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

Coypel seems to have exerted himself more for others than for himself; he was a good master, a good relation, a good friend, and a man of veracity. His father disinherited him in favour of his sister by a second marriage, and tJie son did the same in regard to his brother, by depriving him of all benefit from the inheritance of Bidautt. Coypel was author of several theatrical performances, the rehearsals of which were attended by crowds of people, not for the sake of feeding his vanity with an artificial applause, but from friendly participation, and the conviction of their intrinsic noerit. Most of them were performed at the private theatre of madame Marchand, and in the Mazarine college, for which they were expressly composed. The well-known “Don Quixote” is by him. Coypel also wrote several dissertations on the art of painting, and academical lectures, which latter are in print. He even wrote the life of his father, which excels no less by the delicate manner in which he criticises his father, than by the modesty with which he speaks of himself. His acquaintance was very much sought after. One proof of this is in the prodigious heaps of letters that were found after his death. He was particularly the favourite of a small coterie, where talents, knowledge, and good humour were cherished, unmixed with jealousy, pride, and licentiousness. In the number of its membevs were Mess. Caylus, Helvetius, Mirabeau, Mariveaux, inad lle Quinaut, madtime Marchand, and several more. They met alternately at the apartments of each other, and sat down to a supper which, by a law of the society, was not to cost more than fifteen livres. Coypel was remarkable for his liberal spirit. He caused a house that had been thrown clown by an inundation to be rebuilt at his own expence on a far more convenient and handsome plan, without the impoverished owner’s ever knowing to whom he was indebted for the bounty. He annually laid by 2000 livres of his revenue for works of charity, and requested the duke of Orleans to employ the expence of the coach which that prince kept for him in alms to the poor. The duke of Orleans had an uncommon value for him. The duke could not bear a warm room, but when Coypel came to him, he always ordered a rousing fire to be made up, “for,” said he, “he is chilly<” This same prince composed a poem, shewed it to the artist, and asked him, whether he should have it printed? Coypel was honest enough to say, “No:” and the duke tore it, and threw it into the fire.

A similar anecdote of the duke of Orleans the regent, and Antony Coypei the father, deserves to be related here by way of conclusion. The regent knew that Coypel, on account of some disgusts, was intending to accept of an invitation to England. He therefore drove to his lodgings one morning, in a fiacre, quite alone, without any attendants, and had him called down: “Come into the carriage,” said he to the artist, who was quite disconcerted at this visit; “let us go and take a drive together: you are. chagrined I want to try whether I cannot put you in a good humour,” and this jaunt made Coypel at once forget both England and his chagrin. The subject of this memoir died in 1752, in the 58th year of his age.

, an ingenious French sculptor, born at Lyons, in 1640, died chancellor and regent of the academy of painting and sculpture in 1720. Versailles boasts his best works, except the figure of that great minister, M. Colbert, on his tomb, in the church of S. Eustache; the two groupes of Renown, and Mercury, in the Thuilleries; and the player on the flute, in the same garden. The Neptune and Amphytrite, at Marly, with many very fine busts, are the chief works of this artist, who was endowed with a most fruitful imagination, and an admirable execution.

, a Russian by birth, was a landscape painter in London, but chiefly practised as a drawing-master. He taught in a way that was new and peculiar, and which appears to have been adopted from the hint given by Leonardo da Vinci, who recommends selecting the ideas of landscape from the stains of an old plaster wall, and his method of composing his drawings may be considered as an improvement upon the advice of Da Vinci. His process was to dash out, upon several pieces of paper, a number of accidental large blots and loose flourishes, from which he selected forms, and sometimes produced very grand ideas; but they were in general too indefinite in their execution, and unpleasing in their colour. He published a small tract upon this method of composing landscapes, in which he has demonstrated his process. He also published some other works, the most considerable of which was a folio, entitled “The Principles of Beauty relative to the Human Head,” 1778, French and English, a very ingenious, but somewhat fanciful work, illustrated with engravings by Bartolozzi, showing the gradations of character, from the outline of a feature, 'to the outline of the face, and to each face is applied an head dress in the style of the antique. He also published “The various species of Composition in Nature, in sixteen subjects, on four plates,” with observations and instructions and “The shape, skeleton, and foliage of thirty-two species of Trees,” 1771, reprinted 1736; but, in Mr. Edwards’s opinion, not very creditable to the artist. As a drawingmaster, he had very considerable reputation and employment. He attended for some years at Eton school, and among other pupils of high rank, had the honour of giving some lessons to his royal highness the prince of Wales, He died at his house in Leicester-street, Leicester-square, April, 1786, leaving a son John Cozens, who greatly excelled him as a landscape painter: rejecting his lather’s method of fortuitous blots and dashes, he followed the arrangements of nature, which he saw with an enchanted eye, and drew with an enchanted hand. He owes his fame to those tinted drawings, of which, Mr. Fuseli says, the method has been imitated with more success than the sentiment which inspired them. A collection of his drawings, amounting to ninety-four, the property of Mr. Beckford, were sold by Christie in 1805, and produced 510l. He visited Italy twice, where he appears to have drawn most of these In 1794, he was seized with a mental derangement which continued to his death in 1799.

, an eminent benefactor to the taste, elegance, and literature of his time, was the son of col. Mordaunt Cracherode, who sailed with lord Anson, and in 1753 was appointed lieut. governor of Fort St. Philip, in Minorca. His mother was Mary, the daughter of Thomas Morice, esq. paymaster of the British forces in Portugal in queen Anne’s time, and brother to William Morice, esq. who married bishop Atterbury’s daughter. The colonel died June 20, 1773, and his widow Dec. 27, 1784, at their house in Queen’s-square, Westminster, which was afterwards inhabited by their son, the subject of the present article. Mr. Cracherode was born in 1729, and educated at Westminster school, where his contemporary the late Mr. Cumberland says, he was “as grave, studious, and reserved as he was through life; but correct in morals and elegant in manners, not courting a promiscuous acquaintance, but pleasant to those who knew him, beloved by many, and esteemed by all.” He was admitted a scholar at Westminster in 1742, and in 1746 was elected to Christ-church, Oxford, where he took his degree of B. A. and M.A. at the usual periods: the latter, April 5, 1753. He entered into holy orders, and atone time held the curacy of Binsey, a donative, near Oxford, but accepted no preferment afterwards. At the same time, he maintained that simplicity and purity in his appearance, manners, and sentiments, which belong to the character he professed. The tenor of Mr. Cracherode’s life, after he came to reside in London, that of a man of literary taste and research, was even and uniform: his principal object was the collection of a library and museum, and while his thoughts were confined to it, his associations were necessarily with men of similar pursuits. He employed a considerable part of a large revenue in making collections of what was best and most curious in literature, and certain branches of the arts. His library soon became unrivalled in its kind; and his cabinet of prints, drawings, and medals, was considered as among the most select and valuable in a country that possesses so many of them. He was an exquisite judge of art, both ancient and modern, particularly of sculpture, painting, and music, and collected the choicest'of early printed books, drawings, coins, and gems. Many of hisarticles were unique for their beauty, their preservation, or the rarity of their occurrence: such, for instance, as his cameo of a lion on a sardonyx, and intaglio of the discobolos; his Tyndale’s New Testament on vellum, that formerly belonged to Anne Boleyn; his lord Finch, with wings on his head, by Marshal; his Olbiopolis, and his Dichalcos, the first and smallest coin, being the fourth part of an obolus. Of these, and every other curiosity in his possession, he was, at all times, most obligingly communicative. His books, which he used modestly to call a specimen collection, particularly books of the fifteenth century, form perhaps the most perfect series ever brought together by one man. His passion for collecting was strong in death, and while he was at the last extremity, his agents were buying prints for him. In his farewell visit to Payne’s shop he put an Edinburgh Terence in one pocket, and a large paper Cebes in another, and expressed an earnest desire to carry away “Triveti Annales,” and Henry Stephens’s “Pindar” in old binding, both beautiful copies, and, as he thought, finer than his own, but which Mr. Payne had destined for lord Spencer.

This last visit was paid on the Monday before his death, when he seemed to depart in a manner that was visibly affecting. Soon after he got home, it was found necessary to call in sir George Baker, who paid the most unremitting attention, and revived him from the momentary effects of a fit in which he fell down, but could not protract life beyond the Friday following, April 6, 1799, when this amiable man expired. He was interred in Westminsterabbey.

His death was probably brought on by a cold he caught in going out after a long confinement. It was apparently an atrophy, but at last, a constipation of the bowels. Among his other habits, in which he was extremely regular, he was accustomed for 40 years of his life, to go every day first to Mr. Elmsly’s the bookseller in the Strand, and thence to Mr. Payne’s at the Mews-gate, to meet his literary friends: and punctually called every Saturday at the late Mr. Mudge’s, now Button’s, the ingenious mechanic in Fleet-street, to have his watch exactly regulated.

The principal features of his face, which was a very fine one, were mildness, kindness, and goodness and though they could not well be described in one line, yet they might be expressed by the single epithet of // benevolo. He was an universal favourite, because he possessed those qualities of which mankind are seldom jealous, and which they are ever ready to commend. His judgment was sound, and his taste excellent: he was eager. to learn, and modest to decide. His general manner of life, though he occasionally mixed with the world, and lived with the first people, was quiet and recluse: and his excursions from Queen-square were, for the most part, terminated at Clapham. The greatest journey of his life was from London to Oxford, and he was never on horseback. He had an estate in Hertfordshire, on which grew a remarkable c-hcsnut-tree, which he never saw but in an etching. This property was the manor of great Wimondly, held of the crown in grand serjeantry by the service of presenting to the king the first cup he drinks at his coronation; the cup to be of silver gilt, and the king returns it as the fee of office. His father, colonel Cracherode, purchased this manor of the Grosvenor family, and officiated at the coronation of his present majesty. The apprehension of being called to perform this service occasioned no small uneasiness to his son. His fortune was large, which he received from his father. Possessing about 600l. a year in landed property, and nearly 100,000l. in three per cents, he was usually reckoned worth 5000l. a year, of which he made the best possible use, for his charities were as ample as his fortune, but secret.

His attainments were various and considerable. He wrote elegantly in Latin verse, as may be seen in three specimens in the “Carmina Quadragesimal ia,” for the year 1748, the only things he was ever known to have published. The only likeness existing of Mr. Cracherode is a blacklead drawing made by order, and in the possession of lady Spencer, but by himself expressly forbidden to be engraved.

Mr. Cracherode left no formal will; and as he never was married, his fortune devolved by inheritance to his sister, a maiden lady, who died July 17, 1802. He left detached memoranda, bequeathing his immense collection of books, medals, drawings, &c. to the British Museum, of which he had for some years been a trustee. He was also a fellow of the royal and antiquarian societies. Every friend to literature must rejoice to hear that this unparalleled library (with the exception of his Polyglott Bible, which he left to the bishop of Durham, and his copy of the first edition of Homer, formerly belonging to the celebrated historian Thuanus, which he gave to Dr. Cyril Jackson, late dean of Christ church) went entire to this excellent repository, where they now are placed under the title of the Museum Cracherodiqnum.

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

, said to be brother to the preceding, was born in 1633, and was educated at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he gained such esteem by his learning and piety, that Dr. Cudworth, in 1656, wrote in the strongest terms to secretary Thurloe, to recommend him to Oliver Cromwell, as a proper person for the chaplainship of the English factory at Lisbon. Some years after the restoration, he was made canon-residentiary of Chichester, and was elected fellow of Eton college in 1672. In 1680 he was chosen by the fellows provost of Eton in opposition to Waller the poet, who was twice disappointed of the same preferment, once in 1665, when the lord chancellor Clarendon refused to put the seal to the grant, because it could be held only by a clergyman, and now when the privy-council came to the same determination. Dr. Cradock, who was admired in his own time for his uncommon talents, great copiousness and vivacity in preaching, is scarce known to the present day, except by the high character given of him by his contemporaries, and two excellent sermons: one on Providence, preached before Charles II. by whose command it was printed: it has since passed through several editions: the other “On the great end and design of Christianity,” was printed some years after his death, which happened Oct. 16, 1695, when he was interred in the college chapel.

, a brave officer, was of a respectable Scottish family, the Craigs of Dalnairand Costarton; and born in 1748 at Gibraltar, where his father held the appointments of civil and military judge* He entered the army at the early age of fifteen; and in a season of peace he imbibed the elementary knowledge of his profession in the best military schools of the continent. In 1770, he was appointed aid-de-camp to general sir Robert Boyd, then governor of Gibraltar, and obtained a company in the 47th regiment, with which he went to America in 1774, and was present at the battles of Lexington and Bunker’s-hill, in which latter engagement he was severely wounded. In 1776, he accompanied his regiment to Canada, commanding his company in the action of Trois Rivieres, and he afterwards commanded the advanced guard of the army in the expulsion of the rebels from that province. In 1777 he was engaged in the actions at Ticonderago and Hnbertown, in the latter of which engagements he was again severely wounded. Ever in a position of honourable danger, he received a third wound in the action at Freeman’s Farm. He was engaged in the disastrous affair at Saratoga, and was then distinguished by general Burgoyne, and the brave Fraser, who fell in that action, as a young officer who promised to attain to the very height of the military career. On that occasion he was selected by general Burgoyne to carry home the dispatches, and was immediately thereafter promoted to a majority in the new 82d regimen^ which he accompanied to Nova Scotia in 1778, to Penobscot in 1779, and to North Carolina in 1781; being engaged in a continued scene of active service during the whole of those campaigns, and generally commanding the light troops, with orders to act from his own discretion, on which his superiors in command relied with implicit confidence. In a service of this kind, the accuracy of his intelligence, the fertility of his resources, and the clearness of his military judgment, were alike conspicuous, and drew on him the attention of his sovereign, who noted him as an officer of the highest promise. In 1781, he obtained the lieutenant-colonelcy of the 82d regiment, and in 1783 that of the 16th, which he commanded in Ireland till 1791, having been promoted to the rank of colonel in 1790. In 1782, he went to the continent for the purpose of instructing himself in the discipline of the Prussian army, at that time esteemed the most perfect in Europe; and in a correspondence with general sir D. Dundas, communicated the result of his knowledge to that most able tactician, from whose professional science his country has derived so much advantage in the first improvement of the disciplinary system; and it is believed that the first experiments of the new exercise were, by his majesty’s orders, reduced to the test of practice, under the eye of colonel Craig, in the 16th regiment. In 1793 he was appointed to the command of Jersey, and soon thereafter of Guernsey, as lieutenant-governor. In 1794 he was appointed adjutant-general to the army under his royal highness the duke of York, by whose side he served during the whole of that campaign on the continent, and whose favour and confidence he enjoyed to the latest moment of his life. In 1794 he obtained the rank of major-­general, and in the beginning of the following year, he was sent on the expedition to the Cape of Good Hope, where, in the reduction and conquest of that most important settlement, with the co-operation of admiral sir G. K. Elphinstone, and major-gen. Clark, he attained to the highest pitch of his military reputation, and performed that signal service to his king and country, of which the memory will be as lasting as the national annals. Nor were his merits less conspicuous in the admirable plans of civil regulation, introduced by him in that hostile quarter, when invested with the chief authority, civil and military, as governor of the Cape, till succeeded in that situation by the earl of Macartney, in 1797, who, by a deputation from his majesty, invested general Craig with the red ribbon, as an honourable mark of his sovereign’s just sense of his distinguished services. Sir James Craig had scarcely returned to England, when it was his majesty’s pleasure to require his services on the staff in India. On his arrival at Madras, he was appointed to the command of an expedition against Manilla, which not taking place, he proceeded to Bengal, and took the field service. During a five years command in India, his attention and talents were unremittingly exerted to the improvement of the discipline of the Indian army, and to the promotion of that harmonious co-operation between its different constituent parts, on which not only the military strength, but the civil arrangement of that portion of the British empire so essentially depend. January 1801, sir James Craig was promoted to the rank of lieutenantgeneral, and returned to England in 1S02. He was appointed to the command of the eastern district, and remained in England till 1805, when, notwithstanding his constitution was much impaired by a long train of most active and fatiguing service, he was appointed by his sovereign to take the command of the British troops in the Mediterranean. He proceeded to Lisbon, Gibraltar, Malta, and from thence to Naples, to act in co-operation with the Russian army. But these plans being frustrated by the event of the battle of Austerlitz, sir James withdrew the troops from Naples to Messina, in Sicily. During the whole period of his command in the Mediterranean, he had suffered severely from that malady which terminated his life, a dropsy, proceeding from an organic affection of the liver; and feeling his disease sensibly gaining ground, he returned, with his sovereign’s permission, to England in 1805. A temporary abatement of his disorder flattering him with a prospect of recovery, and being unable to reconcile his mind to a situation of inactivity, he once more accepted of an active command from the choice of his sovereign; and in 1808, on the threatening appearance of hostilities with the United American States, was sent out to Quebec, as governor in chief of British America. The singular union of vigour and prudence, which distinguished his government in that most important official situation, are so recently impressed on the public mind, as to need no detail in this place. His merits were avowed and felt on both sides of the Atlantic: and as they proved the termination, so they will "ever be felt as throwing the highest lustre on the whole train of his public services. His constitution being now utterly enfeebled by a disease which precluded all hope of recovery, he returned to England in July 1811. Within three weeks of his death he was promoted to the rank of general. He looked forward with manly fortitude to his approaching dissolution, and in January 1812, ended a most honourable and useful career by an easy death, at the age of sixty-two.

, M. A. a Scotch clergyman, was born at Gifford in East Lothian 1682, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, took his degrees, and was ordained minister at Yester, where he continued some years till he was removed to Haddington. During the time he was minister at Yester, he wrote a volume of “Divine Poems,” which have gone through two editions, and are much esteemed. In 1732 he was translated to Edinburgh, and was much followed as one of the most popular preachers in that city. While he was at Edinburgh; he published three volumes of “Sermons,” in 8vo, chiefly on the principal heads of Christianity; but they are now become scarce. He died at Edinburgh in 1744, aged 62.

, a learned mathematician, was a native of Scotland, in the seventeenth century, and well known for many papers recorded in the Philosophical Transactions, and in the Acta Eruditorum. He had a controversy with Bernouilli, in which Leibnitz took the part of Craig. He made his name, however, famous chiefly by a pamphlet of 36 pages, 4to, entitled “Theologise Christianae prinfcipia mathematica,” printed at London in 1699, and reprinted at Leipsic in 1755, with a preface upon the life and works of Craig. The author calculates the force and diminution of the probability of things. He establishes, as his fundamental proposition, that whatever we believe upon the testimony of men, inspired or uninspired, is nothing more thau probable. He then proceeds to suppose, that this probability diminishes in proportion as the distance of time from this testimony increases: and, by means of algebraical calculations, he finds at length, that the probability of the Christian religion will last only 1454 years from the date of his book; but will be nothing afterwards, unless Jesus Christ should prevent the annihilation of it by his second coming, as he prevented the annihilation of the Jewish religion by his first coming. Some in Germany and France have seriously refuted these learned reveries. The time of his death is not known.

, Cragius, was born in 1549, at Ripen, and was regent of the school of Copenhagen in 1576. He married two years qfter this, and then set out on his travels over Europe. On his return, he found at his house two children that did not belong to him, which he got rid of, together with their mother, by dissolving his marriage; and then, forgetting his disaster, he married again. His turn for business procured him the management of several important negociations, which he terminated much to the satisfaction of the king of Denmark. He died in 1602, at the age of 61, leaving a Latin work in high repute, on the republic of the Lacedemonians, “De Republica Lacedsemoniorum,” first printed in 1592, and then at Leyden in 1670, 8vo, and the annals of Denmark, “Annalium libri Sex,” from the death of Frederic I. to the year 1550, Copenhagen, 1737, folio, a reprint. He was the author also of a “Latin Grammar,” 1578; “Titi Livii Patavini sententiose dicta,” with sentences taken from Sallust and “Differentia Ciceronis,” 1589, of which last, however, he is thought to have been only the editor.

, was born at Edinburgh in 1548, and studied the civil law in the university of Paris. While very young, he was called to the bar as an advocate in the court of session: his practice at the bar was great, and he was treated with every mark of respect by his countrymen; and when on a visit to London, he was knighted by king James. Bering well skilled in British and European antiquities, he wrote a learned treatise on the feudal law, entitled “Jus Feudale,” which is still in very great esteem. In 1535 he wrote a treatise on the sovereignty of Scotland, which was translated into very bad English by Ridpath in 1675. In 1602 he wrote a large treatise in folio to prove the legality of James’s succession to the crown of England on the death of queen Elizabeth. His book on the feudal law is esteemed all over England and the continent of Europe, and often quoted both by historians and lawyers. If others have excelled him in general researches and abstract speculation, few have united such practical utility with a profound and comprehensive view of the feudal system. He died at Edinburgh 1608, aged 60.

, a divine of the church of Scotland, was the son of a merchant in Glasgow, where he was horn in February 1709; and in the seminaries of education in that city, he began and prosecuted his studies. At college he distinguished himself by his early taste and uncommon proficiency in classical learning; and received great assistance and encouragement from his kinsman the rev. Mr. Clerk, of Neilston in Renfrewshire. The moral philosophy of the ancients engaged his attention in a particular manner: and the moral writers of Greece and Rome were his favourite authors. By the attentive perusal of their works, and of the moral poets of antiquity, he had committed to his memory a great number of their most striking passages, and used to apply them occasionally, in the company of his select friends, with great ease, judgment, and ingenuity. In this he had an excellent example in the practice of his friend and instructor, the justly-celebrated Dr. Hutcheson, who was elected to the professorship of moral philosophy in the university of Glasgow about the time that Craig had nearly finished his theological and philosophical course. W T ith this amiable and eminent philosopher he was early and intimately connected. Com-­mencing preacher in 1734, his philosophical monitor embraced every opportunity of hearing him; and with a frankness which shewed the opinion he entertained of the candour and abilities of his disciple, he offered such remarks on his sermons as he thought necessary. He particularly admonished him against a propensity to which young clergymen of ability are very liable, of indulging themselves in abstruse and philosophical disquisition. He advised, because he knew he was able to follow the advice, to preach to and from the heart. He did so. Habitually pious, ardently devout, and deeply interested in the welfare of those who listened to his instruction, he delivered himself with genuine and becoming earnestness. This was the spirit that directed his manner, which was solemn, yet animated; earnest, but correct; and though correct, not formal.

It is not to be supposed that a preacher of such eminence, especially at a time when this mode of preaching was rare, should remain unknown or unnoticed. He soon received a presentation from Mr. Lockhart of Cambusnethan, to be minister of that parish and settled there in the year 1737. About this time great opposition was made by the people of Scotland, and particularly by those of Clydesdale, to the manner of appointing ministers by presentations from lay-patrons, and Mr. Craig encountered considerable opposition. Zealous, however, in the discharge of his duty, and hoping, in the conscious ardour of his endeavours, to reconcile his parishioners to that system of instruction which he thought best suited to their condition, and most consistent with Christianity, he refused a presentation to a church in Airshire, offered him by Mr. Montgomery of Coilsfield; and another offered him by the amiable but unfortunate earl of Kilmarnock. At length he accepted of a presentation to a church in Glasgow, the place of his nativity, where most of his relations resided, where he could have opportunities of conversing with his literary friends, and where the field for doing good was more extensive. He was first appointed minister of the Wyndchurch in that city: and, after the building of St. Andrew’s churrh, one of the most elegant places of public worship in Scotland, he was removed thither. His audience was at no time so numerous, but especially during the last fiveand-twenty years of his life, as those who valued good composition and liberality of sentiment apprehended that he deserved.

Craig about this time married the daughter of Mr. Anderson, a considerable merchant in Glasgow. She lived with him sixteen years; and by her he had several children; two of whom, namely, William, an eminent lawyer at the Scottish bar, and John, a merchant in Glasgow, survived their father. But the excellent understanding and amiable dispositions of his wife, which rendered his married state happy, contributed, by their painful recollection, to embitter the sufferings of his declining age. She died in 1758 and though he afterwards formed a very happy marriage with the daughter of Gilbert Kennedy, esq. of Auchtifardel, he scarcely ever recovered the shock of his first separation. Several years before he died, his strength and health gradually declined; his spirits were overwhelmed with melancholy; he seemed to have lost the power of enjoying happiness-; no amusement could relieve his depressions; he lamented that he was become useless; and that he felt, not only his body, but the faculties of his soul impaired. His sufferings were heightened by many additional afflictions; particularly by the death of his son Alexander, a very agreeable young man, who had been bred a merchant, but who was strongly inclined to the study of polite literature: and soon after by the death of his second wife, whose affectionate assiduities had been invariably employed in endeavouring to solace and support his infirmities. In this state of feebleness and dejection, notwithstanding the unwearied attention of, his surviving sons, he continued to languish: and, at length, in 1784, in the seventy-fifth year of his age, he was released by an easy death. Great sensibility seems to have given the general and prevailing colour to his character. It rendered his piety devout, his benevolence tender, and his friendship affectionate. In the culture of his understanding it inclined him to those studies that please by their beautiful imagery, or touch the heart with agreeable feelings. He was therefore very early addicted to classical learning; and cherished those views of religion that represent both God and man in a favourable light. Such sentiments and propensities, though not altogether singular at the time that he commenced his studies, were, however, so rare among students of theology, that, speaking figuratively, we may call them singular. But singularity of disposition or opinion is usually disliked or opposed. The man of fortitude and strong nerves encounters the opposition; and either makes converts, or, by a bold authoritative tone, though he fails to conciliate affection, imposes respect. But the man of extreme sensibility, yielding to his native bias, is afraid of the struggle, declines the contest; and, excepting in the retirements of confidential friendship, not only appears, but really becomes shy and reserved. This disposition is nearly allied to modesty, and even humbleness of mind; yet the appearance of distance it so often assumes, is misrepresented by the undiscerning multitude; and, by a violent misapplication of terms, is misconstrued into pride. Effects almost of an opposite appearance are produced by the same principle, yet tend in their final issue to confirm this mistaken reserve. The man of sensibility, conscious of powers, exerts them; and, conscious of his own candour, expects suitable returns. He is disappointed. The observation of men is otherwise engaged: accidental circumstances, and other causes than such as arise from perversion of mind, carry away their attention from the merit that claims and deserves their notice. Of these the man of shy and retired sensibility is not aware; he becomes still more cautious in his intercourse with mankind; more shy, and more retired. But Craig, under the sacred shade, and in the retirements of intimate and confidential friendship, was unreserved, open, and even ardent. The spirit of real enjoyment, with which in his better days he engaged in familiar and literary conversation with his friends, displayed the most interesting view of his character. Conversations on the merits of elegant authors, both ancient and modern, but, above all, the liberal discussion of moral and religious topics, were the joy of his soul. On these occasions, his eyes, naturally animated, sparkled with additional lustre; his voice, naturally musical, became delightfully mellow; his features brightened, for his heart glowed. These were blessed intervals, anticipations, perhaps, of what he now enjoys. By degrees, this glowing mood became tinged with melancholy: at first it was amiable and interesting; but became at last distressful. The sensibility which gave him such moments of rapture, had not, perhaps, been duly managed; and contributed to or occasioned his sufferings. It had rendered him averse to indiscriminate society, and thus precluded him from many innocent means of relieving the lassitude, or alleviating the weight of declining age. It quickened his sense of misfortune, and rendered his affliction for the loss of friends too poignant. It overwhelmed him with too much sorrow, if at any time he apprehended that the affection of those in whose love he trusted had suffered change. His sense of deity was strong and lively. Even though the dejection and the despondency of affliction might at times have brought a gloomy cloud between him and the radiance of heaven, the cloud was transient: his religious opinions, founded not merely on feeling, but on conviction, were permanent: and even in the earlier periods of his life he often lamented that men of worth and integrity were not pious; and though they performed many charitable and disinterested actions from very laudable motives, yet that their conduct did not seem to be founded on any principles of religion. It might be friendship, it might be compassion, it might be beneficence; but it wanted those aids, those supports and comforts, which alone could arise from hope and trust in God. It is unnecessary to say of such a character, that he was just, charitable, and temperate. His virtues were those of a Christian, his failings were those incident to the weakness of human nature; and his sufferings were occasioned, or much aggravated by his feelings.

, originated from a gentleman’s family at Strickland in Westmoreland, where he was born in 1567, and in 1583 was admitted in Queen’s college in Oxford, of which he obtained a fellowship in 1598. He was esteemed a celebrated preacher and a deep controversial divine, and was particularly admired by the puritans. When king James 1. sent the lord Evers ambassador to the emperor, Mr. Crakanthorpe went along with him in 1603 as chaplain; and upon his return he was chaplain to Dr. Ravis, bishop of London, and presented to the rectory of Black Notley, near Braintry in Essex. He had the reputation of a general scholar, was a considerable canonist, and perfectly acquainted with ecclesiastical antiquity and scholastic divinity. He died in 1624, at his rectory of Black-Notley. His works are, 1. “Justinian the emperor defended against cardinal Baronius,” 1616, 4to. 2. “Introductio in Metaphysicam, lib. 4.” Oxon. 1619, 8vo Lond. 1641, 4to. 3. “A Defence of Constanthie, with a treatise of the pope’s Temporal Monarchy,” Lond. 1621, 4to. 4. “Pefensio ecclesiae Anglicanse contra M. Anton, cle Dominis archiepisc. Spalatensis injurias,” Lond. 1625, 4to; this book has the character of a most exact piece of controversy. 5. “Vigilius dormitans; or, a treatise of the 5th general council held at Constantinople, ann. 553,” Lond. 1631, fol. 6. “Logicae libri quinque,” Lond. 1622; Ox. 1677, 4to. 7. “Tractatus de providentia,” Camb. 1622, 4to; with several sermons, and some controversial Mss. left behind him, a part of which are in Queen’s college library.

, a learned protestant divine, was born at Retz in the new march of Brandenburgh, Jan. 20, 1568, where his father was pastor of the church, and for some time superintended his education. In 1531 he was sent to Lansberg, where he was educated in Greek and Latin by J. M. Capito, and afterwards pursued his studies at other seminaries, particularly Rostock, where he applied to philosophy and mathematics under Dr. Duncan Liddel, a learned native of Scotland, and Gotschovius. Under the presidentship of Dr. Liddel he defended a thesis on the organon of Aristotle with great applause, and lectured on the ethics to some of his fellow-students. About this time, 1590, the son of the prime minister of Denmark, Rosenkranz, being at Rostock for his education, Cramer was appointed his tutor, and afterwards accompanied him to Denmark, and to the university of Whtemberg; here he was appointed professor of logic, and superintendant of the scholars who were exhibitioners. From hence, being invited to Stettin, he was made first dean, and professor, and assessor of the consistory. In 1597 he was appointed pastor at Marienkirk, and inspector of the college. In 1598 he received the degree of doctor of divinity at Wittemberg, where Moreri, blunderingly, makes him die in the following year: on the contrary, after refusing many preferments, he remained here until Oct. 5, 1637, on which day he died, in his sixty-ninth year. His works, both in Latin and German, are very numerous. Freher has given a complete list, in which we find several treatises on Aristotle, “Emblematum Sacrorum Decades X.” with plates, and Latin, German, Italian and French verses,“8vo. ”Isagoge ad libros Propheticos et Apostolicos,“8vo;” Arbor hsereticse consanguinitatis," a history of heresies, divided into four classes, 4to; and various controversial works in favour of the Lutheran opinions.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Geneva, in 1704, and became a pupil of John Bernouilli, and a professor of mathematics at the age of nineteen. He was known all over Europe, and was of the academies of London, Berlin, Montpellier, Lyons, and Bologna. He died in 1752, worn out with study, at the baths of Languedoc, whither he had repaired for the recovery of his health. He made a most important and interesting collection of the works of James and John Bernouilli, which was published 1743, under his inspection, in 6 vols. 4to, and he had before bestowed no less pains on an edition of Christopher Wolf’s “Elementa universae matheseos,” Genev. 1732 1741, 5 vols. 4to. The only work he published of his own was an excellent “Introduction to the Theory of Curve lines,” 1750, 4to. L'Avocat says he was an universal genius, a living Encyclopedia, and a man of pious and exemplary conduct. His family appears to have been numerous and literary. There wap another Gabriel Cramer, probably his father, who was born at Geneva, 1641, rose to be senior of the faculty of medicine, died in 1724, and left a son, John Isaac, who took the degree of doctor in 1696, succeeded to his practice, and published an “Epitome of Anatomy,” and a “Dissertation on Diseases of the Liver,” left by his father. Also, “Thesaurus secretorum curiosorum, in quo curiosa, ad omnes corporis humani, turn internes turn externos, morbos curandos, &c. continentur,” 1709, 4to, He again was succeeded by his son, John Andrew Cramer, who rendered himself famed by his skill in mineralogy and chemistry; and published at Leyden, in 1739, 2 vols. 8vo, “Elementa Artis Docirnasticae.” It was reprinted in 1744, and again translated into French, in 1755. He wrote also a treatise on the management of forests and timber, and gave public lectures on Assaying, both in Holland and England. He died Dec. 6, 1777. Tn his person he was excessiyely slovenly, in his temper irritable, and when disputes occurred, not very delicate in his language.

, of another family, a German divine and poet, doctor and professor of divinity at the university of Kiel, was born in 1723, at Jostadt, near Aunaberg. He was educated at Leipsic, where he made great proficiency in learning, but was soon under the necessity of employing his talents to defray the expences of the university, which he did partly in teaching, and partly in translating for the booksellers. He soon, however, acquired great reputation, and in 1750 was invited to Copenhagen, where he became court-chaplain. In 1765 he was appointed professor of divinity in the university of Copenhagen, and in 1773 was appointed to the same office in the university of Kiel, where he died June 12, 1738. He ranks as an orator, historian, poet, and translator, but his countrymen distinguish him principally as an historian, and a poet. His translation of, and additions to Bossuet’s “Introduction to Universal History,” bespeak the highest talents, and his translation of the “Psalms” is said to breathe the true spirit of Oriental poetry. His two lyric odes of “David” and “Luther” are excellent; and, though inferior to Klopstock and Ramler in spirit, he far surpasses them in versification and ease. His principal works are: 1. “A Translation of the Sermons of St. Chrysostom, with an Introduction and Remarks,” ten parts, Leipsic, 1748 51. 2. Bossuet’s Introduction, with additions, ibid. 1748 72. 3. Poetical Translation of the “Psalms,” in four parts, ibid. 1762 64. 4. “Gospel Imitation of the Psalms of David, and other holy songs,” Copenhagen, 1769. 5. “Luther,” an ode, 1771. 6. “Melancthon,” an ode. He was also concerned with Klopstock in publishing the “Northern Inspector,” one of the best periodical publications in Germany.

, a learned protestant divine, was born at Elcau, Feb. 14, 1678, and was first instructed in classical learning by his father, who was a pastor of the reformed church, and who intended him for the medical profession, but by the advice of his brother, professor of the oriental languages at Zurich, he studied divinity, after the death of his father, in 1693, and was admitted into the ministry in 1699. The same year he accompanied his brother to Herborn, where the latter had been appointed professor of divinity, and pursued his studies in that place for two years, under the ablest professors. He then removed to Leyden, and having made great progress in Hebrew antiquities, he published there, in 1702, his “Seven Dissertations on the Hilcoth Biccurim.” His brother dying at Zurich the same year, he was unanimously chosen to succeed him as Hebrew professor, and on Sept. 18, he opened his lectures with a discourse “de philologis a reformatione in schola Tigurina claris.” In 1705 he was appointed to teach sacred and profane history, and the year following succeeded to the Hebrew professorship in the superior college. In 1725 he succeeded John James Lavater, the elder, as professor of theology, and after some other preferments, the duties of which appear to have affected his health, he died July 14, 1737. His works are very numerous: 1. “Decas Thesium Theologicarum,” 1704, 4to. 2. “Constitutiones de primitivis R. Mosis F. Maimonis, &c. cum versione et notis philologicis,” Leyden, 1702, 4to. 3. “De Summa pryedicationis apostolicae, quod Jesus sit Christus,” 1725, 4to. 4. “De genuina indole fidei Jesum ceu Christum recipientis,” two parts, 1726 and 1727, 4to. 5. “Dissertationes Theolog. VII. de benedictione Mosis in tribum Levi enunciata,” 1725, 1736, 4to. 6. “Positiones theolog. ex pastorali instructione sancti Pauli ad Titum data,” 1727, 4to. 7. “Demonstratio quibus in rebus S'erae religionis prsestantia ponenda sit,” 172H. 8. “De nonnullis Antichrist! characteribus,” 1729, 4to. He published, also, various other dissertations in Latin and German, and after his death appeared, “Meditatio sacra in verba S. Pauli, quee beatitudinem in Domino morientium veram ac certam demonstrat,” Zurich, 1737, 4to. His funeral oration was pronounced by John James Zimmerman.

, the first Protestant archbishop of Canterbury, was the son of Thomas Cranmer, esq. and of Agnes, daughter of Laurence Hatfield, of Willoughby, in Nottinghamshire. He was born at Aslacton, in that county, July 2, 1489, and educated in grammar learning, under a rude and severe parish-clerk, of whom he learned little, and endured much. In 1503, at the age of fourteen, he was admitted into Jesus college, in Cambridge; of which he became fellow, and where he studied such learning as the times afforded, till the age of twenty-two, For the next four or five years he applied himself to polite literature; and for three years more, to the study of the Scriptures. After he was M. A. he married a gentleman’s daughter named Joan, living at the Dolphin, opposite Jesus-lane, and having by this match lost his fellowship, he took up his residence at the Dolphin, and became reader of the common lecture in Buckingham, now Magdalen college; but his wife dying in child-bed within a year, he was again admitted fellow of Jesus college. Upon cardinal Wolsey’s foundation of his new college at Oxford, Cranmer was nominated to be one of the fellows; but he refused the offer, or, as some say, was on the road to Oxford, when he was persuaded to return to Cambridge. In 1523, he was made D. D. reader of the theological lecture in his own college; and one of the examiners of those that took the degrees in divinity. The most immediate cause of his advancement to the greatest favour with king Henry VIII. and, in consequence of that, to the highest dignity in the church of England, was the opinion he gave in the matter of that king’s divorce. Having, on account of the plague at Cambridge, retired to Waltham-abbey, in Essex, to the house of one Mr. Cressy, to whose wife he was related, and whose sons were his pupils at the university; Edward Fox, the king’s almoner, and Stephen Gardiner, the secretary, happened accidentally to come to that house, and the conversation turning upon what then was a popular topic, the king’s divorce, Cranmer, whose opinion was asked, said, that “it would be much better to have this question, ‘whether a man may marry his brother’s wife, or no?’ decided and discussed by the divines, and by the authority of the word of God, than thus from year to year prolong the time by having recourse to the pope; and that this might be done as well in England in the universities here, as at Rome, or elsewhere.” This opinion being communicated by Dr. Fox to the king, his majesty approved of it much; saying, in his coarse language, that Cranmer “had the sow by the right ear.” On this, Cranmer was sent for to court, made the king’s chaplain, ordered to write upon the subject of the divorce, furnished with books for that purpose, and placed in the family of Thomas Boleyn, earl of Wiltshire and Ormond. When he had finished his book, he went to Cambridge to dispute upon that point, and brought several over to his opinion, which was, that, according to the Scriptures, general councils, and ancient writers, the pope had no authority to dispense with the word of God. About this time he was presented to a living, and made archdeacon of Taunton. In 1530 he was sent, with some others, into France, Italy, and Germany, to discuss the affair of the king’s marriage. At Rome he got his book presented to the pope, and offered to dispute openly against the validity of king Henry’s marriage; but no one chose to engage him. While he was at Rome, the pope constituted him his pœnitentiary throughout England, Ireland, and Wales. In Germany he was sole embassador on the same affair; and in 1532 concluded a treaty of commerce between England and the Low Countries. He was also employed on an embassy to the duke of Saxony, and other Protestant princes. During his residence in Germany, he married at Nuremberg a second wife, named Anne, niece of Osiander’s wife. Upon the death of archbishop Warham, in August 1532, Cranmer was nominated for his successor; but, holding still to his opinion on the supremacy, he refused to accept of that dignity, unless he was to receive it immediately from the king, without the pope’s intervention. Before his consecration, the king so far engaged him in the business of his divorce, that he made him a party and an actor almost in every step he took in that affair. He not only pronounced the sentence of divorce between king Henry and queen Catherine, at Dunstable, May the 23d, 1533, but, according to Parker, married him to Anne Boleyn; although lord Herbert says they were privately married by Rowland Lee, afterwards bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, in the presence of lady Anne’s father, mother, and brother, Dr. Cranmer, and the duke of Norfolk. However this may be, on March 30th, 1533, he was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, by the bishops of Lincoln, Exeter, and St. Asaph, when he made an unusual protestation. His design was by this expedient to save his liberty, to renounce every clause in his oath which barred him doing his duty to God, the king, and his country. Collier, who often argues as if he were fee'd by the church of Rome, thinks there was something of human infirmity in this management, because it was not made at Rome to the pope, nor by Cranmer’s proxies there, before the obtaining of the bulls, not perceiving that Cranmer’s opposition to the power of the pope was as uniform as it had been early, and the effect of conviction. The temporalities of the archbishopric were restored to Cranmer the 29th of April following. Soon after, he forbad all preaching throughout his diocese, and visited it this year in December. The pope threatening him with excommunication, on account of his sentence against queen Catherine, he appealed from his holiness to a general council, and in the ensuing parliaments, strenuously disputed against the pope’s supremacy. All along he showed himself a zealous promoter of the reformation; and, as the first step towards it, procured the convocation to petition the king that the Bible might be translated into English. When that was obtained, he diligently encouraged the printing and publication of it, and caused it to be recommended by royal authority, and to be dispersed as much as he possibly could. Next, he forwarded the dissolution of the monasteries, which were one of the greatest obstacles to a reformation. He endeavoured also to restore the church of England to its original purity. In 1535 he performed a provincial visitation, in order to recommend the king’s supremacy, and preached upon that subject in several parts of his diocese, urging that the bishop of Rome was not God’s vicar upon earth, as supposed, and that that see so much boasted of, and by which name popes affected to be styled, was but a holiness in name, and that there was no such holiness at Rome, as he easily proved from the vices of the court of Rome. In 1536 he divorced king Henry from Anne Boleyn. In 1537 he visited his diocese, and endeavoured to abolish the superstitious observation of holidays. In 1538, he was in a commission against the anabaptists, and visited the diocese of Hereford. The next year, he and some of the bishops fell under the king’s displeasure, because they could not be brought to give their consent in Parliament, that the monasteries should be suppressed for the king’s sole use. He also strenuously opposed the Act for the six articles, in the house of lords. It has been observed by a late biographer, that he never appeared in a more truly Christian light than on this occasion. In the midst of so general a defection (for there were numbers in the house who had hitherto shewn great forwardness in reformation), he alone made a stand. Three days he maintained his ground, and baffled the arguments of all opposers. But argument was not their weapon, and the archbishop saw himself obliged to sink under superior power. Henry ordered him to leave the house. The primate refused: “It was God’s business,” he said, “and not man’s.” And when he could do no more, he boldly entered his protest, and upon the passing of the statute, sent his wife into Germany. In 1540 he was one of the commissioners for inspecting into matters of religion, and explaining some of its chief doctrines. The result of their commission was the book entitled “A necessary erudition of any Christian man.” After lord Cromwell’s death (in whose behalf he had written to the king), he retired, and lived in great privacy, meddling not at all with state affairs. In 1541, he gave orders, pursuant to the king’s directions, for taking away superstitious shrines; and exchanging Bishopsbourn for Bekesbourn, united the latter to his diocese. In 1542 he procured the “Act for the advancement of true religion, and the abolishment of the contrary,” which moderated the rigour of the six articles. But, the year following, some persons preferring accusations against him, for being an enemy to popery, he would have been ruined, had not the king interposed in his behalf. He was complained of in the house of commons, and in the privy-­council, and was very near being sent to the Tower; but the king protected him, and gave him his ring, as a token that he took the affair into his own hands. The substance of the accusations against him, which were contrived by Gardiner, the implacable enemy to the reformation, was, “that he, with his learned men, had so infected the whole realm with their unsavoury doctrine, that three parts of the land were hecome abominable heretics. And that it might prove dangerous to the king, being likely to produce such commotions and uproars as were sprung up in Germany. And therefore, they desired that the archbishop might be cojnmitted to the Tower, till he could be examined.” In 1545 he undertook to reform the canon-­law; but the book he compiled upon that subject, was, through bishop Gardiner’s artifices, never confirmed by the king. He likewise corrected some service, or prayer-­books. Upon king Henry’s decease, he was one of the executors of his will, and one of the regents of the kingdom. February the 20th, 1545-6, he crowned king Edward VI. to whom he had been godfather; as he was also to the lady Elizabeth. Soon after, he took out a commission for executing his office of archbishop; and caused the Homilies to be composed, being himself the author of some of them; and likewise encouraged the translation of Erasmus’s paraphrase on the New Testament. He also laboured earnestly in the reformation of religion; and for that purpose, procured the repeal of the Six Articles, the establishment of the Communion in both kinds, and a new office for that sacrament, the revisal and amendment of the rest of the offices of the church, frequent preaching, a royal visitation to inspect into the manners and abilities of the clergy, and visited his own diocese himself for the same purpose. He likewise showed himself a patron to the universities, in defending their rights, securing their revenues, and encouraging learning. In 1549, he was one of the commissioners for examining bishop Bonner, with a power to imprison or deprive him of his bishopric. Upon the insurrection in Devonshire, he expressed hie zeal for religion and his prince, by giving an excellent and full answer to the rebels’ articles, and ordered sermons to be composed and preached upon that occasion. The same year he ordained several priests and deacons according to the new form of ordination in the Common-prayer book; which, through the archbishop’s care, was now finished and settled by act of parliament. A review was made of this book towards the end of the next year, and several things changed or amended that were thought to savour too much of superstition. In 1552, it was printed again with amendments and alterations, by the archbishop’s care, and authorized by parliament. This same year, he and some others compiled the articles of religion, and caused them, to be enjoined by the king’s authority. He confined not his care to the church of England, but extended it also to those protestant foreigners who fled to England, by obtaining churches for them, and recommending them to the favour and protection of the crown.

His palace at Lambeth, says Mr. Gilpin, might be called a seminary of learned men; the greater part of whom persecution had driven from home. Here, among other celebrated reformers, Martyr, Bucer, Aless, Phage, found sanctuary. Martyr, Bucer, and Phage, were liberally pensioned by the archbishop, till he could otherwise provide for them. It was his wish to fix them in the two universities, where he hoped their great knowledge and spirit of inquiry would forward his designs of restoring learning; and he at length obtained professorships for them all. Bucer and Phage were settled at Cambridge; where they only shewed what might have been expected from them, both dying within a few months after their arrival. But at Oxford, Martyr acted a very conspicuous part; and contributed to introduce among the students there a very liberal mode of thinking. Aless had been driven from Scotland, his native country, for the novelty of his opinions. The cause in which he suffered, added to his abilities and learning, so far recommended him to the university of Leipsic, to which he retired, that he was chosen a professor there. At this place he became acquainted with Melancthon, who, having written a treatise on some part of the controversy between the papists and protestants, was desirous of consulting the archbishop on a few points; and engaged Aless, otherwise not averse to the employment, to undertake a voyage into England for that purpose. In the course of the conference, the archbishop was so much taken with his simplicity and learning, that he settled a pension on him, and retained him in his family. The misfortunes of the times drew Alasco also into England, where the archbishop became an early patron to him; and shewed on this occasion at least, the candour and liberality of his sentiments, by permitting a person who held many opinions very different from his own, to collect his brethren, and such as chose to communicate with him, into a church. At the head of this little assembly Alasco long presided, exhibiting an eminent example of piety and decency of manners. Among other learned foreigners, John Sleidan was under particular obligations to the archbishop. Sleidan was at that time engaged in writing the “History of the Reformation,” a work from which much was expected; and which the archbishop, by allowing him a pension, and opportunities of study, enabled him to prosecute with less difficulty than had attended the beginning of his labours.

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

After queen Mary’s accession to the throne, so obnoxious an enemy to popery could not long escape, and accordingly he was first ordered to appear before the council, and bring an inventory of his goods; which he did August the 27th, when he was commanded to keep his house, and be forth-coming. September the 13th, he was again summoned before the council, and enjoined to be at the Starchamber the next day, when he was committed to the Tower; partly, for setting his hand to the instrument of the lady Jane’s succession; and, partly, for the public offer he had made a little before, of justifying openly the religious proceedings of the late king. Some of his friends, foreseeing the storm that was likely to fall upon him, advised him to fly, but he absolutely refused, as unworthy of his character and the station he held. In the ensuing parliament, on November the 3d, he was attainted, and at Guildhall found guilty of high treason; on which the fruits of his archbishopric were sequestered; yet, upon his humble and repeated application, he was pardoned the treason, but it was resolved he should be proceeded against for heresy. In April 1554, he, and Ridley and Latimer, were removed to Oxford, for a public disputation with the papists on the subject of the sacrament; which was accordingly held there towards the middle of the month, with great noise, triumph, and confidence on the papists’ side, and with as much gravity, learning, modesty, and argument on the side of the protestant bishops. The 20th of April, two days after the end of these disputations, Cranmer and the two others were brought before the commissioners, and asked, whether they would subscribe (to Popery)? which they unanimously refusing, were condemned as heretics. From this sentence the archbishop appealed to the just judgment of the Almighty; and wrote to the council, giving them an account of the disputation, and desiring the queen’s pardon for his treason, which it seems was not yet remitted. By the convocation, which met this year, his “Defence of the true and Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ,” was ordered to be burnt. Some of his friends petitioned the queen in his behalf; putting her in mind, how he had once preserved her, by his earnest intercessions for her, when her father had determined to send her to the Tower, and make her suffer for disobedience to the laws; so that she had reason to believe he loved her, and would speak the truth to her, more than all the rest of the clergy. But all these endeavours were ineffectual. The sentence pronounced against him by Weston at Oxford being void in law, because the Pope’s authority was not yet re-established in England, a new commission was sent from Rome for his trial and conviction. Accordingly, on September the 12th, 1555, he appeared before the commissioners; viz. Brooks bishop of Gloucester, for the pope; and Drs. Martin and Story for the queen: the commission was opened at St. Mary’s church, Oxford, and Cranmer was accused of blasphemy and heresy, for his writings against popery; of perjury, for breaking his oath to the pope; and of incontinency, or adultery, on account of his being married: against all which he vindicated himself. At last, he was cited to appear at Rome within eighty days, to answer in person; which he said he would do, if the king and queen would send him, but this was not done, and therefore the pope dispatched, on December the 14th, his letters executory to the king and queen, and to Bonner and Thirlby bishops of London and Ely, to degrade and deprive him. In these letters, Cranmer was declared contumacious, for not appearing at Rome within eighty days, according to his citation; as if he could have appeared at Rome, when he was all the while kept a prisoner. Upon the arrival of the letters, Bonner and Thirlby, with Dr. Martin and Dr. Story the king’s and queen’s proctors, went to Oxford to degrade him. They dressed him in all the garments and ornaments of an archbishop, only in mockery every thing was of canvass and old clouts: and then he was, piece by piece, stripped of all again. When they came to take the crosier gut of his hand, he refused to part with it, and appealed to the next general council. After he was degraded, they put him on a poor yeoman-beadle’s gown, thread-bare, and a towns-man’s cap, and remanded him to prison. From thence he wrote letters to the queen, to give her an impartial account of what had passed at his degradation, to prevent mis-reports, and to justify himself in what he had said and done; and hitherto he manifested a great deal of courage and wisdom in his sufferings; but at last human frailty made him commit what he felt as the greatest blemish of his life. For, through flatteries, promises, importunities, threats, and the fear of death, he was prevailed upon to sign a recantation, wherein he renounced the Protestant religion, and embraced again all the errors of popery; which, recantation was immediately printed and dispersed about by his enemies. Notwithstanding that, the merciless queen, not satisfied with this conquest, resolved to glut her revenge, by committing Cranmer to the flames. Accordingly, she sent for Dr. Cole, provost of Eton, and gave him instructions to prepare a sermon for that mournful occasion; and on the 24th of February a writ was signed for the execution. The 21st day of March, the fatal day, he was brought to St. Mary’s church, and placed on a kind of stage over against the pulpit, where Dr. Cole was to preach. While Cole was haranguing, the unfortunate Cranmer expressed great inward confusion; often lifting up his hands and eyes to heaven; and frequently pouring out floods of tears. At the end of the sermon, when Cole desired him to make an open profession of his faith, as he had promised him he would; he, first, prayed in the most fervent manner; then made an exhortation to the people present, not to set their minds upon the world; to obey the king and queen; to love each other; and to be charitable. After this he made a confession of his faith, beg nning with the Creed, and concluding with these words, “And I believe every word and sentence taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, his apostles and prophets, in the Old and New Testament.—And now,” added he, “I come to the great thing, that so much troubleth my conscience more than any thing I ever did or said in my whole life; and that is the setting abroad a writing contrary to the truth, which I here now renounce as things written with my hand contrary to the truth which I thought in my heart, and written for fear of death, and to save my life if it might be; that is, all such bills and papers which I have written or signed with my hand since my degradation, wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished; for, may I come to the fire, it shall be first burned. As for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine. And as for the Sacrament, I believe as I have taught in my book against the bishop of Winchester.” Thunderstruck as it were with this unexpected declaration, the enraged popish crowd admonished him not to dissemble: “Ah,” replied he with tears, “since I lived hitherto, I have been a hater of falsehood, and a lover of simplicity, and never before this time have I dissembled.” On this, they pulled him off the stage with the utmost fury, and hurried him to the place of his martyrdom, over against Baliol-college; where he put off his clothes in haste, and standing in his shirt, and without shoes, was fastened with a chain to the stake. Some pressing him to agree to his former recantation, he answered, showing his hand, “This is the hand that wrote it, and therefore it shall first suffer punishment.” Fire being applied to him, he stretched out his right hand into the flame, and held it there unmoved (except that once with it he wiped his face) till it was consumed, crying with a loud voice, “This hand hath offended;” and often repeating, “This unworthy right hand.” At last, the fire getting up, he soon expired, never stirring or crying out all the while, only keeping his eyes fixed to heaven, and repeating more than once, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Such was the end of the renowned Thomas Cranmer, in the 67th year of his age, a man who deservedly ranks high among the most illustrious characters in ecclesiastical history, although his conduct was not in all respects free from blame. Of the two instances in which Cranmer has been accused of retaining the spirit of persecution, after he had got rid of every other attribute of popery, Mr. Gilpin gives the following account: “Joan Bocher and George Paris were accused, though at different times, one for denying the humanity of Christ; the other for denying his divinity. They were both tried, and condemned to the stake: and the archbishop not only consented to these acts of blood; but even persuaded the aversion of the young king into a compliance. “Your majesty must distinguish (said he, informing his royal pupil’s conscience) between common opinions, and such as are the essential articles of faith. These latter we must on no account suffer to be opposed.” Mr. Gilpin justly observes, that “nothing even plausible can be suggested in defence of the archbishop on this occasion; except only that the spirit of popery was not yet wholly repressed.” That he was not, however, a man of blood, and that in every case of personal injury he was the most placable of human beings, is amply confirmed by all authorities. The last act of Henry’s reign, says the same biographer, was an act of blood; and gave the archbishop a noble opportunity of shewing, how well he had learned that great Christian lesson of forgiving an enemy. Almost without the shadow of justice, Henry had given directions to have the duke of Norfolk attainted by an act of parliament. The king’s mandate stood in lieu of guilt; and the bill passed the house with great ease. No man, except the bishop of Winchester, had been so great an enemy to the archbishop as the duke of Norfolk. He had always thwarted the primate’s measures; and oftener than once had practised against his life. How many would have seen with secret pleasure the workings of Providence against so rancorous an enemy; satisfied in having themselves no hand in his unjust fate! But the archbishop saw the affair in another light; he saw it with horror: and although the king had in a particular manner interested himself in this business, the primate opposed the bill with all his might; and when his opposition was vain, he left the house with indignation, and retired to Croydon.

He was so remarkable for this placability of temper, and for shewing kindness to those by whom he had been greatly injured, that it is mentioned, by Shakspeare, as a common saying concerning him:

But one shrewd turn, and he’s your friend for ever.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was a great ceconomist of his time. He rose commonly at five o'clock; and continued in his study till nine. These early hours, he would say, were the only hours he could call his own. After breakfast he generally spent the remainder of the morning either in public or private business. His chapel-hour was eleven; and his dinner-hour twelve. After dinner, he spent an hour either in conversation with his friends, in playing at chess, or in what he liked better, overlooking a chess-board. He then retired again to his study, till his chapel- bell rang at five. After prayers, he generally walked till six, which was, in those times, the hour of supper. His evening meal was sparing. Often he ate nothing; and when that was the case, it was his usual custom, as he sat down to table, to draw on a pair of gloves; which was as much as to say, that his hands had nothing to do. After supper, he spent an hour in walking, and another in his study, retiring to his bed-chamber about nine. This was his usual mode of living when he was most vacant; but very often his afternoons, as well as his mornings, were engaged in business. To this his chess-hour after dinner was commonly first assigned, and the remainder of the afternoon as the occasion required. He generally, however, contrived, if possible, even in the busiest day, to devote some proportion of his time to his books besides the morning. And Mr. Fox tells us, he always accustomed himself to read and write in a standing posture; esteeming constant sitting very pernicious to a studious man.

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

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

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

His printed works are, 1. An account of Mr. Pole’s book, concerning king Henry VIIIth’s Marriage. 2. Several Letters to divers persons—to king Henry VIII.—to secretary Cromwell—to sir William Cecil—to foreign divines. 3. Three discourses upon his review of the king’s book, entitled “The Erudition of a Christian man.” 4. Other Discourses of his. 5. The Bishops’ Book, in which he had a part. 6. Answers to the fifteen articles of the rebels in Devonshire in 1549. 7. The examination of most points of religion. 8. A form for the alteration of the mass into a communion. 9. Some of the homilies. 10. A catechism, entitled “A short Instruction to Christian Religion, for the singular profit of children and young people.” 11. Against unwritten verities. 12. A defence of the true and catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ; with a confutation of sundry errors concerning the same. Grounded and established upon God’s holy word, and approved by the consent of the most ancient doctors of the church. This was translated into Latin by John Young. In opposition to it, Gardiner published “An Explication and Assertion of the true Catholic Faith touching the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, with the Confutation of a book wrote against the same.” 13. Cranmer replied in the following book, "An Answer by the reverend father in God, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, unto a crafty and sophistical caviilation, devised by Stephen Gardiner, doctor of law, late bishop of Winchester, against the true and godly doctrine of the most Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ. Wherein is also, as occasion serveth, answered such places of the book of Dr. Richard Smith, as may seem any thing worthy the answering. Also a true Copy of the book written, and in open court delivered by Dr. Stephen Gardiner, not one word added or diminished, but faithfully in all points agreeing with the original,” London, 1551, reprinted in 1580. It was translated into Latin by sir John Cheke. An answer was also made to this book by Stephen Gardiner, under the feigned name of Marcus Antonius Constantinus, and entitled “Confutatio cavillationum, quibus sacrosanctum Eucharistiae Sacramentum ab impiis Capernaitis impeti soiet.” Paris, 1552. 14. Cranmer began an Answer to this, and finished three parts of it, but lived not to complete the whole. 15. Preface to the English translation of the Bible. 16. A Speech in the house of lords, concerning a general council. 17. Letter to king Henry VIII. in justification of Anne Boleyn, May 3, 1535. 18. The Reasons that led him to oppose the Six Articles. For this he had like to come into great trouble, as may be seen in Fox. 19. Resolution of some questions concerning the Sacrament. 20. Injunctions given at his visitation within the diocese of Hereford. 21. A collection, of passages out of the canon law, to shew the necessity of reforming it. 22. Some queries in order to the correcting of several abuses. 23. Concerning a farther reformation, and against sacrilege. 24. Answers to some queries concerning confirmation. 25. Some considerations offered to king Edward VI. to induce him to proceed to a farther reformation. 26. Answer to the lords of the privy-council. 27. Manifesto against the Mass.

Those works of his which still remain in manuscript, are, 1. Two large volumes of collections out of holy scripture, and the ancient fathers, and later doctors and schoolmen. The first volume contains 545 pages, and the second above 559. They are chiefly upon the points controverted between us and the church of Rome; namely, about their seven sacraments, invocation of saints, images, relics, of true religion and superstition, the mass, prayer, the Virgin Mary, &c. These two volumes are in the king’s library. When they were offered to sale, they were valued at 100l. but bishop Beveridge and Dr. Jane, appraisers for the king, brought down the price to 50l. 2. The lord Burleigh had six or seven volumes more of his writing. 3. And Dr. Burnet mentions two volumes besides, that he saw, but they are supposed to be now lost. 4. There are also several letters of his in the Cottonian library.

, the last celebrated philosopher of the Old Academy, a native of Soli in Cilicia, flourished about 30O years B. C. and died about the 270th year B. C. He studied under Xenocrates and Polemo; and he was the first who wrote commentaries on the works of Plato, whose system he supported. He was highly celebrated for the purity of his moral doctrine, as we may infer from the praises that are bestowed by the ancients upon his discourse “On Grief,” which Cicero calls “a small but golden piece, adapted to heal the wounds of the mind, not by encouraging stoical insensibility, but by suggesting arguments drawn from the purest fountains of philosophy.” That Grantor acquired great reputation as a moral preceptor is intimated by Horace.

Than Crantor and Chrysippus in the schools."

, an English poet, was the son of the rev. William Crashaw, a divine of some note in his day, and preacher at the Temple church, London. He published several volumes on points controverted between the Roman catholics and protestants, either original or translated; and in 1608, a translation of the Life of Galeacius Caracciolo, marquis of Vico, an Italian nobleman, who was converted by the celebrated reformer Peter Martyr, and forsook all that rank, family, and wealth could yield, for the quiet enjoyment of the reformed religion. Mr. Crashaw also translated a supposed poem of St. Bernard’s, entitled “The Complaint or Dialogue between the Soule and the Bodie of a damned man,” 1616, and in the same year published a “Manual for true Catholics, or a handfull or rather a heartfull of holy Meditations and Prayers.” All these show him to have been a zealous protestant; but, like his son, somewhat tinctured with a love of mystic poetry and personification.

Our poet was born in London, but in what year is uncertain. In his infancy, sir Henry Yelverton and sir Randolph Crew undertook the charge of his education, and afterwards procured him to be placed in the Charter- house on the foundation, where he improved in an extraordinary degree under Brooks, a very celebrated master. He was thence admitted of Pembroke-hall, March 1632, and took his bachelor’s degree in the same college, in 1634. He then removed to Peterhouse, of which he was a fellow in 1637, and was admitted to his master’s degree in 1633. In 1634, he published a volume of Latin poem?, mostly of the devotional kind, dedicated to Benjamin Lang, master of Pembroke- hall. This contained the well-known line, which has sometimes been ascribed to Dryden and others, on the miracle of turning water into wine:

“The modest water saw its God, and blushed.”

In 1641, Wood informs us, he took degrees at Oxford. At what time he was admitted into holy orders is uncertain, but he soon became a popular preacher, full of energy and enthusiasm. In 1644, when the parliamentary army expelled those members of the university who refused to take the covenant, Crashaw was among the number; and being unable to contemplate with resignation or indifference, the ruins of the church-establishment, went over to France, where his sufferings and their peculiar influence on his mind prepared him to embrace the Roman catholic religion. Before he left England, he appears to have practised many of the austerities of a mistaken piety, and the poems entitled “Steps to the Temple,” were so called in allusion to his passing his time almost constantly in St. Mary’s church, Cambridge. “There,” says the author of the preface to his poems, “he lodged under Tertullian’s roof of angels; there he made his nest more gladly than David’s swallow near the house of God; where like a primitive saint he offered more prayers in the night, than others usually offer in the day; there he penned these poems,” Steps for happy souls to climb Heaven by.“The same writer informs us that he understood Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, and Spanish, and was skilled in poetry, music, drawing, painting, and engraving, which last he represents as” recreations for vacant hours, not the grand business of his soul."

In 1646, the poet Cowley found Crashaw in France in great distress, and introduced him to the patronage of Charles the First’s queen, who gave him letters of recommendation to Italy. There he became secretary to one of the cardinals at Rome, and was made canon in the church of Loretto, where he died of a fever, soon after this last promotion, about the year 1650. Cowley’s very elegant and affectionate lines may be seen in the works of that poet. Mr. Hayley remarks, that “fine as they are, Cowley has sometimes fallen into the principal defect of the poet whom he is praising. He now and then speaks of sacred things with a vulgar and ludicrous familiarity of language, by which (to use a happy expression of Dr. Johnson’s), ` readers far short of sanctity, may be offended in the present age, when devotion, perhaps not more fervent, is more delicate. 1 Let us add, that if the poetical character of Crashaw seem not to answer this glowing panegyric; yet in his higher character of saint, he appears to have had the purest title to this affectionate eulogy.” It appears by a passage in Selden’s Table Talk, that Crashaw had at one time an intention of writing against the stage, and that Selden succeeded in diverting him from his purpose. He had not, however, to regret that the stage outlived the church.

Crashaw’s poems were first published in 1646, under the title of, 1. Steps to the Temple. 2. The Delights of the Muses. 3. Sacred Poems presented to the Countess of Denbigh. But Mr. Hayley is of opinion that this third class only was published at that time, and that the two others were added to the subsequent editions. So many republications within a short period, and that period not very favourable to poetry, sufficiently mark the estimation in which this devotional enthusiast was held, notwithstanding his having relinquished the church in which he had been educated. His poems prove him to have been of the school which produced Herbert and Quarles. Herbert was his model, and Granger attributes the anonymous poems, at the end of Herbert’s volume, to Crashaw; but however partial Crashaw might be to Herbert, it is impossible he could have been the author of these anonymoVis poems, which did not appear until after his death, and were written by a clergyman of the church of England known to Walton, who subjoins some commendatory lines dated 1654.

In 1785, the late Mr. Peregrine Phillips published a selection from Crashaw’s poems, with an address in which he attacks Pope, for having availed himself of the beauties of Crashaw, while he endeavoured to injure his fame. Against this accusation, Mr. Hayley has amply vindicated Pope. That he has horrowed from him is undeniable, and not unacknowledged by himself, but that it should be his intention to injure the fame of a writer whose writings were unknown, unless to poetical antiquaries, and that in a confidential letter to a friend whom he advised to read the poems as well as his opinion of them, is an absurdity scarcely worthy of refutation. Pope enumerates among Crashaw’s best pieces, the paraphrase on Psalm xxiii. the verses on Lessius, Epitaph on Mr. Ashton, Wishes to his supposed Mistress, and the Dies Irae. Dr. Warton recommends the translation from Moschus, and another from Catullus, and amply acknowledges the obligations of Pope and Roscommon to Crashaw. Mr. Hayley, after specifying some of Pope’s imitations of our author, conjectures that the elegies on St. Alexis suggested to him the idea of his Eloisa; but, adds he, “if Pope borrowed any thing from Crashaw in this article, it was only as the sun borrows from the earth, when drawing from thence a mere vapour, he makes it the delight of every eye, by giving it all the tender and gorgeous colouring of heaven.” Some of Crashaw’s translations are esteemed superior to his original poetry, and that of the “Sospetto d' Herod e,” from Marino, is executed with Milton ic grace and spirit. It has been regretted that he translated only the first book of a poem by which Milton condescended to profit in his immortal Epic. The whole was, however, afterwards translated and published in 1675, by a writer whose initials only are known, T. R. Of modern critics, Mr. Headley and Mr. Ellis have selected recommendatory specimens from Crashaw. In Mr. Headley’s opinion, “he has originality in many parts, and as a translator is entitled to the highest applause.” Mr. Ellis, with his accustomed judgment and moderation, pronounces that “his translations have considerable merit, but that his original poetry is full of conceit. His Latin poems were first printed in 1634, and have been much admired, though liable to the same objections as his English.”

, the most distinguished philosopher of the Cynic sect after Diogenes, was by birth a Theban, and flourished about the 113th olympiad, B. C. 328, and died after the year 287 B. C. He was honourably descended, and inherited a large estate; but when he devoted himself to philosophy, that he might be free from the dominion of those passions which are fostered by wealth, he distributed his whole properly among the poorer citizens. Leaving his native city, where he had been a disciple of Bryso, he went to Athens, and hecame a zealous disciple of Diogenes adopting all the singularities of his master. In his natural temper, however, he was not, like Diogenes, morose and gloomy, but cheerful and facetious. The following whimsical tarif of expences is attributed to him: To a cook should be given two minae, to a physician a drachma, to a flatterer five talents, to an adviser smoke, a talent to a courtezan, and three oboles to a philosopher. Being asked of what use philosophy was to him? “To teach me,” returned he, “to be contented with a vegetable diet, and to live exempt from care and trouble.” Alexander, curious to see this Cynic, offered to rebuild Thebes, the place of his nativity; “To what purpose?” interrogated Crates; “Another Alexander will destroy it afresh. The contempt of fame, and my complacency with poverty stand me in stead of a country: these are comforts that are above the reach of fortune.” Patient under injuries, he took no other revenge for a blow he had received from a certain Nicodromus, than by writing under the mark of it on his cheek, “Nicodromus fecit.” This disposition attached to him many friends, and procured for him access to the houses of the most wealthy Athenians, and he frequently became an arbiter of disputes and quarrels among relations. His influence in private families is said to have had a great e fleet in correcting the luxuries and vices which prevailed at that time in Athens. His wife, Hipparchia, who was rich and of a good family, and had many suitors, preferred Crates to every other, and when her parents opposed her inclination, so determined was her passion, she threatened to put an end to her life. Crates, at the request of her parents, represented to Hipparchia every circumstance in his condition and manner of -living, which might induce her to change her mind. Slill she persisted in her resolution, and not only became his wife, but adopted all the Cynic peculiarities. Disgraceful tales have been circulated concerning Crates and his wife; but since they do not appear in any writings of the period in which they lived, and are neither mentioned by Epictetus, who wrote an apology for the Cynic philosophy, nor by Lucian or Athenxus, who were so industrious in accumulating calumnies against philosophers, Brucker thinks they must be set down among the malicious fictions of later writers, who were desirous to bring the Cynic and Stoic sects into discredit. Had either Diogenes or Crates been the beasts which some have represented them, it is wholly incredible that Zeno and the Stoics would have treated their memory with so much respect.

There was another Crates, an Athenian, who succeeded Polemo in the direction of the old academy. Long attached to one another by a similarity of dispositions and pursuits, their friendship was uninterrupted whilst they lived, and they were both buried in the same grave. This Crates died about the year 250 B. C.

, an ancient comic poet, frequently mentioned by Quhuilian, Horace, and Persius, along with Eupolis and Aristophanes, as the great masters of what we call the ancient comedy, flourished in the 81st olympiad, about twenty or thirty years before Aristophanes. He was un Athenian, and appears to have spent his long life in his native city; where, if he did not invent comedy, he was at least the first who brought it into some form and method, and made it fit for the entertainment of a civilized audience, although it still retained many marks of its rude original. Persons and vices were exposed in barefaced satire, and the chief magistrates of the commonwealth ridiculed by name upon the stage. We find in Plutarch’s life of Pericles several passages out of Cratinus’s plays, where he reflected boldly on that great general. Cratinus appears to have been an excessive drinker, for which he offered the excuse that it was absolutely necessary to warm his fancy, and Horace quotes his authority to shew what short-lived things the offspring of water poets commonly prove. For the same reason, Aristophanes, in his “Irene,” attributes the death of Cratinus to the shock he received at the sight of a noble cask of wine split in pieces and washing the streets. The time of it is preserved in the same jest of Aristophanes, and referred to the year in which the Lacedaemonians first invested Athens; namely, in the 37th olympiad, or B. C. 431. Suidas tells us, that be wrote twenty-one plays, none of which are extant, and he gives only this short description of his excellencies, that he was “splendid and animated in his characters.”

, pronounced by Cicero to be by far the greatest of all the Peripatetic philosophers he ever heard, was of Mitylene, and taught philosophy there. He went afterwards to Athens, where he followed the sa'riie profession; and amongst his disciples had Cicero’s son. Cicero had an high esteem for him, and prevailed upon Cæsar to grant him the freedom of Rome; and afterwards engaged the Areopagus to make a decree, by which Cratippns was desired to continue at Athens, as an ornament to the city, and to read lectures to the youth there. These lectures were probably interesting, as Brutus went to hear them when he was preparing for the war against Marc Antony. Cratippus had the art of making himself agreeable to his disciples, and of pleasing them by his conversation, which was free from austerity. This appears from a letter of young Cicero, where there is the following passage: “Know then that Cratippus loves me not as a disciple, but as a son; and as I am very well pleased to hear his lectures, so I am extremely delighted with the sweetness of his temper. I prevail with him whenever I can to sup with me; and this being now customary, he comes often to us unawares, when we are at supper; and, laying aside his philosophic gravity, he is so kind as to laugh and joke with us.” There are other proofs beside this, that Cratippus was a man who understood life as well as philosophy. After the battle of Pharsalia, Pompey went to Mitylene, where the inhabitants paid their respects to him, and Cratippus among them. Pompey complained, as Plutarch tells us, and disputed a little upon divine providence; but Cratippus gently yielded to him, giving him hopes of better times, lest he should have tired and vexed him with answering and refuting his objections. Cratippus wrote some pieces about divination; and is supposed to he the same with him whom Tertullian, in his book “De Anima,” has ranked among the writers upon dreams.

, a physician and voluminous writer, was born at Breslaw in 1519. He received his first instruction under Philip Melancthon, and being intended for the church, he afterwards studied for six years under Martin Luther at Wittenburgh, but being more inclined to the practice of medicine, he was sent to Padua, and placed under professor Monti. He here took the degree of doctor, and returned and settled at Breslaw, whence, at the end of a few years, he was called to Vienna, and made physician and aulic counsellor to the emperor, Ferdinand I. He tilled the same post under the two succeeding emperors, Maximilian and Rodolph, which he notices in an epigram he composed a short time before his death:

His works were numerous the titles of the principal of them were, “De Morbo Gallico Commentarius,” Franc. 1594, 8vo; “De vera praecavendi et curandi Febrem contagiosam pestiientem ratione,” 1594; “Methodus Therapeutica ex Galeni et Montani Sententia.” There were also published seven volumes in 8vo, of Epistles and Consultations; and, according to Niceron, he was the editor of Luther’s “Table Talk;” or, as some say, that work was compiled from his recollections of conversation with Lmher, but this seems doubtful. He died Nov. 9, 1585.

was born at Drumsoy near Glasgow, 1665, and brought up to the law; but seldom went to the bar, his taste being confined to history and antiquities, in which he made very great progress. He was appointed historiographer-royal of Scotland by queen Anne, and it was at that time thought that no man ever deserved that place better. In 1706 he published, 8vo, “Memoirs of Scotland” during the times of the four regents, which has gone through two editions. The “Peerage,” and “History of the Stuart Family,” attributed to him in the last edition of this Dictionary, belong to George Crawfurd, of whom we have no account; but, perhaps, with more reason, the Biographia Dramatica attributes to him two plays, “Courtship Alamode,” 1700, and “Love at first Sight,” 1704. He is said to have died at Drumsoy, 1726.

Crawfurd’s “Memoirs” have hitherto been held in considerable estimation, and frequently quoted as authorities; but a discovery has lately been made which proves him to Jiave been in one instance at least, shamefully regardless of veracity, and has procured him the disgrace of being “the first Scotchman who published his own compositions as the genuine productions of a former age.” This discovery was made by Mr. Laing, the editor of “The Historic and Life of king James the sext,” published in 1804, 8vo. He informs us that in Crawfurd’s “Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland,” references occur to a ms. in support of certain positions, which includes nothing that in the least countenances them, and the above “Historic,” printed from that identical ms. amply confirms this heavy charge, “the earliest, if not the most impudent literary furgery ever practised in Scotland.” Every circumstance in the ms. unfavourable either to queen Mary or to Bothwell, or favourable to their adversaries, Crawford carefully suppressed; while every vague assertion in Camden, Spottiswood, Melvill, and others, or in the state papers which Crawfurd had transcribed from the Cotton Mss. is inserted in the Memoirs; and these writers are quoted on the margin as collateral authorities, confirming the evidence of some unknown contemporary. Fictions, invented by Crawfurd himself, are profusely intermixed: and even the illdigested form of the genuine narrative is a pretext for the transposition and alteration of facts. Crawfurd, having thus, on the narrow basis of the original ms. constructed spurious memoirs of his own, “declares solemnly that he has not wrested any of the words to add to one man’s credit, or to impair the honesty of another: that he has neither heightened nor diminished any particular character or action; but that he has kept as close as possible to the meaning and sense of his author;” and even in his titlepage professes that the work “is faithfully published from an authentic manuscript.” The Memoirs, adds the editor of the “Historic,” have been quoted as genuine by Hume and Robertson, and their authority has been re-echoed by disputants as a full confirmation of the most absolute fictions. Nor is it possible to acquit Goodall of connivance at the fraud: he had collated the memoirs with two copies of the original ms. and was conscious of the imposture, which, in the preface to the second edition, he endeavours partly to vindicate, and partly to conceal.

, was born at Kelso, 1676, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, where he took his degrees, and was ordained minister of a small country parish in the Merse. In 1711 he made a most vigorous opposition to the settlement of ministers by presentations instead of election by the people, in which he was supported by some of the most popular clergy in Scotland. In 1734 he took part with Messrs. Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, in their general sentiments, but did not think proper to join with them in their leaving the established church. He wrote a small work entitled “Dying Thoughts;” and some “Sermons,” which have been published in 2 vols. 12mo. He died 1742, aged sixty-six.

, an eminent artist, was born at Antwerp in 1585, and was a disciple of Raphael Coxis, the son of that Coxis who had studied under Raphael; but Crayer soon shewed such proofs of genius, that he far surpassed his master, and therefore quitted him. Afterwards he made judicious observations on the particular excellencies of the most renowned masters, and taking nature for his constant guide, formed for himself a manner that was extremely pleasing. The first work which established him in the favour of the court of Brussels, was a portrait of cardinal Ferdinand, brother to the king of Spain, a full length, as large as life, in which he succeeded so happily, that when it was viewed by the court at Madrid it laid the foundation of his fame and fortune. The king sent him a gold chain with a medal; and added, as a farther instance of his favour, a considerable pension. The testimony of Rubens was also highly in his favour, who went to Antwerp to visit Crayer, and after examining attentively a picture of his painting in the refectory of the abbey of Affleghem, he publicly declared that no painter could surpass Crayer. Nor was he less distinguished by Vandyck, who always expressed a friendship for him, and painted his portrait. It has been said that he had somewhat less fire in his compositions than Rubens; but that his design was frequently more correct. Yet, says Mr. Fuseli, let not this high strain of commendation seduce the reader to imagine that Crayer was a painter of the same rank with Rubens. If he was more equal, the reason lay in his inferiority. Rubens had the flights, the falls, and the neglects of genius. Crayer steered a middle course, and preserved dignity by caution. His composition generally consisted of a small number of figures; and he very judiciously avoi ded the encumbering his design with superfluous particulars, or loading his subject with any thing that seemed not to contribute to its elegance. He grouped his figures with skill, and his expressions have all the truth of nature. There is a remarkable variety in his draperies, and an equal degree of simplicity in their folds; and his colouring is admirable. Of all his contemporaries he was reckoned to approach nearest to Vandyck, not only in history, but in portrait. He principally painted religious subjects, and was continually at work; and although he lived to a great age, yet his temperance and regular habits preserved the full use of his faculties; and to the last month of his long life his pencil retained the same force and freedom which it possessed in his most vigorous days. He died in 1669, aged eighty-four. The subject of the picture which was so highly honoured by the approbation of Rubens, is the centurion alighting from his horse to prostrate himself at the feet of Christ. Yet sir Joshua Reynolds says of it, that though it cannot be said to be defective in drawing or colouring, it is far from being a striking picture. There is no union between his figures and the ground; the outline is every where seen, which takes away the softness and richness of effect; the men are insipid characters, and the women want beauty. The composition is something on the plan of the great picture of Rubens in the St. Augustins at Antwerp: that is, the subject is of the same kind, but there is a great difference indeed in their degree of merit.

, who has been called the Æsehvlus of France, was born at Dijon, Feb. 13, 1671, and was educated among the Jesuits, who are said to have recorded him in their registers “as a boy of parts, but remarkably graceless.” His family, long distinguished in the magistracy both on the father’s and mother’s side, wishing to preserve its acquired lustre, his father, who was chief register in the chamber of accounts at Dijon, recommended the law to him, without, it would appear, consulting his inclination. He studied it, however, at Paris; was admitted advocate, and afterwards entered as pupil to a solicitor. His frequent attendance on public spectacles, appears to have early given him a relish for the stage, and he could not conceal it from his master, the solicitor, who, from the eloquence with which Crebillon spoke of the master-pieces of the drama, predicted that he would one day make a figure on the theatre. He even ventured to advise his pupil to renounce the bar, and follow the impulse of his genius. This, however, rather disheartened, than encouraged him, as he had a great diffidence of himself; but at length, daily urged by counsels, the sincerity of which he could not suspect, and still more by inclination, he hazarded a piece which he ventured to read to the players, but it was rejected, and he almost forswore the pursuit of dramatic fame.

Become, however, more calm, he wrote his tragedy of “Idomeneus,” the success of which consoled him for his former misfortune. Its action, indeed, was feeble, its style negligent, and the fable unpleasing, yet some particular beauties caused the faults, both of the plan and of the execution, to be pardoned. He made a single bound from “Idomeneus” to “Atreus and Thyestes,” a tragedy which left the former far behind it. The interest in the latter piece is not, perhaps, much more considerable than in “Idomeneus” but the action is more lively and attractive the style, without being much more correct, has more colour and strength and the beauties are more frequent and srnkiug. This tragedy long kept its place on the stage, but the horrid catastrophe by which it is terminated, has always injured the complete success of the piece at its revivals, as it did during its novelty.

The character of horror for which “Atreus” was reproached, was softened by the author, not without some regret, in his tragedy of “Electra,” which soon followed, and which obtained great and deserved success; and although the critics pointed out some defects in the management of the fable, the interesting nature of the subject, the warmth of the action, happy and impressive lines, the character of Electra, drawn with a firm and noble pencil, and the superior beauty of the part of Palamedes, united all suffrages.

After the success of “Electra,” it might have been supposed that Crebillon’s dramatic glory had been at its height, as he had already left behind him the whole swarm of tragic poets who lingered on the scene after Corneille and Racine. He surpassed himself, however, in “Rhadamistus,” his master-piece; bold and lofty in its design, original and vigorous in its execution. The characters of Rhadamistus, Zenobia, and Pharasmanes, are drawn with equal energy and warmth; the action is interesting and animated; the situations striking and theatrical; the style is marked with a kind of savage dignity, which seems to be the characteristic quality of this tragedy, and to distinguish it from all others. The subject of “Rhadamistus” had wonderfully delighted Crebillon. The part of Pharasmanes, the implacable enemy of Roman ambition and arrogance, gave scope to the author to display in all its force the deep and lively hatred with which he was himself penetrated for “tyrants of the universe;” for this was the title he always gave to the Romans, whose annals awaken so many ideas of glory, and whose glory made so many wretched. He considered the conquests of this insolent and cruel nation, and the chains which it imposed upon so many nations, as one of the greatest calamities which had ever befallen the human race. We know not how far the English reader may understand the merits of this piece from Mr. Murphy’s tragedy of Zenobia, professedly taken from it, and which was at one time very popular. Of Crebillon’s “Rhadamistus,” two editions were printed in a week. It received the highest applause at Versailles, which in this instance agreed with Paris; and the author’s friends pressed him to shew himself at court, to enjoy his triumph, and to receive thence those favours which his narrow fortune rendered necessary. Full of those fallacious hopes, he repaired to Versailles, but was totally disregarded. After a considerable stay, he determined to depend upon his own resources, and flattered himself with obtaining fresh laurels, and with giving worthy successors to “Rhadamistus.” But to all writers, and especially to dramatic writers, there is an aera at which their success reaches the highest point which their measure of genius permits them to attain. This happened to Crebillon, who now produced “Xerxes,” and “Semiramis,” both of which had very small success. His “Pyrrhus” met with a better reception, yet its success was temporary, and the work has disappeared from the stage. In the interval between “Xerxes” and “Semiramis,” he commenced a tragedy of “Cromwell,” in which he gave the freest range to the sentiments of liberty, and was prohibited from continuing the piece. But the tragedy of “Pyrrhus” may be considered as almost the limit of his dramatic labours. Alter this, becoming disgusted with the theatre, he went to an unknown retreat, where he adopted a simple, frugal, and almost rigid mode of living, surrounded by about thirty dogs and cats, whose attachment, as he said, consoled him for the injustice of men; and here he used to smoke tobacco to render his room bearable with such company. Crebillon, however, was not unjust to the world; he might have felt the disappointment of his ambition at court, but he imputed his theatrical disgraces to himself alone. Alter the first representation of “Xerxes,” which was not a favourable one, he asked the players for their parts, and having thrown them into the lire in their presence, he said, “I was mistaken, but the public has undeceived me.”

Notwithstanding his repeated successes, he was unable in the most brilliant season of his reputation, to obtain a seat in the French academy, perhaps, for one reason, because he had written a severe satire against them. After, however, he had been long forgotten, he was elected into the academy, Sept. 27, 1731, and obtained favours from the court. He was also urged to finish the tragedy of “Cataline *,” which he had begun thirty years before, and which, from some passages he had read to his friends, was spoken of as a dramatic wonder. This piece had but a transient success, however, and even for this it was indebted to the interest inspired in the public by the advanced a;e of the author, and especially to the numerous and powerful cabal, whose object was to sacrifice his rival Voltaire f, who was now making an eminent figure in the drama. Crebillon himself was so little flattered by the

* The creditors of Crebillon would ceived him uncommonly well, being have stopped the profits of this tragedy; struck with his venerable and interestbut the spirited old bard appealed to ing figure; but she was in bed, and the king in council, and procured an ai the instant the old poet was kissing honourable decree in his favour, netting hc-r hand, the king entered the room, forth, that works of genius should not “Alas! ruadame!” exclaimed Crebi4be deemed effects that weie capable of Ion, “the king has surprised us: 1 am being seized. Warton’s Essay on undone.” This exclamation, fro:n the Pope. inouth of an old man of eighty, dif In order to remove Voltaire from verted Louis XV. exceedingly. The

dour. Hearing that he was poor, this at the press of the Louvre, and, after

The favours of the court, even when Crebillon was loaded with them, only incited him to justify them by new success, and therefore he undertook a tragedy on “The Triumvirate,” in which he thought he might introduce, with some slight alterations, several passages of that tragedy of Cromwell, formerly so dear to lain, and which he hud suppressed against his will. These passages he now, by the advice of his friends, so altered, as not to give offence to government; but the age of the author was too visible in this piece, and though it escaped being hissed, the crowd staid away. After a few representations, the tragedy disappeared, and the author thought only of finishing the remainder of his days in peace.

The memory of Crebillon was astonishing; and it continued so to the end of his life. He never wrote down his pieces till the moment of representation; and when more than seventy, he repeated by heart his tragedy of “Cataline” to the actors. When he recited a scene to his friends, and they made a criticism which appeared to him just, he recomposed the passage, and totally forgot the first manner, remembering only the last. In general, he was much more docile to criticism than many authors, to whom this docility would have been so useful. He once recited to a company of men of letters a tragedy he had just composed, and finding that they did not admire it, “There is no more to be said about it,” he cried, “you, have pronounced its sentence” and thenceforth he entirely forgot it.

About the time when Crebillon first devoted himself to the theatre, he fell in love, and married without the consent of his parents. His father was already greatly irritated against him for having preferred the glory of a celebrated writer to the consequence of a subaltern magiatrate. But he thought his son entirely dishonoured by alliance with a family neither opulent nor noble; and he disinherited him for his ingratitude and rebellion. Some years afterward, however, when the brilliant 'reputation Crebillon began to enjoy, came to the ears of his hitherto inexorable father, the old man’s vanity was flattered, and he began to think that his son had acted his part in life very prudently. In consequence he restored him to his rights. Crebillon, after his father’s death, went to receive the very moderate inheritance he had left him; but the fees of justice devoured a part, and the Mississippi bubble finished the rest. For some time he found a resource in the bounty of some opulent persons; but they were soon wearied with heaping favours upon one who would neither be their humble servant nor their dependent. Crebillon again became free and poor; and though, during the season of his transitory opulence, he had carried the love of expence to a taste for fancies and superfluities, he had no difficulty in accommodating himself to the kind of life his new situation required.

Crebillon died on June 17, 1762, aged eighty-eight, of a disease which the robustness of his constitution long resisted. The players caused a solemn service to be performed for him in the church of St. Jean de Latran, at which they all assisted with the most respectful decorum, and the ceremony was also graced by the presence of the academies, the most distinguished men of letters, and a great number of persons of the highest rank. From La Harpe’s Lectures, who is rather severe on Crebillon, we learn that the “Rhadamistus” and “Atreus” are the only pieces by him which still keep their place on the stage. His works, however, continue to be in demand in France, if we 'may judge from the numerous editions which have very lately issued from the press.

, son of the preceding, was born at Paris February 12, 1707, and died there April 12, 1777, at the age of 70. It is said that his father being one day asked, in a large company, which of his works he thought the best? “I don't know,” answered he, “which is my best production; but this (pointing to his son, who was present) is certainly my worst.” “It is,” replied the son, with vivacity, “because no Carthusian had a hand in it:” alluding to the report, that the best passages in his father’s tragedies had been written by a Carthusian friar, who was his friend. His father had gained his fame as a manly and nervous writer; the son was remarkable for the ease, elegance, and caustic malignity of his conversation and writings, and might be surnamed the Petronius of France, as his father had been characterised by that of the Æschylus. The abbe Boudot, who lived on familiar terms with him, said to him one day in reply to some of his jokes: “Hold thy tongue! Thy father was a great man; but as for thee, thou art only a great boy.” “Crebiilon the father,” says M. d'Alembert, “paints in the blackest colours the crimes and wickedness of man. The son draws, with a delicate and just pencil, the refinements, the shades, and even the graces of our vices; that seducing levity which renders the French what is called amiable, but which does not signify worthy of being beloved; that restless activity, which makes them feel ennui even in the midst of pleasure; that perversity of principles, disguised, and as it were softened, by the mask of received forms; in short, our manners, at once frivolous and corrupt, wherein the excess of depravity combines with the excess of ridiculousness.” This parallel is more just than the opinion of L'Advocat, who says that the romances of Crebiilon are extremely interesting, because all the sentiments are drawn from a sensible heart, but it is plain that this “sensible heart” is full of affectation, and that the author describes more than he feels. However this may be, Crebiilon never had any other post than that of censor-royal. He is said to have lived with his father as with a friend and a brother; and his marriage with an English woman, whom Crebiilon the father did not approve, only produced a transient misunderstanding. The principal works of the son are: 1. Letters from the marchioness to the count of ***, 1732, 2 vols. 12rno. 2. Tanzai and Neadarne“, 1734, 2 vols. 12mo. This romance, abounding in satirical allusions and often unintelligible, and which caused the author to be put into the bastille, was more applauded than it deserved. 3.” Les egarements du coeur & de Tesprit,“1736, three parts, 12mo. 4.” The Sopha,“a moral tale, 1745, 1749, 2 vols. 12mo, grossly immoral, as most of his works are. For this he Was banished from Paris for some time. 5.” Lettres Atheniennes,“177I,4vols. 12mo. 6.” Ah! que?i conte“1764, 8 parts, 12mo. 7.” Les Heureux Orphelins,“1754, 2 vols. 12mo. 8.” La Nuit & le Moment,“1755, 12mo. 9.” Le hasard du coin du feu,“1763, 12mo. 10.” Lettres de la duchesse de ***,' &c. 1768, 2 vols. 12mo. 11. “Lettres de la marquise de Pompadour,” 12mo, an epistolary romance, written in an easy and bold style; but relates few particulars of the lady whose name it bears. The whole of his works have been collected in 7 vols. 12mo, 1779.

, an English poet, chiefly noted for his translatious of ancient authors, was son of Thomas Creech, and born near Sherbourne in Dorsetshire, 1659. He was educated in grammar learning under Mr. Gurganven of Sherbourne, to whom he afterwards dedicated a translation of one of Theocritus’s Idylliums; and entered a commoner of Wadham college in Oxford, 1675. Wood tells us, that his father was a gentleman; but Jacob says, in his “Lives and Characters of English Poets,” that his parents were not in circumstances sufficient to support him through a liberal education, but that his disposition and capacity for learning raised him up a patron in colonel Strangeways, whose generosity supplied that defect. Creech certainly distinguished himself much; and was accounted a good philosopher and poet, and a severe student. June 13, 1683, he took the degree of M. A. and not long after was elected probationer fellow of All-souls college; to which, Jacob observes, the great reputation acquired by his translation of Lucretius recommended him. Wood tells us, that upon this occasion he gave singular proofs of his classical learning and philosophy before his examiners. In 1696 he took his degree of bachelor of divinity, and began to be well known by the works he published; but they were of no great advantage to his fortune, since his circumstances were always indifferent. In 1699, having taken orders, he was presented by his college to the living of Welwyn in Hertfordshire; but while at Oxford, on another occasion, in June 1700, he put an end to his life. The motives of this fatal catastrophe have been variously represented. M. Bernard informs us, in the “ Republic of Letters,” that in 1700, Creech fell in love with a, woman, who treated him contemptuously, though she was complaisant enough to others; that not being able to digest this usage, he was resolved not to survive it; and that he hanged himself in his study, in which situation he was found three days after. Jacob says nothing of the particular manner of his death, but only that he unfortunately made away with himself: which he ascribes to a naturally morose and splenetic temper, too apt to despise the understandings and performances of others. “This,” says Jacob, “made him less esteemed than his great merit deserved; and his resentments on this account frequently engaged him in those heats and disputes which in the end proved fatal to him.” But from an original letter of Arthur Charlett, preserved in the Bodleian library, it has lately been discovered, that this unhappy event was owing to a very different cause. There was a fellow collegian of whom Creech frequently borrowed money; but repeating his applications too often, he met one day with such a cold reception, that he retired in a fit of gloomy disgust, and in three days was found hanging in his room: and Mr. Malone has more recently published a letter from Dr. Tanner, by which it appears that Creech had before exhibited marks of insanity.

The following is a list of his translations; for we do not find him to have been the author of any original works. 1. A translation of “Lucretius,” printed in 8vo, at Oxford, 1682. Dryden, in the preface to the “Miscellany Poems,” which were published by him, speaks of this translation in the highest terms of approbation, calling Creech “the ingenious and learned translator of Lucretius” and every body else entertained the same opinion of it.' In the edition of 1714, in 2 vols. 8vo, all the verses of the text, which Creech had left untranslated, particularly those in the fourth book about the nature of love, are supplied; and many new notes added and intermixed by another hand, by way of forming a complete system of the Epicurean philosophy. Creech had published in 1695 an edition of Lucretius in Latin, with notes, which were afterwards printed at the end of the English translation. Another edition of this, much enlarged, but very incorrect, was published in 1717 in 8vo. The best is that of Glasow, 1759, 12 mo. He will perhaps be far longer rememred as the editor than the translator of Lucretius. 2. In 1684 he published a translation of “Horace” in which, however, he has omitted some few odes. As to the satires, he was advised, as he tells us in the preface, “to turn them to our own time; since Rome was now rivalled in her vices; and parallels for hypocrisy, profaneness, avarice, and the like, were easy to be found.” But those crimes,“he declares,” were out of his acquaintance; and since the character is the same whoever the person is, he was not so fond of being hated, as to make any disobliging application. Such pains,“says he,” would look like an impertinent labour to find a dunghill.“3. The” Idylliums“of Theocritus, with Rapin’s discourse of pastorals, 1684,- 8vo. 4. The second elegy of Ovid’s first book of elegies the sixth, seventh, eighth, and twelfth of the second book; the story of Lucretia, out of the Fasti; and the second and third of Virgil’s eclogues; printed in a collection of miscellany poems, 1684. 5. The thirteenth satire of Juvenal, with notes. Printed in the English translation of the satires, 1693, in folio. 6. A translation into English of the verses prefixed to Quintinie’s Complete Gardener. 7. The Lives of Solon, Pelopidas, and Cleomenes, from Plutarch. 8. The Life of Pelopidas, from Cornelius Nepos. 9. Laconic apophthegms, or remarkable sayings of the Spartans, from Plutarch. 10. A discourse concerning Socrates’s da3mon, and the two first books of the Symposiacs, from Plutarch. These translations from Plutarch were published in the English translations of his” Lives“and” Morals.“11. A translation of Manilius’s Astronomicon, dated from All-Souls, Oct. 10, 1696. On his father’s monument he is called” the learned, much admired, and much envied Mr. Creech.“By whom he could have been envied, we know not, yet there is a ridiculous story that Dryden became so jealous of him, as to incite him to translate Horace that he might lose as much reputation by that poet, as he had gained by Lucretius. His poetry will scarcely at present be deemed an object which calls for much criticism, as he is rather a good scholar than a good poet; and in the instance of Lucretius, a most judicious editor. Dr. Warton, however, who will be allowed Jto be an admirable judge, has spoken of him in terms of applause.” Creech,“says the doctor,” in truth, is a much better translator than he is usually supposed and allowed to be. He is a nervous and vigorous writer: and many parts, not only of his Lucretius, but of his Theocritus and Horace (though now decried) have not been excelled by other translators. One of his pieces may be pronounced excellent; his translation of the thirteenth satire of Juvenal; equal to any that Dryden has given us of that author.“Pope certainly paid him no small compliment by beginning his epistle to Mr. Murray (afterwards lord Mansfield) with two lines from Creech’s Horace. Pope used to say that” he hurt his translation of Lucretius very much by imitating Cowley, and bringing in turns even into some of the most grand parts. He has done more justice to Manilius."

, a very amiable and ingenious lady, nearly related to the poet Dryden, was the only daughter of sir Gilbert Pickering, bart. by Elizabeth, the only daughter of sir Sidney Montagu, knt. and sister of Edward Montagu, first earl of Sandwich. She was born in 1642, and was married to John Creed of Oundle, esq. a wise, learned, and pious man (as his inscription, written by her, intimates), “who served his majesty Charles II. in diverse honourable employments at home and abroad; lived with honour, and died lamented, 1701.” By this gentleman she had a numerous family, one of whom, the brave major Richard Creed, is commemorated by a monument in Westminster-abbey, as well as by one erected by his mother in the church of Tichmarsh. During her widowhood, Mrs. Creed resided many years in a mansionhouse at Barnwell, near Oundle in Northamptonshire, belonging to the Montagu family, where she amused and employed herself in painting, and gratuitously instructed many young women in drawing, fine needle-work, and other elegant arts. Many of the churches in the neighbourhood of Oundle are decorated with altar-pieces, monuments, and ornaments of different kinds, the works of her hand; and her descendants are possessed of many portraits, and some good pictures painted by her. Two days in every week she constantly allotted to the public; on one, she was visited by all the nobility and gentry who resided near her; on the other, she received and relieved all the afflicted and diseased of every rank, giving them food, raiment, or medicine, according to their wants. Her reputation in the administration of medicine was considerable; and as she afforded it gratis, her practice was of course extensive. Her piety was great and unaffected. That it was truly sincere, was evinced by the magnanimity with which she endured many trials more heavily afflictive than what usually fall to the lot even of those whose life is prolonged to so great an extent. In 1722, when in her eightieth year, she erected a monument in the church of Ticbmarsh to the memory of Dryden and his ancestors, with a:; inscription by herself. She died at Ountlle in May 1728, and her remains were removed to Tichmarsh, where she was buried with her ancestors. Her funeral sermon, which Mr. Malone doesnot appear to have seen, was preached hy Henry Lee, D. D. rector of Tichmarsh in May 1728, and therefore probably the date of her death, in Malone’s Life of Dryden, viz. “the beginning of 1724-5,” must be incorrect. This sermon, printed at London the same year, 8vo, is dedicated to Mrs. Stuart, executrix and sole surviving daughter of Mrs. Creed. An extract from it, confirming the excellence of her character, may be seen in a compilation less respected than it deserves, Wilford’s “Memorials.”

, a once celebrated writer of the Sociriian persuasion, was born in Franconia in 1590, and after some early education received from his father, studied at Nuremberg, and other German schools or universities. He was brought up in the Lutheran church, but in the course of his reading, having formed to himself a set of opinions nearly coinciding with those of Socinus, he declined the offers of promotion in the Lutheran church, where he probably would not have been favourably received, and determined to go to Poland, where such opinions as his were no bar to advancement. In 1612 he went to Racow, and besides becoming a preacher, was appointed Greek professor and afterwards rector of the university. His theological works form a considerable part of the works’ of the “Fratres Poloni,” and he engaged in a controversy with Grotius, who had written against Socinus, and a correspondence, of great politeness, took place between them, which made Grotius be suspected of inclining too much to the opinions of his antagonist. He certainly carried his politeness very far, when he told Crellius that “he was, grieved to see so much enmity between those, who call themselves Christians, for such trifling matters,” these matters being no less than the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ. Crellius, we are told, like many of his descendants, would not be called a Socinian, but an Artemonite, after Artemon, who lived in the reign of the emperor Severus, and denied the pre-existence and divinity of Christ. Crellius’ opinions on other subjects will not probably procure him much respect, at least from one sex. In his “Ethics,” he is said to maintain that it is lawful for men upon certain occasions to beat their wives! Crellius died at Racow, of an epidemic fever, 1633. Father Simon’s opinion of him may be quoted as generic. “Crellius is a grammarian, a philosopher, and a divine throughout. He has a wonderful address in adapting St. Paul’s words to his own prejudices. He supports the doctrines of his sect with so much subtlety, that he does not seem to say any thing of himself, but to make the scriptures speak for him, even where they are most against him.”

, professor of philosophy at Fer­*ara and at Padua, who raised himself to such a pitch of fame, that princes and kings were ambitious to procure his portrait, was born at Cento in the Modenese, in 1550; and died at Padua, of the plague, in 1630, at the age of 80. His principal works are; 1. “Aminta e Clori, favola silvestre,” Ferrara, 1591, 4to. 2. '< II nasciinento di Venetia,“Bergamo, 1617, 12mo. 3.” De physico auditu,“1596, folio. 4.” De calido innato,“1626, 4to. 5.” De sensibus & facilitate appetiva," 1644, 4to, and other works which shew that his religious creed was reducible to very few articles. He thought that, according to the principles of Aristotle, the soul is material, capable of corruption, and mortal, as well as the souls of brutes.

, a native of the marche of Brandenburg, where he was born in 1648, was one of the most laborious compilers of his time. He taught philosophy at Giessen, was minister near Zell, schoolmaster in Hungary, corrector of the press at Rotterdam and Leyden, and finally master of a boarding-school, and private tutor in the last mentioned city, where he died March 29, 1728, aged 80. Amidst all his employments he found time to publish a great number of collections: “Fasciculi Dissertatiomun et Dissertationes Philologicae,” 2 vols. 12mo; “Commentationes in varios Autores,” 3 vols. 12mo; “Musseum Philologicum,” 2 vols. 12fno; “Thesaurus Librorum Philologicorum,” 2 vols. 8vo; “De Furibus Librariis,” Leyden, 1705, 12mo. The most valued among his works are 3 vols. in 4to, the first entitled, “Consilia et Methodi Studiorum optime instituendorum,” Rotterdam, 1692; the second, “De Philologia,” &c. Leyden, 1696; and the third, “DeEruditione comparanda,” Leyden, 1696. This collection contains all the best rules for studying the different sciences.

, or, as he called himself, de Crescentiis, was born at Bologna about 1233, and after studying philosophy, medicine, and natural history, engaged in a course of law, but did not take his doctor’s degree; by which means, although he might plead causes, he was not at liberty to give lectures, a privilege which belonged only to doctors. For thirty years he was employed as assessor, or judge to the civil and military governors of various cities in Italy, an office of which he discharged the duties with impartiality, and witb the happiest effect in preserving peace in those places. In the mean time having contracted a taste for agriculture, wherever he removed, he collected such observations as might improve his knowledge of that branch, and on his return to Bologna, which he had left during the political dissentions there, he wrote in 1304 a treatise on agriculture, with the title of “Ruralia Commoda,” dedicated to Charles II. king of Naples. The first edition appeared in 147 1 at Augsburgh, fol. under the title of “Petri de Crescentiis rurahum commodorum, libri duodecim.” It was translated into Italian, Florence, 1478, fol. but the two best editions are that of Cosmo Giunta, ] 605, and that of Naples, 1724, 2,vols. 8vo. It is a book of considerable value, and gives a very correct display of the modes of agriculture in Italy at that time, which are said to approximate nearer to the modern than could have been expected. Crescentius died in 1320, nearly eighty-seven years old.

, an Italian poet, and poetical historian, the son of John Philip Crescimbeni, a lawyer, and Anna Virginia Barbo, was born Oct. 9, 1663, at Macerata in the marche ofAncona. Jerome Casanati, afterwards cardinal, was his godfather, and gave him the names of John-Maria-Ignatius-Xavier-Joseph-Antony, of which he retained only John Maria, and afterwards changed the latter into Mario. After receiving grammatical education at home, his uncle Antony-Francis, an advocate, invited him to Rome in 1674; hut the following year his father and mother recalled him to Macerata, where he engaged in a course of study among the Jesuits. His teacher of rhetoric was Charles d' Aquino, under whom he made great progress in eloquence and poetry. Among his early attempts, he wrote a tragedy in the style of Seneca, “The Defeat of Darius, king of Persia,” and translated the first two hooks of Lucan’s Pharsalia into Italian verse from which performances he derived so much reputation, as to be admitted a member of the academy of the Disposti, in the town of Jesi, although only in his fifteenth year. About that time he continued his classical studies for eight months under Nicolas Antony Raffaelli, and entered upon a course of philosophy. His father now recommending the law as a profession, Crescimbeni took his doctor’s degree Oct. 3, 167 y, and was appointed to lecture on the institutes, which he did for a year. His uncle before mentioned, aoain inviting him to Rome, he divided his time there between law and polite literature, and in 1685, the academy of the Infecondi admitted him a member. Hitherto his studies in Italian poetry had not been conducted so as to inspire him with a very pure taste; but about 1687, he entered on a course of reading of the best Italian poets, which not only enabled him to correct his own taste and style, but gave him hopes that tie might improve those of his countrymen. With this intention he endeavoured to form a new society, or, as they are called in Italy, academy, rindcr the name of Arcadia, the members to be called the shepherds of Arcadia, and each to take the name of a shepherd, and that of some place in ancient Arcadia, and his own name accordingly was Alfesibeo Cario. Such was the origin of this celebrated academy, and surely no origin was ever mure childishly romantic, or unpromising as to any beneficial e licet on solid or elegant literature, to which purposes, however, we are told it has eminently contributed. It was established Oct. 5, 1690. A short account of it, written in 1757, informs us that the first members were those itained persons chiefly who were about queen Christina of Sweden. (See Christina, vol. IX.) It admits all sciences, all arts, all nations, all ranks, and both sexes. The number of its members is not determined; they are said at present to be upwards of two thousand, but we have heard a much larger number assigned, for they sometimes aggregate whole academies. At Home, the academicians assemble in pastoral habits, in a most agreeable garden, called Bosco Parrhasia. The constitution of the society being democratic, they never chusje a prince for their protector. At the end of each olympiad, for that is the method of computing adopted by the Arcadians, they cbuse a custode, who is the speaker, and has the sole right of assembling the society, who are also represented by him alone, when they are not assembled. In order to be admitted a member, it is requisite that the person should be twenty-four years of age complete, of a reputable family, and to have given some specimen of abilities in one or more branches of education. As to the ladies, a poem, or a picture, is a testimony of genius that is held sufficient. The stated assemblies of this academy are fixed to seven different days, between the first of May and the seventh of October. In the first six they read the works of the Roman shepherds, the productions of strangers being reserved for the seventh and last. Each author reads his own compositions, except ladies and cardinals, who are allowed to employ others.

Crescimbeni was the first custode, or president of this academy, and retained that office for thirty-eight years, during which the academy is said to have produced very beneficial effects on public taste, and on the style of Italian poetry. Crescimbeni, however, was so intent on this establishment, as to neglect his profession as a lawyer, and now embraced, as it is termed, the ecclesiastical state. In 1705, pope Clement XI. bestoweu on him a canonry of St. Mary in Cosmedino, and in 1719 appointed him archpriest of the same city, at which time he took the regular orders of the priesthood. In 1728, during a fit of sickness, he took the vows of the Jesuits, but died March 8, of that year. He appears to have enjoyed great literary reputation in his time, and was a member of most of the Italian, academies, and of the Naturae Curiosorutn in Germany.

His works are very numerous, and of various merits: 1. “Canzone per la nascita del seren. real principe de Y^llia, cji Variinaco Cognimembresi,” Rome, 1688, 8vo, 2. “L'Elvio, favola pastorale,” Rome, 1695, 4to. 3. “Rime di Alfesibeo Carlo 7 ' (his Arcadian name), 8vo, ibid. 1695, 1704, and 1723. 4.” L' Istoria della volgar poesia,“ibid. 1698, 4to, enlarged and corrected, 1714. 5.” Commentarii intorno alia sua Istoria della volgar poesia,“ibid. 1702, 1710, 2 vols. 4to, but reprinted and enlarged to 6 vols. 4to, Venice, 1731, with the addition of the preceding history. In 1803, the first Italian scholar in this country, T. J. Matthias, esq. published the commentaries detached from the historical part, in 3 vols. 12mo, a work highly interesting and entertaining to the students of Italian poetry, yet as it finishes, where Crescimbeni did, no notice is taken of the progress made in the eighteenth century. On the merits of the original work critics differ. Baretti, a native of Italy, and no contemptible critic, says that although Crescimbeni” tells many things that deserve the notice of the studious, he lavishes such epithets of praise on a great many ancient and modern bad versemakers, his style has such a laxity, and is so full of verbosity about every trifle, that he could not hold up the book in his hands for ten minutes together.“It is certainly inferior to Tiraboschi’s work, and we know not whether rescimbeni’s Arcadian academy may not have made him partial to frivolities which sober criticism would have discarded. 6.” Corona rinterzata in lode di N. S. pape Clemente XI.“ibid. 1701, 4to. 7.” Noticie istoriche di diversi capitani illustri,“ibid. 1704, 4to. 8.” Racconto di tutta Poperazione per Pelevazione e abbazamento della colonna Antonina,“ibid, 1705, 4to. 9.” I Givochi Olimpici en lode de gli Arcadi defunte,“ibid. 1705, 4to, and continued in subsequent volumes. 10.” Le vite de gli Arcadi illustri," ibid. 7 vols. 4to, 1705, &c. He published also collections of the poems of the Arcadians, and some other original works and translations which are not held in much estimation.

, an African bishop of the seventh century, is chiefly noticed for having made a collection of canons, in two parts, the first entitled “An Abridgement of the Canon Law,” apparently a book of references only; the second contains the canons themselves, at full length, as referred to in the abridgment. The abridgment was published at Paris in 1588, by Pithoeus, from a ms. of the church of Troyes, and since by Altasaranus at Poictou in 1630, and by Chifflet in 1649. But both parts are inserted in Justel and Voellus’s “Bibliotheca Juris Canonici.” Baronius speaks of a ms. of this work in the Vatican, and Moreri adds that there is a Paris edition, of the date 1609.

, an artist, better known by the name of Cerano, where he was born in 1557, descended from a family of painters, studied at Rome and Venice, and with painting united a knowledge of modelling, architecture, and literature. With such talents he occupied the first rank at the court of Milan, in the direction of the academy, and the vast plans of cardinal Federigo: he painted a number of pictures, whose beauties are not seldom balanced by blemishes of equal magnitude, free, spirited, harmonious, but often mannered from affectation of grace or grandeur. The singular talent he possessed of painting birds and quadrupeds in cabinet pictures, is mentioned by Soprani. One of his best pictures is the “Madonna del Rosario,” in the church of St. Lazzaro at Milan. He died in 1633.

, a Milanese, born in 1592, at first was a disciple of Gio. Batista Crespi, though he afterwards studied under Giulio Cesare Procaccini, and soon became superior to the first, and at least equal to the second. With great vigour of conception, and facility of execution, he combines equal suavity and strength of colour in oil and fresco the distribution of his figures leavesk> wish for alteration. He seems familiar with the best principles of the Caracci, without having frequented their school. In the church della Passione at Milan, where he painted the “Taking down from the Cross,” he has left many portraits that may vie with the best of Titian’s. Continued progress from good to better marked the short period of his life. His last and most admired works are the histories from the life of St. Bruno, in the Certosa at Milan. The most celebrated of them is that of the Parisian teacher, who, raising himself from the bier, pronounces his own condemnation; despair and terror are personified in him and the assembly. Nor is that of the duke of Calabria, who in hunting discovers the solitary cell of the hermit, much inferior. On this the painter wrote, “Daniel Crispus Mediolanensis pinxit hoc temphim an. 1629,” one year before his death, for he died of the plague in 1630, extremely lamented, and with him all his family.

, sometimes called La Spagnuolo, from the style in which he affected to dress, was born at Bologna, in 1665, and received his earliest instruction in design from Angelo Toni, a very moderate artist; but in a short time he quitted that school, and successively studied under Domenico Cainuti, Carlo Cignani, and Giovanni Antonio Burrini. From them he applied himself to study the works of Baroccio, and afterwards the principles of colouring at Venice, from the paintings of Titian, Tintoretto, and Paul Veronese. Thus qualified to appear with credit in his profession, his merit was made known to the grand duke Ferdinand, who immediately engaged him in several noble compositions, which he executed with success. In portrait he was particularly excellent; and to those subjects he gave elegant attitudes, with a strong and graceful resemblance.

His imagination was lively, and often whimsical; he was very famous for caricatures, and frequently amused himself with designing comic and burlesque fancies, which he expressed with abundance of humour and drollery. Sometimes he etched those designs with aqua fortis, selecting his subjects from the writings of the facetious and burlesque poets. He was remarkably singular, in accustoming himself to paint in a chamber properly darkened, and so contrived as to admit a ray of the sun, or the light of a flambeau, to enable him to give a greater roundness and relief to his paintings, by a nice observation of the force of natural light and shadow. His works are dispersed into different parts of Europe. In the gallery of Dresden were “The Seven Sacraments,” in seven pieces; “The Virgin, Christ, and St. John,” “An Ecce Homo, attended by two Soldiers.” He died in 1747. His sons, Antonio and Lewis, were some of the best of their father’s scholars, but though their works were much studied, and composed with more sobriety than those of their father, they never attained his eminence in the art. Lewis, indeed, quitted the pencil for the pen, and wrote many considerable works relating to the arts, and amongst others, the Supplement or 3d volume of the “Felsina Pittrice.” He died in 1779, and Antonio survived him only three years.

, a celebrated popish writer, descended from an ancient and honourable family, seated formerly in Nottinghamshire, but before his time it had removed into Yorkshire, in which county he was born, at Wakefield, in 1605. His father was Hugh Cressey, esq. barrister of Lincoln’s-inn; his mother’s name was Margery, the daughter of Dr. Thomas Doylie, an eminent physician in London. He was educated at a grammar-school at Wakefield, and about the age of fourteen, in Lent term 1619, he was removed to Oxford, where he studied with great vigour and diligence, and in the year 1626 was admitted fellow of Merton college, in that university. After taking the degrees of B. A. and M. A. he entered into holy orders, and became chaplain to Thomas lord Wentworth, then lord president of the north, with whom he lived some years. About 1638, he went over to Ireland with Lucius Carey, lord viscount Falkland, to whom he was likewise chaplain; and by him, when he was secretary of state, Cressey was, in 1642, promoted to a canonry in the collegiate church of Windsor, and to the dignity of dean of Laughlin, in the kingdom of Ireland, but through the disturbances of the times, he never attained the possession of either of these preferments. After the unfortunate death of his patron, who was killed in the battle of Newbury, he found himself destitute of subsistence, and therefore readily accepted a proposal that was made him, of travelling with Charles Bertie, esq. afterwards created earl of Falmouth, a great favourite of king Charles II. who was unhappily killed in a battle at sea in the first Dutch war after the restoration. Cressey quitted England in 1644, and making the tour of Italy with his pupil, moved by the declining state of the church of England, he began to listen to the persuasion of the Romish divines, and in 1646 made a public profession at Rome of his being reconciled to that church. He went from thence to Paris, where he thought fit to publish what he was pleased to style the motives of his conversion, which work of his, as might reasonably be expected, was highly applauded by the Romanists, and was long considered by them as a very extraordinary performance. It is entitled, “Exomologesis, or a faithfal narration of the occasions and motives of his conversion to Catholic Unity,” Paris, 1647, and 1653, 8vo. To the last edition is an appendix, “In which are cleared certain misconstructions of his Exomologesis, published by J. P. author of the preface to the lord Falkland’s discourse of Infallibility.” As soon as this was finished, he sent it over to his friend Dr. Henry Hammond, as to one whose sincerity he had experienced, and for whose judgment he had a high esteem. That learned person wrote him a kind letter of thanks for his book, but at the same time told him there was a vein of fallacy ran through the whole contexture of it; adding, “we are friends, and I do not propose to be your antagonist.” At the close of this epistle, he invited him into England, assuring him that he should be provided with a convenient place to dwell in, and a sufficient subsistence to live comfortably, without being molested by any about his religion and conscience. This offer, though our author did not accept, yet he returned, as became him, an answer full of respect and gratitude to the kind friend who had made it.

After this, he was much inclined to become a monk of the Carthusian order, and had thoughts of entering into the monastery of English Carthusians at Newport, in Flanders, but from this he was dissuaded by some of his zealous countrymen, who were desirous that he should continue to employ his pen in defence of their religion, for which the severe discipline of that order would have allowed him but little time; and therefore by their advice he laid aside that design, and being recommended to Henrietta-Maria, queen-dowager of England, he was taken under her protection, and being invited by the Benedictine college of English monks at Douay, in Flanders, he at length resolved to retire thither, and for the expence of his journey received one hundred crowns as a bounty from that princess, who could but ill spare even so small a sura at that time. Some time after his arrival at Douay he entered into the Benedictine order, and upon that occasion changed the name he received at his baptism, of Hugh Paulin, for that of Serenus de Cressey, by which he was afterwards known to the learned world. He remained about seven years or more in that college, and during his residence tnere published a large work, of the mystical kind, entitled “Sancta Sophia, or directions for the prayers of contemplation, &c. extracted out of more than XL treatises, written by the late reverend father Aug. Baker, a monk of the English congregation of the holy order of St. Benedict,” Douay, 1657, 2 vols. 8vo. To which are added, “Certain patterns of devout exercises of immediate acts and affections of the will.” This father Augustine Baker, whose true name was David Baker, who had studied the law in the Middle temple, and who from being little better than an atheist, became a convert to popery, and a very zealous devotionist, had once, it seems, some intention of writing the Ecclesiastical History of England, for which he had made very copious collections, that were of great service to Cressey, when he entered upon the execution of the same project.

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

, a French historian, was born at Pads in 1693. His father was a journeyman printer. He studied under the celebrated Rollin, and became professor of rhetoric in the college de Beauvais. After Rollin’s death, he undertook the continuation of his Roman history, and published various works, in which, as in the education of his pupils, he preserved a sacred regard for the interests of religion, virtue, and literature. He died at Paris, Dec. I, 1765, after publishing, 1. an edition of “Livy,” with notes, 6 vols. 4to, which, says Gibbon, contains a sensible life of the historian, a judicious selection of the best remarks on his work, and displays as much intelligence as taste on the part of the editor. Ernesti is not less in favour of this edition, which has been reprinted in 8vo and 12mo. 2. Continuation of “llollin’s Roman History,” already noticed. 3. “Histoire des Empereurs Remains jusqu' a Constantin,” Paris, 1756, 6 vols. 4to, which was soon after translated into English, and published in 8vo. 4. “Histoire de l'universite” de Paris,“7 vols. 12mo; a very useful work, for which his countrymen think he was better qualified than to write the Roman history. 5.” Observations sur V Esprit des Lois,“12mo, some remarks on Montesquieu’s celebrated work, from which Crevier derived little reputation. 6.” Rhetorique Fransoise," 1765, 2 vols. 12mo, which was well received, and was reprinted at Liege, in 1787. Crevier, like most voluminous writers, is careless in his style, but generally correct and precise in his narrative.

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

, was a Scotch gentleman, who lived in the sixteenth century, and has furnished a sort of biographical romance. His endowments both of body and mind were esteemed so great, that he obtained the appellation of “The admirable Crichton,” and by that title he has continued to be distinguished down to the present day. The accounts given of his abilities and attainments are indeed so wonderful, that they seem scarcely to be credible; and many persons have been disposed to consider them as almost entirely fabulous, though they have been delivered with the. utmost confidence, and without any degree of hesitation, by various writers. The time of Crichton’s birth is said, by the generality of authors, to have been in 1551; but according to lord Buchan, it appears from several circumstances, that he was born in the month of August, 1560. His father was Robert Crichton of Elliock in the county of Perth, and lord advocate of Scotland in queen Mary’s reign, from 1561 to 1573; part of which time he held that office in conjunction with Spens of Condie. The mother of James Crichton was Elizabeth Stuart, the only daughter of sir James Stuart of Beath, who was a descendant of Robert duke of Albany, the third son of king Robert II. by Elizabeth Muir, or More, as she is commonly called. It is hence evident, that when the admirable Crichton boasted, as he did abroad, that he was sprung from Scottish kings, he said nothing but what was agreeable to truth. Nevertheless, Thomas Dempster, who sufficiently amplifies his praises in other respects, passes a severe censure upon him on this account; which is the more remarkable, as Dempster lived so near the time, and was well acquainted with the genealogies of the great families of Scotland. James Crichton is said to have received his grammatical education at Perth, and to have studied philosophy in the university of St. Andrew. His tutor in that university was Mr. John Rutherford, a professor at that time famous for his learning, and who distinguished himself by writing four books on Aristotle’s Logic, and a commentary on his Poetics. But nothing, according to Mackenzie, can give us a higher idea of Rutherford’s worth and merit, than his being master of that wonder and prodigy of his age, the great and admirable Crichton. However, it is not to this professor alone that the honour is ascribed of having formed so extraordinary a character. There are others who may put in their claim to a share in the same glory; for Aldus Manutius, who calls Crichton first cousin to the king, says that he was educated, along with his majesty, under Buchanan, Hepburn, and Robertson, as well as Rutherford. Indeed, whatever might be the natural force of his genius, jnany masters must have been necessary, in order to his acquiring such a variety of attainments as he is represented to have possessed. For it is related, that he had scarcely reached the twentieth year of his age, when he had run through the whole circle of the sciences, and could speak and write to perfection in ten different languages. Nor was this all; for he had likewise improved himself to the highest degree in riding, dancing, and singing, and in playing upon all sorts of instruments. Crichton, being thus accomplished, went abroad upon his travels, and is said to have gone to Paris; of his transactions at which place the following account is given. He caused six placards to be fixed on the gates of the schools, halls, and colleges belonging to the university, and on the pillars and posts before the houses of the most renowned men for literature in the city, inviting all those who were well versed in any art or science to dispute with him in the college of Navarre, that day six weeks, by nine o'clock in the morning, where he would attend them, and be ready to answer to whatever should be proposed to him in any art or science, and in any of these twelve languages, Hebrew, Syrlac, Arabic, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, English, Dutch, Flemish, and Sclavonian; and this either in verse or prose, at the discretion of the disputant. During this whole time, instead of closely applying to his studies, he regarded nothing but hunting, hawking, tilting, vaulting, riding of a well-managed horse, tossing the pike, handling the musquet, and other military feats; or else he employed himself in domestic games, such as balls, concerts of music, vocal and instrumental; cards, dice, tennis, and other diversions of youth. This conduct so provoked the students of the university, that, beneath the placard that was fixed on the Navarre gate, they caused the following words to be written: “If you would meet with this monster of perfection, to search for him either in the tavern or t)ie brothel is the readiest way to find him.” Nevertheless, when the day appointed arrived, Crichton appeared in the college of Navarre, and acquitted himself beyond expression in the disputation, which lasted from nine in the morning till six at night. At length, the president, after extolling him highly for the many rare and excellent endowments which God and nature had bestowed upon him, rose from his chair; and, accompanied by four of the most eminent professors of the university, gave him a diamond ring and a purse full of gold, as a testimony of their approbation and favour. The whole ended with the repeated acclamations and huzzas of the spectators; and henceforward our young disputant was called “The admirable Crichton.” It is added, that he was so little fatigued with the dispute, that he went the very next day to the Louvre, where he had a match'at tilting, an exercise then in great vogue; and, in presence of some princes of the court of France, and a great many ladies, carried away the ring fifteen times successively, and broke as many lances on the Saracen, whatever that might be; probably a sort of mark.

The next account we have of Crichton is, that he went to Rome, where he fixed a placard in all the eminent places of the city, in the following terms: “Nos Jacobus Crichtonus, Scotus, cuicunque rei propositae ex improviso respondebimus.” In a city which abounded in wit, this bold challenge, to answer to any question that could be proposed to him, without his being previously advertised of it, could not escape the ridicule of a pasquinade. It is said, however, that being nowise discouraged, he appeared at the time and place appointed, and that, in presence of the pope, many cardinals, bishops, and doctors of divinity, and professors in all the sciences, he displayed such wonderful proofs of his universal knowledge, that he excited no less surprise than he had done at Paris. Boccalini, who was then at Rome, gives something of a different relation of the matter. According to this author, the pasquinade against Crichton, which was to the following effect, “And he that will see it, let him go to the sign of the Falcon, and it shall be shewn,” made such an impression upon him, that he left a place where he had been so grossly affronted as to be put upon a level with jugglers and mountebanks. From Rome he went to Venice, at his approach to which city he appears to have been in considerable distress, of mind at least, if not with regard to external circumstances. This is evident from the following lines of his poem, “In suum ad urbem Venetam appulsum:”

The chief design of Crichton in this poem was to obtain a favourable reception at Venice, and particularly from Aldus JMamitius, whose praises he celebrates in very high strains. When he presented his verses to Manutins, that critic was struck with a very agreeable surprise; and judged, from the performance, that the author of it must be a person of extraordinary genius. Upon discoursing with the stranger, he was filled with admiration; and, finding him to be skilled in every subject, he introduced him to the acquaintance of the principal men of learning and note in Venice. Here he contracted an intimate friendship not only with Aldus Manutius, but with Laurentius Massa, Spero Speronius, Johannes Donatus, and various other learned persons, to whom he presented several poems in commendation of the city and university. Three of CrichtoH's odes, one addressed to Aldus Manutius, and another to Laurentius Massa, and a third to Johannes Donatus, are still preserved; but are certainly not the productions either of an extraordinary genius, or a correct writer. At length he was introduced to the doge and senate; in whose presence he made a speech, which was accompanied with such beauty of eloquence, and such grace of person and manner, that he received the thanks of that illustrious body; and nothing was talked of through the whole city but this rara in tcrris avis, this prodigy of nature. He held likewise disputations on the subjects of theology, philosophy, and mathematics, before the most eminent professors, and large multitudes of people. His reputation was so great, that the desire of seeing and hearing him brought together a vast concourse of persons from different quarters to Venice. It may be collected from Manutius, that the time in which Crichton exhibited these demonstrations of his abilities, was in the year 1580. During his residence at Venice, he fell into a bad state of health, which continued for the space of four months, and before he was perfectly recovered, he went, by the advice of his friends, to Padua, the university of which city was at that time in great reputation. The day after his arrival, there was a meeting of all the learned men of the place, at the house of Jacobus Aloysius Cornelius; when Crichton opened the assembly with an extemporary poem in praise of the city, the university, and the company who had honoured him with their presence. After this, he disputed for six hours with the most celebrated professors, on various subjects of learning; and he exposed, in particular, the errors of Aristotle, and his commentators, with so much solidity and acuteness, and, at the same time, with so much modesty, that he excited universal admiration. In conclusion, he delivered, extempore, an oration in praise of ignorance, which was conducted with such ingenuity and elegance, that his hearers were astonished. This display of Crichton’s talents was on the 14th of March, 1581. Soon after, he appointed another day for disputation at the palace of the bishop of Padua; not for the purpose of affording higher proofs of his abilities, for that could not possibly be done, but in compliance with the earnest solicitations of some persons, who were not present at the former assemhly. However, several circumstances occurred, which prevented this meeting from taking place. Such is the account of Manutius; but Imperialis relates, that he was informed by his father, who was present upon the occasion, that Crichton was opposed by Archangel us Mercenarius, a famous philosopher, and that he acquitted himself so well as to obtain the approbation of a very honourable company, and even of his antagonist himself. Amidst the discourses which were occasioned by our young Scotchman’s exploits, and the high applauses that were bestowed on his genius and attainments, there were some persons who endeavoured to detract from his merit. For ever, therefore, to confound these invidious impugners of his talents, he caused a paper to be fixed on the gates of St. John and St. Paul’s churches, in which he offered to prove before the university, that the errors of Aristotle, and of all his followers, were almost innumerable; and that the latter had failed, both in explaining their master’s meaning, and in treating on theological subjects. He promised likewise to refute the dreams of certain mathematical professors; to dispute in all the sciences and to answer to whatever should be proposed to him, or objected against him. All this he engaged to do, either in the common logical way, or by numbers and mathematical figures, or in an hundred sorts of verses, at the option of his opponents. According to Manutius, Crichton sustained this contest without fatigue, for three days; during which time he supported his credit, and maintained his propositions, with such spirit and energy, that, from an unusual concourse of people, he obtained acclamations and praises, than which none more magnificent were ever heard by men.

The next account we have of Crichton, and which appears to have been transmitted, through sir Thomas Urquharr, to later biographers, is of an extraordinary instance of bodily courage and skill. It is said, that at Mantua there was at this time a gladiator, who had foiled, in his travels, the most famous fencers in Europe, and had lately killed three persons who had entered the lists with him. The duke of Mantua was much grieved at having granted this man his protection, as he found it to be attended with such fatal consequences. Crichton, being informed of his highness’s concern, offered his service, not only to drive the murderer from Mantua, but from Italy, and to fight him for fifteen hundred pistoles. Though the duke was unwilling to expose such an accomplished gentleman to so great a hazard, yet, relying upon the report he had heard of his warlike achievements, he agreed to the proposal; and, the time and place being appointed, the whole court attended to behold the performance. At the beginning of the combat, Crichton stood only on his defence; while the Italian made his attack with such eagerness and fury, that, having over-acted himself, he began to grow weary. Our young Scotchman now seized the opportunity of attacking his antagonist in return; which he did with so much dexterity and vigour, that he ran him through the body in three different places, of which wounds he immediately died. The acclamations of the spectators were loud and extraordinary upon this occasion; and it was acknowledged by all of them, that they had never seen art grace nature, or nature second the precepts of art, in so lively a manner as they had beheld these two things accomplished on that day. To crown the glory of the action, Crichton bestowed the prize of his victory upon the widows of the three persons who had lost their lives in fighting with the gladiator. It is asserted, that, in consequence of this, and his other wonderful performances, the duke of Mantua made choice of him for preceptor to his son Vincentio di Gonzaga, who is represented as being of a riotous temper and a dissolute life. The appointment was highly pleasing to the court. Crichton, to testify his gratitude to his friends and benefactors, and to contribute to their diversion, framed, we are told, a comedy, wherein he exposed and ridiculed all the weaknesses and failures of the several employments in which men are engaged. This composition was regarded as one of the most ingenious satires that was ever made upon mankind. But the most astonishing part of the story is, that Crichton sustained fifteen characters in the representation of his own play. Among the rest, he acted the divine, the philosopher, the lawyer, the mathematician, the physician, and the soldier, with such inimitable grace, that every time he appeared upon the stage he seemed to be a different person. From being the principal actor in a comedy, Crichton soon became the subject of a dreadful tragedy. One night, during the time of carnival, as he was walking along the streets of Mantua, and playing upon his guitar, he was attacked by half a dozen people in masks. The assailants found that they had no ordinary person to deal with; for they were not able to maintain their ground against him. In the issue, the leader of the company, being disarmed, pulled off his mask, and begged his life, telling him that he was the prince his pupil. Crichton immediately fell on his knees, and expressed his concern for his mistake; alleging, that what he had done was only in his own defence, and that if Gonzaga had any design upon his life he might always be master of it. Then, taking his own sword by the point, he presented it to the prince, who immediately received it, and was so irritated by the affront which he thought he had sustained in being foiled with all "his attendants, that he instantly ran Crichton through the heart. Various have been the conjectures concerning the motives which could induce Vincentio di Gonzaga to be guilty of so ungenerous and brutal an action. Some have ascribed it to jealousy, asserting that he suspected Crichton to be more in favour than himself with a lady whom he passionately loved; and sir Thomas Urqnhart has told a story upon this head which is extravagant and ridiculous in the highest degree. Others, with greater probability, represent the whole transaction as the result of a drunken frolic; and it is uncertain, according to Imperiaiis, whether the meeting of the prince and Crichton was by accident or design. However, it is agreed on all hands, that Crichton lost his life in this rencontre. The time of his decease is said, by the generality of his biographers, to have been in the beginning-of July 1583; but lord Buchan, most likely in consequence of a more accurate immiry, fixes it to the same month in the preceding year. There is a difference likewise with regard to the period of life at which Crichton died. The common accounts declare that he was killed in the thirty-second year of his age; but Imperialis asserts that he was only in his twenty-second when that calamitous event took place; and this fact is confirmed by lord Buchan. Criehton’s tragical end excited a very great and general lamentation. If the foolish ravings of sir Thomas Urquhart are to be credited, the whole court of Mantua went three quarters of a year into mourning for him; the epitaphs and elegies that were composed upon his death, and stuck upon his hearse, would exceed, if collected, the bulk of Homer’s works; and, for a long time afterwards, his picture was to be seen in most of the bed-chambers and galleries of the Italian nobility, representing him on horseback, with a lance in one hand and a book in the other. From all this wonderful account we can only infer, with any degree of confidence, that Crichton was a youth of such lively parts as excited great present admiration, and high expectations with regard to his future attainments. He appears to have had a fine person, to have been adroit in his bodily exercises, to have possessed a peculiar facility in learning languages, to have enjoyed a remarkably quick and retentive memory, and to have excelled in a power of declamation, a fluency of speech, and a readiness of reply. His knowledge likewise was probably very uncommon for his years; and this, in conjunction with his other qualities, enabled him to shine in public disputation. But whether his knowledge were accurate or profound, may justly be questioned; and it may equally be doubted whether he would have arisen to any extraordinary degree of eminence in the literary world, which, however, his early and untimely death prevented from being brought to the test of experiment.

, bishop of Bath and Wells, was born of an ancient family at Dunkeld, in Scotland, in 1593, and was educated at Westminster school, whence in 1613 he was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees in arts, and was chosen Greek professor, and university orator. In 1632 he was made treasurer of the cathedral of Wells, and was also canon residentiary, prebendary of Taunton, and had a living in Somersetshire. In 1637 he was admitted to the degree of D. D. and, as reported, was made dean of St. Burian, in Cornwall, but this seems doubtful. In the beginning of the rebellion, Dr. Crighton’s loyalty endangered his person and property, and to save the former he joined the king’s troops at Oxford. But from this place he was obliged afterwards to escape into Cornwall, in the dress of a day-labourer, and contrived to go to Charles II. abroad, who employed him as his chaplain, and bestowed on him the deanery of Wells, of which he took possession at the restoration. In 1670 he was promoted to the bishopric of Bath and Wells, which he held until his death Nov. 21, 1672. He was accounted a man of much learning, and in the discharge of his duty as a preacher, reproved the vices of the court with great boldness and plainness. His only publication was a translation from Greek into Latin, of Sylvester Syguropolus’s history of the council of Florence, Hague, 1660, fol. which was animadverted upon by Leo Allatius, to whom the bishop wrote an answer. Wood says he has some sermons in print. His son, who was chanter of Wells, published a volume of Sermons in 1720.

, of an illustrious family of Italy, established in the comtat Venaissin, knight of Malta, and one of the greatest generals of his age, was born in 1541, and entered into the service in 1557. At the age of fifteen he was at the siege of Calais, and contributed greatly to the taking of that place, by a brilliant action that brought him to the notice of Henry II. He afterwards signalized himself against the Huguenots, or protestants, at the battles of Dreux, of Jarnac, and of Moncontour, in 1562, 1568, and 1569. The youthful hero so greatly distinguished himself in his caravans, especially at the battle of Lepanto in 1571, that he was made choice of, though wounded, to carry the news of the victory to the pope and to the king of France. We find him two years afterwards, in 1573, at the siege of la Rochelle, and in almost all the other considerable rencontres of that period. He every where shewed himself worthy of the name usually given him hy Henry IV. of the Brave Crillon. Henrv Hi. who was well acquainted with his valour, made him knight of his orders in 1585. The specious pretences of the league, the mask of religion which it put on, could never shake the fidelity of the brave Crillon, however great his antipathy to the Huguenots. He rendered important services to his prince in the affair of the Barricades, at Tours, and elsewhere. Henry III. ventured to propose to Crillon to assassinate the duke de Guise, a rebellious subject whom he was afraid to put to death by the sword of the law. Crillon offered to fiorht him; but disdained to hear of assassination. When Henry IV. had made the conquest of his kingdom, Crillon was as faithful to him as he had been to his predecessor. He repulsed the leaguers before Boulogne. The army of Villars having invested Villebceuf in 1592, he vigorously defended that place, replying to the besiegers, on their summoning the besieged to surrender, “Crillon is within, and the enemy without.” Henry, however, did but little for him; “because,” said he, “I was sure of the brave Crillon and I had to gain over my persecutors.” The peace of Vervins having put an end to the wars that had troubled Europe, Crillon retired to Avignon, and there died, in the exercises of piety and penance, the 2d of December 1615, at the age of seventy-four. Francis Bening, a Jesuit, pronounced the discourse at his funeral: a piece of burlesque eloquence, printed in 1616, under the title of “Boucher d'Honnenr,” the “Buckler of Honour,” and reprinted not many years since, as a specimen of ridiculous jargon. Mademoiselle de Lusson published in 2 vols. 12mo, 1757, the life of this hero, called by his contemporaries I'homme sans peur (the man without fear), le brave des braves (the bravest of the brave). This was translated into English by Miss Lomax, of Hertfordshire, and after being revised by Richardson, the author of Clarissa, was published at London, 1760, 2 vols. 12mo. Crillon appears to have been a second chevalier Bayard, not on account of his fantastic and sullen humour, but from the excellence of his heart and his attachment to religion. It is well known that being present one day at a sermon on the sufferings of Christ, when the preacher was come to the description of the flagellation, Crillon, seized with a sudden fit of enthusiasm, put his band to his sword, crying out, “Where wert thou, Crillon?” These sallies of courage, the effect of an exuberant vivacity of temper, engaged him too frequently in duels, in which he always came off with honour. Two instances are recorded of an intrepidity highly characteristic of Crillon. At the battle of Moncontour in 1569, a Huguenot soldier thought to serve his party by dispatching the bravest and most formidable of the catholic generals. In this view he repaired to a place where Crillon, in his return from pursuing the fugitives, must necessarily pass. The soldier no sooner perceived him than he drew the trigger of his piece. Crillon, though severely wounded in the arm, ran up to the assassin, laid hold on him, and was instantly going to thrust him through with his sword, when the soldier threw himself at his feet and begged his life. “I grant it thee,” said Crillou; “and if any faith could be put in a man that is at once a rebel to his king, and an apostate to his religion, I would put thee on thy parole never to bear arms but in the service of thy sovereign.” The soldier, confounded at this act of magnanimity, swore that he would for ever shake off all correspondence with the rebels, and return to the catholic religion. — The young duke of Guise, to whom Henry IV. had sent him at Marseilles, was desirous of trying how far the fortitude of Crillon would go. In this design he caused the alarm to be sounded before the quarters of his brave commander, and two horses to be led to his door. Then, running up to his apartments, pretended that the enemy was master of the port and town, and proposed to him to make his escape, that he might not swell the triumph of the conquerors. Though Crillon was hardly well awake when he heard these tidings, he snatched up his arms without the least trepidation, maintaining that it was better to die sword in hand, than survive the loss of the place. Guise, finding it impossible, by all the arguments he could use, to alter his resolution, accompanied him out of the chamber; but, when they were about the middle of the stairs, he burst out into a violent laughter, which plainly discovered the trick to Crillon. He then put on a graver countenance than when he thought he was going to fight; and griping the duke of Guise by the hand, he said, with an oath, according to his custom, “Young man, never again amuse thyself with putting to the test the heart of an honest man. Par la mort! if thou hadst found me weak, I would have poignarded thee!” After these words he retired without saying any thing more. We will conclude with the laconic billet written to him from the field of battle by Henry IV. after the victory of Arques, where Crillon was unable to be present: “Hang thyself, Crillon! We have been fighting at Arques, and thou wert not there. Adieu, brave Crillon! I love thee whether right or wrong.”

, a learned Bohemian, was born at Schlackowald, in 1584, and after receiving the first rudiments of education at home, was sent in 1603, first to Jena, and afterwards to Wittemberg, where he studied divinity, philosophy, and the learned languages, in which last, particularly the oriental languages, he became critically skilled. He also taught the oriental languages at Wittemberg, published several critical works, which were highly esteemed, and had for his pupils many young men who were afterwards authors of great name. His reputation extending to Austria, he was invited in 1614 to become pastor at Geschwend, where he remained five years, until he was induced to accept the pastoral office at Muhlgrub, the residence of a nobleman named Fenzelius, who offered him the situation, with a liberal income; and here, probably, he would have spent his days, had not Ferdinand II, banished all Lutheran preachers and teachers, which obliged him to go to Ratisbon, and afterwards to Nuremberg. He was then made professor of divinity at Altdorff, which he enjoyed only four years, dying there, of what his biographers call the falling sickness, (comitialis morbus), Aug. 28, 1629. His principal works are, 1. “A Dissertation on the Confusion of Tongues.” 2. “Exercitationes Hebraicse.” 3. “Gymnasium & Lexicon Syriacum,” 2 vols. 4to. 4. “Lingua Samaritica,” 4to. 5. “Grammatica Chaldaica,” 4to. 6. “De auctoritate verbi divini in Hebraico codice,” Amsterdam, 1664, in 4to, &c.

, or more properly Peter Ricci, an Italian scholar, whose memory Mr. Roscoe has rescued from the misrepresentations of his biographers, was descended from the noble family of the Ricci, of Florence, and, when young, was instructed by, and obtained the friendship of Politian. He afterwards became an associate in the literary and convivial meetings at the palace of the Medici at Florence, and after the death of Lorenzo still continued to enjoy the society of Picus and Politian till the death of these distinguished scholars, in 1494. After this it is probable that he quitted his native place, and took an active part in the political commotions which soon occurred, as he frequently refers in his writings to the labours and misfortunes which he sustained, and avows his determination to return to his literary studies. Some part of his time he appears to have passed at Naples, and at Ferrara. He died, according to Negri, about the close of the fifteenth century, at the age of thirty-nine years; but his writings refer to many events beyond that period; and his dedication of his treatise “De Poetis Latinis” to Cosmo de Pazzi, is dated in 1505, which period, it is probable, he did not long survive. His death was the issue of a long sickness, on which he wrote a beautiful and pathetic Latin ode, from which we learn that he resigned himself to his untimely fate, at the same time asserting his claim to the esteem of posterity from the integrity of his life and conduct. The principal work of Crinitus, “De Honesta Disciplina,” as well as his treatise on the Latin poets, before mentioned, Paris, 1520, fol. demonstrates the extent of his learning, and the accuracy of his critical taste. His poetry, all of which is in the Latin language, is also entitled to commendation, and is frequently introduced by Mr. Roscoe, as illustrating the public transactions of the times in which he lived.

, an eminent and loyal citizen in the reigns of king Charles the First, and king Charles the Second, the son of a very eminent merchant of London, was born in 1598, and bred, according to the custom of those times, in a thorough knowledge of business, though heir to a great estate. He made a considerable addition to this by marriage; and being a man of an enterprizing genius, ever active and solicitous about new inventions and discoveries, was soon taken notice of at court, was knighted, and became one of the farmers of the king’s customs. When the trade to Guinea was under great difficulties and discouragements, he framed a project for retrieving it, which required a large capital, but his reputation was so great, that many rich merchants willingly engaged with him in the prosecution of the design; and to give a good example, as well as to shew that he meant to adhere to the work that he had once taken in hand, he caused the castle of Cormantyn upon the Gold Coast, to be erected at his own expence. By this judicious precaution, and by his wise and wary management afterwards, himself and his associates carried their trade so successfully, as to divide amongst them fifty thousand pounds a year. When the rebellion began, and the king was in want of money, sir Nicholas Crispe, and his partners in the farming of the customs, upon very short warning, and when their refusing it would have been esteemed a merit with the parliament, raised him one hundred thousand pounds at once. After the war broke out, and in the midst of all the distractions with which it was attended, he continued to carry on a trade to Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Norwaj', Moscovy, and Turkey, which produced to the king nearly one hundred thousand pounds a year, besides keeping most of the ports open and ships in them constantly ready for his service. All the correspondence and supplies of arms which were procured by the queen in Holland, and by the king’s agents in Denmark, were consigned to his care, and by his prudence and vigilance safely landed in the north, and put into the hands of those for whom they were intended. In the management of so many nice and difficult affairs, he was obliged to keep up a very extensive correspondence, for which he hardly ever made use of cypher, but penned his letters in such a peculiar style, as removed entirely his intentions from the apprehension of his enemies, and yet left them very intelligible unto those with whom he transacted. He had also great address in bringing any thing to bear that he had once contrived, to which it contributed not a little, that in matters of secrecy and danger he seldom trusted to any hands but his own, and made use of all kinds of disguises. Sometimes, when he was believed to be in one place, he was actually at another; letters of consequence he carried in the disguise of a porter; when he wanted intelligence he would be at the water side, with a basket of flounders upon his head, and often passed between London and Oxford in the dress of a butter-woman on horseback, between a pair of panniers. He was the principal author of a well-laid design for publishing the king’s commission of array at London, in which there was nothing dishonourable, so far as sir Nicholas Crispe was concerned, which, however, Clarendon inadvertently confounds with another design, superinduced by Mr. Waller, of surprizing the parliament, in bringing which to bear he proceeded very vigorously at first, till, finding that he had engaged in a matter too big for his management, he suddenly lost his spirits, and some of the chief men in the house of commons gaining intelligence that something was in agitation to their prejudice, May 31st, 1643, they presently seized Mr. Waller, and drew from him a complete discovery, which, from the account they published, plainly distinguished these two projects. By the discovery of this business, sir Nicholas Crispe found himself obliged to declare openly the course he meant to take; and having at his own expence raised a regiment of horse for the king’s service, he distinguished himself at the head of it as remarkably in his military, as he had ever done in his civil capacity. When the siege of Gloucester was resolved on, sir Nicholas Crispe was charged with his regiment of horse to escort the king’s train of artillery from Oxford, which important service he very gallantly performed; but in the month of September following, a very unlucky accident occurred, and though the circumstances attending it clearly justified his conduct to the world, yet the concern it gave him was such as he could not shake off so long as he lived. He happened to be quartered at Rouslidge, in Gloucestershire, where one sir James Ennyon, bart. of Northamptonshire, and some friends of his took up a great part of the house, though none of them had any commands in the army, which, however, sir Nicholas bore with the utmost patience, notwithstanding he was much incommoded by it. Some time after, certain horses belonging to those gentlemen were missing, and sir James Ennyon, though he had lost none himself, insinuating that some of sir Nicholas’s troopers must have taken them, insisted that he should immediately draw out his regiment, that search might be made for them. Sir Nicholas answered him with mildness, and offered him as full satisfaction as it was in his power to give, but excused himself from drawing out his regiment, as a thing improper and inconvenient at that juncture, for reasons which he assigned. Not content, however, sir James left him abruptly, and presently after sent him a challenge, accompanied with a message to this effect, that if he did not comply with it, he would pistol him against the wall. Upon this, sir Nicholas Crispe taking a friend of his with him, went to the place appointed, and finding sir James Ennyon and the person who brought him the challenge, sir Nicholas used his utmost endeavours to pacify him; but he being determined to receive no satisfaction, unless by the sword, they engaged, and sir James received a wound in the rim of the belly, of which he died in two days. Before this, however, he sent for sir Nicholas Crispe, and was sincerely reconciled to him. Upon the 2d of October following, sir Nicholas was brought to a court-martial for this unfortunate affair, and upon a full examination of every thing relating to it, was most honourably acquitted. He continued to serve with the same zeal and fidelity during 1644, and in the spring following; but when the treaty of Uxbridge commenced, the parliament thought fit to mark him, as they afterwards did in the Isle of Wight treaty, by insisting that he should be removed from his majesty’s presence; and a few months after, on April 16th, 1645, they ordered his large house in Breadstreet to be sold, which for many years belonged to his family. Neither was this stroke of their vengeance judged a sufficient punishment for his offences, since having resolved to grant the elector palatine a pension of eight thousand pounds a year, they directed that two thousand should be applied out of the king’s revenue, and the remainder made up out of the estates of lord Culpeper and sir Nicholas Crispe, Sir Nicholas finding himself no lon^ev in a capacity to render his majesty any service, thought it expedient to preserve himself; and in April 1646 embarked with lord Culpeper and colonel Monk for France, but as he had many rich relations who had interest with those in power, they interposed in his favour; and as sir Nicholas perceived that he could be of no service to the royal cause abroad, h did not look upon it as any deviation from his duty, to return and live quietly at home. Accordingly, having submitted to a composition, he came back to London, to retrieve his shattered fortunes, and very soon engaged again in business, with the same spirit and success as before. In this season of prosperity he was not unmindful of the wants of Charles II. but contributed cheerfully to his relief, when his affairs seemed to be in the most desperate condition. After the death of Oliver Cromwell, he was instrumental in reconciling many to their duty, and so well were his principles known, and so much his influence apprehended, that when it was proposed that the royalists in and about London should sign an instrument signifying their inclination to preserve the public tranquillity, he was called upon, and very readily subscribed it. He was also principally concerned in bringing the city of London, in her corporate capacity, to give the encouragement that was requisite to leave general Monk without any difficulties or suspicion as to the sincerity and unanimity of their inclinations. It was therefore very natural, after reading the king’s letter and declaration in common-council, May 3d, 1660, to think of sending some members of their own body to preSent their duty to his majesty; and having appointed nine aldermen and their recorder, they added sir Nicholas Crispe, with several other worthy persons, to the committee, that the king might receive the more satisfaction from their sentiments being delivered by several of those who had suffered deeply in his own and in his father’s cause. His majesty accordingly received these gentlemen very graciously, as a committee, and afterwards testified to them separately the sense he had of their past services, and upon his return, sir Nicholas Crispe and sir John Wolstenholme, were re-instated as farmers of the customs. Sir Nicholas was now in years, and somewhat infirm, spent a great part of his time at his noble country seat near Hammersmith, where he was in some measure the founder of the chapel, and having an opportunity of returning the tbligation he had received from some of his relations, he procured for them that indemnity from the king, gratis, for which he had so dearly paid during the rebellion. The last testimony he received of his royal master’s favour, was his being created a baronet, April 16th, 1665, which he did not long survive, dying February 26th, the next year, in the sixty-seventh year of his age, leaving a very large estate to his grandson, sir Nicholas Crispe. His corpse was interred with his ancestors, in the parish church of St. Mildred, in Bread-street, and his funeral sermon was preached by his reverend and learned kinsman Mr. Crispe, of Christ-church, Oxford. But his heart was sent to the chapel at Hammersmith, where there is a short and plain inscription upon a cenotaph erected to his memory; or rather upon that monument which himself erected in grateful commemoration of king Charles I. as the inscription placed there in sir Nicholas’s life-time tells us, under which, after his decease, was placed a small white marble urn, upon a black pedestal, containing his heart.

, a puritan writer of considerable eminence, the third son of Ellis Crisp, esq. an alderman, and probably related to the family of the subject of the preceding article, was born in Bread-street, London, in 1600, and educated at Eton-school. He afterwards went to Cambridge, where he studied until he took his degree of B. A, and was, on his removal to Oxford, “for the accomplishment,” says Wood, “. of certain parts of learning,” incorporated in the same degree as a member of Baliol-college, in the end of Feb. 1626, and the degree was completed by him in the act following, July 1627. In this year he was presented to the rectory of Newington Butts, near Southwark, but enjoyed the living only a few months, being removed on account of a simoniacal contract. In the same year, however, he became rector of Brinkwortb, in Wiltshire, and a few years after proceeded D. D. At Brinkworth he was much followed for his edifying manner of preaching, and for his great hospitality. But on the breaking out of the rebellion, being noted among those who were inclined to favour the republicans, he met witk. such harsh treatment from the king’s soldiers, as obliged him to repair to London, where his preaching, although at first acceptable, was soon accused of leaning to Antinomianism, and involved him with many of his brethren in a controversy. He was baited, says Wood, by fifty-two opponents, in a grand dispute concerning the freeness of the grace of God in Jesus Christ; and by this encounter, which was eagerly managed on his part, he contracted a disease that brought him to his grave. This disease, communicated by infection, and probably nowise connected with the eagerness of his dispute, was the small-pox, of which he died Feb. 27, 1642, and was buried in the family vault in St. Mildred’s, Bread-street. In his last sickness, he avowed his firm adherence in the doctrines he had preached. The dispute mentioned by Wood, was probably carried on in person, or in the pulpit, for we do not find that he published any thing in his life-time; but, after his death, three 4to volumes of his sermons were printed by his son, under the title of “Christ alone exalted,” containing in all forty-two sermons. When they appeared, we are told, that the Westminster assembly proposed to have them burnt; and although we do not find that this was done, Flavel, and other non-conformists, endeavoured to expose the danger of some of his sentiments. Here, probably, the controversy might have rested, had not his works been again published about the revolution, by one of his sons, with additions. This excited a new controversy, confined almost entirely to the dissenters, but in which some of the most eminent of that body took a part, and carried it on with an asperity which produced considerable disunion. In particular it disturbed the harmony of the weekly lecture established at Pinners’ -hall, and the congregation mostly inclining to Dr. Crisp’s sentiments, the minority seceded, and began a weekly lecture at Salters’-hall. The principal writers in this controversy were Williams, Edwards, Lorimer, &c. against Crisp; and Chauncey, Mather, Lobb, &c. for him; and after a contest of seven-years, they rather agreed to a suspension of hostilities than came to a decision. The truth appears to have been, that Crisp was extremely unguarded in many of his expressions, but was as far as the fiercest of his antagonists from intending to support any doctrine that tended to licentiousness. A very full account of the whole controversy may be seen in the last of our authorities.

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

, an ingenious printer in the sixteenth century, and a native of Arras, was originally clerk to Charles du Moulin, and admitted advocate to the parliament of Paris; but afterwards, forming a friendship with Beza, he embraced the reformed religion, and retired to Geneva, where he gained great reputation by his printing, and died of the plague, 1572. Crispin was author of a Greek Lexicon, Geneva, 1562, 4to, and reprinted in folio. He also published a martyrology under the title of “Histoire des vrais temoings de la verité, &c. depuis Jean Hus, jusqu'au tems present,” ibid. 1570, fol. and reprinted in 1582, 1597, and 1609. Moreri and Foppen, while they allow Crispin’s merit as a man of learning and an useful and accurate printer, cannot forgive him for this last publication.

, a divine and physician, was born June 11, 1600, at Trapani, a town in Sicily, and received the early part of his medical education under his father, whom he succeeded in his practice, and became one of the most popular physicians of his time. Some years before his death, which happened in 1683, he united the office of priest to that of physician, and retired altogether from business. Among his publications are: “In lethargum febri supervenientem acutæ, Commentarii duo,” Panorini, 1668, 4to, and “De sputo sanguinis a partibus corporis infirmis, supervenientis cum Tussi, &c.” 1682, 4to, the practice recommended in which has been very little altered since his time. He wrote also a treatise on the cure of infectious fever by venisection and cathartics, the mode now recommended in the yellow fever, and another on the most celebrated mineral waters of the island, with an examination of their constituent parts.

, an Italian divine and poet, of the sixteenth century, was born at Gallipoli, in the kingdom of Naples. Having entered into the church, his merit procured him the friendship of many of the most learned men of his time, and particularly of the cardinal Jerome Seripando, to whom he was for some time secretary; and he was also in great request as a teacher of jurisprudence, philosophy, and theology. He died about 1595, at the time when pope Clement VIII. intended to have promoted him to a bishopric. His principal work is a piece of criticism, much admired in his time, “De ethnicis philosophis caute legendis,” Rome, 1594, folio. Crispus’s other works are two orations concerning the war against the Turks, printed at Rome in 1594, 4to. “De JMedici Laudibus, Oratio ad cives suos Gallipolitanos,” Home, 1591, 4to. The “Life of Sannazarius,” Rome, 1583, reprinted at Naples in 1633, 8vo. A draught or map of the city of Gallipoli, dedicated to Flaminio Caraccioli January the 1st, 1591. Some of his Italian poems are in a collection published by Scipio de Monti, under the title “Le Rime,” &c. 1585, 4to.

, a protestant divine, and author of a “History of the Quakers,” was born at Amsterdam April 27, 1642. He was partly educated there, but principally at Leyden, where he studied polite literature under Gronovius and Hornius, and divinity under Cocceius and Hoornbek. He then accompanied the son of admiral de Ruyter to Smyrna, and on his return came to England, and had some intention of residing at Norwich, but preferring his own country, he was appointed chaplain to the garrison of Ypres, and pastor of the church of Alblas near Dort, where he died May 10, 1710. His principal work was his “History of the Quakers,” entitled “Historia Quakeriana,” Amst. 1695, 8vo, and translated into English 1696. It does not appear that this history gave much satisfaction to the sect, and it is certainly very inferior to that of Sewell, who furnished him with some materials, of which, according to Sewell, he did not make a judicious use. It was also answered by a quaker at Amsterdam, in a work entitled “DiluciJationes quasdam valde neces$ariae in Gerardi Croesii Hist.” 1696, 8vo. Croese’s other publication, a singular mixture of misapplied learning and fanciful criticism, is entitled “Homerus Hebraeus, sive Historia Hebraeorum ab Homero, Hebraicis hominibus ac sententiis conscripta, in Odyssea et Iliade, exposita et illustrata,” Dort, 1704. Perizonius, and after him Saxms, conceives that nothing can be imagined more foolish than this book, in which probably our readers will agree, when they are told that his object is to prove that the Odyssey contains the history of the Jews in the patriarchal ages, and the Iliad is an account of the siege and capture of Jericho. Croese left also some dissertations.

, the son of Edward Croft, esq. of a very ancient family at Croft-castle in Herefordshire, was educated at Christ-church, Oxford, and became a member of parliament in the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. On the accession of James I. he waited on him at Theobalds, and his majesty being informed of his family and personal merits, he was honoured with knighthood. After he had lived fifty-two years as a protestant, he became a member of the Roman catholic church, and going over to Doway, had an apartment in the monastery of the English Benedictines, and, as some say, became a lay brother of the order. After residing here about five years he died April 10, 1622, a rare example, says his popish biographer, of piety and resolution. He left four sons: William, also knighted and a colonel in the civil wars, who was killed in battle in 1645; James and Robert, both colonels; and Herbert, the subject of the following article. He wrote, 1. “Letters persuasive to his wife and children, to take upon them the Catholic religion,” Doway, 1619, 12mo, 2. “Arguments to show that the church in communion with the see of Rome, is the true church; against Dr. Field’s four books of the church,” 1619. 3. “Reply to the answer of his daughter (Mary) which she made to a paper of his, sent to her concerning the Roman church,” 1619, 12mo, 255 pages. This must be a very rare book if, according to Wood, eight copies only were printed.

, an eminent prelate, and third son of the preceding, was born Oct. 18, 1603, at Great Milton near Thame, in Oxfordshire, in the house of sir William Green, his mother being then on a journey to London. In his thirteenth year he was sent to Oxford; but upon his father’s embracing the popish religion, and removing to Doway, he -was taken there, and after some time sent to the English college of Jesuits at St. Omer’s; where he was not only reconciled to the church of Rome, but persuaded also to enter into the order. Some time before his father’s death in 1622, he was sent back into England, to transact some family affairs; and becoming acquainted with Morton, bishop of Durham, he was by him brought back to the church of England. At the desire of Dr. Laud, he went a second time to Oxford, and was admitted a student of Christ-church; and the university generously allowing the time he had spent abroad to be included in his residence, he soon after took the degree of 13. D. entered into orders, and became minister of a church in Gloucestershire, and rector of Harding in Oxfordshire. August 1639 he was collated to a prebend in the church of Salisbury; and the year after took the degree of D. D. being then chaplain in ordinary to the king. The same year he was made a prebendary of Worcester, and the year after a canon of Windsor. In 1644 he was nominated dean of Hereford, where he married Mrs. Anne Brown, the daughter of his predecessor, though in constant peril of his then small fortune, and sometimes of his life. He suffered extremely for his loyalty to Charles I; but at length, in 1659, by the successive deaths of his two elder brothers, became possessed of the family-estate. At the restoration he was reinstated in his preferments; and Dec. 2, 1661, promoted to the see of Hereford, which he never would quit, though he was offered a better see more than once. He became afterward^, about 1667, dean of the royal chapel, which he held to 1669, and then resigned it; being weary of a court life, and finding but small effects from his pious endeavours. He then retired to his diocese, where he lived an example of that discipline he was strict in recommending to others; and was much beloved for his constant preaching, hospitable temper, and extensive charity. He was very intent upon reforming some things in the church, which he thought abuses, and not tending to edification. He was very scrupulous in his manner of admitting persons into orders, and more especially to the priesthood; and he refused to admit any prebendaries into his cathedral church, except such as lived within his diocese, that the duty of the church might not be neglected, and that the addition of a prebend might be a comfortable addition to a small living. In all these resolutions, it is said, he continued inflexible.

In the mean time, he was not so intent upon his private concerns in his diocese, but that he shewed himself ready to serve the public as often as he thought it in his power. Accordingly, in 1675, when the quarrel with the non-conformists was at its height, and the breach so artfully widened that the Roman catholics entertained hopes of entering through it, he published a piece, entitled, “The Naked Truth; or, the true state of the primitive church,” 4to, which was printed at a private press, and addressed to the lords and commons assembled in parliament. This, though no more than a small pamphlet of four or five sheets, excited an uncommon degree of attention, and was read and studied by all people of sense and learning in the kingdom. The author’s design was to recommend to the legislature measures for reconciling the differences among protestants, and for securing the church against the attempts of papists. He begins with articles of faith; and having shewn the danger of imposing more than are necessary, especially as terms of communion, he proceeds next through all the great points in dispute between the church of England and those that dissent from her: labouring to prove throughout, that protestants differ about nothing that can truly be styled essential to religion; and that, for the sake of union, compliances would be more becoming, as well as more effectual, than enforcing uniformity by penalties and persecution. 7'he whole is written with the best intentions, and with great force of argument: nevertheless it was attacked with great zeal by some of the clergy, particularly by Dr. Turner, master of St. John’s college in Cambridge, in his Animadversions on a pamphlet called “The Naked Truth;” 1676, 4to. This was answered by Andrew Marvell, in a piece, entitled, “Mr. Smirke, or the Divine in Mode;” in which after descending, as the title shows, to personal ridicule, he says, that bishop Croft’s work is a treatise, which, “if not for its opposer, needs no commendation, being writ with that evidence and demonstration of truth, that all sober men cannot but give their assent and consent to it unasked. It is a book of that kind, that no Christian can scarce peruse it, without wishing himself to have been the author, and almost imagining that he is so: the conceptions therein being of so eternal idea, that every man finds it to be but a copy of the original in his own mind.” Many other pamphlets were written against “The Naked Truth;” but the author did not vouchsafe them any reply, and it continued for a considerable time to be read and reprinted.

This was the first thing bishop Croft published, except two sermons: one on Isaiah xxvii. verse last, preached before the house of lords upon the fast-day, Feb. 4, 1673; the other before the king at Whitehall, April 12, 1674, on Philipp. i. 21. In 1678 he published a third sermon, preached Nov. 4, at the cathedral church in Hereford, and entitled, “A second call to a farther Humiliation.” The year after he published “A Letter written to a friend concerning popish idolatry:” and also a second impression, corrected, with additions, of his “Legacy to his diocese; or a short determination of all controversies we have with the papists by God’s holy word,” 4to. Besides the epistle to all the people within his diocese, especially those of the city of Hereford, and a preface, this work consists of three sermons upon John v. 39. “Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life;” and a supplement, together with a tract concerning the holy sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, promised in the preface. This work was calculated by him to preserve the people of his diocese from the snares of popish missionaries, who were then very active all over the kingdom. In 1685 he published some animadversions on a book entitled “The Theory of the Earth;” and in 1688, “A Short Discourse concerning the reading his majesty’s late declaration in Churches.” This, which was the last employment of his pen, was shewn by a certain courtier to king James; who ordered so much of the discourse, as concerned the reading of the declaration, to be published to the world, and the rest to be suppressed, as being contrary to the views with which that declaration had been set forth. It is remarkable of this excellent prelate, that he had taken a resolution some years before his death, of resigning his bishopric; to which, it seems, he was moved by some scruples of conscience. His motives he expressed in a long letter to Dr. Stillingfleet; who, however, in an answer, persuaded him to continue his episcopal charge with his usual earnestness and vigour. He died at his palace at Hereford, May 18, 1691, and was buried in the cathedral there, with this short inscription over his grave-stone “Depositum Herbert! Croft de Croft, episcopi Herefordensis, qui obiit 18 die Maii A. D. 1691, DDtatis suae 88; in vita conjuncti” that is, “Here are deposited the remains of Herbert Croft of Croft, bishop of Hereford, who died May 18, 1691, in the 88th year of his age in life united.” The last words, “in life united,” allude to his lying next dean Benson, at the bottom of whose grave-stone are these, “in morte non divisi,” that is, “in death not divided:” the two gravestones having hands engraven on them, reaching from one to the other, and joined together, to signify the lasting and uninterrupted friendship which subsisted between these two reverend dignitaries.

As bishop Croft lived, so he died, without the least tincture of that popery which he had contracted in his youth, as appears clearly enough from the preamble to his will: “I do,” says he, “in all humble manner most heartily thank God, that he hath been most graciously pleased, by the light of his most holy gospel, to recall me from the darkness of gross errors and popish superstitions, into which I was seduced in my younger days, and to settle me again in the true ancient catholic and apostolic faith, professed by our church of England, in which I was born and baptized, and in which I joyfully die,” &c. He had one only son, Herbert, who was educated in Magdalen college, Oxford, was created baronet by Charles II. Nov. 167 1, and was twice knight of the shire in the reign of king William. He died 1720, and was succeeded by his son Archer, and he by his son and namesake in 1761, who dying in 1792, without male issue, the title descended to the rev. Herbert Croft, a gentleman well known in the literary world.

, a musician, was born at NetherEatington in Warwickshire, about 1657. He was educated in the royal chapel under Dr. Blow, and became organist at St. Anne’s, Westminster. In 1700 he was admitted a gentleman-extraordinary of the chapel royal, and in 1704organist of the same. In 1708 he succeeded Dr. Blow as master of the children, and composer to the chapel royal, and also as organist at Westminster-abbey. In 1712 he published, but without his name, “Divine Harmony, or a new collection of select anthems;” to which is prefixed, “A brief account of Church Music.” In 1715 he was created doctor in music at Oxford: his exercise for that degree was an English and also a Latin ode, written by Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Joseph Trapp, which, with the music, were published with the title of “Musicus apparatus Academicus.” In 1724 he published by subscription a noble work of his own, entitled “Musica Sacra, or Select Anthems in score,” in 2 vols, the first containing the burial service, which Purcell had begun, but lived not to complete. He died Aug. 1727, of an illness occasioned by attending upon his duty at the coronation of George II; and there is a monument erected for him in Westminsterabbey, by his friend Humphrey Wyrley Birch, esq. a gentleman of the bar, of a whimsical character, and extremely fond of funeral music. The character of Croft’s musical compositions is given in our authorities.

, a non-conformist divine, of the family of sir Edward Crofton, was born in Ireland, and for the most part had his education in Dublin. When the Irish troubles broke out, he came over to England; and having but one groat in his pocket, he spent it the first night at his quarters. His first living in the church was at Wrenbury in Cheshire, from whence he was expelled for refusing to take the engagement, 1648. He then came to London, and after being for some time minister at St. James’s Garlike-hithe, obtained the living of St. Botolph’s near Aldgate, where he continued until the restoration, when he was ejected for non-conformity. Not long after he entered into a controversy with bishop Gauden concerning the solemn league and covenant, for his defence of which he was imprisoned in the Tower, until he was obliged to petition for his liberty. He afterwards went into Cheshire, where he was again imprisoned; but obtaining his liberty, took a small farm, or as Calamy says, kept a grocer’s shop, for the support of his family. In 1667 he returned to London, and taught a school near Aldgate, where he died about 1672. He published a great number of controversial pamphlets, and some sermons, few of which have outlived their day. He was a man of learning, and acuteness in controversy; but, Calamy allows, of a warm and hasty temper.

, a learned protestant clergyman in France, in the seventeenth century, was born at Usez, and being educated to the church, was appointed pastor, first of Beziers, and afterwards of Usez. His life appears to have been spent in the exercise of his duties as a clergyman, and in writing on the controversies of the times, in which he was enabled to take a distinguished part, being a man of extensive learning, a critic, and an able Oriental scholar. He died Aug. 31, 1659. He wrote many controversial pieces in French, particularly a defence of the Geneva confession of Faith, 1645, 8vo, and “Augustin suppose,” &c. proving that the four books on the creed in St. Augustine’s works are not the production of that author; but his Latin works gained him greater reputation, particularly his “Specimen Conjecturarum in qusedam Origenis, Ireneei, et Tertulliani Loca,” 1632; and “Observationes Sacræ et Historicæ in Nov. Test.” chiefly against Heinsius, 1644.

, was born in the province of Maine in 1552. He was sieur or lord of the manor of Croix du Maine, and of Vieille Cour, four leagues from Mans. From his youth he. had a passionate inclination for learning and books, and collected so large a library at the university in Greek and Latin authors, and most European languages, that, as he says himself, the catalogue of them would make a volume. He began to make this collection in his seventeenth year; and in his thirty-second, viz. in 1584, he published his “French Library,” being a general account of all authdfs that wrote in that language, fol. Of this we shall take particular notice under the article Verdier. In 1519 he addressed a discourse to viscount de Pauliny, and speaks of a great many works which he had written, none of which, however, are known, except a small 4to, *' Dessems ou projets, &c. pour dresser une bibliotheque parfaite," Paris, 1583, and a long Latin epitaph on the poet Monin, who was assassinated at Paris in 1586, a fate which befell himself at Tours in 1592.

, the third son of sir John Croke of Buckinghamshire, was born at Chilton in that county in 1559, and educated at the free school of Thame, from whence, about the year 1576, he went to Oxford, and became a commoner, or gentleman commoner, of University college; but before he took any degree, he was removed to the Inner Temple, where he studied law. Here he was autumn reader in 1599, treasurer in 1609, and double reader in Lent 1617. In June 1623 he was knighted and made king’s serjeant; and Feb. 22, 1624, was created one of the justices of the common-pleas, which office he held till 1628, when, upon the death of sir John Doderidge, he succeeded him as justice of the king’s bench. In 1636 he gained great credit by taking the part of Hampden in the case of ship-money, without losing the king’s favour. Sir George had purchased an estate at Waterstoke, in Oxfordshire, and not long before his death he petitioned king Charles to be discharged from his office of judge on account of his age, being then upwards of eighty years old, when his majesty was pleased, in consideration of his long and faithful services, to excuse him from any farther attendance, either on the bench or circuit, but ordered that he should remain in office, and his salary be continued. After this he retired to Waterstoke, where he died Feb. 16, 1641. Sir George had another estate at Studley, near Waterstoke, where, in 1639, he endowed some almshouses. His epitaph at Watarstoke gives him a character which has never been contradicted; that he was distinguished for acute judgment and presence of mind inherited au integrity of heart which neither threats nor honours could seduce and that he poised in equal balance the prerogative of the crown and liberties of the people.

The “Reports” of sir George Croke have obtained the character of great authenticity. There have been several editions, as in 1657, 1658, 1661, all of which are called the first edition, and are frequently without tables of the principal matters; there is also a very incorrect edition, varying in the numbers from the other editions, and the dates are printed in numerical letters MDCL. &c. An edition of 1669, which is called the second, is well printed in 3 vols, but has no references. The third, also in 3 vols, fol. was translated and published by his son-in-law, sir Harbottle Grimstone, in 1683 or 1685, with tables and references. This first led the way in divesting this branch of legal literature of the foreign idiom, and substituting the author’s native language. The fourth and last edition, in 4 vols. 8vo, 1790 1792, with additions and marginal notes, and many references to later authorities, including several from the ms notes of lord chief baron Parker, was published by Thomas Leach, esq. There is an accurate abridgment of Croke’s Reports, three parts, 8vo, by Will. Hughes, esq, published in 1685. Sir George Croke’s arguments on ship-money were published with those of sic Richard Hutton. Lloyd, no friend to the patriots of Charles I.'s time, remarks that the share in this tax for which Hampden went to law was eighteen shillings, and that it cost the nation eighteen millions.

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

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

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

Among all the arts of expediency, says Gilpin, laid up in the cabinets of princes, the readiest is to sacrifice a minister. The death of Cromwell was represented to the king as the best mean of composing the people. But though prudential reasons may necessitate a prince to discard a minister, yet guilt only, and that nicely examined, can authorize an act of blood. The hand of a tyrant, however, generally throws aside the balance. It is a nice machine; and requires pains and temper to adjust it. The sword is an instrument more decisive; and of easier dispatch. Henry’s was always stained with blood often with innocent blood — but never with blood more innocent than that of Essex.

, protector of the commonwealth of England, and one of the most remarkable characters in English history, was descended, both by his father and mother, from families of great antiquity. He was the son of Mr. Robert Cromwell, who was the second son of sir Henry Cromwell of Hinchinbrooke, in the county of Huntingdon, knt. whose great grandfather is conjectured to have been Walter Cromwell, the blacksmith at Putney, spoken of in the preceding article; and his grandmother sister to Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex. Yet we are told that when Goodman, bishop of Gloucester, who turned papist, and was very desirous of making his court to the protector, dedicated a book to him, and presented a printed paper to him, by which he pretended to claim kindred with him, as being himself someway allied to Thomas earl of Essex, the protector with some warmth told him, “that lord was not related to his family in any degree.” For this story, however, told by Fuller, there seems little foundation. Robert Cromwell, father of the protector, was settled at Huntingdon, and had four sons (including the protector) and seven daughters. Though by the interest of his brother sir Oliver, he was put into the commission of the peace for Huntingdonshire, he had but a slender fortune; most of his support arising from a brewhouse in Huntingdon, chiefly managed by his wife. She was Elizabeth, daughter of a Stewart, of Rothseyth in Fifeshire, and sister of sir Robert Stewart, of the isle of Ely, knt. who has been reported, and not without some foundation of truth, to have been descended from the royal house of Stuart; as appears from a pedigree of her family still in being. Out of the profits of this trade, and her own jointure of 60l. per annum, Mrs. Cromwell provided fortunes for her daughters, sufficient to marry them into good families. The eldest, or second surviving, was the wife of Mr. John Desborough, afterwards one of the protector’s major-generals; another married, first, Roger Whetstone, esq. and afterwards colonel John Jones, who was executed for being one of the king’s judges; the third espoused colonel Valentine Walton, who died in exile; the fourth, Robina, married first Dr. Peter French, and then Dr. John Wilkins, a man eminent in the republic of letters, and after the restoration bishop of Chester. It may be also added, that an aunt of the protector’s married Francis Barrington, esq. from whom descended the Barringtons of Essex; another aunt, John Hampden, esq. of Buckinghamshire, by whom she was mother of the famous John Hampden, who lost his life in Chalgrave field; a third was the wife of Mr. Whaley, and the mother of colonel Whaley, in whose custody the king was while he remained at Hampton-court; the fourth aunt married Mr. Dunch.

Cromwell was born in the parish of St. John, Huntingdon, where his father mostly lived, April 25, 1599, and baptized 29th of the same month; and educated in grammar-learning at the free-school in that town, under Dr. Beard, a severe disciplinarian. We have very different accounts of his behaviour while he remained at school: some say that he shewed very little propensity to learning; others, that he made a great proficiency in it. It is very probable that berth are wrong; and that he was not either incorrigibly dull, or wonderfully bright; but that he was an unlucky boy, and of an uneasy and turbulent temper, is reported by authors of unsuspected veracity. Many stories are told of his enthusiasm in this early part of his life; one of which we shall mention: lying melancholy upon his bed, in the day-time, he fancied he saw a spectre, which told him, that he should be the greatest man in the kingdom. His father, being informed of this, was very angry, and desired his master to correct him severely, which, however, had no great effect; for Oliver was still persuaded of the thing, and would sometimes mention it, notwithstanding his uncle Stewart told him, “it was too traitorous to repeat it.” Sir Philip Warwick tells us, that he was very well acquainted with one Dr. Simcot, Cromwell’s physician in the earlier part of his life, who assured him, that he was a very fanciful man, and subject to great disorders of imagination: and it is. certain, that he was not altogether free from these fits during his whole life, not even in the height of his prosperity.

From Huntingdon he was removed to Sidney college in Cambridge, where he was admitted fellow-commoner, April 23, 1616. The entry of his admission is in these words “Oliverus Cromwell, Huntingdonensis, admissus ad commeatum sociorum coll. Siden. Aprilis 23, 1616; tutore M. Kicardo Howlet.” We have very different accounts of the progress he made in his studies while a member of the university. It is certain that he was acquainted with Greek and Roman history; but whether he acquired this knowledge at Cambridge, is a point that may be doubted; since, as several writers inform us, he spent much of his time there at foot-ball, cricket, and other robust exercises, for his skill and expertness in which he was famous. His father dying about two years after he had been at college, he returned home; where the irregularity of his conduct so disturbed his mother, that, by the advice of friends, she sent him to London, and placed him in Lincoln’s-inn. But here, instead of applying to the study of the law, he gave himself up to wine, women, and play; so that he quickly dissipated what his father had left him. His stay at Lincoln’s-inn could not be long, nor was this season of wildness of much continuance; for he was married when he was twenty-one years of age, as appears from the parish register of St. John, Huntingdon; in which we find, that his eldest son Robert, who died a child, was born Oct. 8, 1621; so that if he staid but two years at the university, and it is very probable that he did not stay there longer, there was not above two years more for his going to Lincoln’s-inn, and running through the whole circle of his follies. The lady he married was Elizabeth, daughter of sir James Bouchier of Essex, knt. descended from the ancient earls of Essex of that name; whom he gained more by the interest of his relations Hampden, Barrington, Stewart, &c. than by his own. She was a woman of spirit and parts, but had not many personal charms, and it is said, was not without a considerable share of pride.

Soon after, he returned to Huntingdon, where he led a very grave and sober life. Some have imputed this very sudden renunciation of his vices and follies, to his falling in with the puritans; but it is certain, that he remained then, and for some time after, a zealous member of the church of England, and entered into a close friendship with several eminent divines. He continued at Huntingdon till an estate of above 400l. a year, devolving to him by the death of his uncle sir Thomas Stewart, induced him to remove into the isle of Ely. It was about this time that he began to fall off from the church, and to converse with the puritans, whose notions he soon after embraced with his usual warmth, and with as much sincerity as could be expected from one who was so soon to convert these notions into the instruments of ambition. He was elected a member of the third parliament of Charles I. which met Jan. 20, 1628; and was of the committee for religion, where he distinguished himself by his zeal against popery, and by complaining of Neile bishop of Winchester’s licensing books which had a dangerous tendency. After the dissolution of that parliament, he returned into the country, where he continued to express much concern for religion, and to frequent silenced ministers, and to invite them often to lectures and sermons at his house. By this he brought his affairs again into a very indifferent situation, so that, by way of repairing his fortune, he took a farm at St. Ives, which he kept about five years, but which he mismanaged, and would have been ruined if he had not thrown it up. These disappointments revived in him a scheme, which his bad circumstances first suggested while at Lincoln’s-inn, of going over into New England. This was in 1637; and his design, it is thought, had certainly been executed, if he had not been hindered by the issuing out a proclamation for restraining such embarkations. The next year he had less time upon his hands; for the earl of Bedford, and some other persons of high rank, who had large estates in the fen country, were very desirous of seeing it better drained; and though one project of this sort had failed, they set on foot another, and got it countenanced by royal authority, and settled a share of the profits upon the crown. This, though really intended for a public benefit, was opposed as injurious to private property; and at the head of the opposition was Cromuell, who had a considerable interest in those parts. The activity and vigilance which he shewed upon this occasion, first rendered him conspicuous, and gave occasion to his friend and relation Hampden, to recommend him afterwards in parliament, as a person capable of contriving and conducting great things. Notwithstanding this, he was not very successful in his opposition, and, as his private affairs were still declining, he was in a very necessitous condition at the approach of the long parliament.

In these circumstances one might wonder, how he should form a design, at a time when elections were considered as things of the utmost consequence, of getting himself chosen, more especially for the town of Cambridge, where he was so far from having any interest, that he was not so much as known; and, if he had been known, would never have been elected. But the whole of that affair was owinor to an accidental intrigue, in which himself had at first no hand. One reason why he quitted Huntingdon was, a dispute he had with Mr. Bernard, upon his becoming recorder, about precedency; a point in which he was very nice. After he came to Ely, he resorted entirely to nonconformist meetings, where he quickly distinguished himself by his gifts, as they were styled in those days, of preaching, praying, and expounding. At one of these meetings he met with Richard Tims, a tradesman of Cambridge, who rode every Sunday to Ely for the sake of pure doctrine; and captivated his heart entirely. This man, hearing that a parliament was to be called, and being himself one of the common-council, took it into his head, that there could not be a fitter man to be their burgess than Mr. Cromwell; and with this notion he went to Wildbore, a draper in the town, and a relation of Cromwell’s, who agreed with him exactly as to the fitness of the person, but told him the thing was impossible, as he was not a freeman. Tims, not satisfied with that, addressed himself next to Evett, a tallow-chandler, who was also a puritan. He relished the thought; but, for the same reason, pronounced the design impracticable. However, Tims had hardly left his house, before Evett sent for him back, and whispered, that the mayor had a freedom to bestow, and that one Kitchingman, an attorney, who had married his wife’s sister, and was of their party, had a great influence over him. He advised him therefore to move Kitchingman in it, who was to use his interest with the mayor, stating that Mr. Cromwell was a gentleman of fortune, and had a mind to come and live in the town, which was then in a poor condition; but with a strict charge to hide the true design, alderman French, who was then the mayor, being a declared royalist. When they came to make this application to him, French said he was sorry, but that in reality they came too late, for he had promised his freedom to the king’s fisherman. Kitchingman easily removed this objection, by undertaking that the town should confer a freedom upon the person he mentioned; and accordingly at the next court-day, the mayor declared his intention to bestow his freedom on a very worthy gentleman of the isle of Ely, one Mr. Cromwell; who, being apprized of his friend’s industry, came to town over night, and took up his lodgings at Almond’s, a grocer. Thither the mace was sent for him, and he came into court dressed in scarlet, richly laced with gold; where, having provided plenty of claret and sweetmeats, they were so well circulated among the corporation, that they unanimously declared Mr. Mayor’s freeman to be a civil worthy gentleman. When the election came on, the mayor discovered his mistake; but it was then too late, for the party among the burgesses was strong enough to choose him, which they accordingly did at the next election the ensuing year.

When he came into parliament, he was very constant in his attendance, and a frequent speaker; though he did not at that time discover any of the great qualities which afterwards appeared, and which seem to have been called out as occasion required. He affected not only plainness but carelessness in dress, was very uniform in his conduct, and spoke warmly and roundly, but without either art or elocution. He was very forward in censuring what were called grievances, both in church and state, though he had not framed to himself any plan of reformation. This he frankly acknowledged, with respect to ecclesiastical affairs, when pressed by sir Thomas Chicheley and Mr. Warwick to declare his sentiments on that subject. “I can tell,” said Cromwell, “what I would not have, though I cannot tell what I would have.” He was very zealous in promoting the remonstrance, which was carried Nov. 14, 1641, and which in reality laid the basis of the civil war; and declared to lord Falkland afterwards, that if the remonstrance had not been carried, he was resolved to have converted the small remains of his estate into ready money the next day, and to have quitted the kingdom upon the first opportunity. His firmness upon this occasion recommended him so effectually to Hampden, Pym, and the rest of the leaders on that side, that they took him into all their councils; where he acquired that clear insight into things, and knowledge of men, of which afterwards he made such astonishing use. As soon as the parliament formed any scheme of raising forces, which was in the beginning of

1642, Cromwell shewed his activity, by going immediately to Cambridge; where he soon raised a troop of horse, of which himself was appointed commander. He fixed his head quarters there, where he acted with great severity; towards the university especially, after he missed seizing the plate which was contributed by the loyal colleges for the king’s service, and sent down to the king when he set up his standard at Nottingham. It was probably about the same time that Cromwell had a very remarkable interview with his uncle, of which sir Philip Warwick had an account from the old gentleman himself. “Visiting old sir Oliver Cromwell, his uncle and godfather, at his house at Ramsey, he told me this story of his successful nephew and godson, that he visited him with a good strong party of horse, and that he asked him his blessing; and that the few hours he was there, he would not keep on his hat in his presence; but at the same time that he not only disarmed, but plundered him, for he took away all his plate.” He was more successful in his next enterprise; for being informed that the king had appointed sir Thomas Coningsby sheriff of Hertfordshire, and had sent him a writ, requiring him to proclaim the earl of Essex and his adherents traitors, Cromwell marched with his troop directly to St. Alban’s, where he seized sir Thomas Coningsby for that action, and carried him prisoner to London. He received the thanks of the parliament for this; and we find him soon after at the head of 1000 horse, with the title of colonel. Strange as it may be seem, it is confirmed by historians on all sides, that, though he assumed the military character in his 43d year, in the space of a few months he not only gained the reputation of an officer, but really became a good one; and still stranger, that by mere dint of discipline he made his new-raised men excellent soldiers, and laid the foundation of that invincible strength, which he afterwards exerted in behalf of the parliament.

1643, having settled matters in the six associated counties of Essex, Hertford, Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, Huntingdon, he advanced into Lincolnshire, where he did great service by restraining the king’s garrison at Newark, giving a check to the earl of Newcastle’s troops at Horncastle, and performing many other services, which increased his credit with the parliament. The Scots having been invited to England by the parliament, it was judged highly requisite that the army under the earl of Manchester anil Cromwell, who was now declared lieutenant-general of the horse, should join them, the better to enabie them to reduce York, which they had closely besieged. This service was performed with great vigour and diligence, especially by Cromwell; for though the earl had the title, the power was chiefly in Cromwell; and things were so clextrously managed between him and his friends at Westminster, that, as they knew they might depend upon him, they took care to put as much in his hands as they could. Ih the battle of Marston-moor, fought July 3, 1644, it is unanimously agreed, that Cromwell’s cavalry, who were commonly styled Ironsides, changed the fortune of the day, as that battle did of the war; for the king’s affairs declined, and the parliament’s flourished ever after. Some, however, though they allow this readily to Cromwell’s forces, have yet represented him as acting in a pitiful cowardly manner, and so terrified, as even to run away: but allowance must be made for the relators. It is certain, that on the 19th of the same month he stormed the earl of 'Exeter’s fine house at Burleigh; and no man’s courage, conduct, and services, were more valued at London. He was also in the second battle at Newbury, Sept. 17, in the same year, and is said to have made so bold a charge with his horse upon the guards, that his majesty’s person had been in the utmost danger, if the old earl of Cleveland had not come in to his relief, and preserved his master’s liberty at the expence of his own. And in the winter, when the disputes in parliament ran higher than, ever, nothing but Cromwell’s merit and good fortune were taiked of by his party; some of whom even styled him the saviour of the nation.

The wisest men and the best patriots saw very clearly whither these excessive praises tended. That the nation might be made as fully convinced of it, the earl of Manchester exhibited a charge against him in the house of lords; and Cromwell, in return, brought another against the noble peer in the house of commons. It is true, that neither of these charges was prosecuted; but it is equally true, that Cromwell and his friends absolutely carried their point, by bringing in what was called the self-denying ordinance, which excluded the members of either house from having any commands in the army; from which, however, on account of his extraordinary merit, which set him above all ordinances, Cromwell was at first occasionally, and at length altogether exempted. From being lieutenant-general of the horse, he became lieutenant-general of the army; and he procured an address from his regiment, declaring their satisfaction with the change. He continued to distinguish himself by his military successes, and to receive the thanks of both houses for the services he did. He shone particularly at the battle of Naseby, June 14, 1646, and had also his share in reducing the west; till, upon the surrender of Exeter, April 13, 1645, he found leisure to return to London. Upon taking his seat in the house, thanks were returned him, in terms as strong as words could express; and the prevailing party there received from him such encouragement, as induced them to believe he was wholly at their devotion. But in this they were mistaken; for while they thought the lieutenant-general employed in their business, he was in reality only attentive to his own. Thus, when the parliament inclined to disband a part of their forces, after the king had delivered himself to the Scots and the Scots had agreed to deliver him to the parliament, Cromwell opposed it vigorously, if not openly. For, in the first place, he insinuated by his emissaries to the soldiers, that this was not only the highest piece of ingratitude towards those who had fought the parliament into a power of disbanding them, but also a crying act of injustice, as it was done with no other view than to cheat them of their arrears. Secondly, he procured an exemption for sir Thomas Fairfax’s army, or, in other words, for his own, the general only having that title and appointments, while Cromwell had the power; and the weight of the reduction fell upon Massey’s brigade in the west, together with the troops which colonel Poyntz commanded in Yorkshire; men of whom he had good reason to doubt, but upon whom the parliament might have depended. Thus he dextrously turned to his own advantage the means which, in truth, were contrived for his destruction. Nov. 12, 1646, the army marched triumphantly through London; and in February following, the Scots having received the money agreed on, delivered up the king, who was carried prisoner to Holmby. At this time Cromwell had a most difficult part to play. What wore the legal appearance of power was evidently in the hands of the parliament, in which the presbyterian party was still prevalent; and as the general sir Thomas Fairfax was likewise in that interest, the real power seemed also to be on their side. At bottom, however, the army, now taught to know their own strength, were in reality the masters; and they were entirely directed by Cromwell, though they knew it not themselves. He saw the necessity of having a strong place, and getting the king’s person into their power and he contrived to do both, without seeming to have a hand in either. Oxford was at that time in a good condition, and well supplied with artillery, upon which the army seized it, with the magazines, and every thing else; and Cromwell, then at London, prevailed upon cornet Joyce to seize the king’s person with a strong detachment of horse, not only without the general’s orders, but without any orders at all, except those verbal instructions from Cromwell. This was executed June 4, 1G47, notwithstanding the parliament’s commissioners were then with the king; who was conducted from Holmby to Childersly, in Cambridgeshire, then the army’s head quarters. Here, through the management chiefly of Cromwell and his son-in-law commissary Ireton, the king was treated, not only with reverence, but with kindness; and when sir Thomas Fairfax, who knew nothing of the taking of the king away, and disliked it, would have sent him back asrain with the commissioners, under the guard of two regiments of horse, the king absolutely refused to move. Nay, to such a degree was that monarch convinced of the sincerity of his new friends, that he had the indiscretion to tell sir Thomas Fairfax, when he made him a tender of his duty and respect, with promises of fair treatment, that “he thought he had as good an interest in the army as himself.”

The remaining six months of this year were the most critical of Cromwell’s whole life; for in order to succeed in his schemes, it was absolutely necessary for him to deceive the king, the parliament, and the army, which in turn was effected, though not without danger and difficulty. The king relied entirely upon Cromwell and Ireton; and they, on the other hand, spoke of and acted towards him in such a manner, that they were looked upon as absolute courtiers. Nor is it at all wonderful that the king gave credit to them, when they prevailed on the army to send a letter to the parliament, delivered July 9, 1647, avowing the king’s cause to be theirs, and that no settlement could be hoped for, without granting him his just rights. As to the parliament, so long as they enjoyed their power, Cromwell ahvays spoke the language of a member of the house of commons; shewed a high regard foi their privileges; and professed, that he was suspected and disliked by the army, for his attachment to the civil government. This did not, however, hinder his being disbelieved by many, till at length he found it necessary for his own safety to make his escape from the house with some precipitation. That mutinous spirit which the soldiers discovered against the parliament, was raised, fomented, and managed by Cromwell and Ireton; the former declaring at Triploe-heath, when the parliament had been obliged to erase their own declaration out of their journals, that “now they might be an army as long as they lived.”

Soon after this, a new party sprung up among the soldiers, under the title of Levellers, who made no secret of their hating equally both king and parliamentand it was to save himself from these people, who, as he was informed by Cromwell, sought his life, that the king, Nov. 11, fled from Hampton-court to the Isle of Wight, after having rejected the parliament’s proposals by Cromwell’s and Ireton’s advice. Immediately after this, Cromwell altered his behaviour to the king entirely; for, having made use of the king’s presence to manage the army, and of the power which the army had thereby acquired, to humble and debase the parliament, there remained no end to be answered by keeping measures any longer with the king. The parliament, now much altered from what it was, upon the king’s refusing to pass four bills they had sent him, fell into very warm debates; in which it is asserted that Cromwell was a principal speaker, and inveighed bitterly against his majesty, saying, “the king was a very able man, but withal a great dissembler; one in whom no trust could be reposed, and with whom, therefore, they ought to have nothing to do for the future.” However this might be, the parliament, Jan. 5, voted that no more addresses should be made to the king; and from that time he was more strictly imprisoned than ever. In the mean time, there were risings in several parts of the kingdom; which employing the military power, the city of London and the parliament were left in some measure at liberty to pursue their own sentiments; and what these were, quickly appeared; for on June 27, 1648, the city petitioned for a personal treaty with the king, which was very well received, and some steps taken to advance it. A few days after, the commons recalled their vote for non-addresses, began a personal treaty with the king at the Isle of Wight, and at length voted his majesty’s concessions satisfactory, and an attempt was even made to impeach Cromwell of high treason. But the army having now reduced all opposition, and returning towards London, Nov. 20, sent a remonstrance to the house of commons, disapproving all they had done. The remonstrance was carried by colonel Ewers, who went next into the isle of Wight, where he seized the person of the king, and carried him to Hurst castle. This was resented by the parliament, who commanded the general to recall his orders; but instead of this, the army marched directly to London, and in December, took possession of it; purged, as they called it, the house of commons, turning out the greater part of its members, and then forcing the rest to do what they pleased. In most of these proceedings Cromwell appeared veryactive, and is, with good reason, believed to have directed them all.

It is not necessary to dwell particularly upon those wellknown circumstances relating to the king’s being brought before the high court of justice, and to the sentence of death passed upon him there; since the part Cromwell acted therein was open and public. He sat at the court; he signed the warrant; and he prosecuted the accomplishment of it by the bloody execution of the king. When the first proposition was made in the house of commons for trying the king, he rose up, and said, that “if any man moved this upon design, he should think him the greatest traitor in the world; but since Providence and necessity had cast them upon it, he should pray God to bless their councils, though he was not provided on the sudden to give them counsel.” But not long after, he was; for, being a great pretender to enthusiasm and revelations, he told them with consummate hypocrisy, that as he was praying for a blessing from God on his undertaking to restore the king to his pristine majesty, his tongue cleaved to the roof of his mouth, that he could not speak one word more; which he took as a return of prayer, that God had rejected him from being king. Many applications were made to Cromwell for saving the king’s life; and some of the passages relating to them are worth notice. One of the most remarkable, which greatly illustrates the character of the man, is the transaction between the lieutenantgeneral and a cousin of his, colonel John Cromwell, an officer in the service of the States. This gentleman is said to have been in England while the king was in the hands of the army; and that, in a conference he had with the lieutenant-general, the latter made use of this expression, u I think the king the most injured prince in the world;“and then, clapping his hand upon his sword, added,” But this, cousin, shall do him right.“The colonel returning to Holland soon after, reported what he took to be truth, that the lieutenant-general had a great respect for the king. When therefore the news of the king’s trial reached Holland, he was sent over with letters credential from the States, to which was added a blank with the king’s signet, and another of the prince’s, both confirmed by the States, for Cromwell to set down his own conditions, if he would now save his majesty’s life. The colonel went directly to his kinsman’s house; who was so retired and shut up in his chamber, with an order to let none know he was at home, that it was with much difficulty he obtained admittance, after he had declared who he was. Having mutually saluted each other, the colonel desired to speak a few words with him in private; and began with much freedom to set before him the heinousness of the fact then about to be committed, and with what detestation it was looked upon abroad; telling him, that” of all men living he could never have imagined he would have had any hand in it, who in his hearing had protested so much for the king.“To this Cromwell answered,” It was not he, but the army; and though he did once say some such words, yet now times were altered, and Providence seemed to order things otherwise.“And it is said he added, that” he had prayed and tasted for the king, but no return that way was yet made to him.“Upon this the colonel stepped a little back, and Suddenly shut the door, which made Cromwell apprehend he was going to be assassinated; but pulling out his papers, he said to him,” Cousin, this, is no time to trifle with words: see here, it is now in your own power, not only to make yourself, but your family, relations, and posterity, happy and honourable for ever; otherwise, as they changed their name before from Williams to Cromwell, (which was the fact, as appears by their pedigree), so now they must be forced to change it again: for this will bring such an ignominy upon the whole generation of them, as no time will he able to deface.“At this Cromwell paused a little, and then said,” I desire you will give me till night to consider of it; and do yuu go to your inn, but not to bed, till you hear from me.“The colonel did accordingly; and about one in the morning a messenger came to tell him” He might go to rest, and expect no other answer to carry to the prince; for the council of officers had been seeking God, as he also had done the same, and it was resolved by them all that the king must die."

The government being now entirely changed, for in five days after the king’s death the house of lords was voted useless, it became necessary to think of some expedient for managing the executive power; and therefore it was resolved to set up a council of state, of which John Bradshaw was president, and lieutenant-general Cromwell a principal member. But before he had well taken possession of this new dignity, he was again called to action; and that too as hazardous as any in which he had hitherto been concerned. The persons he had to engage were part of the army he commanded; who, being dissatisfied on some account or other, set forth their sentiments by way of remonstrance presented to the general. For this high offence they were seized, and tried by a court martial, and sentenced to ride with their faces to their horses’ tails, at the head of their respective corps, with a paper expressing their crime fixed on their breasts, after which their swords were to be broke over their heads, and themselves cashiered; every circumstance of which was strictly executed, March 6, in Great Palace-yard. This served only to increase the flame; for several regiments of horse, and among the rest Cromwell’s own, mutinied, put white cockades in their hats, and appointed a rendezvous at Ware; where Cromwell appeared, when he was least suspected, and brought with him some regiments quartered at a distance, that he couicl depend on. Here, without any previous expostulations, he with two regiments of horse surrounded one regiment of the mutineers, and calling four men by name out of their ranks, obliged them to cast dice for their lives; and the two that escaped were ordered to shoot the others, which they did; upon which the rest thought fit to slip their white cockades into their pockets, and to secure themselves by a submission. The same spirit of mutiny broke out in another regiment of horse; but it was entirely subdued by Cromwell, and the fomenters of it punished. After this, he and Fairfax went first to Oxford, where they were made doctors in civil law; and thence to London, where they were splendidly entertained by the city, and had presents of great value when they took leave. At this time England, if not quiet, was totally subdued; the Scots were discontented, but not in arms; so that Ireland became the principal object of the parliament’s care, since in that island, of three parties which had for many years been shedding each other’s blood, their own was the weakest. In August, therefore, 1649, Cromwell embarked with an army for Ireland, where his successes, as in England, were attended with so few disappointments, that, by June 1650, he had in a manner subdued the whole island. By that time his presence was required in England, not only by those who wished him well, but even by his most inveterate enemies; and therefore constituting his son-inlaw Ireton, his deputy, he took ship for Bristol, where, after a dangerous passage, he safely arrived, leaving such a terror upon the minds of the Irish as made every thing easy to those who succeeded him, and completed the conquest of that country.

His return to London was a kind of triumph; and all ranks of people contended, either from love or fear, who should shew him the most respect. At his taking his seat in the house, he had thanks returned him for his services in the highest terms. When these ceremonies were over, they proceeded to matters of greater consequence; for, by this time the parliament had another war upon their hands, the Scots having invited home Charles II. and prepared an army to invade England. There is no doubt that the parliament would readily have trusted this war to the conduct of lord Fairfax, a brave man and good officer; but Fairfax had taken the covenant, and such were his scruples, he could not bring himself to think of breaking it, by attacking the Scots in their own country. Cromwell thought, and rightly, that they should not wait for an invasion, but prevent one invasion by another; and therefore pressed Fairfax to continue in his command, and the more earnestly, because he knew he would not do it; declaring that he thought it a greater honour to serve as his lieutenant-general, than to command in chief the finest army in the world. Fairfax, however, remained inflexible in his resolution; so that, June 26, an ordinance passed for repealing his commission, and at the same time another for appointing Cromwell general and commander in chief of all the forces of the commonwealth. He had now such power as might have satisfied the most ambitious mind; for though he offered to resign his lieutenancy of Ireland, the parliament would not accept it. He marched with an army to Scotland, and Sept. 3, gained the victory of Dunbar, than which none ever did him greater credit as a commander. He continued the war all the winter; in the spring was severely attacked by an ague; of which recovering, he, after several successes, forced the king into England, and blocked him up in Worcester. Sept. 3, 165J, he attacked and carried that city, totally defeated the king’s forces, and gained what he himself called, in his letter to the parliament, the crowning victory. It is said, that this signal stroke of success took Cromwell a little off his trnard. He would have knighted two of his principal commanders upon the field of battle, and was with difficulty dissuaded from it: his letter to the parliament on this occasion was conceived in higher and loftier terms than usual: and Ludlow says, that his behaviour was altered from that day, and that all who were about him observed it. It is certain, nevertheless, that he afterwards behaved with great humility and submission to the parliament; though in the mean time he took all care imaginable to make the army sensible of their own importance, and to let them see that nothing could divide their interests from his own. This was the true foundation of his growing greatness, and of the gradual declension of the parliament’s power; which, though they clearly discerned, they knew not how to prevent.

He did not remain long with the troops, but directed his inarch to London; where, besides many considerable marks of honour that were paid him, a general thanksgiving was appointed for his victory, and September 3d made an anniversary state holiday. When these ceremonies and acknowledgments were over, he had leisure to look about him, and to consider his own condition as well as that of the nation. He saw himself at present general and commander in chief of a great army in England, and at the same time was lord lieutenant of Ireland. But then he knew that all this was derived to him from the parliament; and he clearly discerned, that, whether independents or presbyterians sat there, they would endeavour to perpetuate supreme power in their own hands, which for many reasons he disliked. He therefore sifted the most eminent persons, in order to find out their sentiments about the establishment of the kingdom; which was a new phrase invented to cover the design of subverting the parliament. In a meeting among them, held some time after the battle of Worcester, he proposed the question fairly; when some declared for a monarchy, as others did for a commonwealth: but this conference came to nothing. Nov. 7, 1652, meeting the lord commissioner Whitlocke in the Park, he entered into a long discourse with him upon this important subject: in which he undertook to shew Whitlocke, that the parliament was now become a faction; that they were resolved to ruin all, and to rule for ever, merely for their own sakes; that they gave all employments to themselves, their relations, aud friends that they drew every thing within their own cognizance, by which the subject lost the benefit of the law, and held his property by a precarious tenure; that, all this considered, they had fought themselves into a worse condition; and that, instead of a monarch with a prerogative royal, they had now many masters, who made laws and broke them at their pleasure; that, on the other hand, the army was very sensible of this; that they bore it with great reluctance; that they too had great disputes among themselves: and that it could not be long before those mischiefs broke out into a new flame. Whitlocke very readily agreed, that he had described both parties truly; but at the same time acknowledged, that, notwithstanding he was acquainted with the diseases of the commonwealth, he was entirely ignorant of any right method of cure. “What,” said Cromwell, “if a man should take upon himself to be king?” Whitlocke replied by shewing him, that he would get nothing by it; that he had more power already than former kings ever had; and that by assuming the name, he might run great hazard of losing the thing, Cromwell then pressed to know, what he would hare done? Upon which Whitlocke proposed compromising matters with Charles Stuart: the debating of which Cromwell declined, as an affair of much difficulty. Cromwell had many conversations of this sort with the most intelligent of all parties, none of which diverted him from his secret purpose, to possess himself of the regal power, under some name or other.

Notwithstanding this, he behaved in public with great decency and duty towards that body of men he was contriving to remove. The whole winter of 1652 was spent in contrivances and cabals on both sides; by the friends of the parliament to support and maintain its authority, by their opponents to bring things into such a situation, as to render the necessity of dissolving that assembly universally apparent. April 19, 1653, Cromwell called a council of officers once more to debate this point; in which, as he had many friends, so he had also some opponents, who insinuated, that what he did proceeded from self-interest and ambition. Major-general Harrison, a zealous fanatic, but absolutely deceived by Cromwell, assured the assembly, in the sincerity of his heart, that “the lord-general sought only to pave the way for the government of Jesus and his saints;” to which major Streater briskly returned, that “then he ought to come quickly; for if it was after Christmas, he would come too late.” Upon this, Cromwell adjourned the meeting till the next morning, when a new point was started, whether it might not be expedient for the house and the army to appoint twenty persons on a title to be intrusted with the supreme power? In the midst of this dispute advice came that the house had under consideration their own dissolution; and upon this, such as were members withdrew, and went thither to promote that design. But in reality the parliament had framed a bill, to continue themselves to November 5th of the next year, proposing in the mean time to fill up the house by new elections. Cromwell, informed what the house was upon, was so enraged, that he left the council, and marched directly with a party of 300 soldiers to Westminster. There placing some of them at the door, some in the lobby, and others on the stairs, he went into the house; and, addressing himself first to his friend St. John, told him, that “he then came to do that which grieved him to the very soul, and what he had earnestly with tears prayed to God against; nay, that he had rather be torn in pieces than do it; but that there was a necessity laid upon him tilt-rein, in order to the glory of God, and the good of the nation.” Then he sat down, and heard their debates for some time on the forementioned bill; after which, calling to major-general Harrison, who was on the other side of the house, to come to him, he told him, that “he judged the parliament ripe for a dissolution, and this to be the time of doing it.” Harrison answered, “Sir, the work is very great and dangerous; therefore I desire you seriously to consider of it before you engage in it.” “You say well,” replied Cromwell; and thereupon sat still for about a quarter of an hour. Then the question being put for passing the said bill, he declared again to Harrison, “This is the time, I must do it:” and so standing up of a sudden, he bade the speaker leave the chair, and told the house that they had sat long enough, unless they had done more good; that some of them were whoremasters, others drunkards, others corrupt and unjust men, and scandalous to the profession of the gospel; that it was not fit they should sit as a parliament any longer, and therefore he must desire them to go away. He charged them with not having a heart to do any thing for the public good, and with being the supporters of tyranny and oppression. When some of the members began to speak, he stepped into the midst of the house, and said, “Come, come, I will put an end to your prating:” then walking up and down the house, he cried out, “You are no parliament, I say, you are no parliament;” and stamping with his feet, he bid them for shame be gone, and give place to honester men. Upon this signal the soldiers entered the house, and he bade one of them take away that bauble, pointing to the mace; and Harrison taking the speaker by the hand, he came down. Then Cromwell, addressing himself again to the members, who were about an hundred, said, ‘ 4 ’Tis you that have forced me to this; for I have sought the Lord night and day, that he would rather slay me, than put me upon the doing of iliis work.“And then seizing on all their papers, he ordered the soldiers to see the house cleared of all members; and having caused the doors to be locked up, went away to Whitehall. Here he found a council oi'oiHcers still assembled, and this grand point yet in debate: upon which he told them roundly,” thev need trouble themselves no farther about it, for he had done it.“”Done what?“replied colonel Okey, who was not one of his creatures; and, upon his telling him, expostulated the point warmly. But Cromwell talked so much louder than he, of the glory of God and the good of the nation, the removing of yokes and badges of slavery, that Okey very soon thought proper to be silent, and to wait for the conclusion of the affair. In the afternoon of the same day, Cromwell, attended by the majors-general Lambert and Harrison, went to the council of state, and, finding them sitting, addressed them in the following terms:” Gentlemen, if you are met here as private persons, you shall not be disturbed; but, if as a council of state, this is no place for you. And since you cannot but know what was done at the house this morning, so take notice, that the parliament is dissolved.“Serjeant Bradshaw boldly answered,” Sir, we have heard what you did at the house in the morning, and before many hours all England will hear it. But, sir, you are mistaken to think that the parliament is dissolved, for no power under heaven can dissolve them but themselves; and therefore take you notice of that." Some others also spoke to the same purpose: but the council finding themselves to be under the same force, all quietly departed.

The true reason why Cromwell thus dismissed this council of state, was, because he intended to have another of his own framing; these being men entirely devoted to the parliament, from whom they derived their authority. He now projected such measures as appeared to him the most proper for the support of that great authority which he had attained. He continued for a few days to direct all things by the advice of the council of officers; but afterwards a new council of state was called, by virtue of letters or warrants under the lord-general’s hand. But this consisting chiefly of fifth-monarchy and other madmen, soon dissolved of itself; and then the power returned into the hands of Cromwell, from whom it came. Harrison, and about twenty more, remained in the house, and seeing the reign of the saints at an end, placed one Moyer in the speaker’s chair, and began to draw up protests; but they were soon interrupted by colonel White with a party of soldiers. White asking them what they did there, they told him, “they were seeking the Lord;” to which he replied, “that they might go somewhere else, for to his knowledge, the Lord had not been there many years;” and so turned them out of doors. The scene thus changed, the supreme power was said to be in the council of officers again; and they very speedily resolved, that the lordgeneral, with a select council, should have the administration of public affairs, upon the terms contained in a paper, entitled “The Instrument of Government;” and that his excellency should be protector of the commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and have the title of Highness. Accordingly he was invested therewith Dec. 16, 1653, in the court of chancery in Westminster-hall, with great solemnity; and thus, in his 54th year, assumed the sovereign power, which he well knew how to exercise with firmness. When he had thus reduced the government into some order at least, he proceeded very wisely and warily; appointed a privy-council, in which there were great and worthy men, who he knew would either not act at all, or not very long with him; but their names giving a sanction for the present, he proceeded, with the advice of as many of them as attended, to make several ordinances that were necessary, as also to dispose matters for the holding a new parliament. He applied himself also to the settlement of the public affairs, both foreign and domestic; he concluded a peace with the states of Holland and Sweden; he obliged the king of Portugal, notwithstanding all that had passed between the parliament and bim, to accept of a peace upon his terms; and adjusted matters with France, though not without some difficulty. As to affairs at home, he filled the courts in Westminsterhall with able judges; and directed the lawyers themselves to make such corrections in the practice of their profession, as might free them from public odium. The same moderation he practised in church matters; professing an unalterable resolution to maintain liberty of conscience. He gave the command of all the forces in Scotland to general Monk, and sent his son Henry to govern Ireland. By an ordinance dated April 12, 1654, he united England and Scotland, fixing the number of representatives for the latter at 30; and soon after he did the same by Ireland. He affected to shew great zeal for justice, in causing the brother of the ambassador from Portugal to be executed for murder; which he did July 10, in spite of the greatest application to prevent it.

But, notwithstanding the pains which he took to gain the affections of the people, he found a spirit rising against him in all the three kingdoms; and his government so cramped for want of money, that he was under an absolute necessity of calling a parliament, according to the form which he had prescribed in the Instrument of Government. He fixed Sept. 3 for the day on which they were to assemble, esteeming it particularly fortunate to him; and to this he peremptorily adhered, though it happened to full upon a Sunday. The parliament svas accordingly opened on that day, alter hearing a sermon at Westminster-abbey, to which the protector went in very great state. He received this house of commons in the painted chamber, where he gave them a full account of the nature of that government which he had thought fit to establish, the ends he proposed, and the means he had used to promote those ends, &c. When they came to the house, they fell to debating, whether the supreme legislative power of the kingdom should be in a single person, or a parliament; which alarming the protector, who found himself in danger of being deposed by a vote of this new parliament, he caused a guard to be set at the door, on the 12th of the same month, to prevent their going into the house of commons; then sent for them into the painted chamber, where he gave them a very sharp rebuke; nor did he permit any to go into the house afterwards, hefore they had taken an oath to be faithful to the protector and his government. While this parliament was sitting, an odd accident happened to the protector. He had received a set of Friesland horses from the duke of Holstein as a present; and would needs drive his secretary Thurloe in his coach, drawn by these horses, round Hyde Park. But the horses, proving as ungovernable as the parliament, threw his highness out of the box, and in his fall one of his pocket pistols went off; notwithstanding which he escaped, without either wound or broken bones. By the Instrument of Government, the parliament was to sit five months; but finding they were about to take away his power, and would give him no money, he, Jan. 23, sent for them once more into the painted chamber, where after a long and bitter speech he dissolved them.

The protector’s mother lived with him at Whitehall, and shared in the splendour of his court, but enjoyed it not. Though she troubled him but little with her remonstrances, her fears were so strong, that she could not believe he was it she did nut see him twice a clay; and if by accident she heard a pistol at any time discharged, she could not help crying out, “My son is shot!” She died Nov. 18, 1654. Cromwell caused her remains to be interred in Henry Vllth’s chapel; but this was contrary to her desire, for she easily foresaw that they would never rest in peace there.

The opening of 1655 proved but cloudy: the dissolution of the parliament created much discontent in the kingdom; so that Cromwell found himself beset with conspiracies on all sides, and by all parties; but he had the good luck to discover them before they could be executed. Upon Feb. 13, he went to Guildhall; and declared, that the republicans and cavaliers had formed designs against his person. Of the former, major John Wildman, who had been an intimate friend of his, was seized while penning a paper, entitled “A declaration of the people of England against the tyrant Oliver Cromwell;” and other violent men of that party he imprisoned, but was afraid of doing more. As to the royalists, he suffered them to go on a little; for, by the help of one Manning, who was his spy in the court of Charles II. he was so well acquainted with their projects, as to put them upon measures which turned to his own account. And this is a true solution of that insurrection which broke out at Salisbury, where the king was proclaimed, and Cromwell’s judges seized; which act of open force left no doubt with the public, that there were designs against the protector. For this insurrection several persons suffered death; and hence the protector, who had hitherto shewn an inclination to govern as a lawful prince if he could, seemed to lay aside his disposition, and no longer to make any difficulty of supporting his authority in any manner and by any means; In the spring of this year was carried into execution that famous expedition, by which the protector hoped to make himself master of the Spanish West Indies; where, though his forces did not succeed in their main design, yet they made themselves masters of Jamaica, which island has remained ever since part of the British dominions. The alliance which had been so long in treaty with the crown of France, was signed Nov. 24, 1655, and proclaimed the 28th; by which it was stipulated, that Cromwell should send over a body of English troops, to act in conjunction with the French agaiust the Spaniards in the Low Countries; and that, on the other hand, the French king should oblige the royal family to quit his dominions. The new king of Sweden sent over an ambassador to compliment the protector. He was most graciously received; but the intended visit of queen Christina, who had just resigned the crown, he judged proper to avoid. The glorious successes of admiral Blake in the Mediterranean, and the great sums he recovered from several powers for depredations committed by their subjects on the English merchants, did much honour to the protector’s government; and to conclude the transactions of this year, it must be allowed, that how much soever Ire might be disliked at home, his reputation at this time was very great abroad.

The loss he sustained in the discovery of Manning, whom king Charles caused to be shot for corresponding with Thurloe, was most effectually repaired by a person of superior character, who was chancellor Hyde’s great correspondent, and supposed to be one of the most active and determined royalists in England. Though the war with Spain under Blake’s management had brought two millions of money into the protector’s coffer, he still felt some wants, which he judged nothing but a parliament could supply; and having concerted more effectual methods, as he conceived, for bending them to his will, than had been practised before the last, he fixed the meeting of that assembly Sept. 19, 1656. It met accordingly; but with a guard posted at the door of the house, who suffered none to enter till they had taken the oaths prepared for them, by which many were excluded. The parliament, however, chose a speaker; passed an act for disannulling the king’s title, another for the security of his highness’s person, and several money bills: for all which the protector gave them his most gracious thanks. About the close of this year a new plot was either discovered or invented, for which one Miles Sindercombe was condemned; but he disappointed the protector, by poisoning himself the night before he was to be executed. In the spring of 1657 it plainly appeared what the protector aimed at, by the pains he had taken with the parliament; for now a kind of legislative settlement of the government was upon the carpet, under the title of “The humble Petition and Advice ;” in which there was a blank for the supreme governor’s title, and a clause prepared to countenance the establishing something like peers, under the name of the other house. At length the whole came to light; for one alderman Pack, a forward, time-serving, money-getting fellow, deep in all the jobs of the government, moved that the first blank might l)e filled with the word King. This was violently opposed by the army-members; but at length, after various debates, carried, as well as the clause empowering him. to make something like lords; and in this form the petition was presented to his highness, who desired some time to consider before he gave his answer. The protector would have been glad to have had the kingship forced upon him, but that he found some of his best friends and nearest relations averse to it; who carried their opposition so far, as to promote a petition from the army to the parliament against it. This determined Cromwell to refuse that honour which he had been so long seeking; and, therefore, May 8, 1657, he told them in the banqueting-house, that he could not with a good conscience accept the government under the title of king. The parliament then thought proper to fill up the blank with his former title of protector; and his highness himself, that all the pains he had taken might not absolutely be thrown away, resolved upon a new inauguration, which was accordingly performed June 26, 1657, in Westminster-hall, with all the pomp and solemnity of a coronation. After this, the house of commons adjourned to Jan. 20th following, in order to give the protector time to regulate all things according to the new system; with a view to which he summoned his two sons, and others, to take their seats in the other house. This year he was extremely disconcerted with a small treatise, which captain Titus, under the name of William Allen, published with this title, “Killing no Murder:” in which w r as shewn so plainly, that one who had violated all laws, could derive protection from no law, that Oliver thenceforward believed himself in continual danger. But his attempt to apprehend the true author failed of success.

In the beginning of 1658 he pleased himself with the hopes of being once at the head of an assembly somewhat resembling the ancient parliaments of England; and, pursuant to their own adjournment, the commons met Jan. 20, as the other house also did, agreeably to the writs of summons issued by the lord protector. He sent for them by the black rod, and began his speech with the pompous words, “My lords, and you the knights, citizens, and burgesses of the house of commons, &.c.” All this only served to shew that his administration was founded in military force, and nothing else: for the ancient nobility would not resume their seats in such company as he had assigned them; and the house of commons would have nothing to do with the new nobles in the other house; and the new nobles could do nothing by themselves. Thus in less than a fortnight the new system was in a fair way of being pulled to pieces, which obliged the protector to come, Feb. 4th, and to dissolve them with great bitterness of speech and sorrow of heart: for now he plainly saw that a regular establishment was a thing impracticable. Some farther designs against him were soon after discovered, not of the cavaliers only, but of the fifth-monarchy men also. With the latter he was obliged to observe some measures; the former he delivered over to a high court of justice. By the sentence of that court, Dr. Hewett, a divine of the church of England, suffered death for contumacy, June 8, 1658; having refused to plead, or to own the jurisdiction of the court. Aug. 6, the protector’s favourite daughter Elizabeth, wife of John Claypole, esq. of Narborough in Northamptonshire, died, which affected him greatly on more accounts than one. For her illness being very painful, distempered her mind not a little; and in her deliriums she exclaimed vehemently against him for his cruelties, and especially for the death of Dr. Hewett, on whose behalf she had made the most importunate intercessions. He is said to have been from that time wholly altered, and daily more reserved and suspicious: and indeed not without reason; for he found a general discontent prevailed through the nation, a signal disaffection in the army, and a great increase of the influence of the republicans, to whom some of his relations, and even his wife, inclined: so that he knew not which way to turn, or what to expect. These cares having long tormented his mind, at last affected his body; so that while at Hampton-court, he fell into a kind of slow fever, which soon degenerated into a tertian ague. For a week this disorder continued without any dangerous symptoms, insomuch that every other day he walked abroad; but one day after dinner his five physicians coming to wait upon him, one of them having felt his pulse, said that it intermitted. At this being somewhat surprised, he turned pale, fell into a cold sweat, and when he was almost fainting, ordered himself to be carried to bed; where, by the assistance of cordials, being brought a little to himself, he made his will with respect to his private affairs.

It is impossible to have a better account of his last sickness, than that given by Dr. Bates, who was his physician. After mentioning the circumstance of making his will, he tells us, that the next morning early, when one of his physicians came to visit him, he asked him, “why he looked so sad?” and, when answer was made, that so it became any one, who had the weighty care of his life and health upon him; “Ye physicians,” said he, “think I shall die: I tell you, I shall not die this time; I am sure of it. Do not think,” said he to the physician, looking more attentively at him on these words; “do not think that I am mad; I speak the words of truth upon surer grounds than Galen or your Hippocrates furnish you with. God Almighty himself hath given that answer, not to my prayers alone, but also to the prayers of those who entertain a stricter commerce and greater interest with him. Go on cheerfully, banishing all sadness from your looks; and deal with me as you would do with a serving-man. Ye may have a skill in the nature of things, yet nature can do more than all physicians put together; and God is far more above nature.” He was then desired to take his rest, because he had not slept the greatest part of the night; and this physician left him. But as he was coming out of the chamber, he accidentally met another; to whom said he, I am afraid our patient will be light-headed. “Then (replied the other) you are certainly a stranger in this house. Do not you know what was done last night? The chaplains, and all who are dear to God, being dispersed into several parts of the palace, have prayed to God for his health: and have brought this answer, he shall recover.” Nay, to such a degree of madness they came, that a public fast heing for his sake kept at Hampton-court, they did not so much pray to God for his health, as thank him for the undoubted pledges of his recovery; and they repeated the same at Whitehall. These oracles of his deluded chaplains were the cause that the physicians spake not a word of his danger. Being removed to London, he became much worse, grew first lethargic, then delirious; and after recovering a little, but not enough to give any distinct directions about public affairs, he died Sept. 2, 1658, aged somewhat more than 59 years. A little before his death, the physicians awakened the privy-council, by representing the danger he was in; and at an appointed time he was urged to name his successor. But when in a drowsy fit he answered out of purpose, they again asked him, if he did not name Richard his eldest son for his successor To which he answered, Yes. Then being asked where his will was, which heretofore he had made concerning the heirs of the kingdom, he sent to look for it in his closet and other places; but in vain for he had either burnt it, or somebody had stolen it. It has been imagined that Cromwell was poisoned, but without any reason. Dr. Bates gives us the following account of his disorder: “His body being opened, in the animal parts the brain seemed to be overcharged in the vitals the lungs a little inflamed but in die natural, the source of the distemper appeared the spleen, though sound to the eye, being within filled with alter like to the lees of oil. Nor was that inconsistent the disease he had for a long time been subject to; since, for t least thirty years, he had at times complained of hypochondriaeal indispositions. Though his bowels were taken out, and his body filled with spices, wrapped in a fourfold cere-cloth, put first into a coffin of lead, and then into one of wood, yet it purged and wrought through all, so that there was a necessity of interring it before the solemnity of the funeral.” A very pompous funeral was ordered at the public ex pence, and performed from Somerset-house, with a splendour superior to any that has been bestowed on crowned heads. Some have related, that his body was, by his own particular order, secretly buried in Naseby field; others that it was wrapped in lead, and sunk in the deepest part of the Thames, to prevent any insult that might be offered to it; others that it was taken from the gallows after the restoration, and deposited in the family-vault of the Claypoles, at Narborough near Peterborough. From the account of what passed upon, the order to disinter him after the restoration, it seems that his body was interred at Westminster. “In the middle aile of Henry VII's chapel,at the east end, in a vault, was found his corpse. In the inside of the coffin, and upon the breast of the corpse, was laid a copper-plate finely gilt, inclosed in a thin case of lead; on the side whereof were engraven the arms of England, impaled with the arms of Oliver; and on the reverse the following legend: Oli verius protector reipublicæ Angliæ, Scotiæ, & Hiberniæ, uatus 25 April 1599, inauguratus 16 Decembris 1653, mortuus 3 Septembris ann. 1658. Hic situs est.” But this in some writers is considered as a delusion; and that some other, if not the body of Charles I. was inclosed in this coffin, which is still a greater delusion and absurdity, as a very recent discovery proves. It has also been said, that the body of his daughter Claypole was found at the same time and place, with a silver plate with an inscription; but the workmen quarrelling about this plate, it was thrown into the vault again. The inscription on it, however, was shewn to the Society of Antiquaries, 1738, by Dr. Cromwell Mortimer, whose father married to his first wife a daughter of Richard Cromwell. The plate on Oliver’s coffin was in 1773 in the possession of the hon. George Hobart, of Nocton, in Lincolnshire, and shewn to the same society by Mr. Wills, and is engraved in Mr. Noble’s Memoirs.

Odious as Cromwell’s reign had been, many marks of public approbation were bestowed upon his memory. The poems of Waller, Sprat, and Dryden, though the authors lived to change their sentiments, give a very high idea of him, but allowance must be made for poetical evidence. In his life-time his actions had been celebrated by the learned abroad, as well as by his own secretary Milton at home; and with these panegyrics he seems not to have been displeased. We have indeed various characters of him from persons of various sentiments; yet in most of these there seems to be a mixture of flattery or prejudice. His panegyrists knew not where to stop their praises; and his enemies were as extravagant in their censures. Lord Hollis, in his “Memoirs,” will hardly allow him any great or good qualities; and one principal design of Ludiow’s Memoirs is to represent him as the vilest oi men. Cowley seems to have excelled all others, as well in respect to the matter as the manner of representing him in the different lights of praise and censure; so that his performance may justly be esteemed the most perfect of any, as it is beyond comparison the most beautiful. It is said, that cardinal Mazarine styled him a fortunate madman: but father Orleans, who relates this, dislikes that character, and would substitute in its place that of a judicious villain. Clarendon calls him a brave, wicked man: and Burnet is of opinion, that “his life and his arts were exhausted together; and that, if he had lived longer, he would scarce have been able to preserve his power.” But this only proves, that the bishop did not discern what resources he had. “how blameworthy soever the protector might have been in the acquisition of his high office, or how wickedly soever he acquired it, certain it is, he rivalled the greatest of the English monarchs in glory, and made himself courted and dreaded by the nations around him. The peace he gave the Dutch was honourable to himself and the nation; and whether he acted prudently or not in breaking with Spain, and allying himself with France, the inequality between the two crowns was far from being as visible then as it has since appeared, and Cromwell always had it in his power to throw himself into the opposite scale if necessary; and he distinguished himself by his interposition in behalf of the persecuted subjects of the French crown. His own government was, however, far from being free from blame. His edict against the episcopal clergy was very cruel, as it deprived them in a good measure of their maintenance, and liberty of worshiping God in a way that appeared best to their own understandings. The cavaliers had hard measure from him, as they were almost without exception subjected to heavy taxes and other inconveniences, on account of the rashness and imprudence of some of their party. Nor must we forget his institution of major-generals, who, in a variety of instances, lorded over an oppressed country; nor his sometimes making use of packed juries, and displacing judges for refusing to follow his directions, establishing high-commission courts, and so frequently violating the privileges of parliament.” Concessions like these make part of the character of Oliver Cromwell, as drawn by Mr. Harris, a professed advocate: but when he attempts to vindicate his illegal and tyrannical actions, on the ground of his being disappointed of regal power, and that had he accepted the kingship, which was offered by his parliament, a firmer settlement and a milder administration might have taken place, there seems little reason to doubt but the support even of that rank, considering the dangerous and uncertain terms on which he must have held it, would have urged him to the same violent and unwarrantable measures. Such biographers as Harris are generally employed in striking a balance between good and bad deeds; but it is not a few of the former that can redeem the character of Cromwell, who has been more justly said to be the strangest compound of villainy and virtue, baseness and magnanimity, absurdity and good sense, that we find upon record in the annals of mankind.

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

For his conduct towards foreign courts, it is certain that he carried his authority very far; and perhaps the English honour never stood higher. The queen of Sweden paid great respect to him, who, to express his regard for her on the other side, hung her picture in his bed-chamber. He treated very haughtily the kings of Denmark and Portugal; and obliged the ambassador of the latter to come and sign the peace at Whitehall, the very morning his brother was executed on Tower-hill. He refused the title of cousin from the French king, expecting that of brother; and so artfully played the Spaniard with him at a critical conjuncture, that the two crowns contended for his friendship with an earnestness which made them both ridiculous. Their advances were so extraordinary, and their acts of submission so singular, that the Dutch struck a medal, with the bust of Cromwell and his titles on one side, with Britannia on the other, and Cromwell laying his head in her lap with his breeches down and his posteriors bare, the Spanish ambassador stooping to kiss them, while the French ambassador holds him by the arm, with these words inscribed, “Retire toi, l'honneur appartient au roi mon maitre:” that is, “Keep back; that honour belongs to the king my master.”

Very little of Cromwell’s private life is known; he being near forty years of age when he first distinguished himself in opposing the project for draining of the fens. Yet there were some who knew and understood him thoroughly, before his extraordinary talents were made known to the world; and in particular his cousin Hampden, of which the following was a remarkable instance. When the debates ran high in the house of commons, and Hampden and lord Digby were going down the parliament stairs, with Cromwell just before them, who was known to the latter only by sight: “Pray,” said his lordship to Hampden, “who is that man, for I see that he is on our side, by his speaking so warmly to-day?” “That sloven,” replied Hampden, “whom you see before us, who has no ornament in his speech; that sloven, I say, if we should ever come to a breach with the king, which God forbid! in such a case, I say, that sloven will be the greatest man in England.” This prophecy, which was so fully accomplished, rose chiefly from the sense Hampden had of Cromwell’s indefatigable diligence in pursuing whatever he undertook. He had another quality, which was equally useful to him; that of discerning the temper of those with whom he had to deal, and dealing with them accordingly. Before he became commander in chief, he kept up a very high intimacy with the private men: taking great pains to learn their names, by which he was sure to call them; shaking them by the hand, clapping them on the shoulder; or, which was peculiar to him, giving them a slight box on the ear; which condescending familiarities, with the warm concern he expressed for their interests, gave him a power easier conceived than described. He tried to inveigle the earl of Manchester; but finding that impracticable, he fell upon him in the house of commons, and procured his removal. He carried himself with so much respect to Fairfax, that he knew not how to break with him, though he knew that he had betrayed him. He not only deceived Harrison, Bradshaw, and Ludlow, but outwitted Oliver St. John, who had more parts than them all; and he foiled sir Henry Vane with his own weapons. In short, he knew men perfectly, worked them to his purposes as if they had been cattle, and, which is still more wonderful, did that often while they conceived that they were making a tool of him. He had a reach of head, which enabled him to impose even upon the greatest bodies of men. He fed the resentment of the house of commons agai.ibi the army, till the latter were in a flame, and very angry with him; yet, when he came tothe army, it was upon a flea-bitten nag, all in a foam, as if he had made his escape from that house; in which trim he signed the engagement of Triploe heath, throwing himself from his horse upon the grass, and writing his name as he lay upon his belly. He had yet another faculty beyond these; and that was, the art of concealing his arts. He dictated a paper once to Ireton, which was imposed upon the agitators as if founded upon their instructions; who sent it express by two of their number to Cromwell, then lieutenant-general, at his quarters at Colchester. He was in bed when they came; but they demanded and obtained admittance. When they told him their commission, he asked them, with the greatest rage and resentment in his look, how they durst bring him papers from the army? They said, that paper contained the sense of the army, and they were directed to do it. “Are you sure of that?” said he, with the same stern countenance, “Let me see it.” He spent a long time in reading it; and, as it seemed to them, in reflecting upon it: then, with a mild and devout look, he told them it was a most just thing, and he hoped that God would prosper it; adding, “I will stand by the army in these desires with and fortune.”

With such arts and qualities as these, joined to his great military skill and reputation, we may account for all his successes, and that prodigious authority to which he raised himself, without having-recourse to that contract of his with the devil, of which, as Echard pretends, colonel Lindsey was eye and ear-witness. In the course of his life he was temperate and sober, and despised those who were not so. In his family he shewed great kindness, but without any diminution of his authority. He was very respectful to his mother, and very tender to his wife; yet neither had any influence over him. He expressed a deep sense of the concern which the former discovered for his danger, heard whatever she said to him patiently, but acted as he thought proper, and, in respect to her burial, directly against her dying request. His wife is said to have made a proposition tending to restore the king; but he rejected it unmoved, as he had shewn himself before, when his son Richard threw himself at his feet, to dissuade him from taking the king’s life. He did not seem offended at applications of the same kind from other persons, as from Whitlocke, though that gentleman thought he lost his confidence by it; from the marquis of Hertford, whom he treated very respectfully; and from Dr. Brownrig, bishop of Exeter, to whom he shewed more kindness than to any other man of his rank and profession. Asking advice once of this prelate, “My advice,” said he to him, “must be in the words of the Gospel: ' Render to Citsar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s:” to which Cromwell made no reply. He shewed a great respect for learning and learned men, without affecting to be learned himself. His letters, however, are the best testimonies of his parts; for they are varied in their style in a wonderful manner, exactly adapted to the purposes for which they were written, and the persons to whom they were addressed. A great number of them are to be found in Thurloe’s and Nichols’s collections, as well as in Rushworth and Whitlocke. His public speeches were long, dark; and perplexed; and though mixed with the cant of the times, yet have sentiments in them which shew a superiority of understanding. Several of these are in Whitlocke’s “Memorials.” In his conversation he was easy and pleasant, and could unbend himself without losing his dignity. He made an excellent choice in those he cmployed, but trusted none of them farther than was necessary.

It may seem strange, that in drawing together his character, there should be nothing said of his principles as to government or religion; but the real truth is, that neither run be discovered with certainty. We know that he hated a commonwealth, and the prtsbyterians; but what his sentiments were in other respects, it is not possible to say. When he recollected himself after the follies of his youth, there seems to be no doubt that he had serious impressions of religion; and there seem to be very strong proofs that he was afterwards tinctured with enthusiasm. It is impossible to suppose him a fanatic in the time of his elevavation; it were more reasonable to suppose him gradually to have lost all sense of religion, and only to have preserved the mask of it, for the better carrying on his designs, and managing the different parties, as we have before noticed. It is idle indeed to dispute on the religion of a man who rose to greatness by a succession of actions, both in conception and execution, radically criminal. Clarendon mentions his speaking kindly of bishops, as if there was something good in that order, it the dross was scoured off; and seems to think he was in earnest. But the whole of his life proves that he was not steady to any form of religion, supposing him to have retained any principles at the bottom; and there seems to be little doubt that the true meaning of these flattering words, was, his design to return to the old form of government; for whatever he intended, this was his great aim. He did not overturn the constitution to leave it in ruins, but to set it up again, and himself at the head of it; and though he compared his own government at first to that of a high constable, yet all he laboured at afterwards, was plainly to get the chaos new formed, and his own authority sanctified by the regal title, and the appearance of a legal parliament.

He had many children, of whom six, Richard, Henry, Bridget, Elizabeth, Mary, and Frances, survived to advanced age. Richard, his eldest son, was born Oct. 4, 1626. His father has been censured for keeping him at a distance from business, and giving him no employment but for this perhaps there was not any just ground. He married him to a daughter and coheir of Richard Major, of Hunley, in Hampshire, esq. who brought him a good fortune. He suffered him to pursue the bent of his inclinations, and to lead the life of a plain, honest, country gentleman; which for a time was highly suitable to his own interest, as it seemed to correspond with the terms of the Instrument of Government; and with the dislike which the protector, when first so called, had expressed of hereditary right. When he had afterwards brought about a change in affairs, he altered his conduct towards his son; named him the first lord in his other house; resigned to him the chancellorship of Oxford; and conferred upon him all the honours he could. His weak and harmless reign is well known. On his dismission from the protectorate, he resided some time at Pezenas, in Languedoc, and afterwards went to Geneva. Sometime in 1680, he returned to England, and for some time took the name of Richard Clark, and resided at Cheshunt, in Hertfordshire, where he died July 13, 1712. In 1705 he lost his only son, and became in right of him possessed of the manor of Horsley, which had belonged to his mother. Richard, then in an advanced age, sent or.c of his daughters to take possession of the estate for him. She kept it for herself and her sisters, allowing her father only a small annuity out of it, till she was dispossessed of it by a sentence of one of the courts of Westminster-hall. It was requisite for this purpose, that Richard should appear in person; and tradition says, that the judge who presided, lord Cowper, ordered a chair for him in court, and desired him to keep on his hat: this last circumstance appears wholly incredible. As Richard was returning from this trial, curiosity led him to see the house of peers, when, being asked by a person to whom he was a stranger, if he had ever seen any thing like it before, he replied, pointing to the throne, “Never since I sat in that chair.”

Oliver’s second son, Henry, born Jan. 20, 1627, he sent over into Ireland, where he raised him gradually to the post of lord lieutenant. Though in this he seemed to give him the preference to Richard, yet in reality he used him more harshly; for though his abilities were good, his manners irreproachable, and his submission exemplary, yet he paid no great deference to his recommendations, and allowed him as little power as could well be imagined. This son died March 25, 1674, having married a daughter of sir Francis Russel, of Chippenham, in Cambridgeshire. He was buried in the church of Wicken, in the same county, in which Spinney-abbey, his mansion-house, stood, and has this simple epitaph in the chancel: “Henricus Cromwell de Spinney obiit 23 die Martii, anno Christi 1673, unnoque ætatis 47.” His lady died April 7, 1687, aged 52, and was buried by him. Cromwell married all his daughters well, and was kind to their husbands; but it is said that he gave them no fortunes. Bridget, his eldest, first married commissary-general Ireton, and after his decease, lieutenantgeneral Fleetwood. Cromwell is said never to have had but one confidant, and that was Ireton, whom he placed at the head of affairs in Ireland, where he died of the plague in 1651. This daughter was a republican, as were her two husbands, and consequently not quite agreeable to her father; otherwise a woman of very good sense, and regular in her behaviour. By Ireton she had one daughter of her own name, married to Mr. Benclish. Elizabeth, his second and favourite daughter, was born in 1630, and married John Claypole, esq. a Northamptonshire gentleman, whom the protector made master of the horse, created a baronet in 1657, and appointed him one of his lords. Mary, his third daughter, born in 1636, was married with great solemnity to lord Fauconberg, Nov. 18, 1657; but the same day more privately by Dr. Hewett, according to the office in the common prayer-book. She was a lady of great beauty, and of a very high spirit; and, after her brother Richard was deposed, is thought to have promoted very successfully the restoration of king Charles; for it is remarkable, that all Cromwell’s daughters, except the eldest, had a secret kindness for the royal family, of which, however, he was not ignorant. Lord Fauconberg was sent to the Tower by the committee of safety, and was in very high favour with Charles II. He was raised to the dignity of an earl by king William, and died Dec. 31, 1700. His lady survived him to March, 1712, and distinguished herself to her death, by the quickness of her wit and the solidity of her judgment. Frances, the protector’s youngest daughter, was married first to Mr. Robert Rich, grandson to the earl of Warwick, in 1657, who died Feb. 16th following; and, secondly, to sir John Russel, of Chippenham, in Cambridgeshire, by whom she had several children, and lived to a great age.

, a Swedish mineralogist, and one of the first who improved that science by applying chemistry in the decomposition of mineral substances, was born in Sudermania in 1722, and educated at the university of Upsal, where he joined to his other studies, an uncommon predilection for natural history, and especially mineralogy, which was the cause of his being much employed in the royal college of mines, and being frequently sent to inspect those of Sweden and Norway. In 1753 he was elected a member of the academy of Stockholm, and contributed several papers on mineralogical subjects, particularly on nickel, which, by some experiments made in 1751 and 1754, he showed to contain a new semi-metal, or at least that a regulus different from all others was obtainable from its ore. Cronstedt died Aug. 19, 1765. His principal work, which is well known in this country by translations, was “An Essay towards a System of Mineralogy,” originally published in 1758, translated from the Swedish by Engestrom, and from that into English by Emanuel da Costa, 1770, 8vo. Of this a second edition, greatly improved by the addition of the modern discoveries, and by a new arrangement of the articles, was published at London in 1788, by John Hyacinth de Magellan, 2 vols. 8vo.

, an English artist, and famous copier of paintings, flourished in the reigns of Charles I. and Charles II. Being employed by the first of these kings to copy several eminent pieces in Italy, and having leave of the state of Venice to copy the celebrated Madonna of Raphael in St. Mark’s church, he performed the task so admirably well, that he is said to have put a trick upon the Italians, by leaving his copy, and bringing away the original; and that several messengers were sent after him, but that he had got the start of them so far as to carry it clear off. This picture was afterwards, in Oliver Cromwell’s days, bought by the Spanish ambassador, when the king’s collection was exposed to sale. Cross copied likewise Titian’s Europa, and other celebrated pieces, very successfully. He must be distinguished from Lewis Cross, who died 1724, and of whom it is recorded that he re-painted a little picture of Mary queen of Scots, in the possession of the duke of Hamilton, and was ordered to make it as handsome as he could. He made the face a round one. For many years it was believed an original, and innumerable copies have been made from it.

, a Franciscan friar and popish missionary in England, was chaplain to king James II. and followed the abdicated monarch to St. Germain’s in 1688, where he died a few years after. H was esteemed to be a man of parts, and published: 1. “A Sermon before the king and queen at St. James’s palace,” 1686. 2. “Cynosura, or the Miserere psalm paraphrased,” thin folio. 3. “Divine Poems.” 4. “Philotheus’s Pilgrimage to perfection, in a practice of ten days solitude,” Bruges, 1668.

, an eminent physician and benefactor to the science, was born in London, and educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he was admitted a pensioner May 13, 1647, and took the degree of B. A. in 1650. In 1651 he was elected a fellow, and commenced M. A. in 1654. In 1659, being now settled as a physician in London, he was chosen rhetoric professor in Gresham college, and at the first meeting of the royal society, Nov. 28, 1660, was (though absent) appointed their register, whose business was to make minutes of what passed at their meetings. In this office he remained till the grant of their charter, when Dr. Wilkins and Mr. Oldenburg were nominated joint secretaries. On Oct. 7, 162, he was created M. D. at Cambridge, by royal mandate; and in May 1663 was chosen one of the first fellows of the royal society, and frequently afterwards was one of the council. The same year he was admitted a candidate of the college of physicians. In 1665 he travelled into France, and became acquainted with several eminent and learned men of that nation. In August 1670, he was chosen by the company of surgeons their lecturer on anatomy, which he held to his death; but this year he resigned his Gresham professorship, which could be held only by a bachelor, and soon after married Mary, daughter of John Lorimer, of London, esq. In 1674 and 1675 he read his “Theory of Muscular Motion,” in the theatre of Surgeous’-hall, an abstract of which was afterwards published by Mr. Hooke in his “Philosophical Collections.” In July 1675, he was admitted a fellow of the college of physicians, after he had waited for a vacancy upwards of twelve years. He was much esteemed as a physician, and came into great practice in the latter part of his life, on which account the loss of him was much regretted by the citizens of London. He died of a fever Oct. 12, 1684, and was buried in St. Mildred’s church in the Poultry, in a vault belonging to the Lorimer family, with an inscription on black marble, on the pavement in the chancel. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. John Scott, rector of St. Peter-le-Poor, Broad-street, in which he gives him. a very high character, not only for learning, but those more amiable attributes of a physician, tenderness and kindness to the poor. He tiled rich, and besides many benevolent legacies, left his medical books to the college of physicians, and his mathematical collection to Emanuel college. His printed works are in the Philosophical Transactions; and many of his Mss. are in the British Museum (see Ayscough’s Cat. under the articles Crone, Croon, and Croun). He printed separately only one tract, “De ratione motus musculorum,” Lond. 1664, 4to Amst. 1667, 12mo, without his name in either edition. He left to Emanuel and six other colleges at Cambridge, a sum of money to found algebra lectures, which took place in 1710. This legacy, although a contingent on the death of his wife, was liberally settled by her in her life-time. He also left a plan of an annual lecture on museular motion before the royal society, which was also carried into execution by Mrs. Croun. The first lecture was read in 1738, by Dr. Alexander Stuart, physician to the queen, and has been continued ever since. These lectures, for a considerable number of years, have been regularly published in the Philosophical Transactions, and have been drawn up by the most eminent physiologists, who were members of the society, and contain a great collection of very curious and important facts, respecting the muscles and their motions. The Crounian lecture is endowed with the protits of a house in Old Fish-street.

, an eminent philosopher and mathematician, descended from a noble family, was born at Lausanne, April 13, 1663. His father was Abraham de Crousaz, colonel of a regiment of fusileers: in his youth being of a very delicate habit, he was not too closely confined to his studies, yet left school at the age of thirteen with the reputation of a good scholar. His father, who intended him for the army, had him educated in the branches of knowledge necessary for that profession; but finding him averse to any pursuit unless that of literature, he allowed him to follow his inclination. In his fifteenth year he completed his course of philosophy, and distinguished himself by his theses, but being dissatisfied with the philosophy then taught, he had recourse to the writings of Des Cartes, which he studied with avidity, and applied at the same time to mathematics, but scholastic theology had no more charms for him than the philosophy he had been taught. In his sixteenth year, however, he entered as a student of divinity, attended the best professors, both at Geneva and Lausanne, and read the opinions of other eminent divines on the subjects most involved in controversy. In March 1682 he went to Lcyden, made himself acquainted with the theological disputes, and endeavoured to investigate how far they could be determined by the sacred scriptures. Leaving Holland, he entered France, became acquainted with those celebrated protestant divines Claude and Menard, at Charenton, and fathers Malebranche and le Vassor at Paris, who in vain endeavoured to bring him over to the Roman catholic church, which Vassor himself forsook some years after. On his return to his native country, in J 684, Crousaz married the daughter of John Lewis Loys, comptroller-general, and soon after was ordained, and made honorary professor. He officiated as pastor in the church of Lausanne for fourteen years. During this time, in 1691, he was appointed to dispute for the professorship of Hebrew at Berne, which he performed with great credit. In 1699 he was made professor of Greek and philosophy, and although also nominated to the chair of divinity in 1700, he preferred that of philosophy. In 1706 he was appointed rector of the college, which office he held three years, and was again appointed in 1722, but held it then only two years, as it interfered too much with his literary engagements. It was during this second rectorate, that contests arose at Lausanne respecting the obligation of signing the Consensus, a formulary of faith and doctrine maintained in the protestant churches of Swisserland, an account of which may be seen in “Memoires pour servir a l‘histoire des troubles arrives en Suisse a I’occasion du Consensus,” Amst. 1726; and more briefly in Mosheim’s History. In 1705, from his own theses, and those published at the expence of the lords of Berne, he compiled a system of logic, in twenty ­two theses, 4to, and in the same and two following years published an abridgment of this. In 1712 he published in French, a system of logic, entitled “Systeme de reflexions qui peuvent coutribuer a la netteté et a Petude de nos connoissances,” Amst. 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted there in 1720, 3 vols. 12mo; in 1725, in 4 vols. and in 1741, in 6 vols. In 1724 he published an abridgment of it in Latin, at Geneva, “Systema Logicæ, juxta principia ab autore in Gallico opere posita.” Some conversations on the subject of beauty in art, led him to an investigation of the subject, and produced in 1715, his “Traité du Beau, ou Ton montre en quoi consiste ce que l'on nomnie ainsi, par des examples tirés de la plupart des arts et des sciences,” reprinted at Amst. 2 vols. 12mo. In 1718, he published an ironical work, “Nouvelles maximes sur l'Education des enfans,” Amst. 8vo; but in 1722, his more serious and better known work on Education, Hague, 1722, 2 vols. 12mo. In 1718 he answered the deistical Collins’s discourse of Freethinking, in “Examen du traite de la Hberté de penser,” Amst. 8vo. In the same year he published his first mathematical work, “Geometric des lignes et des surfaces rectilignes et circulaires,” Arnst. 2 vols. 8vo.

In 1724 he was invited to the professorship of mathematics and philosophy at Groningen, with a salary of 1500 Dutch florins; and when the lords of Berne granted him permission to accept this office, they also allowed his son to fill the chair at Lausanne for a year; during which he might see whether the air of Groningen agreed with him. He departed accordingly, and in October took possession of his new professorship with a discourse “De logic-ce cum physica, et de mathesceos cum utraque, et utriusque cum mathesi reciproco nexu,” which was afterwards printed. In 1726 he was chosen a foreign associate of the royal academy of sciences at Paris, and the same year was selected as tutor to prince Frederick of Hesse Cassel, which occasioned him to remove to Cassel; and he superintended the education of his illustrious pupil until 1732, in which year the king of Sweden made him counsellor of his embassies. In September of the same year he went to Geneva with his pupil, and after a year’s residence there returned to Lausanne. The king of Sweden sent him a very polite letter of acknowledgement for the services he had rendered the prince, who was the king’s nephew, and prince William of Hesse-Cassel, father to prince Frederick, continued to Crousaz his pension of 884 crowns as long as he lived. In 1735 Crousaz was chosen a member of the royal academy of sciences at Bourdeaux; and in 1737 he was unanimously elected to the vacant professorship of philosophy at Lausanne; and the lords of Berne permitted him to employ a deputy when he found age and infirmities creep on, and continued to him his title of professor and his salary, even when he was obliged to decline all its duties. As late as 1740, however, we find that he continued to enjoy health and activity, but died in May 1750, deeply regretted as one of the ablest men of his time, a man of great piety, and an acute and successful opponent of infidelity in every shape.

Besides the works already mentioned, he published, 1. “Cinq Sermons sur la verite de la religion Chretienne,” with a sixth on the plague at Marseilles, 1722, 8vo. 2. “Nouveau volume des Sermons,” 1723, 8vo. 3. “Summa Logicae,” Groningen, 1724. 4. “Compendium Logicrc,” Groningen, 1725. 5. “De physicic militate.” 6. “Tentamen novum metaphysicum.” 7. “Reflexions sur Tusage et sur Tabus du jeu.” 8. “Sermon sur la gloire de ceux qui connoissent Pevangile, et qui s’y soumettent.” 9. “Essai de rhetorique contenu dans la traduction de quatre harangues de Tite-Live.” 10. “Essai sur le mouvement.” These last six articles were printed at Groningen in 1725. 11. “Reflexions sur Futilite des mathematiques,” Amst. 1725. 12. “De niente hutnana, &c. dissert, philosophicotheologica,” Groningen, 1726, 12mo. 13. “Traite d'Algebra,” Paris, 1726. 14. “Examen du Pyrronisme ancienne et moderne,” Hague, 1734, fol. an able confutation of Bayle and other free-thinkers. 15. “Systeme de Logique abrege,” with a preface on the use and abuse of abridgments, Lausanne, 1733. 16. “Oeuvres diverses,” 1737, 2 vols. 17. “Horatii logica,” Lausanne, 1739. 15. “Traite” de l'esprit humain, &c.“Basil 1741, against Leibnitz and Wolff. 19.” Reflexions sur la belie VV'olfienne,“1743, on the same subject. 20. Various prize dissertations which received that honour in the academy of Bonrdeanx. 21.” Dissertation sur le principe du mouvement“to which the academy of Paris adjudged the prize in 1720, printed at Paris, 1722, 4to. 22.” Commentaire sur Panalyse des hifinimens petits."

Two of M. de Crousaz’s publications yet remain, and require particular notice: his “Examen de l‘Essai sur l’homme, poeme de M. Pope,” Lausanne, 1737; and “Commentaire sur la traduction en vers de M. l‘abbé du Resnel, de l’essai de M. Pope,” Geneva, 1738, 12mo. In these M. Crousaz accuses Mr. Pope of Spinosism and naturalism, and the first of them was immediately translated into English by the celebrated Miss Carter, with some assistance from Dr. Johnson, and published under the title of “An Examination of Mr. Pope’s Essay on Man containing a succinct view of the system of the fatalists, and a confutation of their opinions with an illustration of the doctrine of free-will, and an inquiry what view Mr. Pope might have in touching upon the Leibnitzian philosophy and fatalism,” 1738, 8vo. The other was translated under the title of “A Commentary on Mr. Pope’s Principles of Morality, or Essay on Man. By M. Crousaz; with the abbe” dn Resnel’s translation of the Essay into French verse, and the English interlined: also observations on the French, Italian, and English Poetry,“1741, 8vo. Pope, who had got the principles of the Essay from Bolingbroke, and did not understand them, would have made but a sorry figure in this controversy had he not found in Warburton a vigorous defender, although it is said that he had once written a censure of the doctrines of the Essay on Man. He now stept forth, however, with a defence, which was first published in a monthly literary journal (The Republic of Letters), but was afterwards collected into a volume (1742, 12mo), written with more asperity than argument.” Crousaz,“says Dr. Johnson,” was no mean antagonist; his mind was one of those in which philosophy and piety are happily united. He was accustomed to argument and disquisition, and, perhaps, was grown too desirous of detecting faults; but his intentions were always right, his opinions were solid, and his religion pure. His incessant vigilance for the promotion of piety disposed him to look with distrust upon all metaphysical systems of theology, and all schemes of virtue and happiness purely rational; and therefore it was not long before he was persuaded that the positions of Pope, as they terminated for the most part in natural religion, were intended to draw mankind away from revelation, and to represent the wholecourse of things as a necessary concatenation of indissoluble fatality; and it is undeniable, that in many passages a religious eye may easily discover expressions not very favourable to morals or to liberty.“The consequence to Pope was, that his eyes were opened, and he was not a little pleased that by” any mode of interpretation he could be made to mean well." To Warburton the consequences were more important; Pope courted him, and ultimately got him a. ricli wife and a bishopric.

, a divine and poet, was born either in Gloucestershire, or, according to Bale, in Northamptonshire, and entered a student of Magdalen college, Oxford, about the year 1534; and after taking the degree of B. A. was elected probationer fellow in 1542. In the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. he settled in London, took a house in Ely-rents, Holborn, and there exercised the trade of printer and bookseller, and being, we suppose, in orders, occasionally preached but being at the same time a zealous friend to the reformation, on the accession of queen Mary he went with the other exiles to Francfort, where he remained until the queen’s death. After his return to England he had several benefices bestowed on him, among which were the archdeaconry, and a prebend in Hereford, both which he resigned in 1567; a prebend of St. Paul’s, the rectory of St. Peter le Poor, and the vicarage of St. Giles’s Cripplegate; but he was deprived of the latter, the only promotion which he appears to have held at that time (1566), for a riot in the church, because the choristers wore surplices. In 1576, however, it appears that he was collated to the living of St. Lawrence Jewry, and probably was now more reconciled to the ceremonies and habits of the church. In 1578 he was presented with the freedom of the Stationers’ company, and soon after is found with the wardens, licensing copies. He died June 18, 1588, and was buried in his former church of St. Giles’s. He was, according to Tanner, a person of a happy genius, an eminent preacher, and a zealous advocate for reformation. His works, both in prose and verse, enumerated by Wood and Tanner, are now merely objects of curiosity. In 1550 he printed the first edition of “Pierce Plowman’s Vision,” with the view of helping forward the reformation by the revival of a book which exposed the absurdities of popery. He translated into popular rhyme, not only the Psalter, but the Litany, with hymns, all which he printed together in 1549. In the same year, and in the same measure, he published “The Voice of the Last Trumpet blown by the seventh angel,” a piece containing twelve several lessons for the instruction of all classes. He also attacked the abuses of his age in thirty-one “Epigrams,” 1550, and twice reprinted. In the same year he published a kind of metrical sermon on “Pleasure and Pain, Heaven and Hell Remember these four, and all shall be well.” In his “Dialogue between Lent and Liberty,” written to prove that Lent is a superstitious institution, Mr. Warton thinks that the personification of Lent is a bold and a perfectly new prosopopeia. Crowley likewise wrote and printed in 1588, a rhyming manual, “The School of Virtue and Book of Good Nature,” a translation, into metre, of many of the less exceptionable Latin hymns anciently used by the catholics. Among his prose works are “An Apology of those English preachers and writers which Cerberus, the three-headed dog of hell, chargeth with false doctrine under the name of Predestination,” 1566, 4to, and “Brief Discourse concerning those four usual notes whereby Christ’s Catholic Church is known,” 1581, 4 to, &c. In controversy he was usually warm, and not nice in his language; and in his poetry he consulted usefulness rather than taste.

, an American, was the son of an independent minister in Nova Scotia. Being a man of some genius, and impatient of the strict education he received in that country, he resolved upon coming to England to try if he could not make his fortune by his wits. When he first arrived here, his necessities were extremely urgent; and he was obliged to become gentleman usher to an old independent lady; but he soon grew as weary of that office as he was of the discipline of Nova Scotia. He set himself therefore to writing; and presently made himself so known to the court and the town, that he was nominated by Charles II. to write “The Masque of Calisto.” This nomination was procured him by the earl of Rochester, who designed by that preference to mortify Dryden. Upon the breaking out of the two parties, after the pretended discovery of the popish plot, the favour Crowne was in at court induced him to embrace the tory party; about which time he wrote a comedy called the “City Politics,” in order to expose the whigs. The lord chamberlain, Bennet earl of Arlington, though secretly a papist, was unaccountably a friend to the whigs, from his hatred to the treasurer lord Darnley. Upon various pretences the play was withheld from the stage; at last Crowne had recourse to the king himself, and by his majesty’s absolute command the play was acted. Though Crowne ever retained a most sincere affection to his royal master, he was honest enough to despise the servilities of a court. He solicited the payment of money promised him, which as soon as he obtained he became remiss in his attendance at St. James’s. The duchess of Portsmouth observed this conduct, and acquainted the king with it. The gay monarch only laughed at the accusation, and perhaps in his mind justified Crowne’s sincerity.

About the latter end of this reign, Crowne, tired out with writing, and desirous of sheltering himself from the resentment of many enemies he had made by his “City Politics,” ventured to address the king himself, for an establishment in some office, that might be a security to him for life. The king answered, “he should be provided for;” but added, “that he would first see another comedy.” Crowne endeavoured to excuse himself by telling the king, that “he plotted slowly and awkwardly.” His majesty replied, that “he would help him to a plot” and put into his hand the Spanish comedy called “Non pued esser,” out of which Crowne took the comedy of “Sir Courtly Nice.” The play was just ready to appear, and Crowne extremely delighted to think that he was going to be made happy the remaining part of his life, by the performance of the king’s promise; when, upon the last day of the rehearsal, he met Underbill the player coming from the house, who informed him of the king’s death. This event ruined Crowne; who had now nothing but his wits to live on for the remaining part of his life. On them, however, he contrived to live at least until 1703, but it is not certain when he died. He was the author of seventeen plays, some of which were acted with great success; of a romance called “Pandion and Amphigeria;” and a burlesque poem called “Dceneids,” 1692, 4to, partly imitated from Boileau’s “Lutrin,” which last he translated in Dryden’s Miscellany. The editor of the Biographia Dramatica assigns him the third rank in dramatic merit, which seems rather more than his plays will justify. His merit, such as it was, lay in comedy, for his tragedies are wretched. Dryden, who, notwithstanding his high fame, was not wholly free from the jealousy of rivals, and even of such a rival as Crowne, used to compliment him when any of his plays failed, but was cold to him it he met with success. He used also to say that Crowne had some genius, but then he always added, that “his father and Crowne’s mother were very well acquainted.” For this bit of gossip, related first by Jacob Tonson, we are indebted to Spence’s Anecdotes. Dry den was evidently in good humour when he thus endeavoured to account for Crowne’s genius.

, was the son of Samuel Croxall, rector of Hanworth in Middlesex, and Walton upon Thames in Surrey, in the last of which places his son was born. He received his early education at Eton school, and thence was sent to St. John’s college, in Cambridge. It is said, that while he was at the university he became enamoured of Mrs. Anna Maria Mordaunt, who first inspired his breast with love; and to whom he dedicates “The Fair Circassian,” in a bombastic style, bordering on prophaneness. Croxall was designed for orders, and had probably entered them when he published this poem, which made him cautious of being known to be the author of a piece so ludicrously written, and yet taken from a book which makes a part of the canon of scripture. The first specimen of this poem, under the title of “Solomon’s Song, chap, iv.” appeared in Steele’s Miscellany, 1713. The first edition of the whole poem appeared in 1720, when it might have been expected he had acquired more reverence for the scriptures, or respect for his profession.

Croxall had not long quitted the university before he was instituted to the vicarage of Hampton, in Middlesex; and afterwards^ Feb. 1731, to the united parishes of St. Mars-­Somerset and St. Mary Mounthaw, in London, both which he held till his death. He was also chancellor, prebendary, canon residentiary, and portionist of the church of Hereford; in 1732 was made archdeacon of Salop and chaplain to the king; and in Feb. 1734 obtained the vicarage of Selleck in Herefordshire. He died at an advanced age, Feb. 13, 1752. Dr. Croxall, who principally governed the church of Hereford during the old age of bishop Egerton, pulled down the old stone chapel adjoining to the palace, of which a fine plate was published by the society of antiquaries in 1737, and with the materials built a house for his brother, Mr. Rodney Croxall. Having early imbibed a strong attachment to the whig-interest, he employed his pen in favour of that party during the latter end of queen Anne’s reign; and published “Two original cantos, in imitation of Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” as a satire on the earl of Oxford’s administration. In 17 15 he addressed a poem to the duke of Argyle, upon his obtaining a victory over the rebels; and the same year published “The Vision,” a poem, addressed to the earl of Halifax. In 1720 he published “The Fair Circassian,” in 4to in 1722, a collection of “Fables of jÆsop and others, translated into English,” a work which continues to be popular, probably from its homely and almost vulgar style. He wrote all the dedications prefixed to the “Select Novels,” printed for Watts, 1729; and was the author of “Scripture Politics,” 1735, 8vo. This is an account intended for common readers of the historical part of the Old Testament. His latest publication was “The Royal Manual;” in the preface of which he endeavours to shew that it was composed by the famous Andrew Marvel, found among his Mss. but it was generally believed to be written by himself.

As a divine, Dr. Croxall seems entitled to little respect. He owed his preferments to his political services. He published, however, six single sermons, and while house chaplain to the palace at Hampton court, preached a sermon on a public occasion, in which, under the character of a corrupt and wicked minister of state, he was supposed to mean sir Robert Walpole, who had intercepted some ecclesiastical dignity which he wished to obtain. It was expected that for this offence he would have been removed from his chaplainship: but the court over-ruled it, as he had always manifesed himself to be a zealous friend to the Hanover succession. To the list of his poems may be added, an “Ode.” inscribed to king George the First, on his landing to receive the crown; and “Colin’s Mistakes,” formerly ascribed to Prior, but printed as Croxall’s in Mr. Nichols’s Collection. His having written the dedications to the “Select Novels,” printed for Watts in 1729, suggested to some bookseller to affix his name to a compilation called “The Tea-table Miscellany,” 1766.

, a learned French writer, was born at Nantes, Dec. 4, 1661. His father, who was a merchant, was also a man of letters, and bestowed much pains on the education of his son, who answered his expectations by the proficiency he made in classical studies. He had, however, provided him with a private tutor, who happened to disgust him by the severity of his manners, and upon this account partly, at the age of fourteen, he desired to take a voyage to some of the West India islands, to which his father traded; but his principal inducement was what he had read in books of voyages, and the conversation of persons who had been in America, all which raised his curiosity to visit the new world. He embarked on board a French ship, with no other books than Erasmus’s Colloquies, and the Gradus ad Parnassum. His passage was not unpleasant, and during his residence at Guadeloupe he borrowed all the Latin books he could discover, and read them with avidity; but the chief advantage he seems to have derived here was an opportunity to learn the English, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese San^uasres. To these he afterwards added an acquaintance with the German, Sclavonic, and AngloSaxon; and studied with much attention the ancient and modern Greek, the Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Hebrew, Arabic, and even the Chinese. On his return to Nantes in 1677, he found his father’s affairs somewhat deranged, and was obliged to take a part in the business. Medicine appears to have been first suggested to him as a profession, but he found little inclination for that study; and some conferences he happened to have with the Benedictines of the congregation of St. Maur determined him to enter their society. He accordingly made his noviciate in 1673, and applied himself to the study of theology. In 1682 he formally became a member of the congregation. His residence at Paris, in the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, the vast number of books within his reach, and particularly of manuscripts, increased his knowledge and his thirst for knowledge, and some of his earliest labours were bestowed in preparing materials, collecting Mss. &c. for new editions of the works of St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. But these were interrupted by certain differences which occurred in the abbey to which he belonged, and of which we have various accounts. The prior of St. Germain, father Loo, had a great aversion to the study of classical and polite literature, and was for confining the members to the strict religious duties of the house. This could not fail to be disgusting to a man of La Croze’s taste: but, according to other accounts, which seem more prohable, he began to entertain religious scruples about this time (lr.96), which induced him to withdraw himself. It is said that his superiors found among his papers a treatise against transubstantiation in his hand-writing, and which they believed to be his composition; but they discovered afterwards that it uas a translation from the English of Stillingfleet. Some other manuscripts, however, sufficiently proved that he had changed his opinion on religious matters; and the dread of persecution obliged him to make his escape to Basil, which he successfully accomplished in May 1696. Here he renounced the Roman catholic religion, and as his intention was to take up his residence, he was matriculated as a student of the college of Basil. He remained in this place, however, only till September, when he departed, provided with the most honourable testimonies of his learning and character from Buxtorf, the Hebrew professor, and Werenfels, dean of the faculty of theology. He then went to Berlin, where his object was to secure a iixed residence, devote himself to study, and endeavour to forget France. In order to introduce himself, he began with offering to educate young men, the sons of protestant parents, which appears to have answered his purpose, as in 1697 we find him appointed librarian to the king of Prussia; but his biographers are not agreed upon the terms. To this place a pension was attached, but not sufficient to enable him to live without continuing his school; and some assert that he was very poor at this time. The probability is, that his circumstances were improved as he became better known, and his reputation among the learned was already extensive. In June of 1697 he went to Francfort to visit the literati of that place, and their fine library, and visited also Brandenburgh for the same purpose. In November 1697 (or, as Chaufepie says, in 1702), he married Elizabeth Rose, a lady originally of Dauphiny, and thus, adds one of his Roman catholic biographers, completed the abjuration of the true religion. In 1698 he first commenced author, and from time to time published those works on which his fame rests. Soon after he became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, with whom he carried on an intimate correspondence. In 17 13 he went to Hamburgh, where he paid many visits to the learned Fabricius, and in his letters speaks with great warmth of the pleasure this journey afforded; but this year, 17 J 3, was not in other respects a vei'y fortunate one to La Croze, and he formed the design of quitting Germany. He had been appointed tutor to the margrave of Schwel, and this employment terminating in 1714, he lost the pension annexed to it, and was reduced to considerable difficulties, of which he wrote to Leibnitz, as to a friend in whom he could confide. Leibnitz, by way of answer, sent him a copy of a letter which he had written to M. BernsdorfT, prime minister to the elector of Hanover, in his behalf. The object likely to be attained by this interest was a professorship at Helmstadt; but as it required subscription to the articles of the Lutheran church, M. la Croze, notwithstanding the persuasions Leibnitz employed, declined accepting it. His affairs, however, soon after wore a more promising aspect, partly in consequence of a prize he gained in the Dutch lottery. In 1717 he had the honour to be engaged as private tutor to the princess royal of Prussia, afterwards margravine of Bareoth. In 1724, for several months his studies were interrupted by a violent fit of the gravel; and on his recovery, the queen of Prussia, who always patronized La Croze, obtained for him the professorship of philosophy in the French college at Berlin, vacant by the death of M. Chauvin. This imposed on him the necessity of drawing up a course of philosophy, but as he never intended to print it, it is said not to have been executed with the care he bestowed on his other works. In 1713 father Bernard Pez, the Benedictine, made him liberal offers if he would return to the church he had forsaken, but this he declined with politeness, offering the arguments which influenced his mind to remain in the protestant church. In 1739 an inflammation appeared on his leg, which inApril put on appearances of mortification, hut did not prove fatal until May 21. About a quarter of an bour before his death he desired his servant to read the 51st and 77th psalms, during which he expired, in the seventy -first year of his age. He was reckoned one of the most learned men of his time, and was frequently called a living library. So extensive was his reading, and so vast iiis memory, that no one ever consulted him without obtaining prompt information. In dates, facts, and references he was correct and ready. We have already noticed how many languages he had learned, but it appears that he made the least progress in the Chinese, to which Leihnitz, in his letters, is perpetuiiy iirging him. The greater part of his life was employed in study, and he had no other pleasures. There was scarcely a book in his library whicli he had not perused, and he wrote ms notes on most of them. His conversation could not fail to be acceptable to men of literary research, as his memory was stored with anecdotes, which he told in a very agreeable manner. He was conscientiously attached to the principles of the reformed religion. He had always on his table the Hebrew Psalter, the Greek Testament, and Thomas a Kempis in Latin: the latter he almost had by heart, as well as Buchanan’s Psalms. His consistent piety and charity are noticed by all his biographers.

It may be necessary to notice that he has been sometimes confounded, and especially in Germany, with Conrand de la Croze, who lived for some time in Holland, and wrote part of the first nine volumes of the “Bibliotheque Universelle,” and the whole of vol. XI. From these a 4to volume was published in London in 1693, under the title of “Memoirs for the ingenious,” but the two authors were nowise related.

The principal works of the subject of this memoir are: 1. “Dissertations historiques sur divers sujets,” Rotterclam, 1707, 8vo, called vol. I. but no more were published. It contains three dissertations, the first on Socinianism and Mahometanism, stating the connexion between them: the second, an examination of father Hardouin’s opinions on ancient authors; and die third, on the ancient and modem state of religion in India. 2. “Vindiciae Veterum Scriptorum, contra Hardouinum,” ibid. 1708, 8vo. 3. “Entretiens sur divers sujets d'histoire,” Cologne (Amsterdam), 8vo, containing conversations with a Jew, a dissertation on atheism, and an attack on Basnage, which La Croze’s biographer, Jordan, thinks too severe. The dissertation on atheism was translated into English, and published 1712. 4. “Histoire du Christianisme des Indes,” Hague, 172J-, 8vo, a work which contributed greatly and deservedly to his reputation. 5. “Histoire du Christianisme d‘Ethiope & d’Armenie,” ibid. 1739, 8vo, inferior to the former, but containing much curious information. Besides many smaller dissertations and letters in the literary journals, M. Croze was the author of various works left in ms. one of which, “Lexicon Ægyptiaco-Latinum,” was published by Woide, at Oxford, in 1775, 4to, and professor Uhl published his correspondence in 3 vols. 4to, Leipsic; “Thesauri Epistoiici Lacroziani, tom. III. ex bibliotheca Jordaniana,” 1748—1746.

, one of the contributors to the reformation in Germany, was born at Leipsic, Jan. 1, 1504. In his youth he was of a retired melancholy cast, but made great progress in classical learning, and afterwards in divinity, which he studied at Wittemberg under Mosellanus and Richard Croke (See Croke), and had for his fellow student the learned Camerarius, who says, that although he appeared to his companions of a didl capacity, he laid in a greater stock of learning than any of them. In 1524 he went to Magdeburgb, and taught school for two years; and on his return to Wittemberg he was appointed to expound the scriptures, and to preach in the church near the castle, and was admitted to his doctor’s degree. Here he also applied his mind to the study of medicine, pharmacy, and botany, and laid out two gardens with a great variety of curious and useful plants. Having contracted an intimacy with Luther, he joined him in his efforts to promote the reformation, and assisted him in the translation of the Bible. In 1,540, in the dispute at Worms with Eckius, &c. he was chosen secretary; and Glanvil, who represented the emperor in this assembly, said of him that he had more learning than all the Pontificians, or Romanists. In disputing he aimed at great perspicuity, and disliked new and ambiguous expressions. To his other studies he joined a very intimate acquaintance with mathematics, was a master of Euclid, anil himself invented or improved various astronomical instruments. In 1546 he was chosen rector of the college of Wittemberg, and sustained almost alone the whole weight of managing its concerns, by which, added to his unremitting studies, his health became injured, and his strength so much impaired, that he died of a decline Nov. 16, 1548, in the forty-fourth year of his age. During his sickness, he employed himself in reading, and exhorting his family and friends, who came to see him, to adhere to the principles he had professed and taught. He published some commentaries on the gospel of St. John, the epistle to Timothy, and the Psalms in German “Ermrrationes in duns articltlos Symboll Niceni;” and “Oratio cle ordine discendi.” Some of these are to be found among Mclanchton’s works.

, of the same family with the preceding-, was also of the reformed religion, and a man of great learning. He was born at Mersburgh Sept. 24, 1575, and was educated at Nassau, Leipsic, Wittemberg, and Heidelberg; and in 1600 was appointed schoolmaster at Cassel. In 1605 he was promoted to the professorship of logic at Marpurg, and about three years after received his doctor’s degree, and became rector of the college, and afterwards dean of the faculty of theology. He died in 1636. His only, or principal publication, is a very learned and curious work, entitled “Harmonia Linguarum quatuor Cardinalium, Hebraicse, Latin ae, et Germanicse,” Francfort, 1616, fol. In this work the author endeavours to prove that the Hebrew is the parent of the Greek, Latin, and German languages, and although he indulges perhaps a little too much in etymological conjecture, he is frequently successful, and always ingenious. All bibliographers mark this a book of rare occurrence, but we have just seen a copy in the late Dr. Gosset’s valuable library, sold for a few shillings.

, or, as he signs in his French letters, La Croix, a learned Dutchman, was born at Delft, about the end of the sixteenth century, and was first educated under the elder Trelcatius at Leyden, and afterwards at Franeker, where he studied divinity, Hebrew, and Greek, under Drusius, &c. He also read history, philosophy, and poetry, and occasionally amused himself with writing Latin poetry. He became pastor at Delft, the only situation he appears to have held in the church. When he died is not mentioned by Foppen or Moreri; and the little we know of him is gleaned from his curious volume of miscellanies and epistolary correspondence, the best edition of which was published at Amsterdam, 1661, 12mo, under the title of “Jacobi Crucii Mercurius Batavus, sive epistolarum opus, monitis theologicis, ethicis, politicis, ceconomicis, refer turn, editio aucta et recognita.” This work is replete with judicious remarks, and literary anecdote, and contains many letters from Rivet, Colvius, Lanoy, Salmasius, Vossius, and other learned contemporaries. The freedom of some of Crucius’s observations procured it a place in the Index Expurgatorius, Jan. 25, 1684. He published also “Suada Delphica, sive orationes LXIX. varii argurnenti, ad usury studiosae juventutis,” Amst. 1675, 12mo, and often reprinted.

, author of an excellent “Concordance of the Bible,” was born in 1701 at Aberdeen, where he received his grammar learning: he afterwards studied at Marischal college, with a view of entering the church. Unfortunately, before the period arrived when he could be admitted to officiate as a public instructor, such decided symptoms of insanity appeared in his conduct, as rendered confinement necessary. This afterwards settled in a kind of belief that he was delegated by Heaven to reform a guilty world; and his conduct in a thousand instances demonstrated an ardour and zeal for the good of his fellow-creatures, that merited the highest applause. Thrice, however, he was shut up in a private madhouse, in which, if the nature of his disease did not lead him to exaggeration, he was cruelly treated. Once indeed he brought his action against a respectable physician, and other persons connected with him; the cause was tried, and Cruden was unable to make out a case. The verdict was given in favour of the defendants; and his appeal to the public was not of a kind to set aside that verdict, although he certainly suffered much more harsh treatment than was necessary. On his release from his first confinement, which was in his native place, he came to London, and engaged in some respectable families as private tutor. In the same employment he spent some years in the isle of Man; and in 1732 he opened a shop in London, under the Royal Exchange, as bookseller, and employed all his vacant time as a corrector of the press. In the following year he began to compile his great work, viz. “A complete Concordance of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.” We can scarcely conceive any literary work that required more patient labour than this, and few have been executed with greater accuracy. He had nearly executed the whole before he looked for public remuneration. The first edition was published in 1737, and dedicated to queen Caroline, who had led the editor to expect her patronage but her majesty unfortunately died a few days before the work could be got ready. The author’s affairs were now embarrassed; he had none to look to for assistance, and in a fit of despondence he gave up his trade, and became a prey to melancholy. Shortly after this, he assumed the title of “Alexander the Corrector,” maintained that he was divinely commissioned to reform the manners of the age, and restore the due observance of the sabbath, appealing to prophecy, in which he fancied he saw his own character delineated. He sought, however, for earthly honours, and requested of his majesty the dignity of knighthood, and earnestly solicited his fellow-citizens to elect him member for the city of London. Both were deaf to his entreaties, and he turned from public offices to duties for which he was better qualified. He laboured almost incessantly, sometimes in works of pure benevolence, and at others as corrector of the press, and seldom allowed himself more than four or five hours for sleep. In 1770, after paying a visit to Aberdeen, he returned to London, and took lodgings at Islington, where he died November the first. In private life Mr. Cruden was courteous and affable, ready to assist all that came within his reach, as well with his money as with his advice, and most zealous in serving the distressed. One of his boldest efforts of this kind was in the case of Richard Potter, a poor ignorant sailor, who was condemned at the Old Bailey for uttering a forged seaman’s will, and who, in Mr. Cruden’s opinion, was so justly an object of the royal clemency, that he never ceased his applications to the secretary of state until he had obtained a pardon. The following year, 1763, he published a very interesting account of this affair, under the title of “The History of Richard Potter,” 8vo. His other publications were, “An Account of the History and Excellency of the Scriptures,” prefixed to a “Compendium of the Holy Bible,” 24-mo; and “A Scripture Dictionary, or Guide to the Holy Scriptures,” Aberdeen, 2 vols. 8vo; printed a short time after his death. He also compiled that very elaborate Index which belongs to bishop Newton’s edition of Milton, an undertaking inferior only to that of his “Concordance,” and which he undertook at the request of auditor Benson. Of his Concordance an edition was published in 1810, which may be justly pronounced the most correct that has appeared since the author’s time, every word with its references having been most carefully examined by Mr. Deodatus Bye, formerly a respectable printer in St. John’s gate, who voluntarily employed some years in this arduous task, for which he is richly entitled to the thanks of the public.

, an eminent surgeon and anatomist, was born in 1745 at Edinburgh, where his father was examiner in the Excise-office, and had him christened William Cumberland in compliment to the hero of Culloden, but the latter name our anatomist seldom used. The earlier part of his life was spent in Scotland, and at the age of fourteen he went to the university of Edinburgh, with a view of studying divinity. Feeling, however, a strong propensity for anatomy and physic, he studied those sciences, with great assiduity, for eight years at the university of Glasgow. In 1771 he came to London, and by the recommendation of Dr. D. Pitcairn he became librarian to the late Dr. Hunter, who had applied to the professors of Glasgow for a young man of talents to succeed Mr. Hewson; and this connection was the principal means of raising Mr. Cruikshank to that conspicuous situation which he afterwards so well merited. During the life of Dr. Hunter, Mr. Cruikshank became successively his pupil, anatomical assistant, and partner in anatomy; and on the death of that celebrated man, Mr. Cruikshank and Dr. Baillie received an address from a large proportion of Dr. Hunter’s students, full of affection and esteem; which induced them to continue in Windmill-street the superintendance of that anatomical school which has produced so many excellent scholars. Mr. Cruikshank, besides supporting with great reputation his share in this undertaking, made himself known to the world by some excellent publications, which have insured to him a high character as a perfect anatomist, and a very acute and ingenious physiologist. In 1780 he published his principal work, the “Anatomy of the Absorbent Vessels in the Human Body,” in which he not only demonstrated, in the clearest manner, the structure and situation of these vessels, but collected, under one point of view, and enriched with many valuable observations, all that was known concerning this important system in the human body. Besides this work, the merit of which has been fully acknowledged by translations into foreign languages, he wrote a paper, which was presented to the royal society several years ago, entitled, “Experiments on the Nerves of Living Animals,” in which is shewn the important fact of the regeneration of nerves, after portions of them have been cut out; illustrated by actual experiments on animals. This paper was read before the society, but not then printed, owing, as was said, to the interference of the late sir John Pringle, who conceived that it controverted some of the opinions of Haller, his intimate friend. It appeared, however, in the Society’s Transactions for 1794. In 1779 he made several experiments on the subject of “Insensible Perspiration,” which were added to the first editions of his work on the “Absorbent Vessels;” and were collected and published in a separate pamphlet in 1795. In 1797, the year in which he was elected F. R. S. he published an account of appearances in the ovaria of rabbits, in different stages of pregnancy; but his fame rests upon, and is best supported by, his “Anatomy of the Absorbents,” which continues to be considered as the most correct and valuable work on the subject now extant.

Mr. Cruikshank was not without some share of personal as well as intellectual vanity; but he had a generous and sympathetic heart, and literally “went about doing good.” He was one of those liberal medical gentlemen who attended Dr. Johnson in his last illness. Mr. Cruikshank’s death was occasioned by a disorder, the fatal consequences of which had been predicted by one of his pupils about sixteen years before that event. He used at certain times to complain of an acute pain in the apex of his head, and his pupil gave it as his opinion that the pain arose from extravasated blood, which was settled upon the sensorium; and that as no relief could be given without the greatest care in point of regimen, it would increase until it was too heavy for the tender nerves or organs of the medulla oblongata to bear; of course, it would occasion a rupture, and end in dissolution. When Mr. Cruikshank found himself in most excruciating pain, he sent for this gentleman, and every assistance was given; but the seat of the complaint, being directly under the pia mater, could not be touched. In this situation he breathed his last, July 27, 1800. The pericranium being afterwards opened, a quantity of extravasated blood was found upon the sensorium t some of the tender vessels of which were ruptured.

, professor of eloquence at Wittemberg, and an eminent philologer, was born at Wolbech, where his father was a clergyman, in 1715. He was first educated at Hall, whence he removed to Leipsic, and studied polite literature under Mascovius. His principal attachment was to the classics, which he read with the eye of a critic and antiquary. While at Leipsic, he contributed some of his first remarks on classical history and antiquities to the “Acta Eruditorum.” In 1738 he left Leipsic for Dresden, where he became acquainted with Juncker, and by his persuasion went to St. Petersburg, and became a member of the academy of history founded by Peter the Great, and afterwards succeeded Beyer in the same academy. His situation here was for some time agreeable, and his fame spread; but the stipend affixed to his place in the academy being irregularly paid, and Crusius being little attentive to pecuniary matters, his studies became interrupted, and his mind harassed, and his object now was to procure some place in Saxony where he could pursue his studies in comfort. For this purpose he consulted Gesner, who promised him every assistance; and in 1751, on the death of Berger, he was elected professor of eloquence at Wittemberg. Here for some time he fulfilled the utmost hopes of the friends by whose interest he had been elected; but having while at St. Petersburgh contracted habits too social for a man of learning, he now indulged them to such a degree as to obstruct his usefulness, expose himself to ridicule, and lessen his authority. He died Feb. 1767, according to Klotz his biographer, regretting his past imprudence, and with pious resignation. The failings of this accurate critic are much to be lamented, as but for them be would have probably attained the highest class in philology. His writings are: 1. “Commentarius de originibus pecunise a pecore ante nummum signatum: accedit ejusdem oratio habita in conventu Academico, cum auspicaret munus Professoris,” Petrop. 1748, 8vo. 2. “Probabilia critica, in quibus veteres Graeci et Latini scriptores emendantur & declarantur,” Leipsic, 1753, 8vo. This collection of criticisms and emendations on the classics, chiefly contributed to our author’s fame. 3. “Opuscula ad historiam et humanitatis literas spectantia,” Altenburgh, 1767, with a biographical preface by Klotz, to which we are indebted for this sketch of the life of Crusius. Besides these, Crusius contributed various dissertations to the German journals, a list of which may be seen in Harles.

, a learned German scholar and antiquary, was born at Grebern, in the bishopric of Bamberg, Sept. 19, 1526, and after some elementary instruction from his father, a minister of the Lutheran church, was sent to Dim, where he studied Greek and Latin under Gregory Leonard, and by his diligence and progress obtained a pension from the senators of UJm, which enabled him to pursue his studies without expense to his father. In 1545 he went to Strasburgh, where, after applying for some time to polite literature, he learned Hebrew, and went through a course of divinity, Still liberally maintained by the city of Ulm; and in 1547 was appointed tutor to a person of rank. Some years after, he presided over the school at Memmingen, and raised its reputation very considerably. In 1559 he was chosen professor of moral philosophy and Greek at Tubingen; but in 1566 was obliged to leave it on account of the plague, and did not return, along with the other professors, until 1568. At the age of eighty -one, perceiving that he was near his end, he assembled the whole university, with the rector at its head, and after entertaining them sumptuously, gave them a goblet worth an hundred florins. He died Feb. 25, 1607, leaving a library which was valued at 2000 florins. Besides the learned languages, he was a good French scholar, but was most distinguished for his acquairt nee with the modern Greek, and was the first who taught it in Germany. Of his numerous works, the following are the most important: 1. “Turco-Graecias libri octo, utraque lingua edita. Quibus Graecorum status sub imperio Turcico, in politia et ecclesia, ceconomia et scholis, jam hide ab amissa Constantinopoli, ad haec usque tempora, luculenter describitur,” Basil, 1584, folio. 2. “Acta et Scripta Theologorum Wirtembergensium, et Patriarchs Constantinopolitani D. Hieremiae quas utrique ab anno 1576 usque ad annum 1581 de Augustana Confessione inter se miserunt,” Gr. & Lat. 1584, fol. 3. “ Germano-Graeciae libri sex > in quorum prioribus tribus, Orationes, in reliquis Carmina, Gr. & Lat. continentur,” fol. without date, but from the dedication, probably 1585. 4. “Annales Suevici, sive Chronica rerum gestarum antiquissimae et inclytae Suevicas Gentis quibus quicquid fere de ea haberi potuit, ex Lat. & Graec. aliarumque linguarum auctoribus, scriptisque plurimis, non editis, comprehenditur, &c.” 1595 and 1596, 2 vols. fol. These works, which are now rare, are highly esteemed, and throw much light on history, and particularly on the history of the modern Greeks. One other work of Martin Crusius may be mentioned as a curiosity: “Corona Anni, hoc est, explicatio Evangeliorum et Epistolarum quae diebus dominicis et festis in ecclesia proponuntur; e Tubingeiisium, et aliorum Theologorum eonckmibus, conscripta,” Wittemberg, 1602, 4 vols. 4to. From 1563 he had been accustomed to write in the church the sermons of the preachers of Tubingen, which he did first in Latin, but when professor of Greek, he thought it his duty to use that language, and with such indefatigable perseverance, that, "between 1563 and 1601, he had made a collection of those discourses, amounting to 6174, and published some of them in other volumes, and would have published more, if he could have found any persons who would defray the expence. The work before us he had in vain offered to the booksellers at different times for seven years, and at length the court of Saxony bore the expence of printing. It contains 516 sermons in Greek and Latin, in double columns. This singular undertaking had not, as may be supposed, much success; and the few copies which exist are considered rather as objects of curiosity than utility.

, an ancient historian, was a native of Cnidos, who accompanied Cyrus the son of Darius in his expedition against his brother Artaxerxes; by whom he was taken prisoner about 400 B. C. But curing Artaxerxes of a wound he received in the battle, he became a great favourite at the court of Persia, where he continued practising physic for seventeen years, and was employed in several negotiations. He wrote the “History of Persia,” in 23 books; and a “History of the Indies;” but these works are now lost, and all we have remaining of them is an abridgment compiled by Pbotius. Although the most judicious among the ancients looked upon Ctesias as a fabulous writer, several of the ancient historians and modern Christian writers have adopted in part his chronology of the Assyrian kings; but Dr. Vincent, a writer of the first authority, after a careful examination of his character and writings, decides that he must still be classed among the fabulous historians. In Gale’s Herodotus, Lond. 1679, fol. we have “Excerpta e Ctesise Persicis et Indicis,” and Henry Stephens published “Ex Ctesia, Agatharcide, et Memnone excerpta,” 1557.

, of Alexandria, a famous mathematician about 120 years B. C. was, it is reported, the first inventor of the pump, which he discovered by accident. On lowering a mirror that was in his father’s shop, he observed that the weight which helped it in moving upwards and downwards, and which was inclosed in a cylinder, made a noise, produced by the friction of the air violently forced by the weight. He set about examining into the cause of this sound, and thought it might be possible to avail himself of it in making an hydraulic organ, in which the air and the water should form the sound; an undertaking which he executed with success. Encouraged by this production, Ctesibius thought of using his mechanical skill in measuring time. He constructed a clepsydra, or waterclock, formed with water, and regulated by cogged wheels; the water by falling turned these wheels, which communicated their motion to a column on which were marked the characters for distinguishing the months and the hours. At the same time that the cogged wheels were put in motion, they raised a little statue, which with a wand pointed to the months and hours marked upon the column. He was also the author of “Geodesia, or the art of dividing and measuring bodies,” which is said to be in the Vatican library; but he must be distinguished from Ctesibius of Chalcis, who was a cynic philosopher, of a sportive disposition and a cheerful temper, who had the art of being agreeable to the great, without submitting to the vile arts of flattery, and made them hearken to truth, and gave them a taste for virtue, under the name of amusement.

, a learned English divine and philosopher, was son of Dr. Ralph Cudworth, and born at Alley, in Somersetshire, of which place his father was rector. His mother was of the family of Machell, and had been nurse to prince Henry, eldest son of James I. His father dying when he was only seven yeaVs of age, and his mother marrying again, his education was superintended by his father-in-law, Dr. Stoughton, who was very attentive to the promising genius of his scholar. In 1630, he was admitted pensioner of Emanuel college, Cambridge; of which, after taking the degrees of B. A. and M. A. he was chosen fellow, and became an eminent tutor. Among his pupils, who were numerous, was Mr. William Temple, afterwards the celebrated baronet, statesman, and writer. About 1641 he was presented to the rectory of North Cadbury, in Somersetshire. In 1642 he published “A discourse concerning the true notion of the Lord’s Supper,” printed at London, in 4to, with only the initial letters of his name. In this he contends that the Lord’s supper is not a sacrifice, but a feast upon a sacrifice; and endeavours to demonstrate, that “the Lord’s supper in the Christian church, in reference to the true sacrifice of Christ, is a parallel to the feasts upon sacrifices, both in the Jewish religion and heathenish superstition.” Bochart, Spencer, Selden, and other eminent writers, quote this discourse with great commendations, but his opinions have been controverted by the majority of divines. The same year likewise appeared his treatise entitled “The Union of Christ and the Church, in a shadow, by R. C.” printed at London, in 4to.

In 1644 he took the degree of B. D. upon which occasion he maintained the two following theses: that, The reasons of good and evil are eternal and indispensable; and that There are incorporeal substances by their own nature immortal. From these questions it has been thought that he was even at that time examining and revolving in his mind those important subjects, which he afterwards introduced in his “Intellectual System,” and other works still preserved in ms. The same year he was appointed master of Clare hall, in Cambridge, in the room of Dr. Paske, who had been ejected by the parliamentary visitors. The year after, Dr. Metcalf having resigned the regius professorship of Hebrew, Cudworth was unanimously nominated by the seven electors to succeed him. From this time he applied himself chiefly to his academical employments and studies, especially to that of the Jewish antiquities. March 31, 1647, he preached before the house of commons at Westminster, upon a day of public humiliation, a sermon upon 1 John ii. 3, 4, for which he had the thanks of that house returned him the same day. This sermon was printed the same year at Cambridge, in 4to, with a dedication to the house of commons; in which he told them, that the scope of it was not to contend for this or that opinion, but only to persuade men to the life of Christ, as the pith and kernel of all religion; without which all the several forms of religion in the world, though we please ourselves never so much with them, are but so many several dreams.

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

Cudworth died at Cambridge, June 26, 1688, and was interred in the chapel of Christ’s college. He was a man of very extensive erudition, excellently skilled in the learned languages and antiquity, a good mathematician, a subtle philosopher, and a profound metaphysician. The main design of his celebrated work, “The Intellectual System,” is to refute the principles of atheism, and in this he has successfully employed a vast fund of learning and reading. But his partiality for the Platonic philosophy, in judging of which, after the example of his contemporaries, he paid too much respect to the writings of the modern Alexandrian Platonists, led him into frequent mistakes. In physics he adopted the atomic system; but, abandoning Democritus and Epicurus as the first patrons of impiety, he added to the doctrine of atoms that of a certain middle substance between matter and spirit, to which he gave the appellation of plastic nature, which he supposed to be the immediate instrument of the divine operation; and this hypothesis gave rise to the controversy above mentioned between Bayle and Le Clerc. Cudworth stands at the head of those divines who, considering the belief in a triune God as a fundamental article of Christian belief, maintain that both the Platonic, and all the other Pagan trinities are only corruptions and mutilations of certain primaeval revelations and patriarchal traditions relative to the asserted distinction in the divine nature; and he has very ably discussed this important subject in his Intellectual System. A great number of writers commend Cudworth’s piety and modesty; and Burnet having observed, that Dr. Henry More studied to consider religion as a seed of a deiform nature, and in order to this, set young students much on reading the ancient philosophers, chiefly Plato, Tully, and Plotinus, and on considering the Christian religion as a doctrine sent from God, both to elevate and sweeten human nature, tells us, that “Cudworth carried this on with a great strength of genius, and a vast compass of learning; and that he was a man of great conduct and prudence; upon which his enemies did very falsely accuse him of craft and dissimulation.” He left several manuscripts which seem to be a continuation of his “Intellectual System,” of which he had given the world only the first part. One of these was published by Chandler, bishop of Durham, 1731, in 8vo, under this title, “A Treatise concerning eternal and immutable Morality.” This piece was levelled against the writings of Hobbes and others, who revived the exploded opinions of Protagoras; taking away the essential and eternal differences of moral good and evil, of just and unjust, and making them all arbitrary productions of divine or human will. He left also several other Mss. with the following titles“: 1. A discourse of moral good and evil.” 2. Another book of morality, wherein Hobbes’s philosophy is explained. 3. A discourse of liberty and necessity, in which the grounds of the atheistical philosophy are confuted, and morality vindicated and explained. 4. Another book “De libero arbitrio.” 5. Upon Daniel’s prophecy of the 70 weeks, wherein all the interpretations of the Jews are considered and confuted, with several of some learned Christians. 6. Of the verity of the Christian religion, against the Jews. 7. A discourse of the creation of the world, and immortality of the soul. 8. Hebrew learning. 9. An explanation of Hobbes’s notion of God, and of the extension of spirits. The history of these Mss. is somewhat curious. Having been left to the care of his daughter, lady Masham, they for a long time quietly reposed in the library at Oates, in Essex. But, about the year 1762, when the late lord Masham married his second lady, his lordship thought proper to remove a number of volumes of ancient learning, which had been bequeathed to the family by Mr. Locke, and the manuscripts of Dr. Cudworih, to make room for books of polite amusement. For this purpose, he sold either the whole, or a considerable part of them, to Mr. Robert Davis, then a bookseller in Piccadilly. Mr. Davis being told, or having concluded, that the manuscripts were the productions of Mr. Locke, it became an object of consideration with him, how to convert them, as a tradesman, to the best advantage. They contained, among other things, sundry notes on scripture. About the same time, a number of manuscript scriptural notes by Dr. Waterland came into the possession of the booksellers. It was therefore projected, by the aid of such celebrated names as Mr. Locke and Dr. Waterland, to fabricate a new Bible with annotations. At a consultation, however, it was suggested, that, though these names were very important, it would be necessary, to the complete success of the design, to join with them some popular living character. The unfortunate Dr. Dodd was then in the height of his reputation as a preacher, and was fixed upon to carry on the undertaking. This was the origin of Dr. Dodd’s Bible, and part of the materials put into his hands the doctor made use of in the “Christian Magazine.” When the manuscripts were returned to Mr. Davis, he carried them down to Barnes in Surry, which was his country retirement, and threw them into a garret, where they lay exposed to the dangers of such a situation. About the beginning of the year 1777, a gentleman, who had a veneration for the name of Mr. Locke, and was concerned to hear that any of his writings were in danger of being lost, went to Barnes, to see these manuscript*; and being positively assured by Mr. Davis, that they were the real compositions of that eminent man, he immediately purchased them fur forty guineas. He was, however, soon, convinced, after an examination of them, that the authority of the bookseller was fallacious, and having remonstrated against the deception, the vender condescended to take them again, upon being paid ten guineas for his disappointment in the negociation. In the investigation of the manuscripts, the gentleman having discovered, by many incontestable proofs, that they were the writings of Dr. Cudworth, he recommended them to the curators of the British Museum, by whom they were purchased; and thus, at last, after many perils and mutilations, they are safely lodged in that noble repository.

, a very extraordinary person, was a native of Amsterdam, where he was born in 1.522. It appears that early in life he travelled into Spain and Portugal, but the motives of his journey are not ascertained. He was a man of science; and, according to report, a good poet. The sister arts he at first considered as an amusement only; but at length was obliged to have recourse to engraving for his support, and though the different studies in which he employed his time prevented his application to this art from being so close as it ought to have been, yet marks of genius are discoverable in his works. They are slight, and hastily executed with the graver alone, in an open careless style, so as greatly to resemble drawings made with a pen. He was settled at Haerlem; and there pursuing his favourite studies in literature, he learned Latin, and was made secretary to that town, from whence he was several times employed as ambassador to the prince of Orange, to whom he addressed a famous manifesto, which that prince published in 1566. Had he stopped here, it had been well; but, directing his thoughts to matters which he did not understand, he brought forward an argument as dangerous as it was absurd. He maintained, that all religious communications were corrupted; and that without a supernatural mission, accompanied with miracles, no person hat! any right to administer in any religious office: he therefore pronounced that man to be unworthy the name of a Christian who would enter any place of public worship. This he not only advanced in words, but strove to shew the sincerity of his belief in it by practice; and for that reason would not communicate with either protestant or papist. His works were published in three volumes folio, 1630; and though he was several times imprisoned, and at last sentenced to banishment, yet he does not appear to Lave altered his sentiments. He died at Tergout in 1590, aged 68. It is to his honour as an artist, that he was the instructor of the justly-celebrated Henry Goltzius. Cuerenhert worked conjointly with the Galles and other artists, from the designs of Martin Hemskerk. The subjects are from the Old and New Testament, and consist chiefly of middling-sized plates lengthwise. He also engraved several subjects from Frank Floris.

, a celebrated wit and scholar, but memorable chiefly for the peculiarity of his fate, was descended from a good family, though some have insinuated the contrary, and born at Hinton St. George in Somerset-' shire about 1560. He gave early marks of genius and application, and in 1576 was admitted of Trinity college in Oxford; where he soon distinguished himself by his knowledge of the Greek tongue, and an admirable faculty in disputing. He was elected scholar in May 1578, and was admitted fellow in May 1583, but had the misfortune to lose his fellowship for a witticism, which, either in jest or malice, he levelled at sir Thomas Pope, the founder of his college. Sir Thomas, we are told, had a singular whim, upon visiting some persons, of seizing whatever he could lay his hands on, and carrying it off under his gown or in his pocket; which, however, was not imputed to dishonesty, but to humour. This induced Cuff in one of his merry moments to say, “A pox! this is a poor beggarly college indeed: the plate that our founder stole, would build such another.” The president, hearing of this, ejected Cuff from his fellowship; not suffering prophane wit to be thus exercised within his walls, for fear perhaps that it should become contagious. Such is the story, as told by Wood, who says he had it from Dr. Bathurst; but Mr. Warton has proved that he has misrepresented it, nor was Cuff removed by the president, but by a mandate from lady Powlett, the foundress, who first placed him there. Cuff’s merit, however, was so great, and his reputation for foaming so extraordinary, that he was, in 1586, elected probationer of Merton college by sir Henry Savile, then warden; and two years after made fellow. He was considered as a man capable of making a shining figure in life; and that he was much esteemed by sir Henry Savile, appears not only from the instance of kindness just mentioned, but also from a letter of his to the learned Camden, in which he gives him the highest character, and styles him his own and Camden’s intimate friend. He wrote a Greek epigram in commendation of Camden’s Britannia, which is prefixed to all the Latin editions, and to some of the English translations of it; and which has been much admired. He was afterwards promoted to the Greek professorship, and chosen proctor of the university in 1594. While Greek professor, he assisted Columbanius in the first edition of Longus’s elegant pastoral romance, printed at Florence in 1598.

At what time he left Oxford, or upon what occasion, does not appear; but there is some reason to believe, it was for the sake of travelling in order to improve himself. For he was always inclined rather to a busy, than to a retired life; and held, that learning was of little service to any man, if it did not qualify him for active pursuits. This disposition recommended him much to the favour of the celebrated Robert earl of Essex, who was himself equally fond of knowledge and business. Cuff became his secretary in 1596, when the earl was made lord lieutenant of Ireland; but it had been happier for him, if he could have contented himself with the easy and honourable situation, which his own learning, and the assistance of his friends in the university, had procured him. Even his outset was unfortunate; he accompanied the earl in his expedition against Cadiz, and after its successful conclusion, was dispatched with his lordship’s letters to England, and, when he had landed, endeavoured with the utmost speed, to arrive with them at the court. Beinsr, however, unfortunately taken ill on the road, he was obliged to send up the letters, inclosed in one of his own, to Mr. Reynoldes, another of the earl’s secretaries. Mr. Cuff, agreeably to Jarge instructions which he had received from his lordship, had drawn up a discourse concerning the great action at Cadiz, which the earl purposed to be published as soon as possible, both to stop all vagrant rumours, and to inform those that were well affected, of the truth of the whole. It was at the same time to be so contrived, that neither his lordship’s name, nor Cuff’s, nor any other person’s, connected with the earl, should either be openly mentioned, used, or in such a manner insinuated, as that the most slender guess could be made, who was the penman. The publication was to have the appearance of a letter that came from Cadiz, and the title of it was to be, “A true relation of the action at Cadiz, the 21st of June, under the earl of Essex and the lord admiral, sent to a gentleman in court from one that served there in good place.” Sir Anthony Ashley, who was entrusted with the design, acted a treacherous part on this occasion. He betrayed the secret to the queen, and the lords of her council; the consequence of which was, that Mr. Fulke Grevill was charged by her majesty to command Mr. Cuff, upon pain of death, not to set forth any discourse concerning the expedition without her consent.

He was afterwards involved in all the misfortunes of that unhappy earl, and did not escape partaking of his fate. Upon the sudden reverse of the earl’s fortunes, Cuff was not only involved, but looked upon as the chief if not the sole cause and author of his misfortunes. Thus, when the earl was tried and condemned, February ly, 1601, and solicited by the divines who attended him while under sentence, he not only confessed matters prejudicial to Cuff, but likewise charged him to his face with being the author of all his misfortunes, and the person who principally persuaded him to pursue violent measures. Sir Henry Neville, also, being involved in this unhappy business, mentioned Cuff as the person who invited him to the meeting at JDrury-house; where the plot for forcing the earl’s way to the queen by violence was concerted. Cuff was brought to his trial March 5th following, and although he defended himself with great steadiness and spirit, was convicted, and executed at Tyburn, March 30, 1601; dying, it is said, with great constancy and courage. He declared, at the place of execution, that “he was not in the least concerned in that wild commotion which was raised by a particular great but unadvised earl, but shut up that whole day within the house, where he spent his time in very melancholy reflections: that he never persuaded any man to take up arms against the queen, but was most heartily concerned for being -an instrument of bringing that worthy gentleman sir Henry Neville into danger, and did most earnestly intreat his pardon, &c.” His character has been harshly treated by lord* Bacon, sir Henry Wotton, and other writers. Camden also, who knew him intimately, and had lived many years in great friendship with him, says that he was a man of most exquisite learning and penetrating wit, but of a seditious and perverse disposition. Others are milder in their censures 5 and all allow him to have been a very able and learned man. He wrote a book in English, a very little before his death, which was printed about six years after, under this title: “The differences of the ages of man’s life, together with the original causes, progress, and end thereof,” 1607, 8vo. It has been printed more than once since, and commended as a curious and philosophical piece. Wood says, that he left behind him other things ready for the press, which were never published. Bishop Tanner has given us the title of one; viz. “De rebus gestis in sancto concilio Nicaeno;” or, The transactions in the holy council of Nice, translated out of Greek into Latin, and believed to have been the work of Gelasius Cyricenus, which was transcribed from the original in the Vatican library by Cuff. And in the “Epistolae Francisci et Johannis Hotomanorum, Patris et Filii, et clarorum Virorum ad eos,” are several letters by Cuff, to John Hotman. These are said to exhibit distinguished marks of genius and learning; to be written in elegant Latin; and to contain some curious particulars. Mr. Warton informs us that, notwithstanding the severe check he received at Trinity college, he presented several volumes to the library. The manner of his death deprived him, as may easily be imagined, of a monument an old friend, however, ventured to embalm his memory in the following epitaph:

, a celebrated lawyer, was born at Thoulouse about 1520. His parents were mean; but nature compensated for the favours of fortune, by the great talents she bestowed upon him. In his education he was independent of the assistance of teachers. He taught himself Greek and Latin, and every thing else which related to polite literature: and he arrived to so profound a knowledge of law in general, and of civil law in particular, that he is supposed of all the moderns to hare penetrated the farthest into the origin and mysteries of it. The means by which he succeeded in these refcearches, were the same which the ancient lawyers pursued; the etymology of words, and the lights of history. Indeed he was some little time under Arnoldus: but it was so little, that it can be esteemed of no account to him. With such talents and acquirements he had some reason to complain of his country, for refusing him the professor’s chair when it was vacant, and presenting one to it who was not capable of filling it xvith half the honour. Foreigners, however, did justice to his merit, came from all parts, and studied under his direction, and the ablest magistrates, which France then had, were formed by the instructions of this lawyer. From Thoulouse he was invited to the university of Cohors, and thence to Bourges. The king of France shewed him every honour, and permitted him to sit amongst his counsellors of parliament. Emanuel Philibert, duke of Savoy, invited him to Turin; and pope Gregory XIII. endeavoured to draw him to Bologna, his own native country, a very advantageous offer, which his age and infirmities did not permit him to accept. He continued to teach at Bourges, where he took the greatest pleasure in communicating familiarly to his friends and scholars whatever he had discovered in the law, and shewed them the shortest and easiest way to come to a perfect knowledge of that science. He was remarkable for his friendly manner of treating his scholars. He used to eat and drink with them; and, to encourage them in their studies, lent them money and books, which procured him the name of “Father of his scholars.” He died at Bourges 1590; and his works were first published at Paris, 1584, folio, and afterwards by C. Hannibal Fabrot, at Paris, in 10 vols. 1659, folio, which is reckoned the best edition. With respect to his religious principles, in the critical times in which he lived, we are told that when his opinion was asked about some questions in divinity, then agitated with great warmth, he answered, “Nil hoc ad edictum prsetoris:” which Gallio-like answer subjected him to the suspicion of indifference in religious matters.

, one of the most eminent physicians of the last century, was born Dec, 11, 1712, of respectable though indigent parents in Lanarkshire. Hav^ ing served a short apprenticeship to a surgeon and apothecary in Glasgow, he obtained the place of a surgeon in one of the merchant’s vessels from London to the West Indies. Not liking his employment, he returned to his own county, where he practised a short time in the parish of Shotts, among the farmers and country people, and then removed to Hamilton, intending to practise there as a physician. While he resided near Shotts, Archibald duke of Argyle made a visit to a gentleman in that neighbourhood. His grace was engaged in some chemical researches which required elucidation by experiments, for which he then wanted the proper apparatus. The gentleman, recollecting young Cullen, mentioned him as the person who could most probably supply his wants. He was consequently invited to dinner, and presented to the duke, with whom he commenced an acquaintance, to which he was probably indebted for all his future fortune. The name of Cullen having thus become known, his reputation as a practitioner was soon established in the neighbourhood. The duke of Hamilton likewise happened then to be for a short time in that part of the country, and having been suddenly taken ill, was induced by the character which he had heard of Cullen to send for his assistance, and was not only benefited by his skill, but amply gratified xvith his conversation. He accordingly obtained for him a place in the university of Glasgow, where his talents soon became more conspicuous. It was not, however, solely to the favour of these two great men that Cullen owed his literary fame. He was recommended to the notice of men of science in a way still more honourable to himself. The disease of the duke of Hamilton having resisted the effect of the first applications, Dr. Clarke was sent for from Edinburgh; and he was so much pleased with every thing that Cullen had done, that he became his eulogist upon every occasion. Cullen never forgot this; and when Clarke died, gave a public oration in his praise in the university of Edinburgh; which, it is believed, was the first of the kind in that kingdom.

During his residence in the country, several important incidents occurred, that ought not to be passed over in silence. It was during this time that a connexion in business was formed in a very humble line between two men, who became afterwards eminently conspicuous in much more exalted stations. William, (afterwards Doctor) Hunter, the famous lecturer on anatomy in London, was a native of the same part of the country; and these two young men, stimulated by the impulse of genius to prosecute their medical studies with ardour, but thwarted by the narrowness of their fortune, entered into a copartnership business as surgeons and apothecaries in the country. The chief end of their contract being to furnish the parties with the means of prosecuting their medical studies, which they could not separately so well enjoy, it was stipulated, that one of them alternately should be allowed to study in what college he inclined, during the winter, while the other should carry on the business in the country for their common advantage. In consequence of this agreement, Culleu was first allowed to study in the university of Edinburgh for one winter; but when it came to Hunter’s turn next winter, he, preferring London to Edinburgh, went thither. There his singular neatness in dissecting, and uncommon dexterity in making anatomical preparations, his assiduity in study, his mildness of manner, and pliability of temper, soon recommended him to the notice of Dr. Douglass, who then read lectures upon anatomy and midwifery there; who engaged Hunter as an assistant, and whose chair he afterwards filled with so much honour to himself and satisfaction to the public. Thus was dissolved,' in a premature manner, a partnership perhaps of as singular a kind as is to be found in the annals of literature; nor was Cuilen a man of that disposition to let any engagement with him prove a bar to his partner’s advancement in lite. The articles were freely given up by him; and Cuilen and Hunter ever after kept up a very cordial and friendly correspondence; though, it is believed, they never from that time had a personal interview.

During the time that Cuilen practised as a country surgeon and apothecary, he formed another connexion of a more permanent kind, which, happily for him, was not dissolved till a very late period of his life. Very early in life he took a strong attachment to an amiable woman, a Miss Johnston, daughter to a clergyman in that neighbourhood, nearly of his own age, who was prevailed on to marry him, at a time when he had nothing else to recommend him, except his person and dispositions. She was beautiful, had great good sense, equanimity of temper, an amiable disposition, and elegance of manners, and brought with her a little money, which, however small in modern calculation, was important in those days to one in his situation in life. After giving to him a numerous family, and participating with him the changes of fortune which he experienced, she peacefully departed this life in summer 1786.

In the year 1716, Cuilen, who had now taken the degree of doctor in physic, was appointed a lecturer in chemistry in the university of Glasgow; and in the month of October began his lectures in that science. His singular talents for arrangement, his distinctness of enunciation, his vivacity of manner, and his knowledge of the science he taught, rendered his lectures interesting to the students to a degree that had been till then unknown at that university. He became, therefore, in some measure, adored by the students. The former professors were eclipsed by the brilliancy of his reputation: and he had to experience all those little rubs that envy and disappointed ambition naturally threw in his way. Regardless, however, of these, he pressed forward with ardour in his literary career; and, supported by the favour of the public, he consoled himself lor the contumely he met with from a few individuals. His practice as a physician increased from day to day; and a vacancy having occurred in the year 1751, he was then appointed by the king professor of medicine in that university. This new appointment served only to call forth his powers, and to bring to light talents that it was not formerly known he possessed; so that his fame continued to increase.

As, at that period, the patrons of the university of Edinburgh were desirous of engaging the most eminent medical men to support the rising fame of the college, their attention was soon directed towards Cullen who, on the de;ith of Dr. Plmnmer, professor of chemistry, was, in 1756, unanimously invited to accept the vacant chair. 7 his invitation he accepted: and having resigned all his employments in Glasgow, he began his academical career in Edinburgh in the month of October of that year; and therf he resided till his deatta If the admission of Cullen into the university of Glasgow gave great spirit to the exertions of the students, this was still, if possible, more strongly felt in Edinburgh. Chemistry, which had been till that time of small account in that university, and was attended to by very few of the students, instantly became a favourite study; and the lectures upon that science were more frequented than any others in the university, anijtomy alone excepted. The students, in general, spoke of Cullen with the rapturous ardour that is natural to youth when they are highly pleased. These eulogiums appeared extravagant to moderate men, and could not fail to prove disgusting to his colleagues. A party was formed among the students for opposing this new favourite of the public; and these students, by misrepresenting the doctrines of Cullen to others, who could net have an opportunity of hearing these doctrines themselves, made even some of the most intelligent men in the university think it their duty publicly to oppose these imaginary tenets. The ferment was thus augmented; and it was some time before the professors discovered the arts by which they had been imposed upon, and universal harmony was then restored.

During this time of public ferment, Cullen went steadily forward, without taking any part himself in these disputes. He never gave ear to any talcs respecting his colleagues, nor took any notice of the doctrines they taught. That some of their unguarded strictures might at times come to his knowledge, is not impossible; but if they did, they seemed to make no impression on his mind. These attempts of a party of students to lower the character of Cullen on his first outset in the university of Edinburgh having proved fruitless, his fame as a professor, and his reputation as a physician, became more and more respected every day. Nor could it well be otherwise: Culien’s professional knowledge was always great, and his manner of lecturing singularly clear and intelligible, lively and entertaining; and to his patients, his conduct in general as a physician was so pleasing, his address so affable and engaging, and his manner so open, so kind, and so little regulated by pecuniary considerations, that it was impossible for those who had occasion to call once for his medical assistance, ever to be satisfied on any future occasion without it. He became the friend and companion of every family he visited; and his future acquaintance could not be dispensed with.

Dr. Cullen also was justly admired in his conduct to his scholars, which was so attentive, and the interest he took in the private concerns of all those students who applied to him for advice, was so cordial and so warm, that it was impossible for any one who had a heart susceptible of generous feelings, not to be enraptured with attentions so uncommon and kind. The general conduct of Cullen to his students was this. With all such as he observed to be attentive and diligent, he formed an early acquaintance, by inviting them by twos, by threes, or by fours at a time, to sup with him, conversing with them on these occasions with the most engaging ease, and freely entering with them on the subject of their studies, their amusements, their difficulties, their hopes, and future prospects. In this way, he usually invited the whole of his numerous class, till he made himself acquainted with their abilities, their private character, and their objects of pursuit. Those among them whom he found most assiduous, best disposed, or the most friendless, he invited the most frequently, till an intimacy was gradually formed, which proved highly beneficial to them. Their doubts, with regard to their objects of study, he listened to with attention, and solved with the most obliging condescension. His library, which consisted of an excellent assortment of the best books, especially on medical subjects, was at all times open for their accommodation; and his advice, in every case of difficulty to them, they always had it in their power most readily to obtain. They seemed to be his family; and few persons of distinguished merit have left the university of Edinburgh in his time, with whom he did not keep up a correspondence till they were fairly established in business. By these means, he came to have a roost accurate knowledge of the state of every country, with respect to practitioners in the medical line: the only use he made of which knowledge, was to direct students in their choice of places, where they might have an opportunity of engaging in business with a reasonable prospect of success. Many, very many able men has he thus placed in situations of business which they never could have thought of themselves; and some of them even now are reaping the fruits of this beneficent foresight on his part.

Nor was it in this way only that he befriended the students at the university of Edinburgh. Possessing a benevolence of mind that made him ever think first of the wants of others, and recollecting the difficulties that he himself struggled with in his younger days, he was at all times singularly attentive to their pecuniary concerns. From his general acquaintance among the students, and the friendly habits he was in with many of them, he found no difficulty in discovering those among them who were rather in low circumstances, without being obliged to hurt their delicacy in any degree. To such persons, when their habits of study admitted of it, he was peculiarly attentive. They were more frequently invited to his house than others; they were treated with more than usual kindness and familiarity; they were conducted to his library, and encouraged by the most delicate address to borrow from it freely whatever books he thought they had occasion for: and as persons in these circumstances were usually more shy in this respect than others, books were sometimes pressed upon them with a sort of constraint, by the doctor insisting to have their opinion of such or such passages they had not read, and desiring them to carry the book home for that purpose. He in short behaved to them rather as if he courted their company, and stood in need of their acquaintance, than they of his. He thus raised them in the opinion of their acquaintance to a much higher degree of estimation than they could otherwise have obtained, which, to people whose minds were depressed by penury, and whose sense of honour was sharpened by the consciousness of an inferiority of a certain kind, was singularly engaging. Thus were they inspired with a secret sense of dignity, which elevated their minds, and excited an uncommon ardour of pursuit, instead of that melancholy inactivity which is so natural in such circumstances, and which too often leads to despair. Nor was he less delicate in the manner of supplying their wants, than attentive to discover them. He often found out some polite excuse for refusing to take payment for a first course of lectures, and never was at a loss for one to an after-course, and by other delicate expedients he befriended those young men whose circumstances were not equal to their merit and industry. It was also a constant rule with him never to take fees as a physician from any student at the university; yet when called in, he attended them with the same assiduity as if they had been persons of the first rank, who paid him most liberally. This gradually induced others to adopt a similar practice; so that it became a general rule for medical professors to decline taking any fees when their assistance was necessary to a student. For this useful reform, with many others, the students of the university of Edinburgh are solely indebted to the liberality of Dr. Cullen.

The first lectures which Cullen delivered in Edinburgh were on chemistry; and for many years he also gave clinical lectures on the cases which occurred in the Royal Infirmary. In the month of February 1763, Dr. Alston died, after having begun his usual course of lectures on the materia, medica; and the magistrates of Edinburgh, us patrons oi thrit professorship in the university, appointed Dr. Cullen to that chair, requesting that he would finish the course of lectures that had been begun for that season. This he agreed to do; and though he was under a necessity of going on with the course in a few days after he was nominated, he did not once think of reading the lectures of his predecessor, but resolved to deliver a new course, entirely his own. The popularity of Cullen at this time may be guessed at by the increase of new students who came to attend his course in addition to the eight or ten who had entered to Dr. Alston. The new students exceeded one hundred. An imperfect copy of these lectures, thus fabricated in haste, having been published, the doctor thought it necessary to give a more correct edition of them in the latter part of his life; but his faculties being then much impaired, his friends looked in vain for those striking beauties that characterised his literary exertions in the prime of life.