle the terms of the marriage contract; and on his return he was surprised to find that the reformation was likely to be forwarded by the very means taken to suppress it. An aged priest named Mill, had suffered martyrdom at St. Andrew’s, and in the opinion of archbishop Spottiswood, “the death of this martyr was the death of popery in this realm.” The protestants were now increasing in numbers, and were not a little encouraged by the death of queen Mary of England, and the accession of Elizabeth, whom they knew to be favourable to their cause. The queen regent of Scotland was therefore addressed more boldly than before by the protestant lords, in behalf of the free exercise of their religion, and by Erskine among the rest; but, although his demands and language are said to have been more moderate than the rest, this produced no effect, and a proclamation was issued, requiring the protestant ministers to appear at Stirling, May 10, 1559, and there to be tried for reputed heresy. The protestant lords and other laity determined upon this to accompany and defend their ministers, and much confusion would have immediately ensued, if Mr. Erskine had not obtained a promise from the queen regent, that the ministers should not be tried; and the people were ordered to disperse. No sooner had this been done, than the queen broke her promise, and a civil war followed, for the particulars of which we must refer to the page of history. It may suffice to notice here, that Mr. Erskine occasionally assisted as a temporal baron, but before the war was concluded, he relinquished his armour, and became a preacher, for which by his learning and study of the controversies between the church of Rome and the reformers, he was well qualified. The civil war ended in favour of the prntestant party, by the death of the queen regent in 1560 and a parliament, or convention of the estates was immediately held, who began their proceedings by appointing a committee of lords, barons, and burgesses, to distribute the few protestant ministers whom they then had, to the places where their services were most required. The committee nominated some of them to the chief cities, and as “The first book of Discipline” was now produced, they, agreeably to the plan proposed in that book, nominated five ministers who should act in the capacity of ecclesiastical Supkrintendants. Mr. Erskine was one of these five, and had the superintendency of all ecclesiastical matters in the counties of Angus and Mearus, and from this period Ins usual designation was, “John Erskine of Dun, knight, superintendant of Angus and Mearus.” This was in fact a kind of episcopal authority, conferred for life; but for their conduct the superintendants were accountable to the general assembly of the clergy. Their office was sufficiently laborious, as well as invidious; and we find Mr. Erskine several times applying to be dismissed. In 1569, by virtue of his office, he had to suspend from their offices for their adherence to popery, the principal, sub-principal, and three professors of King’s-college, Aberdeen. In 1577, he had a hand in compiling the “Second Book of Discipline,” or model for the government of a presbyterian church, which still exists; and in other respects he was an active promoter of the reformation as then established, until his death, March 21, 1591, in the eightysecond year of his age. Buchanan, Knox, and Spottiswood, agree in a high character of him; and even queen Mary preferred him as a preacher, because, she said, he “was a mild and sweet natured man, and of true honesty and uprightness.”

, an eminent canonist, was born at Louvain in 1646, “and after taking his degree of doctor of laws in 1675, filled a chair in the college of pope Adrian VI. with great success. Being fond of retirement and study, he is only known to the world by his writings. Having lost his sight in the sixty-fifth year of his age, by a cataract, which was removed two years afterwards, he neither lost any thing of his vivacity nor his application. His sentiments on the Formulary, and on the frull Unigenitus, and the kind of approbation which he gave to the consecration of Steenoven, archbishop of Utrecht, brought on him much unmerited persecution, chiefly from the envy of individuals. What they made him suffer, however, forced him to retire to Maestricht, and then to Amersfort, where he died, Oct. 2, 1728, at the age of eighty-three. Van Espen is doubtless one of the most learned canonists of his times. His principal work, still consulted, is his” Jus ecclesiasticum universum,“in which the most important points of ecclesiastical discipline are circumstantially discussed with profound knowledge of. the subject. At Paris, under the imprint of Louvain, was published, in 1753, a collection of all the works of Van Espen, in 4 vols. folio. This edition, which is enriched with the observations of Gibert on the” Jus ecclesiasticum," and the notes of father Barre, a canoiv-regular of St. Genevieve, contains every particular of importance in ethics, the canon, and even the civil law, and since that time a supplementary volume was published by Gabriel de Bellegarde.

, an eminent Italian historian, was born at San Geminiano, a village of Tuscany, in 1437. He was of the illustrious family of the Buonaccorsi, which name he changed to that of Callimaco or Callimachus, when he had, along with Pomponius Laetus, and other men of learning, established an academy, the members of which adopted Latin or Greek names. The surname of Esperiente, or Experiens, he is supposed to have assumed in allusion to the vicissitudes of his life, but in that case he must have assumed it after he had met with these vicissitudes. It is therefore more reasonable to suppose that he merely meant to infer that all true knowledge is founded on experience. Paul II. having succeeded Pius II. in 1464, did not view Esperiente’s academy, and his change of name, in the same favourable light as his predecessor, but fancied he discovered something mysterious and alarming in such a society, and even persecuted the members of it with some severity. Esperiente was therefore obliged to make his escape, and after travelling in various countries, came to Poland in 1473, where he was kindly received by the archbishop of Leopol or Lemberg, and acquired the esteem of Casimir III. king of Poland, who appointed him preceptor to his children, and some time afterwards employed him as his secretary. Acquiring the confidence of the king, who perceived his talents for business, he was entrusted with several important negociations at Constantinople in 1475, and at Vienna and Venice in 1486. In 1488 he had the misfortune to lose his library by an accidental fire. The death of Casimir in 1491, made no difference in his situation, John Albert the successor to the crown, who had been his pupil, admitting him to his confidence, and even to a share of power, which excited the resentment of the natives, who were jealous of the interference of a foreigner and a fugitive; but the virtue and good conduct of Esperiente were superior to the attacks of his adversaries, and he retained his station and favour, with undiminished honour, to the close of his days. He died at Cracow Nov. 1, 1496, and his remains were deposited in a tomb of bronze, with the following inscription: “Philippus Callimachus Experieus, natione Thuscus, vir doctissimus, utriusque fortunse exemplum imitandutn, atque oninis virtutis ctiltor pra?cipuus, ciivi oliin Casimiri et Joaunis Alberti, Poloniae regum, secretarius acceptissimus, relictis ingenii, ac reruin a se gestarum, plnribus tnonu mentis, cum summo omnium honor u in muToro, et regiffi domus, atque hujus reipublicae incoinmodo, anno sal mis nostne 1496, calendis Novembris, vita decedens, hie sepultus est,”

, cardinal, archbishop of Rouen, was son of John d'Estouteville, of an ancient and illustrious family of Normandy, and born in 1403. He was charged with important commissions during the reigns of Charles VII. and of Louis XI. reformed the university of Paris, and patronized the learned. He was a man of great firmness of character, and a very stern executor of justice. It is said that the Barigel of Rome having caught a thief in the fact, and resolved to put him to death upon the spot, as there was no hangman to be found, he obliged a French priest who happened to be travelling through that place, to execute an office so unworthy of his character. The cardinal being informed of the transaction, and unable to account for it, sent for the Barigel, and caused him immediately to be hanged at a window of his house. Being a zealous partisan for the pragmatic sanction, he called an assembly of bishops at Bourges, to discuss the means for a strict observance of that regulation, and measures were adopted for that end, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the deputies of the church of Bourdeaux and Peter their archbishop, in favour of the pope, to whom they were desirous of leaving a plenary power. D‘Estouteville died at Rome, being dean of the cardinals, the 22d of December, 1483, at the age of eighty. Besides the archbishopric of Rouen, he possessed six bishoprics in France, and in, Italy four abbeys and three grand priories; but he employed the greater part of the revenues in the decoration of the churches of which he had the care, and in relieving the poor. It was he who completed the castle of Gaillori, one of the finest pieces of architecture of the sixteenth century, which had been begun by the cardinal George D’Amboise.

, or Etheridge, or, as in Latin he writes himself, Edrycus, probably an ancestor of the preceding, was born at Thame in Oxfordshire, and admitted of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, in 1534; of which he was made probationer fellow in 1539. In 1543 he was licensed to proceed in arts; and, two years after, admitted to read any of the books of Hippocrates’s aphorisms. At length, being esteemed an excellent Grecian, he was made the king’s professor of that language about 1553, and so continued till some time after Elizabeth came to the crown, when, on account of his joining in the persecution of the protestants in Mary’s reign, was forced to leave it. He practised medicine with great success in Oxford, where he mostly lived; and also took under his care the sons of many popish gentlemen, to be instructed in the several arts and sciences; among whom was William Gifford, afterwards archbishop of Rheims. He was reckoned a very sincere man, and adhered to the last to the catholic religion, though he suffered exceedingly by it. Wood tells us, that he was living an ancient man in 1588; but does not know when he died. He was a great mathematician, skilled in vocal and instrumental music, eminent for his knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages, a poet, and, above all, a physician. There are musical compositions and Latin poems of his still extant in manuscript. In manuscript also he presented to queen Elizabeth, when she was at Oxford in 1566, “Acta Henrici Octavi, carmine Graeco.” He also turned the psalms into a short form of Hebrew verse; and translated the works of Justin Martyn into Latin. In 1588 was published by him in 8vo, “Hypomnemata quasdam in aliquot libros Pauli Æginetae, seu observationes medicamentorum qui hue aetate in usu sunt.” The antiquary Leland was his intimate friend, and in his life-time celebrated his praises in these lines:

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

, archbishop of Toledo in the seventh century, and called the Younger, to distinguish him from his immediate predecessor of the same name, was at first clerk of the church of Toledo, and when chosen archbishop on the death of the elder Eugenius, retired to Saragossa with, a view to spend his days in the retirement of a monastery. Being however discovered, he was brought back to Toledo by order of his sovereign, and appointed archbishop in the year 646, an office which he filled for nine years. He presided at the councils held at Toledo in the years 653, 655, and 656. He was the author of several works, particularly a treatise on the Trinity, two books of miscellanies, and one in prose and verse, which were published by father Sirmond at Paris in 1619, 8vo, along with the poetical pieces of Dracontius. His style is not remarkable for elegance, but his thoughts are often just and pious. He died in the year 657.

, archbishop of Toledo in the ninth century, was of an ancient Christian family of Cordova. In his youth he joined the community of ecclesiastics of St. Zoilus, then in the monastery of Cutelar, where he became intimate with Alvarus. In the year 844 he travelled into Navarre, and after his return to Cordova, in the year 850, he was imprisoned, under the reign of Abderamus, with some other Christians, on account of his religion. From this, however, he appears to have been released, and continued to exhort the Christians to maintain their faith at the risk of their lives. Having concealed a young Christian female named Leocritia, whom her Mahometan parents would have forced to apostatize, he was apprehended with her, and both were condemned to be beheaded, which sentence was executed in the year 859. This was soon after his appointment to the archbishopric of Toledo, to which, however, he was never consecrated. He wrote “Memoriale Sanctorum,” an account of the martyrdom of the Christians who had suffered before him in Cordova and afterwards he wrote an apology or defence of the same martyrs. These and his other writings are inserted in the Bibl. Patrum, vol. XV. and were printed separately by Morales in 1554, and by Poncius Leo in 1574.

, a learned critic of the twelfth century, was born at Constantinople. He was at first master of the rhetoricians (rhetorum magister), and afterwards deacon of the great church, under the patriarchate of Lucas Chrysobergus, who arrived at that dignity in 1155, and appears to have conferred many favours on Eustatius. Having been, elected bishop of Myra in Lycia, he had accepted the office, and was about to be consecrated, when the emperor Emanuel Comnenus sent a cong6 d'eLre to the synod, enjoining them to choose him archbishop of Thessalonica. In this he displayed great prudence, knowledge of business, and extensive learning, as appears by his works. In 1180 he was one of the prelates who remonstrated against the order of Emanuel Comnenus to erase from the Greek catechism, a censure of what is said of God by Mahomet in the Alcoran. Five years after, we find Eusebius displaying his spirit and regard for his flock in a remarkable manner. Andronicus Comnenus, cousin-german of the emperor Emanuel, had usurped the throne, fey causing Alexis, the son and successor of Emanuel, to be strangled in 1183. This act of barbarity procured Andronicus many enemies, and among the rest Alexis Comnenus, the nephew of Emanuel, to whom he had been cup-bearer, and who was afterwards banished to Scythia by him. Alexis went then to Sicily, to the court of William II. surnamed the Good, and excited him to declare war against the empire of Constantinople. The king of Sicily, who appears to have wanted little persuasion on this occasion, raised an army, passed the straights, and took the city of Duras. He then went by sea to Thessalonica, which he besieged both by sea and land. Eustatkius would not for a moment quit his flock amidst so many dangers, but shut himself up in the city, endured the hardships ofthe siege, with the greatest fortitude, and exhorted his people to bear with Christian patience the chastisements of the Almighty. The city was at last taken by the cowardice of the governor, and was pillaged, the churches themselves not being spared, and the inhabitants were treated with the utmost cruelty by the conquerors. Eustathius, not fearing their power, addressed himself with so much spirit and eloquence to the Sicilian commanders, as to obtain a considerable alleviation of the sufferings of the inhabitants, from which they were entirely delivered the following year. Nicetas attributes this in a great measure to the prayers of their archbishop. The time of his death is unknown, but he appears to have been alive in 1194.

The learned works for which he is chiefly memorable are his “Commentaries upon Homer and Dionysius Periegetes.” His “Commentaries upon Homer” were first published with that poet at Rome in 1550, under the pontificate of Julius Hi. to whom they were dedicated; and were reprinted by Frobenius at Basil ten years after. They are very copious, and frequently illustrate the text; but are principally valued by grammarians, for the great assistance they afford, in understanding the Greek language. The learned Duport, in his f< Gnomologia Homerica,“wonders that Eustathius, who was a Christian and an archbishop, should never mention Holy Scripture, and very seldom the ecclesiastical writers, throughout his Commentaries, though he had so many opportunities of introducing both. Fabricius, however, imputes this silence to his having collected the materials of them from the more ancient commentators upon Homer, who knew nothing of the sacred books, which is not improbable. Eustatliius’s” Commentaries upon the Periegesis of Dionysius,“were first published at Paris in 1577, but very imperfectly; they were afterwards greatly augmented by Fabricius, who supplied a hiatus between verses 889 and 917; and this addition was inserted in its proper place by Hudson, in his edition at Oxford, 1697, 8vo. From the similarity of the name, the” Loves of Ismenias and Ismene“have very unjustly been attributed to him.” Eustathii Comment, in Hexaemeron,“Leyden, 1629, has also by some been attributed to him, but the real author and the time he lived are unknown. Among the Mss. in the library of the Escurial, are two discourses attributed to him; the one,” Oratio ad eos qui in templo erant Sancti Myroblytæ, id est Demetrii, in principio indictionis, anno mundi 670.2 (A. C. 1194);“the other,” Oratio ad Michaelem Stathmitem, Saccularium et Chartophylacem, quod saepe cum melodiis celebrare debeaut inemoriam Sancti martyris Demetrii.“Oudin, who informs us of these manuscripts, adds, that among the Mss. upon paper in the library of Basil, theVe is a very beautiful oije in Greek, of the quarto size, whii'h is titled” The Homilies of Eustathius the metropolitan of Thessalo.iica,“and in the Bodleian are some Mss. attributed to him, as, an” Oratio in Imperatorem Em. Comnenuin;“” Supplicatio,“as it appears to be,” ad eundem Imperatorem, nomine civitatis cum siccitate laboiMvit,“&” Lamentatio in obitu fratris." In the same collection also, are two funeral orations delivered on the death of Eustathius, one of which, Fabricius assures us was by Michael Chonita Acominat, archbishop of Athens; the other bears the name of Euthymius, who, according to Fabricius and Oudin, was Eutbynius Zigubeaus, or Zigadenus, who flourished under Alexis Camnenus, but this is doubtful. Du Cange notices a correspondence between Eustathius and Michael Psellus in the French king’s library, and in that of Vienna is a commentary by him on John of Damascus’s hymn for the day of Pentecost. In Aldus’s collection of Greek grammarians is a treatise by him on the dialects used by Homer. The manuscript copies of his Commentary on Homer are not scarce in France, and there are some in Italy, of which Polito availed himself when he began his new edition of Eustathius in 1730, &c. but he finished only the first five books of the Iliad. The only complete editions are those mentioned above.

, one of the most determined opponents of revealed religion in modern times, was born at Warrington, Lancashire, April, 1731, and at first educated by an uncle, who sent him to Emanuel college, Cambridge, when in his fourteenth year. Here he took the degree of Ib. A. in 1749, and that of M. A. in 1753. At a proper age he was ordained, and for several years officiated as curate to his uncle, who had the living of Mitcham in Surrey. In 1768 he obtained the vicarage of South Mirnms, near Barnet, and resided in the vicarage house about two years, when, by the interest of John Dodd, esq. M. P. for Reading, lord Camden, then lord chancellor, presented him to the rectory of Tewkesbury. In conjunction with this, Mr. Evanson held the vicarage of Longton, a village in Worcestershire, about five miles from Tewkesbury, for which he exchanged that of South Mimms. While settled at Tewkesbury, he seems first to have inclined to those deviations from the opinions of his church, which by degrees led him much farther than he could find any to follow him, even among those who had hitherto been most distinguished for their hostility to orthodoxy. We are told that almost as soon as he began to entertain doubts concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, he wrote a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, stating the rise of his first scruples, with the grounds of them, and requesting of his grace to favour him, by means of his secretary, with such information as might assist in removing those doubts, and enable him conscientiously to remain in his office as a minister of the Gospel, &c. At what precise time, or to what archbishop this letter was written, we have not been informed, but no answer was returned, or could indeed have been reasonably expected. Perhaps, however, it was about the same time that Mr. Evanson began to take such liberties in reading the Liturgy as suited his new opinions; and for this, and some of those opinions delivered in the pulpit, particularly in a sermon preached in 1771, on the doctrine of the resurrection, a prosecution was commenced against him, which, after a considerable expence incurred on both sides, on account of some irregularity in the proceedings of the prosecutors, ended in a nonsuit. Seven years after this Mr. Evanson published the sermon, with an affidavit to its literal authenticity. To this he appears to have been obliged by the publication, on the part of his opponents, of “A narrative of the origin and progress of the prosecution against the rev. Edward Evanson.” This last was followed by “A word at parting; being a few observations on a mutilated sermon, and an epistle dedicatory to the worthy inhabitants of Tewkesbury, lately published by Edward Evanson, M. A.: to which are added, the arguraents of counsel in the court of delegates touching Mr. Evanson’s prosecution.” Both these were published by the late Neast Havard, esq. town clerk of Tewkesbury, who had been principally active in instituting the prosecution. In favour of Mr. Evanson, however, we are told that it was only “a small party” who found fault with his doctrines, and that the principal inhabitants of Tewkesbury supported him by subscribing a very large sum to defray his expences. The inhabitants of Longdon were still more partial, for it is said that “they would willingly have kept him among them, permitting him to make, as he had been accustomed, any alterations in the church service that his own views of the subject might have dictated:” Mr. Evanson, however, does not appear to have set a very great value on a licence of this description, and acted a more fair and wise part in resigning both his livings. He then (in 3778) returned to Mitcham, and undertook the education of a few pupils, the father of one of whom, col. EvelynJames Stuart, settled an annuity upon him, which was regularly paid until his death.

Mr. Evelyn was born at his father’s seat at Wotton, a few miles from Dorking, on Oct. 31, 1620, and was educated at the school of Lewes, under the care of his grandmother Stansfield, where he acknowledges in his own memoirs, that he was too much indulged, and did not make so good use of his time as he ought to have done but for this he made ample amends by his future diligence, and perhaps his neglect here appeared in a more unfavourable light to him in his advanced years than it deserved, for he was only ten when sent to this school. In April 1673 he was entered of the Middle Temple, though then at school; but in the following month, May 9, was admitted fellow commoner of Baliol college, Oxford, where his tutor was a Mr. Bradshaw (which he calls nomen invisum, alluding to serjeant Bradshaw, who presided on the trial of Charles I.) This Bradshaw was a relation of the regicide, and sou of the rector of Ockham. While at college, Mr. Evelyn informs us, that Nathaniel Canopius came thither out of Greece, being sent by the celebrated patriarch Cyrill, and had a pension from archbishop Laud. On the rebellion breaking out, Canopius returned to Constantinople, was made bishop of Smyrna, and, as Mr. Evelyn thinks, patriarch of Alexandria. Having already a turn, for objects of that kind, Mr. Evelyn records in this part of his diary, that Canopius was the first he ever saw or heard of, that drank coffee. Mr. Evelyn’s brother Richard was also -of Baliol college, but his brother George was of Trinity, where he is mentioned by Wood among the benefactors to that house.

In December 1640, he entered the Middle Temple, and at this time his father died of the dropsyin his fiftythird year. The ominous appearance of public affairs in 1641 inclined him to pass some time abroad, and accordingly he set out for Holland, after having witnessed the trial of the earl of Stratford. Having viewed what was most remarkable in the principal towns of Holland, with Brussels, Bruges, &c. and paid a visit to the prince of Orange’s camp before Genap, he returned to Dover by the way of Dunkirk in October. In 1642 he went to Brentford to offer his services to his majesty Charles I. and was assigned to ride volunteer in prince Rupert’s troop; but the king marching to Gloucester, and by that step leaving Surrey and Sussex, where Mr. Evelyn’s estate lay, exposed to the rebels, he was advised to travel, and having obtained his majesty’s leave, went in July 1643 to France, and thence to Italy, in which he spe^t above a year. A thirst of knowledge of every kind was his ruling passion; his mind too at this early period of life, was not unfurnished with science, and he could now contemplate, with consequent improvement, the antiquities, arts, religion, laws, and learning and customs of the countries through which he passed. He has, accordingly, left a large and minute account of what he thought worthy of observation, and nothing seems to have escaped him. At Padua he purchased the rare tables of veins and nerves of Dr. John Athelsteinus Leonaenas; and caused him to prepare a third of the lungs, liver, and nervi sextipar with the gastric veins, which he sent into England, being the first that had been seen here, and which he afterwards presented to the royal society. Another instance of his diligence and curiosity Mr. Boyle has recorded in his works (vol. II. p. 206), who received from Mr. Evelyn, whom he consulted on the occasion, a valuable and minute account of the method by which magazines of snow are preserved in Italy, for the use of the tables of the luxurious. During his stay at Rome, Mr. Evelyn informs us of his having an opportunity of learning the true sentiments of the popish party, on the execution of archbishop Laud, so frequently accused in this country of an inclination towards popery. “I was at Rome,” says he, “in the company of divers of the English fathers, when the news of archbishop Laud’s sufferings, and a copy of his sermon, came thither. They read the sermon, and commented upon it, with no small satisfaction and contempt; and looked on him, as one that was a great enemy to them, and stood in their way, whilst one of the blackest crimes imputed to him was, his being popishly affected.”

Secundus having nearly attained the age of twenty-one, and being determined, as it would seem; to comply as far as possible with the wishes of his father, quitted Mechlin, and went to France, where at Bourges, a city in the Orleanois, he studied the civil law under the celebrated Andreas Alciatus, who was particularly endeared to our author by his general acquaintance with polite literature, and especially by his taste in poetry. Having studied a year tinder this eminent civilian, and taken his degrees, he returned to Mechlin, where he remained only a very few months. In 1533 he went into Spain with warm recommendations to the count of Nassau and other persons of high rank; and soon afterwards became secretary to the cardinal archbishop of Toledo, in a department of business which required no other qualifications than what he possessed in a very eminent degree, a facility in writing with elegance the Latin language. It was during his residence with this cardinal that he wrote his “Basia,” a series of amatory poems, of which the fitih, seventh, and ninth carmina of Catullus seem to have given the hint. Secundus was not, however, a servile imitator of Catullus. His expressions seem to be borrowed rather from Tibullus and Propertius; and in the warmth of his descriptions he has the disgrace to exceed all former writers.