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

Peace being now re-established abroad, the city of Florence was, in 1393, distracted with civil feuds, which were not terminated by the execution and exile of some principal citizens. But at the close of this year they sustained a greater loss in sir John Hawkwood, who died March 6, advanced in years, at his house in the street called PulveYosa, near Florence. His funeral was celebrated with -reat magnificence, and the general lamentation of the whole city. His bier, adorned with gold and jewels, was supported by the first persons of the republic, followed by horses in gilded trappings, banners, and other military ensigns, and the whole body of the citizens. His remains were deposited in the church of St. Repar.ita, where a statue (as Poggio and Rossi call it, though it is well known to be a portrait) of him on horseback was put np by a public decree. If the Florentine historians did not distinguish between a statue and a portrait, no wonder our countryman Stowe talks of an “image as great as a mighty pillar,” erecteci to the memory of sir John Hawkwood at Florence or that Weever, copying him, calls it “a statue.”

Contemporary and succeeding writers agree in their praises of this illustrious general. Both friends and enemies considered him as one of the greatest soldiers of his age. Poggio styles him “rei militaris scientia clarus, et bello assuetus,” “dux sagax,” “dux prudens,” “tantus dux,” “rei bellicae peritissimus,” fl ad belli officia prudentissimus,“” expertae virtutis et fidei;“epithets these which might serve instead of a particular character. Muratori calls him,” II prodeet il accortissimo capitano." As he had been formed under the Black Prince, it is not to be wondered that his army became the most exact school of martial discipline, in which were trained many captains, who afterwards rose to great eminence.

When lord Hardwicke was called up to the house of lords in 1734, he was chosen to succeed him in representing the borough of Seatbrd in the Commons; and he represented this borough for the remainder of his life. He defended the measures of sir Robert Walpole in general, but was far from being subservient or indiscriminate in his approbation of public measures. In 1728 he published his 1 Essay on Civil Government;“in 1730 his poem entitled” Mount Caburn,“dedicated to the duchess of Newcastle, in which he celebrates the beauties of his native country, and the virtues of his friends. In 1735 he published” Remarks on the Laws relative to the Poor, with proposals for their better relief and employment; and at the same time brought in a bill for the purpose. He made another attempt of this kind, but without effect. In May 1738, he was appointed a commissioner of the victualling-office. In 1753 appeared “Religio Philosophi; or, the principles of morality and Christianity, illustrated from a view of che universe, and of man’s situation in it.” This was followed, in 1754, by his “Essay on Deformity;” in which he rallies his own imperfection in this respect with much liveliness and good humour. “Bodily deformity,” says he, “is very rare. Among 558 gentlemen in the House of commons, I am the only one that is so. Thanks to my worthy constituents, who never objected to my person, and I hope never to give them cause to object to my behaviour.” The same year he translated Hawkins Browne “De Immortalitati Animse.” In 1755 he translated and modernized some “Epigrams of Martial;” but survived this publication only a short time, dying June 22, the same year. A little time before, he had been appointed keeper of the records in the Tower; and it is said that his attention and assiduity, during the few months he held that office, were eminently serviceable to his successors.

He left a son, who inherited the imperfect form of his father. This gentleman went into the service of the East India company, where he acquired rank, fortune, and reputation; but, being one of those who opposed Cossim Ally Kawn, and unfortunately falling into his hands, was, with other gentlemen, ordered to be put to death at Patna, October 5, 1762. Mr. Hay’s works were collected by his daughter in two volumes, quarto, 1794, with a biographical sketch, exhibiting his many amiable qualities, and public spirit.

, an eminent musical composer, was born at llhorau, in Lower Austria, in 1733. His father, a wheelwright by trade, played upon the harp without the least knowledge of music, which, however, excited the attention of his son, and first gave birth to his passion for music. In his early childhood he used to sing to his father’s harp the simple tunes which he was able to play, and being sent to a small school in the neighbourhood, he there began to learn music regularly; after which he was placed under Reuter, maestro di capella of the cathedral at Vienna; and having a voice of great compass, was received into the choir, where he was well taught, not only to sing, but to play on the harpsichord and violin. At the age of eighteen, on the breaking of his voice, he was dismissed from the cathedral. After this, he supported himself during eight years as well as he could by his talents; and began to study more seriously than ever. He read the works of Matthcson, lieinichen, and others, on the theory of music; and for the practice, studied with particular attention the pieces of Emanuel Bach, whom he made his model in writing for keyed instruments. At length, he met with Porpora, who was at this time in Vienna; and during five months was so happy as to receive his counsel and instructions in singing and the composition of vocal music.

The first time we meet with his name in the German catalogues of music, is in that of Breitkopf of Leipsic, 1763, to a Divertimento a Cembalo, 3 Concern a Cembalo, 5 Trios, 8 Quadros or quartets, and 6 Symphonies in four and eight parts." The chief of his early music was for the chamber. He is said at Vienna to have composed, before 1782, a hundred and twenty-four pieces for the bariton, a species of viol di gamba, for the use of his prince who was partial to that instrument, and a great performer upon it.

, a learned Franciscan, preacher in ordinary to queen Anrie of Austria, was born in 1593 at Paris, and died there in 1661. His principal works are, “Biblia Magna,” 1643, 5 vols. fol.; and “Biblia Maxima,” 1660, 19 vols. fol. No part of the last is esteemed but the Prolegomena, and even they are too diffuse but his “Biblia Magna” is reckoned a very good work. He must not be confounded with John de la Haye, a Jesuit, who died 1614, aged seventy-four, leaving an “Evangelical Harmony,” 2 vols. fol. and other works; nor with another John de la Haye, valet de chambre to Margaret of Valois, who published her poems.

Dr. Hayes died July 27, 1777, and was buried in the church-yard of St. Peter’s in the east, in Oxford. His son Philip was regularly educated by his father in the same art. When grown up, after he had lost his treble voice, which dropped into a tolerable tenor, he was admitted one of the gentlemen of the king’s chapel, and resided chiefly in London, till the decease of his worthy father; who having established a family interest in the university, he succeeded to all his honours and appointments. He took his degree of B. M. in May 1763, and proceeded doctor of music Nov. 6, 1777, when he succeeded his father in the professorship. He also became organist of Magdalen, New college, and St, John’s. He succeeded in the same style of composition as his father, and was a considerable benefactor to the music-school and orchestra, and gave many valuable portraits both to that room and to some of the colleges. Dr. Philip Hayes was perhaps the most corpulent man in the kingdom, and his friends were long in apprehension of a sudden death, which at last took place when he was on his annual visit to London, about the time of the anniversary of the new musical fund. He dropped down dead, after he had dressed himself, in the morning of March 19, 1797, in his fifty -eighth year. His remains were interred in St. Paul’s cathedral with due respect.

, a strenuous advocate for Socinianism, was born in 1672, and became assay-master of the mint, and principal tally-writer of the exchequer. In defence of the independence and prerogatives of his office, he printed and privately dispersed a tract entitled “A hriel enquiry relating to the right of his majesty’s Chapel Royal, and the privileges of his servants within the Tower, in a Memorial addressed to the rignt hon. the lord viscount Lonsdale, constable of his majesty’s Tower of London,” 1728, folio. His principal effort in favour of Socicianism was entitled “The Scripture account of the attributes and worship of God, and of the character and offices of Jesus Christ, by a candid Enquirer after Truth.” This he left for the press, and it was accordingly printed by his son, in obedience to his father’s injunctions, but probably against his own inclinations, nor was it generally known as a publication until reprinted in 1790 by the late rev. Theophilus Lindsey. Mr. Haynesdied November 19, 1749. His son Samuel Haynes was educated at King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A. B in 1723, A. M. 1727, and D. D. in 1748. He was tutor to the earl of Salisbury, with whom he travelled, and who, in 1737, presented him to the valuable rectory of Hatfield in Hertfordshire. In March 1743, he succeeded to a canonry of Windsor; and in May 1747, he was presented by his noble patron to the rectory of Clothal, which he held by dispensation with Hatfield. He died June 9, 1752. He published “A Collection of State-papers, relating to affairs in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary and Elizabeth, from 1542 to 1570,” transcribed from the Cecil Mss. in Hatfield-house, 1740, fol.

, an English historian, was educated at Cambridge, where he took the degree of LL. D. In 1599 he published, in 4to, The first Part of the Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV. extending to the end of the first yeare of his raigne,“dedicated to Robert earl of Essex; for which he suffered a tedious imprisonment, on account of having advanced something in defence of hereditary succession to the crown. We are informed, in lord Bacon’s” Apophthegms,“that queen Elizabeth, being highly incensed at this book, asked Bacon, who was then one of her council learned in the law,” whether there was any treason contained in it?“who answered,” No, madam for treason, I cannot deliver my opinion there is any but there is much felony.“The queen, apprehending it, gladly asked,” How and wherein“Bacon answered,” because he had stolen many of his sentences and conceits out of Cornelius Tacitus.“This discovery is thought to have prevented his being put to the rack. Carnden tells us, that the book being dedicated to the earl of Essex, when that nobleman and his friends were tried, the lawyers urged, that” it was written on purpose to encourage the deposing of the queen;“and they particularly insisted on these words in the dedication* in which our author styles the earl” Magnus & present! judicio, & futuri temporis expectatione.“In 1603 he published, in quarto,” An Answer to the first part of a certaine Conference concerning Succession, published not long since under the name of R. Doleman.“Tais R. Doleman was the Jesuit Parsons. In 1610 he was appointed by king James one of the historiographers of Chelsea college, near London, which, as we have often had occasion to notice, was never permanently established. In 1613, he published in 4to,” The Lives of the Three Normans, kings of England; William I; William II.; Henry I.“and dedicated them to Charles prince of Wales. In 1619, he received the honour of knighthood from his majesty, at Whitehall. In 1624, he published a discourse entitled” Of Supremacie in Affaires of Religion,“dedicated to prince Charles, and written in the manner of a conversation held at the table of Dr. Toby Matthews, bishop of Durham, in the time of the parliament, 1605. The proposition maintained is, that supreme power in ecciesiasticaJ affairs is a right of sovereignty. He wrote likewise,” The Life and Raigne of King Edward VI. with the beginning of the Raigne of queen Elizabeth,“1630, 4to, but this was posthumous; for he died June 27, 1627. He was the author of several works of piety, particularly” The Sr.nctuarie of a troubled soul,“Lond. 1616, 12mo;” David’s Tears, or an Exposition of the Penitential Psalms,“1622, 8vo. and te Christ’s Prayer on the Crosse for his Enemies,” 1623. Wood says that “he was accounted a learned and godly man, and one better read in theological authors, than in those belonging to his profession; and that with regard to his histories, the phrase and words in them were in their time esteemed very good; only some have wished that in his” History of Henry IV.“he had not called sir Hugh Lynne by so light a word as Mad-cap, though he were such; and that he had not changed his historical style into a dramatical, where he introduceth a mother uttering a woman’s passion in the case of her son.” Nicolson observes, that “he had the repute in his time, of a good clean pen and smooth style; though some have since blamed him for being a little too dramatical,” Strype recommends that our author “be read with caution that his style and language is good, and so is his fancy but that he uses it too much for an historian, which puts him sometimes on making speeches for others, which they never spake, and relating matters which perhaps they never thought on.” In confirmation of which censure, Kennet has since affirmed him to be “a professed speech-maker through all his little history of Henry IV.”

He left Oxford after a residence of three years, in which interval he lost his father. His biographer informs us that his friends could not for some months discover the place of his residence; but that at length it appeared he was married, and had retired to Matlock in Derbyshire. From our other authority, however, we learn, that during his occasional visits from Oxford to his friends in Norfolk, he formed an attachment of the tenderest kind to a very beautiful woman, now alive, but of no fortune. Many of the most charming and interesting of his poetical compositions addressed to this lady. The connexion appeared to their common friends to be indiscreet, and the object of his affections married a deserving man, with whom she is now happy in a lovely family. It appears, however, that he did marry hastily, in the anguish of disappointment, a lady, who died before him. From Matlock he went to reside at Norwich, and in a short time the consumptive tendency of his constitution rendered it advisable to try the climate of Lisbon, from which he returned only to die, at Norwich, in November 1788.

, an enterprising English navigator, was born in 1745; he was the son of Mr. Hearne, secretary to the water-works, London-bridge, a very sensible man, and of a respectable family in Somersetshire; he died of a fever in his fortieth year, and left Mrs. Hearne with this son, then but three years of age, and a daughter two years older. Mrs. H. finding her income too small to admit her living in town as she had been accustomed, retired to Bimmister, in Dorsetshire (her native place), where she lived as a gentlewoman, and was much respected. It was her wish to give her children as good an education as the place afforded, and accordingly she sent her son to school at a very early period: but his dislike to reading and writing was so great, that he made very little progress in either. His masters, indeed, spared neither threats nor persuasion to induce him to learn, but their arguments were thrown away on one who seemed predetermined never to become a learned man; he had, however, a very quick apprehension, and in his childish sports shewed unusual activity and ingenuity; he was particularly fond of drawing; and though he never had the least instruction in the art, copied with great delicacy and correctness even from nature. Mrs. Hearne’s friends, finding her son had no taste for study, advised tier fixing on some business, and proposed such as they judged most suitable for him; but he declared himself utterly averse to trade, and begged he might be sent to sea. His mother very reluctantly complied with his request, took him to Portsmouth, and remained with him till he sailed. His captain (now lord Hood) promised to take care of him, and gave him every indulgence his youth required. He was then but eleven years of age. They had a warm engagement soon after he entered, and took several prizes: the captain told him he should have his share; but he begged, in a very affectionate manner, it might be given to his mother, and she would know best what to do with it. He was a midshipman several years under the same commander; but on the conclusion of the war, having no hopes of preferment, he left the navy, and entered into the service of the Hudson’s Bay company, as mate of one of their sloops. He was, however, soon distinguished from his associates by his ingenuity, industry, and a wish to undertake some hazardous enterprize by which mankind might be benefited. This was represented to the company, and they immediately applied to him as a proper person to be sent on an expedition they had long had in view, viz. to find out the north-west passage: he gladly accepted the proposal, and how far he succeeded is shewn to the public in his Journal. On his return he was advanced to a more lucrative post, and in a few years was made commander in chief, in which situation he remained till 1782, when the French unexpectedly landed at Prince of Wales’ s Fort, took possession of it, and after having given the governor leave to secure his own property, seized the stock of furs, &c. &c. and blew up the fort. At the company’s request Mr. H. went out the year following, saw it rebuilt, and the new governor settled in his habitation (which they took care to fortify a little better than formerly), and returned to England in 1787. He had saved a few thousands, the fruits of many years’ industry, and might, had he been blessed with prudence, have enjoyed many years of ease and plenty; but he had lived so long where money was of no use, that he seemed insensible of its value here, and lent it with little or no security to those he was scarcely acquainted with by name; sincere and undesigning himself, he was by no means a match for the duplicity of others. His disposition, as may be judged by his writing, was naturally humane; what he wanted in learning and polite accomplishments, he made up in native simplicity; and was so strictly scrupulous with regard to the property of others, that he was heard to say, a few davs before his death, “he could lay his hand on his heart and say, he had never wronged any man of sixpence.”

Such are the outlines of Mr. Hearne’s character; who, if he had some failings, had many virtues to counterbalance them, of which charity was not the least. He died of the dropsy, November 1792, aged forty-seven. In 1797 appeared his “Journey from the Prince of Wales’s Fort, in Hudson’s Bay, to the Northern Ocean; undertaken by order of the Hudson’s Bay Company, for the discovery of Copper-mines, a North-west passage, &c. in the years 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772,” a volume which forms a very valuable addition to the discoveries of our enterprizing countrymen.

, an eminent English antiquary, and indefatigable collector and editor of books and manuscripts, was the son of George Hearne, parish-clerk of White Waltham, Berkshire, by Edith, daughter of Thomas Wise. He was born at Littlefteld-green in the above parish, in 1678, and baptised July 11th of that year. He appears to have been born with a taste for those researches which formed afterwards the business of his life; and even when he had but attained a knowledge of the alphabet, was seen continually poring over the old tomb-stones in the church-yard. As to education, he had very little. His father, who kept a writing-school, and who, as parishclerk, was also a kind of amanuensis to the illiterate part of his neighbours, could teach him English and writing, in both which he made considerable proficiency; but he had other children, and, instead of being able to place Thomas at any superior school, was obliged to let him earn his subsistence as a day-labourer. His natural abilities, however, appeared through this disadvantage, and his being a better reader and writer than could have been expected from his scanty opportunities, recommended him to the kind attention of an early patron, whom he calls “that pious and learned gentleman Francis Cherry, esq.” By this gentleman, in whose house he was for some time a menial servant, he was placed at the free-school of Bray in Berkshire, in the beginning of 1693, and rewarded his care by such diligent application, as to acquire an accurate knowledge of Greek and Latin. He was on this account much respected both by the master and his fellow-scholars, who were accustomed to consult him in their little difficulties, and used to listen to his information respecting English history, which his original taste had led him to study as he found opportunity.

His patron, Mr. Cherry, pleased with the happy effects of his care, determined to take our young antiquary into his house, and maintain him as his son. In this it is said he partly followed the advice of the learned Mr. Dodwell, who then lived in the neighbourhood, and had probably watched the progress of Hearne’s education. He was accordingly taken into Mr. Cherry’s house about Easter 1695, and his studies in classical learning promoted by this gentleman, or by Mr. Dodwell, both taking that trouble with him, which, from his diligence and apt memory, they foresaw would not be lost. With the same benevolent views, Mr. Cherry sent him to Oxford, where, in Michaelmas term of the above year, he was entered of Edmundhall, but returned immediately after his matriculation, and pursued his studies both at Mr. Cherry’s, and at the school of Bray.

In Easter term 1696, he came to reside at Edmund-hall, a society which had probably been recommended to Mr. Cherry by Dr. White Kennet, who was at that time viceprincipal, and also rector of Shottesbrooke, which he received from Mr. Cherry. The learned Dr. John Mill was at this time principal. Both his tutor, Dr. Kennet, and his principal, Dr. Mill, appear to have soon discovered the bent of his studies; and Dr. Mill, who was then employed“on the appendix to his edition of the Greek Testament, finding young Hearne an apt reader of Mss. employed him in the laborious task of collation. It was also at the doctor’s request, that when he was about three years standing, he went to Eton to compare a ms. of Tatian and Athenagoras in that college library. The variations he discovered were afterwards made use of by Mr. Worth in his edition of Tatian, in 1700, and by Dechair in his edition of Athenagoras, 1706; but Mr. Hearne complains, and with some justice, that neither mentioned the person who collated the Mss. Hearne' s own copy of the variations is now in the Bodleian. About this time Mr. Cherry sent for him to Shottesbrooke, and employed him in transcribing sir Henry Spelman’s” History of Sacrilege,“which was soon after printed at London. Mr. Dodwell also appears to have employed him in transcribing two copies of his” Paraenesis." At Edmund Hall Dr. Grabe availed himself of his useful talents in transcribing and collating various old manuscripts.

In January 1714-15, he was elected architypographus, and esquire beadle of civil law in the university of Oxford, which post he held, together with that of under-librarian, till November following; but then, finding they were not tenable together, he resigned the beadleship, and very soon after the other place also, by reason of the oaths to government, with which he could not conscientiously comply. He continued a nonjuror to the last, much at the expence of his worldly interest; for, on that account he refused several preferments which would have been of great advantage and very agreeable to him. So many indeed were the offers made, that his motives for refusal must have been urgent and conscientious. His enemies took some pains to bring a charge of inconsistency against him, by publishing <; A Vindication of those who take the Oath of Allegiance to his present majesty.“This he wrote when a very young man, in king William’s reign, but, as he very justly remarks, it proves no more than that he had viewed the question in another light, and surely must be accounted sincere, when we find him refusing so many profitable situations. In the latter part of his life he appears to have resided in Edmund-hall, preparing and publishing his various works, but not, as will be noticed in our catalogue of them, without interruption from what he thought the candid declaration of his political sentiments clashing with those of the university, and of the nation at large. This, in one or two instances, occasioned serious prosecutions, and considering himself as an injured man, he was not sparing in his censures of some of his most learned contemporaries, who, in their turns, were equally disrespectful in their notices of him. With these disputes the present age has little to do, and it owes too much to the industry of Hearne to trace his failings with anxious care, or treat them with the animosity that might have been natural in his own times. How useful his industry was, may be estimated from the number of valuable pieces which he hid in public or private repositories, of no utility even to the possessors of them, for want of persons who have perseverance enough to travel through the drudgery, or spirit enough to hazard the expence of printing them. By a life of the greatest regularity and ceconomy, Hearne was enabled in a great measure to prevent this injury to literature: and his endeavours were assisted by the encouragement of many noble and opulent patrons. It might therefore be matter of surprize, though no reflection upon his character, that a sum amounting to upwards of 1000l. was found in his room after his decease. His death, which happened June 10, 1735, was occasioned by a severe cold and a succeeding fever, which, being improperly treated, terminated in a violent flux. He was buried in the church yard of St. Peter’s in the East, where is erected over his remains a stone with an inscription written by himself:” Here lyeth the body of Thomas Hearne, M. A. who studied and preserved Antiquities. He died June 10, 1735, aged 55 years. Deut. xxxii. 7. * Remember the clays of old, consider the years of many generations; ask thy father, and he will shew thee, thy elders, and they will tell thee.' Job viii. 8, 9, 10. “Enquire I pray thee,' &c.” -This stone was repaired by Dr. Rawlinson in 1754. As the value of Hearne' s labours have been much underrated, and indeed grossly misrepresented, in the Biog. Britannica, and its servile copyists, we shall make no apology for adding the sentiments of his Oxford biographer, Mr. Huddesford: “Since that kind of study pursued by Mr. Hearne is more general now than it was in his time, to praise and speak well of him will of consequence be more safe, as it will be better received. His chief excellence, so often celebrated, but to the misfortune of learning so little imitated, was unwearied industry, which began almost with his life, and continued in full vigour till within a few weeks of his death. By means of this industry, and of a good disposition, he raised himself from the lowest state of dependence to a station of ease and honour. When his worth was in some sort acknowledged, by the offer of the best offices the university had to bestow, he manifested uncommon integrity in declining those offers, because the acceptance of them appeared to him inconsistent with the principles which he had adopted. If there was a singularity in his exterior behaviour or manner which was the jest of the man of wit and polite life, he secretly enjoyed the approbation, favour, and correspondence of the” greatest men of the age. Succeeding times have given testimony to his abilities, which the age in which he lived so lightly esteemed. It is, at least, not flattery, to consider him as a pattern to all whose duty it is, as well as inclination, to unite much learning and erudition, with the greatest plainness and simplicity of manners."

Hearne left his ms collections by will to Dr. William. Bedford, of whom Dr. Rawlinson purchased them for an hundred guineas, and at his death bequeathed them with his own Mss. to the Bodleian library. Among other injurious reports at the time of Hearne’s death, one was, that he died a Roman catholic, an imputation on the nonjurors not very uncommon at that time, but which, as to Hearne, has been fully disproved in a letter printed by Mr. Huddesford in his life. Hearne had no more of popery than antiquaries in general, who can never forgive the injuries done to libraries at the time of the reformation.

, an English historian, was born 1629, in London, where his father, who was the king’s cutler, lived. He was educated at Westminster-school, and was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1646. In 1648 he was ejected thence by the parliament-visitors, for his adherence to the royal cause lived upon his patrimony till it was almost spent and then married, which prevented his return to Christ Church at the restoration, where he might have qualified himself for one of the learned professions. To maintain his family he now commenced author, and corrector of the press. He died of a consumption and dropsy, at London, in August 1664, and left several children to the parish. He published, 1. “A brief Chronicle of the late intestine War in the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, &c.” 1661, 8vo, afterwards enlarged by the author, and completed from 1637 to 1663, in four parts, 1663, in a thick 8vo; a work which, on account of the numerous portraits, rather than its intrinsic value, bears a very high price. To this edition was again added a continuation from 1663 to 1675 by John Philips, nephew by the mother to Milton, 1676, folio. 2. “Elegy upon Dr. Thomas Fuller,” 1661. 3. “The glories and magnificent triumphs of the blessed Restoration of king Charles II. &c. 1662,” 8vo. 4. “Flagellum or, the Life and Death, Birth and Burial, of Oliver Cromwell, the late usurper,” 1663, of which a third edition came out with additions in 1665, 8vo. 5. “Elegy on Dr. Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln,” 1662. 6. “A new book of loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, who have endured the pains and terrors of death, arraignment, &c. for the maintenance of the just and legal government of these kingdoms both in church and state,” 1663, 12mo. 7. “Brief but exact Survey of the Affairs of the United Netherlands, &.c.” 12mo. Heath, as a historian, is entitled to little praise on account of style or argument, but his works contain many lesser particulars illustrative of the characters and manners of the times, which are interesting to a curious inquirer. In the meanest historian there will always be found some facts, of which there will be no cause to doubt the truth, and which yet will not be found in the best; and Heath, who perhaps had nothing but pamphlets and newspapers to compile from, frequently relates facts that throw light upon the history of those times, which Clarendon, though he drew every thing from the most authentic records, has omitted.

, an ingenious English divine, and miscellaneous writer, descended of an ancient Derbyshire family, whose property was injured during the civil wars, was born Dec. 16, 1721, at Barrow upon Soar, in Leicestershire. His father was then curate of that place, but afterwards had the vicarage of Sileby in that county, and the rectory of Morton in Derbyshire. He died in 1765. His mother was a daughter of Simon Ockley, Arabic professor at Cambridge. He passed the first fourteen years at home with his father, who taught him Greek and Latin, but in April 1736, sent him to the public school of Chesterfield, where he continued five years under the rev. William Burrow, a learned man, and a very skilful teacher. In April 1741 r he was admitted sizar of Jesus college, Cambridge, and in Jan. 1745, took his degree of A. B. and soon after entered intered into holy orders. In March 1748 he undertook the cure of St. Margaret’s, Leicester, and the year after waspresented to the small vicarage of Barkby, in the neighbourhood, which, with his curacy (worth 50l. yearly) he says made him “well to live.” In July 1748, he took his master’s degree, and at the same time withdrew his name from college, having in view a marriage with miss Margaret Mompesson, a Nottinghamshire la;iy of good family, which tie accomplished in August 1750, and whose fortune, in his estimation, made him independent. This lady died April 12, 1790.

These were published without his name, but his pamphlets on the Middietonian controversy attracted the notice of Dr. War-burton, who discovered the author, and sending him his compliments, offered him the place of assistant preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, with the stipend of half a guinea for each sermon. This was little, but he accepted it, as affording him an opportunity of living in London, and cultivating learned society. He accordingly removed to town in June 1753, and became one of a club of literati who met once a week, as he says, “to talk learnedly for three or four hours.” The members were Drs. Jortin, Birch, and Maty, Mr. Welstein, Mr. De Missy, and one or two more.

On the appearance of lord Bolingbroke’s works, he published in 1755, “A Sketch of lord Bollngbroke’s philosophy,” the object of which was to vindicate the moral attributes of the Deity. In the latter end of the same year, came out, “The use of Reason asserted in matters of Religion, in answer to a Sermon preached by Dr Patten at Oxford, July 13, 1755,” whom he act used of being a Hutchinsonian; and, the year after, a Defence of this against Dr. Patten, who had replied. Dr. Home also, a friend to Dr. Patten, animadverted on Mr. Ht athcote’s pamphlet: but it seems not to have been long before all their sentiments concurred; at least, the Hutchinsonians could not blame Mr. Heathcote more than he blamed himself. “When,” says he, “the heat of controversy was over, I could not look into them (the pamphlets) myself, without disgust and pain. The spleen of Middleton, and the petulancy of Warburton, had too much infected me.” This candid acknowledgment, however, seems to justify Mr. Jones’s language in his life of bishop Home. “A Mr. Heathcote, a very intemperate and unmanly writer, published a pamphlet against Dr. Patten, laying himself open, both in the matter and the manner of it, to the criticisms of Dr. Patten, who will appear to have been greatly his superior as a scholar and a divine, to any candid reader who shall review that controversy. Dr. Patten could not with any propriety be said to have written on the Hutchinsonian plan; but Mr. Heathcote found it convenient to charge him with it, &c.” Warburton, too, who had complimented Mr. Heathcote to his face, speaks of him in a letter to Dr. Hurd (in 1757) as one whose “matter is rational, but superficial and thin spread.” He adds, “he will prove as great a scribbler as Comber. They are both sensible, and both have reading. The difference is, that the one has so much vivacity as to make him ridiculous; the other so little as to be unentertaining. Comber’s excessive vanity may be matched by H.'s pride; which I think is a much worse quality.” In this censure the reader may perceive somewhat that will recoil upon the writer, but Heathcote, we see, lived to acknowledge what was amiss, which Warburton did not.

In the summer of 1785 he left London, and resided for the remainder of his life principally at Southwell, of which., church he became, in 1788, vicar-general. He died May 28, 1795. He left a son, Ralph Heathcote, esq. his majesty’s minister plenipotentiary to the elector of Cologne, and to the landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, who died in Germany in 1801.

, a celebrated physician and philologer of Leipsic, was born at Neuenhoff in the diocese of Neustadt, in 1702. In 1719, he went to the university of Jena, but, not finding a subsistence there, removed to Leipsic. He piassed the greater part of his life in the latter university, and finally died there in 1756. Besides his academical and physiological tracts, he published, in 1739, 1, “Carmen de usu partinm,” or Physiologia metrica, in 8vd. 2. “De homine sano et ajgroto Carmen, sistens Physiologiam, Pathologiam, Hygienen, Therapiam, materiam medicam, cum pnefatione deantiqua medicina,” Leipsic, 1753, 8vo. 3. “Oratio de Antiquitatibus Romanis per Africam repertis,” 1733, 4to. 4. “Museum Richterianum,” &c. Leips. 1743. And, 5. A posthumous work, entitled “Palasologia therapirc,” Halae, 1779, 8vo. This author had also an elder brother, John Christian Hebenstreit, who was a celebrated divine, and profoundly versed in the Hebrew language. Ernesti has published an eulogium of each, in his “OpuscuhiOratoria.”

, a learned and amiable English clergyman, the second son of Thomas Heber, &sq. of Marton-hall in the deanery of Craven, one of the oldest families in that district of Yorkshire, was born at Marton, Sept. 4, 1728, O. S. He had his school education under the rev. Mr. Wilkinson at Skipton, and the rev. Thomas Hunter at Blackburn, Lancashire, afterwards vicar of Weaverham, Cheshire, author of “Observations on Tacitus,” and other works of credit. From Blackburn he ‘removed to the freeschool at Manchester, and on March 4, 1746--7, was entered a commoner of Brazen-nose college; where his elder’ brother, Richard Heber, was at that time a gentleman commoner. In October 1752, his father died, and his mother in the month of March following. He was admitted to the degree of M. A. July 5, 1753, and chosen fellow of the college November 15 following, having previously in that year been ordained deacon by bishop Trevor, Match 18, and priest by bishop Hoadly, Nov. 1, to qualify himself for the fellowship founded in 1533 by William Clifton, subdean of York, for which he was a candidate. He had private pupils when he was only B. A. and was afterwards in much esteem as a public tutor, particularly of gentlemen commoners, having at one time more than twenty of that rank under his care. In July 1766, his brother died, and, as he left no male issue, Mr. Heber succeeded to a considerable estate at Hodnet in Shropshire, which was bequeathed in 1752 to his mother, Elizabeth Heber, by Henrietta, only surviving daughter and heiress of sir Thomas Vernon of Hodnet, bart. who chose for her heir the daughter, in preference to the son, of her niece Elizabeth wife of Richard Atherton, esq. ancestor of Henrietta wife of Thomas lord Liftbrd. Dec. 5, 1766, he was inducted into the rectory of Chelsea, the presentation to which had, several years before, been purchased for him by his brother and another kind relative. He resigned his fellowship July 1, 1767. Finding the rectorial house at Chelsea bad and unfinished, he in part rebuilt and greatly improved the whole, without asking for dilapidations, as the widow of his predecessor, Sloane Elsmere, D. D. was not left in affluent circumstances. In 1770, he exchanged Chelsea for the Upper Mediety of Malpas, Cheshire, into which he was inducted, July 25, on the presentation of William. Drake, esq. of Ainersham, Bucks; whose eldest son, the late William Drake, esq. had been one of his pupils in Brazen-nose college. In the long incumbency, and latterly non-residence, of his predecessor, the honourable and rev. Henry Moore, D. D. chaplain to queen Anue, and son of the earl of Drogheda, who was instituted to Malpas, Nov. 26, 1713, the parsonage was become ruinous. Mr. Heber therefore built an excellent new house, on a new site, which commands an extensive view of Flintshire and Denbighshire, and some other counties.

On the death of lord James Beauclerc, who held the rectory of Hodnet in commendam with the bishopric of Hereford, Mr. Heber was instituted to that living, of which he was patron, holding it with Malpas, from which it is distant about fourteen miles. In March 1303, he succeeded to the family estate in Yorkshire by the death of his brothers widow, Mrs. Heber of Weston, Northamptonshire, who held it in jointure. In the summer of that year, retaining still the vigour and faculties of younger days, he was present at a very interesting sight, when his second son, Mr. Reginald Heber, who two years before obtained the chancellor’s prize at Oxford for Latin verse, by his very spirited and classical “Carmen Sceculare,” spoke, with unbounded applause, a second prize poem, the admirable verses on-“Palestine,” since published, Mr. Heber died Jan. 10, 1804. In April 1773, he married Mary, third daughter and co-heiress of Martin Baylie, M. A. rector of Kelsall and Wrentbam in Suffolk. She died Jan. 30, 1774, leaving an infant son, Richard Heber, esq. afterwards M. A. of Brazen-nose college, 1797, a gentleman well known in the literary world, as the judicious collector of one of the most extensive private libraries in the kingdom, and whose liberality in assisting men of literature with its valuable contents, has been often publicly acknowledged, and cannot be too highly commended. InJuly 1782, Mr. Reginald Heber married Mary, eldest daughter of Cuthbert Allanson, D. D. of Brazen-nose, rector of Wath in Yorkshire, who was for some years before his death chaplain to the house of commons. By this lady he left a daughter Mary, and two sons, Reginald and Thomas Cuthbert, commoners of Brazen-nose college. Mr. Heber, the father, although a man of taste and learning, published little. He has, however, some elegant English verses addressed to the king, on his accession to the throne, among the Oxford poems on that occasion, in 1761. The following year he published, but without his name, tf An Elegy written among the Tombs in Westminster Abbey," printed for Dodsley which was afterwards inserted, without his knowledge, in Pearch’s continuation of Dodsley’s Poems. The lines are moral, plaintive, and religious.

To this character, part of a sketch of his life prefixed to his “Commentaries, published in 1802, much might be added. No physician, indeed, was ever more highly or more deservedly respected. His various and extensive learning, his modesty in the use of it, his freedom from jealousy or envy, his independent spirit, his simple yet dignified manners, and his exemplary discharge of all the relative duties, are topics on which all who knew him delight to dwell. Mr. Cole, who bestows very high praise on him, an article in which that gentleman was in general penurious, gives us the following anecdote of Dr. Heberden, which corresponds with the above account of his reverence for religion.” Understanding that Dr. Con. Middleton had composed a book on the ‘ Inefficacy of Prayer,’ he called upon his widow soon after the Dr.‘s death, and asked her if she was not in possession of such a tract? She answered that she was; he then asked her, if any bookseller had been in treaty with her for it? She said that a bookseller had offered her 50l. for it. He then demanded, if there was a duplicate ’ No' upon that he requested to see it, and she immediately brgught it, and put it into his hands. The Dr. holding it in one hand, and giving it a slight perusal, threw it into the fire, and with the other hand gave her a 50l. note.“This anecdote Mr. Cole had from Dr. Newton, bishop of Bristol. It is certain that Dr. Middleton’s widow bequeathed her husband’s remaining Mss. to Dr. Heberden, from which, in, 1761, he obliged the learned world with a curious tract, entitled” Dissertations de servili Medicorum conditione Appendix,“&c. with a short but elegant advertisement of his own. In 1763, a most valuable edition of the” Supplices Mulieres“of Euripides, with the notes of Mr. Markland, was printed entirely at the expence of Dr. Heberden; and, in 1763, the same very learned commentator presented his notes on the two Jphigenix,” Doctissimo, & quod longe prastantius est, humanissimo viro Wilhelmo Heberden, M. D. arbitratu ejus vel cremandtE, vel in publicum emittendae post obiturn scriptoris,“&c. He wrote the epitaph in Dorking church on Mr. Markland, who had” bequeathed to him all his books and papers. One of these, a copy of Mill’s Greek Testament in folio, the margin filled with notes, was kindly lent by Dr. Heberden, “with that liberal attention to promote the cause of virtue and religion which was one of his many well-known excellences,” to the publisher of the last edition of Mr. Bowyer’s “Conjectures on the New Testament, 1782,” 4to. To Dr. Heberden Mr. Bowyer also bequeathed his “little, cabinet of coins, a few books specifically, and any others, which the doctor might chuse to accept.” To Dr. H.'s other publications, we may add his “Αντιθηριακα, an Essay on Mithridatium and Theriaca,” 1745, 3vo. He was also a writer in the “Athenian Letters,” and in his early life contributed some notes to Grey’s “Hudibras,” as acknowledged by that editor in his preface.

Dr. Heberden married, Jan. 19, 1760, Mary, eldest daughter of William Woilastou, esq. by whom he had five sons and three daughters, who all died before him, except Dr. William Heberden, one of his majesty’s puysiciuns, and Mary, the eldest daughter, married to the rev. George Jenyns, prebendary of Ely. His son published in 1802, a Latin and English edition of his father’s last work, entitled “Gulielmi Heberden Commentarii de Morborum Historia et Curatione,” in 8vo. These faithful records of experience are related with perfect candour, and without any admixture of hypothesis: the powers of medicine, however, are estimated with that moderation which arises from the scepticism of long life and practice, and which some have thought carried a little too far in this work; yet a work, like this, formed on the most accurate observation, cannot be too often referred to by medical practitioners and medical writers, both, as a source of instruction and as a model.

, a civilian and statesman of some note, was educated both at Magdalen-hall and college, Oxford, where he commenced M. A. May 31, 1673, and LL. D. June 26, 1675. Engaging in the profession of the civil law, he acquired considerable eminence, and in March 1686 was appointed chancellor and vicar-general of Rochester, by a patent, for life, probably upon the resignation of sir William Trumball, who was going as ambassador to the Ottoman court. This promotion was soon after followed by his acquisition of the mastership of the faculties, and the dignity of judge of the high court of admiralty, of which sir Richard Raines was dispossessed, and on whose demise some years afterwards, he became judge of the prerogative court of Canterbury. His progress in political life was equally successful, for he received the honour of knighthood, and served in parliament for Orford in Suffolk in 1698, for Malmsbury in Wilts in 1701 and 1702; for Calne, in 1702; and for two Cornish boroughs from 1705 to 1713. He was advanced to be one of the principal secretaries of state, Nov. 5, 1700, under king William, and again, May 2, I 1 ) 02, under queen Anne. It was he that drew up the much-debated act of abjuration in 1701. In parliament, it is said, he voted with the whigs or tories, as his interest prompted, but his attachment was to the tories, who procured his promotion to the office of secretary of state. The whigs, however, prevailed on queen Anne to dismiss him from tliat trust in 1706, with a proviso that he should be judge of the prerogative court on the death of sir Richard Raines, which, we have already said, he lived to enjoy, although for a short time. He died at Richmond, June 10, 1714.

, one of the early reformers, was born in 14l>5, at Etlinggen, in the marquisate of Baden; and educated at Friburg, where he took his master of arts degree. Thence he went to Basil, studied divinity, and commenced doctor of philosophy and divinity about 1520. Having imbibed the principles of the reformed religion, he inculcated it with great success, as preacher in the church at Mentz, until the violence of persecution obliged him to go to Strasburgh in 1523, where, under the sanction of the senate, he co-operated with Capito and Bucer in the reformation. Here he married in 1533 In 1543 Herman, bishop of Cologn, wishing to promote the cause in his diocese, invited Bucer and Hedio, who were very successful, until driven away by the emperor and the Spaniards. Hedio made his escape with much difficulty, and returned to Strasburgh, where he composed most of his works, and where he died Oct. 17, 1552. His original works, enumerated by Melchior Adam, are theological, historical, and philological; besides which, he was editor of some parts of the Fathers.

, a celebrated botanist, was born Oct. 8, 17 So, at Cronstadt, in Transylvania, where his fatbi-r was one of the magistrates. After the first rudiments of domestic education at home, he studied for four years at the public school of his native town. On the death of his father in 1747, he went for further improvement to the university of Presburg in Hungary, where he remained two years, and then proceeded toZittau in Upper Lusatia. In 1752 he removed to Leipsic, where his diligence and talents, as well as his personal character, procured him the favour and friendship of the celebrated Ludwig in particular, by whose lectures of various kinds, as well as those of Hebenstreit, Boehmer, and others, he rapidly and abundantly profited. In 1756, he was taken into the house of professor Bose, to assist him in the demonstration of plants-in his botanical lectures, as well as in the care of patients at the infirmary; and it is supposed that this engagement was full as advantageous to the master as to the pupil. Having at length finished his studies, he was defcirons of settling as a physician in Ills native place, but was prevented by an exclusive law in favour of such as are educated in some Austrian school. In 1759 he took his degree of doctor of physic at Leipsic, and was induced to establish himself at Chemnitz. He was now so far master of his own time, that he found himself able to alleviate the labours of his profession by almost daily attention to his favourite studies. His morning hours in summer, from five till breakfast-time, were spent in the fields and woods, and his evenings in the investigation of what he had collected, or else in the care of a little garden of his own. To pursue with success his inquiries, he found it necessary, at forty years of age, to learn drawing, which enabled him to publish some of the most curious and authentic botanical figures. The first and greatest fruit of Hedwig’s labours, was the determination of the mule and female Mowers of mosses, the theory of which was h'rst clearly detailed by him. He also first beheld the bladder-like anther, of the Liuneeaii Biyum pulvinaliun, discharging its pollen, on the 17th of January, 177O. He was already satisfied that what Linnteus, misled by Dillenius against his own previous opinion, had taken for anthers, were in fact the capsules of mosses, and produced real (seed. A history of his discoveries was published in a German periodical work at Leipsic in 1779. In 1782 appeared his valuable “Fuiuiamentum Historise Nuturalis Muscorum Frondosorum,” a baudsome Latin quarto, in two parts, with 20 coloured microscopical plates. The earliest account given of Hedwig’s opinions in England, was from the communications of the late professor J. Sibthorp, who had just then visited him, to Dr. Smith, in 1786, and is annexed to a translation of Limiaeus’s “Dissertation on the Sexes of Plants,” published that year. Hedwig lost his first wife in 1776, and again married a very accomplished lady the following year, who was, like the former, a native of Leipsic. By her persuasion he removed to Leipsic in 1781, and the following year the work above mentioned was there published. The same subject is happily followed up in his “Theoria generationis et fructificationis plant arum cryptogamicarum Linnaet,” published at Petersburgh in 1784. This work gained its author the prize from that academy in 1783, of 100 gold ducats. In it the fructification and germination of mosses is further illustrated, and a view is also taken of the fructification of the other cryptogam ic families, the author being very naturally desirous of extending his discoveries throughout that obscure tribe of plants. A new and encreased edition of this work appeared in 1798.

, a painter of considerable fame, when there were few who deserved it, was born at Ghent, in 1534, the son of John de Heere, the best statuary of his time; and Anne Smyters, who had the reputation of being a most surprising pain tress of landscapes in miniature. Van Mander gives almost an incredible account of one performance of that female artist. From such parents De Heere had a fair prospect of gaining every necessary part of instruction; and having under their direction learned to design and handle the pencil with ease and freedom, he was placed as a disciple with Francis Fioris. With that master he improved very expeditiously, and on quitting his school travelled to France, where he was employed for some years by the queen-mother, in drawing designs for tapestry. At his return to his native city, he painted a great number of portraits with applause; and was remarkable for having so retentive a memory, that if he save any person but once, he could paint his likeness as strong as if he had his model before his eyes. On the shutters of the altar-piece in the church of St. Peter at Ghent, he painted the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, in which the draperies are extremely admired; and in the church of St. John he painted an altar-piece representing the Resurrection.

His manner was stiff, resembling that of his master; but m the colouring of the heads of his portraits there appears a great deal of nature and clearness; and he is very commendable for his high finishing, as welt as for giving a fullness to his draperies. This artist resided for several years in England, where many of his portraits of the nobility are still preserved, and much esteemed, such as lady Jane Grey, lord Darnley husband of Mary queen of Scotland, Frances duchess of Suffolk, &c. and at Longleate there is a large picture of a gentleman, his wife and family, consisting of eight persons. Soon after he came to England, he painted a naked man with different-coloured clothes lying besides him, and a pair of sheers in his-hand, as a satire on our fickleness in fashion it is illustrative of a verse by Andrew de Borde, who in his “Introduction to Knowledge,” has prefixed to the first chapter a naked man with these lines:

, a very singular adventurer, was the son of a clergyman, and a native of Zurich, in Switzerland, where he married, but left his country in consequence of an intrigue. Having had an opportunity of visiting the principal cities of Europe, he acquired a taste for elegant and refined pleasures, which by degrees qualified him for the management of public amusements. In 1708, when he was near fifty years old, he came to England on a negotiation from the Swiss at Zurich; but failing in his embassy, he entered as a private soldier in the guards for protection. By his sprightly engaging conversation, and insinuating address, he soon became a favourite with our young people of fashion, from whom he obtained the appellation of “the Swiss count,” by which name he is noticed in the “Tatler.” He had the address to procure a subscription, with which in 1709 he was enabled to furnish out the opera of “Thomyris,” which was written in English, and performed at the queen’s theatre in the Haymarket, with such success, that he g ined by this performance alone 500 guineas. The judicious remarks he made on several detects in the conduct of our operas in general, and the hints he threw out for improving those entertainments, soon established his character as a theatrical critic. Appeals were made to his judgment; and some very magnificent and elegant decorations, introduced upon the stage in consequence of his advice, gave such satisfaction to George II. who was fond of operas, that his majesty was pleased from that time to countenance him, and he soon obtained the chief management of the opera-house in the Haymarket. He then undertook to improve another species’of diversion, not less agreeable to the king, the masquerades, and over these he always presided at the king’s theatre. He was likewise appointed master of the revels. The nobility now caressed htm so much, and had such an opinion of his taste, that all splendid and elegant entertainments given by them upon particular occasions, and all private assemblies by subscription, were submitted to his direction, for which he was liberally rewarded.

From the emoluments of these several employments, he gained a regular and considerable income; amounting, it is said, in some years to 5000l. which he spent with much liberality, particularly in the maintenance of perhaps somewhat too luxurious a table; so that it may be said he raised an income, but never a fortune. His charity was so great, that after a successful masquerade he has been known to give away several hundred pounds at a time. u You know poor objects of distress better than I do,“he would frequently say to the father of the gentleman who furnished this anecdote,” Be so kind as to give away this money for me." This well-known liberality, perhaps, contributed much to his carrying on that diversion with so little opposition as he met with.

"a monster of a fowl, an eminent person, who wss a man of

The late facetious duke of Montagu (the memorable contriver of the bottle-conjuror at the theatre in the Haymarket) gave an entertainment at the Devfl tavern, Templebar, to several of the nobility and gentry, to whom he imparted his plot. Heidegger was invited, and a few hours after dinner was made drunk, and laid insensible upon a bed. A profound sleep ensued; when the late Mrs. Salmon’s daughter was introduced, who took a mould from his face in plaster of Paris. From this a. mask was made, and a few days before the next masquerade (at which the king promised to be present, with the countess of Yarmouth) the duke made application to Heidegger’s valet de chambre, to know what suit of clothes he was likely to wear; and then procuring a similar dress, and a person of the same staturehe gave him his instructions. On the evening of the masquerade, as soon as his majesty was seated (who was always known by the conductor of the entertainment and the officers of the court, though concealed by his dress from the company), Heidegger, as usual, ordered the music to play “God save the King;” but his back was no sooner turned, than the false Heidegger ordered them to strike up “Charly over the Water.” The whole company were instantly thunderstruck, and all the courtiers not in the plot were thrown into a stupid consternation. Heidegger flew to the music-gallery, stamped and raved, and accused the mumusicians of drunkenness, or of being set on by some secret enemy to ruin him. The king and the countess laughed so immoderately, that they hazarded a discovery. While Heidegger stayed in the gallery, “God save the King” was the tune; but when, after setting matters to rights, he retired to one of the dancing-rooms, to observe if decorum was kept by the company, the counterfeit stepping forward, and placing himself upon the floor of the theatre, just in front of the music gallery, called out in a most audible voice, imitating Heidegger, and asked them if he had not just told them to play “Charly over the Water?” A pause ensued; the musicians, who knew his character, in their turn thought him either drunk or mad; but, as he continued his vociferation, “Charly” was played again. At this repetition of the supposed affront, some of the officers of the guards, who always attended upon these occasions, were for ascending the gallery, and kicking the musicians out; but the late duke of Cumberland, who could hardly contain himself, interposed. The company were thrown into great confusion. “Shame! Shame!” resounded from all parts, and Heidegger once more flew in a violent rage to that part of the theatre facing the gallery. Here the duke of Montagu, artfully addressing himself to him, told him “the king was in a violent passion; that his best way was to go instantly and make an apology, for certainly the musicians were mad, and afterwards to discharge them.” Almost at the same instant hq ordered the false Heidegger to do the same. The scene now became truly comic in the circle before the king. Heidegger had no sooner made a genteel apology for the insolence of his musicians, but the false Heidegger advanced, and in a plaintive tone cried out, “Indeed, Sire, it was not my fault, but that devil’s in my likeness.” Poor Heidegger turned round, stared, staggered, grew pale, and could not utter a word. The duke then humanely whispered in his ear the sum of his plot, and the counterfeit was ordered to take off his mask. Here ended the frolic; but Heidegger swore he would never attend any public amusement, if that witch the wax-work woman did not break the mould, and melt down the mask before his face.

Being once at supper with a large company, when a question was debated, which nation of Europe had the greatest ingenuity; to the surprise of all present, he claimed that character for the Swiss, and appealed to himself for the truth of it. “I was born a Swiss,” said he, “and came to England without a farthing, where I have found means to gain 5000l. a year, and to spend it. Now I defy the most able Englishman to go to Switzerland, and, either to gain that income, or to spend it there.” He died Sept. 4, 1749, at the advanced age of ninety years, at his house a: Richmond, in Surrey, where he was buried. He left behind him one natural daughter, miss Pappet, who was married Sept. 2, 1750, to captain (afterwards admiral sir Peter) Denis. Part of this lady’s fortune was a house at the north-west corner of Queen -square, Ormond -street, which sir Peter afterwards sold to the late Dr. Campbell, and purchased a seat in Kent, pleasantly situated near Westram, then called Valence, but now (by its present proprietor, the earl of Hillsborough) Hill Park.

, a German lawyer, was born at Eisemberg in 1681, and trained in the study of philosophy and law. He became professor of philosophy at Hall, in 1710, and of law in. 1721, with the title of counsellor. In 1724 he was invited to Franeker; and three years after, the king of Prussia influenced him to accept the law-professorship at Franc fort upon the Oder. Here he continued till 1733, when the same prince almost forced him to resume the chair at Hall, where he remained till his death, in 1741, although he had strong invitations from Denmark, Holland, &c. His principal works (for they are numerous) are, 1. “Antiquitatum Romanorum Jurisprudentiam illustrantium syntagma;” the best edition of which is the fifth, published at Lewarden, in 1777. 2. “Elementa Juris Civilis secundum ordinem Institutionum & Pandectarum,” 2 vols. 8vo. 3. “Elementa Philosophic Rationalis & Moralis, quibus pnemissa historia Philosophical' This is reckoned a good abridgment of logic and morality. 4.” Historia Juris Civilis, Romani ac Germanici.“5.” Elementa Juris Naturae & Gentium,“which was translated into English by Dr. Turnbull. 6, ”Fundamenta styli cultioris;“a work of his youth, but much approved, and often reprinted, with notes by Gesner and others, Also several academic dissertations upon various subjects. His works were published collectively at Geneva in 1744, and form 8 vols. in 4to. His brother, John Michael, deacon of the church of St. Peter and St. Paul at Goslar, who died in 1722, wrote many works of reputation in his country, among which is his” Account of the Antiquities of Goslar and the neighbouring places;" and his view of the ancient and modern Greek church.

, a child greatly celebrated for the wonderfully premature developemerit of his talents, but whose history will require strong faith, was born at Lubeck, Feb. 6, 1721, and died mere June 27, 1725, after having displayed the most amazing proofs of intellectual powers. He could talk at ten months old, and scarcely had completed the first year of his life, when he already knew and recited the principal facts contained in the five books of Moses, with a number of verses on the creation; at thirteen months he knew the history of the Old Testament, and the New at fourteen in his thirtieth month, the history of the nations of antiquity, geography, anatomy, the use of maps, and nearly 8000 Latin words. Before the end of his third year, he was well acquainted with the history of Denmark, and the genealogy of the crowned heads of Europe; in his fourth year he had learned the doctrines of divinity, with their proofs from the Bible; ecclesiastical history; the institutes; 200 hymns, with their tunes; 80 psalms; entire chapters of the Old and New Testament; 1500 verses and sentences from ancient Latin classics; almost the* whole Orbis Pictus of Comenius, whence he had derived all his knowledge of the Latin language arithmetic; the history of the European empires and kingdoms; could point out in the maps whatever place he was asked for, or passed by in his journeys, and recite all the ancient and modern historical anecdotes relating to it. His stupendous memory caught and retained every word he was told; his ever active imagination used whatever he saw or heard, instantly to apply some examples or sentences from the Bible, geography, profane or ecclesiastical history, the “Orbis Pictus,” or from ancient classics. At the court of Denmark he delivered twelve speeches without once faltering; and underwent public examinations on a variety of subjects, especially the bistory of Denmark. He spoke German, Latin, French, and Low Dutch, and was exceedingly good-natured and well-behaved, but of a most tender and delicate bodily constitution; never ate any solid food, but chiefly subsisted on nurses milk, not being weaned till within a very few months of his death, at which time he was not quite four years old. There is a dissertation on this child, published by M. Martini at Lubeck, in 1730, where the author attempts to assign the natural causes for the astonishing capacity of this great man in embryo, who was just shewn to the world, and snatched away. This was addressed to M. Christ, de Schoeneich, the child’s tutor, who had published an account of him, and is given entire in vol. V. of “The Republic of Letters.” Schoeneich’s account was republished so lately as 1778 or 1779 in German.

, a celebrated scholar and critic, professor of politics and history at Leyden, and librarian of the university there, was born at Ghent, in Flanders, May 1SO, of an illustrious family, who had possessed the first places in the magistracy of that town. He was frequently removed in the younger part of his life. He began his studies at the Hague, and afterwards went with his parents into Zealand, where he was instructed in polite literature and philosophy. He soon learned the outlines of morality and politics, but did not relish logic, and had an unconquerable aversion to the niceties of grammar. He discovered early a strong propensity to poetry, and began to make verses before he knew any thing of prosody or the rules of art. He composed a regular elegy at ten years of age, upon the death of a play-fellow; and there are several epigrams and little poems of his, written when he was not above twelve, which shew a great deal of genius and facility. He is represented, however, as having been somewhat indolent, and not likely to make any progress in Greek Und Latin learning; on which account his father sent him, at fourteen years of age, to study the law in the university of Franeker. But from that time, as if he had been influenced by a spirit of contradK*:on, nothing would please him but classics; and he applies inmself there to Greek and Latin authors, as obstinately as he had rejected them in Zealand. He afterwards removed to Leyden, where he became a pupil of Joseph Scaliger; and was obliged to the encouragement and care of that great man for the perfection to which he afterwards arrived in literature, and which at the beginning of his life there was so little reason to expect. He published an edition of “Silius Italicus,” in 1600, professedly taken from an ancient ms. and added notes of his own, which he called “Crepundia Siliana,” to shew that they were written when he was extremely young. This edition was reprinted at Cambridge, 1646, 12mo. Heinsius was made Greek professor at eighteen, and afterwards succeeded Scaliger in the professorship of politics and history. When he was chosen librarian to the university, he pronounced a Latin oration, afterwards published, in which he described the duties of a librarian, and the good order and condition in which a library should be kept. Being a great admirer of the moral doctrine of the stoics, he wrote an elegant oration in praise of the stoic philosophy. He died Feb. 25, 1655, after having distinguished himself as a critic by his labours upon Silius Italicus, Theocritus, Hesiod, Seneca, Homer, Hesychius, Theophrastus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ovid, Livy, Terence, Horace, Prudentius, Maximus Tyrius, &c. He published two treatises “De Satira Horatiana,” which Balzac affirms to be masterpieces. He also wrote poems in various languages, which, have been often printed, and always admired. He was the author of several prose works, some of which were of the humourous and satirical cast; as “Laus Asini,” “Laus Pediculi,” &c.

The learned have all joined in their praises of Heinsius. Gerard Vossius says that he was a very great man; and calls him the ornament of the muses and the graces. Casaubon admires him equally for his parts and learning. Pareus calls him the Varro of his age. Barthius ranks him with the first writers. Bochart pronounces him a truly great and learned man and Selden speaks of him as “tarn severiorum quam amceniorum literarum sol” a light to guide us in our gay as well as severe pursuits in letters. Some, however, have thought that, he was not so well formed for criticism; and Le Clerc, in his account of the Amsterdam edition of Bentley’s “Horace,” says that though doubtless a learned man, who had spent his life in the study of criticism, yet if we may judge by his Horace, he was by no means happy in his conjectures; but he speaks much more advantageously of his son Nicolas Heinsius; and agreed, with the rest of the world, that though not so learned a man as his father, he had a better taste for criticism. Daniel Heinsius was, however, highly honoured abroad as well as at home; and received uncommon marks of respect from foreign potentates. Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, gave him a place among his counsellors of state: the republic of Venice made him a knight of their order of St. Mark: and pope Urban VIII. was such an admirer of his fine talents and consummate learning, that he made him great offers if he would come to Rome; “to rescue that city from barbarism,” as the pontiff is said to have expressed himself.

, son of the preceding, and more eminent both in the literary and the political world, was born at Leyden, July 1620, and at first educated under his father’s inspection. In early life he formed an intimacy with his learned contemporaries John Frederick Gronovius, Vincent Fabricius, and Isaac Vossius. The latter accommodated him with the Mss. of Ovid, which were in the library of his grandfather, John Gerard Vossius, and his attention to this author terminated at last in an excellent edition of his works, highly praised by Ernesti and Harles, which he published in 1661, 3 vols. 8vo. In 1641, when he was about twenty-one years of age, he came over to England, and spent three months at Oxford, examining some Mss. of Ovid and Claudian in the Bodleian library. He returned the following year to Leyden, and thence to Spa, on account of his health, but in this tour visited the libraries and the learned of Brabant. About 1647 he went to Paris, where he remained a year and a half, and published his Latin poems. He also employed himself in collating some manuscripts in the library of Messrs. Dupin. From Paris he went to Italy, and both at Florence and Rome examined with great care the literary treasures in the grand duke’s library, and in the Vatican. Happening unfortunately to be at Naples during a civic revolt, he lost part of his papers, and among others his collation of Martial. In 1648 he published at Padua his elegies, in which he celebrates Italy and Rome, but speaks somewhat disrespectfully of his own country, for which he was afterwards blamed. He meant to have visited Swisserland on his return, but his father’s age and infirmities making him. desirous of his company, he returned home. He had refused a professor’s chair at Bologna, because the terms were that he should embrace the Roman catholic religion. In 1649, hearing that Christina, queen of Sweden, had desired to see his poems, he published a new edition dedicated to her, which procured him an invitation to Stockholm, where he was very graciously received by her majesty. In 1651 he made another tour to Italy, and the following year being in Florence, was received a member of the academies of Delia Crusca and the Apathisti. A considerable part of his object in this tour was to purchase manuscripts and medals for queen Christina; but, being now greatly in advance for these purchases, without having received any money from Stockholm, he found it necessary to return and make a personal application. In the mean time Christina had abdicated the throne, and Heinsius, who had spent 3000 florins in her purchases, presented petition after petition to no effect. Promises indeed he had in abundance he was to have a grant of lands in Pomerania, a canonry at Hamburgh, a vicariate at Bremen the title of secretary, and four thousand crowns to defray the expences he had been at; but none of these was fulfilled.

, a celebrated physician, surgeon, anatomist, and botanist, was born at Frankfort on the Maine, in 1683. He was educated in several German universities, and in 1706 spent some time in the study of anatomy and surgery at Amsterdam under Ruysch, then so famous for his dissections and anatomical preparations. In the following year he went to serve as a surgeon in the Dutch camp in Brabant; devoting the subsequent winter to further improvement, under Boerhaave and his eminent colleagues, who at that time attracted students from all parts to the university of Leyden, where Heister took his degree. Returning afterwards to the camp, he was, in 1709, appointed physician -general to the Dutch military hospital. The experience he thus acquired, raised him to a distinguished rank in the theory and practice of surgery, especially as he had a genius for mechanics, and was by that means enabled to bring about great improvements in the instrumental branch of his art. In 1710 he became professor of anatomy and surgery at Altorf, in the little canton of Uri, and rendered himself celebrated by his lectures and writings. Ten years afterwards a more advantageous situation offered itself to him at Helmstad, where he became physician, with the title of Aulic counsellor, as usual, to the duke of Brunswick, as well as professor of medicine, and afterwards of surgery and botany, in that university. Here he continued till his death, which happened in 1758, at the age of seventy-five. The czar Peter invited him to Russia, but he was too comfortably situated in Germany, where the favour of several sovereigns already shone upon him at an early period, to accept the invitation.

, by birth an Englishman, arrived at the singular distinction of being admired in France as a writer in the French language. He was born in Gloucestershire about 1740. He began his career in the army, and served in Jamaica till the peace of 1763. A desire of seeing the most remarkable parts of Europe, now carried him into Italy, where he was so captivated with the beauty of the climate, and the innumerable objects of liberal curiosity which presented themselves, that he continued there several years. About 1770, having satisfied his curiosity in Italy, he turned his thoughts to France, and went to Paris. There also he studied the state of the arts, and was particularly attentive to the theatre. At length he began to write for the Italian comedy, which had principally attracted his notice, and wrote with considerable success. The pieces for that theatre are written chiefly in French, with French titles, and only one or two characters in Italian. He wrote, l. “Le Jugement de Midas,” on the contest between French and Italian music, which was much applauded. But his 2. “Amant jaloux,” had still more success. 3. His third piece, “Les Evenemens imprevus,” met with some exceptions, on which he modestly withdrew it, and after making the corrections suggested, brought it forward again, and had the pleasure to find it much approved. The comedies of this writer, are full of plot, the action lively and interesting: his versification is not esteemed by the French to be of consummate perfection, nor his prose always pure; yet his dialogue constantly pleased, and was allowed to have the merit of nature and sound composition. Mr. Hele died at Paris, of a consumptive disorder, in December 1750 and it may possibly be long before another Englishman will be so distinguished as a writer in the French language. We take this account from French authors, who write his name d'Hele, perhaps it was properly Hale or Dale.

, the empress, mother of Constantine, and one of the saints of the Romish communion, who gives name to many of our churches, owed her elevation to the charms of her person. She was of obscure origin, born at the little village of Drepanum in Bithynia, where the first situation in which we hear of her was that of hostess of an inn. Constantius Chlorus became enamoured of her probably there, and married her; but, on being associated with Dioclesian in the empire, divorced her to marry Theodora, daughter of Maximilian Hercules. The accession of her son to the empire drew her again from obscurity; she obtained the title of Augusta, and was received at court with ali the honours due to the mother of an emperor. Her many virtues riveted the affection of her son to her, and, when he became a Christian, she also was converted; yet she did not scruple to admonish him when she disapproved his conduct. When she was aear eighty years old she planned and executed a journey to the Holy Land, where she is said to have assisted at the discovery of the true cross of Christ, reported by the Romanists to have been accompanied by many miracles. Jn the year 328, soon after this discovery, she died at the age of eighty. Helena, wherever she went, left proofs of a truly Christian liberality; she relieved the poor, orphans, and widows; built churches, and in all respests shewed herself worthy of the confidence of her son, who supported her in these pious efforts by an unlimited permission to draw upon his treasures. At her death he paid her the highest honours, had her body sent to Rome to be deposited in the tomb of the emperors, and raised her native village to the rank of a city, with the new name of Helenopolis. She proved her prudence and political wisdom by the influence she always retained over her son, and by the care she took to prevent all interference of the half-brothers of Constantine, sons of Cons tan ti us Chlorus and Theodora; who, being brought into notice after her death, by the injudicious liberality of the emperor, were massacred by their nephews as soon as they succeeded their father in the empire.

, a native of Emesa in Phoenicia, and bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, flourished in the reigns of Theodosius and Arcaclius towards the end of the fourth century. In his youth he wrote a romance, by which he is now better known than by his subsequent bishopric of; Tricca. It is entitled “Ethiopics,” and relates the amours of Theagenes and Chariclea, in ten books. The learned Huetius is of opinion that HcUodorus was among the romance-writers what Homer was among the poets, the source and model of an infinite number of imitations, all inferior to their original. The first edition of the Ethiopics was printed at Basil, 1533, with a dedication to the senate of Nuremberg, prefixed by Vincentius Opsopseus, who informs us that a soldier preserved the ms. when the library of Buda was plundered. Bourdeiot’s learned notes upon this romance were printed at Paris in 1619, with Heliodorus’s Greek original, and a Latin translation, which had been published by Stanislaus Warszewicki, a Polish knight, (with the Greek) at Basil, in 1551. An excellent English translation of this romance was published by Mr. Payne in 2 vols. 12mo, in 1792. A notion has prevailed that a provincial synod, being sensible how dangerous the reading of Heliodorus’ s Ethiopics was, to which the author’s rank was supposed to add great authority, required of the bishop that he should either burn the book, or resign his dignity; and that the bishop chose the latter. But this story is thought to be entirely fabulous; as depending only upon the single testimony of Nicephorus, an ecclesiastical historian of great credulity and little judgment; and it is somewhat difficult to suppose that Socrates should omit so memorable a circumstance when speaking of Heliodorus as the author of “a love-tale in his youth, which he entitled Ethiopics.” Valesius, in his notes upon this passage, starts another difficulty, for while he rejects the account of Nicephorus as a mere fable, he seems inclined to think, that the romance itself was not written by Heliodorus bishop of Tricca; but in this opinion he has not been followed. Opsopaeus and Melancthon have supposed that this romance was in reality a true history; but Fabricius thinks this as incredible as that Heliodorus, according to others, wrote it originally in the Ethiopic tongue. Some again have asserted, that Heliodorus was not a Christian, from his saying at the end of his book, that he was a Phoenician, born in the city of Emesa, and of the race of the sun; since, they say, it would be madness in a Christian, and much more in a bishop, to declare that he was descended from that luminary; but such language, in a young man, can scarcely admit the inference.

In June 1769 he set out on his return, and arrived safely at Copenhagen, where he was honoured with every mark of respect by the king, and he and his assistant were admitted members of the academies of Copenhagen, Drontheim, and Norway. During his residence at Copenhagen, which lasted seven months, he communicated, besides other things, to the academy of sciences, the observations he had made of the transit, which were published, and afterwards reprinted in the Ephemerides for 1771. In May 1770 he returned to Vienna, and collected and arranged the fruits of his journej', which he meant to publish under the title of “Expeditio literaria ad Polum Arcticum;” but the suppression of the order of the Jesuits, which gave him great concern, and the dispersion of some of his literary coadjutors, are supposed to have prevented him from completing this undertaking. He was also unsuccessful in endeavouring to establish an academy of sciences, which, according to his plan, was to be under the direction of the Jesuits. He superintended, however, the building of a new observatory at Erlau, in Hungary, at the expence of the bishop, count Charles of Esterhazy, and undertook two journeys thither to direct the operations, and to arrange a valuable collection of instruments which had been sent to him from England. In the month of March 1792, he was attacked by an inflammation of the lungs, which producing a suppuration, put an end to his lite in a few weeks. He is to be ranked with those who have rendered essential service to the science of astronomy. The “Ephemerides Astronomical ad meridianum Vindobonensem,” begun in 1767, aucl continued till his death, forms a valuable astronomical calendar, which contains a great many interesting papers. In other branches of knowledge, and particularly theology, he was a firm adherent to the principles he had been taught in his youth, and which he strenuously defended. He always entertained hopes of the revival of the order of the Jesuits. He possessed a benevolent heart, and was always ready to assist the distressed; in particular he endeavoured to relieve the sufferings of the poor, and with this noble view expended almost the whole of his property.

, of Mitylene, was an ancient Greek historian, born in the year A. C. 496, twelve years before the birth of Herodotus. He wrote a history of “the earliest Kings of various Nations, and the Founders of Cities;” which is mentioned by several ancient authors, but is not extant. He lived to the age of eighty-five. There was another Hellanicus of much later times, who was a Milesian, but very little is known of either.

, a Dutch protestant divine, and one of the early promoters of the reformed religion in that country, was born at Utrecht in 1551. He had attained so much reputation with his fellow citizens, that in 1579 they unanimously chose him their pastor. The same year, as all obstacles to the establishment of the reformation were not yet overcome, they appointed him one of a deputation sent to our queen Elizabeth, to request that in the treaty of peace with Spain, she should stipulate for the free exercise of the protestant religion in the United Provinces. In 1582, he was the first who preached that religion openly in the cathedral of Utrecht, notwithstanding the opposition given by the chapter. He afterwards refused the theological chair in the university of Leyden, but accepted the pastoral cvffice at Amsterdam in 1602, which he held until his death, Aug. 29, 1608. All his contemporaries, the protestant divines, speak highly of his talents, character, and services. He did not write much; except an “Analysis of the Psalms,” printed after his death, at Amst. 1641, 4to, and a controversial work against Coster the Jesuit, entitled “Gladius Goliathi,” much commended by Voetius.

"A wealthy canonry was promised me then, so that I might, if I pleased, turn myself to divinity but saint Bernard affrighted me from it, saying, that I should eat the sins of the people. 7 I begged therefore of the Lord Jesus, that he would vouchsafe to call me to that profession in which 1 might please him most. The Jesuits began at that time to teach philosophy at Louvain, and one of the professors expounded the disquisitions and secrets of magic. Both these lectures I greedily received; but instead of grain, I reaped only stubble, and fantastic conceits void of sense. In the mean time, lest an hour should pass without some benefit, I run through some writings of the stoics, those of Seneca, and especially of Epictetus, who pleased me exceedingly. I seemed, in moral philosophy, to have found the quintessence of truth, and did verily believe, that through stoicism I advanced in Christian perfection; but 1 discovered afterwards in a dream, that stoicism was an empty and swollen bubble, and that by this study, under the appearance of moderation, I became, indeed, most self-sufficient and haughty. Lastly, 1 turned over Mathiolus and Dioscorides; thinking with myself nothjng equally necessary for mortal man to know and admire, as the wisdom and goodness of God in vegetables; to the end that he might not only crop the fruit for food, but also minister of the same to his other necessities. My curiosity being now raised upon this branch of study, I inquired, whether there were any book, which delivered the maxims and rule of medicine for I then supposed, that medicine was not altogether a mere gift, but might ]be taught, and delivered by discipline, like other arts and sciences: at least I thought, if medicine was a good gift coming down from the Father of lights, that it might have, as an human science, its theorems and authors, into whom, as into Bazaleel and Aholiab, the spirit of the Lord had infused the knowledge of all diseases and their causes, and also the knowledge of the properties of things. I inquired, I say, whether no writer had described the qualities, properties, applications, and proportions of vegetables, from the hyssop even to the cedar of Libanus? A certain professor of medicine answered me, that none of these things were to be looked for either in Galen or Avicen. I was very ready to believe this, from the many fruitless searches I hau made in books for truth and knowledge before; however, following my natural bent, which lay to the study of nature, I read the institutions of Fuchsius and Fernelius; in whom I knew I had surveyed the whole science of medicine, as it were in an epitome. Is this, said I, smiling to myself, the knowledge of healing Is the whole history of natural properties thus shut up in elementary qualities Therefore I read the works of Galen twice of Hippocrates once, whose aphorisms I almost got by heart; all Avicen, as well as the Greeks, Arabians, and moderns, to the tune of 600 authors. I read them seriously and attentively through; and took down, as I went along, whatever seemed curious and worthy of attention; when at length, reading over my common-place book, I was grieved at the pains I had bestowed, and the years I had spent, in throwing together such a mass of stufc Therefore I straightway left off all books whatever, all formal discourses, and empty promises of the schools; firmly believing every good and perfect gift to come down from the Father of lights, more particularly that of medicine.

“I have attentively surveyed some foreign nations; but I found the same sluggishness, in implicitly following” the steps of their forefathers, and ignorance among them all. I then became persuaded, that the art of healing was a mere imposture, originally set on foot by the Greeks for filthy lucre’s sake; till afterwards the Holy Scriptures informed me better. I considered, that the plague, which then raged at Louvain, was a most miserable disease, in which every one forsook the sick; and faithless helpers, distrustful of their own art, fled more swiftly than the unlearned common people, and homely pretenders to cure it. I proposed to myself to dedicate one salutation to the miserable infected; and although then no medicine was made known to me but trivial ones, yet God preserved my innocency from so cruel an enemy. I was not indeed sent for, but went of my own accord; and that not so much to help them, which I despaired of doing, as for the sake of learning. All that saw me, seemed to be refreshed with hope and joy; and I myself, being fraught with hope, was persuaded, that, by the mere free gift of God, 1 should sometimes obtain a mastery in the science. After ten years’ travel and studies from my degree in the art of medicine taken at Louvain, being then married, I withdrew myself, in 1609, to Vilvord, that, being the less troubled by applications, I might proceed diligently in viewing the kingdoms of vegetables, animals, and minerals. I employed myself some years in chemical operations. I searched into the works of Paracelsus; and at first admired and honoured the man, but at last was convinced, that nothing but difficulty, obscurity, and error, was to be found in him. Thus tired out with search after search, and concluding the art of medicine to be all deceit and uncertainty, I said with a sorrowful heart, ‘ Good God how long wilt thou be angry with mortal man, who hitherto has not disclosed one truth, in healing, to thy schools How long wilt thou deny truth to a people confessing thee, needful in these days, more than in times past Is the sacrifice of Molech pleasing to thee wilt thou have the lives of the poor, widows, and fatherless children, consecrated to thyself; under the most miserable torture of incurable diseases How is it, therefore, that thou ceasest not to destroy so many families through the uncertainty and ignorance of physicians’ Then I fell on my face, and said, ’ Oh, Lord, pardon me, if favour towards my neighbour hath snatched me away beyond my bounds. Pardon, pardon, O Lord, my indiscreet charity for thou art the radical good of goodness itself. Thou hast known my sighs and that I confess myself to be, to know, to be worth, to be able to do, to have, nothing and that I am poor, naked, empty, vain. Give, O Lord, give knowledge to thy creature, that he may affectionately know thy creatures; himself first, other things besides himself, all things, and more than all things, to be ultimately in thee.' “After I had thus earnestly prayed, I fell into a dream; in which, in the sight or view of truth, I saw the whole universe, as it were, some chaos or confused thing without form, which was almost a mere nothing. And from thence I drew the conceiving of one word, which did signify to me this following: ‘ Behold thou, and what things thou seest, are nothing. Whatever thou dost urge, is less than nothing itself in the sight of the Most High. He knoweth all the bounds of things to be done; thou at least may apply thyself to thy own safety.’ In this conception there was an inward precept, that I should be made a physician; and that, some time or other, Raphael himself should be given unto me. Forthwith therefore, and for thirty whole years after, and their nights following in order, 1 laboured always to my cost, and often in danger of my life, that I might obtain the knowledge of vegetables and minerals, and of their natures and properties also. Meanwhile, I exercised myself in prayer, in reading, in a narrow search of things, in sifting my errors, and in writing down what I daily experienced. At length I knew with Solomon, that t had for the most part hitherto perplexed my spirit in vain; and I said, Vain is the knowledge of all things under the sun, vain are the searchings of the curious. Whom the Lord Jesus shall call unto wisdom, he, and no other, shall come; yea, he that hath come to the top, shall as yet be able to do very little, unless the bountiful favour of the Lord shall shine upon him. Lo, thus have I waxed ripe of age, being become a man; and now also an old man, unprofitable, and unacceptable to God, to whom be all honour.”

From this curious account, given in the preceding editions of this Dictionary, and which we are unwilling to displace, it will be seen that Van Helmont had a strong portion of enthusiasm; but he was not the madman which some of his contemporaries imagined. For a period of thirty years he pursued his researches into the products of nature, with such perseverance, as to leave few of the known animal, vegetable, and mineral bodies unexamined. In the course of these investigations, he necessarily fell upon the discovery of several of the products of decomposition, and of new combination, which chemistry affords: among these he seems to have been the first to notice the spirit of hartshorn, the spirit of sulphur per campanam, as it was called, and the aerial part of the spa-waters, which he first denominated gas (from the German geist, ghost, or spirit), and several other substances. Among these were many articles possessing considerable influence upon the living body, which, being contrasted with the inertness of the simples of the Galenical practice, roused and confirmed his former opinions against the doctrines of that school; which he now attacked with great ardour and strength of argument, and which he contributed to overthrow. But partly in imitation of Paracelsus, whom he greatly admired, and partly from an attempt to generalize the confused mass of new facts, which he had acquired, he attempted to reduce the whole system of medicine to the principles of chemistry, and substituted a jargon as unintelligible, and hypotheses as gratuitous, as those which he had attempted to refute. He published from time to time a variety of works, by which he obtained considerable reputation. The elector of Cologne, who was himself attached to chemical inquiries, held him in great esteem; and he received from the emperor Rodolph II. and uis two successors, invitations to the court of Vienna; but he preferred his laboratory and cabinet to these proffered honours. He died on the 30th of December, 1644, in the sixty-eighth year of his age.

, son of the preceding, was born in 1618, and like his father, became celebrated for his knowledge, and his paradoxes was very skilful in physic and chemistry, and was esteemed a man of universal learning, and acquainted with most trades and arts. He was even suspected of having found the philosopher’s stone, because he lived at an apparently great expence with a small income; but was much esteemed and respected at Amsterdam. After living many years with the prince of Sultzbach, who was a great patron of the learned, he set out for Berlin, by desire of the queen of Prussia, and died at Cologn in 1699. His works are, “Alphabeti vere naturalis Hebraic! delineatio;” “Cogitationes super quatuor priora capita Geneseos,” Amsterdam, 1697, 8vo “De attributis divinis” “De Inferno,” &c. He believed the Metempsycosis, and maintained many other paradoxes.

, a physician, was born of a noble family in the principality of Atihalt,about 1625. He obtained at an early age a considerable reputation for his knowledge of medicine and chemistry; and having settled in Holland about 1649, he practised at the Hague with so much success, that he was appointed first physician to the States-general, and to the prince of Orange, he died August 20, 1709. His works serve, however, rather to prove his devotion to the absurdities of the alchemists, physiognomists, and such visionaries of his time, than his advancement in true science; and therefore it may be sufficient to refer for their titles to our authorities His son Adrian [Helveticus], who was born in 1656, journeyed to Paris, without any design of fixing there, and only to see that new world, and sell some medicines, but accident detained him very unexpectedly. The dysentery then prevailed in that city-, and all who applied to him are said to have been infallibly cured. His success was celebrated; and Louis XIV. ordered him to publish the remedy which produced such certain and surprising effects. He declared it to be Ipecacuanha, and received 1000 louis-d'ors for the discovery. He settled in Paris, became physician to the duke of Orleans, and was also made inspector-general of the military hospitals. He died in 1721, leaving some works behind him, of little value; the principal of which is, “Traité des Maladies de plus frequentes, & des Remedies specifiques pour les guerir,” 2 vols. 8vo.

, the most remarkable of this family, was born at Paris in 1715, and was son of the preceding Helvetius. He studied under the famous father Pon'e in the college of Louis the Great, and his tutor, discovering in his compositions remarkable proofs of genius, was particularly attentive to his education. An early association with the wits of his time gave him the desire to become an author, but his principles unfortunately became tainted with false philosophy. He did not publish any thing till 1758, when he produced his celebrated book “DeTEsprit,” which appeared first in one volume 4to, and afterwards in three volumes, 12mo. This work was very justly condemned by the parliament of Paris, as confining the faculties of man to animal sensibility, and removing at once the restraints of vice and the encouragements to virtue. Attacked in various ways at home, on account of these principles, he visited England in 1764, and the next year went into Prussia, where he was received with honourable attention by the king. When he returned into France, he led a retired and domestic life on his estate at Vore. Attached to his wife and family, and strongly inclined to benevolence, he lived there more happily than at Paris, where, as he said, he “was obliged to encounter the mortifying spectacle of misery that he could not relieve.” To Marivaux, and M. Saurin, of the French academy, he allowed pensions, that, for a private benefactor, were considerable, merely on the score of merit; which he was anxious to search out and to assist. Yet, with all this benevolence of disposition, he was strict in the care of his game, and in the exaction of his feudal rights. He was maltre-d'hotel to the queen, and, for a time, a farmer-general, but quitted that lucrative post to enjoy his studies. When he found that he had bestowed his bounty upon unworthy persons, or was reproached with it, he said, “If I was king, I would correct them; but I am only rich, and they are poor, my business therefore is to aid them.” Nature had been kind to Helvetius; she had given him a fine person, genius, and a constitution which promised long life. This last, however, he did not attain, for he was attacked by the gout in his head and stomach, under which complaint he languished some little time, and died in December 1771. His works were, 1. the treatise “De l'Esprit,” “on the Mind,” already mentioned: of* which various opinions have been entertained, It certainly is one of those which endeavour to degrade the nature of man too nearly to that of mere animals; and even Voltaire, who called the author at one time a true philosopher, has said that it is filled with common-place truths, delivered with great parade, but without method, and disgraced by stories very unworthy of a philosophical production. The ideas of virtue and vice, according to this book, depend chiefly upon climate. 2. “Le Bonheur,” or “Happiness,” a poem in six cantos; published after his death, in 1772, with some fragments of epistles. His poetical style is still more affected than his prose, and though he produces some fine verses, he is more frequently stiff and forced. His poem on happiness is a declamation, in which he makes that great object depend, not on virtue, but on the cultivation of letters and the arts. 3. “De l'Homme,” 2 vols. 8vo, another philosophical work, not less bold than the first. A favourite paradox, produced in this book, under a variety of different forms, is, “that all men are born with equal talents, and owe their genius solely to education.” This book is even more dangerous than that on the mind, because the style is clearer, and the author writes with less reserve. He* speaks sometimes of the enemies of what he called philosophy, with an asperity that ill accords with the general mildness of his character.

The origin of the philosophical career of Helvetius is, by La Harpe, traced to a cause of a very singular nature, and not perhaps very credible. While yet young, and coveting every species of enjoyment within the reach of his age, his accomplishments, and his wealth, he beheld in a public garden a man who had none of these advantages, and to whom a circle of women were doing honour. This wasMaupertuis, just returned from his voyage towards the pole, and who had acquired a temporary reputation in the sciences. Helvetius was struck with the consideration which the reputation of a man of letters was able to ensure. He had hitherto succeeded easily in all that he had attempted. He had danced to admiration at the opera, under the mask of Juvilliers, one of the first dancers of the time. He had already made attempts in poetry; he had submitted his verses to Voltaire, and the lettered veteran had politely intimated that this was his proper line. He then directed his attention to philosophy, and connected himself with its chiefs, particularly with Diderot.

Diderot is supposed to have furnished some leading ideas to Helv<-t.ius for his work on the Mind. As his hypothesis, says l.a Harpe, every where terminates in materialism, it is probable that the basis of it was furnished to a man of the world, of course little conversant with these matters, by a man of letters by profession, an apostle of atheism, who loved nothing better than to make disciples.

, professor of the Greek and eastern languages, and of divinity, in the university of Giessen, was born Dec. 26, 1581, at Sprendlingen, a little town near Francfort, where his father was minister. He went throb gh his studies in Marpurg, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1599, having taken his bachelor’s in 1595. He was an early genius composed a prodigiousnumber of Greek verses at fifteen years old and was capable of teaching Greek, Hebrew, and even philosophy, before he was twenty. The Hebrew he spoke as fluently as if it had been his native language. He thoroughly read the Greek authors; and even studied physic for some time, though he had devoted himself to the ministry. In 1605, he was chosen to teach Greek and Hebrew, in the college which the landgrave had recently established at Giessen;, and which the year after was converted into an university by the emperor, who endowed it with privileges. Having discharged for five years the several duties of his employment with great reputation, he was appointed divinity professor in 1610. In 1611, a church was offered him in Moravia, and a professorship at Hamburgh with a considerable stipend: but he refused both. In 1613, he took the degree of D. D. at the command of the landgrave; who sent him to Francfort, that he might view the library of the Jews, who had been lately driven away by popular tumults. Helvicus, fond of reading the rabbins, bought several of their books on that occasion. He died in the flower of his age, Sept. 10, 1616; and his loss was bewailed by the German poets of the Augsburg confession. A collection was made of his poems, which were printed with his funeral sermon and some other pieces, under the title of “Cippus Memorialis,” by the care of Winckleman, who had been his colleague.

, a very learned man, born at the Hague, was a fine poet and orator; and to be compared, says Gronovius, in his “Orat. funeb. J. Golii,” with the Roman Atticus for his probity, tranquillity of life, and absolute disregard of honours and public employments. He went to Rome, and spent six years in the palace of cardinal Cesi. He wrote there' a panegyric on pope Clement VIII. which was so graciously received, that he was offered the post of librarian to the Vatican, or a very good benefice; and preferring the latter, was made a canon in the cathedral at Antwerp. Lipsius had a great esteem for him, as appears from his letters. He was Grotius’s friend also, and published verses to congratulate him on his deliverance from confinement. He was uncle by the mother’s side to James Golius, the learned professor at Leyden, who gained so vast a reputation by his profound knowledge in the Oriental languages: but Golius, who was a zealous protestant, could never forgive his having converted his brother Peter to popery. Hemelar applied himself much more to the study of polite literature and to the science of medals, than to theology. “He published,” says Gronovius, " extremely useful commentaries upon the medals of the Roman emperors, from the time of Julius Caesar down to Justinian, taken from the cabinets of Charles Arschot and Nicholas Rocoxius; wherein he concisely and accurately explains by marks, figures, &c. whatever is exquisite, elegant, and suitable or agreeable to the history of those times, and the genius of the monarchs, whether the medals in question be of gold, silver, or brass, whether cast or struck in that immortal city. It is a kind of storehouse of medals; and nevertheless in this work, from which any other person would have expected prodigious reputation, our author has been so modest as to conceal his name.' 7 This work of Hemelar’s, which is in Latin, is not easily to be met with, yet it has been twice printed iirst at Antwerp, in 1615, at the en.I of a work of James De Bie and secondly, in 1627, 4to which Clement has described as a very rare edition Bayle mentions a third edition of 1654, folio, but the work which he mistakes for a third edition, was only a collection of engravings of Roman coins described by Gevartius, in which are some from Hemelar’s work. The other works of this canon are some Latin poems and orations. He died in 1640. He is sometimes called Hamelar.

, a regular canon of Gisborough-abbey, near Cleveland in Yorkshire, flourished in the fourteenth century, in the reign of Edward III. He had much learning, and much industry. History was his particular study; and he compiled a history which begins from the Norman conquest, and continues to the reign of king Edward the lid. from 1066 to 1308. The work is written with great care and exactness, and in a style good enough considering the time. Gale, who has published it in his “Veteres Scriptores,” with an account of the author, enumerates five copies of his history, two at Trinity college, Cambridge, one at the Heralds’ office, one in the Cotton lilrary, and one which he had himself. This author died at Gisborough in 1347. Hearne published an edition in 2 vols. 8vo, Oxford, 1731, now one of the most rare and valuable of his works.

, an eminent painter, was a peasant’s son, and born at a village of that Dame in Holland, in 1498. In his youth he was extremely dull, and nothing was expected from him; but afterwards he became a correct painter, easy and fruitful in his inventions. He was the disciple and imitator of Schoreal. He went to Home, and intended to stay there a long time; but at the end of three years, returned to his own country, settled at Haerlem, and lived there the remainder of his days. Most of his works were engraved. Vasari, who gives a particular account of them, and commends them, says, Michael Angelo was so pleased with one of the prints, that he had a mind to colour it. Mr. Fuseli thinks that he invented with more fertility than taste or propriety; “his design is ostentatious without style, and his forms long without elegance. He rather grouped than composed, and seems to have been unacquainted with chiaroscuro. His costume is always arbitrary, and often barbarous, and in the admission of ornaments and the disposition of his scenery, he oftener consulted the materials which he had compiled at Rome, than fitness of place, or the demands of his subject.” He died in 1574.

, another painter, perhaps c-f the family with the former, exhibited much fancy in the subjects he chose for his pencil, but with vigour of execution. He was born at Haerlem in 1645, and was a disciple of Peter Grebber, whose manner he left for that of Brouwer. In his own time his compositions were much esteemed, because of their gross humour, and the whimsical imagination that reigned in them; but they are not now so much prized. His delight was in painting fanciful, wild, and uncommon scenes of his own composing; such as the nocturnal intercourse of witches, devils, and spectres; enchantments, temptations of St. Anthony, interiors of alehouses with drunken men, monldes in the actions of men and women, &c. &c. all which he wrought with great freedom of touch and intelligence of drawing. His colour likewise, though not always pure, was in general rich and agreeable. He quitted his own country to settle in London, where he died in 1704. It was customary with him to paint his own portrait in his drolls, and which was not of the most engaging kind; and he wrought by means of a looking-glass his characters from his own face. There was another Egbert Hemskirk, called by distinction the Old, who painted subjects of the like kind with more success.

, or Hemsterhusius, one of the most famous critics of his country, the son of Francis Hemsterhuis, a physician, was born at Groningen, Feb. 1, 1635. After obtaining the rudiments of literature from proper masters, and from his father, he became a member of his native university in his fourteenth year, 1698. He there studied for some years, and then removed to Leyden, for the sake of attending the lectures of the famous James Perizonius on ancient history. He was here so much noticed by the governors of the university, that it was expected he would succeed James Gronovius as professor of Greek. Havercamp, however, on the vacancy, was appointed, through the intrigues, as Ruhnkenius asserts, of some who feared they might be eclipsed by young Hemsterhuis; who in 1705, at the age of nineteen, was called to Amsterdam, and appointed professor of mathematics and philosophy. In the former of these branches he had been a favourite scholar of the famous John Bernouilli. In 1717, he removed to Franeker, on being chosen to succeed Lambert Bos as professor of Greek; to which place, in 1738, was added the professorship of history. In 1740 he removed to Leyden to accept the same two professorships in that university. It appears that he was married, because his father-in-law, J. Wild, is mentioned; he died April 7, 1766, having enjoyed to the last the use of all his faculties. He published, 1. “The three last books of Julius Pollux’s Onomasticon,” to complete the edition of which, seven books had been finished by Lederlin. This was published at Amsterdam in 1706. On the appearance of this work, he received a letter from Bentley, highly praising him for the service he had there rendered to his author. But this very letter was nearly the cause of driving him entirely from the study of Greek criticism: for in it Bentley transmitted his own conjectures on the true readings of the passages cited by Pollux from comic writers, with particular view to the restoration of the metre. Hemsterhuis had himself attempted the same, but, when he read the criticisms of Bentley, and saw their astonishing justness and acuteness, he was so hurt at the inferiority of his own, that he resolved, for the time, never again to open a Greek book. In a month or two this timidity went off, and he returned to these studies with redoubled vigour, determined to take Bentley for his model, and to' qualify himself, if possible, to rival one whom he so greatly admired. 2. “Select Colloquies of Lucian, and his Timon,” Amst. 1708. 3. “The Plutus of Aristophanes, with the Scholia,” various readings and notes, Harlingen, 1744, 8vo. 4. “Part of an edition of Lucian,” as far as the 521st page of the first volume; it appeared in 1743 in four volumes quarto, the remaining parts being edited by J. M. Gesner and Reitzius. The extreme slowness of his proceeding is much complained of by Gesner and others, and was the reason why he made no further progress. 5. % “Notes and emendations on Xenophon Ephesius,” inserted in the 36 volumes of the te Miscellanea Critica“of Amsterdam, with the signature T. S. H. S. 6.” Some observations upon Chrysostom’s Homily on the Epistle to Philemon,“subjoined to Raphelius’s Annotations on the New Testament. 7.” Inaugural Speeches on various occasions.“8. There are also letters from him to J. Matth. Gesner and others; and he gave considerable aid to J. St. Bernard, in publishing the ' Eclogae Thomae Magistri,” at Leyden, in 1757. His “Philosophical Works” were published at Paris in 1792, 2 vols. 8vo, but he was a better critic -than philosopher. Ruhnkenius holds up Hemsterhusius as a model of a perfect critic, and indeed, according to his account, the extent and variety of his knowledge, and the acuteness of his judgment, were very extraordinary.

, a voluminous Spanish author, and accounted one of the most learned men of his country in the seventeenth century, was born in 1611. He entered, when he was ahout fifteen years of age, into the order of the Jesuits at Salamanca, and spent the greatest part of his life in that university, where afterwards he was admitted to the degree of doctor of divinity, and appointed rector. He obtained a very high reputation by the solutions which he gave to persons who came from all parts to consult him in cases of conscience. He died in 1704, at the great age of ninety-three, and continued to perform the duties of professor till within three years of that time. His works consist of eleven folio volumes, in Latin. Nine of them are composed of treatises on philosophical, theological, and controversial subjects; the others are devoted to an account of the antiquities of Biscay, and furnish the reader with much curious and interesting matter; they are entitled “Biscaya Illustrata.” The part “de Cantabrias antiquitatibus” is a work of merit. He was author of many smaller pieces not inserted in. this collection.

, an eminent French writer, and president in parliament, was born at Paris, Feb. 8, 1685. His great grandfather, Remi Henault, used to be of Lewis XIII.' s party at tennis, and that prince called him “The Baron,” because of a fief which he possessed near Triel. He had three sons, officers of horse, who were all killed at the siege of Casal. John Remi, his father, an esquire, and lord of Moussy, counsellor to the king, and secretary to the council, kept up the honour of the family, and becoming farmer-general, made his fortune. He was honoured with the confidence of the count de Pontchartrain; and, being of a poetical turn, had some share in the criticisms which appeared against Racine’s tragedies. He married the daughter of a rich merchant at Calais, and one of her brothers being president of that town, entertained the queen of England on her landing there in 1689. Another brother, counsellor in the parliament of Metz, and secretary to the duke of Berry, was associated with Mr. Crozat in the armaments, and, dying unmarried, left a great fortune to his sister. Young Renault early discovered a sprightly, benevolent disposition, and his penetration and aptness soon distinguished itself by the success of his studies. Claude de Lisle, father of the celebrated geographer, gave him the same lessons in geography and history which he had before given to the duke of Orleans, afterwards regent. These instructions have been printed in seven volumes, under the title of “Abridgment of Universal History.”

On quitting college, Henault entered the congregation of the oratory, where he soon attached himself to the study of eloquence and, on the death of the abbé Rene, reformer of LaTrappe, he undertook to pronounce his panegyric, which not meeting the approbation of father Massilon, he quitted the oratory after two years, and his father bought for him, of marshal Villeroi, the lieutenance des chasses, and the government of Corbeil. At the marshal’s he formed connections and even intimate friendships with many of the nobility, and passed the early part of his life in agreeable amusements, and in the liveliest company, without having his religious sentiments tainted. He associated with the wits till the dispute between Rousseau and De la Motte soon gave him a disgust for these trifling societies. In 1707 he gained the prize of eloquence at the French academy; and another, next year, at the academy des jeux Floraux. About this time, M. Reaumur, who was his relation, came to Paris, and took lessons in geometry under the same master, Guinee. Henault introduced him to the abbe Bignon, and this was the first step of his illustrious course. In 1713 he brought a tragedy on the stage, under the disguised name of Fuselier. As he was known to the public only by some slighter pieces, “Cornelia the Vestal” met with no better success. He therefore locked it up, without printing. In his old age his passion for these subjects revived, and Mr. Horace Walpole being at Paris* in 1768, and having formed a friendship with him as one of the amiable men of his nation, obtained this piece, and had it printed at his press at Strawberry-hill. In 1751 Mr. Henault, under a borrowed name, brought out a second tragedy, entitled “Marius,” which was well received and printed. The French biographers, however, doubt whether this was not really by M. Catix, whose name it bore.

He had been admitted counsellor in parliament in 1706, with a dispensation on account of age and in 1710, president of the first chamber of inquests. These important places, which he determined to fill in a becoming manner, engaged him in the most solid studies. The excellent work of Mr. Dqmat charmed him, and made him eager to go back to the fountain head. He spent several years in making himself master of the Roman law, the ordonnances of the French king, their customs, and public law. M. de Morville, procureur-general of the great council, being appointed ambassador to the Hague in 1718, engaged Henault to accompany him; and his personal merit soon introduced him to the acquaintance of the most eminent personages at that time there. The grand pensionary, Heinsius, who, under the exterior of Lacedemonian simplicity, kept up all the haughtiness of that people, lost with him all that hauteur which France itself had experienced from him in the negociations for the treaty of Utrecht.

In 1755 Henault was chosen an honorary member of the academy of belles lettres, having been before elected into the academies of Nanci, Berlin, and Stockholm. The queen also appointed him superintendant of her house. His natural spnghtliness relieved her from the serious attendance on his private morning lectures. The company of persons most distinguished by their wit and birth, a table more celebrated for the choiceof the guests than its delicacies, the little comedies suggested by wit, and executed by reflection, united at his house all the pleasures of an agreeable literary life. All the members of this ingenious society contributed to render it pleasing, and the president was not inferior to any. He composed three comedies, “La Petite Maison;” “Le Jaloux de Soimeme,” and “Le Ileveil d'Epimenide.” The subject of the last was the Cretan philosopher, who is pretended to have slept twenty-seven years. The queen was particularly pleased with this piece.

In 1763 Henault drew near his end. One morning, after a quiet night, he felt an oppression, which the faculty pronounced a suffocating cough. His confessor being sent to him, he formed his resolution without alarm. He mentioned afterwards, that he recollected having then said to himself, “What do I regret” and called to mind that saying of madame de Sevigne, “I leave here only dying creatures.” He received the sacraments. It was believed the next night would be his last; but by noon the next day he was out of danger. “Now,” said he, “I know what death is. It will not be new to me any more.” He never forgot it during the following seven years of his life, which, like all the rest, were gentle and calm. Full of gratitude for the favours of Providence, resigned to its decrees, offering to the Author of his being a pure and sincere devotion; he felt his infirmities without complaining, and perceived a gradual decay with unabated firmness. He died Dec. 24, 1771, in his 86th year. He married, in 1714, a daughter of M. le Bas de Montargis, keeper of the royal treasure, &c. who died in 1728, without leaving any issue. He treated as his own children, those of his sister, who had married, in 1713, the count de Jonsac, and by him had three sons and two daughters. The two younger sons were killed, one at Brussels, the other at Lafelt, both at the head of the regiments of which they were colonels; the eldest long survived, and was lieutenant-general and governor of Collioure and Port Vendre in Roussillon. The elder daughter married M. le Veneur, count de Tillieres, and died in 1757; the second married the marquis d'Aubeterre, ambassador to Vienna, Madrid, and Rome. In 1800 a very able posthumous work of the president’s was published at Paris, entitled “Histoire Critique de l'Etablissement des Francois dans les Gaules,” 2 vols. 8vo.

, a French poet, was the son of a baker at Paris, and at first a receiver of the taxes at Fores. Then he travelled into Holland and England, and was employed by the superintendant Fouquet, who was his patron. After his return to France, he soon became distinguished as one of the finest geniuses of his age; and gained a prodigious reputation by his poetry. His sonnet on the miscarriage of mad. de Guerchi is looked upon as a master-piece, though it has little intrinsic merit. He also wrote a satirical poem against the minister Colbert, which is reckoned by Boileau among his best pieces. This was written by way of revenging the disgrace and ruin of his patron Fouquet, which Henault ascribed to Colbert. The minister being told of this sonnet, which made a great noise, asked, “Whether there were any satirical strokes in it against the king” and being informed there were not, “Then,” said he, “I shall not mind it, nor shew the least resentment against the author.” Henault was a man who loved to refine on pleasures, and gloried in infidelity. He went to Holland on purpose to visit Spinoza, who did not much esteem him. When, however, sickness and death came to stare him in the face, he became a superstitious convert, and was for receiving the Viaticum or Sacrament, with a halter about his neck, in the middle of his bed-chamber. He died in 1682.

He had printed at Paris, 1670, in 12mo, a small collection of his works, under the title of “Oeuvres Diverses,” or “Miscellanies:' containing sonnets, and letters in verse and prose to Sappho, who was probably the celebrated madam lies Houlieres, to whom he had the honour to be preceptor. Henault had translated three books of Lucretius: but his confessor having raised in him scruples and fears, he burnt this work, so that there remains nothing of it but the first 100 lines, which had been copied by his friends. Voltaire says, that” he would have gained great reputation, had these books that were lost been preserved, and been equal to what we have of this work."

, an eminent mineralogist, whose name has unaccountably been omitted in all our English as well as in the French, biographical collections, was born at Fryberg, or Friburg, in Misnia, in 1679. He appli himself, in the former part of his life, to physic; but quitted practice to devote his time entirely to the study of mineralogy and the various branches connected with it. The place of his birth afforded many facilities in his researches, being situated among those mountains which have been rendered famous by their mines, and which have been wrought with success through a long course of ages. Dr. He? ^kel, therefore, had the most favourable opportunity of studying nature, which he did with assiduity and success; and his superior skill gained him so high and so extens.ve a reputation, that his lectures were not only attended by persons who came from all parts of Germany, but he had also disciples who resorted to him from Sweden and Russia. Augustus II. king of Poland, and elector of Saxony, made him counsellor in the mines at Fryberg, and it was under his direction, that the porcelain manufacture was brought to perfection, which has rendered the town of Meissen so famous. He died in 1744-at Fryberg. His fine cabinet of natural rarities was purchased by Mr. Demidoff, a man of fortune, whose son presented it to the university of Moscow. Dr. HenckePs “Pyritologia” is known in this country by a translation, “History of the Pyrites,” published in 1757, 8vo; and there is a French translation of a posthumous work, entitled “Henckelius in Mineralogia redivivus,” Paris, 1756, 2 vols. 8vo, said to be very accurate.

, an English gentleman of parts and learning, was the son of sir R ->bert Henley, of the Grange in Hampshire, descended from the Henleys of Henley in Somersetshire; of whom sir Andrew Henley was created a baronet in 1660. This sir Andrew had a son of the same name, famous for his frolics and profusion. His seat, called Bramesley, near Hartley-row, in the county of Southampton, was very large and magnifirent. He had a great estate in that and the other western counties, which was reduced by him to a very small one, or to nothing. Sir Robert Henley of the Grange, his uncle, was a man of good sense and osconomy. He held the master’s place of the King’s-bench court, on the pleas side, many years; and by the profits of it, and good management, left his son, Anthony Henley, of the Grange, of whom we now treat, possessed of a very fine fortune, above 3000l. a-year, part of which arose from the ground-rents of LincolnVinnfields. Anthony Henley was bred at Oxford, where he distinguished himself by an early relish for polite learning. He made a great proficiency in the study of the classics, and particularly the ancient poets, by which he formed a good taste for poetry, and wrote verses with success. Upon his coming to London, he was presently received into the friendship and familiarity of persons of the first rank for quality and wit, particularly the earls of Dorset and Sunclerland. The latter had especially a great esteem and affection for him; and as every one knew what a secret influence he had on affairs in king William’s court, it was thought strange that Mr. Henley, who had a genius for any thing great, as well as any thing gay, did not rise in the state, where he would have shone as a politician, no Jess than he did at Will’s and Tom’s as a wit. But the Muses and pleasure had engaged him. He had something of the character of Tibullus, and, except his extravagance, was possessed of all his other qualities; his indolence, his gallantry, his wit, his humanity, his. generosity, his learning, his taste for letters. There was hardly a contemporary author, who did not experience his bounty. They soon found him out, and attacked him with their dedications; which, though he knew how to value as they deserved, were always received as well as the addressers could wish; and his returns were made so handsomely, that the manner was as grateful as the present.

There was, for a long time, a strict friendship between /Mr. Henley and Richard Norton of Sonthwick in Hampshire, es-q. who was often chosen to represent that county. This gentleman had the same passion for the Muses; and the similarity there was in their pleasures and studies, made that friendship the more firm and affectionate. They both lived to a good age before they married, and perhaps the breach that happened between them was one reason of their entering both into the state of matrimony much about the same time. Mr. Henley married Mary youngest daughter and co-heiress of the lion. Peregrine Bertie, sister to the countess Pawlet, with whom he had 30,000l. fortune, and by her he left several children. Of these Anthony, the eldest, died in 1745; and Robert, the second son, was created baron Henley and lord keeper of the great seal in 1760; became lord chancellor in 1761 and earl of Northington in 1764.

His most darling diversion was music, of which he was entirely master; his opinion was the standard of taste; and after the Italian music was introduced, no opera could be sure of applause, till it had received his approbation. He was such an admirer of Purcell’s music, and the English manner, that he did not immediately relish the Italian; but, practice reconciling his ear, he was at last much attached to it. Whether he composed himself, we know not; but he sang with art, and played on several instruments with judgment. He wrote several poems for music, and almost finished the opera of “Alexander” set by Purcell. Garth, in his preface to the Dispensary, has highly praised Henley, who was his friend; and his death, which happened in 1711, was very generally lamented.

In town, he produced several publications; as, a translation of Pliny’s “Epistles,” of several works of abbe Vertot, of Montfaucon’s “Italian Travels” in folio, and many other books. His principal patron was the earl of Macclesfield, who gave him a benefice in the country, the value of which to a resident would have been above 80/ a year; he had likewise a lecture in the city; and, according to his own account, preached more chanty-sermons about town, was more numerously followed, and raised more for the poor children, than any other preacher, however dignified or distinguished. This popularity, with his enterprising spirit, and introducing regular action into the pulpit, were “the true causes,” he says, “why some obstructed his rising in town, from envy, jealousy, and a disrelish of those who are not qualified to be complete spaniels. For there was no objection to his being tossed into a 'country benefice by the way of the sea, as far as Galilee of the Gentiles (like a pendulum swinging one way as far as the other.)” Not being able to obtain preferment in London, and not choosing to return into the country, he struck out the plan of his Lectures, or Orations, which he puffed with an astonishing vulgarity of arrogance, as may be seen in the following specimen:

, or Blind Harry, are the names given to a Scotch poet who lived in the fifteenth century, but of whom there are few memorials that can be relied on. It is conjectured that he wrote his celebrated “Actis & Deidis of Shyr Willam Wallace,” about 1446, and that he was then an old man. No surname is known; which belonged to Henry, nor is any thing known of his parentage or education. He discovers some knowledge in astronomy, in classical history, in the Latin and French languages, and in divinity; and some think he belonged to one or other of the religious orders, but this in a man blind from his infancy seems very improbable. He was a kind of travelling bard, visited the middle and south partsof Scotland, and probably the court of Scotland, and the great families. Wallace, his hero, was put to death in 1305, and Henry is supposed to have been born half a century later, but not too late for acquiring many particulars proper for his narrative, and it appears that he consulted with the descendants of some of Wallace’s contecaporaries. Besides this, he informs us that he followed very strictly a hook of great authority, a complete history of Wallace, written in Latin, partly hy John Blair and partly by Thomas Gray, both whom he mentions particularly, but no such work exists, nor can we tell whether he borrowed his many anachronisms and mistakes of persons and places from this work, or whether they were owing to defects in his own memory. Henry was blind from his birth; and that he should have acquired the knowjedge imputed to him, is much more wonderful than that he should be misled by traditionary reports. As he was blind, he fails in the descriptive parts of his poems, but for the same reason his invention is perpetually at work, and for matters of fact, he gives us all the wonders of romance. Many of his events never happened, and those which did are misplaced in point of time, or greatly exaggerated. His admirers are ready to allow that it is now impossible to distinguish between what is true and what is false in many of Henry’s relations but this can only be the case where the relation is all his own where we can appeal to other authorities, we frequently find him more erroneous than can easily be accounted for. A comparison has been formed between Henry’s “Wallace,” and Harbour’s “Bruce,” which terminates decidedly in Barbour’s favour. The “Bruce,” says an elegant critic, “is evidently the work of a politician as well as poet. The characters of the king, of his brother, of Douglas, and of the earl of Moray, are discriminated, and their separate talents always employed with judgment; so that every event is prepared and rendered probable by the means to which it is attributed; whereas the life of Wallace is a mere romance, in which the hero hews down whole squadrons with his single arm, and is indebted for every victory to his own muscular strength. Both poems are filled with descriptions of battles; but in those of Barbour our attention is successively directed to the cool intrepidity of king Robert, to the brilliant rashness of Edward Bruce, or to the enterprizing stratagems of Douglas; while in Henry we find little more than a disgusting picture of revenge, hatred, and blood.” As a poet, however, he has considerable merit, and the numerous editions through which his “Wallace” has passed, affords a sufficient proof of his popularity during all that period, when his language would be understood and the nature of his narrative be acceptable. The only manuscript known of this poem, and from which all th printed copies have been taken, is now in the Advocates’ library at Edinburgh, and bears date 1488. The first printed edition was that of Edinburgh, 1570; but the best and more correct is that of the Morisons of Perth, 1790, 3 vols. 12mo.

, an eminent nonconformist, was born at Whitehall in 1631: his father, John Henry, was page of the back-stairs to the king’s second son, James duke of York. About twelve years old he was admitted into Westminster-school, under Mr. Thomas Vincent, then usher; a man very diligent in his business, but who grieved so anuch at the dulness of many of his scholars, that he fell into a consumption, and was said to be “killed with false Latin.” In the regular time, he was taken into the upper school under Dr. Busby, with whom he was a great favourite; and was employed by him, xvith some others, in collecting materials for that excellent Greek grammar which he afterwards published. Soon after the civil wars broke out, there was a daily morning lecture set up at the abbey church by the assembly of divines. His pious mother requested Dr. Busby to give her son leave to attend this, and likewise took him with her every Thursday to Mr. Case^s lecture, at St. Martin’s: she took him also to the jnonthly fasts at St. Margaret’s, where the House of commons attended; and where the service was carried on with great strictness and solemnity, from eight in the morning till four in the evening: in these, as he himself has expressed it, he had often “sweet meltings of soul.”

Upon the whole, his character seems to have been highly exemplary and praiseworthy; and it may be asked, as Dr. Busby asked him, “What made him a nonconformist” The reason which he principally insisted on was, that he could *not submit to be re-ordained, which was required of those who had been ordained only according to the presbyterian form. When named in the commission of the peace, it was as Philip Henry, esq. He was, however, so well satisfied with his call to the ministry, and solemn ordination to it, by the laying on the hands of the presbytery, that he durst not do that which looked like a renunciation of it as null and sinful, and would at least be a tacit invalidating and condemning of all his administrations. Despairing to see an accommodation, he kept a meeting at Broad-oak, and preached to a congregation in a barn. He died June 24, 1696. His “Life” was written by his son, the subject of our next article, and published in 1699. The piety, Christian moderation, and good sense, which pervade the whole, render it one of the most interesting pieces of biography of the seventeenth century, and induced Dr. Wordsworth to reprint the whole in his “Ecclesiastical Biography,” with some useful notes

, an eminent dissenting teacher, and a voluminous writer, was the son of the foregoing, and born in 1662. He continued under his father’s eye and care till about eighteen; and had the greatest advantages of his education from him, both in divine and human literature. He was very expert in the learned languages, especially in the Hebrew, which had been made familiar to him from his childhood; and from first to last, the study of the scriptures was his most delightful employment. For further improvement, he was placed in 16SOat an academy at Islington. He was afterwards entered in Gray’s-inn, for the study of the law where he went on with his usual diligence, and became acquainted with the civil law, and the municipal law of his own country. His proficiency was soon observed; and it was the opinion of those who knew him, that his great industry, quick apprehension, tenacious memory, and ready utterance, would render him very eminent in that profession. But he adhered to his first resolution of making divinity his study and business, and attended the most celebrated preachers in town; and, as an instance of his judgment, was best pleased with Dr. Stillingfleet for his serious practical preaching; and with Dr. Tillotson for his admirable sermons against popery, at his lectures at St. Lawrence Jewry. In 1686, he returned into the country, and preached several times as a candidate for the ministry with such success and approbation, that the congregation at Chester invited him to be their pastor. To this place he was ordained in 1687, where he lived about twenty-five years. He had several calls from London, which he constantly declined but was at last prevailed ou to accept a very important and unanimous one from Hackney. He died in 1714, at Nantwich, of an apoplectic fit, upon a journey, and was interred in Trinity-church, in Chester.

, author of a History of England on a new plan, which has been generally and highly approved, was the son of James Henry, a farmer, at Muirtown in the parish of St. Ninian’s, Scotland, and of Jean Galloway his wife, of Stirlingshire. He was born on Feb. 18, 1718; and, having early resolved to devote himself to a literary profession, was educated first under a Mr. John Nicholson, at the parish school of St. Ninian’s, and for some time at the grammar-school at Stirling. He completed his academical studies at the university of Edinburgh, and afterwards became master of the grammar-school of Annan. He was licensed to preach on the 27th of March, 1746, and was the first licentiate of the presbytery of Annan, after its erection into a separate presbytery. Soon after he received a call from a congregation oi presbyterian dissenters at Carlisle, where he was ordained in November 1748. In this station he remained twelve years, and, on the 13th of August, 1760, became pastor of a congregation in Berwick upon Tweed. Here, in 1763, he married the daughter of Mr. Balderston, a surgeon, and though he had no children, enjoyed to the end of his life a large share of domestic happiness. In 1768, he was removed from Berwick, to be one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and was minister of the church of the New Grey Friars, from that time till November 1776. He then became colleague-minister in the old church, and in that station remained till his death, which happened in November, 1790. The degree of doctor in divinity was conferred on him by the university of Edinburgh, in 1770; and in 1774, he was unanimously chosen moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland, and is the only person on record who obtained that distinction the first time he was a member of the assembly.

, a learned Dominican, a native of France, was born about 1499, and went into Portugal in his infancy, and was there educated. He afterwards entered into the Dominican order at Louvain, where he died in 1566. He published some of the works of Euthymius Zigubenus, QScumenius, and Arethras, but is best known for the aid he contributed in publishing a beautiful edition of the Vulgate Bible, printed by Plantin in 1565, 5 vols, 12mo, and the Louvain Bible of 1547, reprinted 1583. The faculty of Louvain, who had engaged his assistance in these editions, employed him also on a less honourable commission, to collect from the works of Erasmus all erroneous and scandalous propositions, as they were called, that they might be laid before the council of Trent. This commission he executed in the true spirit of expurgatorial bigotry.

, a miscellaneous writer, and an imitator of the periodical essays of queen Anne’s reign, was born in Scotland in 1690, and in 1711 began a periodical paper called The Tatler, by Donald Macstaff of the North,“which extended to thirty numbers. They are evidently the production of a man of vigorous native powers, and of a, mind not meanly stored with ancient learning, and familiar with the best writings of the moderns; but they gave much offence, by the description of known characters, and by the personal satire which the author employed, with no gentle or delicate hand, on some men of note, both in the ecclesiastical and civil departments, among his countrymen. Mr. Hepburn, who had studied the civil law in Holland, became a member of the faculty of advocates at Edinburgh in 1712, and died soon after very young. Lord Hailes justly termed him” ingenii praecocis etpraefervidi.“In the concluding paper of his” Tatler“he announced, as then in the press, a translation of sir George Mackenzie’s” Idea eloquentia? Forensis;“and in the Advocates’ library is a small volume containing two treatises of his writing; the one entitled” Demonstratio quod Deus sit,“and the ether, Dissertatio de Scriptis Pitcarnianis.” The former of these is neatly and methodically written; the latter is somewhat jejune in point of matter, and too lavish of general panegyric.

, the founder of the sect of Heraciiteans, was born at Ephesus. He discovered an early propensity to the study of wisdom, and, by a diligent attention to the operations of his own mind, soon became sensible of his ignorance, and desirous of instruction. He was initiated into the mysteries of the Pythagorean doctrine by Xenophanes and Hippasus, and afterwards incorporated them into his own system. His fellow citizens solicited him to undertake the supreme magistracy; but, on account of their dissolute manners, he declined it in favour of his brother. When he was, soon afterwards, seen playing with the boys in the court of the temple of Diana, he said to those who expressed their surprize that he was not better employed, “Why are you surprised that I pass my time with children? It is surely better than governing the corrupt Ephesians.” He was displeased with them for banishing from their city so wise and able a man as Hermodorus; and plainly told them that he perceived they were determined not to keep among them any man who had more merit than the rest. His natural temper being splenetic and melancholy, he despised the ignorance and follies of mankind, shunned all public intercourse with the world, and devoted himself to retirement and contemplation. He made choice of a mountainous retreat for his place of residence, and lived upon the natural produce of the earth, Darius, king of Persia, having heard of his fame, invited him to his court; but he treated the invitation with contempt. His diet, and manner of life, at length brought him into a dropsy; upon which this philosopher, who was always fond of enigmatical language, returning into the city, proposed to the physicians the following question “Is it possible to bring dry ness out of moisture?” Receiving no relief from them, he attempted to cure himself by shutting himself up in a close stable of oxen; but it is doubtful how far he succeeded, for the cause and manner of his death are differently related by different writers. He flourished, as appears from his preceptors and contemporaries, about the sixty-ninth olympiad, B. C. 504. Sixty years are said to have been the term of his hfe. It has been a tale commonly received, that Heraclitirs was perpetually shedding tears on account of the vices of mankind, and particularly of his countrymen. But the story, which probably took its rise from the gloomy severity of his temper, ought to be ranked, like that of the perpetual laughing of Detnocritus, among the Greek fables. He wrote a treatise “On Nature,” of which only a few fragments remain. Througb the natural cast of his mind, and perhaps too through a desire of concealing unpopular tenets under the disguise of a figurative and intricate diction, his discourses procured him the name of the “Obscure Philosopher.” Neither critics norphilosopbers were able to explain his writings; and they remained in the temple of Diana, where he himself had deposited them for the use of the learned, till they were made public by Crates, or, as Tatian relates the matter, till the poet Euripides, who frequented the temple of Diana y committing the doctrines and precepts of Heraclitus to memory, accurately repeated them. From the fragments of this work, which are preserved by Sextus Empiricus, it appears to have been written in prose, which makes Tatian’s account the less credible. Brucker, to whom we refer, has given as good an account of Heraclitus’s systera as his obscure manner will permit. His sect was probably very soon extinct, as we find no traces of its existence after the death of Socrates, which may be ascribed, in part, to the insuperable obscurity of the writings of Heraclitus, but chiefly to the splendour of the Platonic system, by which it was superseded.

, an eminent Orientalist of France, was born at Paris Dec. 14, 1625. When he had gone through classical literature and philosophy, he applied himself to the Oriental languages; and especially to the Hebrew, for the sake of understanding the original text of the Old Testament. After a continual application for several years, he took a journey to Rome, thinking that conversing with Armenians, and other eastern people who frequented that city, would make him perfect in the knowledge of their languages.

Here he was particularly esteemed by the cardinals Barberini and Grimaldf, and contracted a firm friendship with Lucas Holstenius and Leo Allatius. Upon his return from this journey, in which he did not spend above a year and a half, Fouquet invited him to his house, and settled on him a pension of 1500 livres. The disgrace of this minister, which happened soon after, did not hinder Herbelot from being preferred to the place of interpreter for the eastern languages; because, in reality, there was nobody else so fit for it: for Voltaire says, “he was the first among the French who understood them.” Some years after he took a second journey into Italy, where he acquired so great a reputation, that persons of the highest distinction for their rank and learning solicited his acquaintance. The grand duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand II. whom he had the honour to see first at Leghorn, gave him extraordinary marks of his esteem had frequent conversations with him; and made him promise to visit him at Florence. Herbelot arrived there July 2, 1666, and was received by a secretary of state, who conducted him to a house prepared for him, where he was entertained with great magnificence, and had a chariot kept for his use, at the expence of the grand duke. These were very uncommon honours, but one remained much more grateful to a man of literature; a library being at that time exposed to sale at Florence, the duke desired Herbelot to see it, to examine the Mss. in the Oriental languages, and to select and value the best: and when this was done, the generous prince made him a present of them.

The distinction with which he was received by the duke of Tuscany, taught France to know his merit, which had hitherto been but little regarded; and he was afterwards recalled and encouraged by Colbert, who encouraged every thing that might do honour to his country. The grand tluke was very unwilling to let him go, and even refused to consent, till he had seen the express order of the minister for his return. When he came to France, the king often did him the honour to converse with him, and gave him a pension of 1500 livres. During his stay in Italy, he began his “Bibliotheque Orientale, or Universal Dictionary, containing whatever related to the knowledge of the eastern world;” and finished it in France. This work, equally curious and profound, comprises the substance of a great number of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish books which he had read; and informs us of an infinite number of particulars unknown before in Europe. He wrote it at first in Arabic, and Colbert had a design to print it at the Louvre, with a set of types cast on purpose. But after the death of that minister, this resolution was waved; and Herbelot translated his work into French, in order to render it more universally useful. He committed it to the press, but had not the satisfaction to see the impression finished; for he died Dec. 8, 1695, and it was not published till 1697, folio. What could not be inserted in this work was digested by him under the title of “Anthologie:” but this was never published, nor his Turkish, Persian, Arabian, and Latin dictionary, which, as well as other works, he had completed.

, lord Herbert, of Cherbury in Shropshire, an eminent English writer, was descended from a very ancient family, and born 1581, at Montgomery-­castle in Wales. At the age of fourteen he was entered as a gentleman-commoner at University college, in Oxford, where he laid, says Wood, the foundation of that admirable learning, of which he was afterwards a complete master. In 1600 he came to London, and shortly after the accession of James I. was created knight of the hath. He served the office of high sheriff for the county of Montgomery, and divided his time between the country and the court. In 1608, feeling wearied with the sameness of domestic scenes, he visited the continent, carrying with him some romantic notions on the point of honour, which, in. such an age, were likely to involve him in perpetual quarrels. His advantageous person and manners, and the reputation for courage which he acquired, gained him many friends, among whom was the constable Montmorenci. As a seat of this nobleman he passed several months practising horsemanship, and other manly exercises, in which he became singularly expert. He returned to England in 1609, and in the following, year he quitted it again, in. order that he might have the opportunity of serving with the English forces sent to assist the prince of Orange at the siege of Juliers. Here he signalised himself by his valour, which, in some instances, was carried to the extreme of rashness. After the siege he visited Antwerp and Brussels, and returned to London, where he was looked now upon as one of the most conspicuous characters of the time. An attempt was made to assassinate him, in revenge for some liberties which he took, or was supposed to have taken, with a married lady. In 1614 he went into the Low. Countries to serve under the prince of Orange; after this he engaged with the duke of Savoy, to conduct from France a body of protestants to Piedmont for his service. In 1616 he was sent ambassador to Louis XIII. of France, to mediate for the relief of the protestants of that realm, but was recalled in July 1621, on account of a dispute between him and the constable de Luines. Camden says that he had treated the constable irreverently; but Walton tells us that “he could not subject himself to a compliance with the humours of the duke de Luines, who was then the great and powerful favourite at court: so that, upon a complaint to our king, he was called back into England in some displeasure; but at his return gave such an honourable account of his employment, and so justified his comportment to the duke and all the court, that he was suddenly sent back upon the same embassy.”

Another writer relates this more particularly. Sir Edward, while he was in France, had private instructions from England to mediate a peace for the protestants in France; and, in case of a refusal, to use certain menaces. Accordingly, being referred to de Luines, he delivered to him the message, reserving his threatenings till he saw how the matter was relished. De Luines had concealed a gentleman of the reformed religion behind the curtain; who, heing an ear-witness of what passed, might relate to his friends what little expectations they ought to entertain of the king of England’s intercession. De Luines was very haughty, and asked what our king had to do in this affair. Sir Edward replied, “It is not to you, to whom the king my master owcth an account of his actions; and for me it is enough that I obey him. In the mean time I must maintain, that my master hath more reason to do what he doth, than you to ask why he doth it. Nevertheless, if you desire me in a gentle fashion, I shall acquaint you farther.” Upon this, de Luines bowing a little, said, “Very well.” The ambassador then gave him some reasons; to which de Luines said, “We will have none of your advices.” The ambassador replied, “that he took that for an answer, and was sorry only, that the affection and good-will of the king his master was not sufficiently understood and that, since it was rejected ii> that manner, he could do no less than say, that the king his master knew well enough what to do.” De Luines answered, “We are not afraid of you.” The ambassador smiling a little, replied, “If you had said you had not loved us, I should have believed you, and given you another answer. In the mean time, all that I will tell you more is, that we know very well what we have to do.” De Luines upon this, rising from his chair with a fashion and countenance a little discomposed, said, “By G, if you were not monsieur the ambassador, I know very well how I would use yon.” Sir Edward Herbert rising also from his chair, said, that “as he was the king of Great Britain’s ambassador, so he was also a gentleman; and that his sword, whereon he laid his hand, should give him satisfaction if he had taken any offence.” After which, de Luines making no reply, the ambassador went on towards the door, and de Luines seeming to accompany him, sir Edward told him, that “there was no occasion to use such ceremony after such language,” and so departed, expecting to hear farther from him. But no message being brought from de Luines, he had, in pursuance of his instructions, a more civil audience from the king at Coignac; where the marshal of St. Geran told him that tf he had offended the constable, and was not in a place of security there:“to which he answered, that” he thought himself to be in a place of security wheresoever he had his sword by him." De Luines, resenting the affront, procured Cadinet his brother, duke of Chaun, with a train of officers, of whom there was not one, as he told king James, but had killed his man, to go as an ambassador extraordinary; who misrepresented the affair so much to the disadvantage of sir Edward, that the earl of Carlisle, who was sent to accommodate the misunderstanding which might arise between the two crowns, got him recalled; until the gentleman who stood behind the curtain, out of a regard to truth and honour, related all the circumstances so as to make it appear, that though de Luines gave the first affront, yet sir Edward had kept himself within the bounds of his instructions and honour. He afterwards fell on his knees to king James, before the duke of Buckingham, requesting that a trumpeter, if not an herald, might be sent to de Luines, to tell him that he had made a false relation of the whole affair; and that sir Edward Herbert would demand satisfaction of him sword in hand. The king answered, that he would take it into consideration; but de Luines died soon after, and sir Edward was sent again ambassador to France.

This noble lord was the author of some very singular and memorable works: the first of which was his book “De Veritate,” which is mentioned in his epitaph. It was printed at Paris in 1624, and reprinted there in 1633; after which it was printed in London, in 1645, under this title; “De Veritate, prout distinguitur a revelatione, a verisimili, a possibili, a falso. Cui operi additi sunt duo alii tractatus primus de causis errornm; alter de Religione Laici.” In this he is said to have been the first author who formed deism into a system, and endeavoured to assert the sufficiency, universality, and absolute perfection of natural religion, without the necessity of any extraordinary revelation. He attempted to prove that the light of reason, and the innate principles planted in the human mind, are sufficient to discover the great doctrines of morality, to regulate our actions, and conduct us to happiness in a future state. The fallacy of all this has been ably displayed by Locke, Leland, and many other writers of eminence. But the noble author proved himself the greatest enthusiast, while he affected to combat enthusiasm, and by his own example evinced the absurdity of his system. Having finished the above treatise “De Veritate,” in which revelation is considered as useless, he was desito publish it; but, as the frame of his whole book differed from all former writings concerning the discovery of truth, he hesitated whether he should suspend the publication: “Being thus doubtful in my chamber,” says lord Herbert, “one fair day in the summer, my casement being open towards the south, the sun shining clear, and no wind stirring, I took my book * De Veritate‘ in my hands, and kneeling on my knees, devoutly said these words: ’ O thou eternal God, author of this light, which now shines upon me, and giver of all inward illuminations, I do beseech thee, of thine infinite goodness, to pardon a greater request than a sinner ought to make. 1 am not satisfied enough, whether I shall publish this book if it be for thy glory, I beseech thee give me some sign from heaven if not, I shall suppress it.' I had no sooner spoken these words, but a loud, though yet gentle noise, came forth from the heavens, for it was like nothing on earth, which did so chcar and comfort me, that I took my petition as granted, and that I had the sign I demanded; whereupon also I resolved to print my book. This, how strange soever it may seem, I protest before the eternal God, is true: neither am I any way superstitiously deceived herein, since I did not only clearly hear the noise, but in the serenest sky that ever 1 saw, being without all cloud, did, to my thinking, see the place from whence it came. And now I sent my book to be printed in Paris, at my own cost and charges.” It is not possible to reprove the folly and blindness of his conduct in this instance, in warmer terms than those which are employed by his noble editor. “There is no stronger characteristic of human nature than its being open to the grossest contradictions: one of lord Herbert’s chief arguments against revealed religion is, the improbability that Heaven should reveal its will to only a portion of the earth, which he terms particular religion. How could a man who doubted of partial, believe individual revelation What vanity, to think his book of such importance to the cause of truth, that it could extort a declaration of the divine will, when the interest of half mankind could not”

His most useful work, the “History of the Life and Reign of Henry VIII.” was published in 1649, a year after his death, and has always been much admired. Nicolson says, that lord Herbert “acquitted himself in this history with the like reputation, as the lord chancellor Bacon gained by that of Henry Vllth. For in the public and martial part this honourable author has been admirably particular and exact from the best records that were extant; though as to the ecclesiastical, he seems to have looked upon it as a thing out of his province, and an undertaking more proper for men of another profession.” Although it has been considered as a very valuable piece of history, there is not, perhaps, so much candour displayed in every part as could be wished. In 1663, appeared his book “De Religione Gentilium, errorumque apud eos causis.” The first part was printed at London, in 1645; and that year he sent the ms. of it to Gerard Vossius, as appears from a letter of his lordship’s, and Vossius’s answer. An English translation of this work was published in 1705, under this title: “The ancient Religion of the Gentiles, and causes of their errors considered. The mistakes and failures of the Heathen Priests and wise men, in their notions of the Deity and matters of Divine Worship, are examined with regard to their being destitute of Divine Revelation.” Lord Herbert wrote also in 1630, “Expeditio Buckingham! ducis in Ream insulam,” which was published in 1656; and “Occasional Verses,” published in 1665, by his son Henry Herbert, and dedicated to Edward lord Herbert, his grandson; hut they form no claim to the poetical character. Christian Kortholt, on account of his book “De Veritate,” has ranked him with Hobbes and Spinosa, in his dissertation entitled “De tribus impostoribus magnis, Edvardo Herbert, Thoma Hobbes, & Benedicto Spinosa, Liber,” printed at Kilon m 1680. Granger has very aptly described him as a man who was at once wise and capricious: who redressed wrongs, and quarrelled for punctilios; hated bigotry in religion, and was himself a bigot to philosophy; exposed himself to suoh dangers as other men of courage would have carefully declined and called in question the fundamentals of religion, which none had the hardiness to dispute besides himself. The life of lord Herbert, written by himself, was recovered by the family, after having been long missing, and printed at Strawberry -hill, by lord OrItbrd, in 1764, for private distribution; but was reprinted for sale by Dodsley in 1770, 4to. Lord Orford observes, that it is, perhaps, the most extraordinary account that ever was seriously given by a wise man of himself.

, an eminent and exemplary divine, younger brother to the preceding, was born April 3, 1593, at Montgomery castle. His father died when he was very young; and until the age of twelve, he was educated under private tutors in his mother’s house. He was then put under the care of Dr. Neale, dean of Westminster, and afterwards archbishop of York, who placed him at Westminster-school. At the age of fifteen, being then a king’s scholar, he was elerted to Trinity college, Cambridge, and went thither about 1608, during the mastership of that great benefactor to the college, Dr. Nevil, who, at his mother’s request, took particular notice of him. At college he was assiduous in his studies, and virtuous in his conduct. Here he took his bachelor’s degree in 1612, and that of master in 1616, before which he had obtained a fellowship. During his studies, his principal relaxation was music, for which he had a good taste, and in which, as Walton says, “he became a great master.” At this time, however, he betrayed a little of the vanity of youth and birth, by affecting great finery of dress, and maintaining a reserved behaviour towards his inferiors. In 1619, he was chosen university orator, which office he held for eight years, much to the satisfaction of his hearers, and particularly of those great personages whom he had occasionally to address. The terms of flattery he appears to have known how to use with great profusion; and in more than one instance, pleased king James very much with his liberal offerings of this kind. He gave no less satisfaction to his majesty also, by his apt and ingenious replies to Andrew Melville, a Scotch divine, at the Hampton-court conference. His talents recommended him to the notice of Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, and of the great lord Bacon, who is said to have entertained such a high opinion of Mr. Herbert, as to consult him in his writings, before they went to press, and dedicated to him his translation of some ef the Psalms into English verse, as the best judge of divine poetry. Nor was bishop Andrews less enraptured with his character; for Herbert, having, in consequence of a dispute between them on predestination and sanctity of life, written a letter to the bishop on the subject in Greek, Andrews used to show it to many scholars, and always carried it about him. Sir Henry Wotton and Dr. Donne may also be added to the number of those eminent men of his time whose friendship he shared.

About 1629, he was seized with a quotidian ague, which obliged him to remove to Woodford in Essex, for change of air; and when, after his ague had abated, some consumptive appearances were apprehended, he went to Dauntsey in Wiltshire, the seat of lord Danvers, earl of Danby, who appropriated an apartment for him, and treated him with the greatest care and kindness. Here, by abstaining from hard study, and by air and exercise, he apparently recovered his health, and then declared his resolution to marry, and to take priest’s orders. Accordingly he married Jane Danvers, daughter of Mr. Charles Danvers of Bainton in Wilts, related to the earl of Danby; and about three months after his marriage, at the request of Philip earl of Pembroke, the king presented him to the living of Bemerton, into which he was inducted April 26, 1630. Here he passed the remainder of his days, discharging the duties of a parish priest in a manner so exemplary, that the history of his life here, as given by Walton, or perhaps as delineated by himself in his “Country Parson,” may justly be recommended as a model. His own behaviour was indeed an exact comment on all he wrote, which appears to have come from the heart of a man of unfeigned piety and humility. Unhappily, however, for his rlock, his life was shortened by a return of the consumptive symptoms which had formerly appeared, and he died in February 1632, and was buried March 3.

, an eminent person of the Pembroke family, was born at York, where his grandfather was an alderman, and admitted of Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1621: but before he took a degree, removed to Trinity-­college in Cambridge. He made a short stay there, and then went to wait upon William earl of Pembroke, recorded in the following article; who owning him for his kinsman, and intending his advancement, sent him in 1626 to travel, with an allowance to bear his charge. He spent four years in visiting Asia and Africa; and then returning, waited on his patron at Baynard’s-castle in London. The earl dying suddenly, he was disappointed in his expectations of preferment, and left England a second time, and visited several parts of Europe. After his return he married, and now being settled, devoted much of his time to literary employments. In 1634 he published in folio, “A Relation of some Years Travels into Africa and the great Asia, especially the territories of the Persian Monarchy, and some parts of the Oriental Indies, and Isles adjacent.” The edition of 1677 is the fourth, and has several additions. This work was translated by Wiquefort into French, with “An Account of the Revolutions of Siam in 1647,” Paris, 1663, in 4to. All the impressions of Herbert’s hook are in folio, and adorned with cuts.

Upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he was induced to side with the parliament; and, by the influence of Philip earl of Pembroke, became not only one of the commissioners of parliament who acompanied the army of sir Thomas Fairfax, but a commissioner also to treat with those of the king’s party for the surrender of the garrison at Oxford. He afterwards attended that earl, especially in Jan. 1646, when he, with other commissioners, was sent from the parliament to the king at Newcastle about peace, and to bring his majesty nearer London. While the king was at Oldenby, the parliament commissioners, pursuant to instructions, addressed themselves to his majesty, and desired him to dismiss such of his servants as were there and had waited on him at Oxford: which his majesty with great reluctance consented to do. He had taken notice in the mean time of Mr. James Harrington, the author of the “Oceana,” and Mr. Thomas Herbert, who had followed the court from Newcastle and hearing a favourable character of them, was willing to receive them as grooms of his bed-chamber with the others that were left him; which the commissioners approving, they were that night admitted. Being thus settled in that honourable office, and in good esteem with his majesty, Herbert continued with him when all the rest of the chamber were removed; even till his majesty was brought to the block. The king, though he found him, says Wood, to be presbyterianly affected, yet withal found him very observant and loving, and therefore entrusted him with many matters of moment. The truth was, he found the king tu be of a very contrary disposition and character from what the malcontents of the day had represented him, and being equally ashamed of them, and of the delusion into which he had himself fallen, he attached himself to the king from that time to the moment of his murder; and during these two years he underwent, night and day, all the difficulties, dangers, and distresses, that his royal master suffered. At the restoration he was made a baronet by Charles II. “for faithfully serving his royal father during the two last years of his life;” as the letters patent for that purpose expressed. He died at his house in York, March 1, 1681-2.

The character of this noble person is not only one of the most amiable in lord Clarendon’s history, but is one of the best drawn. We can, however, give only a few particulars. “He was,” says the great historian, “the most universally beloved and esteemed of any man of that age; and having a great office in the court, he made the court atself better esteemed, and more reverenced in the country: and as he had a great number of friends of the best men, so no man had ever the confidence to avow himself to be his enemy. He was a man very well bred, and of excellent parts, and a graceful speaker upon any subject, having a good proportion of learning, and a ready wit to apply it, and enlarge upon it: of a pleasant and facetious humour, and a disposition affable, generous, and magnificent. He lived many years about the court before in it, and never by it; being rather regarded and esteemed by lung James, than loved and favoured. As he spent and lived upon his own fortune, so he stood upon his own feet, without any other support than of his proper virtue and merit. He was exceedingly beloved in the court, because he never desired to get that for himself which others laboured for, but was still ready to promote the pretences of worthy men: and he was equally celebrated in the country, for having received no obligations from the court, which might corrupt or sway his affections and judgment. He was a great lover of his country, and of the religion and justice which he believed could only support it: and his friendships were only with men of those principles. Sure never man was planted in a court who was fitter for that soil, or brought better qualities with him to purify that air. Yet his memory must not be flattered, that his virtues and good inclinations may be believed he was not without some alloy of vice he indulged to himself the pleasures of all kinds, almost in all excesses,” &c. It ought not to be forgot that this earl of Pembroke vras a munificent contributor to the Bodleian library, of two hundred and forty-two Greek Mss. purchased by him in Italy, and formerly belonging to Francis Barroccio. This gift is commemorated by an inscription over the collection in the library, where also are a painting and a statue of his lordship. Pembroke-college was so named in honour of him.

, an eminent typographical antiquary, was born Nov. 29, 1718, and educated at Hitchin in Hertfordshire. He appears to have been originally destined for trade, as he was bound apprentice to a hosier in London, and carried on that business for some time on his own account. It is probable, however, that he did noj succeed, or became desirous of some other means of livelihood, and it is said that one time he studied the art of painting on glass. About his thirtieth year he accepted the situation of purser’s clerk to three East-India ships. He set sail in one of them which was to take in a lading of pepper at Tellicherry: but before she had completed that purpose, an alarm of six French men of war was given. The governor demanded thirty men out of each ship, as he had a power to do, for the defence of the place; and the ship sailed away without lights round the Lucadine islands, and by Mount Delhi, to Bombay. After the alarm was over they returned, and sent Mr. Herbert, in a miserable boat, without change of linen, to demand their men, whom the governor refused to give up, and he returned; but the ships having left their station, the boat could not find them, and the wind being against him, he was obliged to remain at Tellicherry. Being engaged to return to his ship by the middle of July, he was obliged to undertake a journey over land on the sixteenth of that month, with a Portuguese boy, (who understood a little English, Portuguesej and Parriar or Lingua Franca), twelve sepoys, eight porters, in all twenty, besides himself and boy; and went round by sea to Calicut, before he ascended the heights with two bramins, who were bound by their caste to conduct him safe. The anxiety at not meeting the ships at the appointed time, he did not recover for a twelvemonth: though he rejoined them August 8, at Fort St. David, Fort George being in the hands of the French.

, an ingenious member of the academy at Soissons, and that of ^the Ricovrati at Padua, was born at Soissons of a noble family; and the meetings held at his hoTise gave rise to the academy afterwards established in that place. He was entrusted with some important commissions by the French court, and wrote a history of the academy of Soissons, in Latin, printed at Montauban, 1688, 8vo. He died 1704. M. Lewis de Hericourt, an eminent advocate at Paris, his grandson, who died 1753, was author of “Traite” des Loix Ecclesiastiques, mises dans leur ordre naturel,“1771,fol. an abridgement of pere Thomassins’s” Discipline de PEglise,“with remarks, 4to;” Traite de la Vente des Immeubles," 4to; and some posthumous works, 4 vols. 4to.

, an eminent French botanist, was born at Paris in 1746. In 1772 he was appointed superintendant of the waters and forests of the generality of Paris, and his active mind being turned to fulfil the duties of his office, he began to apply to botany, with a particular view to the knowledge of foresttrees. Broussonet, who had studied with sir Joseph Banks, and was an ardent Linnaean, was the intimate friend of L'Heritier, and contributed in no small degree to urge him forward in his career. The first fruits of his labours was a splendid book, with finely engraved plates, entitled “Stirpes novae,” of which the first fasciculus, containing eleven plates with their descriptions, appeared in J7S4. Five more followed, amounting to eighty-four platas. To secure to himself some of his own discoveries, and especially the establishment of certain new genera and their names, L'Heritier contrived a method of publishing such in the form of monographs, with one or two plates. Of these he distributed the copies gratuitously to different people, so that no individual might be possessed of the entire collection. A complete set, however, is in the library of sir Joseph Banks, and another in that of the president of the Linnaean society. In 1786 he came over to England, and collected from the English gardens the materials of his “Sertum Anglicum,” a Work consisting of several fasciculi, on a similar plan to his Stirpes Novafe, but it remains unfinished. In 1775 he became a conseiller a la cour des aides, was for a long time the dean of that court, and accepted the office of a judge in the civil tribunals of the department of the Seine, and is recorded to have fulfilled its duties with the most exemplary rectitude and incorruptibility. He also sat from time to time as a member of the representative body. His views were always those of a true patriot, the correction of abuses, the maintenance of the laws in their genuine force and purity; and the darling object of his emulation was the uncorrupted British constitution.

It is with pain that we advance towards the dreadful catastrophe of his life. He had married, in 1775, an estimable woman of the name of Dore, with whom he passed nineteen years in domestic happiness. She died in 1794, leaving him five children. He devoted himself to their education, but with respect to one of them, a son, his parental solicitude was attended with little success, and his hopes were blasted in a cruel manner, by the most refractory and unprincipled conduct. The parent returning very late one evening in August 1801, from a meeting of the national institute, never again reached his own domestic circle. His children expected him all night in the greatest anxiety and uncertainty. Some savage cries of insult or exultation were overheard in the silence of the night, but their object was not discovered till the dawn of morning, when the murdered body of the father of the family was found near his own threshold, with the money and other valuables which he carried about him untouched. No certain discovery was made of the murderer, but suspicion seems to have attached to the wretched son, who is since dead.

, professor of botany and the materia medica at Strasburgh, was born Dec. 21, 1738, at Barr, near Strasbnrgh. His father, a protestant clergyman at that place, devoted his leisure hours to physical experiments, and imparted to his son a tasce for the study of natural history and the science of nature, who made at the same time an extraordinary progress in rhetoric, philology, history, philosophy, mathematics, and hiedicine, In 1765, he took the degree of doctor of medicine, and made a -journey to Paris, where he enlarged his knowledge, enriched his cabinet of natural history, and acquired the friendship of the most eminent French literati. In the twenty-sixth year of his age he commenced at Strasburgh, lectures on natural history, which he continued until his death. In 1768 he was appointed professor extraordinary of medicine; ten years afterwards he obtained the chair of philosophy, and in 1782 that of pathology. At the death of professor Spielmann, in 1784, he was promoted to the professorship of botany, chemistry, and materia medica. On the reform of the system of literary education in France he was appointed professor of bot^in^ and the materia medica, at the medical academy established in Strasburgh in 1795, and professor of natural history at the central school. He was also admitted a fellow of the national institute of France, and successively chosen a member of the royal academy of sciences, of Berlin, of the Linnaean society, and of several other academies and literary societies. Among his numerous correspondents were Buffon, Cuvier, Fortis, Hany, Millin, La Peyrouse, Schreber, Zimmer*­mann, c, Hesacrificed all his property to form one of the finest and richest cabinets of natural history in Europe, and without having edited any large work on natural science, he has enriched it with many interesting discoveries and ingenious observations, published in his numerous dissertations, and in several literary journals, both Gerjnan and French. He died of a pulmouic disease, Oct. 4, 1800.

, a celebrated botanist, was born at Halle, in Saxony, towards the middle of the seventeenth century. Having resided some time in the East Indies, and especially at Ceylon, where he practised as a physician, he was induced to re-visit Europe in 1679, and filled the botanical professorship at Leyden, and at the same time having the care of the botanical garden, he soon more than doubled the number of plants which had been introduced by his predecessors during 150 years. He was the first in Holland who adopted a system of botany founded on the fructification, partly following the arrangement of Morison, and partly that of Ray. His works are remarkable for the excellence and neatness of his figures, containing descriptions of many new plants found in various parts of the world. He died on the 29th of January, 1695. Linnæus, in his “Classes Plantarum,” has given a sketch of the Hennannian system, which is founded upon the fruit, to which he adhered with more pertinacity than either Ray or Morison themselves. The first work he published was a “Catalogue of the Leyden Garden,” in 1687, reprinted at Leyden in 1720, 8vo, under the title of “Index Piantarum quse in horto Leidensi aluntur,” to which Boerhaave added a history of the garden. To Hermann may be ascribed, on the authority of Sherard, the following work, “Florae Lugdunobatavrc flores,” though publislied under the name of Zumbach. In 1695, a work, entitled “Flora Lugdunobatava,” was begun to be printed, but after a few sheets were taken oft, its author’s death put a stop to any further continuation of it. At this time the “Paradisus Batavus” was in a state of forwardness, and it was published in 8vo, as a posthumous work, about three years afterwards. It was, however, reprinted in quarto in 1705, having been edited by William Sherard, at the expence of Hermann’s widow. This indefatigable man left a considerable number of papers and dried plants, the latter of which came into the possession of J. Burmann; and formed the corner-stone of his “Thesaurus Zeylanicus,” published at Amsterdam in 1737. These same plants came afterwards into tha hands of Linnæus for a time, and from them his “Flora Zeylanica” was composed. They are now finally the property of sir Joseph Banks. Besides the above books, he was the author of the foliowing works “Mussei Indici catalogus, continens varia exotica animalia, insecta, vegetabilia, mineralia, quse collegerat,” 1711, 8vo; “Lapis Lydius Materiae Medicae,” 1704, 8vo “Musaeum Zeylanicum” (unfinished) “Catalogus Plantarum Capitis Bonse Spei” (unedited) and wrote various botanical and medical tracts, which are of less moment, and some of which are superseded by the former.

, a learned and pious doctor of the Sorbonne, and a voluminous author, was born at Beauvais in 1617, and displayed early propensities for learning. Potier bishop and earl of Beauvais sent him to the various colleges of Paris for education. He obtained a canonry of Beauvais, was rector of the university of Paris in 1646, and died in 1690, after being excluded from his canonry and the Sorbonne for some ecclesiastical dispute. Hermant had the virtues and defects of a recluse student^ and was much esteemed for his talents and piety by Tillemont and others of the solitaries at Port Royal. His style was noble and majestic, but sometimes rather inflated. His works are numerous: 1. “Toe Life of St. Athanasius,” 2 vols. 4to. 2. Those of “St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen,” of the same extent. 3. The Life of St. Chrysostom,“written under the name of Menan. And, 4. That of” St. Ambrose,“both in 4to. 5. A translation, of some tracts from St. Chrysostom. 6. Another from St. Basil. 7. Several polemical writings against the Jesuits, who therefore became his mortal enemies, and contrived to interfere with his monumental honours after death, by preventing the inscription of a very commendatory epitaph. 8.” A Defence of the Church against Labadie.“9.” Index Universalis totius juris Ecclesiastici,“folio. 10.” Discours Chretien sur retablissement du Bureau des pauvres de Beauvais," 1653. A life of him has been published by Baillet.

, or Hermas commonly called the Shepherd, was an antient father of the church, and is generally supposed to have been the same whom St. Paul mentions in Rom. xvi. 14. He is ranked amongst those who are called Apostolical Fathers, from his having lived in the times of the apostles: but who he was, what he did, and what he suffered for the sake of Christianity, are all in a great measure, if not altogether, unknown to us. He seems to have belonged to the church at Rome, when Clement was bishop of it; that is, according to Dodwell, from the year 64 or 65 to the year 81. This circumstance we are able to collect from his “Second Vision,” of which, he tells us, he was commanded to communicate a copy to Clement. What his condition was before his conversion, we know not; but that he was a man of some consideration, we may conclude from what we read in his “Third Vision;” where he owns himself to have been formerly unprofitable to the Lord, upon the account of those riches which afterwards he seems to have dispensed in works of charity and beneficence. After his conversion he probably lived a very strict life, since he is said to have been employed in several messages to the church, both to correct their manners, and to warn them of the trials that were about to come upon them. His death, if we may believe the “Roman Marty rology,” was conformable to his life; where we read, that being “illustrious for his miracles, he at last offered himself a worthy sacrifice unto God.” Baronius says, that “having undergone many labours and troubles in the time of the persecution under Aurelius, he at last rested in the Lord July 26th, which is therefore observed in commemoration of him.” But Hermas being sometimes called by the title of “Pastor, or Shepherd,” the Roman martyrologist has divided the good man into two saints: and they observe the memorial of Hennas May the 9th, and of Pastor July the 26th.

Hennas’s book, “The Shepherd,” is the only remains of this father, and has been highly extolled by some of the ancients, while its authenticity has been called in question by others; and most of the fathers, who have spoken of it well themselves, plainly enough insinuate, that there were others who did not put the same value upon it. The moderns in general have not esteemed it so highly; and indeed, as Dupin observes, “whether we consider the manner it is written in, or the matter it contains, it does not appear to merit much regard.” The first part, for it is divided into three, is called “Visions,” and contains many visions, which are explained to Hermas by a woman, who represents the church. These visions regard the state of the church, and the manners of the Christians. The second, which is the most useful, is called “Commands,' 1 and comprehends many moral and pious instructions, delivered to Hernias by an angel and the third is called” Similitudes." Many useful lessons are taught in these books, but the visions, allegories., and similitudes, have little to recommend them.

, an Egyptian legislator, priest, and philosopher, lived, as some think, in the year of the world 2076, in the reign of Ninus, after Moses: and was so skilled in all profound arts and sciences, that he acquired the surname of Trismegistus, or “thrice great.” Clemens Alexandrinus has given us an account of his writings, and a catalogue of some of them such as, the book containing the Hymns of the Gods another “De rationibus vitae regiae” four mo*e, “De astrologia,” that is, “De ordine fixarunl stellarum, & de conjunctione & illuminatione Solis & Lunae” ten more, entitled, “lE^arwa,” or which treat of laws, of the gods, and of the whole doctrine and discipline of the priests. Upon the whole, Clemens makes Hermes the author of thirty -six books of divinity and philosophy, and six of physic; but they are all lost. There goes indeed one under his name, whose title is “Poemander;” but this is agreed by all to be supposititious, and Casaubon imagines it to be written about the beginning of the second century, by some Platonizing Christian, who, to enforce Christianity with a better grace upon Pagans, introduces Hermes Trismegistus delivering, as it were long before, the greatest part of those doctrines which are comprised in the Christian creed.

This philosopher has stood exceedingly high in the opinion of mankind, ancients as well as moderns. Plato tells us, that he was the inventor of letters, of ordinary writing, and hieroglyphics. Cicero says, that he was governor of Egypt, and invented letters, as well as delivered the first laws to the people of that country; and Suidas asserts, that he flourished before Pharoah, and acquired the surname of Trismegistus, because he gave out something oracular concerning the Trinity. Gyraldus thinks he was called Thrice Great, because he was the greatest philosopher, the greatest priest, and the greatest king. When the great lord chancellor Bacon endeavoured to do justice to the merits of our James I. he could think of no better means for this purpose, than by comparing him to Hermes Trismegistus, who was at once distinguished by the glory of a king, the illuminations of a priest, and the learning of a philosopher."

, a naturalist and physician, was sent out by Philip II. king of Spain, to make obseryations on, and to describe, the natural productions of Spanish America. His pecuniary allowance for this purpose appears to have been ample, and he spared no expence to make himself acquainted with such objects as he was in search of. He wrote an account of their nature *nd properties, but it does not appear that he lived to superintend the publication of his labours, for in 1651 the result of his inquiries was edited at Rome under the care of the Lyncaean academy, established in that city; tht papers of Hernandez having been purchased by Frederic Cesi, a young nobleman, who founded and was perpetual president of the Lyncaei. This work had originally been published in the Spanish language at Mexico, under the name and care of Francis Ximenes; but the Roman edition, in small folio, came out in Latin, having the following title, “Nova Plantarum, Animalium, et Mineralium Mexicanorum Historia, a Francisco Hernandez, Medico, in Indiis praestantissimo primum compilata. Dein a Nardo Antonio Reecho in volumen digesta, a Johanno Terentio, Johanno Fabro, ct Fabio Columna, Lyncseis, notis et adtlitionibus longe doctissimis illustrata.” The original drawings of this work were procured by Hernandez, who paid the immense sum of sixty thousand ducats for them; they had been drawn at the time when Joseph a Costa was in America, but the numerous wooden cuts which accompany this volume are by no means equal to what might have been expected from the account we have of the drawings, and the work did not answer the trouble and expence which had been bestowed upon it. What became of him is not recorded, but his drawings were consumed by a fire in the Escurial. Some of liis representations are so extraordinary, that their truth has been doubted, but his accuracy has lately been verified. Hernandez does not appear to have published any other works on natural history, but this will entitle him to our gratitude for' having first unfolded to European botanists the treasures of that then little known quarter of the world. A history of the church at Mexico has been ascribed to our author, but without certainty.

, A. M. an English controversial writer, was a native of Suffolk, and admitted pensioner of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Fawcett, Oct. 29, 1711; he was made scholar of the house next year, and proceeded A. B. in 1715. About this time he was recommended to the duchess of Bedford, who took him into her family, for the instruction of her sons, Wrotthesly, the third, and John, the fourth duke of Bedford; and the year following he was made fellow of Merton college, Oxford, where he commenced M. A. in 1718. He was a man of learning, virtue, and spirit, and continued a batcheior and a layman till the time of his death, which happened at Woburn about the year 1722. He published “The False notion of a Christian priesthood, &c.” in answer to Mr. Law, 1717-8 “A Letter to the Prolocutor,” jjo answer to one from him to Dr. Tenison, 1717-8. “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Tenison concerning Citations out of Arch. Wake’s Preliminary Discourse to the Apostolic Fathers,” Lond. 1718; ' Three Discourses on private Judgment, against the authority of the Magistrate over conscience, and considerations concerning uniting Protestants, translated from Professor Werenfels, with a preface to Dr. Teaison by Philakuthtirus Cantabrigiemis, Lond. 171-8.“Under this name he was one of the writers in the Bangorian controversy, of which he began in some measure the history, by publishing an account of all the considerable pamphlets to which it gave rise, with a continuation and occasional observations, to the end of the year 1719, by the name of Philonagnostes Criticus. He published also, w An account of all the considerable books and pamphlets written in the controversy concerning the Trinity,” from 1712 to the same time, Lond. 1720: also a “Vindication of the Archbishop of Canterbury from being the author of a Letter on the State of Religion in England, printed at Zurich,” Lond. 1719; and “Two letters to Dr. Mangey on his Sermon upon Christ’s Divinity,” published about the same time.

, is the name of two celebrated mathematicians of antiquity, who are usually distinguished by the epithets, Hero the elder, and Hero the younger. The first was a native of Alexandria, and the disciple of Ctesias, who flourished in the reigns of Ptolemy Philadelphia and Euergetes I. He was distinguished by his great skill in mechanics, and particularly in the construction of machinery; as a moralist he was inclined to the tenets of Epicurus. He was author of a treatise “De Constructione et Mensura Manubalistoe,” of which a fragment was published in Greek by Bernardino Baldi “Pe Telis conficiendis jaculandisque Liber,” published with notes by Baldi “Spiralia,” published in 1575 by Frederic Commandine and “De Automatorum Fabrica.” These are all to be found in the Louvre edition of the “Ancient Mathematicians.” The younger Hero is supposed to have flourished under the reign of the emperor Heraclius. He was author of “De Machinis Bellicis Geodcesia;” “Liber de Obsidione repellenda et toleranda” and <c De Vocabulis Geonaetricis et Stereometricis."

, so called rather from his power and talents than his goodness, was a native of Ascalon in Judea, and thence sometimes called the Ascalonite. He was born seventy years before the Christian osra, the son of Antipater an Idumean, who appointed him to the government of Galilee. He at first embraced the party of Brutus and Cassius, but, after their death, that of Antony. By him he was named tetrarch, and afterwards, by his interest, king of Judea in the year 40 A. C. After the battle of Actium, he so successfully paid his court to Augustus, that he was by him confirmed in his kingdom. On all occasions he proved himself an able politician and a good soldier. But he was far from being master of his passions, and his rage very frequently was. directed against his own family. Aristobiilus, brother to his beloved wife Mariamne, her venerable grandfather Hyrcanus, and finally she herself, fell victims to his jealousy and fury. His keen remorse fojp her death rendered him afterwards yet more cruel. He put to death her mother Alexandra, and many others of his family. His own sons Alexander and Aristobulus having excited his suspicions, he destroyed them also, which made Augustus say, that it was better to be Herod’s hog than his son. Among his good actions svas *he rebuilding qf the temple at Jernsalenj, which be performed in nine years, with great magnificence; and in the time of a famine he sold many valuable and curious articles he had collected, to relieve the sufferers. To Augustus he paid the utmost adulation, and even divine honours. At the birth of our Saviour, his jealousy was so much excited by the prophetic intimations of his greatness, that he slaughtered all the infants in Bethlehem, in hopes of destroying him among the number. But his tyranny was now nearly at an end, and two or three years after the birth of Christ he died of a miserable disease at the age of more than seventy. He had nine or ten wives, of which number Mariamiie was the second. A little before his death, soured yet more by his acute sufferings, he attempted a greater act of cruelty than any he had performed in his former life. He sent for all the most considerable persons in Judea, and ordered that as soon as he was dead, they should all be massacred, that every great family in the country might weep for him. But this savage order was not executed. Some have supposed that he assumed the character of the Messiah, and that the persons who admitted that claim were those called in the gospel Herodians. But this is by no means certain. Herod was the first who shook the foundations of the Jewish government. He appointed the high-priests, and removed them at his pleasure, without regard to the laws of succession; and he destroyed the authority of the national council. But by his credit with Augustus, by his power, and the very magnificent buildings he erected, he gave a temporary splendour to that nation. His son, Herod Antipas, (by his fifth wife Cleopatra) was tetrarch of Galilee after his death.

, a Greek historian, flourished at Rome from the reign of Commodus to the beginning of the reign of Gordian III. We know little of his life, except that he was engaged in many public employments. He is supposed to have died at Rome about the year 240. The history, which he has left us, is comprized in eight books;, at the beginning of the first of which he declares, that he will only write of the affairs of his own time, such as he had either known himself, or received information of from creditable persons. Like many historians who have related the events of their own times, Herodian forgets sometimes that he is writing for posterity, and omits the necessary dates; nor is he very correct as to matters of fact, and points of geography. His impartiality has been called in question by some critics, as far as respects his characters of Alexander Severus and Maximinian, but others seem inclined to defend him. His style is neat, perspicuous, and pleasing, and occasionally eloquent, particularly in the speeches he inserts. Herodian was translated into Latin by Angelus Politianus, and may therefore be read, according to professor Whear, either in Greek or Latin “for,” says he, “I don't know which of the two deserves the greater praise Herodian, for writing so well in his own language, or Politian, for translating him so happily, as to make him appear like an original in a foreign one.” This, however, has more of compliment than of sober criticism, although it may be allowed that Politian has been uncommonly successful. Though we have considered Herodian hitherto as an historian only, yet Suidas informs us, that he wrote many other books, which have not been preserved from the ruins of time. The first edition of Herodian is among the “Res Gestae” of Xenophun, published by Aldus, 1503, folio; but the translation by Politian appeared first at Home in June 1493. folio, and again in September of that year at Bologna, a magnificent book, printed by Plato de Benedictis, and accurately described in the <c Bibliotheca Spenceriana." There was a third edition of Politian’s translation, at the same place and in the same year, in 4to, printed by Bazalerius de Bazaleriis. The best editions of Herodian in Greek are those of Louvaine, 1525, 4to; Stephens, Paris, 1581, 4to Boeder, Strasburgh, 1644—62—72, 8vo; Ox-ford, 1678—99, 1704—8, 8vo; Ruddiman, Edinburgh, 1724, 8vo; Irsmich, Leipsic, 1789, 5 vols. 8vo, by far the most erudite and elaborate. All these have Politian’s translation.

, an ancient Greek historian of Halicarnassus in Caria, was born in the first year of the 74th olympiad; about 484 years before Christ. This time of his birth is fixed by a passage in Aulus Gellius, Book xv. chap 23. which makes Helianicus 65, Herodotus 53, and Thucydides 40 years old, at the commencement of the Peloponnesian war. The name of his father was Lyxes; of his mother, Dryo. The city of Halicarnassus being at that time under the tyranny of Lygdamis, grandson of Artemisia queen of Caria, Herodotus quitted his country, and retired to Samos; whence he travelled over Egypt, Greece, Italy, &c. and in his travels acquired the knowledge of the history and origin of many nations. He then began to digest the materials he had collected into order, and composed that history which has preserved his name ever since. He wrote it in the isle of Samos, according to the general opinion; but the elder Pliny affirms it to have been written at Thurium, a town in that part of Italy then called Magna Graecia, whither Herodotus had retired with an Athenian colony, and where he is supposed to have died, not however before he had returned into his own country, and by his influence expelled the tyrant Lygdamis. At Samos he studied the Ionic dialect, in which he wrote, his native dialect being Doric. Lucian informs us, that when Herodotus left Caria to go into Greece, he began to consider with himself, what he should do to obtain celebrity and lasting fame, in the most expeditious way, and with as little trouble as possible. His history, he presumed, would easily procure him fame, and raise his name among the Grecians, in whose favour it was written; but then he foresaw, that it would be very tedious, if not endless, to go through the several cities of Greece, and recite it to each respective city; to the Athenians, Corinthians, Argives, Lacedaemonians, &c. He thought it most proper, therefore, to take the opportunity of their assembling all together; and accordingly recited his work at the Olympic games, which rendered him more famous than even those who had obtained the prizes. None were ignorant of his name, nor was there a single person in Greece, who had not either seen him at the Olympic games, or heard those speak of him who had seen him there; so that wherever he came, the people pointed to him with their ringers, saying, “This is that Herodotus, who has written the Persian wars in the Ionic dialect; this is he who has celebrated our victories.”

His work is divided into nine books, which, according to the computation of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, contain the most remarkable occurrences within a period of 240 years; from the reign of Cyrus the first king of Persia, to that of Xerxes, when the historian was living. These nine books are called after the nine Muses, each of which is distinguished by the name of a Muse and this has given birth to two disquisitions among the learned first, whether they were so called by Herodotus himself; and secondly, for what reason they were so called. As to the first, it is generally agreed that Herodotus did not impose these names himself; but it is not agreed why they were imposed by others. Lucian, in the place referred to above, tells us, that those names were given them by the Grecians at the Olympic games, when they were first recited, as the best compliment that could be paid the man who had taken pains to do them so much honour. Others have thought, that the name of Muses have been fixed upon them by way of reproach, and were designed to intimate, that Herodotus, instead of true history, had written a great deal of fable, for which, it must be owned, he has been censured by Thucydides, Strabo, and Juvenal, and particularly Plutarch, who conceived a warm resentment against him, for casting an odium upon his countrymen the Thebans, and therefore wrote that little treatise, to be found in his works, “Of the Malignity of Herodotus.” Herodotus, however, has not wanted defenders in Aldus Manutius, Joachim Camerarius, and Henry Stephens, who have very justly observed, that he seldom relates any thing of doubtful credit, without producing his authority, or using terms of caution; and some events, narrated by him, which were once thought wonders, have been confirmed by modern voyages and discoveries.

Herodotus wrote in the Ionic dialect, and his style and manner have ever been admired by all readers of taste. Cicero, in his second book “De Oratore,” says, that “he is so very eloquent and flowing, that he pleased him exceedingly;” and in his “Brutus,” that “his style is free from all harshness, and glides along like the waters of a still river.” He calls him also the Father of History; because he was, if not the first historian, the first who brought history to that degree of perfection. Quintilian has given the same judgment of Herodotus. “Besides the flowing sweetness or' his style, even the dialect he uses has a peculiar grace, and seems to express the harmony of numbers. Many,” says he, “have written history well; but every body owns, that there are two historians preferable to the rest, though extremely different from each other. Thucydides is close, concise, and sometimes even crowded in his sentences: Herodotus is sweet, copiou&, and exuberant. Thucydides is more proper for men of warm passions Herodotus for those of a sedater turn. Thucydides excels in orations Herodotus in narrations. The one is more forcible the other more agreeable.” There have been several editions of Herodotus the first in Greek, is that of Aldus, 1502, folio. There are also two by Henry Stephens, in 1570 and 1592; one by Gale at London in 1679; and one by Gronovius at Leyden in 1715. But the best is that of Wesseling, published at Amsterdam in 1763. There is also an elegant edition by Schcefer, Leipsic, 1800, &c. 8vo, and anothef printed at Edinburgh, 1806, 7 vols. 8vo. The first Latin translation was published at Venice in 1474, folio. It has been twice translated into English once by Littlebury, in 2 vols. 8vo, without notes the second time by, Mr. Beloe, in 4 vols. with many useful and entertaining remarks. There is also an excellent French translation, by M. Larcher, with very learned notes and dissertations, first printed in 1786, 7 vols. 8vo, and reprinted with additions, 1802, y vols. 8vo.

, a Spanish poet, was born at Seville, and flourished in the sixteenth century. In 1582 he published a collection of lyrical and heroic poems, which was reprinted in 1619, and acquired their author a high reputation, as one who had attained to the greatest excellence in the lyric poetry of Spain. His style is neat, correct, elegant, and copious. He published an edition of Garcilasso de la Vega, with notes the life of sir Thomas More; and a narrative of the war of Cyprus, and the battle of Lepanto.

, one of the minor poets, of very considerable merit, in the reign of Charles I. was born in London, but descended from an ancient and genteel family in Leicestershire, the history of which is amply detailed by the able historian of that county. He was the fourth son of Nicholas Herrick, of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, by Julian Stone his wife, and was born in August 1591. He was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, from 1615 to 1617; and Wood, who indeed speaks with hesitation, seems wrong in placing him in his Athenæ Oxonienses. He is said to have afterwards removed to Trinity hall, Cambridge; but nothing more of his academical progress is known. Being patronised by the earl of Exeter, he was presented by king Charles I. on the promotion of Dr. Potter to the see of Carlisle, to the vicarage of Dean Prior in Devonshire, Oct. 1, 1629, where he became distinguished for his poetical talents and wit. During the prevalence of the parliamentary interest, he was ejected from his living, and resided in London in St. Anne’s parish, Westminster, until the Restoration, when he again obtained his vicarage. The time of his death is not known. His poetical works are contained in a scarce volume, entitled “Hesperides, or the works, both humane and divine, of Robert Herrick, Esq. London,” 1643, 8vo. To this volume was appended his “Noble numbers, or, his pious pieces,” in which, says Wood, “he sings the birth of Christ, and sighs for his Saviour’s sufferings on the cross. These two books made him much admired in the time they were published, and especially by the generous and boon loyalists, who commiserated his sufferings.” In 1810, Dr. Nott of Bristol published a selection from the “Hesperides,” which may probably contribute to revive the memory of Herrick as a poet, who certainly in vigour of fancy, feeling, and ease of vereification, is entitled to a superior rank among the bards of his period, He is one of those, however, who will require the selector’s unsparing hand, for, notwithstanding his “pious pieces,” there are too many of an opposite description, which cannot, like his quaint conceits, be placed to the account of the age in which he lived.

In 1724 he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and, about the same time, was presented by his majesty to the rectory of Allhallows the Great, in London; but gave up the benefice before institution. His friends, however, being desirous of bringing him to town, upon a vacancy of a preacher to Lincoin’s-inu, recommended him to that society, who accordingly made choice of him in 1726; and soon after he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to the king, and, on attending his majesty on his visit to the university of Cambridge in 1728, was honoured with the degree of doctor of divinity .

, a learned Frenchman, was born at Olivet, near Orleans, in 1499. He learned Greek and Latin from his childhood, and was made tutor to Claudius de l‘Aubespine, who was afterwards secretary of state. Hervet going then to Paris, assisted Edward Lupset, an Englishman, in an edition of Galen, and, following Lupset into England, was entrusted with the education of Arthur Pole; from thence he was called to Rome by cardinal Pole, to translate the Greek authors into Latin. He gained the friendship of this cardinal, and of all the illustrious men in Italy; distinguished himself at the council of Trent; was grand-vicar of No}’on and Orleans, and afterwards canon of Kheims, in which last city he passed the remainder of his life, wholly devoted to study. He died September 12, 1584. He left many works in Latin and in French: the principal are, Latin translations from several works of the Fathers; two discourses delivered at the council of Trent, 4 to, one to prove the clergy should not be ordained without a title; the other, that marriages contracted by gentlemen’s children, without consent of parents, are null: several controversial tracts in French; a French translation of the Council of Trent, &c. Hervet has been mentioned by Wood in his “Athenae,” but it does not appear that he was a member of the university of Oxford, although he might reside there while in England. He acquired such knowledge of the English language, as to translate into it; 1. Xenophon’s Treatise of Householde," 1532, 8vo; and

, an English divine of exemplary piety and virtue, was born at Hardingstonc, a village about a mile from Northampton, on Feb. 26, 1713-14. His father was minister of the parish of Collingtree, within two miles of Hardingstone. He received his early education at the free grammar-school of Northampton, where he attended for nearly ten years, learning the Latin and Greek languages; and would have made a much greater progress if he had not been impeded by the caprice of his master, who, it is said, would not suffer any of his boys to learn faster than his own son. At the age of seventeen he was entered of Lincoln-college, Oxford, and resided in the university about seven years, but without proceeding farther than his bachelor’s degree. His time, however, was not mispent. Besides a very considerable stock of learning which he accumulated here, he imbibed those habits of regularity and principles of piety which gave a colour to his future life and writings, and made him one of the most useful and popular preachers of his time.

His liberality and independence of mind began to appear while at Oxford, where he had a small exhibition of twenty pounds a year; but when his father, after he entered the church, urged him to take some curacy in or near Oxford, and to hold his exhibition, he would by no means comply, as he thought it unjust to detain it, after he was in orders, from some other person who might want it to promote their education. He then, in 1736, left Oxford, and became his father’s curate, and afterwards went to London; but, after a short stay, accepted the curacy of Dummer in Hampshire. Here he continued about a year, until he was invited to Stokes Abbey in Devonshire, the seat of his worthy friend Paul Orchard, esq. with whom he lived upwards of two years. It was to this gentleman’s son that he dedicated the second volume of his “Meditations.”

Soon after this event, a coolness arose between captain Hervey and his wife, which increased till they both became desirous of a separation. In Jan. 1747, he was appointed to the command of the Princessa, and served in the Mediterranean under admirals Medley and Byng and after the peace, in Jan. 1752, he obtained the Phoenix of 22 guns. In the course of two wars, the courage, zeal, and activity of captain Hervey were distinguished in the Mediterranean, off Brest, at the Havannah, and in other places. During the same period he was gradually advanced to the command of a 74 gun ship; and at the peace in 1763 he was appointed one of the grooms of the bed-­chamber to the king. In 1771 he was created one of the lords of the admiralty; and in 1775, on the death of his brother without issue, he became earl of Bristol, after having represented the borough of Bury St. Edmund’s in four parliaments. He now resigned his places, and was created an admiral. In the beginning of the American war, captain Hervey was a strenuous advocate for the measures of the ministry; but, changing his politics in the year 1778, continued to the end of it as violent an opponent; not without very striking appearances of inconsistency on several occasions. He died in 1779, when his titles, and as much of his estate as he could not leave away, devolved to his brother the bishop of Derry, as he left no legitimate heir. The affair of his marriage, which attracted much public notice at the time, was briefly thus: After nine years of preparation, his wife, who had long lived with the Juke of Kingston, obtained her suit in the commons, in 1768, by which it was decided that their marriage never had been legal, and was void. She then was married to the duke of Kingston in 1769. But, it appearing afterwards that the decision had been fraudulently obtained, she was indicted in 1775 for bigamy, tried in the House of peers, and found guilty, but, as a peeress, was discharged from corporal punishment. She afterwards died abroad in 1788, The following well-drawn character of lord Bristol, written by a contemporary peer in the sea-service, lord Mulgrave, seems to justify the insertion of his name in this place; though it may be in some degree heightened by personal partiality.

"The detail of the merits of such a man cannot be uninteresting, either to the profession he adorned, or the country which he served; and the remembrance of his virtues must be pleasing to those who were honoured with his esteem; as every hour and every situation of his life afforded fresh opportunities for the exercise of such virtues, they were best known to those who saw him most. But however strong and perfect their impression, they can be but inadequately described by one who long enjoyed the happiness of his friendship, and advantage of his example, and must ever lament the privation of his society.

"Such was his character as an oiVicer, which made him deservedly conspicuous in a profession, as honourable to the individual as important to the public: nor was he without those qualifications and abilities which could give full weight to the situation in which his rank and connections had placed him in civil life; his early entrance into his profession had indeed deprived him of the advantages of a classical education; this defect was however more than balanced by the less ornamental, but more solid instruction of the school he studied in as a member of parliament, he was an eloquent, though not a correct speaker those who differed from him in politics, confessed the extent of his knowledge, the variety of his information, and the force of his reasoning, at the same time that they admired the ingenuity with which he applied them to the support of his opinions.

"He was not more eminent for those talents by which a country is served, than distinguished by those qualities which render a man useful, respected, esteemed, and beloved in society. In the general intercourse of the world, he was an accomplished gentleman and agreeable companion his manners were noble as his birth, and engaging as his disposition he was humane, benevolent, compassionate, and generous his humanity was conspicuous in his profession when exercised towards the seamen, the sensibility and attention of a commander they adored, was the most flattering relief that could be afforded to the sufferings or distresses of those who served with him; when exerted towards her enemies, it did honour to his country, by exemplifying in the most striking manner that generosity which is the peculiar characteristic and most distinguished virtue of a brave, free, and enlightened people. In other situations his liberality was extensive without ostentation, and generally bestowed where it would be most felt and least secn/upon modest merit, and silent distress. His friendships were warm, and permanent beyond the grave, extending their influence to those who shared the affections or enjoyed the patronage of their objects. His resentment was open, and his forgiveness sincere; it was the effect, perhaps the weakness, of an excellent mind, that with him, an injury which he had forgiven was as strong a claim to his protection, as a favour received could be to his gratitude.

, brother to the preceding, and fourth earl of Bristol, was born in August 1730. He was educated at Westminster school, and was admitted fellow commoner of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, Nov. 10, 1747, where his application to study was as remarkable as it was unusual in persons of his rank. He took his master’s degree, as nobleman, in 1754. While at college his good sense, good nature, and affability, gained him the love and esteem of all who knew him. At first he was designed for the bar, and, leaving Cambridge, went to one of the inns of court, but he afterwards turned his thoughts to the church, and went into holy orders. He was perhaps a singular instance of a man of his learning, family, and connexions, that never attained any ecclesiastical preferment until he was made a bishop, although he held a lay office under government, and in his father’s department, that of & principal clerk of the privy seal.

During his brother’s being lord lieutenant of Ireland, he was promoted to the see of Cloyne, in Feb. 1767, and translated to that of Derry in 1768. When appointed to the former, he refused to take an English chaplain over with him, but made choice of Mr. Skelton, with whom he was no otherwise acquainted than by his writings against deism and infidelity. 1 The rev. Philip Skelton, a very learned and pious divine, and author of many excellent works, is the person here intended; but Skelton, who had his oddities as well as his new patron, rendered this deSign abortive. Skelton’s principal work, “Deism revealed,” had been published some years, and was much admired by Dr. Hervey, who, before he got his bishopric, wrote to the author, informing him, that as he expected soon to be raised to a station of some eminence in the Irish church, he hoped then to be able to prove the high opinion he entertained'for the author of “Deism revealed.” Accordingly, on obtaining the bishopric of Cloyne, his lordship sent him another letter to this effect, that having some time before made a sort of an engagement with him, he begged leave now to fulfil it, aud therefore requested him to come up to Dublin (from Fintona in the county of Tyrone), and preach his consecration sermon, assuring him that, upon his compliance, he would promote him in the church as high as he was able. Skelton, in his answer, informed his lordship, he would comply with his request, though he was content with the living he had; and if he consented to go to the diocese of Cloyne, it would be only to be nearer the sun, and nearer his lordship. He then prepared a sermon for the occasion, but when the day approached, finding himself somewhat unwell, and the weather very cold, he thought he could not with safety go to Dublin, and of course the bishop was disappointed. However, he sent his lordship the sermon, who, though asta nished at the ability it displayed, was still offended with Mr. Skelton, as he imagined his excuse for his absence was not sufficient. Upon this, he informed him by letter, that the chain of their friendship was broken in two; to which Mr. Skelton replied, that if it were broken, it was of hte lordship’s own forging, not of his. Yet the bishop, after his promotion to the see of Derry, came to Fintona to pay him a visit, and Skelton happening to be abroad, left word that he had come fifteen miles out of his road to see him. Of this visit Mr. Skelton took no notice, a rudeness certainly unpardonable in the case of a gentleman who had sought him out purely for his merit’s sake.

Upon the death of the father, an estate was left, which ought to have been equally divided between the two brothers Hesiod and Perses; but Perses defrauded him in the division, by corrupting the judges. Hesiod was so far from resenting this injustice, that he expresses a concern for those poor mistaken mortals who place their happiness in riches only, even at the expence of their virtue. He lets us know, that he was not only above want, but capable of assisting his brother in time of need; which he often did, though he had been so ill used by him. The last circumstance he mentions relating to himself, is his conquest in a poetical contention. Archidamas, king of Eubosa, had instituted funeral games in honour of his own memory, which his sons afterwards took care to have performed. Here Hesiod was a competitor for the prize in poetry, and won a tripod, which he consecrated to the Muses. Plutarch, in his “Banquet of the Seven Wise Men,” makes Periander give an account of the poetical contention at Chalcis, in which Hesiod and Homer are made antagonists. Hesiod was the conqueror, and dedicated the tripod, which he received for his victory, to the Muses. We are told, that Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander had a dispute on this subject. The prince declared in favour of Homer; his father told him, “that the prize had been given to Hesiod;” and asked him, whether “be had never seen the verses Hesiod had inscribed upon the tripus, and dedicated to the. Muses on mount Helicon?” Alexander allowed it; but said, that Hesiod “might well get the better, when kings were not the judges, but ignorant ploughmen and rustics.” The authority of these relations is, however, questioned by learned men; especially by such as will not allow these two poets to have been contemporaries, but make Hesiod between thirty and forty years the older of the two, which agrees nearly with the chronology of the Arundelian marbles.

Hesiod, having entered into the service of the Muses, discontinued the pastoral life, and applied himself to the study of arts and learning. When he was grown old, for it is agreed by all that he lived to a very great age, he removed to Locris, a town about the same distance from, Parnassus as Ascra was from Helicon. The story of his death, as told by Solon in Plutarch’s “Banquet,” is very remarkable. The man with whom Hesiod lived at Locris, a Milesian born, ravished a maid in the same house; and though Hesiod was entirely ignorant of the fact, yet being maliciously accused to her brothers as an accomplice, he was injuriously slain with the ravisher, and thrown with him into the sea. It is added, that when the inhabitants of the place heard of the crime, they drowned the perpetrators, and burned their houses. We have the knowledge of some few monuments, which were framed in honour of this poet. Pausanias, in his Boeotics, informs us, that his countrymen, the Boeotians, erected to him an image with a harp in his hand; and relates in another place, that there was likewise a statue of Hesiod in the temple of Jupiter Olympicus. Ursinus and Boissard have exhibited a breast with a head, a trunk without a head, and a gem of him; and Ursinus says, that there is a statue of brass of him in the public college at Constantinople. The “Theogony,” and “Works and Days,” are the only undoubted pieces of this poet now extant: though it is supposed, that these poems are not perfect. The “Theogohy, or Generation of the Gods,” Fabricius makes indisputably the work of Hesiod; “nor is it to be doubted,” adds he, “that Pythagoras took it for his, who feigned that he saw in hell the soul of Hesiod tied in chains to a brass pillar, for what he had written concerning the nature of the gods.” This doubtless was the poem which gave Herodotus occasion to say, that Hesiod and Homer were the first who introduced a Theogony among the Grecians; the first who gave names to the gods, ascribed to them honours and arts, and gave particular descriptions of their persons. The “Works and Days” of Hesiod, Plutarch assures us, were used to be sung to the harp. Virgil has shewn great respect to this poet, and proposed him as his pattern in his Georgics, though in truth he has greatly excelled him. There is also in the works of Hesiod a large fragment of another poem, called the “Shield of Hercules,” which some have ascribed to him, and some have rejected. Manilins has given a high character of this poet and his works. Heinsi is in the preface to his edition of Hesiod remarks, that among all the poets, he scarce knew any but Homer and Hesiod, who could represent nature in her true native dress; and tells us, that nature had begun and perfected at the same time her work in these two poets, whom for that very reason he makes no scruple to call Divine. In general, the merit of Hesiod has not been estimated so highly; and it is certain that, when compared with Homer, he must pass for a very moderate poet: though in defining their different degrees of merit, it may perhaps be but reasonable to consider the different subjects on which the genius of each was employed. But his “Works and Days” is certainly an interesting and valuable monument of antiquity, as written so near what may be termed the origin of Greek poetry. The first edition of the “Opera et Dies” is supposed to have been printed at Milan in 1493, folio, and the first edition of Hesiod’s entire works, from the Aidine press, appeared at Venice, 1495, folio. Both are described in the Bibl. Spenceriana. The best editions since are those of Gra^vius, Amst. 1667, Gr. and Lat. Le Clerc, Amst. 1701, 8vo Robinson, Oxford, 1737, 4to; and Loesner, Leipsic, 1778, 8vo. All these are Gr. and Lat. We have English translations of the “Works and Days” by Chapman, 1618, 4to> and by Cooke, 1729 and 1740.

was a celebrated grammarian of Alexandria, whom Isaac Casaubon has declared to be, in his opinion, of all the ancient critics, whose remains are extant, the most learned and instructive, for those who would apply themselves in earnest to the study of the Greek language. Who or what Hesychius was, and indeed at what time precisely he lived, are circumstances which there is not light enough in antiquity to determine; as Fabricius himself owns, who has laboured abundantly about them. He has left us a learned lexicon or vocabulary of Greek words, from which we may perceive that he was a Christian, or, at least, that he had a thorough and intimate knowledge of Christianity; for he has inserted in his work the names of the apostles, evangelists, and prophets, as well as of those ancient writers who have commented upon them. Some say that he was a disciple of Gregory of Nazianzen, and that he was extremely well versed in the sacred Scriptures: and Sixtus Sinensis is of opinion that he ought to be placed about the end of the fourth century. The first edition of Hesychius’s lexicon was published in folio by Aldus at Venice in 1513; then appeared one by Schrevelius, at Leyden, in 4to, in 1668, in Greek only. The best edition is in two volumes, folio; the first published by Albert! at Leyden in 1746 the second, completed by Ruhnkenius, after the death of Alberti, and published in 1766. This is a complete and excellent edition, abounding in learned and useful notes. It is reckoned one of the best editions existing of any ancient author. But, after all the labours of the acutest men, much yet remains to be corrected and discovered in this work.

Julius Scaliger has spoken with great contempt of Hesychius, and calls him a frivolous author, who has nothing that is good in him: “but, 7 ' says Baillet,” I believe this critic is very singular in his opinion. His son Joseph on the contrary declares that Hesychius is a very good author, though we have nothing left of him but an epitome, and though his citations are lost beyond recovery. Meric Casaubon also esteems him a most excellent grammarian; and Menage calls him the most learned of all the makers of dictionaries.",

, a celebrated physician, born at Utrecht in 1543, after having made himself master of every thing belonging to his art at Louvain, Paris, Padua, Turin, was invited to Leyden to be professor, where he is said to have been the first who taught anatomy by lectures upon human bodies. He died of the stone in 1601. There are several of his productions extant, but the most capital is, “A Treatise upon Disorders of the Head.” Heurnius published Hippocrates in Greek and Latin, with explanatory commentaries, which have undergone many editions: the fourth was at Amsterdam, 1688, in 12mo. Gerard “Vossius calls him” summum medicum;“and says, that he was his master” in scientia naturali." His works were published in folio at Leyden, in 1658. He had a sou named Otto, who also obtained some celebrity.

, was a nephew of the former, under whom he made his principal studies at Gotha. He was born in 1719, at Usingen in Wetteravia, near Eisenach; and, when prepared by his uncle for academical lectures, completed his education at Jena. There, after some time, he began to teach philology, and continued his lectures for six years; -but in 1750 removed to Wolfenbuttel, where he was at first second master of the principal school but in 1759 became head-master. These situations he filled with the greatest credit being a good grammarian, a sound critic, and an admirable interpreter of Greek and Latin authors. He died in 1778, having made himself famous by several very learned publications; the chief of which are, 1. “A specimen of observations on the Ajax and Electra of Sophocles,” 1746, at Jena. 2. “An edition of Plutarch on Education, with the version of Xylander corrected, and his own annotations,” Leipsic, 1749. This tract, however, Wyttenbach pronounces to be one of those that are falsely ascribed to Plutarch. 3. “Flavii Mallii Theodori, de metris liber;.” from old manuscripts. This was printed in 4to, at Wolfenbuttel, in 1759. J. F. Heusinger was twice married, and left a son, who was also a man of learning.

, or Hevelke, a celebrated astronomer and mathematician, was born at Dantzic January 28, 1611. His parents, who were of rank and fortune, gave him a liberal education; in which he discovered early a propensity to natural philosophy and astronomy. He studied mathematics under Peter Crugerus, in which he made a wonderful progress; and learned also to draw, to engrave, and to work both in wood and iron in such a manner as to be able to frame mechanical instruments. In 1630 he set out upon his travels, on which he spent four years, visiting Holland, England, France, and Germany; and on his return was so taken up with civil affairs, that he was obliged to intermit his studies for some years, until his master, Crugerus, who foresaw his future fame, recalled him to the study of astronomy; and in 1639 Hevelius began to apply himself entirely to it, by building an observatory upon the top of his house, which he furnished with instruments for making the most accurate observations. He constructed excellent telescopes himself, and began his observations with the moon, whose various phases and spots he noted very accurately; “with a view,” as he says, “of taking lunar eclipses with greater exactness, and removing those difficulties which frequently arise for want of being able to settle more precisely the quantity of an eclipse.” When he had finished his course of observations, and prepared a great number of fine engravings, he published his work at Dantzick, 1647, under the title of “Selenographia, sive, Luna3 descriptio;” to which he added, by way of appendix, the phases of the other planets, as they are seen through the telescope, with observations upon them, upon the spots of the sun and Jupiter in particular; all engraved by himself upon copper, and distinctly placed before the eyes of the reader. At the entrance of this work there is a handsome mezzotinto of himself by Falek, as he then was, in his thirty-sixth year, with a just encomium, although in bad Latin verse.

After this, Hevelius continued to make his observations upon the heavens, and to publish, from time to time, whatever he thought might tend to the advancement of astronomy. In 1654 he published two epistles; one to the famous astronomer Ricciolus, “De motu Lunae libratorio;” another to the no less famous Bulialdus, “De utriusque luminaris defectu.” In 1656, a dissertation “De natura Saturni faciei, ejusque phasibus certa periodoredeuntibus.” In 1661, “Mercurius in sole visus.” In 1662, “Historiola de nova stella in collo Ceti.” In 1665, “Prodromus Cometicus, or the history of a Comet, which appeared in 1664.” Jn 1666, “The History of another Comet, which appeared in 1665;” and, in 1668, “Cometographia, cometarum naturam, et omnium a mundo condito historian! exhibens.” He sent copies of this work to several members of the royal society at London, and among the rest to Hooke; who in return sent Hevelius a description of the dioptric telescope, with an account of the manner of using it; and at the same time recommended it to him as greatly preferable to telescopes with plain sights. This gave rise to a dispute between them; the point of which was, “whether distances and altitudes could be taken with plain sights nearer than to a minute.” Hooke asserted that they could not; but that, with an instrument of a span radius, by the help of a telescope, they might be determined to the exactness of a second. Hevelius, on the other hand, insisted, that, by the advantage of a good eye and long use, he was able with his instruments to come up even to that exactness; and appealing to experience and facts, sent by Way of challenge eight distances, each between two different stars, to be examined by Hooke. Thus the affair rested for some time with outward decency, but not without some inward animosity. In 1673 Hevelius published the first part of his “Machina Ccelestis,” as a specimen of the exactness both of his instruments and observations; and sent several copies as presents to his friends in England, but omitted Hooke. This, it is supposed, occasioned Hooke to print, in 1674, “Animadversions on the first part of the Machina Ccelestis;” in which he treated Hevelius with great disrespect, and threw out several unhandsome reflections, which were greatly resented; and the dispute grew afterwards so public, and rose to such a height, that, in 1679, Halley went at the request of the royal society, to examine both the instruments and the observations made with them. Halley gave a favourable judgment of both, in a letter to Hevelius; and Hooke, merely from his mode of managing the controversy, was universally condemned, though the preference has since been given to telescopic sights. Hevelius, however, could not be prevailed with to make use of them: whether he thought himself too experienced to be informed by a young astronomer, as he considered Hooke; or whether, having made so many observations with plain sights, he was unwilling to alter his method, lest he might bring their exactness into question; or whether, being by long practice accustomed to the use of them, and not thoroughly apprebending the use of the other, nor well understanding the difference, is uncertain. Besides Halley’s letter, Hevelius received many others in his favour, which he took the opportunity of inserting among the astronomical observations in his “Ami us Ciimuctericus,” printed in 1685. In a long preface prefixed to this work, he spoke with more conn“­dence and greater indignation than he had done before; and particularly exclaimed against Hooke’s dogmatical and magisterial manner of assuming a kind of dictatorship over him. This revived the dispute, and caused several learned men to engage in it. The book itself being sent to the royal society, an account was given of it at their request by Dr. Wallis who, among other things took notice, that” Hevelius’s observations had been misrepresented, since it appeared from this book, that he could distinguish by plain sights to a small part of a minute.“About the same time, Molynea;jx also wrote a letter to the society in vindication of Hevelius against Hooke’s” Animadversions.“Hooke drew up an answer to this letter, which was read likewise before the society; in which he observed,” that he was not the aggressor, and denied that he had intended to depreciate Hevelins."

, an English divine, descended from an ancient family at Pentre-Heylin in Montgomeryshire, the son of Henry Heylin, gent, hy Elizabeth, daughter of Francis Clampard, of Wrotham in Kent, and was born at Burford in Oxfordshire, Nov. 29, 1600. In 16J3 he was entered of Hart-hall in Oxford, and two years after chosen a demy of Magdalen-college. He had, while at school, given a specimen of his genius for dramatic poetry, in a tragi-comedy on the wars and fate of Troy; and now composed a tragedy, entitled “Spurius,” which was so approved by his society, that the president, Dr. Langton, ordered it to be acted in his apartments. After this, he read cosmographical lectures in the college, which being a very unusual thing, and he very conversant in that branch of science, so.much recommended him to the society, that he was chosen fellow in 16 1 y. In 1621 he published his u Microcosm us, or Description of the World;" the chief materials of which were the lectures just mentioned. It was universally approved, and so speedily sold, that, in 1624, it was reprinted in the same size, but with considerable additions, and again presented to prince Charles, to whom it had been dedicated. It was soon after put into the hands of the king, who seemed at first greatly pleased with it; till meeting with a passage in it, where Heylin gave precedency to the French king, and styled France the more famous kingdom, he took so much offence, that he ordered the lord-keeper to suppress the book. Heylin, to make his peace with the king, declared that the error, in one of the exceptionable passages, was entirely the printer’s, who had put is instead of was; and that when he himself mentioned the precedency of France before England, he did not speak of England as it then stood augmented by Scotland, and besides he took what he did say from Camden’s Remains. James being satisfied with this apology, Heylin took care that the whole clause, which gave so much disgust, should be left out in all future impressions. The work was afterwards successively enlarged, till it became a great folio, and has since been often reprinted in that size.

In 1631 he published his “History of that most famous Saint and Soldier of Jesus Christ, St. George of Cappadocia,” &c. to which he subjoined, “the institution of the most noble order of St. George, named the garter” &c. which work he presented to his majesty, to whom he was introduced by Laud, then raised to the see of London. It was graciously received by the king, and Heylin soon after reaped the fruits of it: for in Oct. 1631 he was presented to the rectory of Hemmingford in Huntingdonshire, to a prebend of Westminster in November following, and shortly after to the rectory of Houghton in the bishopric of Durham, worth near 400l. per annum. In April 1633 he was created D. D. and gave fresh offence to the divinity-professor Prideaux by the questions he put up; which were, 1. “Whether the church hath authority in determining controversies of faith” 2. “Whether the church hath authority of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures” 3. “Whether the church hath authority of appointing rites and ceremonies” Of all which he maintained the affirmative. Prideaux, however, in the course of this dispute, is said to have laid down some tenets, which gave as much offence to Laud, who was chancellor of Oxford, and to the king, whom Laud informed of them, as Heylin’s had given to him as, “That the church was a mere chimera” “That it did not teach nor determine any thing.” “That controversies had better be referred to universities than to the church, and might be decided by the literari there, even though bishops were laid aside.” Heylin afterwards found an opportunity of revenging himself on Prideaux, for the rough treatment he had received from him. This divine, we are told, had delivered a lecture on the sabbath, somewhat freer than suited the rigid orthodoxy of the times; of which, however, not much notice was taken. But shortly after, when the king, by publishing the book of sports on Sundays, had raised a violent outcry throughout the nation against himself and Laud, Heyliu translated this lecture into English, and published it with a preface in 1633-4, to the great vexation of Prideaux, who suffered much in the esteem and affetion of the puritans. Williams, bishop of Lincoln and clean of Westminster, having incurred the king’s and Laud’s displeasure, and being suspended and imprisoned, Heylin was made treasurer of the church of Westminster in 1637; and was also presented by the prebendaries, his brethren, to the rectory of Islip near Oxford. This he exchanged in 1638, for that of South-Warnborough in Hampshire; and the same year was made one of the justices of the peace for that county. In 1639 he was employed by Laud to translate the Scotch liturgy into Latin; and was chosen by the college of Westminster their clerk, to represent them in convocation. But a cloud was gathering, which threatened to overwhelm all who, like him, had distinguished themselves as champions for royal or ecclesiastical prerogative. To shelter himself therefore from the impending storm, he withdrew from the metropolis, where he had long basked in the sun-shine of a court, to his parsonage; but not thinking himself secure there, retreated soon after to Oxford, then garrisoned by the king, and the seat of his residence. On this the parliament voted him a delinquent, and dispatched an order to their committee at Portsmouth, to sequester his whole estate, and seize upon his goods. In consequence of this severe decree, he was deprived of his most curious and valuable library, which was carried with his household furniture to that town. He was employed by the king at Oxford to write a periodical paper, published weekly in that city, entitled “Mercurius Aulicus;” but in 1645, when the king’s affairs became desperate, and the “Mercurius Aulicus” could be no longer supported, he quitted Oxford, and wandered from place to place, himself and his family reduced to the utmost straits. At Winchester he stayed for a while with his wife, &c. but that city being at length delivered up to the parliament, he was forced to remove again. In 1648 he went to Minster-Love! in Oxfordshire, the seat of his elder brother, which he farmed for the six or seven years following of his nephew colonel Heylin, and spent much of his time in writing. On quitting this farm, he went to Abingdon in Berkshire, where he also employed himself in composing treatises, which he published from time to time. Upon the restoration of Charles II. he was restored to all his spiritualities, and undoubtedly expected from that prince some very eminent dignity in the church, as he had heroically exerted himself in behalf of it, -as well as of the? crown; and endured so much on that account, during their suffering condition. Here, however, he was utterly disappointed, being never raised above the sub-deanery of Westminster, One day when bishop Cosin came to see him, he said “I wonder, brother Heylin, thou art not a bishop, for we all know thou hast deserved it.” To which he answered, “I do not envy them, but wish they may do more than I have done.” He died May 8, 1662, and was interred before his own stall, within the choir of the abbey, leaving by his wife, Lretitia, daughter of Thomas Highgate, of Hayes in Middlesex, esq. four children.

He was a very voluminous writer, and although few of his works can be recommended to general perusal, there are none perhaps of the whole series which may not be consulted with advantage, by those who have leisure and inclination to study the history of parties, in the distracted period in which he lived. Many of his lesser pieces were published together in 1681, in a folio volume, with a life of the author by the rev. George Vernon, which having given offence to his relations, a new life was published by his son-in-law Dr. Barnard, 1682, 12mo. It is from a comparison of both (Vernon’s has since been published in 12mo) that a proper judgment can be formed of Dr. Heylin. His other works of most note are, 1. “An Help to English History,” &c. 1641, 8vo, published under the name of Robert Hall, gent, republished with the additions of Christopher Wilkinson a bookseller, but with Heylin’s name in 1670, 8vo. It was again republished, and brought down to 1709 and in 1773 an improved edition was published by Paul Wright, D. D. in 1773, a lar^e 8vo. Capt. Beatson’s “Political Index” may be considered as a continuation of this work. 2. “History of the Sabbath,” 3636, 4to, intended to reconcile the public to that dreadful error in the conduct of the court, the “Book of Sports,” which did incalculable injury to the royal cause. 3. “Theologia Veterum; the Sum of the Christian Theology contained in the creed, according to the Greeks and Latins, &c. Lond. 1654, fol. reprinted 1673. 4. Ecclesia Vindicata; or the Church of England justified, 1. In the way and manner of her Reformation, &c. 2. In officiating by a public Liturgy. 3. In prescribing a set form of Prayer to be used by preachers before their sermons. 4. In her right and patrimony of tithes. 5. In retaining the episcopal government, and therewithal the canonical ordination of priests and deacons,” London 1657, in 4to, dedicated to Mr. Edward Davys, vicar of Shilton in Berkshire, formerly his master in the free-school of Burford in Oxfordshire. 5. “Short View of the Life and Reign of King Charles (the second monarch of Great Britain) from his birth to his burial,” London, 1658, in 8vo. This Life Wood supposes to be the same with that which was printed with and prefixed to “Reliquiae sacrae Carolina,” printed at the Hague, 1649, in 8vo. 6. “Examen Historicum or a discovery and examination of the mistakes and defects in some modern histories, viz. 1. In the Church History of Britain, by Tho. Fuller. To which is added, an Apology of Dr. Jo. Cosin, dean of Peterborough, in answer to some passages in the Church History of Britain, in which he finds himself concerned. 2. In the History of Mary Queen of Scots, and of her son King James VI,; the History of King James I. of Great Britain; and the History of King Charles I. from his cradle to his grave, by Will. Sanderson, esq. London, 1658, in a large 8vo. To this is ndded, An Appendix in an answer to some passages in a scurrilous pamphlet called A Post-haste Reply, &c. by Will. Sanderson, esq.” Soon after Dr. Thomas Fuller published a thin folio, entitled “The Appeal for injured Innocence,” which was commonly bound up with the remaining copies of his Church History in quires; and Mr. Sanderson wrote. a pamphlet, entitled “Peter pursued; or Dr. Heylin overtaken, arrested, and arraigned upon his three Appendixes: 1. Respondet Petrus. 2. Answer to Post-Haste Reply. 3. Advertisements on three Histories. viz. of Mary Queen of Scots, King James, and King Charles,” 1658, in 8 sheets in 4to. 7. “Historia QuinquArticularis: or a declaration of the Judgment of the Western Churches, and more particularly of the Church of England, in the five controverted points, reproached in these last times by the name of Arminianism. Collected in the way of an Historicall Narration out of the public acts and monuments, and most approved authors of those scverall churches,” London, 1660, in 4to. This involved him in a controversy with some able writers. 8. “History of the Reformation of the Church of England from the first preparations to it made by King Henry VIII. until the legal settling and establishing of it underQueen Elizabeth,*' &c. London, 1661, 1670, and 1674, in folio. 9.” Cyprianus Anglicus r or the History of the Life and Death of William (Laud) Archbishop of Canterbury,“&c. London, 1668 and 1671, fol. 10.” Aerius Redivivus: or the History of the Presbyterians. Containing the beginning, progress, and successes of that sect. Their oppositions to monarchical and episcopal government. Their innovations in the church; and their inbroylments of the kingdoms and estates of Christendom in the pursuit of their designes. From the year 1536 to the year 1647," London, 1670 and 1672, in folio.

, one of the oldest English dramatic writers, was born at North Mims, near St. Alban’s in Hertfordshire, and received the first rudiments of his education at Oxford; but the sprightliness of his disposition not being well adapted to the sedentary life of an acader mician, he went back to his native place, which being in the neighbourhood of the great sir Thomas More, he presently contracted an intimacy with that Maecenas of wit and genius, who introduced him to the knowledge and patronage of the princess Mary. Heywood’s ready aptness for jest and repartee, together with the possession of great skill both in vocal and instrumental music, rendered him a favourite with Henry VIII. who frequently rewarded him highly. On the accession of Edward VI. he still continued in favour, though the author of the “Art of English Poetry” says, it was “for the mirth and quickness of conceit, more than any good learning that was in him.” When his old patroness queen Mary came to the throne, he stood in higher estimation than ever, being admitted into the most intimate conversation with her, on account of his happy talent of telling diverting stories, which it is said he did to amuse her painful hours, even when she was languishing on her death-bed. His stories must have been diverting indeed if they soothed the recollections of such a woman.

, a nonconformist divine, the son of Richard Heywood, was born at Little Lever, in Bolton parish, Lancashire, in March 1629. In 1647 he was admitted pensioner in Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. B. but was afterwards called home, his father not being able to support him there. He lived retiredly for some time at home, but at length became a preacher, by the advice and solicitation of the neighbouring ministers, and having preached some time about the country occasionally, he was invited to Coley chapel, in the parish of Halifax, Yorkshire; soon after which, Aug. 4, 1652, he was ordained in Bury church, Lancashire, according to the forms used after the established church was overthrown. He married to his first wife Elizabeth, daughter of the rev. Mr. Angier of Denton in Lancashire, in 1655, by whom he had several children. He had occasional disputes with part of his congregation, who after abolishing what they called ecclesiastical tyranny, became themselves the most capricious tyrants. Some were displeased with him, because he would not admit all comers promiscuously to the Lord’s table without distinction; others, because he would not thank God for killing the Scots. Once he was carried before cornet Denham, by some of colonel Lilburne’s soldiers, and the cornet told him, that he was one of the Cheshire rebels; but by the mediation of friends he was dismissed.

His annual income from Coley did not exceed 36l. per annum, but he had a lecture for which he had a consideration, and a small paternal estate in Lancashire. After the restoration he was deprived of his little preferment, but contrived occasionally to preach, and was sometimes brought into trouble, particularly a tedious imprisonment in York castle. After a long and fatiguing life, he died March 4, 1702. He appears to have been an able, laborious, and conscientious divine. Watson gives many interesting extracts from his Diary, and a more full and curious life of him was published in 1798, by the rev. Mr. Fawcett. He printed, 1. “Heart Treasure,” 1667. 2. “Closet Prayer,” 1671. 3. “Sure Mercies of David,” 1672. 4. “Life in God’s Favour.” 5. “Israel’s Lamentation,” 1681. 6. “Mr. Angier’s Life,” and some other pious treatises. He had a brother Nathaniel, also a nonconformist, who died Dec. 16, 1677. A volume of his sermons was published by Oliver in 1679, entitled “Christ Displayed.” Calamy tells us, that one of his hearers, when he was going to quit his living, expressing a desire for him still to preach in the church, Mr. Heywood said, he would as gladly preach, as they could desire it, if he could conform with a safe conscience to which the man replied, “Oh, sir, many a man, now a-days, makes a great gash in his conscience, cannot you make a little nick in yours”

, a half-crazy kind of writer, whose works may probably excite some curiosity respecting the author, was born in 1630, in Essex, where there was a considerable family of that name. He was first a pensioner in St. John’s college, Cambridge; then, in 1650, junior bachelor of Gonvill and Caius college. He was soon after a lieutenant in the English army in Scotland, then a captain in general Fleetwood’s regiment, when he was Swedish ambassador in England for Carolus Gustavus. He afterwards went to Jamaica in some capacity, and on his return, in 1660, published an account of it, called “Jamaica viewed,” 4to. two editions of which were printed in 1661, dedicated to Charles II. who in return appointed the author secretary to the earl of Windsor, then going out as governor of Jamaica. This post, however, he did not accept, but took orders, and first obtained the vicarage of Boxted in Essex, Oct. 22, 1662, and, about the same time, the rectory of All Saints, Colchester. The former he resigned in 1664, but retained the latter the whole of his life, notwithstanding he gave much offence to his brethren by his wild and often scurrilous attacks on the church in a variety of pamphlets. “He was a man,” says Newcourt, “though episcopally ordained (by bishop Sanderson), yet publicly bade defiance to the prelacy, and that of his own diocesan in particular: an impudent, violent, ignorant fellow, very troublesome, as far as he could, to his right reverend diocesan, and to all that lived near him.” He died Nov. 30, 1708, and was interred in the church of All Saints, Colchester, with a long Latin epitaph, part of which, “Reverendus admodum Dominus tarn Marte quain Mercurio clarus, quippe qui terra marique militavit non sine gloria, ingeniique vires scriptis multiplice argumento insignitis demonstravit, c.” was afterwards effaced, by order, as it was commonly reported at Colchester, of bishop Compton. His tracts, which in point of style and often of matter, are beneath criticism, were collected and published by himself in a quarto vol. 1707. They include his account of Jamaica the trial of the spiritual courts general history of priestcraft; a satyr upon poverty; a satyr against fame the survey of the earth and the writ de excommunicato capiendo unmasked receipts to cure the evil of this wicked world the art of contentment, a poem, &c. &c. Mr. Malone has introduced him in his life of Dryden, as the author of the “Mushroom, or a satyr against libelHng tories and preiatical-tantivies, &c.” He published also a few occasional sermons, which are reprinted in a Second edition of his works, 1716, 2 vols. 8vo.

was a celebrated philosopher of Syracuse, who, according to Theophrastus, as quoted by Cicero, believed that the heavens, sun, and stars, remained still, and that it was the earth which moved and, by turning on its axis, produced the same appearance to us as if the heavens had turned and the earth had been immovable. Copernicus acknowledges that this passage in Cicero suggested to him the first idea of his system. Diogenes Laertius also mentions Hicetas.

, an English divirre of uncommon abilities and learning, was born June 20, 1642, at Newsham in Yorkshire, where his parents were settled on a very large farm-. He was sent to the grammar school at North Allerton, and thence in 1659, to St. John’s college in Oxford. Soon after the Restoration he removed to Magdalen colJege, from thence to Magdalen hall; and at length, in 3664, was chosen fellow of Lincoln college, taking the degree of M. A. the year after. In June 1666 he was> admitted into orders, became a public tutor r and discharged that office with great reputation for seven years. Being then in a bad state of health, he was advised to travel; upon which sir George Wheeler, who had been his pupil, and had conceived a filial affection for him, invited him to accompany him to the continent. They set out in Oct. 1673, and made the totir of France; after which they parted, Hickes being obliged to return to take his degree of B. D. At Paris, where he staid a considerable time, he became acquainted with Mr. Henry Justell, who in confidence told him many secret affairs, particularly that of the intended revocation of the edict of Nantes, and of a design in Holland and England to set aside the family of the Stuarts. He committed to him also his father’s ms. of the “Codex canonum ecclesiae universalis,” to be presented in his name to the university of Oxford.

Soon after their deprivation, archbishop San croft and his colleagues began to consider about maintaining and continuing the episcopal succession among those who adhered to them; and, having resolved upon it, they sent Dr. Hickes over, with a list of the deprived clergy, to confer with king James about that matter. The doctor set out in May 1693, and had several audiences of the king, who complied with all he askedj Dr. Hickes, after being detained some months by an ague and fever, returned to England in February, and on the eve of St. Matthias the consecrations were performed by Dr. Lloyd bishop of Norwich, Dr. Turner bishop of Ely, and Dr. White bishop of Peterborough, at the bishop of Peterborough’s lodgings in the Rev. Mr. Giffard’s house, Southgate. Hickes was consecrated suffragan bishop of Thetford, and Wagstaffe suffragan of Ipswich; at which solemnity Henry earl of Clarendon is aid to have been present. It has indeed been averred, that Hickes was once disposed to take the oaths, in order to save his preferments; but this is not probable: he was a man very strict in his principles, and what he was convinced was his duty he closely adhered to, choosing to suffer any thing rather than violate his conscience. Some years before he died he was grievously tormented with the stone; and at length his constitution, though naturally strong, gave way to that distemper, Dec. 15, 1715, in his 74th year.

The principal works of Dr. Hickes are the three following: 1. “Institutiones Grammaticse Anglo-Saxonicae & Maeso-Gothicae. Grammatica Islandica Runolphi Jonas. Catalogus librorum Septentrionalium. Accedit Edwardi Bernardi Etymologicum Britannicum,” Oxon. 1689, 4to. inscribed to archbishop Sancroft. While the dean was writing the preface to this book, there were great disputes in the house of commons, and throughout the kingdom, about the original contract; which occasioned him to insert the ancient coronation oath of our Saxon kings, to shew, what was not very necessary, that there is not the least footstep of any such contract. 2. “Antiquae literature Septentrionalis libri duo: quorum primus G. Hickesu S. T. P. Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium thesaurum grammatico-criticum & Archaeologicum, ejusdem de antique literatures Septentrionalis militate dissertationem epistolarum, & Andreas Fountaine equitis aurati numismata Saxonica& Dano-Saxonica, complectitur alter contn Humfredi Wanleii librorum Veterum Septentnonaliiim, qui in Ano-liae Bibiiothecis extant, c.ialogum histonco-cr im, necmTn multorum veteruni codicum Septentrionalium alibi extantiuro notitiam, cum totius operis sex mdicibus, Oxon. 1705, 2 or sometimes 3 vols. folio. Foreigners as well as Englishmen, who had any relish for antiquities, have justly admired this splendid and laborious work, which is now scarce and dear. It was originally published at 3l. 3s. the small, and 5l. 5s the large paper. The latter now rarely appears, and the former is worth 15l. The great duke of Tuscany' s envoy sent a copy of it to his master, which his highness looking into, and finding full of strange characters, called a council of the Dotti, and commanded them to peruse and give him an account of. They did so, and reported it to be an excellent work, and that they believed the author to be a man of a particular head; for this was the envoy’s compliment to Hirkes, when he went to him with a present from his master. 3. Two volumes of Sermons, most of which were never before printed, with a preface by Mr. Spinckes, 1713, 8vo. After his death was published another volume of his Sermons, with some pieces relating to schism, separation, &c. 4.” A Letter sent from beyond the seas to one of the chief ministers of the ndnconforming party, &c. 1674“which was afterwards reprinted in 1684, under the title of” The judgment of an anonymous writer concerning these following particulars first, a law for disabling a papist to inherit the crown secondly, the execution of penal laws against protestant dissenters; thirdly, a bill of comprehension all briefly discussed in a letter sent from beyond the seas to a dissenter ten years ago.“This letter was in reality an answer to his elder brother, Mr. John Hickes, a dissenting minister, bred up in Cromwell’s time at the college of Dublin; whom the doctor always endeavoured to convince of his errors, but without success. John persisted in them to his death, and at last suffered for his adherence to the duke of Monrnouth; though, upon the doctor’s unwearied application, the king would have granted him his.life,^ but that he had been falsely informed that this Mr. Hickes was the person who advised the duke of Monmouth to take upon him the title of king. 5.” Ravillac Redivivus, being a narrative of the late trial of Mr. James Mitchel, a conventicle preacher, who was executed Jan. 18, 1677, for an attempt on the person of the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, &c.“6.” The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the mouths of fanatical Protestants; or, the last speeches of Mr. John Kid and Mr. John King, two presbyterian ministers, who were executed for high treason at Edinburgh, 'ten Aug. 14, 1679.“These pieces were published in 1630, and they were occasioned by his attendance on the duke of Lauderdale in quality of chaplain. The spirit of faction made them much read, and did the author considerable service with several great personages, and even with the king. 7.” Jovian; or, an answer to Julian the apostate;“printed twice in 1683, 8vo. This is an ingenious and learned tract in defence of passive obedience and nonresistance, against the celebrated Samuel Johnson, the author of” Julian.“8.” The case of Infant Baptism, 1683;“printed in the second vol. of the” London Cases, 168.5,“4to. 9.” Speculum beatae Virginis, a discourse on Luke i. 28. of the due praise and honour of the Virgin Mary, by a true Catholic of the Church of England, 1686.“10.” An apologetical Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to her adversaries, who reproach her with the English heresies and schisms, 1686,“4to; reprinted, with many additions, a large preface, and an appendix of” Papers relating to the Schisms of the Church of Rome,“1706, 8vo. 11.” The celebrated story of the Thebati Legion no fable: in answer to the objections of Dr. Gilbert Burners Preface to his Translation of Lactantius de mortibus persecutorum, with some remarks on his Discourse of Persecution;“written in 1687, but not published till 1714, for reasons given in the preface. 12.” Reflections upon a Letter out of the country to a member of this present parliament, occasioned by a Letter to a member of the house of commons, concerning the Bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension, 1689.“The author of the letter to which these reflections are an answer, was generally presumed to be Dr. Bumet, though that notion was afterwards contradicted, 13.” A Letter to the author of a late paper entitled A Vindication of the Divines of the Church of England, &c. in defence of the history of passive obedience, 16S9.“The author of the” Vindication,“was Dr. Fowler, bishop of Gloucester, though his name was not to it. 14.” A Word to the Wavering, in answer to Dr. Gilbert Burnet’s Inquiry into the present state of aflairs, 1689.“15.” An Apology for the new Separation, in a letter to Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, &c. 1691.“16.” A Vindication of some among ourselves against the false principles of Dr. Sherlock, &c. 1692.“17.” Some Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr.Tillotson, occasioned by the lute funeral sermon of the former upon the latter, 1695.“It is remarkable, that in this piece Hickes has not scrupled to call Tiilotson an atheist. 18.” The Pretences of the Prince of Wales examined and rejected, &c. 1701.“19. A letter in the” Philosophical Transactions,* entitled, “Epistola viri Rev. D G. Hickesii S. T. P ad D. Hans Sloane, M. D. & S. R. Seer, de varia lectione inscriptions, quse in statua Tagis exaratur per quatuor alphabeta Hetrusca” 20. “Several Letters which passed between Dr. G. Hickes and a Popish priest, &c. 1705.” The person on whose account this book was published, was the lady Theophila Nelson, wife of Robert Nelson, esq. 21. “A second collection of controversial Letters relating to the church of England and the church of Rome, as they passed between Dr. G. Hickes and an honourable lady, 1710.” This lady was the lady Gratiana Carew, of Hadcomb in Devonshire. 22. “Two Treatises; one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the dignity of the episcopal order, against a book entitled, The Rights of the Christian Church.” Trie third edition in 1711, enlarged into two volumes, 8vo. 23. “A seasonable ana 1 modest apology in behalf of the Rev. Dr. Hickes and other nonjurors, in a letter to Thomas Wise, D. D. 1710.” 24. “AVindication of Dr. Hickes, and the author of the seasonable and modest apology, from the reflections of Dr. Wise, &c. 1712.” 25. “Two Letters to Robert Nelson, esq. relating to bishop Bull,” published in Bull’s life. 26. “Some Queries proposed to civil, canon, and common lawyers, 1712;” printed, after several editions, in 1714, with another title, “Seasonable Queries relating to the birth and birthright of a certain person.” Besides the works enumerated here, there are many prefaces and recommendations written by him, at the earnest request of others, either authors or editors.

, a nonconformist divine, was a native of Worcestershire, and first educated at Cambridge, which he left after taking his bachelor’s degree, and removed to Oxford in 1647. Here he entered of Magdalen hall, and by favour of the parliamentary visitors, was first demy, and soon after fellow of Magdalen college, and took his master’s degree. He then was licenced as a preacher, and officiated at St. Aldate’s church, Oxford, and at Brackley, in Northamptonshire. In 1658 he became B. D. but at the restoration was ejected from his fellowship, which was restored to the right owner, and went to Holland. He afterwards returned, and for some time taught logic and philosophy to a few pupils at Sturbridge, but went again to Holland, and preached for some years in the English church at Leyclen, where he died in 1692. He wrote several treatises, principally of the controversial kind, in defence of the non-conforruists, and against Mr. Thomas Pierce, Mr. Durel.l, Dr. Heylin, Mr. Scrivener, and others, who supported the cause of the established church. The best of his performances appeared without his name, under the title of “Apologia pro Ministris in Anglia (vu!go) Nonconformistis, c.” Wood, who has given a particular account of his other writings, says that “he was a person several ways learned, much conversant in books, a leading man and pillar of his party, but altogether a severe enemy to the ceremonies of the church of England.” Calamy says very little of him.

, a man of learning of the sixteenth century, was born in 1566, atTredington, in Worcestershire, and in 1579 entered of St. Mary hall, Oxford, which he left after taking his bachelor’s degree, and appears to have lived the life of a country gentleman, relieving his agricultural pursuits by study. His favourite object was the Greek language. He died while on a visit to a relation at Sutton, in Gloucestershire, Jan. 9, 1630. His translation of “Lucian” was published by his son Thomas Hicks, A. M. chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford, in Ifc34, 4to, who also presented to the library of that college manuscript translations by his father of “Thucydides” and “Herodian.” The Life of Lucian and the notes were written by this son, who died young, in 1634, and had been, as Wood says, esteemed a good poet and an excellent limner.

. Wood gives two authors of these names, of which some brief notice may be taken. The first, the son of Nicholas Hicks, a Cornish gentleman, was born in 1620, and was for some time a commoner of Wadham college, but removed thence by his relations to join the parliamentary forces. He was a captain of the train bands, and an enthusiast and fifth monarchy man in which spirit he wrote a folio entitled “Revelation revealed being a practical exposition on the Revelation of St. John,” Lond. 1659 but this not succeeding, a new title page and a portrait of the author were added in 1661. He died iti 1659. The other William Hicks became also a captain, apparently in the recruiting service, in the beginning of Charles Il.'s reign. With some it may be thought an honour, that he was the first compiler of & jest-book, under the title of “Oxford Jests,” which was followed by others called Oxford Drollery,“and” Coffee-house Jests,“and these by” Cambridge Jests,“” London Jests,“&c. down to our own times. Anthony Wood, who thought it no honour that Oxford should be suspected of first inventing these vulgar collections, or of educating men to compile jest-books, takes care to inform us that capt. Hicks, as he was called, owed nothing to his education there, being born in St. Thomas’s parish, of poor and dissolute parents, afterwards bred a tapster at the Star inn, then a clerk to a woodmonger at Deptford, where he was living in 1669 as capt. Hicks, but while at Oxford” was a sharking and indigent fellow,“who wrote” little trivial matters merely to get bread, and make the pot walk."

, an English divine and writer, was, the son of Roger Hieron, a learned clergyman, vicar of Epping, in Essex, who died in 1592. His son, who was born in 1572, received his early education from his father, who afterwards sent him to Eton school, whence he was elected by the free choice of provost Goade, into a scholarship of King’s college, Cambridge. On the death of his father, who probably left no great provision behind him, he was much assisted in the prosecution of his studies in the university by sir Francis Barrington, of Barringtonhall, in Essex, knt. While at Cambridge he studied divinity under Lawrence Chaderton, master of Emanuel college, and made such progress that at his first preaching at King’s, he was heard with the utmost approbation, seeming, as his biographer says, “rather a bachelor in divinity than a bachelor in arts, and rather a divine of forty, than only twenty-four years of age.” On his appearance as a preacher in London, he immediately became so popular that many congregations, together with the inns of court, desired to have him settled as their minister. But being offered the living of Moclbury, in Devonshire, in the gift of Eton college, he preferred that, and preached with great success, both there and at other places, particularly Plympton, where, by the means of sir Ferdinand Gorges, and other gentlemen of the neighbourhood, a lecture was established, of which he became one of the preachers. His public and private character procured him the reverence both of the poor and rich, and it appears by the dedications of his works that he had many friends of high rank. He inclined to puritan principles, but with a strict adherence to the church of England; and was particularly zealous against popery. He was long afflicted with a chronical distemper, but continued his public services and private studies notwithstanding the apparent incapacity of his weak body. This disorder, however, put an end to his useful life in the forty-fifth year of his age, in 1617. He was interred in Modbury church. His works, consisting principally of sermons and commentaries, printed often separately, in 4to and 8vo, were collected by him and published in 1614 in fol. and reprinted at London in 1620, with an additional volume edited by Robert Hill, D. D. rector of St. Bartholomew, Exchange. To this Dr. Hill prefixed a life, from which the above particulars are taken.

, a minor author of the last century, much patronized and befriended by Garrick, was born in the county of Dublin in 1719, and educated for a popish priest, first in Ireland, and afterwards for many years in France. Yet after all, he took his degree of bachelor in physic, and returned to Dublin that he might practise. Indolence, however, prevented his application jto that or any profession, and he came to London about 1753, where he subsisted very scantily and idly, as an author, for the remainder of his life; producing several works, but none of any great merit. He was principally employed by the booksellers in various works of translation, compilement, &c. In short, with no principles, and slender abilities, he was perpetually disgracing literature, which he was doomed to follow for bread, by such a conduct as was even unworthy of the lowest and most contemptible of the vulgar. His conversation was highly offensive to decency and good manners, and his whole behaviour discovered a mind over which the opinions of mankind had no influence. He associated, however, occasionally with some of the most celebrated men of his time, Foote, Garrick, Murphy, Goldsmith, Kelly, Sec. who tolerated his faults, and occasionally supplied his necessities, although when he thought their liberality insufficient, he made no scruple of writing the grossest libels on their character. One of his peculiar fancies was to keep the place of his lodging a secret, which he did so completely, that he refused to disclose it even when dying, to a friend who supported him, and actually received his last contributions through the channel of the Bedford coffee-house. When he died, which was in June 1777, it was discovered that he had lodged in one of the obscure courts near St. Martin’s-lane. Dr. Hiffernan, as he was usually called, was author of the folio wing works: 1.“The Ticklers,” a set of periodical and political papers, published in Dublin about 1750. 2. “The Tuner,” a set of periodical papers, published in London in 1753. 3. “Miscellanies in prose and verse,” 1754. 4. “The Ladies’ Choice,” a dramatic petite piece, acted at Coventgarden in 1759. 5. “The Wishes of a free People,” a dramatic poem, 1761. 6. “The New Hippocratrs,” a farce, acted at Drury-lane in 1761, but not published, 7. “The Earl of Warwick,” a tragedy, from the French of La Harpe, 1764. 8. “Dramatic Genius,” an essay, ia five books, 1770. 9. “The Philosophic Whim,” a farce, 1774. 10. “The Heroine of the Cave,” a tragedy, loft unfinished by Henry Jones, author of the “Earl of Essex,” completed by Hiffernan, and acted at Drury-lane in 1774. He also issued proposals for a quarto volume of additional Miscellanies in prose and verse, which we believe never appeared.

, son of Dr. Thomas Hi?gons, some time rector of Westburgh in Shropshire, was born in 1624, in that county became a commoner of St. Alban’s-hall in the beginning of 1638, when he was put under the tuition of Mr. Edward Corbet, fellow of Merton college, and lodged in the chamber under him in that house. Leaving the university without a degree, he retired to his native country. He married the widow of Robert earl of Essex; and delivered an oration at her funeral, Sept. 16, 1656. “Oratione funebri, a marito ipso, more prisco laudata fuit,” is part of this lady’s epitapii. He married, secondly, Bridget, daughter of sir Devil Greenvili of Stow, and sister to John earl of Bath and removed to Grewell in Hampshire was elected a burgess for Malmsbury in 16.38, and for New Windsor in 1661. His services to the crown were rewarded with a pension of 500l. a year, and gifts to the amount of 4000l. He was afterwards knighted and in 1669, was sent envoy extraordinary to invest John George duke of Saxony with the order of the garter. About four years after, he was sent envoy to Vienna, where he continued three years. In 1685 he was elected burgess for St. Germain’s, “being then,” says Wood, “accounted a loyal and accomplished person, and a great lover of the tegular clergy.” He died suddenly, of an apoplexy, in the King’s-bench court, having been summoned there as a witnt’ss, Nov. 24, 1691; and was buried in Winchester caihedral near the relics of his first wife. His literary productions are, 1. “A Panegyric to the King,” 1660, folio. 2. “The Funeral Oration on his first Lady,” Iff56. 3. “The History of Isoof Bassa,” 1684. He also translated into English, “The Venetian Triumph;” for which he was complimented by Waller, in his poems; who has also addressed a poem to Mrs. Higgons. Mr. Granger, who styles sir Thomas “a gentleman of great merit,” was favoured by the duchess dowager of Portland with a ms copy of his Oration; and concludes, from the great scarcity of that pamphlet, that “the copies of it were, for certain reasons, industriously collected and destroyed, though few pieces of this kind have less deserved to perish. The countess of Essex had a greatness of mind which enabled her to bear the whole weight of infamy which was thrown upon her; but it was, nevertheless, attended with a delicacy and sensibility of honour which poisoned all her enjoyments. Mr. Higgons had said much, and I think much to the purpose, in her vindication; and was himself fully convinced from the tenor of her life, and the words which she spoke at the awful close of it, that she was perfectly innocent. In reading this interesting oration, I fancied myself standing by the grave of injured innocence and beauty; was sensibly touched with the pious affection of the tenderest and best of husbands doing public and solemn justice to an amiable and worthy woman, who had been grossly and publicly defamed. Nor could I withhold the tribute of a tear; a tribute which, I am confident, was paid at her interment by every one who loved virtue, and was not destitute of the feelings of humanity. This is what I immediately wrote upon reading the oration. If I am wrong in my opinion, the benevolent reader, I am sure, will forgive me. It is not the first time that my heart has got the better of my judgment.” “I am not afraid,” Mr. Nichols adds, “of being censured for having transcribed this beautiful passage.”

, an eminent painter, was born in the parish of St. James, Garlickhithe, London, June 13, 1692, being the third son of Mr. Edward Hightnore , a coal-merchant in Thames-street. Having such an early and strong inclination to painting, that he could think of nothing else with pleasure', his father endeavoured to gratify him in a proposal to his uncle, who was serjeant-painter to king William, and with whom Mr. (afterward Sir James) Thorn hi 11 f had served his apprenticeship. But this was afterwards for good reasons declined, and he was articled as clerk to an attorney, July 18, 1707; but so much against his own declared inclination, that in about three years he began to form resolutions of indulging his natural disposition to his favourite art, having continually employed his leisure hours in designing, and in the study of geometry, perspective, architecture, and anatomy, but without any instructors except books. He had afterwards an opportunity of improving himself in anatomy, by attending the lectures of Mr. Cheselden, besides entering himself at the Painters’ Academy in Great Queen -street, where he drew ten years, and had the honour to be particularly noticed by sir Godfrey Kneller, who distinguished him by the name of “the Young Lawyer.” On June 13, 1714, his clerkship expired; and on March 26, 1715, he began painting as a profession, and settled in the city. In the same year Dr. Brook Taylor published his “Linear Perspective: or anew method of representing justly all manner of objects as they appear to the eye, in all situations.” On this complete and universal theory our artist grounded his subsequent practice; and it has been generally allowed, that few, if any, of the profession at that time, were so thoroughly masters of that excellent, but intricate system. In 1716, he married miss Susanna Killer, daughter and heiress of Mr. Anthony Hiller, of Em'ngliam, in Surrey; a young lady in every respect worthy of his choice. For Mr. Cheselden’s “Anatomy of the Human. Body,” published in 1722, he made drawings from the real subjects at the time of dissection, two of which were engraved for that work, and appear, but without his name, in tables xii. and xiii. In the same year, on the exhibition of “The Conscious Lovers,” written by sir Richard Stecle, Mr. Highmore addressed a letter to the author, (puhlished in 1760 in the Gentleman’s Magazine), on the limits of filial obedience, pointing out a material defect in the character of Bevil, with that clearness and precision for which, in conversation and writing, he was always remarkable, as the pencil by no means engrossed his whole attention. His reputation and business increasing, he took a more conspicuous station, by removing to a house in Lincoln’s-innfields, in March 1723-4; and an opportunity soon offered of introducing him advantageously to the nobility, &c. from his being desired, by Mr. Pine the engraver, to make the drawings for his prints of the Knights of the Bath, on the revival of that order in 1725. In consequence of this, several of the knights had their portraits also by the same hand, some of them whole lengths; and the duke of Kichmond, in particular, was attended by l.is three esquiies, with a perspective view of king Henry the Vilth’s chapel. This capital picture is now at Goodwood. The artist was also sent for to St. James’s, by George I. to paint the portrait of William duke of Cumberland, from which Smith scraped a mezzotinto.

In 1728, Mr. Hawkins Browne, then of LincolnVinn, who had always a just sense of Highmore’s talents and abilities, addressed to him a poetical epistle “Ou Design and Beauty;” and, some years after, an elegant Latin ode, both now collected in his poems. In the summer of 1732, Mr. Highmore visited the continent, in company with Dr. Pemberton, Mr. Benj. Robins, and two other friends, chiefly with a view of seeing the gallery of pictures belonging to the elector palatine at Dusseldorp, collected by Rubens, and supposed to be the best in Europe. At Antwerp also he had peculiar pleasure in contemplating the works of his favourite master. In their return they visited the principal towns in Holland. In 1734, he made a like excursion, but alone, to Paris, where he received great civilities from some of his countrymen, particularly the duke of Kingston, Dr, Hickman (his tutor), Robert Knight, esq. (the late cashier), &c. Here he had the satisfaction of being shewn, by cardinal de Polignac, his famous group of antique statues, the court of Lycomedes, then just brought from Rome, and since purchased by the king of Prussia, and destroyed at Charlottenbourg, in 1760, by the Russians. In 1742, he had the honour to paint Frederic prince and the princess of Wales, for the duke of Saxe Gotha; as he did some years after, the queen of Denmark, for that court. The publication of Pamela, ia 1744, gave rise to a set of paintings by Mr. Highmore, which were engraved by two French engravers, and published by subscription, in 1745. In the same year ha painted the only original of the late general Wolfe, then about 18. His Pamela introduced him to the acquaintance and friendship of the excellent author, whose picture he drew, and for whom he painted the only original of Dr. Young. In 1750 he had the great misfortune to lose his excellent wife. On the first institution of the Academy of Painting, Sculpture, &c. in 1753, he was elected one of the professors; an honour, which, on account of his many avocations, he desired to decline. In 1754 he published, “A critical examination of those two Paintings [by Rubens] on the cieling of the Banquetting-house at Whitehall, in which architecture is introduced, so far as relates to perspective together with the discussion of a question which has been the subject of debate among painters” printed in 4to, for Nourse. In the solution of this question he proved that Rubens, and several other great painters, were mistaken in the practice, and Mr. Kirby, and several other authors, in the theory and practice: and in the eighteenth volume of the “Monthly Review,” he animadverted (anonymously) on Mr. Kirby’s unwarrantable treatment of Mr. Ware, and detected and exposed his errors, even where he exults in his own superior science. Of the many portraits which Mr. Highmore painted, in an extensive practice of 46 years, (of which several have been engraved), it is impossible and useless to discuss particulars. His principal historical pictures were “Hin;ar and Ishmael,” a present to the Foundling-hospital “The Good Samaritan,” painted for Mr. Shepherd of Cainpsey Ash “The fin ding of Moses,” purchasedathis sale by gen. Lister: “The Harlowe Family,” as described in “Cianssn,” in the possession of Tiiomas Watkinson Payler, esq. at Heden in Kent: “Clarissa,” the portrait mentioned in that work “The Graces unveiling Nature,” drawn by memory from Rubens “The Clementina of Grandison,” and “the ^iueen-mother of Edward IV. with her younger son, &c. in Westminster-abbey:” the three last in the possession of his son.

His abilities as a painter appear in his works, which will not only be admired by his contemporaries, but by their posterity; as his tints, like those of Rubens and Vandycfc, instead of being impaired, are improved by time, which some of them have now withstood above 60 years. His idea of beauty, when he indulged his fancy, was of the highest kind; and his knowledge of perspective gave him great advantages in family-pieces, of which he painted more than any one of his time. He could take a likeness by memory as well as by a sitting, as appears by his picture of the duke of Lorrain (the late emperor), which Faber engraved and those ol king George II. (in York assemblyroom) queen Caroline, the two miss Gunnings, &c. Like many other great painters, he had “a poet for his friend,” in the late Mr. Browne; to which may be added, a poem addressed to him in 1726, by the Rev. Mr. Bunce, at that time of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, who succeeded Mr. Highmore, and in 1780, was vicar of St. Stephen’s near Canterbury.

, or Hilary, an ancient father of the Christian church, who flourished in the fourth century, was born, as St. Jerom tells us, at Poictiers in France; but in what year, is not known. His parents, persons of rank and substance, had him liberally educated in the pagan religion, which they themselves professed, and which Hilary did not forsake till many years after he was grown-up; when reflecting upon the gross errors of paganism, he was gradually led to the truth, and confirmed in it by reading the holy Scriptures. He was then baptized, together with his wife and daughter, who were also converted with bin). He was advanced to the bishopric of Poictiers in the year 3 5 5, according to Baronius though Cave thinks he was bishop of that place some years before. As soon however as he was raised to this dignity, he became a most zealous champion of the orthodox faith, and distinguished himself particularly against the Arians, whose doctrines were at that time gaining ground in France. In 356, he was sent by Constantinus to support the party of Athanasius at the synod of Beterra, or Beziers, against Saturninusbishop of'Arles, who had just before been excommunicated by the bishops of France but Saturninus had so much influence with the emperor, who was then at Milan, as to induce that monarch to order him to be banished to Phrygia, where Hilary continued continued four years, and applied himself during that time to the composing of several works. He wrote his twelve books upon the Trinity, which Cave calls “a noble work,” and which has been much admired in all ages. He wrote also “A Treatise Concerning Synods,” addressed to the bishops of France in which he explains to them the sense of the Eastern churches upon the doctrine of the Trinity, and their man tier of holding councils. This was drawn up by Hilary, ‘after the council of Ancyra in 358, whose canons are contained in it; and before the councils of Rimini and Seleucia, which were called in the beginning of 359. ’ Some time after he was sent to the council of Seleucia, where he defended the Galiican bishops from the imputation of Sabellianism, which the Arians had fixed upun them; and boldly asserted the sound and orthodox faith of the Western bishops. He was so favourably received, and so much respected by this council, that they admitted him as one who should give in his opinion, and assist in a determination among their bishops. Hilary, however, finding the greater part of them to be Arian, would not act, although he continued at Seleucia till the council was over; and thinking the orthodox faith in the Utmost peril, followed the deputies of the council to Constantinople, when he petitioned the emperor for leave to dispute publicly with the Arians. The Arians, from a dread of his talents, contrived to have him sent to France, in which he arrived in 360, and after the catholic bishops had recovered their usual liberty and authority under Julian the Apostate, Hilary assembled several councils to reestablish the ancient orthodox faith, and to condemn the determinations of the synods of Rimini and Seleucia. He condemned Saturninus bishop of Aries, but pardoned those who acknowledged their error; and, in every respect, exerted himself so zealously, that France was in a great measure freed from Arianism by his single influence and endeavours. He extended a similar care over Italy and some foreign churches, and was particularly qualified to recover men from the error of their ways, being a man of a mild candid turn, very learned, and accomplished in the arts of persuasion, and in these respects, says the candid Dupin, “affords a very proper lesson of instruction to all who are employed in the conversion of heretics.”

About 367 Hilary had another opportunity of distinguishing his zeal against Arianism. The emperor Valentinian coming to Milan, issued an edict, obliging all to acknowledge Auxentius for their bishop. Hilary, persuaded that Auxentius was in his heart an Ariao, presented a petition to the emperor, in which he declared Auxentius to be a man whose opinions were opposite to those of the church. Upon this the emperor ordered Hilary and Auxentius to dispute publicly; and Auxentius, after many subtleties and evasive shifts to save his bishopric, was forced to own, that Jesus Christ “was indeed God, of the same substance and divinity with the Father.” The emperor, believing this profession sincere, embraced his communion; but Hilary still insisted that he prevaricated, on which account he was ordered to depart from Milan, as one who disturbed the peace of the church. Hilary died the latter end of this year, after many struggles and endeavours to support the catholic faith. His works have been published several times: but the best edition of them was given by the Benedictines in 1693 at Paris, fol. That of the marquis de Maffei, published at Verona in 1730, 2 vols. folio, although it contains some additions, is less esteemed. There has since appeared an edition in 4 vols. 8vo, by-Oberthur, at Wurtzberg, 1785 1788. The principal articles are: the twelve books on the Trinity; the Treatise on Synods, three pieces addressed to the emperor Constantius; Commentaries on St. Matthew, and part of the Psalms. Cave has enumerated several articles improperly attributed to him. He was a man of great piety as well as abilities and learning, of which the ancient author of his life, attributed to Fortunatus, has given us some instances, mixed with superstitious prodigies and fictions. It appears that Hilary was married, and had by his wife a daughter called Abra, whose education he carefully superintended. To him the great church at Poictiers is dedicated, and in the midst of the city is a column erected to him, with an inscription expressive of their admiration of his virtues, but partaking a little of the superstitious.

, a very eminent and learned puritan divine, was descended from the royal family of England. He was the son of Thomas Hildersham, a gentleman of an ancient family, by Anne Pole (or Poole), his second wife, daughter to sir JefTery Pole, fourth son of sir Richard Pole, cousin-german to Henry VII. This sir Richard Pole’s wife was Margaret countess of Salisbury, daughter to George duke of Clarence, second brother to king Edward IV. by Isabella, eldest daughter and co-heiress of Richard earl of Warwick and Salisbury. All this will appear from the pedigree of cardinal Pole (who was Mr. Hildersham’s great uncle), as given from* the Heralds office, by the cardinal’s biographer, Mr. Phillips, but we might perhaps have passed it over, unless for a remarkable coincidence of descent which we shall soon have to notice in our account of bishop Hildesley.

Mr. Hildersham was born at Stechworth in Cambridgeshire, Oct. 6, 1563, and educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge. His parents were zealous papists, but during his abode at the university, he embraced the doctrines of the reformed church with a cordiality and decision which nothing could shake, and when his father found him so resolute, he disinherited him. He soon, however, obtained a liberal patron in his relation Henry earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the north, who sent him to the university, which he had been obliged to leave, and generously supported him. Being disappointed of a fellowship of Christ’s college, owing to the partiality of Dr. Barwell, the master, for another candidate, he was nearly about the same time, in 1586, chosen fellow of Trinity-hall, by the influence of lord Burleigh, chancellor of the university. This fellowship, however, he did not hold above two years, and having unguardedly began to preach without being admitted into orders, he received a check from archbishop Whitgift, although this irregularity was not in those days very uncommon. In 1593, however, every obstacle of this kind being removed, the earl of Huntingdon presented him to the living of Ashby-de-la Zoncb in Leicestershire, where he remained the whole of his life. Being dissatisfied with some points of ecclesiastical discipline, snch as wearing the surplice, baptizing with the cross, and kneeling at the sacrament, he often incurred the penalties of the law, and more than once was suspended from his functions; but always restored by the intervention of some friend, or the prevalence of his own excellent character. The wonder is that a man of his learning, piety, and good sense, should have adhered with such pertinacity to matters of comparatively little consequence, when he found the law and the general sentiments of his brethren against him, and when, what was of more importance to him, those labours were interrupted in which he delighted, and in which he was eminently successful. With these interruptions, however, he continued in the exercise of his ministry at Ashby until his death, March 4, 1631. He was interred in the southside of the chancel of Ashby church, with an inscription which, after adverting to his noble descent, says that he was “more honoured for his sweet 'and ingenuous disposition, his singular wisdom in settling peace, advising in secular affairs, and satisfying doubts; his abundant charity, and especially his extraordinary knowledge and judgment in the Holy Scriptures, his painful and zealous preaching, &c.” This character is amply illustrated by his biographers, and may in part be confirmed by his works, which in point of style and matter are equal, if not superior to those of his contemporaries* Those which are best known are his “Lectures on John iv.” 1623, fol. and his “CLII Lectures on Psalm 51,” 1635, fol. In all these his steady adherence to the doctrines of the church is visible, and his aversion to sectarianism and popery. He was particularly an opponent of the Brownists, or first independents. Echardjusily says he was “a great and shining light of the puritan party, and celebrated for his singular learning and piety.” Ke was the author also of “Lectures on Psalm 34,” 1632, 4to; and “A Treatise on the Lord’s Supper,” which we have never seen. He left in ms. a paraphrase on the whole Bible, from which was extracted a paraphrase on the Song of Solomon, printed, 1672, in 12mo. His son, Samuel, was ejected, for nonconformity, from the living of West Felton in Shropshire, and died in 1674. He was editor of his father’s Lectures.

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

At Hitchin, the value of which would not admit the expence of a curate, he began that attention to the duties of his function which predominated through his life, and having advanced considerably to repair the vicarage-house, he was obliged to add to his labours by undertaking the education of from four to six select pupils, as boarders. It was his general custom at this time to preach either from memory, or short notes; and at a visitation at Baldock he delivered a discourse to the clergy from memory alone, with very singular and agreeable address. In Oct. 1735, he succeeded to the neighbouring-rectory of Holwell, in the county of Bedford, upon the presentation of Ralph Radcliffe, esq. This living he held about thirty-two years, and during the twenty years of his residence, executed all the duties of his important function with a truly primitive fidelity, not only by frequent public preaching, but by private visiting, exhortation, and catechising, distributing good books, &c. At length his exemplary conduct became known to the duke of Athol, lord and patron of the bishopric of Sodor and Mann, who justly considered him as a proper person to succeed the excellent and venerable bishop Wilson, who died in 1755. He was accordingly consecrated in Whitehall chapel in April of that year, after being created D. D. by archbishop Herring; and on Aug. 6, was installed in the cathedral of St. German on Peel, in the Isle of Mann.

Having thus succeeded bishop Wilson, he made it the invariable rule of his conduct to tread as nearly as possible in the steps of his truly excellent predecessor, of whom, both in his letters and conversation, he always spoke with a kind of filial respect and veneration. He accordingly devoted himself to the various duties of his charge with a generous assiduity, and amongst the very chief of those duties, undertook to execute the arduous task of getting the Holy Scriptures translated into the Manks language, and printed for the use of the native inhabitants. This had been already begun by bishop Wilson, who, at his own expence, proceeded so far as to print the gospel of St. Matthew; and had also prepared for the press a manuscript version of the other evangelists, and the Acts of the Apostles, which afterwards underwent a very careful revision. Impressed, therefore, with deep solicitude and concern for the spiritual welfare of a flock, which providence had so unexpectedly entrusted to his care, bishop Hildesley could have no rest till he had accomplished this glorious design. It lay, indeed, so much at his heart, that he was often heard to say, “he only wished to live tosee it finished and he then should be happy, die when he would” and his wish was accomplished. He lived to see the work completed, by the divine blessing on his own endeavours, and on those of his clergy, in consequence of a successful application made to the society for promoting Christian knowledge who, immediately, and in the most liberal manner, espoused the cause together with the aid of many persons of eminence and distinction, who were pleased to honour themselves by patronizing the undertaking.

, is recorded as a celebrated abbot of St. Denys in France, in the ninth century, in the reigns of Louis le Debonnaire, and Lothaire his son. He became despicable by his attachment to the latter, and by frequently violating the oath of fidelity which he swore to the emperor Louis, whenever he was reconciled to his children. As a writer he was the first who confounded St. Denys, or Dionysius, bishop of Paris, with Dionysius the Areopagite, in his life of St. Dionysius entitled " Areopagitica, n Paris, 1565, 8vo, which is replete with fabulous absurdities.

, an English poet and dramatic writer of some celebrity in his day, was born in Beaufort-buildings in the Strand, February 10, 1685. He was the eldest son Of George Hill, esq. of Malmsbury-abbey in Wiltshire and, in consequence of this descent, the legal heir to an, entailed estate of about 2000l. per annum; but the misconduct of his father having, by a sale of the property, which he had no right to execute, rendered it of no advanl tage to the family, our author was left, together with Mr. Hill’s other children, to the care of, and a dependence on, his mother and grandmother; the latter of whom (Mrs. Anne Gregory) was more particularly anxious for his education and improvement. The first rudiments of learning he received from Mr. Reyner, of Barnstaple in Devonshire^ to whom he was sent at nine years old, and, on his removal from thence, was placed at Westminster-school, under the care of the celebrated Dr. Knipe. After remaining here until he was fourteen years of age, he formed a resolution singular enough in one so young, of paying a visit to his relation lord Paget, then ambassador at Constantinople; and accordingly embarked for that place, March 2, 1700. When he arrived, lord Paget received him with much surprise, as well as pleasure; wondering, that a person so young should run the hazard of iuch a voyage, to visit a relation whom he only knew by character. The ambassador immediately provided for him a very learned ecclesiastic in his own house; and, under his tuition, sent him to travel, so that he had an opportunity of seeing Egypt, Palestine, and a great part of the East. With lord Paget he returned home about 1703, and in his journey saw most of the courts in Europe, and it is probable that his lordship might have provided genteelly for him at his death, had he not been dissuaded by the misrepresentations of a female about him, which in a great measure prevented his good intentions. The young man’s well known merit, however, soon recommended him to sir William Wentworth, a Yorkshire baronet, who being inclined to make the tour of Europe, his relations engaged Mr. Hill to accompany him as a travelling tutor, which office he performed, for two or three years, to their entire satisfaction. In 1709, he commenced author, by the publication of an “History of the Ottoman Empire,” compiled from tinmaterials 'which he had collected in the course of his di rent travels, and during his residence at the Turkish conr:. This work, though it met with success, Mr. Hill frequently afterwards repented the having printed, and would himself, at times, very severely criticize it; and indeed, to say the truth, there are in it a great number of puerilities, which render it far inferior to the merit of his subsequent writings; in which correctness has ever been so strong a characteristic, that his critics have even attributed it to him as a fault; whereas, in this work, there at best appears the labour of a juvenile genius, rather choosing to give the full reign to fancy, and indulge the imagination of the poet, than to aim at the plainness and perspicuity of the historian. About the same year he published his first poetical piece, entitled “Camillus,” in vindication and honour of the earl of Peterborough, who had been general in. Spain. This poem was printed without any author’s name; but lord Peterborough, having made it his business to find out to whom he was indebted, appointed Mr. JHill his secretary; which post, however, he quitted the year following, on occasion of his marriage.

It is probable, however, that neither pride, nor any harboured resentment, were the motives of this refusal, but that spirit of projecting new schemes which seems to hare more or less animated him throughout life, however unfortunate he might be in indulging it. Among the Harleian Mss. 7524, is a letter from him to the lord-treasurer, dated April 12, 1714, on a subject by which “the nation might gain a million annually.” In 17 15, he undertook to. make an oil, as sweet as that from olives, of the beech-nuts, and obtained a patent for the purpose: but, after having formed a joint-stock company to be called the “Beech Oil Company,” who were to act in concert with the patentee, disputes arose among them, and the whole design was overthrown, without any benefit having accrued either to the patentee, or the sharers. He was next concerned with sir Robert Montgomery in a design for establishing a plantation of a vast tract of land in the south of Carolina, for which purpose a grant had been purchased from the lords proprietors of that province; but here again the want of a larger fortune than he was master of, stood as a bar in his way; for, though it has many years since been extensively cultivated under the name of Georgia, yet it never proved of any advantage to him.

With regard to Mr. Hill’s private character, all who have written of him say he was in every respect perfectly amiable. His person was, in his youth, extremely fair and handsome. He was tall, not too thin, yet genteelly made. His eyes were a dark blue, bright and penetrating; his hair brown, and his face oval. His countenance was most generally animated by a. smile, which was more particularly distinguishable whenever he entered into conversation; in the doing which his address was most engagingly affable, yet mingled with a native unassumed dignity, which rendered him equally the object of admiration and respect with those who had the pleasure of his acquaintance. His voice was sweet, and his conversation elegant; and so extensive was his knowledge in all subjects, that scarcely any could occur on which he did not acquit himself in a most masterly and entertaining manner. His temper, though naturally warm when roused by injuries, was equally noble in a readiness to forgive them; and so much inclinable was he to repay evil with good, that he frequently exercised that Christian lesson, even to the prejudice of his own circumstances. He was a generous master, a sincere friend, an affectionate husband, and an indulgent and tender parent; and indeed so benevolent was his disposition in general, even beyond the power of the fortune he was blessed with, that the calamities of those he knew, and valued as deserving, affected him more deeply than his own. In consequence of this we find him bestowing the profits of many of his works for the relief of his friends, and particularly his dramatic ones, none of which he could ever be prevailed on to accept of a benefit for, till at the very close of his life, when his narrow circumstances compelled him to solicit the acting of his “Merope,” for the relief of its author from those difficulties out of which he had frequently been the generous instrument of extricating others. His manner of living was temperate to the greatest degree in every respect but that of late hours, which, as the night is less liable to interruptions than the day, his indefatigable love of study frequently drew him into. No labour deterred him from the prosecution of any design which appeared to him to be praise-worthy and feasible; nor was it in the power of the greatest misfortunes to overcome, or even shake, his fortitude of mind.

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

But the disposition of Dr. Hill was greatly changed with his circumstances: from being humble and diffident, he had become vain and self-sufficient. There appeared in him a pride, which was perpetually claiming a more than ordinary homage, and a vindictive spirit, which could never forgive the refusal of it. Hence his writings abounded with attacks on the understandings, morals, or peculiarities of others, descending, even to personal abuse and scurrility. This licence of his pen engaged him frequently in disputes and quarrels; and an Irish gentleman of the name of Browne, supposed to be ridiculed in an “Inspector,” proceeded so far as to cane him in the public gardens at Ranelagh. He had a paper war with Woodward the comedian was engaged with Henry Fielding in the affair of Elizabeth Canning and concerned in a contest with the Royal Society, Of this, the origin and progress has been thus detailed by one who had every opportunity of knowing the circumstances. When Mr. Hill had started all at once as before related, from a state of indigence and distress, to taste the comforts of very considerable emoluments from his labour, giddy with success, and elated beyond bounds with the warm sunshine of prosperity, he seemed to be seized with a kind of infatuation. Vanity took entire possession of his bosom, and banished from thence every consideration but of self. His conversation turned on little else, and even his very writings were tainted with perpetual details of every little occurrence that happened to him. His raillery, both in company and in his writings, frequently turned on those who closely attached themselves to philosophical investigations, especially in the branches of natural philosophy. The common -place wit of abusing the medal-scraper, the butterfly-hunter, the cockle-shell-merchant, &c. now appeared in some of his Magazines and Inspectors, and in two or three places he even indulged some distant glances of satire at the Royal Society. Notwithstanding which, however, when the Supplement to “Chambers’s Dictionary” was nearly finished, the proprietors of that work, very sensible of the weight of an F. R. S. annexed to the author’s name, were very desirous that Dr. Hill should have this addition as well as Mr. Scott, his colleague in the work. In consequence of this design, Dr. Hill procured Mr. Scott to propose him for election into that honourable body; but the doctor’s conduct for some time past having been such as had rendered him the object of contempt to some, of disgust to others, and of ridicule to almost all the rest of his former grave and philosophical acquaintances, he now stood but a very indifferent chance for carrying an election, where an opposition pf one third was sufficient to reject the candidate; and as. the failing in that attempt might have done our author more essential prejudice than the succeeding in it could even have brought him advantage, the late ingenious and worthy president, Martin Folkes, esq. whose remembrance must ever live in the highest estimation with all who ever had the honour of knowing him, notwithstanding that Dr. Hill had given him personal occasion of offence against him, yet with the utmost generosity and candour, advised Mr. Scott to dissuade his friend, for his own sake, against a design which there appeared so little probability of his succeeding in. This advice, however, Dr. Hill, instead of considering in the generous light it was meant, misinterpreted into a prejudiced opposition against his interest, am would have persisted in his intention even in despite of it, had net his being unable to obtain the subscription o requisite number of members to his recommendation^ obliged him to lay it aside, from a conviction that he could not expect to carry an election in a body composed of three hundred members, of which he could not prevail on three to set their names to the barely recommending him as a candidate. Thus disappointed, his vanity piqued, and his pride lowered, no relief was left him but railing and scurrility, for which purpose, declaring open war with the society in general, he first published a pamphlet entitled *' A Dissertation on Royal Societies,“in a letter from a Sclavonian nobleman in London to his friend in Sclavonia; which, besides the most ill-mannered and unjust abuse on the whole learned body he had been just aiming, in vain, to become a member of, is interlarded with the grossest personal scurrility on the characters of Mr. Folkes and Mr. Henry Baker, two gentlemen to whom Dr. Hill had formerly been under the greatest obligations, and whose respective reputations in both the moral and literary world had long been too firmly established for the weak efforts of a disappointed scribbler to shake or undermine. Not contented with this, he proceeded to compile together a large quarto volume entitled” A Review of the Works of the Royal Society,“in which, by the most unfair quotations, mutilations, and misrepresentations, numbers of the papers read in that illustrious assembly, and published under the title of the” Philosophical Transactions,“are endeavoured to be rendered ridiculous. This work is ushered into the world with a most abusive and infamous dedication to Martin Folkes, esq. against whom and the afore-mentioned Mr. Henry Baker the weight of this furious attack was chiefly aimed but the whole recoiled upon himself; and by such personal abuse, malignant altercation, proud and insolent behaviour, together with the slovenliness and inaccuracy of careless and hasty productions, he wrote himself out of repute both with booksellers and the town; and, after some time, sunk in the estimation of the public nearly as fast as he had risen. He found, however, as usual, resources in his own invention. He applied himself to the preparation of certain simple medicines namely,” the Essence of Water-dock; Tincture of Valerian Pectoral Balsam of Honey and Tincture of Bardana.“The well-known simplicity of these preparations led the public to judge favourably of their effects; they had a rapid sale, and once more enabled the doctor to live in splendour. Soon after the publication of the first of these medicines, he obtained the patronage of the earl of Bute; under which he published a very pompous and voluminous botanical work, entitled” A System of Botany;“but is said to have been a very considerable loser by this speculation. His botanical works, however, had a favourable influence in promoting the science in general. To wind up the whole of so extraordinary a life, having a year or two before his death presented an elegant set of his botanical works to the king of Sweden, that monarch invested him with one of the orders of his court, that of Vasa, in consequence of which he assumed the title of Sir John. He died Nov. 22, 1775, of the gout, which he professed to cure others. As to his literary character, and the rank of merit in which his writings ought to stand, Hill’s greatest enemies could not deny that he was master of considerable abilities, and an amazing quickness of parts. The rapidity of his pen was ever astonishing, and he has been known to receive within one year, no less than 1500l. for the works of his own single hand; which, as he was never in such estimation as to be entitled to any extraordinary price for his copies, is, we believe, at least three times as much as ever was made by any one writer in the same period of time. But, had he written much less, his works would probably have been much more read. The vast variety of subjects he handled, certainly required such a fund of universal knowledge, and such a boundless genius, as were never perhaps known to centre in any one man; and it is not therefore to be wondered, if, in regard to some he appears very inaccurate, in some very superficial, and in others altogether inadequate to the task he had undertaken. His works on philosophical subjects seemed most likely to have procured him fame, had he allowed himself time to digest the knowledge he possessed, or preserved that regard to veracity which the relation of scientific facts so rigidly demands. His novels, of which he has written many, such as” The History of Mr. Lovell,“(in which he had endeavoured to persuade the world he had given the detail of his own life),” The Adventures of a Creole,“” The Life of Lady Frail,“&c. have, in some parts of them, incidents not disagreeably related, but the most of them are merely narratives of private intrigues, containing throughout the grossest calumnies, and endeavouring to blacken and undermine the private characters of many worthy persons. In his” Essays,“which are by much the best of hia writings, there is, in general, a liveliness of imagination, and adroitness in the manner of extending, perhaps some very trivial thought, which at first may by many be mistaken for wit; but, on a nearer examination, will be found to lose much of its value. A continued use of smart short periods, bold assertions, and bolder egotisms, produces a transient effect, but seldom tempts the spectator to take a second glance. The utmost that can be said of Hill is, that he had talents, but that, in general, he either greatly nisapplied them, or most miserably hackneyed them for profit. As a dramatic writer he stands in no estimation^ nor has he been known in that view by any thing but three very insignificant pieces: namely, 1.” Orpheus,“an opera, 1740. 2.” The Critical Minute,“a farce, published in 1754, but not acted, 3.” The Rout," a farce, 1754*. A large volume might be written on the life and! adventures of this extraordinary man, as affording a complete history of literary quackery, every branch of which he pursued with a greater contempt for character than perhaps any man in our time.

was a man remarkable for his perseverance and talent in learning many languages by the aid of books alone, and that under every disadvantage of laborious occupation and extreme poverty. His extraordinary character was made known to the world by Mr. Spence in 1757, who, in order to promote a subscription for him, published a comparison between him and the famous Magliabecchi, with a short life of each. From this account it appears that he was born January 11, 1699, at Miswell near Tring in Hertfordshire, that he was bred a taylor, which trade and that of a staymaker he practised throughout life, sometimes adding to them that of a schoolmaster. He was three times married, and the increase of his family, with the extravagance of his second wife, kept him always in great, penury. He worked in general, or taught by day, and studied by night; in which way he acquired the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, with a good knowledge of arithmetic. As he could proceed only as he accidentally picked up books in a very cheap way, his progress was slow, but by his unremitting diligence very steady. According to his own account, he was seven years acquiring Latin, twice as much in learning Greek, but Hebrew he found so easy that it cost him little time. He wrote, 1. “Remarks on Berkeley’s” Essay on Spirit“. 2.” The Character of a Jew.“3.” Criticisms on Job." He was a modest sensible man, fond of studying the Scriptures, and a zealous member of the church of England. He died at Buckingham in July 1777, after having been confined to his bed about a year and a half. During this time he employed the hours in which he was able to sit up, in his favourite study of the Old Testament in Hebrew, which he frequently said now more than repaid him for the trouble he had taken to acquire the language. It is probable, that the notice into which he was brought by Mr. Spence secured him afterwards from the extremities of poverty.

, a learned annotator on Dionysius Periegetes, was born in 1619, at Cudworth in Warwickshire, and educated at Merton college, Oxford, of which he was made one of the post-masters. He was -elected probationer-fellow of that house in 1639, and afterwards bachelor-fellow, and thence was promoted to a-free-school at Sutton-Colfield in his own county, which school he brought into considerable credit during his abode there. He then removed to London, and practised physic, and in 164i> and 1652, had leave from the delegates of the university to accumulate the degrees in physic, but Wood could not discover that he took the benefit of this licence it is probable he did not, as in his “Dionysius” he styles himself only master of arts. After this he removed to Ireland to resume the art of teaching, and became chief master of the great school of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, but at the restoration, as he had sided with the parliamentary interest, or at least was indebted to it for his promotion, he was ejected from this office, and went to Finglass, near Dublin, where he taught and boarded children of people of quality, and was made minister of the church there. Before his death he was created D. D. by the university of Dublin. He died of a pestilential fever in Nov. 1667. His edition of Dionysius is entitled “Dionisii orbis descriptio, annotationibus Eustathii, et Hen. Stepheni, nee non Gul. Hill eommentario critico et geographico, ac tabulis illustrata,” Lond. 1658, 8vo, reprinted 1659, 1663, 1678, 1683, which last Harwood reckons a valuable edition. He is said also to have epitomized some of the works of Lazarus Riverius, a physician. As his wife was brought to bed seven months after their marriage, he wrote a treatise to prove the child lawfully begotten, and submitted the ms. to two physicians, who returned it with apparent approbation, but seriously considered it as not very conclusive.

Lord Orford, who has given some anecdotes of this painter, concludes with observing, that the greatest obligation we have to Hilliard is his having contributed to form the celebrated Isaac Oliver.

, a Greek sophist and grammarian, who flourished under the emperors Constantius and Julian, and was living, after the death of the latter, in the year 303, was a native of Prusias in Bithynia, and a rival of Anatolius and Proaeresius, after whose death he established himself in the school of rhetoric at Athens. Eunapius, who writes some account of him, commends his style, which was formed on that of Aristides. He delighted in making clandestine attacks upon the Christians. Photius describes his declamations, and gives some extracts; but a copy of them has been found, and an edition published by Wernsdorf in 1790, under the title “Himerii Sophisuc eclogae et declamationes,” Gr. Lat. Gottingen, 8vo.

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

In consequence of this, Dr. Hinchliffe was appointed tutor and domestic chaplain to the duke of Devonshire, with whom he continued at Devonshire-house till his grace went abroad; and, by the joint interest of his two noble patrons he was presented to the vicarage of Greenwich, in 1766. About this time, Miss Elizabeth, the sister of his pupil Mr. Crewe, a young lady about twenty-one years of age, was courted by an officer of the guards, who not being favoured with the approbation of Mr. Crewe, this latter gentleman applied to Dr. Hinchliffe, requesting him to dissuade his sister from encouraging the addresses of her suitor. This he did so effectually, that the lady not only gratified her brother’s wishes, but her own, by giving both her heart and hand to the doctor. Mr. Crewe acquiesced immediately in his sister’s choice, encreasing her fortune from five thousand^ the sum originally bequeathed to her, to fifteen thousand pounds; but at the same time withdrawing the three hundred per annum before mentioned. Dr. Hinchliffe, it is said, was offered the tuition of the prince of Wales, which important trust he declined, from his predilection, as it is supposed, to what were called Whig principles. On the death of Dr. Smith, in 1768, his lordship was elected, through the recommendation of the duke of Grafton, master of Trinity college, Cambridge; and scarce a year had elapsed, when he was raised to the bishopric of Peterborough on the death of Dr. Lamb, in. 1769, by the interest of the duke of Grafton, then prime minister. It is probable his lordship might have obtained other preferment, had he not uniformly joined the party in parliament who opposed the principle and conduct of the American war. The only other change he experienced was that of being appointed dean of Durham, by which he was removed from the mastership of Trinity college. He died at his palace at Peterborough Jan. 11, 1794, after a long illness, which terminated in a paralytic stroke. His lordship, although a man of ^considerable learning, published three sermons, preached on public occasions. He was a graceful orator in parliament, and much admired in the pulpit. Mr. Jones, in his Life of bishop Home, says that “he spake with the accent of a man of sense (such as he really was in a superior degree), but it was remarkable, and, to those who did not know the cause, mysterious, that there was not a corner of the church, in which he could not be heard distinctly.” The reason Mr. Jones assigns, was, that he made it an invariable rule, “to do justice to every consonant, knovxing that the vowels will be sure to speak for themselves. And thus he became the surest and clearest of speakers: his elocution was perfect, and never disappointed his audience.” Two years after his death, a volume of bishop Hinchliffe’s “Sermons” were published, but, probably from a want of judgment in the selection, did not answer the expectations of those who had been accustomed to admire him in the pulpit.

The publications of Dr. Hinckley re, 1. “Four Sermons viz. 1. at the assizes at Reading 2. at Abmgdon 3 and 4.at Oxford, 1657,” 8vo. 2. “Matrimonial instruction to persons of honour,” printed with the “mons” 3 " Epistola veridica ad homines pMVpM Mfc, 1659,“4to, (reprinted in his” Fasciculus Literaruin“). 4” Oratio pro statu ecclesiae fluetuantis,“printed with art. 3. 5.” Sermon at the funeral of George Purefoy the elder, of Wadiey in Berks, esq. who was buried by his ancestors at Drayton in Leicestershire, 21 April, 1661;“1661, 4to. 6.” A persuasive to Conformity, by way of letter to the dissenting brethren, 1670,“8vo. 8.” Fasciculus literarum; or Letters on several occasions, 1680,“8vo. The first half of tnis book contains letters between Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hinckley, in which many things are discussed which are repeated in Baxter’s plea for the nonconformists. There are four in number, written by each, and our author’s third letter was written soon after Baxter’s book” Of Church Divisions“came forth; he having not only obliquely reflected on Dr. Hinckley’s second letter, but particularly signified his discontent both with Hinckley and his book. The reason of the publication of tuese letters five years after their first penning, was occasioned by the account which Baxter had given in many of his writings of Hinckley’s Letters: the last, of which Letters was answered by Baxter in his third,” Of the Cause of Peace, &c."

, a celebrated ancient astronomer, was born at Nice in Bithynia, and flourished between the 154th and 163d olympiads; or between 160 and 125 B. C. as we learn from tjie astronomical observations he tnade in that space of time. He is supposed to have been the first who, from vague and scattered observations, reduced astronomy to a science, and prosecuted the study of it systematically. Pliny, who always mentions him in terms of high commendation, says he was the lirst who attempted to take the number of the fixed stars, and his catalogue is preserved in Ptolemy’s “Almagest,” where they are all noted according to their longitudes and apparent magnitudes. Pliny places him amongst those men of a sublime genius, who, by foretelling the eclipses, taught mankind, that they ought not to be frightened at these phenomena. Thales was the first among the Greeks, uho could discover when there was to be an eclipse. Sulpitms Gailns among the Romans begun to succeed in this kind of prediction; and gave an essay of his skill very seasonably, the day before a battle was fought. "After these two, Hipparchus foretold the course of the sun and moon for 600 years calculated according to the different manner of reckoning the months, days, and hours, used by several nations, and for the different situations of places. Pliny admires him for taking an account of all the stars, and for acquainting us with their situations am! magnitudes. Hipparchus is also memorable for being the first who discovered the precession of the equinoxes.

The first observations he made were in the isle of Rhodes, which gained him the name Rhodius, and has made some moderns imagine, that there were two ancient astronomers of that name: but afterwards he cultivated this science in Bithynia and Alexandria only. One of his works still extant, his “Commentary upon Aratus’ s Phenomena,” is properly a criticism upon Aratus, whom he charges witk having plundered Eudoxus’s books, and transcribed even those observations in which Eudoxus was mistaken. He makes the same remarks against Aratus the grammarian, who wrote “A Commentary on Aratus’s Phenomena.” Peter Victorius is the first who published this “Commentary” of Hjpparchus, Florence, 1567, fol. Petavius gave afterwards a more correct edition of it: to which he added a Latin translation made by himself. Hipparchus composed several other works, of which honourable mention is made by many writers of antiquity; and upon the whole, it is universally agreed, that astronomy is greatly obliged to him for laying originally that rational and solid foundation, on which all succeeding professors of this science have built their improvements. Very ample justice is done to his merit in Bailly’s History of Astronomy.

, usually called the father of physic, was born in the island of Cos, about 460 B. C. He is said to have descended from Æsculapius, through a line of physicians who had all promoted the fame of the Coan school, and by his mother’s side he was the eighteenth lineal descendant from Hercules. He appears to have devoted himself to the medical art that he might perpetuate the honours of his family, and he has eclipsed them. Besides the empirical practice which was hereditary among them, he studied under Herodicus, who had invented the gymnastic medicine, and was instructed in philosophy and eloquence by Gorgias, a celebrated sophist and brother of Herodicus. He is also said to have been a pupil of Democritus, which appears improbable, and a follower of the doctrines of Heraclitus. In whatever study, however, he engaged, he appears to have pursued a rational plan, upon actual expedience, discarding the theories of those who never had practised the art, and hence is said to have been the first who separated the science of medicine from philosophy, or rather from mere speculation, which then assumed that name. Of the events of his life little is known with cer T tainty. He spent a great part of his time in travelling: during which he resided for a considerable period, at varipus places, in which he was occupied in the practise of his art. His chief abode was in the provinces of Thessaly and Thrace, especially at Larissa, the capital of Thessaly, where he composed several books. According to Soranus, he spent some time at the court of Macedon, where he signalized himself, in consultation with Kuryphon, a senior physician, by detecting the origin of the malady of the young Perdiccas. His observation of the emotion of the prince on the appearance of Phila, a mistress of his father, led him to pronounce that love alone was capable of curing the disease which it had occasioned. His fame caused him to receive invitations from diiFerent cities of Greece. He is said to have been requested by the inhabitants of Abciera to go and cure their celebrated fellowcitizen, Democritus, of the madness under which they supposed him to labour, whom he pronounced not mad; but, the wisest man in their city. In a speech ascribed to his son Thessalus, still extant, we are told that Illyria and Paeonia being ravaged by the plague, the inhabitants of those countries offered large sums of money to induce Hippocrates to come to their relief; but forseeing that the pestilence was likely to penetrate into Greece, he refused to quit his own country, but sent his two sons, and his sonin-law, through the diiFerent provinces, to convey the proper instructions for avoiding the infection; he himself went to Thessaly, and thence to Athens, where he conferred such eminent services on the citizens, that they issued a decree honouring him with a crown of gold, and initiating him and his family in the sacred mysteries of Ceres and Proserpine. Hippocrates is likewise reported to have refused an invitation from Artaxerxes, king of Persia, accompanied by a promise of every reward and honour which he might desire, to repair to his dominions during a season of pestilence, which he refused; and that when the enraged king ordered the inhabitants of Cos to deliver up Hippocrates, they declared their resolution to defend the life and liberty of their valued countryman at all hazards, and nothing was attempted by the Persian. Most of these stories, however, are deemed fictitious by the most intelligent critics. The cure of the young Perdiccas probably originated from the report of a similar cure ascribed to Erasistratus; and the interview with Deraocntus is not supported by any satisfactory evidence. The relation of the services of Hippocrates, during the plague at Atbeps, is altogether irreconcileable with the accounts of Galen and of Thucydides: besides, that plague commenced during the Peioponnesiin war, in the second year of the 87th olympiad, at which time Hippocrates was about thirty" years old, and therefore could not have had two sons or a son-in-law in a condition to practise. Dr. Ackerman justly conjectures, that these fables were all invented after the death of Hippocrates, and ascribed to him by the followers of the dogmatic sect, of which he was regarded as the founder. The letters and other pieces, which are preserved with the works of Hippocrates, and on the authority of which these anecdotes are related, are generally deemed spurious.

After a long life spent in the successful practice of his art, in perfecting his rational system of medical inquiry, and in forming disciples worthy to supply his place, Hippocrates died t Larissa in Thessaly, at the age of 85, or 90, or, as others affirm, of 104, or even 109 years. He was buried between that city and Gyrtona. Besides two sons, Thessalus and Draco, both eminent practitioners, he left a dan g liter, married to his favourite pupil, Poly bus, who arranged and published the works of his great master; he left also a number of disciples.

How dubious soever many of the circumstances of the life of Hippocrates may be, it is not questioned that he acquired a reputation, which has ranked him high among the great men of Greece, and which may be traced from age to age, from the time in which he flourished through all succeeding periods. He has not only passed, by almost universal consent, for the father of physic and the prince of physicians, but his opinions were every where respected as oracles, not only in the schools of medicine, but in the courts of law. Philosophers of every sect were eager to rend, to quote, and to comment upon his writings. He has shared with Plato the title of divine; and not only statues, but temples were erected to his memory, and his altars were covered with incense, like those of Æscuiapius himself. Indeed the qualifications and duties required in the character of the physician, were never more fully exemplified than in his conduct, or more eloquently described than by his pen. He had formed a very exalted notion of the dignity and usefulness of his profession, which is only lowered, he said, in the public estimation, by the ignorance of its professors; and he supported this dignity in his own person by the most rigid attention to the morality of private lite, by great simplicity, candour, and benevolence in all his intercourse with the sick, and by unwearied zeal in investigating the nature and progress of diseases, and in administering to their cure. He is said to have admitted no one to his instructions without the solemnity of an oath, the form of which is transmitted to us among his writings. The books attributed to Hippocrates amount to sevemytwo in number, of which, however, a considerable part are regarded as spurious; some containing opinions which were not prevalent till long after the age of Hippocrates, and some differing altogether in style and composition from the genuine writings of that master, which are composed in the ionic dialect, and are distinguished by a remarkable conciseness, and, as it were, compression oflanguage, which at times, indeed, borders upon obscurity. Some pieces have been obviously written after the commencement of the Christian tera; and Galen affirms that several interpolations and alterations were made by Dioscorides and Artemidorus, surnamed Capito, in the time of Adrian. Polybus, the son-in-law of Hippocrates, who collected and edited his works, is believed to have written some of the pieces, and Thessalus and Draco, his sons, as well as Hippocrates III. and IV., his grandsons, are supposed to have written others, especially several of the books of “Epidemies.” The following, however, are generally deemed original productions of Hippocrates the Coan namely, 1. The essay “On Air, Water*, and Soils” 2. The first and third books of “Epidemics” 3. The book On Prognostics 4. The fir&t and second books of “Predictions;” and 5. The books of “Aphorisms” but the two last contain many interpolations 6. The treatise *' On the Diet in acute diseases“7. That *' On Wounds of the Head.” Haller includes several more treatises in the list of genuine works of Hippocrates, which have “been disputed, even from ancient times such as those” On the Nature of Man“”On the Humours;“”On Fractures;“”On the Joints;" tnd one or two others.

, was an eminent bishop and martyr, who, after becoming very distinguished in the church by his writings, shed his blood for the Christian faith about the year 230, in the reign of Alexander Severus. It is certain that he was author of many works much esteemed by the ancients, but it is by no means certain that what remain under his name, and are ascribed to him, were really written by him. Fabricius has published an elegant edition of them in Greek and Latin, 1716 and 1718, 2 vols. fol. Some may be also found in the library of the Fathers.

was an Ephesian satiric poet, who flourished in the sixtieth olympiad, itbout 540 years B. C. He was so remarkably ugly and deformed, that certain painters and sculptors amused themselves by displaying representations of him to public ridicule, and Hipponax was so offended at the insult, that he exercised against the otfuuders all the force of his satyric vein with such effect, that two of them, sculptors of Chios, Bupalus and Anthernus, are said to have hanged themselves; but Pliny contradicts the story, Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 5. Hipponax is said to be the inventor of the scazontic verse, which is an iambic, terminating with a spondee, instead of an iambic foot.

, an eminent French mathematician and astronomer, was born at Paris, March 18, 1640. His father Laurence, who was painter in ordinary to dm king, professor in the academy of painting and sculpture, and much celebrated, intended him also for the same occupation; and with that view taught him the principles of design, and some branches of mathematics, but died when Philip was no more than seventeen. Falling afterwards into a bad habit of body, he projected a journey into Italy; which he conceived might contribute not less to the recovery of his health, than to bring him to perfection in his art. He accordingly set out in 1660, and soon found himself well enough to contemplate the remains of antiquity, with which Italy abounds, and also to study geometry, to which he had indeed more propensity than to painting, and which soon afterwards engrossed him entirely. The retired manner in which he spent his time in Italy, very much suited his disposition; and he would willingly have continued longer in that country, but for the importunity of his mother, who prevailed upon him to return, after an absence of about four years.

The principal of his works are: “Nouvelle Methode en Geometric pour les sections des superficies coniques & cylindriques,” 1673, 4to. 2. “De la Cycloide,” 1677, 12mo. 3. “Nouveaux Elemens des sections coniques: les lieux Geometriques; la construction ou effection des equations,” 1679, 12mo. 4. “La Gnomonique,” &c. 1682, J2mo. 5. “Sectiones Conicse in noveui hbfos distributee,” 1655, folio. This was considered as an original work, and gained the author a great reputation all over Europe. 6. & “Tabulas Astronomicae,” 1687 and 1702, 4to. 7. “Veterum Mathematicorum Opera, Graece & Latine, pleraque nunc primum edita,” 16i>3, folio. This edition had been begun by M. Thevenot; who dying, the care of finishing it was committed to de la Hire. It shews that the author’s strong application to mathematical and astronomical studies, had not hindered him from acquiring a very competent knowledge of the Greek tongue. Besides these and other smaller works, there are a vast number of his pieces scattered up and down in journals, and particularly in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences.” M. de Fontenelle wrote an eulogium upon him.

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

But Houdly for a period of a mile." In his character he was naturally facetious, easy, and complying, fond of company, from which, however, he would frequently retire, for the purposes of study; happy in every place, but peculiarly so in his own family, where he took all opportunities of instructing by his influence and by example. In his tenets he was far from adhering strictly to the doctrines of the church; so far, indeed, that it is a little to be wondered on what principles he continued throughout life to profess conformity, and his attempt to gain over the dissenters, who was himself the greatest dissenter that ever was preferred in the church, is one of those inconsistencies which his admirers have never explained. But as he took great latitude himself, so he was ready also to allow it to others. His doctrine, that sincerity is sufficient for acceptance, whatever be the nature of opinions, is favourable to such indulgence, but far from defensible on the genuine principles of Christianity *. He was of course in high favour with all who wished to mould religion according to their own imaginations.

, M. D. eldest son of the bishop of Winchester, was born Feb. 10, 1705-6, in Broad-street, and educated, as was his younger brother, at Dr. Newcomers at Hackney, and Benet-college, Cambridge; being admitted pensioner April 8, 1722, under archbishop Herring, then tutor there. Here he took a degree in physic in 1727; and, particularly applying to mathematical and philosophical studies, was well known (along with the learned and ingenious doctors David Hartley and Davies, both late of Bath, who with him composed the whole class) to jnake a greater progress under the blind professor Saunderson than any student then in the university. When his late majesty was at Cambridge in April 1728, he was upon

, an ingenious and amiable English artist, was born about the year 1707, at Eye, near Ipswich, in Suftblk. His father was possessed of considerable property, holding a farm of large extent in his own hands. William shewing very early a disposition to study, was sent to a. school at Faringdon in Berkshire, where the master enjoyed a hii;h reputation for classical learning. The pupil eagerly availed himself of every opportunity of improvement, and in the course of a few years attained such a degree of proficiency as to assist his master occasionally in the tuition of the other scholars. To these acquirements he added no indifferent skill in drawing, which was also taught in the school; and he soon distinguished himself above his competitors in the prize exhibitions, which took place once a year. Indulging the bent of his mind to this art, he solicited and obtained his father’s permission to follow his studies in painting with a professional view. For this purpose, after having completed the school courses with great credit to himself, he was removed to London, where he was placed under the care of Grisoni, an Italian painter of history, the best, and perhaps the only one, which that time afforded. Grisoni, however, was at the best a very poor painter, and the example of his works was little calculated to produce eminence in his scholar. But he was a man of sound judgment and benevolent disposition, and it is probable that the sense of his own insufficiency induced him to persuade young William to seek a more satisfactory guidance in the pursuit to which he devoted himself so earnestly. The schools’ of Italy appeared to him the place to which a learner should resort for the means of accomplishment in his art. William caught the suggestion with eagerness, and the father’s permission was again earnestly sought, for visiting the foreign treasures of painting and sculpture, which were then known to the English only through the communications of such of our gentlemen and nobility as travelled on the continent for the purposes of polite accomplishment. William Hoare was the first English painter who visited Rome for professional study.

At the time of his departure from London he had formed a friendship with Scheemackers, the celebrated Flemish sculptor, and with Delvaux, his pupil, who were both on their way to Rome, and on his arrival at that city he hastened to rejoin them, and lodged in the same house with them. His next care was to place himself in the school of Francesco Imperiale, the disciple of Carlo Maratti, and the most eminent master then living. In this school he was a fellow-xstudent with Pompeo Battoni, with whom he maintained through life a cordial friendship, and with others of the same profession. Here he acquired a thorough knowledge of all that could be taught in his art, and a perfect acquaintance with the system and method of study adopted in the Roman school ever since the time of Raffaelle; to which method he at all times adhered in the execution of historical works.

In London the young painter looked around in vain for the encouragement which he had hoped to find in the historical department of his profession; and the impoverished state of his family not allowing him any alternative, he immediately resorted to portrait-painting, in which, from his superior talents, he was sure to find an unfailing resource. In this situation of his circumstances he formed a matrimonial engagement with a young lady of the name of Barker, between whose relations and his own there had long subsisted the most cordial intimacy, arising from mutual respect. Among the connexions of Miss Barker’s family were some who were established at Bath, and Mr. Hoare soon received an invitation to settle at that city, where, as there was no person of any eminence in his profession, he might reasonably look to the highest prospects of success. He accordingly accepted the invitation, and fully realized the expectations of his friends in every point. His painting-room was the resort of all that could boast the attractions either of beauty or fashion; and the number of his sitters was for a long time so great, as scarcely to allow him a momentary interval of relaxation, much less sufficient leisure for such an attention to the higher performances of his art as formed the constant object of his wishes.

His eminent success in his portraits brought to his gallery all the distinguished characters of the time, who occasionally visited Bath for health or pleasure; among whom, were Mr. Pitt, the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Legge, Mr. Grenville, Lord Chesterfield, &c. &c. and his acquaintance with them was improved into friendship on their part, by the variety of his learning, the amenity of his manners, the ingenuousness of his mind, and the high respectability of his domestic establishment. To the list of his friends and patrons were soon added the virtuous Allen, and his learned nephew-in-law, Warburton; and Mr. Allen’s house, where he was always a welcome visitor, gave him also an introduction to Pope, and other distinguished inmates of Prior-park.

In 1631, the countess dowager of Devonshire was desirous of placing the young earl under his care, who was then about the age of thirteen; a trust very suitable to his inclinations, and which he discharged with great fidelity and diligence. In 1634 he republished his translation of Thucydides, and prefixed to it a dedication to that young nobleman, in which he gives a nigh character of his father, and represents in the strongest terms his obligations to that illustrious family. The same year he accompanied his noble pupil to Paris, where he applied his vacant hours to natural philosophy, especially mechanism, and the causes of animal motion. He had frequent conversations upon these subjects with father Mersenne, a man deservedly famous, who kept up a correspondence with almost all the learned in Europe. From Paris he attended his pupil into Italy, and at Pisa became known to Galileo, who communicated to him his notions very freely. After having seen all that was remarkable in that country, he returned in 1637 with the earl of Devonshire into England. The troubles in Scotland now grew high, and began to spread themselves southward, and to threaten disturbance.throughout the kingdom. Hobbes, seeing this, thought he might do good service by composing something by way of antidote to the pestilential opinions which then prevailed. This engaged him to commit to paper certain principles, observations, and remarks, out of which he composed his book “De Give,” and which grew up afterwards into that system which he called his “Leviathan.”

Not long after the meeting of the long parliament, Nov. 3, 1640, when all things fell into confusion, he withdrew, for the sake of living in quiet, to Paris; where he associated himself with those learned men, who, under the protection of Cardinal Richelieu, sought, by conferring their notions together, to promote every kind of useful knowledge. He had not been long there, when by the good offices of his friend Mersenne, he became known to Des Cartes, and afterwards held a correspondence with him upon mathematical subjects, as appears from the letters of Hobbes published in the works of Des Cartes. But when that philosopher printed afterwards his “Meditations,” in which he attempted to establish points of the highest consequence from innate ideas, Hobbes took the liberty of dissenting from him; as did also Gassendi, with whom Hobbes contracted a very close friendship, which was not interrupted till the death of the former. In 1642, he printed a few copies of his book “De Give,” which raised him many adversaries, by whom he was charged with instilling principles of a dangerous tendency. Immediately after the appearance of this book, Des Cartes said of it to a friend, “I am of opinion that the author of the book ‘ De Give,’ is the same person who wrote the third objection against my ‘ Meditations.’ I think him a much greater master of morality, than of metaphysics or natural philosophy; though I can by no means approve of his principles or maxims, which are very bad and extremely dangerous, because they suppose all men to be wicked, or give them occasion to be so. His whole design is to write in favour of monarchy, which might be done to more advantage than he has done, upon maxims more virtuous and solid. He has wrote likewise greatly to the disadvantage of the church and the Roman catholic religion, so that if he is not particularly supported by some powerful interest, I do not see how he can escape having his book censured.” The learned Conringius censures him very severely for boasting, in regard to this performance, “that though physics were a new science, yet civil philosophy was still newer, since it could not be styled older than his book * De Give;' whereas,” says Conringius, “there is nothing good in that work of his that was not always known.” But vanity was throughout life a prevailing foible with Hobbes.

Among many illustrious persons who upon the shipwreck of the royal cause retired to France for safety, was sir Charles Cavendish, brother to the duke of Newcastle, who, being skilled in every branch of mathematics, proved a constant friend and patron to Hobbes: and Hobbes himself, by embarking, in 1645, in a controversy about the quadrature of the circle, became so celebrated, although certainly undeservedly as a mathematician, that, in 1647, he was recommended to instruct Charles prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II. in that branch of study. His care in the discharge of this office gained him the esteem of that prince in a very great degree: and though he afterwards withdrew his public favour from Hobbes on account of his writings, yet he always retained a sense of the services he had done him, shewed him various marks of his favour after he was restored to his dominions, and, as some say, had his picture hanging in his closet. This year also was printed in Holland, by the care of M. Sorbiere, a second and more complete edition of his book “De Cive,” to which are prefixed two Latin letters to the editor, one by Gassendi, the other by Mersenne, in commendation of it. While Hobbes was thus employed at Paris, he was attacked by a violent fit of illness, which brought him so low that his friends began to despair of his recovery. Among those who visited him in this weak condition was his friend Mersenne, who, taking this for a favourable opportunity, began, after a few general compliments of condolence, to mention the power of the church of Rome to forgive sins; but Hobbes immediately replied, “Father, all these matters I have debated with myself long ago. Such kind of business would be troublesome to me now; and you can entertain me on subjects more agreeable; when did you see Mr. Gassendi?” Mersenne easily understood his meaning, and, without troubling him any farther, suffered the conversation to turn upon general topics. Yet some days afterwards, when Dr. Cosin, afterwards bishop of Durham, came to pray with him, he very readily accepted the proposal, and received the sacrament at his hands, according to the forms appointed by the church of England.

In 1650 was published at London a small treatise by Hobbes entitled “Human Nature,” and another, “De corpore politico, or, of the Elements of the Law.” The latter was presented to Gassendi, and read by him a few months before his death; who is said first to have kissed it, and then to have delivered his opinion of it in these words: tl This treatise is indeed small in bulk, but in my judgment the very marrow of science.“All this time Hobbes had been digesting with great pains his religious, political, and moral principles into a complete system, which he called the” Leviathan,“and which was printed in English at London in that and the year following. He caused a copy of it, very fairly written on vellum *, to be presented to Charles II.; but after that monarch was informed that the English divines considered it as a book tending to subvert both religion and civil government, he is said to have withdrawn his countenance from the author, and by the marquis of Ormond to have forbidden him to come into his presence. After the publication of his” Leviathan," Hobbes returned to England, and passed the summer commonly at his patron the earl of Devonshire’s seat in Derbyshire, -and his

* This copy appears to he now in How it came there has not been dis­' the library of the late earl of Macart-covered. The library is now in the ney, at Lissanoure in Ireland, if the possession of a lady, the late earl’s reone very accurately described by the presentative, who probably knew little Rev. W. H. Pratt, in the Gentleman’s of its history. Magazine for January 1813, p. 30. winters in town; where he had for his intimate friends some of the greatest men of the age; such as Dr. Harvey, Selden, Cowley, &c. In 1654, he published his “Letter upon Liberty and Necessity,” which occasioned a long controversy between him and Bramhall, bishop of Londonderry. About this time he began the controversy with Wallis, the mathematical professor at Oxford, which lasted as long as Hobbes lived, and in which he had the misfortune to have all the mathematicians against him. It is indeed said, that he came too late to this study to excel in it; and that though for a time he maintained his credit, while he was content to proceed in the same track with others, and to reason in the accustomed manner from the established principles of the science, yet when he began to.digress into new paths, and set up for a reformer, inventor, and improver of geometry, he lost himself extremely. But notwithstanding these debates took up much of his time, yet he published several philosophical treatises in Latin.

Such were his occupations till 1660, when upon the king’s restoration he quitted the country, and came up to London. He was at Salisbury-house with his patron, when the king passing by one day accidentally saw him. He sent for him, gave Kim his hand to kiss, inquired kindly after his health and circumstances; and some time after directed Cooper, the celebrated miniature-painter, to take his portrait. His majesty likewise afforded him another private audience, spoke to him very kindly, assured him of his protection, and settled a pension upon him of lOOl. per annum out of his privy purse. Yet this did not render him entirely safe; for, in 1666, his “Leviathan,” and treatise “De Give,” were censured by parliament, which alarmed him much; as did also the bringing of a bill into the Hou^e of commons to punish atheism and profaneness. When this-stonn was a little blown over, he began to think of procuring a beautiful edition of his pieces that were in Latin; but finding this impracticable in England, he caused it to be undertaken abroad, where they were published in 1668, 4to, from the press of John Bleau. In 1669, he was visited by Cosmo de Medicis, then prince, afterwards duke of Tuscany, who gave him ample marks of his esteem; and having received his picture, and a complete collection of his writings, caused them to be deposited, the former among his curiosities, the latter in his library at Florence. Similar visits he received from several foreign ambassadors, and other strangers of distinction; who were curious to see a person, whose singular opinions and numerous writings had made so much noise all over Europe. In 1672, he wrote his own Life in Latin verse, when, as he observes, he had completed his eighty-fourth year: and, in 1674, he published in English verse four books of Homer’s “Odyssey,” which were so well received, that it encouraged him to undertake the whole “Iliad” and “Odyssey,” which he likewise performed, and published in 1675. These were not the first specimens of his poetic genius which he had given to the public: he had published many years before, about 1637, a Latin poem, entitled “De Mirabilibus Pecci, or, Of the Wonders of the Peak.” But his poetry is below criticism, and has been long exploded. In 1674, he took his leave of London, and went to spend the remainder of his days in Derbyshire; where, however, he did not remain inactive, notwithstanding his advanced age, but published from time to time several pieces to be found in the collection of his works, namely, in 1676, his “Dispute with Laney bishop of Ely, concerning Liberty and. Necessity;” in 1678, his “Decameron Physiologicum, or, Ten Dialogues of Natural Philosophy;” to which he added a book, entitled “A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law of England.” June 1679, he eent another book, entitled “Behemoth, or, A History of the Civil Wars from 1640 to 1660,” to an eminent bookseller, with a letter setting forth the reasons for his communication of it, as well as for the request he then made, that he would not publish it till a proper occasion offered. The book, however, was published as soon as he was dead, and the letter along with it; of which we shall give a curious extract: “I would fain have published my Dialogue of the Civil Wars of England long ago, and to that end I presented it to his majesty; and some days after, vrhen I thought he had read it, I humbly besought him to let me print it. But his majesty, though he heard me graciously, yet he flatly refused to have it published: therefore I brought away the book, and gave you leave to take a copy of it; which when you had done, I gave the original to an honourable and learned friend, who about a. year after died. The king knows better, and is more concerned in publishing of books than lam; and therefore I dare not venture to appear in the business, lest I should offend him. Therefore I pray you not to meddle in the business. Rather than to be thought any way to further or countenance the printing, I would be content to lose twenty times the value of what you can expect to gain by it. I pray do not take it ill; it may be I may live to send you somewhat else as vendible as that, and without offence. J am, &c.” However he did not live to send his bookseller any thing more, this being his last piece. It is in dialogue, and full of paradoxes, like all his other writings. More philosophical, political, says Warburton, or any thing rather than historical, yet full of shrewd observations. In October following, he was afflicted with a suppression of urine; and his physician plainly told him, that he had little hopes of curing him. In November, the earl of Devonshire removing from Chatsvvorth to another seat called Hardwick, Hobbes obstinately persisted in desiring that he might be carried too, though this could no way be done but by laying him upon a feather-bed. He was not much discomposed with his journey, yet within a week after lost, by a stroke of the palsy, the use of his speech, and of his right side entirely; in which condition he remained for some days, taking little nourishment, and sleeping much, sometimes endeavouring to speak, but not being able. He died Dec. 4, 1679, in his ninety-second year. Wood tells us, that after his physician gave him no hopes of a cure, he said, “Then I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at.” He observes also, that his not desiring a minister, to receive the sacrament before he died, ought in charity to be imputed to his being so suddenly seized, and afterwards deprived of his senses; the rather, because the earl of Devonshire’s chaplain declared, that within the two last years of his life he had often received the sacrament from his hands with seeming devotion. His character and manners are thus described by Dr. White Kennet, in his “Memoirs of the Cavendish Family;” “The earl of Devonshire,” says he, “for his whole life entertained Mr. Hobbes in his family, as his old tutor rather than as his friend or confidant. He let him live under his roof in ease and plenty, and in his own way, without making use of him in any public, or so much as domestic affairs. He would often express an abhorrence of some of his principles in policy and religion; and both he and his lady would frequently put off the mention of his name, and say, ‘ he was a humourist, and nobody could account for him.’ There is a tradition in the family of the manners and customs of Mr. Hobbes somewhat observable. His professed rule of health was to dedicate the morning to his exercise, and the afternoon to his studies. At his first rising, therefore, he walked out, and climbed any hill within his reach; or, if the weather was not dry, he fatigued himself within doors by some exercise or other, to be in a sweat: recommending that practice tfpon this opinion, that an old man had more moisture than heat, and therefore by such motion heat was to be acquired, and moisture expelled. After this he took a comfortable breakfast; and then went round the lodgings to wait upon the earl, the countess, and the children, and any considerable strangers, paying some short addresses to all of them. He kept these rounds till about twelve o‘clock, when he had a little dinner provided for him, which he eat always by himself without ceremony. Soon after dinner he retired to his study, and had his candle with ten or twelve pipes of tobacco laid by him; then shutting his door, he fell to smoaking, thinking, and writing for several hours. He retained a friend or two at court, and especially the lord Arlington, to protect him if occasion should require. He used to say, that it was lawful to make use of ill instruments to do ourselves good: * If I were cast,’ says he, ‘ into a deep pit, and the devil should put down his cloven foot, I would take hold of it to be drawn out by it.’ Towards the end of his life he had very few books, and those he read but very little; thinking he was now able only to digest what he had formerly fed upon. If company came to visit him, he would be free in discourse till he was pressed or contradicted; and then he had the infirmities of being short and peevish, and referring to his writings for better satisfaction. His friends, who had the liberty of introducing strangers to him, made these terms with them before their admission, that they should not dispute with the old man, nor contradict him.” After mentioning the apprehensions Hobbes was under, when the parliament censured his book, and the methods he took to escape persecution, Dr. Kennet adds, “It isnot much to be doubted, that upon this occasion he began to make a more open shew of religion and church communion. He now frequented the chapel, joined in the service, and was generally a partaker of the holy sacrament: and whenever any strangers in conversation with him seemed to question his belief, he would always appeal to his conformity in divine services, and referred them to the chaplain for a testimony of it. Others thought it a mere compliance to the orders of the family, and observed, that in city and country he never went to any parish church; and even in the chapel upon Sundays, he went out after prayers, and turned his back upon the sermon; and when any friend asked the reason of it, he gave no other but this, ‘ they could teach him nothing, but what he knew.’ He did not cone‘al his hatred to the clergy but it was visible that the hatred was owing to his fear of their civil interest and power. He had often a jealousy, that the bishops would burn him: and of all the bench he was most afraid of the bishop of Sarum, because he had most offended him; thinking every man’s spirit to be remembrance and revenge. After the Restoration, he watched all opportunities to ingratiate himself with the king and his prime ministers; and looked upon his pension to be more valqable, as an earnest of favour and protection, than upon any other account. His following course of life was to be free from danger. He could not endure to be left in an empty house. Whenever the earl removed, he would go along with him, even to his last stage, from Chatsworth to Hardwick. When he was in a very weak condition, he dared not to be left behind, but made his way upon a feather-bed in a coach, though he survived the journey but a few days. He could not bear any discourse of death, and seemed to cast off all thoughts of it: he delighted to reckon upon longer life. The winter before he died, he made a warm coat, which he said must last him three years, and then he would have such another. In his last sickness his frequent questions were, Whether his disease was curable? and when intimations were given that he might have ease, but no remedy, he used this expression, ’ I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at;' which are reported to have been his last sensible words; and his lying. some days following in a silent stupefaction, did seem owing to his mind more than to his body. The only thought of death that he appeared to entertain in time of health, was to take care of some inscription on his grave. He would suffer some friends to dictate an epitaph, among which he was best pleased with this humour, * This is the philosopher’s stone'.” A pun very probably from the hand which wrote for Dr. Fuller, “Here lies Fuller’s earth.”

After this account of Hobbes, which, though undoubtedly true in the main, may be thought too strongly coloured, it will be but justice to subjoin what lord Clarendon has said of him. This noble person, during his banishment, wrote a book in 1670, which was printed six years after at Oxford with this title, “A brief View of the dangerous and pernicious Errors to Church and State in Mr. Hobbes’s book entitled Leviathan.” In the introduction the earl observes, that Mr. Hobbes’s *' Leviathan“” cohtains in it good learning of all kinds, politely extracted, and very wittily and cunningly digested in a very commendable, and in a vigorous and pleasant style: and that Mr. Hobbes himself was a man of excellent parts, of great wit, some reading, and somewhat more thinking; one who has spent many years in foreign parts and observations; understands the learned as well as the modern languages; hath long had the reputation of a great philosopher and mathematician; and in his age hath had conversation with very many worthy and extraordinary men: to which it may be, if he had been more indulgent in the more vigorous part of his life, it might have had greater influence upon the temper of his mind; whereas age seldom submits to those questions, inquiries, and contradictions, which the laws and liberty of conversation require. And it hath been always a lamentation among Mr. Hobbes’s friends, that he spent too much time in thinking, and too little in exercising those thoughts in the company of other men of the same, or of as good faculties; for want whereof his natural constitution, with age, contracted such a morosity, that doubting-and contradicting men were never grateful to him. In a word, Mr. Hobbes is one of the most ancient acquaintance I have in the world; and of whom I have always had a great esteem, as a man, who, besides his eminent parts, learning, and knowledge, hath been always looked upon as a man of probity, and of a life free from scandal.“There have been few persons, whose writings have had a more pernicious influence in spreading irreligion and infidelity than those of Hobbes; and yet none of his treatises are directly levelled against revealed religion. He sometimes affects to speak with veneration of the sacred writings, and expressly declares, that though the laws of nature are not laws as they proceed from nature, yet” as they are given by God in Holy Scripture, they are properly called laws; for the Holy Scripture is the voice of God, ruling all things by the greatest right.“But though ha, seems here to make the laws of Scripture the Jaws of God, and to derive their force from his supreme authority, yet elsewhere he supposes them to have no authority, but what they derive from the prince or civil power. He sometimes seems to acknowledge inspiration to be a supernatural gift, and the immediate hand of God: at other times he treats the pretence to it as a sign of madness, and represents God’s speaking to the prophets in a dream, to be no more than the prophets dreaming that God spake unto them. He asserts, that we have no assurance of the certainty of Scripture but the authority of the church f, and this he resolves into the authority of the commonwealth; and declares, that till the sovereign ruler had prescribed them,” the precepts of Scripture were not obligatory laws, but only counsel or advice, which he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe, and being contrary to the laws could not without injustice observe;“that the word of the interpreter of Scripture is the word of God, and that the sovereign magistrate is the interpreter of Scripture, and of all doctrines, to whose authority we must stand. Nay, he carries it so far as to pronounce that Christians are bound in conscience to obey the laws of an infidel king in matters of religion; that” thought is free, but when it comes to confession of faith, the private reason must submit to the public, that is to say, to God’s lieutenant.“Accordingly he allows the subject, being commanded by the sovereign, to deny Christ in words, holding the faith of him firmly in his heart; it being in this” not he, that denieth Christ before men, but his governor and the laws of his country.“In the mean time he acknowledges the existence of God, and that we must of necessity ascribe the effects we behold to the eternal power of all powers, and cause of all causes; and he reproaches those as absurd, who call the world, or the soul of the world, God. But then he denies that we know any thing more of him than, that he exists, and seems plainly to make him corporeal; for he affirms, that whatever is not body is nothing at all. And though he sometimes seems to acknowledge religion and its obligations, and that there is an honour and worship due to God; prayer, thanksgivings, oblations, &c. yet he advances principles, which evidently tend to subvert all religion. The account he gives of it is this, that” from the fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind, or imagined from tales, publicly allowed, ariseth religion; not allowed, superstition:“and he resolves religion into things which he himself derides, namely,” opinions of ghosts, ignorance of second causes, devotion to what men fear, and taking of things casual for prognostics.“He takes pains in many places to prove man a necessary agent, and openly derides the doctrine of a future state: for he says, that the belief of a future state after death,” is a belief grounded upon other men’s saying, that they knew it supernaturally; or, that they knew those, that knew them, that knew others that knew it supernaturally.“But it is not revealed religion only, of which Hobbes makes light; he goes farther, as will appear by running over a few more of his maxims. He asserts,” that, by the law of nature, every man hath a right to all things, and over all persons; and that the natural condition of man is a state of war, a war of all men against all men: that there is no way so reasonable for any man, as by force or wiles to gain a mastery over all other persons that he can, till he sees no other power strong enough to endanger him: that the civtt laws are the only rules of good and evil, just and unjust, honest and dishonest; and that, antecedently to such laws, every action is in its own nature indifferent; that there is nothing good or evil in itself, nor any common laws constituting what is naturally just and unjust: that all things are measured by what every man judgeth fit, where there is no civil government, and by the laws of society, where there is: that the power of the sovereign is absolute, and that he is not bound by any compacts with his subjects: that nothing the sovereign can do to the subject, can properly be called injurious or wrong; and that the, king’s word is sufficient to take any thing from the subject if need be, and that the king is judge of that need." This scheme evidently strikes at the foundation of all religion, natural and revealed. It tends not only to subvert the authority of Scripture, but to destroy God’s moral government of the world. It confounds the natural differences of good and evil, virtue and vice. It destroys the best principles of the human nature; and instead of that innate benevolence and social disposition which should unite men together, supposes all men to be naturally in a state of war with one another. It erects an absolute tyranny in the state and church, which it confounds, and maKes the will of the prince or governing power the sole standard of right and wrong.

Such principles in religion and politics would, as it may be imagined, raise adversaries. Hobbes accordingly was attacked by many considerable persons, and, what may seem more strange, by such as wrote against each other. Harrington, in his “Oceana,” very often attacks Hobbes; and so does sir Robert Filmer in his “Observations concerning the Original of Government.” We have already mentioned Bramhall and Clarendon; the former argued with great acuteness against that part of his system which relates to liberty and necessity, and afterwards attacked the whole in a piece, called “The Catching of the Leviathan,” published in 1685; in which he undertakes to demonstrate out of Hobbes’s own works, that no man, who is thoroughly an Hobbist, can be “a good Christian, or a good commonwealth’s man, or reconcile himself to himself.” Tenison, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, gave a summary view of Hobbes’s principles, in a book called “The Creed of Mr. Hobbes examined, 1670;” to which, we may add the two dialogues of Dr. Eachard between Timothy and Phiiautus, and Dr. Parker’s book, entitled “Disputationes de Deo &, Divina Providentia.” Dr. Henry More has also in different parts of his works canvassed and refuted several positions of Hobbes; and the philosopher of Malmesbury is said to have been so ingenuous as to own, that “whenever he discovered his own philosophy to be unsustainable, he would embrace the opinions of Dr. More.” But the two greatest works against him were, Cumberland’s book “De legibus Naturae,” and Cudworth’s “Intellectual System” for these authors do not employ themselves about his peculiar whimsies, or in vindicating revealed religion from his exceptions and cavils, but endeavour to establish the great principles of all religion and morality, which his scheme tended to subvert, and to shew that they have a real foundation in reason and nature.