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

From his first settling at Warrington as tutor, he spent all his leisure hours in reviewing his “Concordance,” collating passages in an alphabetical order, and correcting the English translation. He had made a considerable advance in this useful work, when death seized him. Dr. Taylor somposed, and fairly transcribed, a number of discourses On moral, critical, and practical subjects, sufficient to make four volumes in 8vo, which he designed for the press, and intended to be published after his death: and accordingly his “Scheme of Scripture Divinity” was afterwards published by his son. Dr. Taylor deviated very early from the orthodox system, at first adopting the sentiments of Dr. Clarke on the subject of the Trinity, but became at last a Socinian, which Dr. Clarke was not. Gilbert Wakefield gives a singular character of Dr. Taylor: “The reader,” says Wakefield, “who is acquainted with the writings of this very learned, liberal, and rational divine, cannot fail to be impressed with sentiments highly favourable to the gentleness and forbearance of their author: for even the meekness of Christianity itself is exhibited in his prefaces and occasional addresses to the reader. But he was, in reality, a very peevish and angry disputant in conversation, and dictatorial even to intolerance. So imperfect a judgment may be formed of the mildness or asperity of any author from the correspondent quality of his writings.” But an authority, equally valid with that of Mr. Wakefield, praises Dr. Taylor’s “agreeable deportment in society, free from pedantry and superciliousness, and marked by kindness and affability;” yet Mr. Wakefield’s character of him is a curious document, as affording a perfect contrast to his own.

, a learned critic and philologist, was born at Shrewsbury, and baptised at St; Alkmund’s church June 22, 1704. His father followed the humble occupation of a barber, and his son wasdesigned for the same business but a strong passion for letters, which early displayed itself, being providentially fostered by the generous patronage of a neighbouring gentleman, enabled young Taylor to fill a far higher station in society than that to which he was entitled by his birth. The steps which led to this happy change in his situation are worthy of notice. Taylor, the father, being accustomed to attend Edward Owen, of Condover, esq. in his capacity of a barber, that gentleman used to inquire occasionally into the state of his family, for what trade he designed his son, &c. These inquiries never failed to produce a lamentation from the old man, of the untoward disposition of his son Jack, “whom,” said he, “I cannot get to dress a wig or shave a beard, so perpetually is he poring over books.” Such complaints, often repeated, at length awakened the attention of Mr. Owen, who determined to send him to the university, chiefly at his own expence. St. John’s in Cambridge, which has an intimate connection with the free-school of Shrewsbury, naturally presented itself as the place of his academical education; and Mr. Taylor was doubtless assisted by one of the exhibitions founded in the college for the youth of that school. Under this patronage he pursued his studies in the university, and regularly took his degrees, that of B. A. in 1727, and of M. A. in 1731, and in the preceding year was chosen fellow. Thus employed in his favourite occupations, the periods of his return into his native country were the only times which threw a transient clouJ over the happy tenor of his life. On such occasions he was expected to visit his patron, and to partake of the noisy scenes of riotous jollity exhibited in the hospitable mansion of a country gentleman of those days. The gratitude of young Taylor taught him the propriety of making these sacrifices of his own comfort; but it could not prevent him from sometimes whispering his complaints into the ears of his intimate friends. A difference of political opinion afforded a more serious ground of difference. A great majority of the gentry of Shropshire was at that period strenuous in their good wishes for the abdicated family. Though educated at Cambridge, Taylor retained his attachment to toryism, but did not adopt all its excesses; and he at length forfeited the favour of his patron, without the hopes of reconciliation, hy refusing to drink a Jacobite toast on his bare knees, as was then the custom. This refusal effectually precluded him from all hopes of sharing in the great ecclesiastical patronage at that time enjoyed by the Condover family, and inclined him, perhaps, to abandon the clerical profession for the practice of a civilian. But however painful to his feelings this quarrel with his benefactor might prove, he had the consolation to reflect that it could not now deprive him of the prospect of an easy competence. His character as a scholar was established in the university; he was become a fellow and tutor of his conege; and on the 30th of Jan. 1730, he was appointed to deliver the Latin oration then annually pronounced in St. Mary’s before the university on that solemn anniversary; and at the following commencement he was selected to speak the music speech, both of which were printed. This last performance, of which but two instances occur in the last century, viz. 1714 and 1730, was supposed to require an equal share of learning and genius: for, besides a short compliment in Latin to the heads of the university, the orator was expected to produce a humourous copy of English verses on the fashionable topics of the day, for the entertainment of the female part of his audience: and in the execution of this office (derived like the Terras filius of Oxford, from the coarse festivities of a grosser age) sometimes indulged a licentiousness which surprises one on perusal. The music speech of Mr. Taylor is sufficiently free; and, though it does some credit to his poetical talents, is not very civil to his contemporaries of Oxford, (whom he openly taxes with retaining their fellowships and wives at the expence of their oaths) or to the members of Trinity college, in his own university, whom he ironically represents as the only members of Cambridge who could wipe off the stigma of impoliteness imputed to them by the sister university. This speech was printed by his young friend and fellow collegian Mr. Bowyer, and the publication concludes with an ode designed to have been set to music. These were not the only effusions of Mr. Taylor’s muse, for in the Gent. Mag. 1779, p. 365, are some verses by him on the marriage of Lady Margaret Harley to the duke of Portland, and others reprinted by Mr. Nichols.

In the following year the learning and critical abilities of Dr. Taylor were again called forth. The late earl of Sandwich, on his return from a voyage to the Greek islands, of which his own account has been published since his death, and which shews him to have been a nobleman of considerable learning, brought with him a marble from Delos. That island, “which lay in the very centre of the then trading world,” (to use the words of our learned countryman, Mr. Clarke,) “was soon seized by the Athenians and applied to the purposes of a commercial repository: and this subtle and enterprizing people, to encrease the sacreclness and inviolability of its character, celebrated a solemn festival there once in every olympiad.” The marble in question contained a particular of all the revenues and appointments set apart for that purpose. From the known skill of Dr. Taylor on all points of Grecian antiquity it was submitted to his inspection, and was published by him in 1743, under the title of “Marmor Sandvicense cum commentario et notis;” and never probably was an ancient inscription more ably or satisfactorily elucidated. In the same year he also published the only remaining oration of Lycurgus, and one of Demosthenes, in a small octavo volume, with an inscription to his friend Mr. Charles Yorke.

This volume is printed on the same type with, and was intended as a specimen of, his projected edition of all the works of that great orator; a task which “either the course of his studies, or the general consent of the public, had,” he says, “imposed upon him.” While he was engaged in this laborious undertaking he received an accession of dignity and emolument; being in the beginning of 174-4 appointed by the bishop of Lincoln, Dr. John Thomas, to the office of chancellor of that extensive diocese, in the room of Mr. Reynolds. For his introduction to this prelate he was indebted to the kindness of his great patron lord Granville, as we learn from the dedication of the third volume of his Demosthenes, which came out in the spring of 1748, the publication of the first volume being postponed, that the life of the great orator and the other prolegomena might appear With more correctness.

In April 1751, Dr Taylor succeeded the rev. Christopher Anstey, D. D. in the rectory of Lawford in Essex, a living belonging to St. John’s college, and the only parochial cure he ever enjoyed; and in Jan. 1753, he became archdeacon of Buckingham. After he took orders he was esteemed a very eminent and successful preacher; but he has only two occasional sermons in print. When the late marquis of Bath and his brother were sent to St. John’s, they were placed under the care of our author by his patron lord Granville, maternal grandfather of these two young noblemen. This charge led to his work on the “Elements of Civil Law,” 1755, in 4to, and which was formed from the papers drawn up by him to instruct his noble pupils in the origin of natural law, the rudiments of civil life, and of social duties. If the work, as published, partakes somewhat too much of the desultory character of such loose papers; if its reasoning is occasionally confused, and its digressions sometimes irrelevant, it is impossible to deny it the prgise of vast reading and extensive information on various subjects or polite learning and recondite antiquity. It quickly came to a second edition, and has also been published in an abridged form. It did not however escape without some severe animadversions.

An attack so insolent and unprovoked could not injure the established character of Dr. Taylor, or ruffle his temper, and he wisely abstained from taking any notice of it. There appeared however in 1758 a pamphlet, entitled “Impartial Remarks upon the preface of Dr. Warhurton, in which he has taken uncommon liberties with the character of Dr. Taylor;” but it is said to be a poor performance, the only information which it contains being the anecdote in the preceding note as to the real origin of the dispute. Taylor seems at this time to have been better employed than in controversy, as the second volume of his “Demosthenes” appeared in May 1757, and in the following July he was made a canon residentiary of St. Paul’s. For this appointment, which was the summit of his preferment, he was indebted to his steady and active patron lord Granville, who was now a member of administration. In consequence of this dignity, he resigned the office of registrar, in 1758, and quitted Cambridge to reside in London. Here he still proceeded to collect and arrange the materials for the first volume of his Demosthenes, but the expectations of the learned were frustrated by his death, which took place on the 14th day of April, 1766, at his house in Amen Corner, Paternoster Row. He was buried in the vault under St. Paul’s, under the litany desk, where is an epitaph.

In private life, Dr. Taylor’s character was extremely amiable: his temper remarkably social, and his talents fitted to adorn and gladden society. The even tenour of his employments furnished him with an uninterrupted flow of spirits. Though he was so studiously devoted to letters, —though as an intimate friend and fellow-collegian of his informs us, “if you called on him in college after dinner, you were sure to find him sitting at an old oval walnut table, covered with books,—yet when you began to make apologies for disturbing a person so well employed, he immediately told you to advance, and called out,” John, John, bring pipes and glasses,“and instantly appeared as cheerful and good-humoured as if he had not been at all engaged or interrupted. Suppose now you had staid as long as you would, and been entertained by him most agreeably, you took your leave and got halt-way down the stairs, but recollecting somewhat that you had to say to him, you go in again; the bottles and glasses were gone, the books had expanded themselves so as to re-occupy the whole table, and he was just as much buried in them as when you first came in.”

, an able English antiquary, who is introduced by Anthony Wood with an alias Domville or D'Omville, we know not why, was the son of Syivanus Taylor, one of the commissioners for ejecting those of the clergy, who were called “scandalous and insufficient ministers,” and one of the pretended high court of justice for the trial of Charles I. Silas was born at Harley near Muchweniock in Shropshire, July 16, 1624, and after some education at Shrewsbury and Westminster-schools, became a commoner of New-Inn-hall, Oxford, in 1641. He had given proof of talents fit to compose a distinguished scholar, both in the classics and mathematics, when his father took him from the university, and made him join the parliamentary army, in which he bore a captain’s commission. When the war was over, his father procured him to be made a sequestrator of the royalists in Herefordshire, but although he enriched himself considerably in this office, and had a moiety of the bishop’s palace at Hereford settled on him, he conducted himself with such kindness and moderation as to be beloved of the king’s party. At the restoration, he of course lost all he had gained as the agent of usurpation, but his mild behaviour in that ungracious office was not forgot, and by the interest of some whom he had obliged, he was appointed commissary of ammunition, &c. at Dunkirk, and about 1665 was made keeper of the king’s stores and storehouses for shipping, &c. at Harwich. The profits of this situation were probably not great, for he was much in debt at the time of his death, which occasioned his valuable collections and Mss. to be seized by his creditors, and dispersed as of no value. He died Nov. 4, 1678, and was buried in the chancel of the church of Harwich.

He appears to have been an early inquirer into the antiquities of his country, and while in power ransacked the libraries of the cathedrals of Hereford and Worcester for valuable Mss., among which was the original grant of king Edgar, whence the kings of England derive their sovereignty of the seas. This was printed in Selden’s “Mare clausum.” He left large materials for a history of Herefordshire, which Dr. Rawliuson understood to have been deposited in lord Oxford’s library; but in the Harleian catalogue we find only part of his history of Herefordshire at the end of ms. 6766, and extracts from Doomsday, >fo. 6356. Mr. Dale, who published a “History of Harwich” from Taylor’s papers, in 1730, speaks of these collections as being lately, if not now, in the hands of sir Edward Harley of Brompton-Brian, grandfather of the first earl of Oxford. The only work Taylor published, was the “History of Gavelkind, with the etymology thereof; containing also an assertion, that our English laws are, for the most part, those that were used by vthe ancient Brytains, notwithstanding the several conquests of the Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans. With some observations and remarks upon many especial occurrences of British and English history. To which is added, a short history of William the conqueror, written in Latin by an anonymous author in the time of Henry I.” Lond. 1663, 4to. In this work he carries both the name and custom of Gavelkind further back than was done by his predecessor on the same subject, Sornner. In all material points he confirms the opinion of Somner, who answers his objections in marginal notes on a copy of his book, which, with a correct copy of his own, is in Canterbury library. Taylor’s work we should suppose of great rarity, as no copy occurs in Mr. Cough’s collection given to Oxford, or in that sold in London. Wood says, that Taylor wrote many pamphlets before the restoration, but as they were without his name, he did not think proper to acknowledge them. He speaks also of Taylor’s abilities not only in the theory, but practice of music, and as a composer of anthems, and the editor of “Court Ayres, &c.” 1655, 8vo, printed by John Playford. His name, however, seems to have escaped the attention of our musical historians.

, one of the most eminent and learned of the puritan divines, was born at Richmond in Yorkshire, in 1576, and was educated at Christ’s-college, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow, and acquired great fame for his literary accomplishments. He was chosen Hebrew lecturer of his college. At what time he took holy orders is not mentioned, but he appears to have incurred censure for non-conformity in one or two instances. On leaving the university, he settled first at Watford in Hertfordshire, then at Reading in Berkshire, and afterwards, in 1625, he obtained the living of St. Mary Alderm anbury, London, which he retained for the remainder of his life, lu his early days he had preached at Paul’s cross before queen Elizabeth, and afterwards before king James, and was every where admired and followed for the plainness, perspicuity, and soundness of his doctrines, and the great zeal and earnestness with which he laboured in the pastoral office for the space of thirty years. While he partook of the zeal, common to all his brethren, against popery, he was also an avowed enemy to Arminianism and Antinomianism. He died in the beginning of 1632, in the fifty-fifth year of his^ge, and was interred in St. Mary’s church. Leigh, Fuller, Wood, and all his contemporaries unite in giving him a high character for learning, piety, and usefulness. He was likewise a voluminous writer; his works, most of them printed separately, were collected in 3 vols. fol. 1659. They consist of commentaries, which were generally the substance of what he had preached on particular parts of scripture; and single sermons, or treatises. He and Dr. Thomas Beard of Huntingdon, were joint compilers of that singular and once very popular collection of stories, entitled “The Theatre of God’s Judgments,” 1648, &c. fol.

, one of the heroes of Swiss liberty, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, a man of property, and of good, though not distinguished family, was an inhabitant of the village of Burgeln in the country of Uri. In 1307 he was one of the persons engaged in the conspiracy against the Austrian government. The bailiff, or governor, Herman Gesler, either from a suspicious disposition, or having received some intimation of an impending insurrection, resolved to ascertain who would most patiently submit to his dominion. For this purpose he is said to have raised a hat upon a pole,* as an emblem of liberty, and commanded Tell, among others, to pay obeisance to it. “The youth Tell,” says Muller, “a friend to freedom, disdained to honour in a servile manner, and on an arbitrary command, even its emblem.” Then it was that, according to the current story, Tell was commanded by Gesler to shoot an arrow at an apple placed on the head of his own son; and, though reluctant, compelled to do it, bv the menace of immediate death, both to him and the infant if be should refuse. Tell cleft the apple without hurting the child but could not refrain from informing the tyrant that, had his aim proved less fortunate, he had another arrow in reserve, which he should have directed to the heart of his oppressor. By this manifestation of his courage and sentiments, he induced the bailiff to confine him; who, afterwards, mistrusting the friends and relations of Tell, resolved to carry him out of the country of Uri, across the lake of Lucern; though contrary to the acknowledged privileges of his countrymen. On the lake, as they were crossing, a violent storm arose; and Gesler, who knew Tell to be very skilful in the management of a boat, ordered his fetters to be taken off, and the helm committed to him. Taking advantage of this circumstance, Tell steered the boat close to a rock, leaped upon a flat part of it, scrambled up the precipice, and escaped. Gesler also escaped the danger of the water, but, landing near Kusnacht, fell by an arrow from the bow of Tell, whose skill he thus proved a second time, to his cost. Gesler thus perished by the indignation of a private man, without any participation of the people, and before the day appointed for their insurrection. Tell retired to Stauffacher, in the canton of Schwitz, and on the new year’s day ensuing, all the Austrian governors were seized and sent out of the country. In 1354, forty-seven years after this event, Tell is supposed to have lost his life in an inundation at Burgeln.

A chapel has been erected by his countrymen on the spot where he resided, and another on the rock where he landed: but, from the simplicity of the people, and of the times in which he lived, no particular honours or emoluments were assigned to his progeny, who appear to have lived in obscurity. The last male of his race, of whom we have any account, was John Martin Tell, of Attinghausen, who died in 1684. His descent in the female line became extinct in 1720. Crasser, a Swiss writer, long ago remarked the resemblance between the incident of the apple, as commonly related of Tell, and that told of Tocco, a Dane, by Saxo Grammaticus and from this coincidence, some have supposed the latter, at least, to be fictitious this, however, does not amount to a proof. It is possible, though perhaps not probable, that it may have happened twice.

Louvois, with all his talents, was not regretted either by the king or the courtiers. His harsh disposition, and very haughty manners, had irritated every one against him. He may also be reproached for the cruelties exercised in the Palatinate, and for other sanguinary proceedings. He wished not to be outdone in any severities. “If the enemy burns one village within your government,” said he, in a letter to the marshal de Bouflers, “do you burn ten in his.” Yet, notwithstanding every exception which may justly be made to his character, his talents were of more advantage than his faults were of injury to his country. In no one of his successors was found the same spirit of detail, united with complete grandeur of views; the same promptitude of execution in defiance of all obstacles; the same firmness of discipline, or the same profound secrecy in design. Yet he did not support ill fortune with the same firmness as his master. When the siege of Coni was raised, he ca ned the news to Louis XIV. with tears in his eyes. “You are easily depressed,” said the king “it is not difficult to perceive that you are too much accustomed to success. I, who have seen the Spanish troops within the walls of Paris, am not so easily cast down.” His sudden death is mentioned by madame de Sevigne, in her letters, in her own characteristic style. “He is dead, then; this great minister, this man of so high consideration; whose Moi (as M. Nicole says) was of such extent; who was the centre of so many affairs. How much business, how many designs, how many secrets, how many interests to develope How many wars commenced, how many fine strokes 6f chess to make and to manage Oh, give me but a little time I would fain give check to the duke of 'Savoy, check-mate to the prince of Orange. No, no not a moment. Can we reason on this strange event No, truly we must retire into our closets, and there reflect upon it”

, a Florentine painter, was born at Florence in 1555, and was a disciple of John Strada, or Stradanus. He proved in many respects superior to his master, and especially in the fertility of his genius, and the vast number and variety of his figures. He painted chiefly landscapes, animals, and battles. He invented with ease, and executed with vigour; but not always with delicacy of colouring. He died in 1630, at the age of seventy-five. He sometimes engraved, but his prints are not prized in proportion to his paintings.

, otherwise called Molyn, and Pietro Mulier, another artist of note, was born at Haerlem in 1637, and according to some authors, was the disciple of Snyders, whose manner he at first adopted, and painted huntings of different animals, as large as life, with singular force and success. He afterwards changed both his style and subjects, and delighted to paint tempests, storms at sea, and shipwrecks, which he executed admirably, and therefore got the name, by which he is generally known, of Tempesta. After travelling through Holland he went to Rome, and having changed his religion from protestantism to popery, became greatly caressed as an artist, and received the title of cavaliere. After passing some years at Rome he visited Genoa, where he was likewise highly honoured, and fully employed, but appears to have lost all sense of principle or shame; for, in order to marry a Genoese lady, he caused his wife, whom he had left at Rome, to be murdered. This atrocious affair being discovered, he was sentenced to be hanged, but by the intervention of some of the nobility, who admired his talents, his sentence would probably have been changed to perpetual imprisonment. From this, however, he contrived to escape, after being confined sixteen years, and died in 1701, in the sixty-fourth year of his age. It was from this crime that he obtained the name of Pietro Mu­Lier, or de Mulieribus. His pictures are very rare, and held in great estimation, and those he painted in prison are thought to be of very superior merit. He executed also, by the graver only, several very neat prints, in a style greatly resembling that of Vander Velde. They consist chiefly of candle-light pieces, and dark subjects.

The subject of the present memoir was born in London in 1628, and first sent to school at Penshurst in Kent, under the care of his uncle Dr. Hammond, then minister of that parish. At the age of ten he was removed to a school at Bishop Stortford, in Hertfordshire, kept by Mr. Leigh, where he was taught Greek and Latin. At the age of fifteen he returned and remained at home for about two years, from some doubts, during these turbulent times, as to the propriety of sending him to any university. These having been removed, he was about two years after entered of Emanuel college, Cambridge, under the tuition of the learned Cud worth. His father intending him for political life, seems not to have thought a long residence here necessary; and therefore about 1647, or 1648, sent him on his travels. While on his way to France he visited the Isle of Wight, where his majesty Charles I. was then a prisoner; and there formed an attachment to Dorothy, second daughter of sir Peter Osborn, of Chicksand, in Bedfordshire, whom he afterwards married.

His travels extended to France, Holland, Flanders, and Germany; during which he acquired a facility in speaking and reading those modern languages, which then formed a necessary accomplishment in a statesman. In 1654, on his return, he married the above-mentioned Mrs. Osborn, and passed his time for some years with his father and family in Ireland, improving himself in the study of history and philosophy, and cautiously avoiding any employment during the usurpation. At the restoration, in 1660, he was chosen a member of the convention in Ireland, and first distinguished himself by opposing the poll-bill, a very unpopular ministerial measure; which he did with so much independence of spirit, as to furnish a presage of his future character. In the succeeding parliament, in 1661, he was chosen, with his father, for the county of Carlow, where he distinguished himself by voting and speaking indifferently, as he approved or disapproved their measures, without joining any party. In 1662 he was chosen one of the commissioners to be sent from that parliament to the king, and took this opportunity of waiting on the lord lieutenant, the duke of Ormond, then at London, and seems at the same time to have now formed the design of quitting Ireland altogether, and residing in England. It was necessary, however, to return to Ireland, where on a second interview with the duke of Ormond, then at Dublin, the duke made extraordinary professions of respect for him, complaining, with polite irony, that he was the only man in Ireland who had never asked him any thing: and when he found him bent on going to England, insisted on giving him letters of recommendation to Clarendon, the lord chancellor, and to Arlington, secretary of state.

This recommendation was effectual with both these statesmen, as well as with the king, although he was not immediately employed. Sir William Templew^s nev.er forgetful of this obligation he constantly kept np a Correspondence with the duke of Ormond, and afterwards zealously defended him against the attempt of the earl of Essex to displace him from the government of Ireland. In the mean time, during his interviews with lord Arling­‘ton, who seems to have had his promotion at heart, he took occasion to hint to his lordship, that if his majesty thought him worthy of any employment abroad, he should be happy to accept it; but begged leave to object to the northern climates, to which he had a great aversion. Lord Arlington expressed his regret at this, because the place of envoy at Sweden was the only one then vacant. In 1665, however, about the commencement of the first Dutch, war, lord Arlington communicated to him that his majesty wanted to send a person abroad upon an affair of great importance, and advised him to accept the offer, whether in all respects agreeable or not, as it would prove an introduction to his majesty’s service, This business was a secret commission to the bishop of Munster, for the purpose of concluding a treaty between the king and him, by which the bishop should be obliged, upon receiving a certain sum of money, to join his majesty immediately in the war with Holland. Sir William made no scruple to accept this commission, which he executed with speed and success, and in the most private manner, without any train or official character. In July he began his journey to Qoesvelt, and not long after it was known publicly, that he had in a very few days concluded and signed the treaty there, in which his perfect knowledge in Latin, which he had retained, was of no little advantage to him, the bishop. conversing in no other language. After signing the treaty, he went to Brussels, saw the first payment made, and received the news that the bishop was in the fielfl, by which this negotiation began first to be discovered;, but no person suspected ’the part he had in it; and he continued privately at Brussels till it was whispered to the marquis Castel-Rodrigo the governor, that he came upon some particular errand (-which he was then at liberty to own). The governor immediately sent to desire his acquaintance, and that he might see him in private, to which he easily consented. Soon after a commission was sent him to be resident at Brussels, a situation which he had long contemplated with pleasure, and his commission was accompanied with a baronet’s patent. Sir William now sent for his family (April 1666); but, before their arrival, was again ordered to Munster, to prevent the bishop’s concluding peace with the Dutch, which he threatened to do, in consequence of some remissness in the payments from England, and actually signed it at Cleve the very night sir William Temple arrived at Munster. On. this he returned to Brussels; and before he had been there a year, peace with the Dutch was concluded at Breda. Two months after this event, his sister, who resided with him at Brussels, having an inclination to see Holland, he went thither with her incognito, and while at the Hague, became acquainted with the celebrated Pensionary De Witt.

In 167'3, the king, becoming weary of the second Dutch war, and convinced of its unpopularity, sent for sir William Temple, and wished him to go to Holland, with the offer of the king’s mediation between France and the confederates then at war, which was not long after accepted; and in June 1674, lord Berkley, sir William Temple, and sir Lioline Jenkins, were declared ambassadors and mediators, and Nimeguen appointed, by general consent, as the place of treaty. During sir William’s stay at the Ha^ne, the prince of Orange, who was fond of speaking English, and of English habits, constantly dined and supped once or twice a week at his house, feir William insensibly acquired his Highness’s confidence, and had a considerable hand in his marriage with the princess Mary, of which he has said so much in his " Memoirs. 77 One instance of his employing his influence with the prince, he used to reckon amongst the good fortunes of his life. Five Englishmen happened to be taken and brought to the Hague whilst he was there, and in the prince’s absence, who were immediately tried, and condemned by a council of war, for deserting their colours: some of his servants had the curiosity to visit their unfortunate countrymen, and came home with a deplorable story, that, by what they had heard, it seemed to be a mistake; and that they were all like to die innocent; but, however, that it was without remedy, that their graves were digging, and they were to be shot next morning. Sir William Temple left nothing unattempted to prevent their sudden execution; and sent to the officers to threaten them, that he would complain first to the prince, and then to the king, who, he was sure, would demand reparation, if so many of his subjects suffered unjustly: but nothing would move them, till he made it his last request to reprieve them one day, during which the prince happened to come within reach of returning an answer to a message he sent, and they were released. The first thing they did was to go and look at their graves; and the next, to come and thank sir William Temple upon their knees.

In 1679 he went back to Nimeguen, where the French delayed signing the treaty to the last hour; and after he had concluded it, he returned to the Hague, from whence he was soon sent for to enter upon the secretary’s place, which Mr. Coventry was at last resolved to part with and my lord Sunderland, who was newly come into the other, pressed him with much earnestness to accept. He very unuillingly obeyed his majesty’s commands to come over, as he had long at heart a visit he had promised to make the great duke, as soon as his embassy was ended; having begun a particular acquaintance with him in England, and kept up a correspondence ever since. Besides, having so ill succeeded in the designs (which no man ever more steadily pursued in the course of his employments) of doing his country the best service, and advancing its honour and greatness to the height of which he thought it capable, he resolved to ask leave of the king to retire. At this time, indeed, no person could engage in public affairs with a worse prospect; the Popish plot being newly broke out, and the parliament violent in the persecution of it, although it is now generally allowed to have been an absurd imposture. On these accounts, although the king, who, after the removal of the lord treasurer Danby, whom the parliament sent to the Tower, had no one with whom he could discourse with freedom on public affairs, sir William, alarmed at the universal discontents and jealousies which prevailed, was determined to make his retreat, as soon as possible, from a scene which threatened such confusion. Meanwhile, as he could not refuse the confidence witfi which his master honoured him, he represented to the king, that, as the jealousies of the nation were extreme, it was necessary to cure them by some new remedy, and to restore that mutual confidence, so requisite for the safety both of the king and people; that to refuse every thing to the parliament in their present disposition, or to yield every thing, was equally dangerous to the constitution, as well as to public tranquillity; that if the king would introduce into his councils such men as enjoyed the confidence of his people, fewer concessions would probably be re-. quired; or if unreasonable demands were made, the king, under the sanction of such counsellors, might be enabled, with the greater safety, to refuse them; and that the heads of the popular party, being gratified with the king’s favour, wouldprobably abate of that violence by which they endeavoured at present to pay court to the multitude.

The king assented to these reasons; and, in concert with Temple, laid the plan of a new privy-council, without whose advice he declared himself determined for the future to take no measure of importance. This council was to consist of thirty persons, and was never to exceed that number. Fifteen- of the chief officers of the crown were to be continued, who, it was supposed, would adhere to the king, and, in case of any extremity, oppose the exorbitances of faction. The other half of the council was to be'composed, either of men of character, detached from the court, or of those who possessed chief credit in both Houses. The experiment seemed at first to give some satisfaction to the people; but as Shaftesbury was made president of the council, contrary to the advice of sir William Temple, the plan upon the whole was of little avail. Temple oftea joined them, though he kept himself detached from public business. When the bill was proposed for putting restrictions on the duke of York, as successor to the throne, Shaftesbury thought them insufficient, and was for a total exclusion; but sir William Temple thought them so rigorous as even to subvert the constitution; and that shackles, put upon a Popish successor, would not afterwards be easily cast off by a Protestant.

At the time of this revolution in 1688, Moor Park growing unsafe by lying in. the way of both armies, he went back to the house he had given up to his son at Sheen, whom he would not permit to go and meet the prince of Orange at his landing, as this might appear a breach of his engagement, never to join in any measure that seemed to divide the royal family. After king James’s abdication, and the prince’s arrival ut Windsor, however, sir William Temple went to wait upon his highness, along with his son. On this occasion the prince pressed him to enter into his service, and to be secretary of state; said, it was in kindness to him that he had not been acquainted with his design; came to him two or three times at Sheen, and several of his friends made him very uneasy, in urging how much the prince. (who was his friend), his country, and his religion, must suffer by his obstinate refusal to engage in their defence; add ing, that his conduct would give the world an unfavourable opinion of this great undertaking, and make them mistrust some bad design at the bottom, which a man of his truth and honour did not care to be concerned in. Sir William, however, continued unshaken in his resolutions, although very sensible of the trouble and uneasiness the prince and all his friends expressed; and was the more anxious to return to his retirement at Moor Park, about the end of 1689, that he might be less exposed to similar solicitations.

In 1693, sir William published an answer to a scurrilous pamphlet, entitled “A Letter from Mr. du Cros to the lord ———.” This Du Cros bore very impatiently the character which sir William had given him in the second part of his “Memoirs,” and wrote the above letter to abuse him for it. In 1695, he published “An Introduction to the History of England:” in which some few mistakes have been discovered, as his speaking of William the Conqueror abolishing the trial of camp-fight, or duel, who, on the contrary, introduced it. Not long after his death, Dr. Swift, then domestic chaplain, to the earl of Berkley, who lived many years as an amanuensis in sir William Temple’s family, published two volumes of his “Letters,” containing an account of the most important transactions that passed in Christendom, from 1667 to 1672; and, in 1703, a third volume, containing “Letters to king Charles II, the prince of Orange, the chief ministers of state, and other persons,” in octavo. The editor informs us, that these papers were the last of this or any kind, about which he had received his particular commands; and that they were corrected by himself, and transcribed in his life-time. The whole of his works were handsomely reprinted in 4 vols. 8vo, in 1814. Sir William Temple had one son, John Temple, esq. a man of great abilities and accomplishments, and who, soon after the Revolution, was appointed secretary at war by king William; but he had scarce been a week in that office, when he drowned himself at London-bridge. This extraordinary affair happened the 14th of April, 1689, when Mr. Temple, having spent the whole morning at his office, took a boat about noon, as if he designed to go to Greenwich; when he had got a little way, he ordered the waterman to set him ashore, and then finishing some dispatches which he had forgot, proceeded. Before he threw himself out, he dropped in the boat a shilling for the waterman, and a note to this effect:

It was thought, at first, that he meant by this, his incapacity for the secretaryship at war, which he had asked the king leave to resign the day before; but the fact was, that he had been melancholy for some months before, and the great prejudice to the king’s affairs, mentioned in his note, could not be occasioned by mistakes committed in a place in which he had yet done little or nothing. Another cause of his melancholy is assigned, which carries more probability. General Richard Hamilton being upon suspicion confined in the Tower, Mr. Temple visited him sometimes upon the score of a former acquaintance: when discoursing upon the present juncture of affairs, and how to prevent the effusion of blood in Ireland, the general said, “That the best way was, to send thither a person in whom Tyrconnel could trust; and he did not doubt, if such a person gave him a true account of things in England, he would readily submit.” Mr. Temple communicated khis overture to the king, who approving of it, and looking upon general Hamilton to be the properest person for such a service, asked Mr. Temple whether he could be trusted? Temple readily engaged his word for him, and Hamilton was sent to Ireland; but, instead of discharging his commission and persuading Tyrconnel to submit, he encouraged him as much as possible to stand out, and offered him his assistance, which Tyrconnel gladly accepted. Mr. Temple contracted an extreme melancholy upon Hamilton’s desertion although the king assured him he was convinced of his innocence. Mr. Temple had married Mademoiselle Du Plessis Rambouillet, a French lady, who had by him two daughters, to whom sir William bequeathed the bulk of his estate but with this express condition, that they should not marry Frenchmen “a nation,” says Boyer, “to whom sir William ever bore a general hatred, upon account of their imperiousness and arrogance to foreigners.”

, M. D. the son of an eminent attorney at Dorchester in the county of Dorset, by Mary, daughter of Robert Haynes, was born‘ March 17, 1711, and was educated at the Charter-house (not on the foundation), whence he proceeded to Trinity-colk’ge, Cambridge, and there took his degree of B. A. with distinguished reputation. During his residence at Cambridge, by his own inclination, in conformity with that of his parents, he applied himself to the study of divinity, with a design to enter into holy orders; but alter some time, from what cause we know not, he altered his plan, and applied himself to the study of physic. In 1736 he went to Leyden, where he attended the lectures of Boerhaave, and the professors of the other branches of medicine in that celebrated university, for the space of two years or more. About the beginning of 1739, he returned to London, with a view to enter on the practice of his profession, supported by a handsome allowance from his father. Why he did not succeed in that line was easy to be accounted for by those who knew him. He was a man of a very liberal turn of mind, of general erudition, with a large acquaintance among the learned of different professions, but of an indolent, inactive disposition; he could not enter into juntos with people that were not to his liking; nor cultivate the acquaintance to be met with at tea-tables; but rather chose to employ his time at home in the perusal of an ingenious author, or to spend an attic evening in a select company of men of sense and learning. In this he resembled Dr. Armstrong, whose limited practice in his profession was owing to the same cause. In the latter end of 1750 he was introduced to Dr. Fothergill (by Dr. Cuming,) with a view of instituting a Medical Society, in order to procure the earliest intelligence of every improvement in physic from every part of Europe *. At the same period he tells his friend, “Dr. Mead has very generously offered to assist me with all his interest for succeeding Dr. Hall at the (Charter-house, whose death has been for some time expected. Inspired with gratitude, I have ventured out of my element (as you will plainly perceive), and sent him an ode.” Dr. Tern pieman’s epitaph on lady Lucy Meyrick (the only English copy of verses of his writing that we know of) is printed in the eighth volume of the “Select Collection of Miscellany Poems,” 1781. In. 1753 he published the first volume of “Curious Remarks and Observations in Physic, Anatomy, Chirurgery, Chemistry, Botany, and Medicine, extracted from the History and Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris;” and the second volume in the succeeding year. A third was promised, but we believe never printed. It appears indeed that if he had

* An extract from one of his letters months. In a dearth of new tilings on will give some idea of this plan, which each of those heads, to extract out of never took effect. “I spoilt the whole the French Memoirs, German Epheafternoon yesterday with Dr. Pother- nierides, &c. such things os shall apgill in settling the plan of our design, pear to the society to be useful discowhich in short is this by a settled re- veries or observations, and not suffigular correspondence in the principal ciently known or attended to. The cities of Europe, to have the most early greatest difficulty lying on us is the intelligence of the improvements in choice of proper persons to execute chemistry, anatomy, botany, chinir- this design some being too much gery, with accounts of epidemical di- taken up in business, and others justly seases, state of the weather, remark- exceptionable as being untractable, able cases, observations, and useful presumptuous, and overbearing. The medicines. A society to be formed men of business, however, will he of here in town, to meet regularly once a some use to us, in communicating reweek, at which meeting all papers trans- markable. cases and occurrences. Such milted to be read, and s,uch as are ap- a work will require a great number of proved of to be published in the Eng- hands; and, besides good abilities, it lish language, in the manner of our will be neiessary they should be good Philosophical Transactions a pam- sort of men too.” ms Letter to Dr. phlet of 2s, or 2. 6d. once in three Cuming. met with proper encouragement from the public, it was his intention to have extended the work to twelve volumes, with an additional one of index, and that he was prepared to publish two such volumes every year. His translation of “Norden’s Travels” appeared in the beginning of 1757 and in that year he was editor of “Select Cases and Consultations in Physic, by Dr. Woodward,” 8vo. On the establishment of the British Museum in 1753, he was appointed to the office of keeper of the reading-room, which he resigned on being chosen, in 1760, secretary to the then newly instituted Society of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce. In 1762 he was elected a corresponding member of the Royal Academy of Science of Paris, and also of the CEconomical Society at Berne. Very early in life Dr. Templeman was afflicted with severe paroxysms of an asthma, which eluded the force of all that either his own skill, or that of the most eminent physicians then living, could suggest to him; and it continued to harass him till his death, which happened September 23, 1769. He was esteemed a man of great learning, particularly with respect to languages; spoke French with great fluency, and left the character of a humane, generous, and polite member of society.

, a lady of considerable talents, took the habit of a religious at the monastery of Montfleuri, near Grenoble. Becoming tired of that mode of life, she went to Paris, where she lived in the world, and solicited a bull from the pope to authorize this unusual proceeding. With cardinal Lambertini, afterwards Benedict XIV. she was on good terms, and he gave her no molestation. Her house at Paris was the general meeting of all who had wit, or wished to have the credit of it. The gaiety of her society was, however, disturbed by some unfortunate adventures particularly by the death of La Fresnaye, a counsellor of state, who was killed in her apartment. Mademoiselle Tencin was prosecuted as concerned in the murder, and was confined first in the Chatelet, and afterwards in the Bastille; but was at length discharged as innocent. She died at Paris in 1749, being then a good deal advanced in years. She appeared as an author in several instances, and produced, 1. “Le Siege de Calais,” a romance of considerable delicacy and genius, though not without faults. 2. “Memoires de Comminges,” 12mo, another novel which has had its admirers. A nephew of M. de Tencin, M. Pont-de-veste, had some share in both these productions. 3. “Les Malheurs de l'Amour,” a novel, in which some have supposed that she describes a part of her own history. 4. “Anecdotes of Edward II.” a posthumous work, published in 1776. All her works were published at Paris in 1786, in seven small volumes, 12 mo.

, son of the preceding, was born at Antwerp in 1610, and was nick-named “The Ape of Painting;” for there was no manner of painting that he could not imitate so exactly, as to deceive even the nicest judges. He improved greatly on the talents and merit of his father, and his reputation introduced him to the favour of the great. The archduke Leopold William made him gentleman of his bedchamber; and all the pictures of his gallery were copied by Teniers, and engraved by his direction. Teniers took a voyage to England, to buy several pictures of the great Italian masters for count Fuensaldegna, who, on his return, heaped favours on him. Don John of Austria, and the king of Spain, set so great a value on his pictures, that they built a gallery on purpose for them. Prince William of Orange honoured him with his friendship; Rubens esteemed his works, and assisted him with his advice. In his thirty* fifth year he was in his zenith of perfection. His principal talent was landscape, adorned with small figures. He painted men drinking and smoking, chemists, and their laboratories, country fairs, and the like: his small figures are superior to his large ones. The distinction between the works of the father and the son is, that in the son’s you discover a finer touch and a fresher pencil, and a greater choice of attitudes, and a better disposition of figures. The father retained something of the tone of Italy in his colouring, which was stronger than the son’s, but his pictures have Jess harmony and union; besides, the son used to put at the bottom of his pictures, “David Teniers, junior.” He died at Antwerp in 1694, aged eighty-four. Sir Joshua Reynolds says, that the works of this artist are worthy the closest attention of a painter who desires to excel in the mechanical knowledge of his art. His manner of touching, or what we call handling, has perhaps never been equalled: there is in his pictures that exact mixture of softness and sharpness, which is difficult to execute. His brother Abraham was a good painter; equal, if not superior, to his father and brother in the expression of his characters, and knowledge of the chiaro-scnro, though inferior in the sprightliness of his touch, and the lightness of his pencil.

In 1685, he attended the unfortunate duke of Monmouth, by his grace’s desire, both before, and at the time of his execution; and Burnet tells us that he spoke to his grace with a freedom becoming his station, both as to the duke’s public conduct and private life, yet with such prudence and circumspection, as to give no offence. In 1687, Dr. Teiiison held a conference with Andrew Pulton, his opponent before mentioned, respecting the protestant religion, a detail of which he afterwards published under the title of “A true account of a Conference held about Religion at London, Sept. 29, 1687, between Andrew Pulton, Jesuit, and Thomas Tenison, D. D. as also that which led to it, and followed after it,” Lond. 1687. Soon after Dr. Tenison published the following tracts, arising from this conference, or connected with the popish controversy in general: “A Guide in matters of Faith, with respect especially to the Romish practice of such a one as is infallible;” “Mr. Pulton considered in his sincerity, reasonings, and authorities; or, a just answer to what he has hitherto published in his true and full account of a conference, &c. his re,marks, and in them his pretended confutation of what he calls Dr. T.'s (Dr. Tillotson’s) Rule of Faith;” “Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist, wherein is shewed, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the proofs of the Christian religion,” from the French of La Placette “The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome; in answer to a book written by a Romanist, entitled The Agreement between them;” and “An Examination of Bellarmine’s tenth note of holiness of life.”

Resuming his pen against popery, Dr. Tenison now published five more treatises or tracts on the subject, entitled “The Introduction to Popery not founded in Scripture;” “An answer to a letter of the Roman catholic soldier;” “Speculum Ecclesiasticum or an ecclesiastical prospective glass considered in its false reasonings and quotations” “The incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome,” translated from Placette; and “The Protestant and Popish way of interpreting Scripture, impartially compared, in answer to Pax vobis, &c.” all in 4to, and published in 1688 or 1689. We are told that, notwithstanding his zeal in this cause, he was so much respected at court, that James II. was induced, out of regard to him, to take off the suspension which that infatuated monarch had laid upon Dr. John Sharp (See Shakp, vol. XXVII. p. 400); but there is more reason to think that this, on the king’s part, was an attempt at conciliation, when he found how unpopular that and his other measures in favour of popery were.

The several injunctions and circular letters to his clergy for preserving the order and discipline of the church, and for healing the animosities that arose in his time respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, are such as have been thought to reflect honour on his high station. It was in his time, too, that the disputes occurred respecting the distinct powers of the two houses of convocation, which proved ultimately the ruin of that assembly, so that, as has been justly remarked, while every other church and every sect, has its synods, or other assemblies of the kind, the church of England has no longer any thing preserved but the mere form of meeting and breaking up.

, a Dutch painter, was born in 1608,atZwol, nearOveryssel. He learned the art of painting under his father, who had passed some years at Rome. He travelled over the chief part of Europe, and was every where much encouraged. His subjects were usually conversations, persons employed in games, or in humorous adventures. His colouring is lively, and his pictures highly finished. But he is not thought equal either to Mieris or Gerard Dow, in the same style. He died in 1681, at the age of seventy-three.

, or Terence, an ancient dramatic writer among the Romans, was a native of Carthage, and born in the year of Rome 560. He was brought early to Rome, among other slaves, and fell into the hands of a generous master, Terentius Lucanus, a Roman senator, who was so taken with his uncommon parts, that he gave him first a good education, and afterwards his liberty. He received his name, as well as his liberty, from Terentius Lucanus, as the custom was; and thus, by a singular fatality, says madam Dacier, while he has immortalized the name of his master, he has not been able to preserve his own. His merit soon recommended him to the acquaintance and familiarity of the chief nobility; and such was his friendship with Scipio and Laelius, that his rivals and enemies took occasion from thence to say that his plays were composed by these noblemen. Suetonius relates a story from Cornelius Nepos, which may seem to confirm such a surmise: it is, that on the 1st of March, which was the feast of the Roman ladies, Laelius being desired by his wife to sup a little sooner than ordinary, he prayed her not to disturb him; and that, coming very late to supper that night, he said he had never composed any thing with more pleasure and success; when, being asked by the company what it was, he repeated some verses out of the third scene of the fourth act in the “Heautontimorumenos.” Terence takes notice of this report in his prologue to the “Adelphi,” and does not offer to refute it; but Suetonius says that he forbore, in complaisance to his patrons, who might possibly not be displeased with it; and, indeed, in the prologue to the “Heautontimorumenos,” Terence desired the auditors not to credit the slanderous reports of his brother writers. It is very possible that Scipio and Lselius might sometimes amuse themselves with composing a scene or two lor a poet, with whom they conversed so familiarly; but the plays were certainly Terence’s.

We have six of them remaining, and probably one or two are lost, for the “Andria” does not seem to have been his first. The very prologue to this play intimates the contrary; and the circumstance related by Suetonius, about Terence’s reading his first piece to Ccecilius, proves the “Andria” not to have been it, and that Suetonius has mistaken the name of the. play for Caecilius died two years before the “Andria” was brought on the stage. Caecilius was the best poet of the age, and near fourscore ‘when. Terence offered his first play; much regard was paid to his judgment’, and therefore the cedile oftVred Terence to wait upon Caecilius with his play before he would venture to receive it. The old gentleman, being at table, bid the young- author take a stool, and begin to read it to him. It is observed by Suetonius, that Terence’s dress was mean, so that his outside did not much recommend him; but he had not gone through the first scene when Caecilius invited him to sit at table with him, deferring to have the rest of the play read till after supper. Thus, with the advantage of Csecilius’s recommendation, did Terence’s first play appear, when Terence could not be twenty-five; for the “Andria” was acted when he was but twenty-seven. The “Hecyra” was acted the year following; the “Self-tormentor, or Heautontimorumenos,” two years after that; the “Eunuch” two years after the “Selftormentor;” the “Phormio,” the latter end of the same year; and, the year afterwards, the “Adelphi, or Brothers,” was acted; that is, 160 B.C. when Terence was thirty-three years of age.

After this, Terence went into Greece, where he stayed about a year, in order, as it is thought, to collect some of Menander’s plays. He fell sick on his return from thence, and died at sea, according to some; at Stymphalis, a town in Arcadia, according to others. From the above account, we cannot have lost above one or two of Terence’s plays; for it is impossible to credit what Suetonius reports from one Consemius, an unknown author, namely, that Terence was returning with above an hundred of Menander’s plays, which he had translated, but that he lost them by shipwreck, and died of grief for the loss. Terence was of a middle size, very slender, and of a dark complexion-. He left a daughter behind him, who was afterwards married to a Roman knight. He left also a house and gardens on the Appian way, near the Villa Martis, so that the notion of his dying poor is very improbable. If he could be supposed to have reaped no advantages from the friendship of Scipio and Lselius, yet his plays must have brought him in considerable sums. He received eight thousand sesterces for his “Eunuch,” which was acted twice in one day; a piece of good fortune which perhaps never happened to any other play, for plays with the Romans were never designed to serve above two or three times. There is no doubt that he was well paid for the rest; for it appears from the prologue to the “Hecyra,” that the poets used to be paid every time their play was acted. At this rate, Terence must have made a handsome fortune before he died, for most of his plays were acted more than once in his life- time. It would be endless to mention the testimonies of the ancients in his favour, or the high commendations hestowed upon him by modern commentators and critics. Menander was his model, and from him he borrowed many of his materials. He was not content with a servile imitation of Menander, but always consulted his own. genius, and made such alterations as seemed to him expedient. His enemies blamed his conduct in this; but in the prologue to the “Andria,” he pleads guilty to the charge, and justifies what he had done by very sufficient reasons. The comedies of Terence were in great repute among the Romans; though Plautus, having more wit, more action, and more vigour, was sometimes more popular upon the stage. Terence’s chief excellence consists in these three points, beauty of characters, politeness of dialogue, and regularity of scene. His characters are natural, exact, and finished to the last degree; and no writer, perhaps, ever came up to him for propriety and decorum in this respect. If he had laid the scene at Rome, and made his characters Roman, instead of Grecian; or if there had been a greater variety in the general cast of his characters, the want of both which things have been objected to him; his plays might have been more agreeable, might have more affected those for whose entertainment they were written; yet in what he attempted he has been perfectly successful. The elegance of iiis dialogue, and the purity of his diction, are acknowledged by all: by Caesar, Cicero, Paterculus, and Quintilian, among the ancients; and by all the moderns. If Terence could not attain all the wit and humour of Menander, yet he fairly equalled him in chasteness and correctness of style.

The moderns have been no less united in their praise of the style of Terence. Erasmus says, that “the purity of the Roman language cannot be learned from any ancient author so well as from Terence; and many have given it as their opinion, that the Latin tongue cannot be lost while the comedies of Terence remain. This Roman urbanity and purity of diction shews Terence to have been made a slave very young, and his education to have been wholly Roman, since otherwise his style could never have been so free from the tincture of his African origin. Regularity of scene, or proper disposition and conduct of the drama, is a third excellence of Terence. His scene, as Congreve, who calls him the correctest writer in the world, has well observed, always proceeds in a regular connection, the per s ons going off and on for visible reasons, and to carry on the action of the play, and, upon the whole, the faults and imperfections are so few, that they scarcely deserve to be mentioned. Scaliger said, there were not three in the whole six plays: and the comica vis, which Caesar wishes for him, would probably have suited our taste less than his present delicate humour and wit. Madam Dacier has observed, that” it would be difficult to determine which of his six plays deserves the preference, since they have each of them their peculiar excellencies. The “Andria” and “Adelphi,” says she, “appear to excel in characters and manners; the” Eunuch“and” Phormio,“in vigorous action and lively intrigue; the” Heautontimorumenos’ 1 and “Hecyra,” in sentiment, passion, and simplicity of style."

, brother to the preceding, was born at Lyons in 1670, and educated at the house of the oratory at Paris, which he quitted very soon. He afterwards entered into it again, and then left it finally, a proof of unsteadiness, at which his father was so angry, having resolved to breed up all his sons to the church, that he reduced him by his will to a very moderate income; which, however, John bore without complaining. He went to Paris, and obtained the acquaintance of the abbe* Bignon, who became his protector and patron, and procured him a place in the academy of sciences in 1707. In 1721, he was elected a professor in the college royal. When the disputes about Homer between La Motte and madam Dacier were at their height, he thought proper to enter the lists, and wrote “Une Dissertation contre Plliade,” in 2 vols. 12mo, which did very little credit to his taste or judgment. He had, however, better success in his “Sethos,” which, as a learned and philosophical romance, has considerable merit. It has been translated into English. Another work of Terrasson is J< A French Translation of Diodorus Siculus, with a preface and notes," which has been much commended.

, the iirst Latin writer of the primitive church whose writings are come clown to us, was an African, and born at Carthage in the second century. His father was a centurion in* the troops which served under the proconsul of Africa. Tcrtullian was at first an heathen, and a man, as he himself owns in various parts of his works, of loose manners; but afterwards embraced the Christian religion, though it is not known when, or upon what occasion. He flourished chiefly under the reigns of the emperor Severus and Caracalla, from about the year 194 to 216 and it is probable that he lived several years, since Jerome mentions a report of his having attained to a decrepit old age. There is no passage in his writings whence it can be concluded that he was a priest; but Jerome affirms it so positively, that it cannot be doubted. He had great abilities and learning, which he employed vigorously in the cause of Christianity, and against heathens and heretics; but towards the latter part of his life quitted the church to follow the Montanists, which is the reason why his name has not been transmitted to us with the title of saint. The cause of his separation is not certainly known. Baronius has attributed it to jealousy, because Victor was preferred before him to the see of Rome; Pamelius hints at his disappointment, because he could not get the bishopric of Carthage; and Jerome says, that the envy which the Roman clergy bore him, and the outrageous manner with which they treated him, exasperated him against the church, and provoked him to quit it. What perhaps had as much weight as any of these reasons was the extraordinary austerity, which the sect of Montanus affected, which suited his monastic turn of mind. Whatever the cause, he not only joined them, but wrote in their defence, and treated the church from which he departed, with unbecoming contempt. Error, however* says a modern ecclesiastical historian, is very inconstant; for Tertullian afterwards left the Montanists, or nearly so, and formed a sect of his own, called Tertullianists, who continued in Africa till Augustine’s time, by whose labours their existence, as;i distinct body, was brought to a close. The character of Tertullian is very strongly delineated by himself in his own writings if there bad been any thing peculiarly Christian, which he had learned from the Montanists, his works must have shown it; but the only change discoverable is, that he increased in his austerities. He appears to have been married, and lived all his life, without separating from his wife upon his commencing priest, if, indeed, he did not marry her after. The time of his death is no where mentioned.

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

Of the moderns, Malebranche says, “Tertullian was a man of profound learning; but he had more memory than judgment, greater penetration and extent of imagination than of understanding. There is no doubt that he was a visionary, and had all the qualities I have attributed to visionaries. The respect he had for the visions of Montamis, and for his prophetesses, is an incontestable proof of the weakness of his judgment. His fire, his transports, his enthusiasms upon the most trifling subjects, plainly indicate a distempered imagination. What irregular motions are there in his hyperboles and figures! How many pompous and magnificent arguments, that owe all their force to their sensible lustre, and persuade many merely by g'ddying and dazzling the mind.” He then gives examples out of his book “De Paliio;” and concludes with saying, that “if justness of thought, with clearness and elegance of expression, should always appear in whatever a man writes, since the end of writing is to manifest the truth, it is impossible to excuse this author; who, by the testimony of even Salmasius, the greatest critic or our times, has laid out all his endeavours to become obscure; and has succeeded so well in what he aimed at, that this commentator was almost ready to swear, no man ever understood him perfectly.”

Balzac thus expresses his sentiments of Tertullian in a letter to his editor, Rigaltius: “I expect,” says he, “the Tertullian you are publishing, that he may learn me that patience, for which he gives such admirable instructions. He is an author to whom your preface would have reconciled me, if I bad an aversion for him; and if the harshness of his expressions, and the vices of his age, had dissuaded me from reading him: but I have had an esteem for him a long time; and as hard and crabbed as he is, yet he is not at all unpleasant to me. I have found in his writings that black light, which is mentioned in one of the ancient poets; and I look upon his obscurity with the same pleasure as that of ebony which is very bright and neatly wrought. This has always been my opinion; for as the beauties of Africa are no less amiable, though they are not like ours, and as Sophonisba has eclipsed several Italian ladies, so the wits of that country are not less pleasing with this foreign sort of eloquence; and I shall prefer him to a great many affected imitators of Cicero. And though we should grant to nice critics that his style is of iron, yet they must likewise own to us, that out of this iron he has forged most excellent weapons: that he has defended the honour and innocence of Christianity; that he has quite routed the Valentinians, and s truck Man-ion to the very heart.” Our learned counryman, Dr. Cave, has likewise shewn himself, still more than Balzac, an advocate for Tertullian’s style; and, with submission to Lactuntius, who (as we have seen above) censured it as harsh, inelegant, and obscure, affirms, that “it has a certain majesty peculiar to itself, a sublime and noble eloquence seasoned abundantly with wit and satire, which, at the same time that it exercises the sagacity or.” a reader, highly entertains and pleases him.“The style, however, of Tertullian, is a matter of less consequence than those other merits which give him a rank among the fathers: but in this respect it seems difficult which of the two were predominant, his virtues or his defects. He was endued with a great genius, but seemed deficient in point of judgment. His piety was warm and vigorous, but at the same time melancholy and austere, and his credulity and superstition, learned as he was, were such as could only have been expected from the darkest ignorance. He placed religion too much in austere observances; and in this respect, the littleness of his views appears conspicuous in the very first tract in the volume of his works,” De Pailio," the purport of which is to recommend a vulgar and rustic kind of garment for Christians in the place of the Roman toga; hut a more remarkable instance is given of his absurd scrupulosity about such trifles, in which he warmly approves the conduct of a Christian soldier who refused to wear a crown of laurel which his commander had given him with the rest of the regiment, and was punished for his disobedience. Upon the whole, although his works throw some light on the state of Christianity in his time, they contain very little matter of useful instruction.

The style of Pietro Testa as a designer, Mr. Fuseli pronounces unequal “he generally tacked to antique torsos ignoble heads and extremities copied from vulgar models. Of female beauty he seems to have been ignorant. Of his compositions, generally perplexed and crowded, the best known and most correct, is that of Achilles dragging Hector from the walls of Troy to the Grecian fleet. He delighted in allegoric subjects, which are mines of picturesque effects and attitudes, but in their meaning as obscure as the occasions to which they allude. Of expression he knew only the extremes, grimace, or loathsomeness and horror; but the charge of having been a bad colourist is founded on ignorance: his tone is genial, harmonious, and warm, as his pencil marrowy and free; supported by powerful masses of chiaroscuro and transparent shades.”

, a learned Portuguese Dominican, was born in 1543. He was prior of the convent at Santaren, 1578, when king Sebastian undertook the African expedition in which he perished. Cardinal Henry, who succeeded him, dying soon after, Texeira joined the friends of Anthony, who had been proclaimed king by the people, and constantly adhered to him. He accompanied this prince into France, 1581, to solicit help against Philip II. who disputed the crown with him. Though Anthony’s almoner, he was honoured with the title of preacher and counsellor to Henry III; and after the death of that monarch, attached himself to Henry IV“. with whom he became a great favourite. He died about 1620. Texiera’s works clearly discover his hatred of the Spaniards, and his aversion to Philip II. who took Portugal from prince Anthony. It is asserted, that as he was preaching one day on the love of our neighbour, he said,” We are obliged to love all men of whatever religion, sect, or nation, even Castilians.“His political, historical, and theological writings are very numerous.” De Portugallioe ortu,“Paris, 1582, 4to, 70 pages, scarce. A treatise” On theOrifi'tmme,“1598, 12mo;” Adventures of Don Sebastian," 8vo.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher, and the first of the seven wise men of Greece, was born at Miletus about 640 years B. C. After acquiring the usual learning of his own country, he travelled into Egypt and several parts of Asia, to learn astronomy, geometry, mystical divinity, natural knowledge, or philosophy, &c. In Egypt he met for some time great favour from the king, Arnasis; but he lost it again by the freedom of his remarks on the conduct of kings, which, it is said, occasioned his return to his own country, where he communicated the knowledge he had acquired to many disciples, among the principal of whom were Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Pythagoras, and was the author of the Ionian sect of philosophers. He always, however, lived very retired, and refused the proffered favours of many great men. He was often visited by Solon; and it is said he took great pleasure in the conversation of Thrasybulus, whose excellent wit made him forget that he was Tyrant of Miletus.

In geometry, it has been said, he was a considerable inventor, as well as an improver; particularly in triangles. And all the writers agree that he was the first, even in Egypt, who took the height of the pyramids by the shadow. His knowledge and improvements in astronomy were very considerable. He divided the celestial sphere into five circles or zones, the arctic and antarctic circles, the two tropical ci ivies, and the equator. He observed the apparent- diameter of the sun, which he made equal to half a degree and formed the constellation of the Little Bear. He observed the nature and course of eclipses, and calculated them exactly; one in particular, memorably recorded by Herodotus, as it happened on a day of battle between the Medes and Lydians, which, Laertius says, he had foretold to the lonians. And the same author informs us that he divided the year into 365 days. Plutarch not only confirms his general knowledge of eclipses, but that his doctrine was, that an eclipse of the sun is occasioned by the intervention of the moon, and that an eclipse of the moon is caused by the intervention of the earth.

, the great preserver of Athens at the time of the Persian invasion, owed no part of his celebrity or influence to the accident of his birth. He was born about 530 B. C. his father being Neocles, an Athenian of no illustrious family, and his mother an obscure woman, a Thracian by birth (according to the best authorities), and not of the best character. His disposition was naturally vehement, yet prudent; and Plutarch says that he was pronounced Y er y early by his preceptor, to be a person who would bring either great good or great evil to his country. Some of the ancients have said that he was dissolute in his youth, and for that reason disinherited; but this is positively denied by Plutarch. His ardent but honourable ambition was soon discovered; and contributed to put him on bad terms with Aristides, and some other leading men. He pushed himself forward in public business, and seeing that it was necessary for Athens to become a maritime power, persuaded the people to declare war against JEgina, and to build an hundred triremes. In these ships he exercised the people, and thus t>ave them those means of defence and aggrandizement which they afterwards employed with so much success. Yet it happened that he had no opportunity of distinguishing his military talents in his youth, being forty years of age at the time of the battle of Marathon; after which he was frequently heard to say “that the trophies of Miltiades disturbed his rest.” As a judge, he was strict and severe; in which office, being asked by Simonides to make some stretch of power in his behalf, he replied, “Neither would you be a good poet if you transgressed the laws of numbers, nor should 1 be a good judge, if I should hold the request of any one more, sacred than the laws.” Themistocles had so much credit with the people, as to get his rival Atistides banished by ostracism. In the Persian war, it was he who first interpreted the wooden walls mentioned by the oracle, to mean the Athenian ships: by his contrivance the fleet of Xerxes was induced to fight in a most disadvantageous situation off Sulamis, where it suffered a total defeat. For his whole conduct in this action he gained the highest honours, both at home and in Sparta. This was in 480, ten years after the battle of Marathon.

, a miscellaneous writer and critic, was born at Sittingbourn in Kent, in which place his father was an eminent attorney. His grammatical learning he received at Isleworth in Middlesex, and afterwards applied himself to the law; but, finding that pursuit tedious and irksome, he quitted it for the profession of poetry. According to the editors of the “Biog. Dramatica,” his first appearance in this profession was not much to his credit. One Henry Mestayer, a watchmaker, had written a play, which he submitted to the correction of Theobald, who formed it into a tragedy, and procured it to be acted and printed as his own. This compelled the watchmaker to publish his own performance in 1716, with a dedication to Theobald. The editors of the Biog. Dram, who appear to have examined both pieces, observe that Theobald, although unmercifully ridiculed by Pope, never appeared so despicable as throughout this transaction. “We had seen him before only in the light of a puny critic:” But here the fell attorney prowls for prey.“Theobald engaged in a paper called” The Censor,“published in Mist’s” Weekly Journal;“and, by delivering his opinion with too little reserve concerning some eminent wits, exposed himself to their resentment. Upon the publication of Pope’s Homer, he praised it in the most extravagant terms; but afterwards thought proper to retract his opinion, and abused the very performance he had before affected to admire. Pope at first made \ lie*, a.d tin* Jhto of his” Dunciad;“but afterwards thought proper to disrobe him of that dignity, and bestow it upon another. In 1726, Theobald published apiece in 8vo, called” Shakespear Restored:“of this, it is said, he was so vain as to aver, in one of Mist’s” Journals,“ct that to expose any errors in it was impracticable;” and, in another, *; that whatever care might for the future be taken, either by Mr. Pope, or any other assistants, he would give above five hundred emendations, that would escape them all.“During two whole years, while Pope was preparing his edition, he published advertisements, requesting assistance, and promising satisfaction to any who would contribute to its greater perfection. But this restorer, who was at that time soliciting favours of him by letters, wholly concealed that he had any such design till after its publication; which he owned in the” Daily Journal of Nov. 26, 1728.“Theobald was not only thus obnoxious to the resentment of Pope, but we find him waging war with Mr. Dennis, who treated him with more roughness, though with less satire. Theobald, in” The Censor,“N 33, calls Dennis by the name of Furius. Dennis, to resent this, in his remarks on Pope’s Homer, thus mentions him:” There is a notorious idiot, one Hight Whacum; who, from an under-spur-leather to the law, is become an understrapper to the playhouse, who has lately burlesqued the Metamorphoses of Ovid, by a vile translation, &c. This fellow is concerned in an impertinent paper called the Censor." Such was the language of Dennis, when inflamed by contradiction.

In 1720, Theobild introduced upon the stage a tragedy called “The Double Falshood;” the greatest part of which he asserted was Shakspeare’s. Pope insinuated to the town, that it was all, or certainly the greatest part, written, not by Shakspeare, but Theobald himself; and quotes this line,

which he calls a marvellous line of Theobald, “unless,” says he, “the play, called * The Double Falshood,' be (as he would have it thought) Shakspeare’s; but, whether this is his or not, he proves Shakspeare to have written as bad.” The argument* which Theobald uses to prove the play to be Shakspeare’s, are indeed, far from satisfactory, and it was afterwards Dr. Farmer’s opinion that it was Shirley’s. It was, however, vindicated by Theobald, who was attacked again in “The Art of Sinking in Poetry.” Theobald endeavoured to prove false criticisms, want of understanding Shakspeare’s manner, and perverse cavilling in Pope: he justified himself and the great dramatic poet, and attempted to prove the tragedy in question to be in reality Shakspeare’s, and not unworthy of him. Theobald, besides his edition of Shakspeare’s plays, in which he collated the ancient copies, and corrected with great pains and ingenuity many faults, was the author of several dramatic pieces. Not less than twenty, printed or acted, are enumerated in the “Biographia Dramatica.” He was also concerned in various translations, and at his death in Sept. 1744, had made some progress in an edition of Beaumont and Fletcher.

, an ancient Greek poet, was a Sicilian 1 and born at Syracuse, the son of Praxagoras and Philina. He is said to have been the scholar of Philetas, and Asclepiades, or Sicelidas: Philetas was an elegiac poet of the island of Cos, had the honour to be preceptor to Ptolemy Philadelphus, and is celebrated by Ovid and Propertius: Sieelidas was a Samian, a writer of epigcams: Theocritus mentions both these with honour in his seventh Idyllium. As to the age in which he flourished, it seems indisputably to be ascertained by two Idylliums that remain: one is addressed to Hiero king of Syracuse, and the other to Ptole^ ray Philadelphus, the Egyptian monarch. Hiero began his reign, as Casaubon asserts in his observations on Poly^­bius, in the second year of the 126th olympiad, or about 275 years before Christ; and Ptolemy in the fourth year of the 123d olympiad. Though the exploits of Hiero are recorded greatly to his advantage by Polybius, in the first book of his history; though he had many virtues, had frequently signalized his courage and conduct, and distinguishes himself by several achievements in war; yet he stems, at least in the early part of his reign, to have expressed no great affection for learning or men of letters: and this is supposed to have given occasion to the 16th Llyllinm, inscribed with the name of Hiero; where the poet asserts the dignity of his profession, complains that it met with neither favour nor protection, and in a very artful manner touches upon some of the virtues of this prince, and insinuates what an illustrious figure he would have made in poetry, had he been as noble a patron, as he was an argument for the Muses.

Sic auiniae laqueo sit via clausa tux. But it does not appear, that by the Syracusan poet, Ovid means Theocritus; more probably, as some commentators on the passage have supposed, Empedocles, who was a poet and philosopher of Sicily, is the person pointed at: others mink that Ovid by a small mistake or slip of his memory might confound Theocritus the rhetorician of Chios, who was executed by order of king Aritigonus, with Theocritus the poet of Syracuse.

The compositions of this poet are distinguished among the ancients by the name of “I-iyllia,” in order to express the smallness and variety of their natures; they would novr be called “Miscellanies, or Poems on several Occasions.” The nine first and the eleventh are confessed to be true pastorals, and hence Theocritus has usually passed for nothing more than a pastoral poet: yet he is manifestly robbed of a great part of his fame, if his other poems have not their proper laurels. For though the greater part of his “Idyllia” cannot be called the songs of shepherds, yet they have certainly their respective merits. His pastorals doubtless ought to be considered as the foundation of his credit. He was the earliest known writer of pastorals, and will be acknowledged to have excelled all his imitators, as much as originals usually do their copies. There are, says Dr. Warton, “few images and sentiments in the Eclogues of Virgil, but what are drawn from the Idylliums of Theocritus: in whom there is a rural, romantic wildness of thought, heightened by the Doric dialect; with such, lively pictures of the passions, and of simple unadorned nature, as are infinitely pleasing to lovers and judges of true poetry. Theocritus is indeed the great store-house of pastoral description; and every succeeding painter of rural beauty (except Thomson in his Seasons) hath copied his images from him, without ever looking abroad upon the face of nature themselves.” The same elegant critic, in his dissertation on pastoral poetry, says, “If I might venture to speak of the merits of the several pastoral writers, I would say, that in Theocritus we are charmed with a certain sweetness, a romantic rusticity and wildness, heightened by the Doric dialect, that are almost inimitable. Several of his pieces indicate a genius of a higher class, far superior to pastoral, and equal to the sublimest species of poetry: such are particularly his Panegyric on Ptolemy, the fight between Amycus and Pollux, the Epithalamium of Helen, the young Hercules, the grief of Hercules for Hylas, the death of Pentheus, and the killing of the Neniean Lion.” At the same time it imi;t be allowed that Theocritus descends sometimes into gross and mean ideas, and makes his shepherds ahusive and immodest, which is never the case with Virgil.

Towards July, murmurs were spread of great dissatisfac^ tions, arising from the want of Theodore’s promised succours: on the other hand, a considerable armament sailed from Barcelona, as was supposed in his favour. At the same time France and England strictly forbade their subjects in any way to assist the mal-contents. Sept. the 2d, Theodore presided at a general assembly, and assured his subjects anew of the speedy arrival of the so much wanted succours. Dt-bates ran high; and Theodore was given to understand, that before the end of October he must resign the sovereign authority, or make good his promise. He received in the mean time large sums, but nobody knew whence they came: he armed some barques, and chased those of the Genoese which lay near the island. He now instituted the order of Deliverance, in memory of his delivering the country from the dominion of the Genoese. The monies he had received he caused to be new coined; and his affairs seemed to have a promising aspect: but the scene presently changed.

In the beginning of November, he assembled the chiefs; and declared, that he would not keep them longer in a state of uncertainty, their fidelity and confidence demanding of him the utmost efforts in their favour; and that he had determined to find out in person the succours he had so long expected. The chiefs assured him of their determined adherence to his interests. He named the principal among them to take the government in his absence, made all the necessary provisions, and recommended to them union in the strongest terms. The chiefs, to the number of forty-seven, attended him with the utmost respect, on the day of his departure, to the water-side, and even on board his vessel; where, after affectionately embracing them, he took his leave, and they returned on shore, and went immediately to their respective posts which he had assigned them; a demonstrative proof this, that he was not forced out of the island, did not quit it in disgust, or leave it in a manner inconsistent with his royal character. Thus ended the reign of Theodore, who arrived in a few days disguised in the habit of an abbé at Livonia, and thence, after a short stay, conveyed himself nobody knew whither. The next year, however, he appeared at Paris; was ordered to depart the kingdom in forty-eight hours; precipitately embarked at Rouen, and arrived at Amsterdam, attended by four Italian domestics; took up his quarters at an inn; and there two citizens arrested him, on a claim of 16,000 florins. But he soon obtained a protection, and found some merchants, who engaged to furnish him with a great quantity of ammunition for his faithful islanders. He accordingly went on board a frigate of fifty-two guns, and 150 men; but was soon afterwards seized at Naples in the house of the Dutch consul, and sent prisoner to the fortress of Cueta. This unhappy king, whose courage had raised him to a throne, not by a succession of bloody acts, but by the free choice of an oppressed nation, for many years struggled with fortune; and left no means untried, which policy could attempt, to recover his crown. At length he chose for his retirement this country, where he might enjoy that liberty, which he had so vainly endeavoured to fix to his Corsicans: but his situation here, by degrees, grew wretched; and he was reduced so low, as to be several years before his death, a prisoner for debt in the King’s-bench.

Bestow‘d a kingdom, and deny’d him bread. Theodore had a son, known by the name of colonel Frederick, who, after following his father into England, entered into the army in foreign service, but appears to have been disappointed in his hopes of rising, or acquiring even a competence, and after sustaining many distresses, without timely relief, put an end to his life, by a pistol, near the gate of Westminster Abbey, Feb. 1, 1797. He was a man of gentleman-like manners, and accomplishments, x and much regretted by those who knew him intimately. He was interred in the church-yard of St. Anne’s Soho, by the side of his father. He published in 17G8, “Memuires pour servir a l'Histoire de Corse,” 12mo, of which there is an English translation and, “A Description of Corsica, with an account of its temporary union to the crown of Great Britain, &c.” 8vo.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was a monk of Tarsus. He was ordained bishop by pope Vitalianus, and sent into England in the year 668, to govern the church of Canterbury. Being kindly received by king Egbert, he restored the faith, and promoted, or rather founded, a form of ecclesiastical discipline, which he is said to have exercised with great rigour, placing and displacing several bishops in an arbitrary manner, particularly those belonging to the diocese of York. He died Sept. 19, 690, aged eighty -eight. He is said to have imported into England a great many valuable Mss. Godwin mentions a Homer, extant in his time, of exquisite beauty. He is also the supposed founder of the school called Greeklade, whence arose the university of Oxford, but this is somewhat fabulous. What remains of his form of discipline, called the “Penitential,” and of his other works, has been collected by James Petit, and printed at Paris, 1677, 2 vols. 4to, with learned notes.

, so called from his being bishop of Mopsuestia, a city in Cilicia, was educated and ordained priest in a monastery, and became one of the greatest scholars of his time, and had the famous Nestorius for a disciple. He died in the year 429, or 430. This bishop wrote a great number of learned works, of which are now only extant, “A Commentary on the Psalms,” which is in father Corder’s “Catena,” the authenticity of which was verified, in one of his dissertations by the duke of Orleans, who died in 1752, at Paris, one of the most learned princes Europe has produced. Theodore left also a “Commentary” in ms. on the twelve minor prophets; and several “Fragments,” enumerated hy Dupin, which are printed in the “Bibliotheca” of Photius. Those parts of his works supposed to contain the distinction of two persons in Christ, the letter from Ibas, bishop of Edossa, who defended him, and the anathemas published by the celebrated Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, against St. Cyril, in favour of Theodore of Mopsuestia, occasioned no little disturbance in the church. This dispute is called the affair of the “Three Chapters,” and was not settled till the fifth general council, in the year 553, when he and his writings were anathematized. His confession of faith may be found in father Garnier’s Dissertations on Marius Mercator.

, an illustrious writer of the church, was born at Antioch about the year 386, of parents who were both pious and opulent. His birth has been represented as accompanied with miracles before and after, according to his own account, in his “Religious History;” in which he gravely informs us, that it was by the prayers of a religious man, called Macedonius, that God granted his motirer to conceive a son, and bring him into the world. When the holy anchorite promised her this blessing, she engaged herself on her part to devote him to God; and accordingly called him Theodoretus, which signifies either given by God, or devoted to God. To promote this latter design, he was sent at seven years of age to a monastery, where he learned the sciences, theology, and devotion. He had for his masters Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. John Chrysostom, and made under them a very uncommon progress. His learning and piety becoming known to the bishops of Antioch, they admitted him into holy orders; yet he did not upon that account change either his habitation or manner of living, but endeavoured to reconcile the exercises of a religious life with tha function of a clergyman. ' After the death of his parents, he distributed his whole inheritance to the poor, and reserved nothing to himself. The bishopric of Cyrus becoming vacant about the year 420, the bishop of Antioch ordained Theodoret against his will, and sent him to govern that dumb. Cyrus was a city of Syria, in the province of Euphratesia, an unpleasant and barren country, but very populous. The inhabitants commonly spake the Syriac to;ig.e, Tew of them understanding Greek; they were almost all poor, rude, and barbarous; many of them were engaged in profane superbtitions, or in such gross errors as shewed them to be rather Heathens than Christians. The learning and worth of Theodoret, which were really very great, seemed to qualify him for a better see; yet he remained in this, and discharged all the offices of a good bishop and good man. He was afterwards engaged in the Nestorian dispute, very much against his will; but at length retired to his see, spent his life in composing books, and in acts of piety and charity, and died there in the year 457, aged seventy and upwards. He wrote “Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures” an “Ecclesiastical History” a “Religious Histor\ T” containing the lives and praises of thirty monks, and several other things, which are still extant.

The works of Theodoret were published in Greek and Latin, by father Sirmond, at Paris, 164-2, in 4 vols. folio; a work not of much pecuniary value unless when joined with a fifth, which the Jesuit Gamier added, in 1684, consisting of other pieces, which had never been printed before, of supposititious pieces, learned dissertation*, and an account of the life, principles, and writings of Theodoret. A new edition has since been published by Schultze, Halae, 1768 74, in 5 vols. 4to, or in 10 vols. 8vo. The “Ecclesiastical History” of Theodoret, which is divided into five books, is a kind of supplement to Socrates and Sozomen, as being written after theirs, about the year 450. It begins where Eusebius leaves off, at the rise of the Arian heresy in 322, and ends with 427, before the beginning of the Nestorian heresy. It has been translated and published by Valesius, with Eusebius and the other ecclesiastical historians, and republished with additional notes, by Reading, at London, 1720, in 3 vols. folio.

, called Tripolites, or of Tripoli, was a celebrated mathematician, who flourished, as Saxius seems inclined to think, in the first century. He is mentioned by Suidas, as probably the same with Theodosius, the philosopher of Bythinia, who, Strabo says, excelled in mathematics. He appears to have cultivated chiefly that part of geometry which relates to the doctrine of the sphere, on which he wrote three books containing fifty-nine propositions, all demonstrated in the pure geometrical manner of the ancients, and of which Ptolomy as well as all succeeding writers made great use. These three books were translated by the Arabians out of the Greek into their own language, and from the Arabic the work was again translated into Latin, and printed at Venice. But the Arabic rersion being very defective, a more complete edition was published in Greek and Latin at Paris, in 1558, by John Pena (See Pena) professor of astronomy. Theodosius’s works were also commented upon by others, and lastly by De Chales, in his “Cursus Mathematicus.” But that edition of Theodosius’ s spherics which is now most in use, was translated and published by our countryman the learned Dr. Barrow, in 1675, illustrated and demonstrated in anew and concise method. By this author’s’ account, Theodosius appears not only to he a great master in this more difficult part of geometry, but the first considerable author of antiquity who has written on thai subject. Theodosius also wrote concerning the celestial houses; and of dnys and nights; copies of which, in Greek, are in the king’s library at Paris, and of which there was a Latin edition, published by Peter Dasypody in 1572.

, an eminent Greek poer, was born in the fifty-ninth olympiad, or about 550 years before Christ. He calls himself a Megarian, in one of his verses; meaning, most probably, Megara, in Achaia, as appears also from his own verses, for he prays the gods to turn away a threatening war from the city of Alcathous and Ovid calls the same Megara, Alcathoe. We have a moral work- of his extant, of somewhat more than a thousand lines, which is acknowledged to be an useful summary of precepts and, reflections; which, however, has so little of the genius and fire of poetry in it, that, as Plutarch said, it may more properly be called carmen than poema. These “Tw^cm, Sententiae,” or “Precepts,” are given in the simplest manner, without the least ornament, and probably were put into verse merely to assist the memory. Athenacus reckons this author among the most extravagant voluptuaries, and cites some of his verses to justify the censure; and Suidas, in the account of his works, mentions a piece entitled “Exhortations, or Admonitions,” which, he says, was stained with a mixture of indecency. The verses we have at present are, however, entirely free from any thing of this kind, whence some have supposed that they were not left so by the author, but that the indecencies were omitted, and the void spaces filled up with graver sentences. They have been very often printed both with and without Latin versions, and are to be found in all the collections of the Greek minor poets. One of the best editions, but a rare book, is that by Ant. Blackwell, Lond. 1706, 12mo.

The study of nature led Theon to many just conceptions concerning God, and to many useful reflections in the science of moral philosophy; hence, it is said, he wrote with great accuracy on divine providence. And he seems to have made it his standing rule, to judge the truth of certain principles, or sentiments, from their natural or necessary tendency. Thus, he says, that a full persuasion, that the Deity sees every thing we do, is the strongest incentive to virtue; for he insists, that the most profligate have power to refrain their hands, and hold their tongues, when they think they are observed, or overheard, by some person whom they fear or respect. “With how much more reason then,” says he, “should the apprehension and belief that God sees all things, restrain men from sin, and constantly excite them to their duty?” He also represents this belief concerning the Deity as productive of the greatest pleasure imaginable, especially to the virtuous, who might depend with greater confidence on the favour and protection of Providence. For this reason, he recommends nothing so much as meditation on the presence of God; and he recommended it to the civil magistrate, as a restraint on such as were profane and wicked, to have the following inscription written in large characters at the corner of every street: “God sees thee, O sinner.”

, of Antioch, a writer and bishop of the primitive church, was educated a heathen, and afterwards converted to Christianity. Some have imagined that he is the person to whom St. Luke dedicates the “Acts of the Apostles;” but this is impossible, as he was not ordained bishop of Antioch till the year 170, and he governed this church twelve or thirteen years, at the end of which be died. He was a vigorous opposer of certain heretics of his time, and composed a great number of works, all of which are lost, except three books to Autolycus, a learned heathen of his acquaintance, who had undertaken to vindicate his own religion against that of the Christians. The first book is properly a discourse between him and Autoly* cus, in answer to what this heathen had said against Christianity. The second is to convince him of the falshood of his own, and the truth of the Christian religion. In the third, after having proved that the writings of the heathens are full of absurdities and contradictions, he vindicates the doctrine and the lives of the Christians from those false and scandalous imputations which were then brought against them. Lastly, at the end of his work, he adds an historical chronology from the beginning of the world to his own time, to prove, that the history of Moses is at once the most ancient and the truest; and it appears from this little epitome, that he was well acquainted with profane history. In these books are a great variety of curious disquisitions concerning the opinions of the poets and philosophers, but few things in them relating immediately to the doctrines of the Christian religion, the reason of which is, that having composed his woiks for the conviction of a Pagan, he insisted rather on the external evidences of Christianity, vis better adapted, in his opinion, to the purpose. His style is elegant, and he was doubtless a man of considerable parts and learning. These boots were published, with a Latin version, by Conradus Gesner, at Zurich, in 154-6. They were afterwards subjoined to Justin Martyr’s works, printed at Paris in 1615 and 1636; then published at Oxford, 1684, in 12mo, under the inspection of Dr. Fell; and, lastly, by Jo. Christ. Wolfius, at Hamburgh, 1723, in 8vo. It has been said, that this Theophilus of Antioch was the h'rst who applied the term Trinity to express the three persons in the Godhead.

, a celebrated philosopher, was a native of Kresium, a maritime town in Lesbos, aud was born in the second year of the 102 olympiad, or B.C. 371. After some education under Alcippus in his own country, he was sent to Athens, and there became a disciple of Plato, and after his death, of Aristotle, under both whom he made great progress both in philosophy and eloquence. It was on account of his high attainments in the latter, that instead of Tyrtamus, which was his original name, he was called Theophrastus. During his having charge of the Peripatetic school, he had about two thousand scholars; among whom were, Nicomachus, 1 the son of Aristotle, Erasistratus, a celebrated physician; and Demetrius Phalereus. His erudition and eloquence, united with engaging manners, recommended him to the notice of Cassander and Ptolemy, who invited him to visit Egypt. So great a favourite was he among the Athenians, that when one of his enemies accused him of teaching impious doctrines, the accuser himself escaped with difficulty the punishment which he endeavoured to bring upon Theophrastus.

Theophrastus, although he held the first place among the disciples of Aristotle, did not so implicitly follow his master as to have no peculiar tenets of his own. In several particulars he deviated from the doctrine of Aristotle; and he made some material additions to the system of the Peripatetic school. He taught, that the predicaments, or categories, are as numerous as the motions and changes to which beings are liable; and that, among motions or changes are to be reckoned desires, appetites, judgments, and thoughts. In this opinion he deviated widely from Aristotle: for, if these actions of the mind are to be referred to motion, the first mover, in contemplating himself, is not immovable. He maintained, that all things are not produced from contraries; but some from contraries, some from similar causes, and some from simple energy: that motion i* not to he distinguished from action; and that there is one divine principle of all things, by which all things subsist. By this divine principle Tneophrastus probably meant the first Mover, without whom other things could not be moved, and therefore could not subsist.

, archbishop of Achridia, and metropolitan of all Bulgaria, an eminent ecclesiastical writer, flourished in the eleventh century. He was born and educated at Constantinople. After he was made bishop he laboured diligently to extend the faith of Christ in his diocese, when there were still many infidels; but met with much difficulty, and many evils, of which he occasionally complains in his epistles. He was bishop in 1077, and probably some years earlier. How long he lived is uncertain. The works of this bishop are various 1. “Comxnentaria in qtlatuor Evangelia,” Paris, 1631, folio. These as well as the rest of his commentaries are very much taken from St. Chrysostom. 2. “Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles,” Greek and Latin, published with some orations of other fathers, Colon. 1568. 3. “Commentaries on St. Paul’s epistles,” Greek and Latin, Lond. 1636, folio. 4. “Commentaries on Four of the Minor Prophets:” namely, Habbakuk, Jonas, Nahum, and Hosea, Latin, Paris, 1589, 8vo. The commentaries of Theophylact on all the twelve minor prophets are extant in Greek, in the library of Strasburgh, and have been described by Michaelis in his “Bibliotheca Orientalis.” 5. * c Seventy-five Epistles," published in Greek, with notes, by John Meursius, Leyden, 1617, 4to. They are also in the Bibliotheca Patrum. 6. Three or four smaller tracts, some of which are rather doubtful.

, an ancient Greek poet, is entitled to some notice as the reputed inventor of tragedy. He was a native of mount Icaria in Attica, and flourished in the sixth century B. C. He introduced actors into his tragedies, who recited some lines between each verse of the chorus, whereas, till that time, tragedies had been performed only by a company of musicians and dancers, who sang hymns in honour of Bacchus while they danced. Thespis wrote satirical pieces also, and Horace says that this poet carried his actors about in an open cart, where they repeated their verses, having their faces besmeared with wine-lees, or, according to Suidas, with white-lead and vermillion. His poems are lost.

, librarian to the king of France, and a celebrated writer of travels, was born at Paris in 1621, and had scarcely gone through his academical studies, when he discovered a strong passion for visiting foreign countries. At first he saw only part of Europe; but accumulated very particular informations and memoirs from those who had travelled over other parts of the globe, and out of those composed his “Voyages and Travels.” He laid down, among other things, some rules, together with the invention of an instrument, for the better finding out of the longitude, and the declination of the needle; which, some have thought, constitute the most valuable part of his works. Thevenot was likewise a great collector of scarce books in all sciences, especially in philosophy, mathematics, and history; and in this he may be said to have spent his whole life. When he iiad the care of the king’s library, though it is one of the best furnished in Europe, he found two thousand volumes wanting in it, which he had in his own. Besides printed books, he brought a great many manuscripts in French, English, Spanish, Italian, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Turkish, and Persic. The marbles presented to him by Mr. Nointel, at his return from his embassy to Constantinople, upon which there are bas-reliefs and inscriptions of almost two thousand years old, may be reckoned among the curiosities of his library. He spent most of his time among his books, without aiming at any post of figure or profit; he had, however, two honourable employments; for he assisted at a conclave held after the death of pope Innocent X. and was the French king’s envoy at Genoa. He was attacked with a slow fever in 1692, and died October the same year at the age of seventy-one. According to the account given, he managed himself very improperly in this illness: for he diminished his v strength by abstinence, while he should have increased it with hearty food and strong wines, which was yet the more necessary Oh account of his great age. “7'hevenot’s Travels into the Levant, &c.” were published in English, in 1687, folio; they had been published in French, at Paris, 1663, folio. He wrote also “L'Art de nager,” the Art of Swimming, 12 mo, 1696.

, a writer of some note in the 16th century, was horn at Angflulesme, and entered the Franciscan order, and afterwards visited Italy, the Holy Land, Egypt, Greece, and Brasil. At his return to France in 1556, he quitted the cordelier’s habit, took that of an ecclesiastic, and was appointed almoner to queen Catherine de Medicis. He had the titles of historiographer of France, and cosmographer to the king, and received the profits of those offices. He died Nov. 23, 1590, aged eighty-tight, leaving “Cosmographie de Levant,” Lyons, 1554, 4to; “A History of illustrious Men/' 1671, 8 vols. 12mo, or 1684, 2 vols. fol. a work of very little merit; but the folio edition is esteemed of some price on account of the portraits. He wrote also” Singularity’s de la France Aniarctique," Paris, 1558, 4to, and several other books, from which the author appears to have been a great reader, but at the same time, to have possessed great credulity, and little judgment.

, or Theodoric de Niem, a native of Paderborn in Westphalia, who was under- secretary at Rome to Gregory XL Urban VI. &c. attended John XXIIL to the council of Constance, as writer of the Apostolical Letters, and abhreviator; but after that pontiff’s flight, wrote a very violent invective against him, and died about 1417, leaving the following works: “A History of the Schism,” which is very curious, and ends in 1410, Norernberg, 1592, fol.; a book concerning “The Privileges and Rights of the Emperors in the Investitures of Bishops,” printed in “Schardii Syntagma de Imperiali Jurisdictione,” Argent. 1609, fol.; “A History of John XXIII.” Francfort, 1620, 4to; and “A Journal of the Council of Constance.” This fcuthor’s style in Latin is dry and unpleasant, but very forcible, and his narrations are accurate and faithful. Some attribute to him the treatise “On the necessity of Reformation in the Church, both with respect to its head and its members,” which others give to Peter d'Ailli.

Tbirlby then studied the civil law, in which he lectured while the late sir Edward Walpole was his pupil; but he was a careless tutor, scarcely ever reading lectures. The late learned Dr. Jortin, who was one of his pupils, was very early in life recommended by him to translate some of Eustathius’s notes for the use of “Pope’s Homer,” and complained “that Pope having accepted and approved his. performance, never testitied any curiosity or desire to see him.” The civil law displeasing him, he applied to common law, and had chambers taken for him in the Temple by his friend Andrew Reid, with a view of being entered of that society, and being called to the bar; but of this scheme he likewise grew weary. He came, however, to London, to the bouse of his friend sir Edward Walpole, who procured for him the office of a king’s waiter in the port of London, in May 1741, a sinecure place worth about \00l. per annum. While he was in sir Edward’s house he kept a miscellaneous book of memorables, containing whatever was said or done amiss by sir Edward or any part of his family. The remainder of his days were passed in private lodgings, where he lived in a very retired manner, seeing only a few friends, and indulging occasionally in excessive drinking, being sometimes in a state of intoxication for five or six weeks together; and, as is uual with such men, appeared to be so even when sober; and in his cups he was jealous and quarrelsome* An acquaintance who found him one day in the streets haranguing the crowd, and took him home by gentle violence, was afterwards highly esteemed by Thirlby for not relating the story. He contributed some notes to Theobald’s Shakspeare; and afterwards talked of an edition of his own. Dr. Jortin undertook. to read over that poet, with a view to mark the passages where he had either imitated Greek and Latin writers, or at least had fallen into the same thoughts and expressions. Thirlby, however, dropped his design; but left a Shakspeare, with some abusive remarks on Warburton in the margin of the first volume, and a very few attempts at emendations, and those perhaps all in the first volume. In the other volumes he had only, with great diligence, counted the lines in every page. When this was told to Dr. Jortin, “I have known him,” said he, “amuse himself with still slighter employment: he would write down all the proper names that he could call into his memory.” His mind seems to have been tumultuous and desultory, and he was glad to catch any employment that might produce attention without aqxiety. The copy, such as it was, became the property of sir Edward Walpole, to whom he bequeathed all his books and papers, and who lent it to Dr. Johnson when he was preparing his valuable edition of “Shakspeare” for the press; accordingly the name of Thin by appears in it as a commentator. He died Dec. 19, 1753. One of Dr. Thirlby’s colloquial topics may be quoted, as in it he seems to have drawn his own character, with one of those excuses for which self-conceit is never at a loss. “Sometimes,” said he, “Nature sends into the world a man of powers superior to the rest, of quicker intuition, and wider comprehension; this man has all other men for his enemies, and would not be suffered to live his natural time, but that his excellencies are balanced by his failings. He that, by intellectual exaltation, thus towers above his contemporaries, is drunken, or lazy, or capricious; or, by some defect or other, is hindered from exerting his sovereignty of mind; he is thus kept upon the level, and thus preserved from the destruction which would be the natural consequence of universal hatred.”

The personal character of M. Thomas, was held still higher than even the merit of his works could claim. He bad that amiable simplicity of manners which prevents a man of genius from offending others by his superiority. He was just, moderate, gentle, an enemy to noise and ostentation, a good friend, and an affectionate son. He was not indifferent to commendation or censure, but received the one without vanity, and the other without anger. It was in 1756, that he first appeared as an author, hy publishing, 1. “Reflexions historiques et liteVaires sur le Poeme de la Religion naturelle cle Voltaire,” 12mo. In this able tract he defended revelation without bigotry; and, allowing the great talents of his antagonist, lamented his errors, and treated him with politeness. 2. In 1759 he wrote and pronounced his “Eloge du Mareschal de Saxe,” a performance which gained hini the crown from the academy, and the credit of uniting the precision of Tacitus with the elevation of Bossuet. He produced afterwards similar orations in praise of d'Aguesseau, du Guai Trouin, Sully, and Descartes, which were equally admired; and with an additional eulogium on Marcus Aurelius, published together by himself, with very valuable notes. 3. In 1772 be produced his “Essai sur le caractere, les mceurs, et Tesprit des Femmes,” 8vo. This is not esteemed equally judicious. 4. “Essai sur les Eloges,” 1773, 2 vols. 8vo. This is a work of great genius and eloquence and contains many able portraits of illustrious persons. He produced also, 5. Several poems; as, “Epitre au Penple,” “Ode sur les temps,” and “Jumonville,” with some others. 6. A ballet in three acts, called “Amphion;” but this is not reckoned one of the best flowers in his crown. It was played in 1767. His prose works were published collectively in 1773; and form 4 vols. 12mo; but a more complete edition appeared in 1802, 7 vols. 8vo.

An “Introduction to Puffendorf,” which Thomas published in 1687, in which he deduced the obligation of morality from natural principles, occasioned great offence, which he increased in the following year, by commencing a monthly journal which he called “Free Thoughts: or Monthly Dialogues on various books, chiefly new;” iti which he attacked many of his contemporaries with such severity, and probably with such injustice, that he -narrowly escaped punishment from the ecclesiastical court of Dresden. A charge also of contempt of religion was brought against him, but was not prosecuted. A satirical review, which he wrote, of a treatise “On the Divine right of Kings,” published by a Danish divine; “A Defence of the Sect of the Pietists,” and other satirical publications, at last excited the resentment of the clergy against Thomas, and he found it necessary to leave Leipsic, and by the permission of the elector of Brandenburgh, read private lectures in the city of Hall. After a short interval, he was appointed public professor of jurisprudence, first in Berlin, and afterwards at Hall. In these situations, he thought himself at full liberty to indulge his satirical humour, and to engage in the controversies of the times; and, as long as he lived, he continued to make use of this liberty in a manner which subjected him to much odium. He died at Hall in 1728.

Besides the satirical journal already mentioned, Thomas wrote several treatises on logic, morals, and jurisprudence; in which he advanced many dogmas contrary to received opinions. In his writings on physics, he leaves the ground of experiment and rational investigation, and appears among the mystics. His later pieces are in many particulars inconsistent with the former. His principal philosophical works are “An Introduction to Aulic Philosophy, of Outlines to the Art of Thinking and Reasoning;” “Introduction to Rational Philosophy;” “A Logical Praxis;” “Introduction to Moral Philosophy;” “A Cure for Irregular Passions, and the Doctrine of Self-Knowledge;” “The new Art of discovering the secret Thoughts of Men;” “Divine Jurisprudence;” “Foundations of the Law of Nature and Nations;” “Dissertation on the Crime of Magic;” “Essay on the Nature and Essence of Spirit, or Principles of Natural and Moral Science;” “History of Wisdom and Folly.”

Brncker gives the following brief specimen of the more peculiar tenets of this bold, eccentric, and inconsistent philosopher. "Thought arises from images impressed upon the brain; and the action of thinking is performed in the whole brain. Brutes are destitute of sensation. Man is a corporeal substance, capable of thinking and moving, or endued with intellect and will. Man does not always think. Truth is the agreement of thought with the nature of things. The senses are not deceitful, but all fallacy is the effect of precipitation and prejudice. From perceptions arise ideas, and their relations; and from these, reasonings. It is impossible to discover truth by the syllogistic art. No other rule is necessary in reasoning, than that of following the natural order of investigation; beginning from those things which are best known, and proceeding, by easy steps, to those which are more difficult.

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

, known to the world by the name of Corinna, with which Dryden flattered her, was born in 1675; and, after a life of ill health and various disappointments, died Feb. 3, 17 3O, in her fifty-sixth year, and was buried in the church of St. Bride. Among her other misfortunes, she laboured under the displeasure of Pope, whom she had offended, and who took care to place her in his “Dunciad.” He once paid her a visit, in company with Henry Cromwell, esq. whose letters, by some' accident, fell into her hands, with some of Pope’s answers. As soon as that gentleman died, Curl I found means to wheedle them from her, and immediately committed them to the press; which so enraged Pope, that he never forgave her. Corinna, considered as an author, has very few; claims to notice: she had not so much wit as Mrs. Behn or J Mrs. Manley, nor so happy a gift at intellectual painting; but her poetry was once thought soft and delicate, and her letters sprightly and entertaining. Her poems were published after her death, by Curll; and two volumes of letters (under the title of “Pylades and Corinua,”) which passed between her and a Mr. Gwynnet, who was to have been her husband, but died before matters could be accomplished. In this last publication she gives an account of her own life, which has been abridged in Gibber’s “Lives,” and other collections but which Mr. Malone has proved such a tissue of improbabilities and falsehoods, that a mere reference to it may be thought sufficient

On the 27th of March, 1737, Mr. Thomas was ordained a deacon, by sir George Fleming, bishop of Carlisle, at a special ordination holden in the chapel of John the Baptist, within the precincts of the Savoy, in the Strand; and, on the 25th of September, in the same year, he was ordained priest, by Dr. Joseph Wilcocks, bishop of Rochester, at a general ordination holden in the parish church of Bromley, in the county of Kent. The promotion of Dr Herring (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) in this same year to the see of Bangor, occasioned a vacancy in the rectory of Blechingley, to which Mr. Thomas was presented by his majesty, George II. through the interest of sir W. Clayton, and was instituted, on the 27th of January, by Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Winchester. During his incumbency on this preferment, which was thirty-six years, Mr. Thomas chiefly resided in the rectorial-house, which he enlarged, improved, and embellished, at a very considerable ex pence. In the discharge of his parochial duties, in which he never omitted any thing which he conceived inight conduce to the temporal or spiritual interests of his parishioners, he was for some time assisted by his brother; and, after his promotion to a vicarage in Norfolk, by the rev. William Thompson, the poet.

Age, and its natural concomitants, for some few years before his death, almost incapacitated the bishop from any laborious duty; but, so zealous was he in the discharge of his function, that he held a general confirmation not long before his last lingering and fatal illness, and continued to preach both at court and at Bromley, till near his eightieth year. He expired, in great composure, about eleven o'clock on the morning of Thursday, August 22d, 1793, having completed his eightieth year on the preceding 14th of October, 1792. The manner of his death was perfectly agreeable to his wish, expressed in a letter written to his brother on the death of his first lady, “without a sigh or a groan.” The bjlk of his fortune was bequeathed to his relations, in such proportions as corresponded with the proximity of kindred, and the expectations which he had encouraged; bonds and notes, from different friends and acquaintances, to the amount of 5000l. were cancelled legacies, mourning, &c. were presented to his servants and several sums were appropriated to charitable purposes. In his last will and testament, the bishop had made no provision for the manner or place of his interment: but, in a cancelled will, made as far back as 1774, he had directed his remains to be deposited by those of his first lady, and this direction was consequently carried into effect.

His works are, 1. “The History of Italy,” Lond. 1549, 1561, 4to. 2. “The principal rules of the Italian Grammar, with a dictionary for the better understanding of Boccacce, Petrarch, and Dante,” ibid, 1550, 1561, 1567, 4to. 3. “Le Peregrynne, or a defence of king Henry VIII. to Aretine the Italian poet,” ms. Cott. Vesp. D. 18, and in Bodl. Library. This, Wood says, was about to be published in the third volume of Brown’s “Fasciculus.” 4. “Common Places of State,” written for the use of Edward VI. ms. Cott. 5. “Of the vanity of the World,” Lond. 1549, 8vo. 5. “Translation of Cato’s speech, and Valerius’s answer, from the 4th decade of Li vy,” ibid, 1551, 12mo. He also made some translations from the Italian, which are still in manuscript.

, bishop of Worcester, was son of Mr. John Thomas, a linen-draper in the city of Bristol, who lived in a house of his own on the bridge in that town, where the bishop was born on Thursday, February 2, 1613, and baptized there in St. Nicholas’s church, on the Friday following. He was of a very ancient and noble family, as appears by a pedigree taken out of the Heralds’ -office by William Thomas lord bishop of Worcester in 1688, to prove his right to the Herbert arms. His mother was Elizabeth Blount, descended from the Blounts of Eldersfield, in the county of Worcester. His grandfather, William Thomas, was recorder of Carmarthen, where he and his family had for a long time lived in great credit; and the earl of Northampton, then lord president of Wales, gave him this character, “that he was the wisest and most prudent person he ever knew member of a corporation:” this gentleman, after the death of their son, undertook the care of his grandson; which trust he executed with the greatest care and attention, placing him under the tuition of Mr. Morgan Owen, master of the public school at Caermarthen, afterwards bishop of Landaff: here he continued till he went to St. John’s college, Oxford, in the sixteenth year of his age, in Michaelmas term, 1629; from hence he removed to Jesus college, where he tqok his degree of B, A. 1632, and soon after was chosen fellow of the college, and appointed tutor by the principal. Here, according to the fashion of the times, he studied much school philosophy and divinity, epitomizing with his own hand all the works of Aristotle: he took his degree of M.A. Feb. 12, 1634, was ordained deacon by John Bancroft, bishop of Oxford, at Christ Church, June 4, 1637, and priest in the year following at the same place, and by the same bishop. Soon, after he was appointed vicar of Penbryn, in Cardiganshire, and chaplain to the earl of Northumberland, who presen ed him to the vicarage of Laugharn, with the rectory of Lansedurnen annexed. This presentation being disputed, he determined to give it up; but the earl encouraged him to persevere, assuring him that he would be at all the expence and trouble: in consequence of which, the dispute was soon ended, and Mr. Thomas instituted: here he determined to reside, having no other thought but how best to perform his duty; and that he might be more fixed, and avoid the inconveniences of a solitary single life, he resolved to marry. The person he chose was Blanch Samyne, daughter of Mr. Peter Samyne, a Dutch merchant in Lime-street, London, of an ancient and good family, by whom he had eight children; William, who died young, Peter, John, Blanch, Bridget, William, Sarah, and Elizabeth. Here he religiously performed every duty of a parish priest, esteeming his employment not a trade, but a trust, till about 1644, a party of the parliament horse came to Langharn, and inquired whether that popish priest Mr. Thomas was still there, and whether he continued reading the liturgy, and praying for the queen; and one of them adding, that he should go to church next Sunday, and it' Mr. Thomas persevered in praying for that drab or the whore of Babylon, he would certainly pistol him. Upon this, Mr. Thomas’s friends earnestly pressed him to absent himself; but he refused, thinking it would be a neglect of duty. He no sooner began the service, than the soldiers came and placed themselves in the next pew to him, and when he prayed for the queen, one of them snatched the book out of his hand, and threw it at his head, saying, “What do you mean by praying for a whore and a rogue?” The preacher bore it with patience and composure; but the soldier who had committed the affront was instantly seized with such anxiety and compunction, that his companions were forced to carry him away. Mr. Thomas continued the service, and delivered the sermon with his usual emphasis and 'propriety; and when he returned to his house, he there found the soldiers ready to beg his pardon, and desiring his prayers to God for them. When this happened, he was about thirty-three years old. Soon after, the parliament committee deprived him of the living of Laugharn; and though a principal member of that body had been his pupil and particular friend, yet he refused to shew him any favour, saying, “If he was his father, he would do him no service unless he would take the covenant.” From this time till the restoration, Mr. Thomas endured great hardships, being a sufferer to the amount of above fifteen hundred pounds, and, for the support of his family, obliged to teach a private school in the country; and though his friends often made him liberal presents, yet his wiie and numerous family were frequently in want of common necessaries.

Having been bishop of St. David’s six years, he was translated to the see of Worcester, in the place of bishop Fleetwood. As soon as he knew of this appointment, his lordship, who never was a lover of money, desisted from any further treaty with several tenants of the bishopric of St. David’s, and refused very considerable fines, afterwards received by bishop Womack. He went to Worcester in August 1683, and was conducted to his palace by the gentry and clergy of his diocese, where they were entertained very handsomely, and ever after found a plentiful table and hearty welcome; he being always of opinion that, in order to amend the morals of the people, the first step was to gain their acquaintance and affection. Upon this principle, he was a great lover of hospitality and charity; the poor of the neighbourhood were daily fed at his door, and he sent provisions twice a week to the common prison, besides very large sums given where he saw occasion. Some may think that he carried this matter to excess for though he frequently was heard to say, “he dreaded debt as a sin,” through his extensive charity, and the necessary calls of a numerous family, he sometimes brought himself to the verge of it, he laid not up for himself or his children; and, when charged by several for not providing for his own household, his answer always was, “that no bishop or priest was to enrich himself with, or raise his family out of the revenues of the church that the sacred canons forbade it and that for his part he was resolved that none of his should be the richer for them, as he was only God’s steward, and bound to dispense them to his glory in works of charity and piety.” He was extremely careful what persons he ordained; his censures were also expressed in the softest words, and with an humble air of such tenderness and brotherly compassion as always gained the more ingenuous, and left the incorrigible without excuse. He constantly attended six o'clock prayers in the cathedral, so long as Ins health would permit and upon complaint from archbishop Sheldon, dated June 4, 1670, that the duties of reading the church service and administering 1 the sacraments were too much neglected by dignified persons, “the cleans and canons, as if it were an office below them, and left for the most part to be performed by their vicars or petty canons, to the offence of the church’s friends, and the advantage of sectaries, and their own just reproach;” he, together with the prebendaries, so ordered the residence, that one or two of them generally officiated at the communion. The bishop, at his first visitation of the dean and chapter, by his own authority, and their concurrence, procured a chapter act to be made, to oblige the prebendaries to be resident two at a time in every month; this being done with the concurrence of Dr. Hickes, then dean, and Dr. Hopkins, a worthy prebendary of the church, passed without the least appearance of uneasiness in any one member of the society. The money, which at former visitations was usually expended in entertaining, v the bishops, he ordered to be laid out in books for the library, and entertained the church at his own charge; he was besides a considerable benefactor to the library, the books about this time being brought from an inconvenient room on the south side of the church, and placed in the chapter-house, a very elegant room, capable of containing a noble collection of books. The bishop was often present in the Consistory court, whereby he much prevented the frivolous suits, and expedited the dilatory proceedings, which at that time were much complained of. Jn 1683, archbishop Bancroft wrote a letter to the bishop, complaining of a custom which then and for many years after continued, of preaching the sermon in the body of the cathedral, the prayers being read in. the choir: the origin of this custom was, that as there was no sermon in the parish churches, the several parishioners might, after their own prayers, attend the sermon of some eminent preacher in the cathedral. He was a great patron of the French protestants, and contributed largely to their support. In 1687, when the king made his progress through part of England, the bishop sent his servant to Bath, to invite his majesty to his palace at Worcester, where he had the honour of entertaining him on the 23d day of August, the eve of St. Bartholomew. He met him at the gate of his palace, attended by his clergy, and in a sfyort Latin speech welcomed him to the city. His majesty walked upon a large piece of white broad cloth of the manufacture or the city, all strewed with flowers, which reached from the palace gute to the stairs leading up to the great hall: as he went along, he said, “My lord, this looks like Whitehall.” Having refreshed himself after his journey, he went to see the cathedral, the dean attending his majesty to the college gate, from whence he went to see the curiosities of the town, and, among the rest, was shewn where the battle was fought between Oliver and his royal brother *.

The next morning being the feast of St. Bartholomew, the king went to hear mass at the popish chapel, built at his accession to the crown, on the east side of Foregatestreet, attended by the mayor and aldermen, whom, when they came to the gate of the chapel, his majesty asked if they would not go in with him; to which the mayor with a becoming spirit replied, “I think we have attended your majesty too far already.” This worthy magistrate, who preferred his religion, and duty to his country, to every other consideration, should have his name recorded in letters of gold: Dr. Nash took pains to find out who it was, and believed it to be either Thomas Bearcroft or Thomas Sherwin; the former was elected by the new charter, the Jatter by the old charter restored. Upon this answer made by the mayor, the king went into the popish chapel, and the mayor, with all the protestants who attended him, went to the college church, where, when divine service was ended, the bishop waited on his majesty till dinner came in, and the meat being set on the table he offered to say grace; but the king was pleased to say that he would spare him that trouble, for he had a chaplain of his own, upon which the good old man withdrew, not without tears in his eyes. As soon as the dinner was over, his majesty proceeded in his progress to Ludlow, having expressed himself well pleased with the attendance of the gentlemen of the county, and his entertainment by the bishop, which, his lordship says in a private letter to a friend, though very chargeable to him, yet he did not grudge it, as he hoped he had done the church some credit by it. The white broad

While the king was at Worcester, the neighbouring dissenters of all denominations sent their addresses to hira^ which the earl of Plymouth, being lord-lieutenant, was to receive, and to deliver to the king. When he brought the two first the king asked him what religion the men who brought them were of. “Indeed, sir,” replied the lordlieutenant, “I did not ask them; but I know by their looks they are neither of your religion, nor mine.” But now the good bishop’s troubles drew on apace: the penal laws against nonconformists were suspended; and May 4, 1688, the king ordered the bishops to take care that his declaration should be read in the neighbourhood of London, on the 20th and 27th of the said month, and in all other churches and chapels the 3d and 10th of June. The archbishop and six bishops presented a petition against it; the consequence of which was, that they were sent to the Tower; this was a great grief to the bishop, not that he was concerned for any fault or misbehaviour of his brethren, or for the calamity that had befallen them, for he often wished that he had been with them, to bear his testimony in so good a cause, and to have a share with them in their honourable sufferings, but he was troubled to think on that impending storm which he foresaw might fall on the church: however, both he and the dean (Dr. Hickes) resolved not to disperse the declaration, and signified to all the clergy his utter dislike of it. Soon after he received a letter from court, containing a reprimand for not obeying the king’s orders; the answer to which was, as he himself says, without any tincture of collusion, but declaratory of his firm resolution not to comply. Upon king William’s accession, his ill health would not allow him to attend the convention; and indeed he never approved of the prince of Orange’s being declared king, and much less of that act which obliged all persons to take oaths of allegiance to king William and queen Mary, or to forfeit their offices, their livings, and their temporal subsistence. For his own part, he was resolved to forsake all, rather than act con* trary to his former oaths, and homage, which he had paid to king James; and although he writes to Kettlewell, and says, “If my heart do not deceive me, and God’s grace do not fail me, I think I could suffer at a stake rather than take this oath,” yet it does not appear that he used any persuasions to prevent others from taking it, only freely gave his opinion, and advised them sincerely to consult their own consciences. This was what he said to the clergy; and when a grandson of his, Dr. William Thomas, of whom we shall speak hereafter, then a student in Trinity college, Camhridge, consulted him on this critical point, he left him to his own liberty, and the feelings of his own conscience. In one of his sermons he says, “An humble man submits, suspects his own judgment, hath a venerable esteem for his superiors; if startled by any constitutions in church and state, he frequently prays, seriously discourses, modestly counsels with others; if after all expedients he remains dissatisfied, if he cannot swim with the stream, he will not trouble the waters.”

The limited time for taking the oaths drawing near, he prepared himself for leaving the palace, and vacating the see. He had agreed with Mr. Martin, then vicar of Wolverly, to come and live with him; and he wrote to Dr. StillinghYet, telling him that he would use all his interest that he might succeed him. While he was thus preparing all things for his retirement, God was pleased to prepare better for him, for, about the 20th of June, after a very severe fit of the gout, he grew continually weaker and weaker, though his friends did not think him in any immediate danger. The bishop, however, perceiving himself decaying, on Sunday the2-3d, received the sacrament in his own chapel; on Monday all his servants were called in, and he gave every one of them his blessing; that night he endeavoured to sleep, but in vain; his daughter-in-law, Mrs. Anne Thomas, sat up with him, and was much edified by him, for the most part of that restless night he spent in ejaculations, and prayer to God, that he would be pleased to re* lease him from his miseries, and the troubles of this vain worl 1: there was no weight or clog on his conscience; death did not appear at all troublesome to him, the sting was gone, his earnest desire was to depart, and be with Christ. Thus he passed the few remaining hours of his life, being sensible to the last; but, growing still weaker and weaker, about three o'clock the next day, being the 25th, he patiently submitted to the stroke of death, and resigned his spirit into the hands of God that gave it.

He published in his life-time, “An Apology for the Church of England, 1678-9,” 8vo. “A Sermon preached at Caermarthen Assizes,” printed in 1657. “The Mammon of Unrighteousness,”, a sermon preached at the cathedral church of Worcester when he was in a very languishing state of health. His “Letter to the Clergy,” and an imperfect work, entitled “Roman Oracles silenced,” were published after his death. All these shew him to have been a good bishop and industrious divine, but not a writer of parts or genius; his style is harder and more antiquated than that of most writers of his time; but his matter shews the simplicity and humility of his heart; for meekness and unaffected humility were his chief ornaments. These rendered him peaceable and quiet, patient of contradiction, and contented in all conditions, the same easy man when sequestered as when bishop and with the same easy- tranquillity and cheerfulness of mind he prepared to lay down his bishopric, as in his younger years he had done his vicarage. He was never known to have been in a passion. When he was dean of Worcester, one of the prebendaries in chapter fell into a sudden and violent emotion upon no great provocation, which made the dean say to him. “Brother, brother, God give you more patience.” To which the angry gentleman replied, “Mr. Dean, Mr. Dean, God give you more passion.” The good man made no reply, but by a smile. His memory was very good, for though he penned his sermons with great' accuracy, yet he always delivered them memoriter. He was of a stature somewhat tall anci slender, of a long visage, his forehead large, his countenance graceful, and his aspect venerable. The constitution of his body in his younger years was strong and healthful, though afterwards much broken by frequent infirmities, particularly the gout; to frequent and violent fits of which he was subject for upwards of four and twenty years: and that disorder would much sooner have brought him to an end, if it had not been checked by his great temperance and repeated abstinence.

Queen Anne was well disposed to him, and made many inquiries after him, his grandfather the bishop having been formerly her preceptor; but he declined preferment or attendance at court. He married Elizabeth Carter, only daughter of George Carter, esq. of Brill, in the county of Bucks, with whom he had a considerable fortune. By her he had a numerous family, nine daughters and five sons; of the latter one only survived him about eight years, and died unmarried. For the education of this numerous family, Dr. Thomas wished to go to Worcester, which he accordingly did in 1721, and in 1723 was presented to the rectory of St. Nicholas in that city by bishop Hough, to whom he dedicated “Antiquitates Prioratus majoris Malverne,” printed in 1725; his edition of “Dugdale’s Warwickshire in 1730;” and likewise his “Survey of the Cathedral Church of Worcester,” printed in 1736: to Dugdale he made many large and valuable additions, and it is now deservedly a book of great price.

In his younger years, namely in 1700, he travelled to France and Italy, where he contracted a particular intimacy with sir John Pakington; he was well skilled in the Greek and Latin languages, to which he added the French and Italian. He likewise made himself master of the Saxon, a task at that time not so easy as at present, when we have a good dictionary, and 'a good grammar; the former would have saved him great labour, as Dr. Nash saw one he made himself for his own use, which cost him great pains: his industry, indeed, was amazing; as he hardly allowed himself time for sleep, meats, or amusement. He fully intended, if Providence had spared his life, to have published the History of Worcestershire, and with this view had carefully examined and transcribed many of the registers of the bishops, and the church of Worcester. To these labours Dr. Nash owns himself indebted, and says, he should be highly ungrateful if he did not take every opportunity of acknowledging his obligations. He visited likewise every church in the county about fifty years ago, which, together with the church gatherings of old Habingdon, were of great service to Dr. Nash, by explaining defaced arms and obliterated inscriptions: indeed the account of the painted glass is chiefly taken from their Mss. as it is now, by time and other accidents, almost all broken, or rendered unintelligible, by the glaziers. He died July 26, 1788, aged sixty-eight, and is buried in the cloisters of Worcester cathedral, near his grandfather.

, a learned French divine, was born Aug. 28, 1619, at Aix in Provence, of a good and ancient family, and admitted at the age of fourteen into the congregation of the oratory, where he had been educated. After teaching ethics in his congregation, and philosophy, he was appointed professor of divinity at Saumur, and introduced in his school the method of treating theological subjects according to the scriptures, the fatheri, and councils. Being invited to Paris in 1654, he began to bold conferences of positive theology in the seminary of St. Magloire, according to the method he had adopted it Saumur, and continued them till 166S, at which time his superiors and several eminent prelates persuaded him to give the fruits of his labours to the public. He complied, and afterwards became so celebrated by his works, that pope Innocent XI. endeavoured to draw him to Koine, with an intention of giving him a cardinal’s hat, and making use of his talents; but the king of France replied that so learned a man was necessary in his dominions. The French clergy gave him a pension of Jooo livres, which the poor always shared with him. He was mild, modest, active, agreeable in his manners, and very assiduous in all his pursuits. He died December 25, 1695, aged seventyseven. His principal works are: 1. A large treatise on “Ecclesiastical Discipline,” reprinted 1725, 3 vols. fol. in French; of which he, made a Latin translation, reprinted also in 1706, 3 vols. fol. This work is highly praised by persons in the catholic community. 2. “Theological Dogmas,” 1680, 3 torn. fol. in Latin. 3. “Tracts on the Divine office, 8 vo; on the Feasts, 8vo; on the Fasts, 8 vo; on Truth and Falsehood, 8vo; on Alms, 8vo on Trade and on Usury, 8vo; 4.” Tr. dogmatique des Moyens dont on s’est servi dans tous les terns pour maintenir Tunite de i'Eglise,“1703, 3 vols. 4to. To these may be added,” Directions for studying and teaching philosophy in a Christian manner,“8vo the same” for the profane historians,“8vo; apian of the same kind for grammar or the languages with relation to the Holy Scriptures, 2 vols. 8vo;” A Universal Hebrew Glossary,“printed at the Louvre, 1697, fol.” Dissertations on the Councils,“in Latin, 1667, 1 vol. 4to;” Memoires sur la Grace," 1682, 4to, &c. His Life, written by father Bordes, is prefixed to his Hebrew Glossary.

He appears, however, to have been early acquainted with misfortune. Soon after the death of his father, his mother contracted a second marriage, with a man who turned him away from her while yet a child; and an uncle, who survived his father only a few months, scarcely left him whereon to live. He was thus, at a very early period, launched into a world which was almost unknown to him, and it became necessary for him to acquire the habit of thinking and acting for himself, and of living on his own acquirements. “My ideas,” said he to a friend, “were not yet fixed; one scheme succeeded another, and perhaps I should have acquired a habit of indecision and inconstancy, perhaps I should have lived poor and miserable to the end of my days, if a woman had not loved me, if she had not given me existence, a habitation, and an independent fortune. 1 took a wife, or rather she took me, at nineteen years of age. I married the widow of colonel Rolfe, the daughter of the reverend Mr. Walker, a most respectable clergyman, and one of the first inhabitants of Rumford. He had made three voyages to England, intrusted with public business; he was well informed, and a most liberal-minded man. He heartily approved of the choice of his daughter, and himself united our hands and our destinies. That excellent man was sincerely attached to me; he directed my studies, he formed my taste; and my situation was, in every respect, the happiest which it is possible to conceive.”

The conversation became close and animated. Colonel Thompson, invited, in consequence, to dine with the prince, found there a number of French officers against whom he had fought in America. The conversation turned on the events of that war. The colonel sent for his portfolio, which contained exact plans of all the principal actions, of the strong places, of the sieges, and an excellent collection of maps; every one recognized the places where events interesting to himself had happened. The conversation lasted a great while, and they parted, promising to see one another again. The prince was an enthusiast in his profession, and passionately fond of instruction. He invited the colonel next day. They resumed the conversation of the evening with the same ardour; and when the traveller at last took his leave, the prince engaged him to pass through Munich, and gave him a letter of recommendation to his uncle the elector of Bavaria. The season was far advanced, and he was in haste to arrive in Vienna. He intended to stop at Munich two or three days at most. He remained fifteen, and quitted, not without regret, that city, where the testimonies of the favour of the sovereign, and the partialities of the different classes of society, had been lavished upon him with that cordial frankness, which so eminently distinguishes the Bavarian character. At Vienna, in the same manner he met with the most flattering reception, and was presented at court, and in the first companies, He spent there a part of the winter; and, learning that the war against the Turks would not take place, he yielded to the attraction of the recollections of Munich, and passing through Venice, where he stopped some weeks, and through the Tyrol, he returned to that residence toward the end of the winter of 1784. He now received from the elector a positive invitation to enter into his service; and instead of returning to Vienna, he set out for London with the intention of soliciting permission from the king to accept the offers of the elector palatine. Not only was -that favour granted him, but the king joined to it ah honourable distinction, by creating him a knight. He accordingly returned to Bavaria sir Benjamin Thompson; and was on his arrival appointed colonel of the horse, and general aid-de-camp to the sovereign who wanted to secure his services. Sir Benjamin employed the four first years of his abode at Munich in acquiring the political and statistical knowledge necessary for realizing the plans which his philanthropy suggested to him for improving the condition of the lower orders, he did not neglect in the mean time his favourite studies; and it was in 1786, in a journey to Manheim, that he made his first experiments on heat. Political and literary honours poured in upon him during that interval. In 1785 he was made chamberlain of the elector, and admitted a member of the academies of science of Munich and Manheim. In 178C he received from the kin<4 of Poland the order of St. Stanislaus; in 1787 he made a journey in Prussia, during which he was elected a member of the academy of Berlin. In 1788 he was appointed Major-general of cavalry and privy counsellor of state. He was placed at the head of the war department, and particularly charged with the execution of the plans which he had proposed for improving the state of the Bavarian army.

On his return to London he directed the alterations, which had been adopted, on his recommendation, in the Foundling-hospital; and he presented to the Board of agriculture several machines, as models for imitation. The philanthropic activity which distinguished this epoch of his life manifested itself in every form It was at this time he placed in the English and American funds, two sums of 1000l. sterling each, to establish a premium to he given every two years to the author of the most useful discovery, made respectively in Europe or America, on light, or heat. The premium is a gold medal worth 1500 francs, to he adjudged in Europe by the royal society of London, and in America by the academy of sciences of America.

On the return of the elector, the count was placed at the head of the department of the general police in Bavaria, The services which he rendered in that capacity, though. Jess brilliant than military exploits, were not less valuable, or less conspicuous. But the excessive labour to which his zeal and activity betrayed him, the opposition which he often experienced in the exercise of his office, again affected his health to such a degree as threatened his life. The elector, impressed with esteem and gratitude towards him, wished not to allow him to sink under a labour too severe for him, and desired to find the means of procuring him the repose which he required, without altogether depriving himself of his services: he appointed him his envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at the court of London. But the rules of England not permitting a subject of the king to be accredited as a foreign minister, the count did not exercise that office, and continued to live in England after his return in 1798 as a private individual.

Count Rumford quitted England for the last time in the month of May 1802, for Paris. He went that summer to Munich, and returned to Paris in the winter. In the summer of 1803, he made a tour of part of Switzerland and Bararia with the widow of the celebrated Lavoisier, a woman of highly cultivated mind and capacious understanding; whom shortly after their return to Paris he married; but their union proved unhappy, and they at length separated, the count retiring to a house at Auteuil, about four miles from Paris, where he passed the rest of his days in philosophical pursuits and experiments, almost secluded from the world; for after the death of his worthy friend, the illustrious Lagrange, he saw only his next-door neighbour, the senator Lecoutejux Caneleux, Mr. Underwood, the member of the royal institution, who assisted him in the experiments, and an old friend, Mr. Parker, a learned American. He ceased to attend the sittings of the National Institute; but for the perpetual secretary Cuvier, he always preserved the highest admiration and esteem. One object of his latter occupations was a work not finished, “On the Nature and Effects of Order;” which would probably have been a valuable present to domestic society. No man in all his habits had more the spirit of order: every thing was classed; no object was ever allowed to remain an instant out of its place the moment he had done with it; and he was never beyond his time in an appointment a single instant. He was also latterly employed on a series of experiments on the propagation of heat in solids. He had by him several unpublished works, particularly one of considerable interest on Meteorolites, in which he demonstrated that they came from regions beyond the atmosphere of the earth. This very ingenious philosopher died August 21, 1814, when on the eve of retiring to England. The literary productions of count Kumford have obtained a wide circulation, having been translated into various languages. His papers in the “Philosophical Transactions,” chiefly on matters connected with the object of his beneficent investigations, were rather distinguished for the useful application of which they were susceptible, than for their number. Among them are, 1. “Experiments on Gun-powder, with. a method of determining the velocity of projectiles, and the force of gun-powder.” 2. “Experiments on Heat; by which it is proved to pass more slowly through the Torricellian vacuum, than through the air.” 3. “Experiments on the production of dephlogisticated air (oxygen gas) by different substances, exposed under water to the action of light.” 4. “Experiments on the relative and absolute quantities of moisture absorbed by different substances employed as garments.” 5. “Experiments on the communication of heat in air.” This memoir procured to the author the gold medal of the royal society. 6. “The description of a photometer, and experiments on the relative quantity of light furnished by different combustible substances, and their relative prices.” 7. “Experiments on coloured shades, and the optical illusions produced by the contrast of colours actually present.” 8. “Experiments on the force of Gunpowder, by which it is proved that this force is at least 50,000 times greater than the mean weight of the atmosphere, and that it is probable that the force of gun-powder depends chiefly on the elasticity of the vapour of water.” 9. “A letter to sir Joseph Banks, president of the Royal Society, offering a capital of 1000l. sterling destined for a fund to furnish a premium every two years to the author of the most useful discovery made in Europe with regard to light or heat.” 10. “Inquiries into the cause of heat excited by friction, &c. &c.”

In 1767 he published his “Sailor’s Letters,” 2 vols. 12mo, in which there are many particulars of his life, from 1754 to 1759, told in a rambling and desultory manner. He afterwards edited the works of Oldham in 3 vols. and in 1777, those of Paul Whitehead, in one vol. 4to, and of Andrew Marvell, in 3 vols, 4to, none of which added much to his reputation, either for judgment or correctness. When the war with France commenced, he was, in 1778, appointed to the command of the Hyaena, and was in Rodney’s famous action off Cape St. Vincent, of which he is said to have brought home the intelligence; but this, and other accounts of his progress, as related by his biographer, are certainly erroneous. There was a capt. Thompson, of the America, who brought home the news of Rodney’s having captured a valuable Spanish convoy, but this was capt. Samuel Thompson, a much older officer; and as to Rodney’s action off Cape St. Vincent, a reference to the Gazette will show that it was capt. Uvedale of the Ajax; who brought home that intelligence. We are told, which may be correct, that he was soon afterwards appointed commodore of an expedition against Demerara, and afterwards conveyed home a fleet of merchantmen from St. Eustathius. In 1785 he was appointed commander of the Grampus, and sent to the coast of Africa, where he died on board of his ship, Jan. 17, 1786. He was considered as a brave and skilful commander, and had that infallible test of merit, the affection of his crew. It must also be noticed to his honour that when he acquired some degree of opulence, he with great alacrity and liberality repaid his obligations to many persons who had before assisted him. The most impartial of his biographers concludes with observing that “the merits by which capt. Thompson will be best known to posterity, are his sea songs, which are still on every one’s lips: more especially those three beautiful and affecting compositions, beginning” Loose every sail to the breeze,“” The topsail shivers in the wind,“and” Behold upon the gallant wave."

In 1757 he published two volumes, or, as he quaintly terms them, two tojms of poems, by subscription, with prefaces and notes which give us a very high idea of the author’s modesty, piety, and learning. He became afterwards dean of Raphoe in Ireland, where, it is presumed, he died sometime before 1766 or 1767.

Of Thompson’s personal character, a very high opinion may be deduced from the general tenour of his acknowledged works. He appears to have been a man of warm affections in the relative duties of life, an ardent admirer of merit, with an humble consciousness of his own defects; a man of real piety, and of various learning. His studies lay much among the ancient English poets, in whose history and writings he was critically skilled. As a poet, although he has not been popular, he may be allowed to rank above some whose writings have been more anxiously preserved. Having been in early life an admirer of Spenser, he became a studied imitator of that father of English poetry; but like most of his imitators, while he adopted his measure, he thought his imitation incomplete without borrowing a greater number of antiquated words and phrases than can be either ornamental or useful. But if he be censurable on this account, it must be allowed, that in his “Nativity” he has not only imitated, but rivalled Spenser in the sweetness and solemnity which belong to his canto. His imagery is in general striking, and appropriate to the elevated subject, nor is he less happy in his personifications. His “Hymn to May” has received more praise than any of his other pieces. It is certainly more finished, but there are many luxuriancies which sober judgment would have removed, and many glittering epithets, and verbal conceits, which proceeded from a memory stored with the ancient poets, and not yet chastened into simplicity by the example and encouragement of the moderns. The poem on “Sickness” is the longest, and altogether, perhaps the most successful effort of his muse. He chose a new subject, and discovers considerable powers of invention.

Besides these, and his tragedy of “Sophonisba,” written and acted with applause in 1729, Thomson had, in 1727, published his “Poem to the Memory of Sir Isaac Newton,” then lately deceased. The same year, the resentment of our merchants, for the interruption of their trade by the Spaniards in America, running very high, Thomson zealously took part in it, and wrote his poem named “Britannia, to rouzethe nation to revenge. His poetical pursuits were now interrupted by his attendance on the honourable Mr. Charles Talbot in his travels, with whom he visited most of the courts and capital cities of Europe. How particular and judicious his observations abroad were, appears from his poem on” Liberty,“in five parts, thus entitled,” Ancient and modern Italy compared“” Greece'“”Rome;“” Britain;“” The Prospect.“While he was writing the first part of” Liberty,“he received a severe shock, by the death of his noble friend and fellow-traveller; and this was soon followed by another still more severe, and of more general concern, the death of lord Talbot himself; which Thomson so pathetically laments, in the poem dedicated to his memory. At the same time, he found himself from an easy competency reduced to a state of precarious dependence, in which he passed the remainder of his life, excepting only the two last years of it; during which he enjoyed the place of surveyor-general of the Leeward islands, procured for him by the generous friendship of lord Lyttelton. Immediately upon his return to England with Mr. Talbot, the chancellor had made him his secretary of briefs, a place of little attendance, suiting his retired indolent way of life, and equal to all his wants. This place fell with his patron; yet could not his genius be depressed, or his temper x hurt, by this reverse of fortune. He resumed, in time, his usual cheerfulness, and never abated one article in his way of living, which, though, simple, was genial and elegant The profits arising from his works were not inconsiderable; his” Tragedy of Agamemnon," acted in 1738, yielded a good sum.

Thomson himself hints, somewhere in his works, that his exterior was not the most promising, his make being rather robust than graceful. His worst appearance was, when he was seen walking alone, in a thoughtful mood; but when a friend accosted him, and entered into conversation, he would instantly brighten ^ito a most amiable aspect, his features no longer the same, and his eye darting a peculiarly animated fire. He had improved his taste upon the best originals, ancient and modern, but could not bear to write what was not strictly his own. What he borrows from the ancients, he gives us in an avowed and faithful paraphrase, or translation, as we see in a few passages taken from Virgil; and in that beautiful picture from the el<!er Pliny, where the course and gradual increase of the Nile, are figured by the stages of a man’s life. 1 he autumn was his favourite season for poetical composition, and the deep silence of the night the time he commonly chose for such studies: so that he would often be heard walking in his study till near morning, humming over, in his way, what he was to correct and write out the next day. The amusements of his leisure hours were civil and natural history, voyages, and the best relations of travellers; and, had his situation favoured it, he would certainly have excelled in gardening, agricultuie, and every rural improvement and exercise. Although he did not perform on any instrument, he was passionately fond of music, and would sometimes listen a full hour at his window to the nightingales in Richmond-gardens. Nor was his taste less exquisite in the arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture. In his tr.vels, he had seen all the most celebrated monuments of antiquity, a.id the best productions of modern art, and had studied them so minutely, and with so true a judgment, that, in some of his descriptions in the poem of “Liberty,” we have the masterpieces, there mentioned, placed in a stronger light than many visitors can see them witii their own eyes. A* for the more distinguishing qualities of his mind and heart, they are better represented in his writings, than they can be by the pen of any biographer. There his love of mankind, of his country, and friends; his devotion to the Supreme Being, founded- on the most elevated and just conceptions of his operations and providence, shine out in every page. So unbounded was his tenderness of heart, that it took in even the brute creation: he was extremely tender towards his own species. He is not indeed known, through his whole life, to have given any person one moment’s pain by his writings, or otherwise. He touk no part in the poetical- squabbles of his time, and so was respected and left undisturbed by both sides. These virtues did not fail to receive their due reward. The best and greatest men of his time honoured him with their friendship and protection; the app'ause of the. public attended all his productions; his friends loved him with an enthusiastic ardour, and sincerely lamented his untimely death.

As a writer, says Dr. Johnson, he is entitled to one praise of the highest kind: his mode of thinking, and of expressing his thoughts, is original His blank verse is no more the blank verse of Milton, or of any other poet, than the rhymes of Prior are the rhymes of Cowley. His numbers, his pauses, his diction, are of his own growth, without transcription, without imitation. He thinks in a peculiar train, and he thinks always as a man of genius; he looks round on Nature and on Life with the eye which Nature bestows only on a poet; the eye that distinguishes, in every thing represented to its view, whatever there is on which imagination can delight to be detained, and with a,rrind that at once comprehends the vast, and attends to the minute The reader of the “Seasons” wonders that he never saw before what Thomson shews him, and that he never yet has felt what Thomson impresses. His is one of the works in which blank verse seems properly used; Thomson’s wide expansion of general views, and his enumeration of circumstantial varieties, would have been obstructed and embarrassed by the frequent interruptions of the sense, which are the necessary effects of rhyme. His descriptions of extended scenes and general effects bring before us the whole magnificence of Nature, whether pleasing or dreadful. The gaiety of Spring, the splendour of Summer, the tranquillity of Autumn, aad the horror of Winter, take in their turns possession of the mind. The poet leads us through the appearances of things as they are successively Taried by the vicissitudes of the year, and imparts to us so much of his own enthusiasm, that our thoughts expand with his imagery, and kindle with his sentiments. Nor is the naturalist without his part in the entertainment; for he is assisted to recollect and to combine, to arrange his discoveries, and to amplify the sphere of his contemplation. The great defect of the “Seasons” is want of method; but for this, perhaps, there was not any remedy. Of many appearances subsisting all at once, no rule can be given why one should be mentioned before another; yet the memory wants the help of order, and the curiosity is not excited by suspense or expectation. His diction is in the highest degree florid and luxuriant, such as may be said to be to his images and thoughts both their lustre and their shade; such as invests them with splendour, through which, perhaps, they are not always easily discerned. It is too exuberant, and sometimes may be charged with filling the ear more than the mind. The highest praise, adds Dr. Johnson, which he has received, ought not to be suppressed: it is said by lord Lyttelton, in the prologue to his posthumous play, that his works contained “No line which, dying, he could wish to blot.”

Thoresby was well respected by the clergy and gentry of his town and neighbourhood, and by all the eminent antiquaries and men of learning of his time. It would be almost endless to enumerate the assistances which he gave in one way or other to the works of the learned. When Gibson published his new edition of Camden’s Britannia, Mr. Thoresby wrote notes and additional observations on the West-riding of Yorkshire, for the use of it; and transmitted above a hundred of his coins to Mr. Obadiah Walker, who undertook that province which related to the Roman, British, and Saxon monies. Hearne often acknowledged in print the favour of his correspondence. He communicated to Strype some original letters in his collection. He imparted to Calamy memoirs of several northern divines for his abridgment of “Baxter’s Life and Times” as he did also of the worthy royalists to Walker, for his “Sufferings of the Clergy,” which was published as an antidote to Calamy’s book; esteeming good men of all parties worthy to have their names and characters transmitted to posterity. His skill in heraldry and genealogy rendered him a very serviceable correspondent to Collins in his “Peerage of England.” By these kindnesses, sweetened with the easiness of access to his own cabinet, he always found the like easy admission to those of others; which gave him frequent opportunities of enlarging his collection, far beyond what could have been expected from a private person, not wealthy. He commenced an early friendship with the celebrated naturalist Dr. Martin Lister. To this friend he sent an account of some Roman antiquities he had discovered in Yorkshire, which being communicated by him and Dr. Gale, dean of York, to the Royal Society, obtained him a fellowship of that learned body in 1697: and the great number of his papers, in their Transactions, relating to ancient Roman and Saxon monuments in the North of England, with notes upon them, and the inscriptions of coins, &c. shew how deserving he was of that honour.

He died in 1725, in his sixty-eighth year, and was interred among his ancestors in St. Peter’s church at Leeds. His character for learning is best seen in the books he published, which shew him to have been a great master of the history and antiquities of his own country; to attain which, it became necessary for him to be skilled, as he was, in genealogy and heraldry. He appears from these books to have been also an industrious biographer: but that. which sets his reputation the highest as a scholar, was his uncommon knowledge of coins and medals. He had long formed a design of doing honour to his native town and its environs, by writing the history of them; and had accumulated a vast quantity of materials for the work, which was published in 1715, under the title of “Ducatus Leodiensis; or, The Topography of Leeds and the parts adjacent,” fol. To which is subjoined, “Museum Thoresbeianum; or, a Catalogue of the Antiquities, &c. in the Repository of Ralph Thoresby, gent. &c.” In the former piece, he frequently refers to the historical part, intended for giving a view of the state of the northern parts of the kingdom during the dark ages of the Britons and the Romans and of the alterations afterwards made by the Saxons, Danes, and Normans: and he proceeded so far, as to bring his narration in a fair copy nearly to the end of the sixth century, illustrating and confirming his history byhis coins. This curious unfinished manuscript is inserted in the Biographia Britannica, in order to excite some able writer to carry it on, and complete the noble design of the author. His advancement in years hindering him from completing this work, he contented himself with committing to the press his “Viearia Leodiensis: or, The History of the Church of Leeds, &c.”, which was published in 1724, 8vo. The subject of this work being narrow and confined, he has enriched it with observations on the original of parochial churches, and the ancient manner of building them; as also on the' old way of passing estates by delivery of pledges, subscription of golden crosses, pendent seals, &c. and, besides the memoirs of many worthy divines successively vicars of Leeds, he has added the lives of the doc-, tors, Matthew Hutton, Edwyn Sandys, Tobie Matthews, John Thoresby, archbishops of York, and of Henry earl of Huntingdon. His character is thus given by his biographer: “However diligent he was in cultivating the laudable accomplishments of the gentleman and the scholar, yet he never suffered his beloved studies to interfere with his religion, but managed all his affairs in subserviency to it. He often lamented the great consumption of time, occasioned by the numerous visitants to see his museum, but took care that they should not hinder his private or public worship. In his principles, after his conversion, he was orthodox; in his affections, catholic, comprehending therein all denominations of Christians. He was modest and pure, temperate, and abstemious to an uncommon degree; though, being one of the lords of the manor, and a governing member 'of the corporation, he could not always avoid public meetings and festivities, yet he was a sparing partaker, even of innocent diversions. He was constant and regular at his private devotions, which were invigorated with an unusual degree of fervency. Ex emplary in the government of his family, he called them together morning and evening to prayer, and reading the Scriptures. Extremely careful of the religious instruction of his children, he was not unmindful of the moral behaviour of his servants. He was a kind relation, compromising the distressed affairs of some that were very near to him, by expensive journeys, irksome applications, and money almost beyond his abilities. He was very charitable to the utmost of his power, not seldom solicited others, and was always a faithful dispenser of whatever was entrusted to his care.”

, one of a family of that name, of foreign extraction, but settled in England, is said by Wood to have been the son of John Thorius, a physician, who called himself “Balliolenus Flandrus,” a native of Bailleul in Flanders. It is more probable, however, that his father’s name was Francis, whom Foppen calls “Balliolenus, Flander,” who published, in 1562, “Joannis Straselii Comment, in aurea Carmina Pythagorx,” 8vo. He published also, according to the same biographer, a poem on peace, translated into Latin from the French, and wrote some epigrams and satires. According to Wood, John Thorius was born at London in 1568, and in 1586 became a member of Christ church, Oxford, but whether he took a degree, Wood says, “appears not, though in one of his books he writes himself ‘ a graduate of Oxenford.’” When he died is uncertain. He published “A Spanish Dictionary,” Lond. 1590, 4to, along with a translation of Anthony de Corro’s “Spanish Grammar.” He translated from the Spanish “The Councellor; a Treatise of Councils and Councellors of Princes,” Lond. 1589, 4to, written by Barth. Phillip. It is in this he calls himself, not “a graduate of Oxenford,” but “graduate in Oxford.” It is dedicated to the right hon. John Fortescue, master of her majesty’s wardrobe. He also translated from the Spanish of Valdes, “The Serjeant Major: or, a Dialogue of the office of a Serjeant major,” Lond. 1500, 4to.

, whether of the same family with the preceding we know not, for Wood says he was a Frenchman born, and called Thoris, became a physician and Latin poet, and admired in both characters in the reign of James I. He appears to have studied medicine at Oxford, but took no degree in that faculty. He afterwards settled in London, and was very successful in practice. In the first year of the reign of Charles I. when the plague raged in London, his humanity led him to expose himself too much to the infection, and he died of that dreadful disorder in July or August 1625, and was probably buried in St. Bennet Fink church, as his residence was in that parish. It is related of this physician that he was immoderately addicted to wine, and seldom satisfied unless he made his friends keep pace with him in drinking. Gassendi informs us, that Thorius being in company with Peiresc, whom he strongly pressed to drink a large glass of wine, the latter at length consented, upon condition that he would promise to pledge him in return. When it came to the turn of Peiresc he filled a large glass of water, and drinking it off, insisted that Thorius should do the same. This, with much hesitation, and after pouring out execrations against the vile liquor, and citing a multitude of classical invectives against it, he at length performed. The story reached king James I. and much amused him.

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, was educated in Trinity-college, in the university of Cambridge, of which he was fellow. In 1638 he was proctor of that university. In July 1642 he was admitted to the rectory of Barley in Hertfordshire and, upon the death of Dr. Samuel Ward, in September 1643, he was elected master of Sidney-college in Cambridge, from which, Dr. Walker says, he was kept out “by the oppressions of the times;” but there was also somewhat of court-intrigue in this affair, as related in Walter Pope’s life of bishop Ward. He tells us, that upon the death of the latter, the fellows of the college assembled to choose a new master. “Mr. Seth Ward, with nine of them, gave their suffrages for Mr. Thorndike of Trinity-college; for Mr. Minshull there were eight votes including his own. But while they were at the election, a band of soldiers rushed in upon them, and forcibly carried away Mr. Parsons, one of those fellows who voted for Mr. Thorndike, so that the number of suffrages for Mr. Minshull, his own being accounted for one, was equal to those Mr. Thorndike had. Upon which Mr. Minshull was admitted master, the other eight only protesting against it, being ill-advised, for they should have adhered to their votes. Two of them, whereof Mr. Ward was one, went to Oxford, and brought thence a mandamus from the king, commanding Mr. Minshull, and the fellows of Sidney-college, to repair thither, and give an account of their proceedings as to that election. This mandamus, or peremptory summons, was fixed upon the chapel-door by Mr. Linnet, who was afterwards a fellow of Trinity-college, but at that time attended on Mr. Thorndike. On the other side, one Mr. Bertie, a kinsman of the earl of Lindsey, being one of those who voted for Mr. Minshull, was also sent to Oxford on his behalf. This gentleman, by the assistance and mediation of my lord of Lindsey, procured an order from the king to confirm Mr. Minshull’s election; but he, not thinking this title sufficient, did corroborate it with the broad seal, to which Mr. Thorndike consented, Mr. Minshull paying him and the rest of the fellows the charges they had been at in the management of that affair,amounting to about an hundred pounds.” This was therefore evidently a matter in which “the oppressions of the times” (which are usually understood to mean those which arose from the usurpation) were not concerned. He was, however, afterwards, to experience the latter also, and was ejected from his living of Barley, which was given to the rev. Nath. Ball of King’s college, Cambridge, who, Calamy informs us, punctually paid a fifth part of the income to Mr. Thorndike. At the restoration he was replaced in this living, but resigned it on being made a prebendary of Westminster. He very much assisted Dr. Walton in the edition of the Polyglot Bible, particularly in marking the variations in the Syriac version of the Old Testament; and wrote several treatises: “A Discourse concerning the primitive Forme of the Government of Churches,” Cambridge, 1641, 8vo; “A Discourse of Religious Assemblies and the Publike Service of God,” Cambridge, 1642, 8vo; “A Discourse of the Right of the Church in a Christian State, with a Review by way of Appendix,” London, 1649, 8vo; “Just Weights and Measures; that is, the present State of Religion weighed in the Balance, and measured by the Standard of the Sanctuary,” London, 1662, 4to; “A Discourse of the Forbearance of the Penalties, which a due Reformation requires,” London, 1670, 8vo; “Origines Ecclesiae, seu de ratione ac jure finiendi Controversias Ecclesise,” Lond. 1670. To these we may add, what is called his famous book, published in 1659, under the title of “An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England, in three books, viz. 1. Of the Principles of Christian Truth. 2. Of the Covenant of Grace. 3. Of the Laws of the Church.” By a letter from chancellor Hyde, in the appendix to Dr. Barwick’s Life, it would appear that this work had given offence, as being unseasonable and injudicious. Hyde says, “Pray tell me, what melancholy hath possessed poor Mr. Thorndike? And what do our friends think of his book? And is it possible that he would publish it, without ever imparting it, or communicating with them? His name and reputation in learning is too much made use of, to the discountenance of the poor church; and though it might not be in his power to be without some doubts and scruples, I do not know what impulsion of conscience there could be to publish those doubts to the world, in a time when he might reasonably believe the worst use would be made, and the greatest scandal proceed from them.” This seems to allude to some opinions he held that were unfavourable to the measures of the court: and we find that there was some difficulty in admitting him into the convocation in 1661, “on account of his speaking much of the Bohemian churches, called Unitas Fratrum.” He was a member of the Savoy conference, and in the little he said completely undeceived the non-conformists, who, from his early publications, had supposed he was of their side. There was also a suspicion that he had a little too much leaning to the church of Rome, so that his character has not descended to us with all the evidences of consistency; but that he was a man of great learning, and an able oriental scholar, seems indisputable.

He died July 1672, and was interred in Westminsterabbey. There were some remarkable passages in his last w 11, dated July 3d that year; particularly these words: "My will is, that if my nieces, or either of them, shall return to New-England, after my decease, or shall marry with any that goes to mass, or any of the new licensed conventicles, then whatsoever is given them by this my will, exceeding the four hundred pounds, which I have absolutely given them by deed, shall be void and not due; so that when either or both of them shall be married here to such as sincerely cleave to the church of England, then the payment to be made. As for my body, 1 charge my executor to write these words upon my grave-stone: ‘ Hie jacet corpus Herbert! Thorndike, prebendarii hujusecclesiae, qui vivus veram reformandae ecclesiae rationem ac niodum precibusque studiisque prosequebatur. Tu, lector, requiem ei et beatam in Christo resurrexionem precare.’ It is evident, from this last clause, that he believed in the efficacy of prayer for the dead.

, a miscellaneous writer of genuine humour, and the colleague of Mr. Colman in many of his literary labours, was the son of an apothecary, and born in Maiden-lane, London, in 1724. After the usual course of education at Westminster school, he was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1743. The first publication in which he was concerned, was “The Student, or the Oxford Monthly Misrellany;” afterwards altered to “The Student, or Oxford and Cambridge Monthly Miscellany.” This entertaining medley appeared in monthly numbers, printed at Oxford, for Mr. Newbery, in St. Paul’s churchyard. Smart was the principal conductor, but Thornton and other >wits of both universities occasionally assisted. Thornton’s first attempt appeared in the first number, “The Comforts of a Retired Life,” an elegy in imitation of Tibullus. Mr. Thomas Warton was also a writer in the poetical department; and Dr. Johnson, probably at Mr. Newbery’s request, wrote his “Life of Cheynel,” in one of the latter numbers. The whole were afterwards collected and published in 1748, 2 vols. 8vo. In 1752 he began a periodical work entitled “Have at ye all, or the Drury Lane Journal,” in opposition to Fielding’s “Coventgarden Journal.” It contains some humorous remarks on reigning follies, but with too frequent mixture of personal ridicule. How long it lasted is uncertain. The copy before us contains only twelve numbers.

As an occasional writer, however, unfettered by times and seasons, Mr. Thornton was profuse in his contributions to magazines and newspapers. Scarce any popular topic offered of whatever kind, which did not afford him a subject for a pamphlet, an essay, a piece of poetry, or some whimsical paragraphs for the newspapers. His contributions to the Public Advertiser were very considerable, and when the St. James’s Chronicle was projected (and the first thought of it was imparted to him) he became a proprietor, and a valuable contributor. A collection of the best pieces of the first year of that paper was published at the close of it, under the title of “The Yearly Chronicle for 1761; or a collection of the most interesting and striking essays, &c. with a diary of events,” &c. This was handsomely printed in an octavo volume, but notwithstanding the convenience of the plan, and the popularity of the contents, it did not succeed so well as to encourage a continuation. About this time our author had it in contemplation to treat with Mr. Rich for the patent of Covent-gardeii theatre, but the negociation proved abortive. Ho had now given up all thoughts of the employment to which he was bred, and became an author by profession, and a general satirist, oor was it with his pen only that he exercised his humour. He projected an exhibition of sign paintings, a scheme which at first appeared preposterous, beyond all hopes of encouragement, but which actually took place at his house in Bow-street, Covent-garden. The object was to convey satire on temporary events, objects, and persons, and for some time it had considerable success. It was, however, one of those odd schemes which could not be expected to last, or to be repeated, and which the public, at a less good-humoured period, might in all probability be disposed to consider as an insult.

The “Ode for St. Cecilia’s Day,” above mentioned, was another effort of the burlesque kind, from Mr. Thornton’s sportive muse, and afforded much entertainment. The sternest muscles must relax where it is read. It was professedly adapted to “the ancient British music,” viz. the salt-box, the Jew’s harp, the marrow-bones and cleavers, the hum-strum or hurdy-gurdy, &c. Dr. Johnson praised its humour, and seemed much diverted with it; nor could it be less diverting to hear him repeat the following passage, which he frequently did:

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

During the holding of the states at Blois, he returned to Paris, where he was in danger of losing his life; fur the news of the duke of Guise’s death arriving, all who were of known attachment to the king were obliged to hide themselves. Thuanus was among them, hut happily escaped under the disguise of a soldier. He repaired to the king, who, being removed to Tours, resolved to establish a parliament there, to oppose that of the league; and De Thou would have been made the first president of it, if he had not been fixed against accepting that office; He afterwards accompanied Mr. de Schomberg into Germany, to assist in raising forces for the king, and drawing succours from the German princes he passed by Italy, and was at Venice, when the news of Henry Illd’s death made him immediately return to France. Henry IV. received him very kindly, to whom he gave an exact account of all that had been done, and continued very faithfully in his service; while the king placed the greatest confidence in him, and employed him in many important negotiations. After the battle of Yvry, which Henry IV. gained in 159O, De Thou obtained leave to visit his wife at Senlis, whom he had not seen above a year; and arrived there, after having been detained some time upon the road by a fever. His purpose was to settle at Tours and he was one evening upon the road thither, when a party of the enemy carried off his wife and equipage, while he escaped by the swiftness of his horse, and found ipeaus soon after to recover his lady. In 1592, he had the plague, and despaired of life, but was happily cured by the infusion of bezoarstone into strong waters. The year after, the king made him his first librarian, which place became vacant by the death of the learned James Amyot, famous for his translation of Plutarch and other ancient Greek authors. In 1592, the duke of Guise having made his peace with the king, Thuanus was one of the persons appointed to regulate the conditions of the treaty he became the same year president à mortier by the death of his uucle Augustin de Thou, which honour had long been promised him. He was afterwards concerned in many negotiations with the Protestant party, and was greatly instrumental in bringing forward the edict of Nantes, which was signed in April 1598, and afterwards revoked, as is well known, by Louig XIV. in 1685. In 1601, he lost his wife, whom he immortalized by elegies; but soon after recovered so far from his grief, great as it was, as to take another. During the regency of queen Mary of Medicis, Thuanus was one of the general directors of the finances; and was, to the end of his life, engaged more or less in the service of the state. He died the 17th of May, 1617, and was interred with his fami-ly in the chapel of St. Andrew of the Arches,

He left behind him a general history of his own times from 1545 to 1608, written in very clear and excellent Latin. “Among many things,” says Grotius to him, “which posterity will admire, this above all astonishes me, how you, always as it should seem engaged in business, should find leisure and indefatigable force of mind to know so many and so great things as you have known, and to write them in such a manner as you have written them.” And in another place, “You have comprised a history of the whole world in such a manner, as could not have been expected from a man of the most leisure: such is the plenty of your iQatter, such the elegance of your language.” Isaac Casaubon says, “that Thuanus seems to him to have been providentially given for an example to the age in which he lived of piety, sincerity, probity, and in short of all virtue mid goodness.” Thuanus has acquired immortal glory by his History, which, says Perrault, is written with an exactness and fidelity beyond example. This biographer adds, that he “never disguised or concealed the truth; but had a noble and generous boldness, for which he has been praised by all the great men of his time. This work is worthy of the ancients, and perhaps would have exceeded a great part of what the ancient Romans have left us in the way of history, if he had not affected to imitate them too closely; for this has put him upon Latinizing the proper names of men, towns, countries, and other things, in so strange a manner, as to make a glossary necessary, in order to know frequently what he means.”

Part of this History was first printed at Paris in 1604, with a dedication to Henry IV. which is thought to be as masterly a composition in its kind, as the dedication of Casaubon’s Polybius to the same monarch, and that of the “Instittitiones Christianae” of Calvin to Francis I. The publication of the history, in separate parts, was alterwards continued by the author, who, however, does not seem to have published it all in his life-time; or any part of it, except the volume just mentioned, in a manner conformable to his original copy, which, therefore, he deposited in the hands of a friend, that it might be printed after his death, just as he wrote it. It was long, however, before this could be effected. Thuanus was an honest historian, and with respect to things and persons boldly delivered the truth. There would of course be many exceptionable passages in his work, many that would highly offend individuals both in church and state; and this was the reason why, though printed frequently and in different countries, it never came out free from castrations, and agreeable to the author’s original copy, till 1733. It was then handsomely printed at London, and published under the direction, and chiefly at the expence, of the excellent Dr. Mead, in seven volumes folio; to which are prefixed four Latin letters, inscribed to that celebrated patron of letters, and giving an account of the various changes and chances this History has undergone; of the different editions; what each of them contain, and how they vary; and by what materials and assistances the editors have at length been enabled to give a very complete and perfect copy of it.

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

, an ancient Greek historian, was a citizen of Athens, and born in the second year of the 77th olympiad, or before Christ 469. He was of royal extraction; for all writers relate, that his father Olorus, or Orolus, was descended from Olorus, king of Thrace. He was educated in philosophy by Anaxagoras, and in eloquence by Antiphon. Suidas and Photius relate a circumstance, which shews, that he had from his youth a noble emulation, for when Herodotus recited his History in public, a practice in use then and many ages after, it drew tears from him; which Herodotus himself noticing, congratulated his father on having a son who shewed so wonderful an affection to the muses. Herodotus was then twenty-nine years of age; Thucydides about sixteen.

When the Peloponnesian war began to break out, Thucydides conjectured truly, that it would prove an argument worthy of his labour; and it no sooner commenced than he began his history, noting down events and circumstances, as they happened under his eye, or came to his knowledge. Of his own life we know nothing with certainty, but what he himself has delivered in his history. He was a lover of contemplation and retirement, yet he did not decline the service of the state, and accepted accordingly a command in the army. This, however, proved unfortunate to him; for while he resided in the Isle of Thasus, it happened that Brasidas, the Lacedemonian, besieged Amphipolis, a city belonging to the Athenians, about half a day’s sail from Thasus. Thucydides being one of the strategi, or of those who had authority to raise forces in those parts for the service of the commonwealth, the Athenian captain sent to him to levy a power, and hasten to his relief: as he did not arrive till too late, and when the city was already yielded up, he was afterwards punished, as if he had done this either through negligence or fear of the enemy. For this suspicion, however, there was no just reason, for he put himself into the city of Eion, and preserved it to the Athenians, with the repulse of Brasidas, who came down the next morning from Amphipolis, and besieged it.

It does not appear, that after his exile Thucydides ever again enjoyed his country; nor is it clear from any author, where, or when, or in what year of his age, he died. Most agree, that he died in banishment; yet some have related, that,“after the defeat in Sicily, the Athenians decreed a general revocation of all banished persons, and that he then returned, and was afterwards put to death at Athens. This is not likely; and many other circumstances are related which have no more probability. Hobbcs thinks, that in this variety or' conjectures there is nothing more probable than that which we have from Pausanias, who, in describing the monuments of the Athenian city, says,” The worthy act of Oenobius, in the behalf of Thucydides, is not without honour, for Oenobius obtained to have a decree passed for his return: who returning was slain by treachery, and his sepulchre is near the gate called Melirides." He is reckoned to have been sixty-eight years of age when he died. He left a son, whose name is hardly known, but supposed to have been Timotheus.

He excelled in the two great points which form a just historian, truth and eloquence. The faith of his History has never been called into question. He wanted no opportunities of knowing the truth, and he does not appear to have misrepresented it; and though some have fancied him a little malevolent towards his country, because the usage hy had received would have made most people so, yet he has not written any thing that discovers such a passion. His manner of writing is coherent, perspicuous, and persuasive, yet close, strong, and pithy. The ancients have spoken <of him in the highest terms and if Herodotus, as his senior, obtained the title “father of history,” yet the greater part have allowed that Thucydides is the better historian. Plutarch says, in his treatise De Gloria Atheniensinm, that Thucydides “aims always at this, to make his auditor a spectator, and to excite in his reader the same passions witii those who were beholders.” Then enumerating some examples, “these things,” he says, “are so described, and so evidently set before our eyes, that the mind of the reader is no less affected, than if he had been present in the actions.” And it was probably for his skill in painting, certainly not for his eloquence (for, as Cicero says, “what great rhetorician ever borrowed any thing of Thucydides?”) that the famous orator Demosthenes wrote over his History, according to Lucian, eight times with his own hand. The same Lucian, in his book “How a history ought to be written,” continually exemplifies the virtues required in an historiographer by Thucydides; and it seems as if the image of Thucydides’s History, preconceived in Lucian’s mind, suggested to him all the precepts he there delivers. As to his style, Cicero speaks of it thus: “Thucydides in the art of speaking, in my opinion, has far exceeded them all. ^For he is so full of matter, that the number of his sentences almost equals the number of his words; and in his words he is so apt, and so close, that it is hard to say, whether his words more illustrate his sentences, or his sentences his words,” The Romans thought highly of Thucydides’s work; and Sallust evidently took him for his model.

, secretary of state to the two protectors Oliver and Richard Cromwell, was son of Thomas Thurloe, rector of Abbots- Roding, Essex, where he was born in 1616. He was educated to the law, and afterwards recommended to the patronage of Oliver St. John, esq. a person of great eminence in that profession, and successively solicitor-general to Charles I. and lord chief justice of the common pleas; by whose interest, Jan. 1645, he was appointed one of the secretaries to the parliament commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge. In 1647, he was admitted of LincolnVinn; and, March 1648, made receiver or clerk of the cursitor fines, under the earl of Kent, lord Grey of Werke, sir Thomas Widdrington, and Bulstrode Whitelocke, esq. commissioners of the great seal. Though his attachments were entirely on the side of the parliament, yet, with regard to the death of king Charles, he declares himself, that he was altogether a stranger to the fact, and to all the counsels about it; having 1 not had the least communication with any person whatsoever on that affair. Yet, after that extraordinary event, and the establishment of the new commonwealth, he was diverted from his employments in the law, and engaged in public business. In March 1651, he attended the lord chief justice St. John, and Walter Strickland, esq. ambassadors to the states of the United Provinces, as their secretary, with whom he returned to England in 1651, and, April 1652, was preferred to the office of secretary to the council of state; and, upon Cromwell’s assuming the protectorship in 1653, became secretary of state. In Feb. 1654, he was chosen one of the masters of the upper bench of the society of Lincoln’s-inn; and, in Aug. 1655, had the care and charge of the postage, both foreign and inland, committed to him by the protector. In 1656, he was chosen member of parliament for the Isle of Ely; and in April 1657 received the thanks of the parliament, for his vigilance in detecting the plot of Harrison and other fifth-monarchymen, and for many great services to the public. On July 13 of the same year, he was sworn one of the privy council to the protector, according to the "humble petition and advice 7> and in November was elected one of the governors of the Charter-house. Burnet relates a story, which probably happened about this time, of his having nearly forfeited Cromwell’s good opinion, by not being vigilant enough in listening to accounts of plots against his (Cromwell’s) life, but he soon effected a reconciliation, and appears to have induced Cromwell to think as he did, that too much curiosity after such matters argued an undignified fear.

In Feb. 1658 he was made chancellor of the university of Glasgow; and, in June following, concurred with Whitelocke in advising the protector to leave the persons who had been detected in a plot, to be proceeded against in the ordinary course of trials at the common law, and not by an high court of justice; it being always his opinion, that the forms and rules of the old constitution should, on every occasion, be inviolably preserved, especially in the administration of justice. Upon the death of Oliver, he was continued in the post of secretary and privy counsellor to his successor Richard; though he was very obnoxious to the principal persons of the army, to whose interests, whenever they interfered with those of the civil government, he was a declared enemy: and their resentment against him on that account was carried to so great a height, that they accused him as an evil counsellor, and one who was justly formidable by the ascendant he had gained over the new protector. For this reason, in Nov. 1658, he desired leave to retire from public business; in hopes that this might tend to quiet things, and facilitate the protector’s affairs with the army: but he was induced still to continue in his employment; and, in December, was chosen member of parliament for the university of Cambridge. He was returned likewise for the tpwn and borough of Wisbech, and for the borough of Huntingdon; but made his election for Cambridge, where he had a greater number of votes than had ever been known on a similar occasion. In April 1659, he used his utmost efforts to dissuade the protector from dissolving the parliament; a step which proved fatal to his authority, though, upon his quitting it, Thurloe still continued in his office of secretary till Jan. 14, 1660. It was then conferred on Thomas Scott, esq.; but on Feb. 27, upon a report of the council of state, the parliament resolved, that Thurloe should be again one of the secretaries of state, and John Thomson, esq. the other. In April 1660, he made an offer of his service for the restoration of Charles II. as appears from a letter of chancellor Hyde to sir John Grenville, in which his lordship observes, that Mr. Thurloe' s offers were very frank, and accompanied with many great professions of resolving to serve his majesty, not only in his own endeavours, but likewise by the services of his friends; but that these offers were mixed with somewhat of curiosity in Mr. Thurloe, who was very inquisitive to know whether his majesty had any confidence in general Monk, or had approached him in the right way: which he desired to know, only to finish what was left undone, or be able the better to advise his majesty. The king returned such answers as were proper, and desired to see some effects of his good affection; and that then he would find his services more acceptable. However, on May 15 following, he was committed by the House of Commons to the custody of their serjeant at arms, upon a charge of high treason; but was soon released, and retired to Great Milton in Oxfordshire, where he generally resided, except in term-time, when he came to his c;, bers at Lincoln’s-inn. He was of great use occasionally to the chancellor Clarendon, by the instructions he gave him with respect to the state of foreign affairs; of which there is a very remarkable instance among his state-papers, in the recapitulation he drew up of all the nei>ociations between England, France, and Spain, from the lime of Cromwell’s taking upon him the protectorship till the restoration. He was likewise often solicited by Charles II. to engage in the administration of public business, but thought proper to decline those offers. He died suddenly, at his chambers in Lincoln’s-inn, Feb. 21, 1668, aged fifty-one; and was interred under the chapel there with an inscription over his grave. He was twice married, first to a lady of the name of Peyton, by whom he had two sons who died before him; and secondly to Anne, third daughter of sir John Lytcote of East Moulsey in Surrey, by whom he had four sons and two daughters.

, Lord Thurlow, a distinguished statesman and lawyer, was the second son of the rev. Thomas Thurlow, rector of Ashfield in Suffolk, and was born about 1732. He was entered of, and continued for some time at Caiut college, Cambridge, whery vulgar report has made him idle and dissipated. Of this we have no proof, nor of his having been equally careless of his studies after he entered the society of the Middle Temple. Lord Thurlow may have been indebted to what are called lucky coincidences for some of his promotions, but as he was always found amply qualified for the high stations he held, he could not have much neglected the cultivation of his natural abilities, or been remiss in accumulating that knowledge by which alone he could rival his contemporaries. He appears to have been called to the bar in 1758, and must have rapidly attained distinction in his profession, for, in three years after, chiefly owing to the talent he displayed in the Douglas cause, he was advanced to the rank of king’s counsel. His voice, person, and manner, were not ill calculated to give his efforts an air of consequence at the bar, and his practice became extensive. In March 1770 he was appointed solicitor-general, and in. June 1771 attorney-general. He now sat in parliament for the borough of Tamworth, where he had many opportunities of justifying the choice of his patrons, and of creating that species of character and interest which generally leads to the highest legal appointments. As a politician, he uniformly, and with commanding vigour, suppotted the measures adopted with respect to America, Sec. during lord North’s administration. In June 1778, he was appointed to succeed lord Apsley, as lord high chancellor of Great Britain, and the same day was raised to the peerage by the title of Lord Thurlow of Ashfield in Suffolk. This office he resigned in April 1783, when the seals were put into commission, but was re-appointed when Mr. Pitt was nominated prime minister in December following. He again resigned them in June 1792, and on the 12th of that month was created Lord Thurlow of Thurlow in Suffolk, with a collateral remainder of this honour to the issue male of his late two brothers, the bishop of Durham, and John Thurlow of Norwich. After this retirement, till a short period before his death, he took an active part, and had great weight, in the House of Lords.; and having retained complete possession of his faculties, with accumulated wisdom and experience, his latter speeches were often more the subject of admiration, than any that had been remembered in his earlier days. He died in the seventy-fourth year of his age, Sept. 12, 1806, without male issue.

Lord Thurlow, says the candid author of the Biographical Peerage, “was a man of whose talents opinions have been various. His faculties were strong and direct; and, the results of his mind decisive. His nervous manner, and imperious temper, gave an artificial strength to what he delivered. Whatever he conceived right, he had rrcr timidity or hesitation in enforcing. A manly tone of sentiment, and a boldness which was admired while it was dreaded, gave him almost irresistible weight when clothed with authority. These qualities, added to a powerful natural sagacity, fitted him to preside over a court of equity with many advantages. He never felt himself fettered by forms and technicalities; but laid the case bare at once, and got at its essence. His head was not formed to be diverted by little difficulties or sophistries. On the other hand he was frequently too impatient, too dogmatical, and too little open to persuasion, and to all the complicated bearings of an entangled cause. His temper was severe, his feelings morose, and his disregard of the world, and even its innocent passions and foibles, too general and untparing. He made little allowance for a difference of habits or pursuits. On the whole, however, he was a man f a superior mind; and in many respects rilled his high station with great and deserved reputation.” To this we may add, that as a patron he was munificent; and often, what he could not perform in his official capacity, he expended from his own fortune. His behaviour, in this respect, to Dr. Johnson, must ever be remembered to his honour. In bestowing church preferment he was singularly honest and disinterested, and of all the anecdotes in current report (and they were at one time very many) relating to this subject, we never heard one that did not place his good sense and humanity in a very favourable light. But while, like many other men of high station encumbered with business, he needed to be reminded of those who had claims upon him, it was peculiar to himself that in his character of patron, he was seldom accessible to the common forms of application. If a tale of depressed merit and consequent distress was gently insinuated, he seldom heard it without extending relief, but all manner of solicitation from those who thought they had influence over him, he repelled with contempt; and such were the vicissitudes of his temper, that even when he came to confer his highest favours, it was frequently in a manner that seemed to lessen the obligation.

, a learned Saxonist, and the descendant of some learned Oxonians, was born in 1667, but where, or where educated, has not been discovered. That he was well grounded in classical learning is evident. He was admitted battler of Queen’s college, Oxford, on Sept. 14, 1689, took his degree of B. A. jn Jan. 1694, and that of M.A. in 1697, and either then or in the following year, was admitted fellow of the college. Queen’s was at this time remarkable for the number of its Saxon scholars, one of the principal of whom was Mr. Thwaites, who so early as 1698 became a preceptor in the Saxon tongue there. The industry of his pupils was great, but they had few helps. In a letter to Wanley, dated March 24, 1698-9, he says, “We want Saxon Lexicons. I have fifteen young students in that language, and but one Somner for them all.” This was undoubtedly a sufficient reason for the patronage he bestowed on Mr. Thomas Benson’s Vocabulary, an epitome of Somner, begun to be printed in small quarto, but which was afterwards printed in 8vo, under the title of“Vocabularium Anglo-Saxonicum Lexico Gul. Somneri magna parte auctius,” Oxon. 1701. Mr. Thwaites, according to a memorandum in Hearne’s ms diary, had a considerable hand in this. In 1697, he edited “Dionysii Orbis Descriptio, cum veterum scholiis et Eustathii commentariis. Accedit Periegesis Prisciani, cum notis Andrea Papii,” Oxon. 8vo. This was followed in 1698, by “Heptateuchus, Liber Job, et Evangelium Nicodemi, Anglo-Saxonice. Historic Judith fragmentum, Dano-Saxonice*. Edidit nunc primum ex Mss. codicibus Edwardus Thwaites, e collegio Reginse,” Oxon. which being dedicated to Dr. Hickes, the celebrated non-juror, gave some offence in those days of party-spirit. The same year Mr. Thwaites had some concern in the edition of king Alfred’s Saxon version of “Boethius cle Consolatione Philosophize,” the professed editor of which was Mr. Christopher Rawlinson. Mr. Thvvaites also rendered much assistance to Dr. Hickes in his “Thesaurus,” which is amply acknowledged in the epistolary preface. In 17 Os, he was elected by the university, reader in moral philosophy, and the next year appointed regius professor of Greek. His last work, “Grammatica Anglo-Saxonica ex Hickesiano linguarum Septentrionalium Thesauro excerpta,” appeared at Oxford in 1711, on the 12th of December, 8vo, in which year he died, and was buried at Iffley church near Oxford. He was only forty-four years of age, and his death is supposed to have been hastened by the amputation of his leg. Of this affair, the accounts in our authorities differ; the one imputing the necessity for amputation to his having broke his leg by a fall from his horse, the other to a growing on one of his knees, perhaps what is called a white swelling, which is a very frequent cause for amputation. Both, however, agree in the extraordinary calmness with which he bore the operation, and in his having stopped the bleeding in the night when it broke out afresh, without help, It is said that when his surgeon, Mr. Charles Bernard, related his behaviour to queen Anne, she ordered him a pension, and to be made Greek professor; but in these circumstances likewise our accounts differ. A consumption ensued, and deprived the university of “the best Septentrionalist,” next to Dr. Hickes, a man, too, “beautiful in his personage, pleasant in conversation, of great vivacity, and of a most agreeable natural behaviour. 7 '” Besides these excellencies, he wrote,“says Mr. Browne,” the finest hand I ever saw."

, a Latin poet, is supposed to have been born at Rome, in the year of Rome 690, six years after the birth of Virgil, and one after that of Horace. His father was of the equestrian order; and he himself set out into the world with all the advantages of fortune, and the greatest accomplishments of mind and person. Among the great men of his age, he singled out Messala Corvinus for his patron; who was a brave and accomplished Roman, admired by Cicero, mentioned with great respect by Horace, and ranked by Quintilian among the masters of oratory. He was to Tibullus, what Maecenas was to Horace. This poet had a country seat at Pedum, a town in Latium not far from Rome. He was a great sufferer in the civil wars, yet does not seem to have been concerned in any party. He was, like Ovid, a man devoted to ease and pleasure; and his time was divided between the Muses and his mistresses. He seems indeed to have abandoned himself entirely to the passion of love, as some think, even to the neglect of his affairs. His regard for Messala, however, made him forget his love of ease and pleasure, and followthat nobleman into Gaul, who was there victorious,' and had a triumph decreed him upon his return to Rome. He was attending Messala on a second expedition to Syria, when he fell sick by the way, and was forced to stay in the island of Phaeacia or Corcyra. On this occasion he composed the third elegy of the fourth book, and desired that if he should die of his illness, he might have this epitaph engraven on his monument:

Nor is Ovid sparing of his praises of Tibullus the ninth elegy of the third book is written to bewail his death. There Ovid finely describes the sweetness and elegance of this poet’s elegies, by introducing Cupid and Venus to mourn over him; after which he places him in the Elysian fields, in company with Calvus, Catullus, and Gallus. The best critics have preferred Tibullus even to Ovid himself, for elegance and correctness of style; and Quintilian sets him at the head of all the writers in elegy. “In elegy,” says he, “we challenge also the Greeks, in which way of writing, Tibullus, according to my judgment, is by far the most neat and elegant. Some indeed give Propertius the preference; Ovid is more indecent than either of them, as Gallus is more harsh and unpolished. 1 * There is certainly in his poems an admirable mixture of passion and purity, of simplicity and elegance, and he is thought to surpass all others not only in tenderness and sentiment, but in graceful ease and harmony of members. He has left four books of” Elegies.“His panegyric upon Messala is censured by Scaliger, and suspected not to be his; and the small pieces at the end of the fourth book, which Scaliger calls” hard, languid, and rough," either do not belong to Tibullus, or never received his last corrections.

, son of the rev. Richard Tickell, was born in 1686 at Bridekirk in Cumberland; and in April 1701 became a member of Queen’s college, in Oxford; in 1708 he was made M. A. and two years afterwards was chosen fellow; for which, as he did not comply with the statutes by taking orders, he obtained a dispensation from, the crown. He held his fellowship till 1726, and then vacated it by marrying in that year, at Dublin. Tickell was not one of those scholars who wear away their lives in closets; he entered early into the world, and was long busy in public affairs, in which he was initiated under the patronage of Addison, whose notice he is said to have gained by his verses in praise of “Rosamond.” He produced another piece of the same kind at the appearance of “Cato,” with equal skill, but not equal happiness. When the ministers of queen Anne were negociating with France, Tickell published “The Prospect of Peace,” a poem, of which the tendency was to reclaim the nation from the pride of conquest to the pleasures of tranquillity. Mr. Addison, however he hated the men then in power, suffered his friendship to prevail over the public spirit, and gave in the “Spectator” such praises of Tickell’s poem, that when, after having long wished to peruse it, Dr. Johnson laid hold on it at last, he thought it unequal to the honours which it had received, and found it a piece to be approved rather than admired. But the hope excited by a work of genius, being general and indefinite, is rarely gratified. It was read at that time with so much favour that six editions were sold. At the arrival of king George he sung “The Royal Progress;” which, being inserted in the *' Spectator,“is well known. The poetical incident of most importance in Tickell’s life was his publication of the first book of the” Iliad,“as translated by himself, in apparent opposition to Pope’s” Homer,“of which the first part made its entrance into the world at the same time. Addison declared that the rival versions were both good; but that Tickell’s was the best that ever was made; and with Addison those wits who were his adherents and followers, were certain to concur. Pope does not appear to have been much dismayed;” for,“says he,” I have the town, that is, the mob, on my side.“But he remarks, that it is common for the smaller party to make up in diligence what they want in numbers;” he “appeals to the people as his proper judges; and if they are not inclined to condemn him, he is in little care about the high-flyers at Button’s.” Pope did not long think Addison an impartial judge; for he considered him as the writer of TickelPs version. The reasons for his suspicion we shall literally transcribe from Mr. Spence’s collection. “There had been a coldness between Mr. Addison and me for some time; and we had not been in company together for a good while, any where but at Button’s coffee-house, where I used to see him almost every day. On his meeting me there, one day in particular, he took me aside, and said he should be glad to dine with me at such a tavern, if 1 stayed till those people were gone (Budgell and Philips). We went accordingly; and after dinner Mr. Addison said * that he had wanted for some time to talk with me; that his friend Tickell had formerly, whilst at Oxford, translated the first book of the Iliad; that he designed to print it, and had desired him to look it over; that he must therefore beg that I would not desire him to look over my first book, because, if he did, it would have the air of doubledealing.‘ I assured him that < I did not at all take it ill of Mr. Tickell that he was going to publish his translation; that he certainly had as much right to translate any author as myself; and that publishing both was entering on a fair stage. I then added, that I would not desire him to look over my first book of the ’ Iliad,' because he had looked over Mr. Tickeli’s; but could wish to have the benefit of his observations on my second, which I had then finished, and which Mr. Tickell had not touched upon.‘ Accordingly I sent him the second book the next morning; and Mr. Addison a few days after returned it, with very high commendations. Soon after it was generally known that Mr. Tickell was publishing the first book of the ’ Iliad,‘ I met Dr. Young in the street; and, upon our falling into that subject, the doctor expressed a great deal of surprise at Tickell’ s having had such a translation so long by him. He said, that c it was inconceivable to him, and that there must be some mistake in the matter; that each used to communicate to the other whatever verses they wrote, even to the least things; that Tickell could not have been busied in so long a work there without his knowing something of the matter; and that he had never heard a single word of it till on this occasion.' This surprise of Dr. Young, together with what Steele had said against Tickell in relation to this affair, makes it highly probable that there was some underhand dealing in that business; and indeed Tickelt himself, who is a very fair worthy man, has since in a manner as good as owned it to me. [When it was introduced into a conversation between Mr. Tickell and Mr. Pope by a third person, Tickell did not deny it; which, considering his honour and zeal for his departed friend, was the same as owning it.]” Upon these suspicions, with which Dr. Warburton hints that other circumstances concurred, Pope always, in his “Art of Sinking,” quotes this book as the work of Addison. (See Pope, vol. XXV. p. 168.) When the Hanover succession was disputed, Tickeli gave what assistance his pen would supply. His “Letter to Avignon” stands high among party-poems; it expresses contempt without coarseness, and superiority without insolence. It had the success which it deserved, being five times printed. He was now intimately united to Mr. Addison, who, when he went into Ireland as secretary to the lord Sunderland, took him thither, and employed him in public business; and, when (1717) afterwards he rose to be secretary of state, made him under-secretary. ' Their friendship seems to have continued without abatement; for when Addison died, he left him the charge of publishing his works, with a solemn recommendation to the patronage of Craggs. To these works he prefixed an elegy on the author, which could owe none of its beauties to the assistance which might be suspected to have strengthened or embellished his earlier compositions; but neither he not Addison ever produced nobler lines than are contained in the third and fourth paragraphs, nor is a more sublime or more elegant funeral poem to be found in the whole compass of English literature. He was afterwards (in June 1724) made secretary to the lords justices of Ireland, a place of great honour; in which he continued till 1740, when he died April 23, at Bath. To Tickell cannot be refused a high place among the minor poets; nor should it be forgotten that he was one of the contributors to the “Spectator.” With respect to his personal character, he is said to have been a man of gay conversation, at least a temperate lover of wine and company, and in his domestic relations without censure.

, an ingenious writer, who first appeared as an author about 1778, in a poem entitled, “The Project,” is supposed to have been a descendant of the preceding, or rather of his brother Richard Tickel), esq. who was appointed secretary at war in 1724, and held that post till his death in 1740. Another account states that our author was the son of Richard Tickell, esq. who died in 1793, who was the son of Addison’s friend. Soon, after the appearance of Mr. Tickell’s “Project,” his “Wreath of Fashion” was published, and was allowed to have considerable merit. But that which raised him to immediate celebrity was his admirable political pamphlet, called “Anticipation;” in which, with the most successful humour, he imitated the manner of the principal speakers then in parliament, and defeated the force of the argument of the opposition, by preoccupying them. This appeared in 1778. Two other political pamphlets are attributed to him; namely, “The English Green-box,” 1779, and “Common-place Arguments,” in 1780. He produced also for the theatre, an alteration of Allan Ramsay’s “Gentle Shepherd,” which was acted at Drury-lane, in 1781; and “The Carnival of Venice,” a comic opera, written by himself, and acted the same year; but of these two pieces only the songs were printed.

, a learned protestant divine of the French church, was born at Goldberg in Silesia, Feb*4, 1563. He came into France about 1590, and was naturalized by Henry IV. He at first distinguished himself as an opponent of the tenetsof Arminius, but afterwards changed his opinion, and enlisted on the side of the remonstrants. His principal controversy was with Peter Du Moulin, which was carried on with so much warmth, that those who were friends to the peace of the church, and admired both writers for their respective excellencies, interposed to reconcile them, or put a stop to the dispute. James I. of England, among others, wrote a letter in 1614 to the synod of Tonneins on this subject, which with the answer and proceedings of that assembly, may be seen in Quick’s “Synodicon,” vol. I. Tilenus had, before this, been appointed by the mareschal de Bouillon, to be professor at the college of Sedan, which de Bouillon had founded, but about 1619, or 1620, Tilenus was obliged to resign in consequence of persisting in his peculiar sentiments, and came to Paris, where he lived on his property. He afterwards had a personal controversy at a country house near Orleans, with John Cameron, divinity professor at Saumur, concerning the subject of grace and free will. This lasted five days, and an account of it was published, under the title of “Collatio inter Tilenum & Cameronem, &c.” (See Cameron). Some time after, Tilenus addressed a letter to the Scotch nation, disapproving of the presbyterian, and commending the episcopal form of the reformed church, as established in England. This pleased king James so much, who hated presbyterianism, that he invited the author to England, where he received him very graciously, and offered him a pension. Tilenus accepted the offer, and only begged leave to return to France to settle his affairs; but his character becoming by some means obnoxious in this country, he was discouraged from returning, and died at Paris, Aug. 1, 163S. His latter days were spent in defending the Arminian tenets against the reformed church of France, and he wrote several books, the titles of which may now be dispensed with, but may be found in our authorities.

, whom L‘Avocat prqnounces one of the most judicious and accurate critics and historians that France has produced, was born at Paris Nov. 30, 1637. His father, John L,e Nain, was master of the requests. About the age of ten, he was sent to the famous seminary of the Port Royal, where his attention to instruction, and his proficiency, were very extraordinary, and where he very early became fond of ’the study of history. This partiality seems to have been first excited by a perusal of Baronius, and while thus employed he was perpetually putting questions to his master Nicole, who at first gave him such answers as came in his head at the moment, hut soon found that his pupil was not so easily satisfied; and Nicole, although by no means ignorHiit of history, used to dread his approach, lest he might ask questions for which he was not fully prepared. At the age of e ghteen Tillemont began to read the fathers, the lives of the apostles, and their successors in the primitive church, and drew up for himself an account of early ecclesia^tical history, in the manner of Usher’s Annals, a hook he much admired, and formed his pwn somewhat on the same plan. In the mean time he was successfully instructed in other branches but it was a considerable time before he made choice of a profession. In this he was at last influenced by M. Choart de Buzanval, bishop of Brauvais, who determined him in favour of the church, and gave him the tonsure. About 1663, he went to reside with M. Hermant, a canon of the cathedral of Beauvais, and remained there five or six years. He then returned to Paris, and lodged with M. Thomas de Fosse, an old school-fellow, for about two years; but although in all these situations he was constantly employed in study, and had the quiet enjoyment of his time, he removed to the country, and, after receiving the other orders of his church, and being ordained priest in 1676, he settled at Tillemont, whence he took his name, about a league from Paris. About this time he was employed, along with his friend M. de Sacy, on a life of St. Louis, and two years after he travelled in Flanders and Holland. After his return, he continued his studies, and, in 1690, began to publish his <k History of the Emperors,“which was very favourabl\ received, and made the public more anxious to see his history of the church, on which it was well known he had been for some time employed. His” History of the Emperors“was, in fact, a part of his ecclesiastical history; hut when he printed a volume, as a specimen, it fell into the hands of a licenser of the press, who made so many petty objections, that M. Tillemont determined to suppress the work rather than submit to the proposed alterations and omissions, as none of the objections were in any way contrary to the received doctrines of the church. He then, by the advice of his friends, published the history of the emperors separately; and there being no occasion in this case for a theological licenser, he published vol. I. in 1690, 4to; and completed the work in five vols, in 1701, which had abundant success; was reprinted at Brussels, and translated into English. This was followed by his ecclesiastical history,” Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siecles," &c. 1693, &c. completed in sixteen volumes, quarto. Extreme accuracy of facts and dates constitute the great merit of this work, and the want of a more methodical arrangement, and of a better style, its chief objections. Dupin wishes he had reduced his work to the form of annals, in imitation of Baronius; and this opinion having been conveyed to M. Tillemont, he said he could not think of going over the materials anew, but was very willing to give his manuscripts to any person who would take the trouble to put them in the form of annals. No such person offering his services, M. Tillemont proceeded in his own way, in which he met afterwards with very little opposition, except a short controversy, of no great importance, with father Lamy.

In 1656, Tillotson left his college, and went upon invitation to Edmund Prideaux, esq. of Ford-abbey in Devonshire, to be tutor to his son. Prideaux had been commissioner of the great seal under the long parliament, and was then attorney-general to the protector Cromwell. How long he continued in this Station does not appear;, but he was in London at the time of Cromwell’s death, Sept. 3, 1658; and was present about a week after at a very remarkable scene in Whitehall palace, which we have already related from Burnet in our account of Dr. Owen. The time of his going into orders, and by whom he was ordained, are particulars not known. Some have supposed, that he was curate to Dr. Wilkins at St. Lawrence Jewry, before the restoration; but Wilkins was not admitted to that vicarage till 1662. The first sermon of his that appeared in print was in Sept. 1661: it was preached at the morning exercise at Cripplegate, on “Matth. vii. 12.” and published among a collection with that title, but not admitted among his works till the edition of 1752. At the time of preaching this sermon he was still among the Presbyterians, whose commissioners he attended, thou. h as an auditor only, at the conference held at the Savoy for the review of the Liturgy, in July 1661 but he immediately submitted to the act of uniformity, which commenced on St. Bartholomew’s-day the year following. Upon thus becoming a preacher in the church, he was very little disposed to follow the patterns then set him, or indeed of former times; and therefore formed one to himself, which was long esteemed as a model. He certainly began his course of divinity with the true foundation of it, an exact study of the Scriptures, on which he spent four or five years. He then applied himself to the reading ol all the ancient philosophers and writers upon ethics, and among the fathers chiefly St. Basil and St. Chry*.ostom, with Episcopius among the moderns, whom he made the pattern both of his principles and eloquence. With these preparations, he set himself to compose the greatest variety of sermons that any divine had yet undertaken.

The year after, 1664, he was chosen Tuesday lecturer at St. Lawrence Jewry: and being now settled in town, and having established the character of an excellent preacher, he contributed his share to oppose the two growing evils of Charles the Second’s reign, atheism and popery. He preached a sermonbefore the lord mayor and court of aldermen at St. Paul’s, in 1663, “On the wisdom of being religious;” which was published in 1664, much enlarged, and has been allowed to be one of the most elegant, perspicuous, and convincing defences of religion, in our own or any other language. In 1664, John Sargrant (see Sargeant), who had deserted from the church of England to that of Rome, published a book, called Sure footing in Christianity; or, Rational Discourses on the rule of Faith.“This being highly praised by the abettors of popery, Tillotson answered it, in a piece entitled” The rule of Faith,“which was printed in 1666, and inscribed to Dr. Stillingfleet, with whom he was intimately acquainted. Sargeant replied to this, and also in another piece attacked a passage in Tillotson’s sermon” On the Wisdom of being religious;“which sermon, as well as his” Rule of Faith," Tillotson defended in the preface to the first volume of his sermons, printed in 1671, 8vo.

On the 2d of April, 1680, he preached before the king at Whitehall, a sermon on Josh. xxiv. 15, which was soon after published by his majesty’s special command, under the title of “The Protestant Religion vindicated from the charge of singularity and novelty.” But this discourse happened to contain some incidental assertions, which offended all parties, particularly the following passage: “I cannot think, till I be better informed, which I arn always ready to be, that any pretence of conscience warrants any man, that is not extraordinarily commissioned, as the apostles and first publishers of the Gospel were, and cannot justify that commission by miracles as they did, to affront the established religion of a nation, though it be false; and openly to draw men off from the profession of it, in contempt of the magistrate and the law. All that persons of a different religion can in such a case reasonably pretend to, is to enjoy the private liberty and exercise of their own conscience and religion; for which they ought to be very thankful, and to forbear the open making of proselytes to their own religion, though they be never so sure that they are in the right, till they have either an extraordinary commission from God to that purpose, or the providence of God makes way for it by the permission of the magistrate.” Dr. Hickes, who wrote a virulent libel against Tillotson after his death, styles this downright Hobbism; and tells us, that a witty lord, standing at the king’s elbow when it was delivered, said, “Sir, do you hear Mr. Hobbes in the pulpit?” Dr. Calamy’s account is, that the king having slept the most part of the time while the sermon was delivered, a certain nobleman stepped up to him, as soon as it was over, and said, “It is pity your majesty slept, for we have had the rarest piece of Hobbism that ever you heard in your life.” To which the km^ answered, ll Odds fish, he shall print it then;" and immediately gave orders to that purpose. Some animadversions were made upon it, and printed; but it does not appear that the dean took any further notice, except only to apologize privately among his friends, for having advanced an assertion which he savr could not be maintained. He excused himself by the hurry he was in, being called unexpectedly, and out of turn, to preach. It is indeed surprising that a man of Tillotson’s good sense should be hurried, by his zeal against popery, to advance against the papists what equally struck at our first reformers.

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

A man of Dr. Tillotson’s disposition and temper, which was mild, gentle, and humane, had certainly the greatest reason to dread the archbishopric; since whoever should succeed Sancroft must be exposed to the attacks of the Nonjurors. Accordingly, he made all the struggle, and all the opposition to it, which a subject could make against his king; and, when all would not do, he accepted it with the greatest reluctance. Of this we have the following account, in another letter to lady Russel, dated October the 25th, 1690; for there was ever a strict intimacy and correspondence between this lady and Dr. Tillotson, after the death of lord Russel, and there passed several letters between them upon this occasion. “I waited upon the king at Kensington, and he took me into his closet, where 1 told him, that 1 could not but have a deep sense of his majesty’s great grace and favour to me, not only to offer me the best thing he had to give, but to press it so earnestly upon me. I said, I would not presume to argue the matter any further, but I hoped he would give me leave to be still his humble and earnest petitioner to spare me in that thing. He answered, he would do so if he could, but he knew not what to do if I refused him. Upon that I told him, that I tendered my life to him, and did humbly devote it to be disposed of as he thought fit: he was graciously pleased to say, it was the best news had come to him this great while. I did not kneel down to kiss his hand, for, without that, I doubt I am too sure of it, but requested of him, that he would defer the declaration of it, and let it be a secret for some time. He said, he thought it might not be amiss to defer it till the parliament was up. I begged further of him, that he would not make me a wedge to drive out the present archbishop; that some time before 1 was nominated, his majesty would be pleased to declare in council, that, since his lenity had not had any better effect, he would wait no more, but would dispose of their places. This I told him I humbly desired, that I might not be thought to do any thing harsh, or which might reflect upon me: for now that his majesty had thought fit to advance me to this station, my reputation was become his interest. He said he was sensible of it, and thought it reasonable to do as I desired. I craved leave of him to mention one thing more, which in justice to my family, especially my wife, I ought to do, that I should be more than undone by the great and necessary charge of coming into this place, and must therefore be an humble petitioner to his majesty, that, if it should please God to take me out of the world, that I must unavoidably leave my wife a beggar, he would not suffer her to be so; and that he would graciously be pleased to consider, that the widow of an archbishop of Canterbury, which would now be an odd figure in England, could not decently be supported by so little as would have contented her very well if I had died a dean. To this he gave a very gracious answer, I promise you to take care of her.” His remark to the king, that “the widow of an archbishop would now be an odd figure in England,” was founded upon this fact, that only two, who had fiiied the see of Canterbury, had hitherto been married, Cranmer and Parker.

The king’s nomination of him to the archbishopric was agreed between them, as it appears, to be postponed till after the breaking up of the session of parliament, which was prorogued the 5th of January 1691; and then it was thought proper to defer it stiil longer, till the king should return from Holland, whither he was then going. He arrived at Whitehall the 13th of April, and nominated Tiilotson to the council on the 23d, who was consecrated the 31st of May, being Whitsunday, in Bow-church, by Mews, bishop of Winchester, Lioyd, bishop of St. Asaph. Burnet, bishop of Sarurn, Stillingrleet, bishop of Worcester, Iron* side, bishop of Bristol, and Hough, bishop of Oxford, in the presence of the duke of Norfolk, the marquis of Carmarthen, lord-president of the council, the earl of Devonshire, the earl of Dorset, the earl of Macclesfield, the carl of Fauconberg, and other persons of rank; and four days after his consecration was sworn of the privycouncil. His promotion was attended with the usual compliments of congratulation, out of respect either to himself or his station, which, however, were soon followed by a very opposite treatment froai the nonjuring party; the greatest part of whom, from the moment of his acceptance of the archbishopric, pursued him with an unrelenting rage, which lasted during his life, and was by no means appeased after his death. Before his consecration, the learned Mr. Dndwell, who was afterwards deprived of Camden’s historical lecture at Oxford, wrote him a letter, dated the 12th of May, to dissuade him from being, says he, “the aggressor in the new-designed schism, in erecting another altar against the hitherto acknowledged altar of your deprived fathers and brethren. If their places be not vacant, the new consecration must, by the nature of the spiritual monarchy, he null and invalid, and schisnuitical.” This letter of Mr. Dodwell was written with much greater mildness and moderation than another which was sent to the archbishop’s lady for him, and a copy of it to the countess of Derby, for the queen; and printed soon after. It called upon him to reconcile his acting since the Revolution with the principles either of natural or revealed religion, or with those of his own letter to lord iiussel, which was reprinted upon this occasion. The writer of it is said, by Dr. Hickes, to be a person of great candour and judgment, and once a great admirer of the archbishop, though he became so much prejudiced against him as to declare after his death to Dr. Hickes, that he thought him “an atheist, as much as a man could be, though the gravest certainly,” said he, “that ever was.” But these and other libels were so far from exasperating the archbishop against those who wt re concerned in dispersing them, that wht n some were seized on that account, he used all his interest with the government to screen them from punishment.

After he had been settled about a year in his see, he found himself confirmed in the notion he had always entertained, that the circumstances attending grandeur make it not near So eligible, with regard to the possessor’s own ease and happiness, as persons at a distance from it are apt to imagine. To this purpose he entered reflections in short-hand in his common-place book, under the title of “Some scattered thoughts of my own upon several subjects, and occasions, begun this 15th of March, 1(191-2, to be transcribed:” and his remarks concerning a public and splendid way of living, compared with a private and retired life, deserve to be inserted, as they did not result from spleen and disappointment, but from the experience ofonfe who at the time actually possessed the highest honours of his country, in his own profession. “One would be apt to wonder,” says he, “that” Nehemiah should reckon a huge bill of fare, and a vast number of promiscuous guests, among his virtues and good deeds, for which he desires God to remember him; but, upon better consideration, besides the bounty, and someiimes charity of a great table, provided there be nothing of vanity or ostentation in it, there may be exercised two very considerable virtues; one in temperance, and the other self denial, in a man’s being contented, for the sake of the public, to deny himself so much, as to sit down every day to a feast, and to eat continually in a crowd, and almost never to be alone, especially when, as it often happens, a great part of the company that a man must have is the company that a man would not have. I doubt it will prove but a melancholy business when a man comes to die, to have made a great noise and bustle in the world, and to have been known far and near, but all this while to have been hid and concealed from himself. It is a very odd and fantastical sort of life, for a maa to. be continually from home, and most of all a stranger at his own ho use. It is surely an uneasy thing to sit always in a frame, and to be perpetually upon a man’s guard, not to be able to speak a careless word, or to use a negligent posture, without observation and censure. Men are apt to think that they who are in the highest places, and have the most power, have most liberty to say and do what they please; but it is quite otherwise, for they have the least liberty, because they are must observed. It is not mine own observation: a much wiser man, I mean Tully, says, * In maxima quaque fortuna minimum licere;' that is, they that are in the highest and greatest condition have, of all others, the least liberty." All these, and many more, are the evils which attend on greatness; and the envy that pursues it is generally -the result of ignorance and vanity.

Dr. Tiilotsun, from his first advancement to the archiepiscopal see, had begun to form several designs for the good of the church and religion in general; and in these he was encouraged by their majesties. With this view he joined with the queen it) engaging the bishop of Salisbury to draw ii:> his “Discourse of the Pastoral Care,” in order to prepare the way for perfecting some parts of our ecclesiastical constitution. This was bishop Burnet’s favourite tract, anJ it was published in 1692. In the lew moments ofh s i.-i“;?'<*, Tiliotson revised his own sermons; and, in 1693, published four of them, concerning the divinity and incarnation of our blessed Saviour His chief design in this was to remove the imputation of Socinianism, which had long been, and was then more than ever, fixed upon him by those who did not love his principles, and thought that his defending religion upon what were called rational grounds, and his holding friendship and correspondence with Locke, Limborch, Le Clerc, and others who did the same, were circumstances liable to suspicion. Of this he indirectly complains in one of his sermons:” 1 know not how it comes to pass, but so it is, that every one that offers to give a reasonable account of his faith, and to establish religion upon rational principles, is presently branded for a Socinian; of which we have a sad instance in that incomparable person, Mr. Chillingworth, the glory of this age and nation, who for no other cause that 1 know of, but his worthy and successful attempts to make Christian religion reasonable, and to discover those firm and solid foundations upon which our faith is built, hath been requited with this black and odious character. But if this be Socinianism, for a man to inquire into the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion, and to endeavour to give a satisfactory account why he believes it, I know no way but that all considerate inquisitive men, that are above fancy and enthusiasm, must be either Socinians or Atheists.

The good of the church, and the reformation of all abuses among the clergy, were the constant object of the archbishop’s thoughts, and, among other resolutions and projects for this purpose, one was, to oblige the clergy to a more strict residence upon their cures: but there was such an evil and active spirit at work against him, that fault was found with every thing he said or did, and all opportunities were taken to blast and defame him; which tu*de a considerable impression on his spirits, so that he frew very uneasy in his high post. The malice and party rage, which he had felt in some measure before, broke out, after his advancement, in all forms of open insult. One day, while a gentleman was with him, who came to pay his jlompiiments, a packet was brought in, sealed and directed to him, upon opening which there appeared a mask, but nothing written. The archbishop, without any signs of moiion, threw it carelessly among his papers on the table; but on the gentleman’s expressing great surprise at the iHront, he only smiled, and said, that “this was a gentlci rebuke, compared with some others, that lay there in black and white,” pointing to the papers upon the table. Yet all this injurious treatment, and all the calumnies spread against him, could never provoke him to the least temper of revenge; noc did he ever indulge himself in any of those liberties of speaking about others, which were to so immeasurable a degree made use of against himself: and upon a bundle of libels found among his papers after his death, he put no other inscription than this, “These are libels, I pray God forgive them, I do *.”

authors they were so remarkably dis- I have rewarded them accordingly.‘ 3 tinguished by his grace.- * Those,’ said He did not long survive the writing of this letter; for, Nov. I 8th following, he was suddenly seized with an illness, which, turning to a dead palsy, put an end to his life on the 24th, in the sixty-fifth year of his age. He was attended the two last nights of his illness by his dear friend Mr. Nelson, in whose arms he expired. The sorrow for his death was more universal than ever was known for a subject: anil his funeral was attended by a numerous train of coaches, filled with persons of the first quality, who went voluntarily to assist at the solemnity. His funeral-sermon was preached by th^ bishop of Salisbury; and, being soon after published, was remarked on by Dr. Hickes, in a piece entitled, “Some Discourses upon Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson, &c.” The acrimony of this piece is scarce to be matched among the invectives of any age or language: bishop Burnet, however, gave a strong and clear answer to these discourses, in some Reflections on them; and shewed them to be, what they really are, a malicious and scurrilous libel. But whatever attempts were made against archbishop Tillotson, his character may safely be trusted to posterity; for his life was not only free from blemishes, but exemplary in all parts of it, as appears from facts founded on indisputable authority. In his domestic relations, friendships, and the whole commerce of business, he was easy and humble, frank and open, tender-hearted and bountiful to such an extent, that, while he was in a private station, he laid aside two tenths of his income for charitable uses. He despised money too much, insomuch that if the king had not forgiven his first-fruits, his debts could not have been paid; and he left nothing to his family but the copy of his posthumous sermons, which were sold for 2500 guineas; a poor maintenance for the widow of an archbishop, if the king had not increased it by an annuity of 400l. in 16‘jo, and the addition of ’200l. more in 1C98.

, the Locrian, was a philosopher of the Italic school, during the time of Plato, who was indebted to him, among other Pythagoreans, for his acquaintance with the doctrine of Pythagoras, and who wrote his dialogue, entitled “Timaeus,” on the ground of his book, “On the Nature of Things.” A small piece, which he wrote concerning the “Soul of the World,” is preserved by Proclus, and is in some editions prefixed to Plato’s “Timseus.” In this treatise, though generally following Pythagoras, he departs from him in two particulars; the first, that instead of one whole, or monad, he supposes two independent causes of nature, God, or mind, the fountain of intelligent nature, and necessity, or matter, the source of bodies; the second, that he explains the cause of the formation of the world, from the external action of God upon matter, after the pattern or ideas existing in his own mind. From comparing this piece with Plato’s dialogue, it will be found that the Athenian philosopher has obscured the simple doctrine of the Locrian with fancies drawn from his own imagination, or from the Ægyptian schools.

, a celebrated Grecian painter, was horn at Sicyon, or, according to some writers, at Cithnus, one of the Cyclades. He flourished towards the close of Alexander the Great’s rei^n, had a fertile invention, and the art of conveying ideas to the spectators beyond what his pictures represented. All the ancients bestow the highest encomiums on that of Iphigenia prepared to be sacrificed. In this celebrated picture the princess appeared with all the charms and grace belonging to her sex, age, and rank, with the dignity of a great soul devoting itself for its country, yet with the agitation which the approach of the sacrifice must necessarily cause. She was standing before the altar, the high priest Chalcis attending, whose countenance expressed that majestic sorrow becoming his office. Menelaus, Iphigenia’s uncle, Ulysses, Ajax, and the other Grecian princes were present at the sad spectacle, and the painter seemed to have so entirely exhausted every different species of grief, that he had no way left to describe that of the father, Agamemnon; but, by a stroke equally ingenious and touching, he covered the face of this prince with a veil, thus leaving the pitying spectator’s imagination to paint the dreadful situation of the unhappy parent. His idea has been several times adopted with success, and it has been the theme of unlimited praise from the orators and historians of antiquity, but the justice of this praise has been questioned by modern criticism, by sir Joshua Reynolds, in his “Eighth Discourse,” and by Mr. Fuseli, in his “First Lecture,” in which last the question is examined elaborately and scrupulously.

, an English deistical writer, was the son of a clergyman of Beer-ferres, in Devonshire, and born about 1657. He became a commoner of Lincoln college, m Oxford, in 1672, where he had the famous Dr. Hickes for his tutor, and thence removed to Exeter college. In 1676 he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and was afterwards elected fellow of All Souls college In 1679 he took a bachelor of laws degree; and in July 1685, became a doctor in that faculty. In the reign of James II. he declared himself a Roman catholic, but afterwards renounced that religion. Wood says that he did not return to the protestant religion till after that king had left the nation; but, according to his own account, he returned to it before that memorable epocha. In 1694 he published, at London, in 4to, “An Esay concerning obedience to the supreme powers, and the duty of subjects iti all revolutions; with some considerations touching the present juncture of affairs;” and “An Essay concerning the Laws of Nations and the right of sovereigns,” &c. He published also some other pamphlets on the same subjects, particularly one concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and the Athanasian. creed; but was first particularly noticed for a publication which came out in 1706, v\itn this title, “The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, against the Romish and all other priests, who claim an independent power over it; with a preface concerning the government of the Church of England, as by law established,” 8vo. Tindal was aware of the. offence this work would give, and even took some pleasure in it; for, as Dr. Hickes relates, he told a gentleman who found him at it with pen in hand, that “he was writing a book which would make the clergy mad.” Perhaps few books were ever published which they more resented; and, accordingly, numbers among them immediately wrote against it. 'Among the most distinguished of his answerers were, I. “The Rights of the Clergy in the Christian Church asserted in a sermon preached at Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire, Sept. 2, 1706, at the primary visitation of the right reverend father in God, William lord bishop of Lincoln; by W. Wotton, B. D.” II. “The second pa/t of the Wolf stripped of Shepherd’s cloa thing, in answer to a late book entitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, published at London in March,” 1707. III. “Two treatises, one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the dignity of the Episcopal Order, formerly written, and npw published to obviate the erroneous opinions, fallacious reasonings, and bold and false assertions, in a late book entitled The Rights of the Christian Church; with a large prefatory discourse, wherein is contained an Answer to the said book; all written by George Hickes, D. D.” London, 1707. IV. “A thorough examination of the false principles and fallacious arguments advanced against the Christian Church, Priesthood, and Religion, in a late pernicious book, ironically entitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, &c. in a dialogue between Demas and Hierarcha: humbly offered to the consideration of the nobility and gentry of England; by Samuel Hill, rector of Kilmington, and archdeacon of Wells.” London, 1707, 8vo. V. “Three short treatises, viz. 1. A modest plea for the Clergy, &c. 2. A Sermon of the Sacerdotal Benediction, &c. 3. A Discourse published to undeceive the people in point of Tithes, &c. formerly printed, and now again published, by Dr. George Hickes, in defence of the priesthood and true rights of the church against the slanderous and reproachful treatment of The Rights of the Christian Church,” London, 1709, 8vo. VI. “Adversaria; or truths opposed to some of the falsehoods contained in a book called The Rights of the Christian Church asserted,” c.; by Conyers Place, M. A. London, 1709, 8vo. VII. “A Dialogue between Timothy and Philatheus in which the principles and projects of a late whimsical book entitled The Rights of the Christian Church, &c. are fairly stated, and answered in their kinds, &c. written by a layman,” London, 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Oldisworth was the author. Swift also wrote “Remarks” on Tindal’s book, which are in his works, but were left unfinished by the author. But, whatever disturbance this work might create at home, and whatever prejudices it might raise against its author, among the clergy of the church of England, some of the protestants abroad judged very differently, and even spoke of it in terms of approbation and applause. Le Clerc gave an account of it in his “Bibliotheque choisie,” which begins in these words: “We hear that this book has made a great noise in England, and it is not at all surprising, since the author attacks, with all his might, the pretensions of those who are called highchurchmen; that is, of those who carry the rights of bishops so far as to make them independent in ecclesiastical affairs of prince and people, and who consider everything that has been done to prevent the dependence of the laity on bishops, as an usurpation of the laics against divine right. I am far from taking part in any particular disputes, which the learned of England may have with one another, concerning the independent power and authority of their bishops, and farther still from desiring to hurt in any way the church of England, which I respect and honour as the most illustrious of all protestant churches; but I am persuaded that the wise and moderate members of this church can never be alarmed at such a book as this, as if the church was actually in danger. I believe the author, as himself says, had no design against the present establishment, which he approves^ but only against some excessive pretensions, which are even contrary to the laws of the land, ana* to the authority of the king and parlialiament. As I do not know, nor have any connection with him, I have no particular interest to serve by defending him, and I do not undertake it. His book is too full of matter for me to give an exact abridgment of it, and they who understand English will do well to read the original: they have never read a book so strong and so supported in favour of the principles which protestants on this side the water hold in common.”

The lower house of convocation, in queen Anne’s reign, thought that such a character of “The Rights of the Christian Church,” &c. from a man of Le Clerc’s reputation for parts and learning, must have no small influence in recommending the book, and in suggesting favourable notions of the principles advanced in it; and therefore, in their representation of the present state of religion, they judged it expedient to give it this turn, namely, “that those infidels” (meaning Tindal and others) “have procured abstracts and commendations of their own profane writings, and probably drawn up by themselves, to be inserted in foreign journals, and that they have translated them into the English tongue, and published them here at home, in order to add the greater weight to their wicked opinions.” Hence a notion prevailed in England, that Le Clerc had been paid for the favourable account he gave of Tindal’s book; upon which he took occasion to declare, in a subsequent journal, that there never was a greater falsehood, and protests as an honest man before God, “that, for making mention of that or any other hook, he had never had either promise or reward.*' It will easily be imagined that, in the course of this controversy, Dr. Tindal’s antagonists would object to him his variableness and mutability in matters of religion, and insult him not a little upon his Hrst apostatizing to the chjirch of Rome, upon the prospect of a national conversion to Popery, and then, at the revolution, reverting to Protestantism. To <his he replied, that” Coming, as most boys do, a rasa tabula to the university, and believing (his country education teaching him no better) that all human and divine knowledge was to be had there, he quickly fell into the then prevailing notions of the high and independent powers of the clergy; and meeting with none, during his long stay there, who questioned the truth of them, they by degrees became so fixed and riveted in him, that he no more doubted of them than of his own being: and he perceived not the consequence of them, till the Roman emissaries (who were busy in making proselytes in the university in king James*s time, and knew how to turn the weapons of high church against them) caused him to see, that, upon these notions, a separation from the church of Rome could not be justified; and that they who pretended to answer them as to those points, did only shuffle, or talk backward and forward. This made him, fur some small time, go to the Popish mass-house; till meeting, upon his going into the world, with people who treated that notion of the independent power as it deserved, and finding the absurdities of Popery to be much greater at hand than they appeared at a distance, he began to examine the whole matter with all the attention he was capable of; and then he quickly found, and was surprised at the discovery, that all his till then undoubted maxims were so far from having any solid foundation, that they were built on as great a contradiction as can be, that of two independent powers in the same society. Upon this he returned, as he had good reason, to the church of England, which he found, by examining into her constitution, disclaimed all that independent power he had been bred up in the belief of; Candlemas 1687-8 being the last time he saw any of the Popish tricks, the very next opportunity (namely, Easter) he publicly received the sacrament (the warden giving it him first) in his college chapel, &c. And thus having made his escape from errors which prejudice of education had drawn him into, he resolved to take nothing on trust for the future; and, consequently, his notions concerning our civil, as well as religious liberties, became very different from those in which he was educated.“What Dr. Tindal says here may be true; yet it is observable, that his conversion to Popery, and re-conversion to Protestantism, lay between February 1685, and February 1688, that is, between the twenty-seventh and thirtieth, year of his age; and many will be ready to suspect, that a man of his reasoning and inquiring turn must, before then, have been too much fixed and settled in his principles, either to be a dupe of Popish missionaries, or then to discover first the absurdity and falsehood of fundamental principles. In the mean time he endeavoured to defend his work, in a” Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church against a late visitation sermon, entitled The Rights of the Clergy in the Christian Church asserted, preached at Newport- Pagnell in the county of Bucks by W. Wotton, B. D. and made public at the command and desire of the bishop of Lincoln, and the clergy of the deaneries of Buckingham and Newport,“London, 1707, in 8vo, and in his” Second Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church, occasioned by two late indictments against a bookseller and his servant for selling one of thf said books. In a Letter from a- gentleman in London to a clergyman in the country. To which are added two tracts of Hugo Grotius on these questions; I. Whether the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper may be administered where there are no pastors? II. Whether it be necessary at all times to communicate with the Symbols? As also some tracts of Mr. John Hales of Eaton, viz. Of the Lord’s Supper, the Power of the Keys, of Schism, &c.“London, 1707, in 8vo. In 1709 he published at London in 8vo, a pamphlet entitled,” New High Church turned old Presbyterian“and in 1710 several pamphlets, viz.” An High Church Catechism;“” The jacobitism, perjury, and popery of High Church Priests;“”The merciful judgments of 'High Church-triumphant on offending clergymen and others in the reign of Charles I.“In 1711 and 1712 he published at London in 8vo,” The Nation vindicated from the aspersions cast on it in a late pamphlet entitled, A representation of the present State of Religion, with regard to the late excessive growth of infidelity, heresy, and profaneness, as it passed the Lower House of convocation,“in two parts. In 1713, and some following years he published several other pamphlets, mostly political, which attracted more or less attention, but are now forgotten. He had hitherto passed for an enemy to the church of England, but was soon determined to show himself equally hostile to revealed religion, and in 1730, published in 4to, his” Christianity as old as the Creation, or the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature.“It might have been expected from the title of this book, that his purpose was to prove the Gospel perfectly agreeable to the law of nature; to prove, that it has set the principles of natural religion in the clearest light, and was intended to publish and confirm it anew, after it had been very much obscured and defaced through the corruption ct mankind. We should be further confirmed in this supposition from his acknowledging, that” Christianity itself, stripped of the additions which policy, mistake, and the circumstances of time, have made to it, is a most holy religion, and that all its doctrines plainly speak themselves to be the will of an infinitely wise and good God:“for this, and several declarations of a similar nature, he makes in his work; and accordingly distinguishes himself and his friends with the title of” Christian Deists.“Yet whoever examines his book attentively will find, that this is only plausible appearance, intended to cover his real design; which was to set aside all revealed religion, by showing, that there neither is, nor can be, any external revelation at all, distinct from what he calls” the external revelation of the law of nature in the hearts of all mankind;“and accordingly his refuters, the most considerable of whom was Dr. Conybeare, afterwards bishop of Bristol, Foster, and Leland, have very justly treated him as a Deist. It appears from a letter written by the rev. Mr. Jonas Proast to Dr. Hickes, and printed in Hickes’s” Preliminary Discourse“cited above, that Tindal espoused this principle very early in life; and that he was known to espouse it long before even his” Rights of the Christian Church" was published. The letter bears date the 2d of July, 1708, and is in the following terms:

"It is now, as I guess, between eleven and twelve years since Dr. Tindal expressed himself to me at All-souls-college in such a manner as I related to Mr. F concerning religion. At which I was the less surprised, because I knew at that time both his own inclination, and what sort of company he frequented when at London, which was usually a great part of the year: but not foreseeing then any occasion there might be for my remembering all that 1 was then said about that matter, I took no care to charge my memory with it. However, it could not be much, having passed in our walking but a very few turns in the college quadrangle just before dinner, where I then unexpectedly met with the doctor, newly returned after a pretty long absence from the college. What occasion the doctor took for so declaring himself, whether the mention of some book or pamphlet then newly come forth, or somewhat else, I am not able at this distance to recollect: but the substance and effect of what he said I do very clearly and distinctly remember to have bee$, that there neither is nor can be any revealed religion; that God has given man reason for his guide; that this guide is sufficient for man’s directions without revelation; and that therefore, since God does nothing in vain, there can be no such thing as revelation: to which he added, that he made no doubt but that within such a number of years as he then mentioned, and I do not now distinctly remember, all men of sense would settle in natural religion. Thus much I do so perfectly remember, that I can attest it, riot with my hand only, as I now do, but upon my oath likewise, if required; which yet I should not so forwardly offer against a person, who, for aught I know, never did any personal injury, were I not convinced of the need there is of it, in respect to some weak persons, who, having entertained too favourable an opinion of the doctor and his principles, are upon that account the more apt to be misled by him.

Indeed no person at that time seems to have entertained any doubt of the will being a forgery and perhaps Budgeli’s guilt became more obvious from the awkward attempts he made to defend himself in his periodical publication called “The Bee.” Mr. TindaPs last publication was a translation of “Prince Cantemir’s History of the Othmaii Empire,” folio. He was also editor of “A Guide to Classical Learning, or Polymetis abridged, for Schools;” a publication of mueh use, and which has passed through several editions. A portrait of him is prefixed to the second volume of his translation of Rapin. He had been elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in Feb. 1736, but resigned it in June 1740.

It might be wished, says Mr. Fuseli, whose elaborate opinion of Tintoretto, we shall now transcribe, that the mean jealousy of Titian, and its meaner consequence, the expulsion of Tintoretto from his school, had been less authenticated. What has been said of Milton, that at certain periods he was but one of the people, might be true of Titian whenever he was not before his canvas. Folly, always a principal, if not the chief, ingredient in the character of jealousy and ambition, generally runs into the extremes it wishes to avoid, and accelerates the effects it labours to repress. The genius of Tintoretto was not to be circumscribed by the walls of his master’s study; and to one who, under his eye, had the hardiness to think, and to choose for himself what he should adopt or not of his method, dismission was in fact emancipation. He now boldly aimed at erecting himself into the head of a new school, which should improve the principles of that established by Titian, and supply its defects: he wrote over the door of his apartment, “the design of Michael Angelo and the colour of Titian;” and this vast idea, the conception of an ardent and intrepid mind, he strove to substantiate by a course of studies equally marked by discretion and obstinate perseverance. The day was given to Titian, the night to Michael Angelo. The artificial light of the lamp taught him those decided masses, that energy of chiaroscuro, which generally stamps each group and single figure in his works. Whether he enjoyed the personal friendship of Michael Angelo (as Dot* tari thinks) may be doubted; that he procured casts from his statues, and copies from his frescoes, is evident from the incredible number of his designs after the former, and the various imitations and hints with which his works abound, from the latter. He modelled in wax and clay, and studied anatomy and the life to make himself master of the body, its proportions, its springs of motion, its foreshortenings, and those appearances which the 1 Italians distinguish by the phrase of “di sotto in su.” Add to this, exuberant fertility of ideas, glowing fancy, and the most picturesque eye; and what results might not have been expected from their union with such methods of study, had uniformity of pursuit, and equal diligence in execution, attended his practice?

That it did for some time, the “Miracle of the Slave,” formerly in the Scuola di S. Marco, and lately at Paris, which he painted at the age of thirty-six, and the “Crucifixion” in the Albergo of the Scuola di S. Rocco, are signal instances. The former unites, with equal ardour and justness of conception, unexampled fierceness and rapidity of execution, correctness and even dignity of forms, powerful masses of light and shade, and a more than Titianesque colour with all the fury of a sketch it has all the roundness and decision of finish; the canvas trembles this is the vivid abstract of that mossa which Agostino Caracci exclusively ascribes to the Venetian school; and here Tintoretto has, as far perhaps as can be shewn, demonstrated what he meant by wishing to embody with the forms and breadth of Michael Angelo the glow and juice of Titian. If this stupendous picture have any flaw, it is perhaps that, in beholding it, the master appears to swim upon his work, and that S. Marc, and the miracle he descends to perform, are eclipsed by the ostentatious power of the artist. This is not what we feel when we contemplate the Capello Sistina, the “Pietro Martire” of Titian, or the “Crucifixion” mentioned before, by Tintoretto himself. The immediate impression which it makes on every one who for the first time casts a glance on its immense scenery, is that of a whole whose numberless parts are connected and subdued by a louring, mournful, minacious tone. All seems to be hushed in silence round the central figure of the Saviour suspended on the cross, with his fainting mother, and a group of male and female mourners at his feet; an assemblage of colours that less imitate than rival nature, a scale of hues for which Titian himself seldom offers a parallel, yet all tinged by grief, all equally overcast by the lut id tone that stains the whole, and like a meteor hangs in the sickly air: whatever inequalities or derelictions of feeling, whatever improprieties of common-place, of modern and antique costume, the master’s rapidity admitted to fill his space (and they are great), all vanish in the power which compresses them into a single point, and we do not detect them till we recover from our terror. With these the “Resurrection” too in the Scuola di S. Rocco may be placed, of which the magic chiaroscuro, the powerful blaze of the vision contrasted with the dewy distant light of dawn, and the transparence of the dark massy foreground, are but secondary beauties. If the “Resurrection” preserved among the arrazzi of Raphael be superior in extent of thought, in the choice of the characters admitted, the figure of Christ himself is greatly surpassed by the ideal forms and the serene dignity united to that resistless velocity which characterise Christ in the work of Tintoretto; whilst the celestial airs and graces of the angels balance by sublimity the dramatic variety displayed by Raphael.

But if Tintoretto, when he chose to exert his power, was equal to the greatest names, it is to be lamented with Agost. Caracci that he was too often inferior to himself, when, goaded on by the rage of doing singly the work of all, perverted by a false ornamental principle, and debauched by unexampled facility of execution, he gave himself neither time to conceive, to judge, or to finish; when, content to snatch a whim if it had novelty, he turned his subject into a farce, or trampled its parts into undistinguished masses, and sacrificed min;!, design, character, and sense, to incongruous imagery, fugitive effect, and puerile allurements: it was in such a fit that, in the “Temptation of the Desert,” he placed Christ on a tree; hid him in a crowd in the picture of the “Pool of Bethesda;” and in another turned the “Salutation of the Virgin” into profane irruption. It has already been observed that Tintoretto was a learned designer, but his style was rather muscular and robust than select and characteristic; in his male forms we every where recognize the Venetian model: the gondoliers of the canal furnished his heroes and apostles with limbs and attitudes, In his females he aimed at something ideal; the ruling principle of their forms is agility, though they are often too slender for action, and too contrasted for grace. The principle of dispatch which generally ruled him, equally influenced his colour. Now he gives us all the impasto the juice and glow of Titian; now little more than a chiaroscuro tinged with fugitive glazings. The dark primings which he is said to have preferred, as they assisted his effects, perhaps accelerated the ruin of his tints. In his touch, if he was ever equalled, he certainly has never been excelled; his work as a whole and in parts seems to have been done at once.

, Earl of Worcester, a patron of learning, and one of the few literary ornaments of England in the fifteenth century, was born at Everton, or Eversten, in Cambridgeshire, and educated at Baliol college, Oxford. He was son of the lord Tibetot, or Tiptoft, and Powys, and was created a viscount and earl of Worcester by king Henry VI. and appointed lord deputy of Ireland. By Edward IV. he was made knight of the garter, and constituted justice of North Wales for life. Dugdale says, he was soon after made constable of the Tower for life, and twice treasurer of the king’s exchequer, but other historians say he was twice lord high constable, and twice lord treasurer: the first time, according to Lud. Carbo, at twenty-five years old; and again deputy of Ireland for the duke of Clarence. But whatever dispute there may be about his titles in the state, there is no doubt that he was eminently at the head of literature, and so masterly an orator, that he drew tears from the eyes of pope Pius II. otherwise Æneas Sylvius, a munificent patron of letters. This was on pronouncing an oration before the pontiff when he visited Rome, through a curiosity of seeing the Vatican library, after he had resided at Padua and Venice, and made great purchases of books. He is said to have given Mss. tonne value of 500 marks to duke Humphrey’s library at Oxford. He was about this time on his return from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which expedition is partly attributed to the suspence of his lordship’s mind between gratitude to king Henry and loyalty to king Edward; but he seems not to have been much influenced by the former, in the opinion of lord Orford. It is certain that Richard Nevil, earl of Warwick, did not ascribe much gratitude to him, nor did Worcester confide much in any merit of that sort; for, absconding during the short restoration of Henry, and being taken concealed in a tree in Wey bridge-forest in Huntingdonshire, he was brought to London, accused of cruelty in his administration of Ireland, particularly towards two infant sons of the earl of D^mon.il, and condemned and beheaded at the Tower in 1470. For his imputed offences, some authors are inclined to allow a foundation, but in these turbulent times malice and political intrigue are supposed to have frequently had a share in fallen greatness. Pennant, however, is of opinion that all his love for the sciences did not protect him from imbibing the temper of the unhappy times he lived in.

Caxton, who was his printer, says that he “in his tyme flowred in vertue and cunnyng, and to whom he knew none lyke emong the lordes of the temporalite in science and moral vertue.” He translated “Cicero de Amicitia,” and “Two Declarations made by Publius Cornelius Scipio, and Gayus Flamyneus, competitors for the love of Lucrece,” which he dedicated to Edward IV. He also wrote some other orations and epistles, and Englished “Ceaser’s Commentaries, as touching British affairs,” published without the name of printer, place, or date, but supposed to be printed by Rastell, from its type. The margin contains the original Latin in Roman character. In the reign of Edward IV. he drew up “Orders for placing the nobility in all proceedings,” and “Orders and Statutes for justs and triumphs,” both Mss. in the Cotton library. In the Ashmolean collection are “Ordinances, statutes, and rules, made by John Tiptoft, earle of Worcester, and constable of England, by the king’s commandment, at Windsor, to be observed in all manner of justes of peirs within the realm of England, &c.” These ordinances were again revived in the 4th of> Elizabeth, and are printed in Mr. Park’s edition of Harrington’s “Nugge Antique.” He is also said to have written “A petition against the Lollards,” and an “Oration to the citizens of Padua” In the Mss. belonging to the cathedral of Lincoln, lord Orford mentions a volume of some twenty epistles, of which four are written by our earl, and the rest addressed to him; but the late MrGough, after a careful search, could not find them in that collection.

, one of the most valuable Italian writers of the last century, was born at Bergamo, in the Venetian states, Dec. Js, 1731. He was sent to the Jesuits’ college at Monza; and when his course of education was completed in 1746, he entered into the order of that society. In 1754, when in his twenty-third year, he was appointed preceptor of grammar, and afterwards of rhetoric, in the college of Brera, in Milan. In that station, in 1755, he republished, for the use of his pupils, the well-known vocabulary of his late colleague, father Mandosio, “Vocabolorio Italiano e Latino del P. Mandosio accrescinto e corretto” and, from 1756 to 1760, he wrote several orations and other fugitive pieces, in which inight be perceived the bent of his mind towards civil and literary history. Of these Fabroni mentions only one as having been published, “DePatriae Oratio,” Milan, 1759. During his professorship he was appointed assistant keeper of the copious and valuable library of the college of Brera, and began to collect original and curious records from printed books and manuscripts. His knowledge of books had already recommended him to the esteem of the illustrious count Firaiian, then Austrian plenipotentiary in Lombardy; and it is not improbable that he might have a share in the compilation of the catalogue of the vast and curious library of that justly renowned patron of letters, which was afterwards printed at Milan in 1783, in nine parts or volumes, 4to.

The first remarkable work of Tiraboschi, and that which procured him a great reputation, was his “Vetera H.umiliatorum monumenta annotationibus ac dissertationibus, prodromis illustrata,” Milan, 1766, 3 vols. 4to; a work which throws much light on the ecclesiastical, civil, and literary history of the middle ages. -Soon after this publication, he was appointed librarian of the ducal library at Modena, to which he accordingly removed in 1770, and in the following year published the first volume of his justly celebrated “History of Italian Literature,” which was continued by successive publications, and the twelfth and last volume Appeared in 17 8:2. The plan of this woik was very extensive; schools, academies, museums, libraries, printing-offices, travellers, patrons, collectors, artists, and, in short, whatever was directly or indirectly connected with the history of the sciences and literature in Italy, had their appropriate places in this elaborate undertaking, in which, it has been ju^lysaid, that the author discovers uncommon penetration, prodigious learning, great industry, a refined spiru oi criticism, with much facility of composition and elegance of style. Its importance was therefore soon felt ah over Europe. In ttie same order as they appeared at Motlc-na, the sexcral volumes were soon republished in Florence, Home, and Naples; two abridgments also were made of the work, one in France, by Landi, another in Germany; and the literary reviews in every part of Europe seemed to want words to express their applause. Among other effects, not very remote, this work has tended to revive, in this country, a taste for Italian literature, which has been successfully cultivated of late years by Messrs. Matthias, Roscoe, and others. Mr. Matthias, it is weil known, has lately republished what regards Italian poetry, from Tiraboschi, in four volumes, judiciously divided into seven chapters the first of these explains the common principles of Italian and Provencalpoetry the second relates the state and vicissitudes of the Provencal poetry from the year 1183 to 1300; the third gives the progress of Italian poetry during the same period; the fourth exhibits its history from 1300 to 1400; the fifth, a similar account of the improvements which took place from 1400 to 1,500; and the sixth and seventh are devoted to the description of the two subsequent periods from 1500 to 1600, and from 1600 to 1700, the latterof which constituted the limits of Tiraboschi' s general history. This elegant work is a suitable companion to Mr. Matthias’s former publications, his “Select Sonnets and Canzonets” from Petrarch; his “Lyric Productions of the most celebrated poets of Italy,” and his new edition of Crescembini.

Before this great work had been completed, Tiraboschi began his “Modenese Library,” or memoirs of the Modenese writers, in 6 vols. 4to, the last of which appeared in 1786. This work alone might have secured him the reputation of one of the ablest bibliographers in Europe; but unfortunately, for the sake of rendering it more complete, he joined to it, in the sixth volume, several notices of painters, sculptors, engravers, architects, and even musicians, born in that state, and as he possessed neither accurate information, nor a sound judgment on these subjects, his work, in this part, proved notoriously defective. While it was in progress, he published the “History of the celebrated abbey of Nonantula,” 2 vols. fol. His last voluminous work.was the “Memorie Storiche Modanesi,” 3 vols. 1793, 4to, containing a judicious collection of records relative to the bishops of Modena and Reggio, to the family of Pio, lords of Carpi, and that of Pico, princes of Mirandula. These works met with public approbation; but that, from the nature of the subjects, must be supposed limited to his own country.

, or Tiraquellus, a learned French lawyer of the sixteenth century, was a native of Poitou, and became a counsellor in the parliament of Bour­*Jeaux, and afterwards in that of Paris. He laboured very diligently to drive chicanery from the bar, and being employed by Francis I. and Henry II. in many affairs of consequence, approved himself in all things a man of strict and singular integrity. Though he must have been much employed in public business, he was so diligent with his pen that his works amount to seven volumes in folio. Frank. 1597. Tiraqueau died, at a very advanced age, in 1574. Among his numerous works, those particularly noticed are, 1. “Commentaries on Alexander ab Alexandro,” published separately, in two volumes folio, Leyden, 1673. 2. “Commentarius de Nobilitate et jure primogenitorum,” Leyden, 1617, folio. He was a married man, and it is said that he produced a book and a child every year, till there were twenty of each, or as some say thirty. This, with the circumstance of his being a water-drinker, occasioned the following jocular epitaph: “Hie jacet, qui aquam bibendo viginti liberos suscepit, viginti libros edidit. Si merum bibisset, totum orbem implevisset.”

Wrote twenty books, with each had son or daughter ;

To no coiourist, before or after him, did Nature unveil herself with that dignified familiarity in which she appeared to Titian. His organ, universal, and equally fit for all her exhibitions, rendered her simplest to her most compound appearances with equal purity and truth. He penetrated the essence and the general principle of the substances before him, and on these established his theory of colour. He invented that breadth of local tint which no imitation has attained; by taking the predominant quality of colour in an object, for the whole, painting flesh which abounded in demitints, entirely in demitints; and depriving of all demitints, what had but few. He first expressed the negative nature of shade. Perfect master of contrast, of warm and cold tints, he knew by their balance, diffusion, and recall, to tone the whole. His are the charms of glazing, and the mystery of reflexes, by which he detached, rounded, connected, or enriched, his objects. He was the first who changed stuffs to drapery, gave it local value, and a place, subordination, and effect. His harmony is less indebted to the force of light and shade, than to true gradation of tone. His tone springs out of his subject, grave, solemn, gay, minacious, or soothing. His eye tinged Nature with gold, without impairing her freshness. She dictated his scenery. Landscape, whether it be considered as the transcript of a spot, or the rich combination of congenial objects, or as the scene of a phenomenon, as subject and as back-ground, dates, if not its origin, its real value, from him. He is the father of portrait-painting; of resemblance with form, character with dignity, grace with simplicity, and costume with taste.

, a polite scholar, was born in 1700, and received his education at Westminster- school, where he was much befriended by bishop Atterbury, who chose him for his son’s tutor, in which capacity he resided in the bishop’s family about the time of the supposed plot in 1722. From Westminster Mr. Titley went off to Trinitycollege, Cambridge, in 1719, in which he for many years held the lay-fellowship founded for a civilian. He was early in life sent envoy extraordinary to the court of Copenhagen, where he died Feb. 1768, after a long residence, very highly esteemed on account of his many amiable qualilies. Of his productions as an author, which were rather little elegant trifles than elaborate performances, a good specimen may be seen in his celebrated “Imitation of Horace,*' book IV. Ode 2. And some of his Latin \erses are in the” Reliquiae. Galeanae.“He bequeathed iOOo/. to Westminster-school, Iooo/. to Trinity-college, Cambridge, and Iooo/. to the university of Cambridge, part of which was to be applied to the public buildings. This sum in 1768, when sir James Marriot, master of Trinity-hall, was vice-chancellor, was voted to erect a music-room, of which a plan was engraved to solicit a further aid from contributions, but failed of success. It would have given us pleasure to have given more particular memoirs of this ingenious gentleman, of whom so little has yet been said. Bishop Newton characterises him, among his contemporaries at Westminster, as” a very ingenious young man, at first secretary to the embassy at Turin, afterwards for many years his majesty’s envoy to the court of Denmark. During the time that he was a king’s scholar, he lived with bishop Atterbury as tutor to his son, and his taste and learning were much improved by the bishop’s conversation. His plan of life, as laid down by himself, was, to prosecute his studies at Cambridge till he should be thirty, from thirty to sixty to be employed in public business, at sixty to retire and return to college, for which purpose he would keep his fellowship. This plan he nearly pursued; he kept his fellowship; he resigned his public employment; but, instead of returning to college, where in a great measure there was a new society, and few or none were left of* his own age and standing, he remained at Copenhagen, where, by his long residence, he was in a manner naturalized, and there lived and died, greatly respected and lamented by all ranks of people."

, the projector of a French Parnassus, was the son of one of the king’s secretaries, and born at Paris in 1677. He studied at the Jesuits’ college in Paris, where he acquired a taste for the belles lettres that predominated during the whole of his life. Being destined for the military profession, he had in his fifteenth year a company of 100 fuzileers, which bore his name; and was afterwards a captain of dragoons. After the peace of Ryswick, he purchased the place of maitre d‘hotel to the dauphiness, the mother of Louis XV. Losing this situation at her death, he took a trip to Italy, and there improved his taste in painting, of which he was esteemed a connoisseur. On his return he was appointed provincial commissary at war, an office in which he conducted himself with uncommon generosity. His attachment to Louis XIV. and his admiration of the men of genius of that monarch’s time, induced him, in 1708, to project a Parnassus, in bronze, to commemorate the glories of his sovereign, and the genius of the most celebrated poets and musicians. This was no hasty performance, however, for he did not complete his plan before 1713. This Parnassus was nothing else than a mountain, with a good elevation, on which appeared Louis XIV. in the character of Apollo, crowned with laurels, and holding a lyre in his hand. Beneath him were the three French graces, madame de la Suze, madame des Houlieres, and mademoiselle de Scuderi. Round this Parnassus was a grand terras, on which were eight poets and a musician; namely, Peter Corneille, Moliere, Racan, Segrais, La Fontaine, Chapelle, Racine, Boileau, and Lully. Inferior poets were commemorated by medallions. Boileau is said to have been Tillet’s adviser in some part of this scheme, and, his biographer says, it were to be wished that celebrated poet had likewise advised him as to the selection of those on whom he was conferring immortality. His next object was to get this Parnassus erected in some public place or garden. He proposed the scheme therefore to Desforts, the minister then at the head of the ’finances, and asked only, by way of bonus, the place of farmer-general; but Desforts contented himself with praising his disinterestedness. Disappointed in this, he published, in 1727, a description of his work under the title of “Le Parnasse Francois,” 1732, fol. and afterwards three supplements, the last in 1760, containing the lives of the poets down to the last date; but the grand scheme remained unexecuted. Titon, who is represented as a generous patron of literary merit, died Dec. 26, 1762, at the advanced age of eighty- five. Besides the description of his Parnassus, he published an “Essai sur les honneurs accordés aux Savaiis,” 12mo.

, a learned Italian meteorologist, was born in 1719, at Pianez^a, in Vincenza, and educated at Padua, where he took a degree as doctor of theology, but was principally attached to mathematical studies. He obtained in the mean time some ecclesiastical preferment, and in 1762 was appointed professor of astronomy and meteorology in the university of Padua, where his talents were well known. Here he procured an observatory to be built, which was completed in 1774, and furnished with some instruments from England. About three years after, he was elected an honorary member of our royal society, and had contributed some articles to the Philosophical Transactions. He was first known throughout Europe by an ingenious work on the influence of the heavenly bodies on the weather and atmosphere, “Delia vera Influenza,” &c. 1770, 4to, and became afterwards yet more known by his “Meteorological Journal,” which he began in 1773, and continued till his death. His reputation was afterwards extended by a variety of publications, separate, or in the literary Journals, on meteorological subjects, of which Fabroni has given a large list. He died in Nov. 1797, in the seventy-ninth year of his age, and his private character is said to have been no less estimable than his public.

, D.D. a learned English divine, was born in 1658, at Blencow in Cumberland, became a poor scholar of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1672, and when B. A. taberdar of that house. He was elected fellow of University college, Dec. 23, 1678; and proceeding M. A. July 2, 1679, became chaplain to Dr. Smith, bishop of Carlisle. He was appointed one of the four canon residentiaries of Carlisle, in 1635; and the same year obtained the vicarage of Stanwix, which he resigned in 1688. He accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. Dec. 12, 1692. By a petition presented to the House of Commons by Dr. Todd, requesting to be heard by counsel before the bill “to dvoid doubts and questions touching statutes, &c.” should pass, it appears that “the bishop of Carlisle (Dr. Nicolson) had cited the dean and chapter before him in his visitation held at Carlisle in September 1707, and exhibited articles tof inquiry against them; and the petitioner appeared, and entered his protest against the bishop’s power, being informed, the right of local visitor was in the crown; but the said bishop, in an illegal manner, suspended the petitioner ab officio et beneficio, and afterwards excommunicated him.” The apprehensions of Dr. Todd were, that, if the bill should pass, it would “subject him to further inquiries and arbitrary censures of the bishop in his visitations.” The bill passed the Commons, with some amendments, March 17, and received the royal assent March 20, 1708. He resigned his residentiaryship in 1720, which was then given to Dr. Tullie, and died vicar of Penrith in 1728. He was also rector of Arthuret at the time of his death. His publications are, “The description of Sweden,” 1680, folio; “An Account of a Salt-spring and another medicinal spring on the banks of the river Weare, or Ware, in the bishopric of Durham,” 1684, Phil. Trans. No. 163; and “The Life of Phocion,” 1684. He left also in ms “Notitia EcclesiiE Cathedralis Carliolensis una cum Catalogo Priorum, dum Conventualis erat, & Decanorum & Canonicorum quum Collegiata. Notitia Prioratus de Wedderhall cum Catalogo omnium Benefactorum qui ad ambas has sacras Ædes stfuendas, dotandas, & ornandas, pecuniam, terras & ornamenta, vel aliqua alia beneficia, pie & munifice contulerunt.” These two were written in 1688, and dedicated by the author to the dean and chapter of Carlisle. They are now in the Lambeth library. He left also in ms. “A History of the Diocese of Carlisle, containing an. account of the Parishes, Abbeys, Nunneries, Churches, Monuments, Epitaphs, Coats of Arms, Founders, Benefactors, &c. with a perfect catalogue of the Bishops, Priors, Deans, Chancellors, Arch-deacons, Prebendaries, and of all Rectors and Vicars of the several Parishes in the said Diocese,” 1689. He was also one of the translators of Plutarch’s Morals, and of Cornelius Nepos. By Ballard’s ms letters in the Bodleian library it appears, that Dr. Todd sent achartulary of Fountains Abbey to the University college library and that he was solicited by Dr. Hickes to assist in publishing some Saxon books .

From the school at Redcastle near Londonderry, he went in 1687 to the college of Glasgow in Scotland; and, after three years stay there, visited the university of Edinburgh, where he was created master of arts in June 1690, and received the usual diploma or certificate from the professors. He then went back to Glasgow, where he made but a short ttay, and intended to have returned to Ireland; but he altered his mind, and came into England, “where, he tells us, he lived in as good Protestant families as any in the kingdom, till he went to the famous university of Leyden in Holland, to perfect his studies.” There he was generously supported by some eminent Dissenters in England, who had conceived great hopes from his uncommon parts, and might flatter themselves that in time he would be serviceable to them in the quality of a minister; for he had lived in their communion ever since he forsook Popery, as he himself owns in effect in his “Apology.” In 1692, Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Daniel Williams, a very eminent Dissenting minister, having published a book entitled “Gospel truth stated and vindicated,” Mr. Toland sent it to the author of the “Bibliotheque universelle,” and desired him to give an abstract of it in that journal: at the same time he related to him the history of that book, and of the controversy it referred to. The journalist complied with his request (vol. XXIII); and to the abstract of Mr. Williams’ s book he prefixed the letter he received from Mr. Toland, whom he styles “student in divinity.”

After having remained about two years at Leyden, he came back to England, and soon after went to Oxford, where, besides the conversation of learned men, he had the advantage of the public library. He collected materials upon various subjects, and composed some pieces; among others, a Dissertation to prove the received history of the tragical death of Regulus, a fable; the substance, however, of which he owns he took from Palmerius, who had examined the subject in his “Observationes in optimos fere Authores Graecos.” Toland began likewise a work of greater consequence, in which he undertook to show, that there are no mysteries in the Christian religion; but he left Oxford in 1695, before it was finished, and went to London, where he published it the next year in 12mo with this title, “Christianity not mysterious: or, a treatise shewing, that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it, and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery.” For the foundation of this proposition, Mr. Toland defines mystery, as ha says it is always used in the New Testament, to be a thing intelligible in itself, but which could not be known without a special revelation; contending, as those do who have since called themselves rational Christians, that there is nothing in the New Testament either against or above reason. His treatise was no sooner abroad, than the public were very much alarmed, and several books came out against it. It was even presented by the grand-jury of Middlesex; but, as usual, without any effect in preventing the sale.

Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester, in his “Vindication of the doctine of the Trinity,” had taken occasion to animadvert on Mr. Toland' s “Christianity not mysterious;” and, as he supposed that Toland had borrowed some principles from Locke’s “Essay on human understanding,” in support of his heretical doctrines, he bestowed some animadversions also on that work. This, and Mr. Toland’s persisting to represent him as his patron and friend, together with his very exceptionable conduct, made Locke renounce all regard for him, and almost disclaim the little countenance he had given him. To this purpose he expresses himself, in a letter dated the 15th of June: “As to the gentleman to whom you think my friendly admonishments may be of advantage for his conduct hereafter, I must tell you, that he is a man to whom 1 never writ in my life; and, I think, I shall not now begin: and as to his conduct, it is what I never so much as spoke to him of; that is a liberty to be taken only with friends and intimates, for whose conduct one is mightily concerned, and in whose affairs one interests himself. I cannot but wish well to all men of parts and learning, and be ready to afford them all the civilities and good offices in my power: but there must be other qualities to bring me to a friendship, and unite me in those stricter ties of concern; for I put a great deal of difference between those whom I thus receive into my heart and affection, and those whom I receive into my chamber, and do not treat there with a perfect strangeness. I perceive you think yourself under some obligation of peculiar respect lo that person, upon the account of my recommendation to you; but certainly this comes from nothing but your over-great tenderness to oblige me. For if I did recommend him, you will find it was only as a man of parts and learning for his age; but without any intention that they should be of any other consequence, or lead you any farther, than the other qualities you shall find in him shall recommend him to you; and therefore whatsoever you shall, or shall not do, for him, I shall no way interest myself in.” At that time Mr. Peter Brown, senior fellow of Trinity college near Dublin, afterwards bishop of Cork, having published a piece against Mr. “Poland’s book, Mr. Molyneux serit it to Mr. Locke, with a letter dated the 20th of July:” The author, says he, “is my acquaintance but two things I shall never forgive in his book one is the foul language and opprobrious names he gives Mr. Toland; the other is upon several occasions calling in the aid of the civil magistrate, and delivering Mr. Toland up to secular punishment. This indeed is a killing argument; but some will be apt to say, that where the strength of his reasoning failed him^ there he flies to the strength of the sword.” At length the storm rose to such a height that Toland was forced to retire from Ireland; and the account which Mr. Molyneux gives of the manner of it, in a letter dated the llth of September, would excite pity, were it not considered as representing the natural consequences of his vanity. “Mr. Toland is at last driven out of our kingdom: the poor gentleman, by his imprudent management, had raised such an universal outcry, that it was even dangerous for a man to have been known once to converse with him. This made all wary men of reputation decline seeing him, insomuch that at last he wanted a meal’s meat, as I am told, and none would admit him to their tables. The little stock of money which he brought into this country being exhausted, he fell to borrowing from any one that would lend him half a crown; and ran in debt for his wigs, cloatbs, and lodging, as I am informed. And last of all, to complete his hardships, the parliament fell on his book; voted it to be burnt by the common hangman, and ordered the author to be taken into custody of the sergeant at arms, and to be prosecuted by the attorney-general at law. Hereupon he is fled out of this kingdom, and none here knows where he has directed his course.” Many in Englan-o approved this conduct in the Irish parliament; and Dr. Gonth in particular was so highly pleased with it, that he complimented the archbishop of Dublin upon it, in the dedication of his third volume of “Sermons,” printed in 1698. After having condemned our remissness here in England, for bearing with Dr. Sherlock, whose notions of the Trinity he charges with heresy, he adds, “but, on the contrary, among you, when a certain Mahometan Christian (no new thing of late) notorious for his blasphemous denial of the mysteries of our religion, and his insufferable virulence against the whole Christian priesthood, thought to have found shelter among you, the parliament to their immortal honour presently sent him packing, and, without the help of a faggot, soon made the kingdom too hot for him.” As soon as Poland was in London, he published an apologeticai account of the treatment he had received in Ire-< land, entitled “An Apology for Mr Toland, &c. 1697” and was so little discouraged with what had happened to him there, that he continued to write and publish his thoughts on all subjects, without regarding in the least who might, or who might not, be offended at him. He had published, in 1696, “A discourse upon Coins,” translated from the Italian of signior Bernardo Davanzati, a gentleman of Florence: he thought this seasonable, when clipping of money was become a national grievance, and several methods were proposed to remedy it. In 1698, after the peace of Hyswick, during a great dispute among politicians, concerning the forces to be kept on foot for the quiet and security of the nation, many pamphlets appeared on that subject, some for, others against, a standing army; and Toland, who took up his pen among others, proposed to reform the militia, in a pamphlet entitled “The Militia Keformed, &c.” The same year, 1698, he published “The Life of Milton,” which was prefixed to Milton’s prose works, then collected in three volumes folio. In this he asserted that the “Icon Basilike” was a spurious production. This being represented by Dr. Blackall, afterwards bishop of Exeter, as affecting the writings of the New Testament, Toland vindicated himself in a piece called, “Amyntor; or, a Defence of Milton’s Life, 1699,” 9vo. This Amyntor however did not give su< h satisfaction, but that even Dr. Samuel Clarke and others thought it necessary to animadvert on it, as being an attack on the canon of the scriptures. Yet Toland had the confidence afterwards (in the preface to his “Nazarenus”) to pretend that his intention in his “Amyntor” was not to invalidate-, but to illustrate and confirm the canon of the New Testanunt; which, as Leland justly observes, may serve as one instance, among the many that might be produced, of the vfriter’s sincerity. The same year, 1699, he published “The Memoirs of Denzil lord Holies, baron of IfieJd in Sussex, from 1641 to 1648,” from a manuscript communicateJ to him by the late duke of Newcastle, who was ono of his patrons and benefactors.

In 1700 he published Harrington’s “Oceana,” and his other works, with his life in folio; and about the same time came out a pamphlet, entiiled “Clito, a poem on the force of eloquence.” In this piece, under the character of Atieisidaemon, which signifies unsuperstitious, he promises in effect not to leave off writing till he had detected knavery and imposture of every kind. In 1701 he published two political pieces, one called “The Art of governing by Parties;” the other “Propositions for uniting the two East India Companies.” The same year, being informed that the lower house of convocation had appointed a committee to examine impious, heretical, and immoral books, and that his “Christianity not mysterious,” and his “Amyntor,” were under their consideration, he wrote two letters to Dr. Hooper, the prolocutor, either to give such satisfaction as should induce them to stop their proceedings, or desiring to be heard in his own defence, before they passed any censure on his writings but, without paying any regard to this application, the committee extracted five propositions out of his “Christianity not mysterious,” and re-“solved, that,” in their judgment, the said book contained pernicious principles, of dangerous consequence to the Christian religion; that it tended, and (as they conceived) was written on a design, to subvert the fundamental articles of the Christian faith; and that the propositions extracted from it, together with divers others of the same nature, were pernicious, dangerous, scandalous, and destructive of Christianity.“This representation was sent to the upper house, which likewise appointed a committee to examine Toland’s book, and, upon receiving their report, unanimously determined to proceed (as far as they legally might) against the. work and the author: but, having taken the opinions of some able lawyers upon the point, they were obliged to declare, that they did not find, how, without a licence from the king (which they had not yet received), they could have sufficient authority to censure judicially any such books. This declaration of the bishops gave occasion to several pamphlets on the subject, and Toland published a defence of himself, under the title of” Vindieiqs Liberius, or Mr. Toland’s defence against the lower house of convocation, &c." in which he gave full scope to his vanity, and removed much of the disguise with which he had hitherto covered some of his principles both religious and political.

Upon the passing of an act of parliament, in June 1701, for settling the crown, after the decease of king William and the princess Anne, and in default of their issue, upon the princess Sophia, electress dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants, Toland published his “Anglia libera, or, the limitation and succession of the crown of England explained and asserted, c.” 8vo; and when the earl of Macclesfield was sent to Haribver with this act, Toland attended him. He presented his “Anglia libera' 7 to her electoral highness, and was the first who had the honour of kissing her hand upon the act of succession. The earl recommended him particularly to her highness, and he stayed there five or six weeks; and on his departure he was presented with gold medals and pictures of the electress dowager, the elector, the young prince, and the queen of Prussia. He then made an excursion to the court of Berlin, where he had a remarkable conversation with M. Beausobre, upon the subject of religion, in the presence of the queen of Prussia. Beausobre communicated an account of it to the authors of the” Bibliotheque Germanique,“who printed it in that journal; and from thence we learn, that it was concerning the authority of the books of the New Testament, which Mr. Toland, with his usual self-sufficiency, undertook to question and invalidate. On the llth of November, 1701, a proclamation was issued out, for dissolving the parliament, and calling another to meet in December. While the candidates were making interest in their respective countries, Toland published the following advertisement in the Post-man:” There having been a public report, as if Mr. Toland stood for Blechingly in Surrey, it is thought fit to advertise, that sir Robert Clayton has given his interest in that borough to an eminent citizen, and that Mr. Toland hath no thoughts of standing there or any where else.“This advertisement afforded matter of pleasantry to an anonymous writer, who published a little pamphlet, entitled” Modesty mistaken: or, a Letter to Mr. Toland, upon his declining to appear in the ensuing parliament."

In 1702 he published three pieces: “Paradoxes of state, &c.” in 4to; “Reasons for addressing his majesty to invite into England the electress dowager and elector of Hanover; 7 ' and his” Vindicius liberius,“already mentioned. After the publication of this book, he went to the courts of Hanover and Berlin, where he was received very graciously by the princess Sophia, and by the queen of Prussia, both ladies who delighted in conversing with men of learning and penetration, whose notions were new or uncommon. He had the honour to be often aumitted to their conversation; and, as he made a longer stay at Berlin than at Hanover, so he had frequent opportunities of waiting upon the queen, who took a pleasure in asking him questions, and hearing his paradoxical opinions. After his return therefore into England, he published in 1704? some philosophical letters; three of which were inscribed td Serena, meaning the queen of Prussia, who, he assures us> was pleased to ask his opinion concerning the subject of them. The title rr.ns thus:” Letters to Serena, containing, 1. The origin and force of prejudices. 2. The history of the soul’s immortality among the heathens. 3. The origin of idolatry, and reasons of heathenism; as also, 4. A letter to a gentleman in Holland, shewing Spinoza’s system of philosophy to be without any principle or foundation. 5. Motion essential to matter, in answer to some remarks by a noble friendon the confutation of Spinoza. To which is prefixed a preface, declaring the several occasions of writing them,“8vo. About the same time he published an” English translation of the Life of Æsop, by M. de Meziriac,“and dedicated it to Anthony Collins, esq. It was prefixed to” The fables of;sop," with the moral reflections of M. Baudoin.

In 1705 he published several pamphlets’. “Socinianism truly stated, &c.” to which is prefixed, “Indifference in disputes recommended by a Pantheist to an orthodox friend,” in 4to; “An account of the courts of Prussia and Hanover,” in 8vo; “The ordinances, statutes, and privileges of the* academy erected by the king of Prussia in the city of Berlin,” translated from the original, in 8vo; “The memorial of the state of England, in vindication of the queen, the church, and the administration, &c.” This last was published, without the name of the author, by the direction of Mr. Harley, secretary of state; and afterwards a defence of it was written, by order of the same person, but for some reasons suppressed, after six or seven sheets Of it were printed. Mr. Harley was one of Toland’s chief patrons and benefactors, and used to employ him as a spy, Harley having accidentally found, among other manuscripts, a Latin oration, to excite the English to war against the French, communicated it to Toland, who published it in 1707, with notes and a preface, under this title, “Oratio Philippica ad excitandos contra Galliam. Britannos; maxime vero, ne de pace cum victis pra; matur& agatur: sanctiori Anglorum concilio exhibita, anno Christi 1514.” Soon after he published, at the request of the elector’s minister, “The elector Palatine’s declaration in favour of his Protestant subjects.”

He continued in Holland till 1710; and, while he was there, had the good fortune to get acquainted with prince Eugene, who gave him several marks of his generosity. Upon his return to England, he was for some time sup* ported by the liberality of Mr. Harley, and by his means was enabled to keep a country-house at Epsom in Surrey. He published, in 1711, “A Description of Epsom, with the Humours and Politics of that Place.” He afterwards lost the favour of this minister, and then wrote pamphlets against him. He published in 1710, without his name, a French piece relating to Dr. Sacheverell, “Lettre d'urt Anglois a un Hollandois an sujet du docteur Sacheverell:” and the three following in 1712: “A Letter against Popery, particularly against admitting the authority of fathers or councils in controversies of religion, by Sophia Charlotte, the late queen of Prussia;” “Queen Anne’s reasons for creating the electoral prince of Hanover a peer of this realm, by the title of duke of Cambridge;” and, “The grand Mystery laid open, viz. by dividing the Protestants to weaken the Hanover succession, and, by defeating the succession, to extirpate the Protestant religion.” At that time he also undertook to publish a new edition of Cicero’s works by subscription, and gave an account of his plan in a “Latin dissertation,” which has been printed among his posthumous pieces.

In 1713 he published “An Appeal to honest People, against wicked Priests,” relating to Sachevereirs affair; aixi another pamphlet called “Dunkirk or Dover, or, the queen’s honour, the nation’s safety, the liberties of Europe, and the peace of the world, all at stake, till that fort and port be totally demolished by the French.” In 1714- he published a piece which shewed that he was very attentive to times and seasons, for it ran through ten editions within a quarter of a year: the title is, “The art of Restoring, or, the piety and probity of general Monk in bringing about the last restoration, evidenced from his own authentic letters; with a just account of sir Roger, who runs the parallel as far as he can.” This sir Roger was intended for the earl of Oxford, who was supposed to be then projecting schemes for the restoration of the Pretender. The same year, 1714, he produced “A collection of Letters by general Monk, relating to the restoration of the royal family;” “The Funeral Elegy of the princess Sophia,” translated from the Latin; and “Reasons for naturalizing the Jews in Great Britain and Ireland, on the same foot with all other nations; with a defence of the Jews against all vulgar prejudices in all countries. He prefixed to this an ingenious, but ironical dedication to the superior clergy. In 1717 he published” The State Anatomy of Great Britain," &c. which being answered by Dr. Fiddes, chaplain to the earl of Oxford, and by )aniel De Foe, he produced 9 second part, by way of vindication of the former.

He seems now to have quitted politics, and to have betaken himself, in a great measure, to learned and theological inquiries; for, in 1718, he published a work of about one hundred and fifty pages in 8vo, with this long title, “Nazarenus or Jewish, Gentile, or Mahometan Christianity containing the history of the ancient Gospel of Barnabas, and the modern Gospel of the Mahometans, attributed to the same apostle, this last Gospel being now first made known among Christians. Also, the original plan of Christianity occasionally explained in the Nazarenes, whereby divers controversies about this divine (but highly perverted) institution may be happily terminated. With the relation of an Irish manuscript of the four Gospels, as likewise a summary of the ancient Irish Christianity, and the reality of the Keldees (an order of lay religious) against the two last bishops of Worcester.” We make no observation upon this work: the reader knows enough of Toland to conclude that it was not written with any friendly view to revelation. He published the same year “The Destiny of Rome; or, the speedy and final destruction of the Pope,” &c.

In 1720 Dr. Hare, then dean of Worcester, published a fourth edition of his visitation sermon, entitled “Church authority vindicated,” &c, and subjoined a postscript, in which, speaking of bishop Hoadly’s writings, he has the following stroke at Mr. Toland: “It must be allowed his lordship judges very truly, when he says they are faint resemblances of Mr. Chillingworth for envy itself must own his lordship has some resemblance to that great man, just such a one as Mr. Toland has to Mr. Locke, who, in 4 Christianity not mysterious,' is often quoted to support notions he never dreamed of.” Toland, upon this, advertised against Dr. Hare, that he never named Locke in any edition of that book, and was so far from often quoting him, that he had not so much as brought one quotation out of him. This was true, and Hare immediately corrected himself by another advertisement, in which he directs, “makes great use of Mr. Locke’s principles,” to be read, instead of, “is often quoted to support notions he never dreamed of.” Dr. Hare’s advertisement occasioned the publishing of a pamphlet with this title, “A short essay upon Lying, or, a defence of a reverend dignitary, who suffers under the persecution of Mr. Toland, for a lapsus calami.”

Upon a dispute between the Irish and British houses of lords, with respect to appeals, when the latter ordered a bill to be brought in for the better securing the dependency of the kingdom of Ireland upon the crown of Great Britain, Mr. Toland published “Reasons most humbly offered to the House of Commons, why the bill sent down to them should not pass into a Law,” 1720. About this time he printed a profane Latin tract, entitled “Pantheisticon: sive, formula celebrandae sodalitatis Socraticae, in tres particulas divisa: quae Pantheistarum, sive sodalium, continent; I. Mores et axiomata. 2. Numen et philosophiam. 3. Libertatem et non fallen tern legem neque fallendam. Prsemittitur de antiquis et novis eruditorum sodalitatibus, ut et de universo infinito et seterno, diatriba. Subjicitur de duplici Pantheistarum philosophia sequenda, ac de viri optirni et ornatissimi idea, dissertatiuncula. Cosmopoli, MDCCXX.” He had subscribed himself a Pantheist, as we have seen, in a pamphlet published in 1705, and here we have his doctrines and his creed explicitly set forth: “In. mundo omoia sunt unum, unumque est omne in omnibus. Quod omne in omnibus, Deus est; geternus ac imraensus, neque genitus, neque interiturus. In eo vivimus, movein ur, et existimus. Ab eo natum est unumquidque, in eumque denuo revoluturum; omnium ipse principium et finis.” This is Pantheism, that is, it is atheism, or there is no such thing. The author knew it very well; and fear* ing lest he migh; have gone too far, he got it printed se-< cretly, at his own charge, and but a few copies, which he distributed with a view of receiving presents for thent. There is a short preface to this piece, under the name of Janus Junius Eoganesius; which, though it was his true Christian name, and the name of his country, luis-Eogan being the place of his birth, yet served for as good a cover as any whatever, nobody in England being acquainted with these particulars.

Some time after, but in the same year, 1720, he published another learned work, of about 250 pages in 8vo, including the preface, entitled “Tetradymus.” This is divided into four parts, each of which has a distinct title. The first is called “Hodegus; or, the pillar of cloud and fire that guided the Israelites in the Wilderness, not miraculous, but, as faithfully related in Exodus, a thing equally practised by other nations, and in those places not only useful, but necessary/' The second is called” Clydophoras; or, of the exoteric and esoteric philosophy;“that is, of the external and internal doctrine of the ancients; the one open and public, accommodated to popular prejudices and the established religions; the other private and secret, wherein, to the few capable and discreet, was taught the real truth, stripped of all disguises. There is more display of learning in this dissertation than in any work produced by Toland; though they all of them display learning where the subject admits it. The title of the third is,” Hypatia; or, the history of the Philosophic Lady, who was murdered at Alexandria, as was supposed at the instigation of the clergy. “The fourth is called” Mangoneutes;" or, A defence of Nazarenus against Dr. Mangey, who had attacked it. In the last of these tracts he inserted his advertisement against Dr. Hare, with the doctor’s answer.

His “Posthumous Works” were published in 1726, 2 vols. 8vo, and republished in 1747, with an account of ins life and writings by Des Maizeaux, the title of which runs as follows: “The Miscellaneous Works of Mr. John Tolaud, now first published from his original manuscripts, containing, I. An history of the British Druids, with a criii al Essay on the ancient Celtic customs, literature, &c. to whic li is added, An account of some curious British Antiquities. 2. An account of Jordano Bruno, and his celebrated book on the innumerable worlds. 5. A disquisition concerning those writings which by the ancients were, truly or falsely, ascribed to Jesus Christ and his Apostles. 4. The secret History of the South-Sea scheme. 5. A plan for a National Bank. 6. An essay on the Roman Education. 7. The tragical death of Attilius Regulus proved to be a fiction. 8. Select Epistles from Pliny, translated into English, y. A diverting description of Epsom and its amusements. 10. Four Memorials to the Earl of Shaftesbury, relating to affairs of state in 1713 and 1714. 11. Physic without physicians. 12. Letters on various subjects. 13. Cicero illustratus, dissertatio Philologico-critica; sive, Consilium de toto edendo Cicerone, alia plane methodo quam hactenus unquam factum. 14. Conjectura de prima typographic origine.”

At the end of Des Maizeaux’s life there is “An Elegy on the late ingenious Mr. Toland,” which, that biographer says, was published a few days after his death; and be adds, that it was a matter of doubt with some, whether the author intended to praise or ridicule him. Few things can be more weak than Des Maixcaux’s own defence of Toland. There is a considerable collection of To land’s Mss. in the British Museum (Ayscough’s Catalogue), but of little real Talue.

, a learned cardinal, was born in 1532, at Cordova, and appointed professor of philosophy in the university of Salamanca at the early age of fifteen, which is not remarkable if, according to Dominic Soto, who was his master, he was a “monster of genius.” Having afterwards entered the Jesuits’ order, he was sent to Rome, where he taught theology and philosophy with reputation, and philosophised after the genuine manner of the Peripatetic school. Paul V. chose father Tolet for his preacher, and he held the same office under the succeeding pontiffs, with that of theologian in ordinary, besides being entrusted with several important commissions. Pope Gregory XIII. appointed him judge and censor of his own works, and Clement VIIL raised him to the cardinalate in 1594, being the first Jesuit who held that dignity. He is said to have been a lover of justice and equity, and laboured with great zeal and success to reconcile Henry IV. with the court of Rome. He died in that city in 1596, aged sixty-four. Henry IV. out of gratitude, ordered a solemn service to be performed for him at Paris and at Rouen. This learned cardinal left several works, the principal are “Commentaries on St. John,” Lyons, 1614, fol.; “On St. Luke,” Rome, 1600, folio “On St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” Rome, 1602, 4to “A Summary of cases of conscience, or instruction for priests,” Paris, 1619, 4to, translated into French, 4to, and a great number of other treatises.

She was honoured with the friendship of sir Isaac Newton, who was much pleased with some of her first essays. It has been observed, that a few of her poems have such a philosophical cast, and so great a depth of thought, that they will scarce be understood by common readers. Her Latin poems are also written in a truly classical taste. She would not suffer her works to appear till she herself was beyond the reach of envy or applause. They abound with sentiment and simplicity, and yet are far from being destitute of spirit and poetical ornament.

Her estate, which was a considerable one, she left to her youngest nephew. Her eldest nephew, Gkorge Toilet, of Betley, in Staffordshire, but formerly of Lincoln’s-inn, who was well known for his valuable notes on Shakspeare, died Oct. 21, 1779. “He was,” says Mr. Cole, " a fellow-commoner of King’s college, and my contemporary about 1745; ashy, reserved man, and of no genteel appearance or behaviour.

, a brave English officer, was descended of a family said to be more ancient than the Norman conquest. He was the son of sir Lionel Tolmach of Helmingnam in the county of Suffolk, bart. by Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William Murray, earl of Dysart, afterwards married to John, duke of Lauderdale. His talents and education were improved by his travels, in which he spent several years, and after he entered into the army, distinguished himself so much by skill and bravery, as very soon to acquire promotion. But L| the reign of James If. whose measures he thought hostile to the true interests of the kingdom, he resigned his commission, and went again abroad. The same political principles inclining him to favour the revolution, he was, on the accession of William III. appointed colonel of the Coldstream regiment, which had been resigned by William, carl of Craven, on account of his great age and infirmities; and was soon advanced to the rank of lieutenant-general. In 1691, he exerted himself with uncommon bravery in the passage over the river Shannon, at the taking of Athlone in Ireland, and in the battle of Aghrim. In 1693, he attended king William to Flanders, and at the battle of Landen against the French, commanded by marshal Luxemburg, when his majesty himself was obliged to retire, the lieutenant-general brought off the English foot with great prudence, resolution, and success. But, in June the year following, he fell in the unfortunate attempt for destroying the harbour of Brest in France. He had formed this desigrt, and taken care to be well instructed in every circumstance relating to it. Six thousand men seemed to be more than necessary for taking and keeping Cameret, a small neck of land, which lies in the mouth of and commands the river of Brest. The project and the preparations were kept so secret, that there was not the least suspicion till the hiring of transport-ships discovered it. A proposition for that purpose had indeed been made two years before to the earl of Nottingham; who, among other things, charged admiral Russel with having neglected that scheme, when it was laid before him by some persons who came from Brest. Whether the French apprehended the design from that motion, or whether it was now betrayed to them by some who were in the secret; it is certain, that they had such timely knowledge of it, as put them upon their guard. The preparations were not quite ready by the day that had been fixed; and when all was ready, they were stopt by a westerly wind for some time; so that they arrived a month later than was intended. They found the place well fortified with many batteries, which, were raised in different lines upon, the rocks, that lay over the place of descent; and great numbers were posted there to dispute their landing. When the English fleet came so near as to see all this, the council of officers declared against making the attempt; but the lieutenant-general was so possessed with the scheme, that he could not be diverted from it. He imagined, that the men they saw were only a rabble brought together to make a shew; though it proved, that there were regular bodies among them, and that their numbers were double to his own. He began with landing of six hundred men, and put himself at the head of them, who followed him with great courage; but they were so exposed to the enemies’ fire, and could do them so little harm, that the attempt was found absolutely impracticable. The greatest part of those, who landed, were killed or taken prisoners; and not above an hundred of them came back. The lieutenant-general himself was shot in the thigh, of which he died in a few days, extremely lamented. Thus failed a design, which, if it had been undertaken before the French were so well prepared to receive it, might have been attended with success, and followed with very important effects. In this manner bishop Burnet represents the affair, who styles the lieutenant-general a brave and generous man, and a good officer, very fit to animate and encourage inferior officers and soldiers. Another of our historians speaks of this affair in somewhat a different strain, declaring, that the lieutenantgeneral “fell a sacrifice in this desperate attempt, being destined, as some affirmed, to that fall by the envy of some of his pretended friends.” His body was brought to England, and interred on the 30th of June, 1694, at Helmingham in Suffolk.

According to Dr. Brady, general Tolmach was “singularly remarkable for all the accomplishments of a gentleman; his conversation familiar and engaging, his wit lively and penetrating, his judgment solid and discerning; and all these adorned with a graceful person, a cheerful aspect, and an inviting air. And if we consider him as a soldier, he was vigorous and active; surprisingly brave in the most dangerous emergencies, and eagerly catching at all opportunities, in which he might signalize his courage without forfeiting his judgment. But with all this ardour of an invincible courage, he was not of an uneasy turbulent disposition, or apt to be engaged in idle quarrels; for as the sweetness of his nature, and the politeness of his education, hindered him from offering an affront to any man; so the modest sense which he had of his own merit, would not suffer him to suspect that any was intended him. In short, he may justly be characterized under the titles of a complete gentleman, a zealous lover of his country, and an excellent general.”

He wrote, 1. “Illustrium viror.ucn Elogia iconibus exornata,” Padua, 1630, 4to. Th portraits in this volume (which is by no means uncommon in this country) amounting to forty-five, are well engraven, and taken from pictures in his collection. The lives or eloges are short, but accurate. He published a second volume in 1644, but this is less common. 2. “Titus Livius Patavinus,” ibid. 1630, 4to; a life of Livy, of which a much improved edition was published at Amsterdam in 1670. He published also other single lives, and had intended a biography of all the authors of Padua, but published only a “Prodromus Athenarum Patavinarum,” 1633, 4 to. 3. “Petrarcha redivivus integratn Poetae celeberrimi vitam iconibus aere cselatis exhibens,” ibid. 1635, 4to, and reprinted with additions in 1650. 4. Clarissimae fceminae Cassandra Fidelis Venetae epistolae et orationes posthumae,“&c. ibid. 1636, 12mo. 5.” De Donariis ac Tabellis votivis liber singulari.*,“Utin. 1639, 4to, reprinted and enlarged, at Padua, 1654, 4to, and inserted by Graevius in the 12th volume of his Roman antiquities. 6.” Laurae Ceratae Epistolae, cum notis et vita,“&c. Padua, 1640, 12mo. 7.” Bibliothecae Patavinac Manuscriptae publicae et privatae, quibus diversi scriptores hactenus incogniti recensentur,“ibid. 1639, 4to. 8.” BibJiothecae Venetae Mss. publicae et privatae,“Utin. 16.50, 4to. He wrote some other works on the antiquities of Padua, and closed his labours with his” Gymnasium Pat.ivinum," 1654, 4to, a kind of history of the university of Padua.

, one of the most learned Baptist divines of the seventeenth century, was born at Bewdley in Worcestershire in 1603 and, being intended for the church, was educated at the grammar-school, where he made such proficiency as to be thought fit for the university at the age of fifteen. He was accordingly sent to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, at that time, and William Pcmble was his tutor. Here he acquired such distinction for talents and learning, that on his tutor’s death in 1624, he was chosen to succeed him in the catechetical lecture in Magdalen-hall. This he held with great approbation for about seven years, during which he was, amongst other pupils, tutor to Mr. Wilkins, afterwards bishop of Chester. He then, we may presume, took orders, and went to Worcester, and after that to Leominster in Herefordshire, of which he had the living, and became a very popular preacher, and when the living was found insufficient for a maintenance, lord Scudamore. made some addition to it. Tombes was, says his biographer, among the first of the clergy of those times who endeavoured a reformation in the church, that is, was an enemy to the discipline or ceremonies, for which he suffered afterwards, when the king’s forces came into that country; and being in 1641 obliged to leave it, he went to Bristol, where the parliamentary general Fiennes gave him the living of All Saints. When Bristol was besieged by prince Rupert, the year following, he removed again to London with his feu mily, and there first communicated to some of the West* minster divines, his scruples as to infant-baptism, and held conferences with them on the subject, the result of which was, that he made no converts, but was more confirmed in his own opinions, and a sufferer too, for, being appointed preac-her at Fenchurch, his congregation not only refused to hear him, but to allow him any stipend. From this dilemma he was relieved for a time by a call to be preacher at the Temple-church, provided he would abstain, in the pulpit, from the controversy about infant-baptism. To this he consented on these terms: first, that no one else should preach for the baptising of infants in his pulpit; and, secondly, that no laws should be enacted to make the denial of infant-baptism penal. All this being agreed upon, he continued to preach at the Temple for four years, and was then dismissed for publishing a treatise against infant-baptism. This was construed into a breach of his engagement, but he endeavoured to defend it as necessary to his character, he being often attacked in the pulpit for those opinions. on the subject which he had communicated to the Westminster assembly, although they had neither been published, or answered, by that learned body.

After this he accepted an invitation from the people of Bewdley, his native place, to be their minister; and there he not ojily publicly avowed his sentiments, but formed a biptist church, or sect, while he continued minister of tho parish, and had also the parsonage of Ross given to him. This last he resigned on being made master of Ledbury hospital, and his parishioners at Bewdley having forsaken him on account of his opinions on baptism, he was restored to his first living at Leominster; and that and Bewdley, amidst all the disaffection of the parishioners, he held till the Restoration. Notwithstanding his differing in opinion with the generality of his brethren, he was, in 1653, ap-. pointed one of the triers, or those appointed to examine and approve candidates for the ministry. In this office he appears to have procured a sort of toleration for the baptists, for at the restoration several of that persuasion were found in possession of livings.

, a learned cardinal, son of Julius Tommasio, or Tomrnasi, duke of Palma, was born at Alicata in Sicily, Sept. 14, 1649. Having from his infancy placed himself under the protection of the holy virgin, he assumed in the greater part of his works the name of Joseph Mariacarus . The same veneration led him to imitate the virtues of his protectress by taking the vow of chastity, and although the eldest son of an illustrious house, he chose to follow the example of an uncle and four sisters, who had renounced the world and all its honours. He entered the society of the Theatins, and became distinguished by his austere piety and mortifications. He did not neglect human learning however, but applied with great diligence to the Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldaic languages, as well as to philosophy and ancient literature, but his favourite study was theology, church history, and especially the history of the offices and liturgies, valuable editions and collections of which he published from time to time. Cardinal Albani, who had a great regard for him, when he became pope appointed him first, qualificator of the holy office, then consultor of the congregation of the rites, and lastly cardinal in May 18, 1712; but this last honour he did not long enjoy, dying Jan. 1, 17 13, in the sixty-fourth year of his age.

He published some things for the benefit and assistance of youth: as, “Synopsis Grsecas linguae;” “Ovid’s Fasti,” from the Delphin edition, with an English interpretation and notes; and, “The Pantheon, or history of the heathen gods.” This book was first written in Latin by Francis Pomey, a Jesuit, and translated into English by one who conceals his name under initial letters. This translation was afterwards revised and corrected, with the addition of a new index, cuts of the deities, and other improvements, by Mr. Tooke; and the tenth edition, printed in 1726, was adorned with new cuts, copied from the sixth Latin, edition, published at Utrecht by Samuel Pitiscus, in 1701. Mr. Tooke translated PuffendorPs “Whole Duty of Man according to the law of nature,” with the notes of Barbeyrac, into English; and bishop GastrelP* “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” into Latin. The supplement to the account of Gresham college, inserted in the second appendix of “Stow’s Survey of London,” was written by him, and given to the editor Mr. Strype.

In consequence of these resolutions, he retired to his paternal estate at Popes, where he pursued a learned intimacy with the famous Selden, the learned John Hales of Eton college, Mr. John Greaves, and others the last of whom, in lfi51, dedicates “A Description of the Grand Seignior’s Seraglio, or the Turkish Emperor’s court,” to “his honoured and truly noble friend, George Tooke, esq.” Here these extraordinary geniuses used to pass their hours in the mutual improvement of their minds, and the cultivation of the virtues; while their fellow-citizens, after imbruing their hands in civil carnage, were engaged in empty disputations and idle contests. In this retirement he had the great affliction to lose his wife, a woman of excellent virtues and uncommon endowments. On whicli occasion he wrote various canzonets, and dedicated them “to the memory of his deceased very dear wife, Anna Tooke of Beere.”

The manor of Popes had been in this family from 1483. Mr. Thomas Tooke sold it in 1664 to Stephen Ewre and Joshua Lomax; and they the next year to Daniel Siiottorden, of Eltham in Kent, esq. He sold it to col. Thomas Taylor; and Taylor to sir David Mitchel, who gave it to his lady for life, and afterwards to his nephew John Mitchel, esq. who was not many years ago the possessor. They were likewise lords of the manor of Wormley in Hertfordshire, and patrons of the rectory. For, we find by the records, that Henry VIII. at the dissolution of the monastery of Ecclesia Sanctse Crucis de Waltham, or Waltham Holy Cross, granted the manor of Wormley, and the advowson of the rectory, to Edward North and his heirs, at the rent of 1l. 13s. per ann. He sold it to Elizabeth Woodcliffe, from whom it came to William Woodcliffe of London. This William, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Fisher of Longworth, left a daughter Angelot, married to Walter Tooke, of Popes, in Hatfield, esq. This Angelot, as appears by her epitaph on the north side of the chancel of Wormley church, was a second daughter, in right of whom her husband presented to the living alternis vicibus. It appears by Mr. Purvey’s epitaph, who married lord Denny’s sister, that he also was patron alternis vicibus. Hence it has been conjectured, that Mr. Purvey’s father, John, married the elder sister; and they were sharers, in right of their wives, both of the manor and advowson, till it fell entirely to Tooke, upon the elder sister’s death. The Purveys presented twice, and the Tookes four times; and the first presentation was Purvey’s, as probably marrying the elder sister. Ralph Tooke succeeded his father Walter, and, dying without issue, was buried at Essingdon, and divided the estate between his brothers George and John. George sold his part to Richard Woollaston, esq. who was gun-founder to Oliver Cromwell. He left a jon John; and John, a son Richard, who conveyed it to “William Fellows, esq. whose eldest son Coulston Fellows, csq. succeeded to it. This- Ralph Tooke died December 22, 1635, aged seventy-seven years. He married Jane, the daughter of Edward Byth, of Smallfield in the county of Surrey, esq. She died Dec. 8, 1641. George Tooke, our author, who had the other moiety, called Wormleybury, died possessed of it in 1675, aged eighty years. His device was a hedge-hog; and under it his family motto,” Militia mea multiplex.“On which in his old age he wrote,” A key to the Hedge-hog combatant and my motto."

, a man of very considerable literary abilities, but more famous as a political adventurer, was the son of John Home, a poulterer in Newport-market, and was born in Newport street in June 1736. He was educated both at Westminster and Eton schools, and after remaining at these seminaries about five or six years, was sent to St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1755, which he quitted in 1758, after taking his bachelor’s degree. Little seems to be known of his conduct or proficiency in his studies, but his future works showed that the latter could not have been neglected; nor have we much accurate information as to his proceedings when he left college, dates, evidently wrong, being assigned by all who have professed to give any account of him. We can only, therefore, say generally that he was for some time an usher at Mr. Jennings’s school at Blackheath, that he took deacon’s orders at the request of his father, who had probably given him a learned education with that view, and that he first served a curacy in Kent. His own choice is said to have been the law, for which he was well qualified, but he was unable to resist the importunities of his family, and therefore entered into the church, for which he undoubtedly was the most unfit man that ever disgraced the profession. This was a radical error in his outset, and eventually the cause of much of the obloquy which attended his life. It is, as a very acute writer has observed, very necessary to keep steadily in view, in order to form a correct and candid estimate of his character, “that he was from beginning to end, a man labouring under great, perpetual, irremoveable civil disabilities.” It was a real misfortune to a man of an enterprizing disposition, and one regardless, as Home Tooke was, of the means by which such a disposition may be indulged, to become a member of an order, in which propriety and duty enjoin a sparing and partial interference with the concerns of the world, and in which, if propriety and duty are found too feeble restraints, the law interposes with a strong arm, to curb profane activity and unprofessional exertions.

Soon after his return he found his friend Wilkes a candidate to represent the county of Middlesex, and not only supported his pretensions, but pledged his credit for his expences, and in the hearing of his parishioners, declared that, “in a cause so just and so holy, he would dye his black coat red.” He also laid hold of other opportunities to acquire a name with the party in opposition to the court. Among these schemes he supported the widow Bigby in an appeal of blood. Two brothers, named Kennedy, had murdered Bigby, a watchman, and were capitally convicted, but afterwards pardoned. It was suggested that this lenity was procured through the interest of their sister, a well-known courtezan, with a nobleman high in office. If such was the fact, and it has often been asserted, and never sufficiently contradicted, the royal mercy could not have been worse directed, nor through a more disgraceful course. But in this affair, Mr. Home was disappointed, for the woman accepted a compensation in money, and desisted from her suit; and he, suspecting that the late Mr. Murphy had negociated the arrangement, hated him till the time of his death. His activity was also shown in some affairs arising out of election slaughters, particularly in the instances of Allen, Balfe, and M'Quirk. He was chosen a freeman of Bedford, to vex and oppose the duke of Bedford; he is said to have prompted the sheriffs in their proceedings respecting the execution of two rioters, Doyle and Valine: and he suggested the verbal reply which alderman Beckford made to the king, recorded ou the monument of that magistrate in Guildhall. He became also the founder of the “Society for supporting the Bill of Rights,” but this eventually terminated in his disgrace, as much at least as he could be disgraced by a separation from Wilkes. In 1770 and 1771, these two patriots amused the public by an epistolary controversy, illustrative of both their characters; but while these letters amused, they also perplexed the public, for it became a matter of great difficulty to ascertain which was the best, or rather which was the worst character of the two. The origin of the quarrel, however, was not discreditable to Mr. Home. His first objection was that the “Society for supporting the Bill of Rights” was, become merely an instrument for paying Wilkes’s private debts, and this objection might have been fatal to a society that had the public good only in view; but Wilkes finally triumphed for the society of the Bill of Rights, like others since, never took private character into consideration,

In 1771, he went to Cambridge for the purpose of taking the degree of M. A. which was granted to him, although opposed by some of the members, and particularly by the afterwards celebrated Dr. Paley. He now returned, and mixed, as much as he could, in the temporary politicks of the day. It would be as tedious as useless to revive the memory of all his newspaper effusions. The most finished specimen of his composition is probably to be found in two or three letters written in answer to the attacks of Junins: and he had the honour, which in those days was deemed no inconsiderable one, of being the only knight that returned with his lance unbroken from a combat with that unknown but terrible champion. If he wants the exquisite polish and the brilliant invective of his adversary, that dexterous malignity which comes in with such effect to blacken a character by insinuation, after invective has exhausted its powers; and above all, that well-sustained tone of austere dignity which gives to Junins the air and authority of a great personage in disguise; he is superior to him in facility, vivacity, and that appearance of plainness and sincerity which is of such importance in controversial writings. Soon after these controversies he resigned his living at Brentford, and, as far as he could, the clerical character. That he could not do so altogether, evidently soured his temper for the rest of his life, and prompted him to those sallies of profaneness, and that general conduct, which showed his contempt for the profession and every thing that belonged to it. He now studied the law, with an intent to practise; and while thus employed, an incident occurred which was important to his future fortune. This was his rendering a service to a Mr. Tooke of Purley in Surrey, in the case of an inclosure-bill, who, in gratitude, made him his heir; but he did not reap the full benefit of this intention, and it is said that first and last all he received from Mr. Tooke amounted to no more than 8000l. It was on this account, however, that some time afterwards, he assumed the name of Tooke. The particulars of this cause are related with so little attention to facts by most of his biographers, that we have not thought it necessary to attempt reconciling the different accounts of a matter now of comparative insignificance.

When released from imprisonment, he attempted to be called to the bar, but was rejected. His friends are willing to impute his rejection to jealousy, but for this there seems no foundation. His general character, and his clerical orders, of which he could not divest himself, afford a more reasonable excuse for the conduct of the benchers. It may be supposed, however, that this event would exasperate his antipathies. “He could not be a lawyer, and therefore he resisted the law, and reviled those who administered it.” A habit of hatred, if we may so speak, had grown up with Mr. Tooke, and was undoubtedly strengthened by his numerous disappointments, and that mediocrity of rank, to which with all his talents and all his bustle, he was confined in the political world. The same temper rendered him unjust to almost every species of excellence in his contemporaries. “He hated Dr. Johnson, he hated Mr. Burke, he hated lord Mansfield, he hated Mr. Pitt, he hated Mr. Fox, and he spoke of them without any of that respect or forbearance which great talents and high station, and the esteem of the greatest part of the world, generally extort from less resolute or less acrimonious adventurers. The Ishmael of literature and politics, his hand was against every man, and every man’s hand against his.”

In 1786 he published an octavo volume, entitled “Epea Pteroenta, or the Diversions of Purley,” which has given him a considerable rank in the literary world, although opinions were long at variance on the merit of his system, which he afterwards expanded in two volumes, quarto. It seems now generally agreed that this work evinces ingenuity and research; and has served to illustrate some passages hitherto little understood in our ancient poets. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that the idea originated with Mr. Tooke: that all language is reducible to nouns and verbs (the point which he has laboured to establish with respect to the English tongue), was perfectly well known to the philosophical grammarians of antiquity: “Aristoteles duas parte.s orationes esse dicit, vocabula et verba,” says Varro, “De Lingua Latina.” This principle Mr. Tooke has successfully applied in the analysis and etymology of a multitude of English words, especially conjunctions and prepositions, by tracing them to their Saxon original. His speculations, however, though undoubtedly curious, have neither opened to us any new views of the human understanding, nor have they at all extended the limits of metaphysical or logical science, as his admirers wished the world to believe; while his work, professing to be a grammatical treatise, was most preposterously used as the vehicle, of political invective; and, as occasion offered, was made subservient to other purposes still more reprehensible. The disquisition upon the word right is ingeniously contrived to confound all moral distinctions, if the common honesty of mankind did not rest upon some surer foundation than the conclusions of an etymologist of his principles.

In 17yO, Mr. Tooke offered himself as a candidate to represent the city of Westminster, in opposition both to Mr. Fox and lord Hood, and on the hustings from day to day displayed that kind of oratory which was likely to gain the affections of a mob. He did not, however, succeed, although he polled near 1700; but it afforded him an opportunity of sending a petition to the House of Commons, filled with coarse invective, which was declared frivolous and vexatious. His next memorable appearance was at the bar of the Old Bailey, where he was tried in 1794 for high treason. The history of the trial is too recent to require a particular detail. It is well known he was acquitted, and that the event to him was no small triumph. There was no sufficient proof of the charge; and as he knew himself to be perfectly safe, he displayed, on his trial, a degree of coolness, presence of mind, wit and subtlety, which astonished and delighted a great portion of his hearers. Even his adversaries have allowed that he was endowed with every species of courage, active and passive,personal and political, although some of them have expressed his courage by the more offensive word, impudence. When it was reported that, upon being committed to the Tower, his spirit had failed, and he had burst into tears, Wilkes expressed great surprize, and said, “I knew he was a knave, but I never thought him a coward.” On his trial indeed he endeavoured as much as possible to keep principles out of view, and to prove that if he did associate with men of factious designs, it was only to laugh at them; and it is certain that after he made his escape on this memorable occasion, he employed his powers of ridicule, which were very strong, against many of that character whom he met with in other houses, or entertained in his own.

In 1796 he appeared again as a candidate for Westminster, in opposition to sir Alan Gardner, but not in conjunction with Mr. Fox, and although not successful, polled 2819 votes, without expence, or any other solicitation than the speeches he delivered from the hustings. At length, however, in 1801 he obtained what appeared to have been his fond aim, a seat in the House of Commons, an antipathy against which assembly, it has been said, was one of his earliest, strongest, and most enduring feelings. The errors of representation had been long a standing topic with him, and rotten boroughs and corruption his never-failing accusations. But, like others, he seemed at last to think that there was no harm in taking advantage of the present system as long as it lasted. The borough of Old Sarum, offered to him by a young and almost insane nobleman, and which had been a bye-word among parliamentary reformers, had the singular honour of returning him to parliament, and he took his seat, apparently, without any scruple as to the number or quality of his constituents; nor did his dislike to the present order of things reach its utmost height, till all the doors of the House had been finally barred against him by an act of the legislature. In the mean time the expectations excited by his election were completely disappointed. He made no figure in parliament that answered either the hopes or wishes of his friends; and he bad not sat long before his incapacity, as being a priest, was called in question, and it was proposed to expel him. The then minister, Mr. Addington, now lord Sidmouth, was of opinion that a milder course would be more proper, and therefore brought in a declaratory act, effectually preventing a repetition of the abuse; and Mr. Tooke was permitted to sit till the dissolution of parliament in 1802, and then to retire without the renown of martyrdom. His last appearance as the busy, meddling politician, was in the case of a Mr. Paull, a man without birth, property, education, or public services, who offered himself as a candidate for Westminster. This man he first supported, and afterwards deserted. The consequences to this unhappy candidate are well known, but as they involve the characters of persons yet living and perhaps reclaimable, we shall pass them over in silence.

good, and he had profited so judiciously by whatever opportunities he enjoyed, that courts and high stations have seldom produced a better example of polite and elegant behaviour than was exhibited by the associate of Messrs. Hardy and Thelwall. Indeed his manner had almost every excellence that manner can display grace, vivacity, frankness, dignity. Perhaps, indeed, in its outward forms, and in that which is purely conventional, his courtesy wore the air of the ‘ vieille cour,’ and was rather more elaborate than is consistent with the practice of this lounging unceremonious age: but it was never forced or constrained, and it sat not ungracefully upon an old man."

Mr. Tooke’s talents in conversation have been always praised by those who knew him, and never praised too highly. He possessed an inexhaustible fund of anecdotes, which he introduced with great skill, and related with neatness, rapidity, and pleasantry. His principal fault as a companion was “a love of paradox, and a tendency to disputation which led him continually to argue for the mere sake of victory, and in evident contradiction to his own real opinion a practice quite insufferable when adopted, as it often is, by persons of ordinary understanding, and who only flatter themselves that they possess the acuteness with which Mr. Tooke was really endowed, and to which we must own, that even his liveliness, native ingenuity, and felicity of illustration, could never wholly reconcile us.” He possessed a rich vein of humour, sometimes coarse, but always striking, comic, and original. His speeches afforded some good specimens of it to the public, and he indulged in it still more freely in private. Perhaps, indeed, it may be fairly objected to him, that his conversation was hardly ever quite serious; and that, what with paradox, and what with irony, it was not easy to get at his true meaning. The truth seems to be, that he comforted himself for not having a larger share in the business of the world, by laughing at every body and every thing it contained^ His sceptical disposition probably kept his mind unsettled upon many important facts as to which the generality of men entertain more fixed opinions, and he was therefore ready to espouse either side with equal zeal and equal insincerity, just as accident or caprice inclined him at the moment. There were other subjects on which he was accustomed to speak more positively, but on which we are apt to suspect that his esoteric doctrines were very different from those which he taught to aldermen, shoemakers, and other patriotic persons. On such occasions he could not have been in earnest. He must have seen through the designs of those with whom he was acting he must have loathed their vulgarity he must have despised their folly. We are aware how severe a censure upon his honesty this opinion implies, but we really think that a fair estimate of the strength of his understanding can lead to no other conclusion." These remarks applied very forcibly to many whom he admitted to his table, when company became necessary to him, sciolists and pretenders in philosophy and politics, some of whom he delighted to ridicule even to their faces, and this with an art, a force, and a pleasantry, which were absolutely irresistible. On such occasions, had they been present, Mr. Tooke would have suspended the prejudices, and caught the admiration of his most inveterate enemies.

, a learned antiquary, was a native of Malton, in Yorkshire and, in an humble situation under the late Philip Carteret Webb, esq. solicitor to the treasury, acquired such a knowledge of ancient hands and muniments as raised him to a place in the state-paper office, with his friends and patrons, the late sir Joseph AyiofFe, bart. who died in his arms, and Thomas Astle, esq. He was also one of the gentlemen engaged in preparing for the press the six volumes of the Rolls of Parliament; an office in which he succeeded his friend Richard Blyke, esq, with whom, in 1775, he was joint editor of Gianville’s “Reports of cases of controverted Elections determined and adjudged in parliament, 21 and 22 Jac. I.” 8vo. To this is prefixed an historical account of the ancient rights of determining cases upon controverted elections. He was also editor, if not translator, of an English edition of sir John Fortescue’s “De laudibus Legum Anglise,” 1775, 8vo. On Mr. Webb’s death he entered himself at Gray’s Inn; applied to the study of the law; was called to the bar, and appointed a commissioner of bankrupts. He succeeded Dr. Lort as keeper of the archbishop of Canterbury’s library at Lambeth; was secretary to the commissioners for selecting and publishing the public records of this kingdom; and registrar to the charity for relief of poor widows and children of clergymen, and treasurer to the orphan charity-school. He married, in 1794, one of the coheiresses of the late Mr. Swindon, an eminent and opulent schoolmaster at Greenwich, in Kent. Mr. Topham’s publications in the Archaeologia are, vol. VI. p. 116, on Esnecca, or the King’s Yacht, in a charter of Henry II.; ibid. 179, on the picture in Windsor castle representing the embarkation of Henry VIII. at Dover; VII. 337, on a subsidy roll of 51 Edward III. The wardrobe account of 21 Edward I. was published by the society in 1787, under his direction; and he was one of the committee for publishing other wardrobe accounts, in “A collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the government of the Royal Household, in divers reigns, from Edward III. to William and Mary,” 1790, 4to. Mr. Topham was elected F. S. A. in 1767, and treasurer (on the death of Mr. Bartlet) in

, a strenuous champion for the Calvinism of the church of England, was born at Farnham, in Surrey, Nov. 4, 1740. His father was Richard Toplady, esq. a captain in the army, and his mother, Catharine Bate, sister to the late Rev. Julius Bate, and to the rev. Mr. Bate, rector of St. Paul’s, Deptford,by whom they were married, at the said church, on Dec. 31, 1737. They had issue one son, Francis, who died in his infancy, and afterwards the subject of our memoir. His godfathers were Augustus Middleton, and Adolphus Montague, esqrs.; in respect to whom, he bore the Christian name of the one, and the surname of the other. His father died at the siege of Carthagena, soon after his birth. He received the rudidiments of his education at Westminster school; but, it becoming necessary for his mother to take a journey to Ireland to pursue some claims to an estate in that kingdom, he accompanied her thither, and was entered at Trinity college, in Dublin, at which seminary he took his degree of bachelor of arts. He received orders on Trinity Sunday, the 6tli of June, 1762; and, after some time, was inducted into the living of Broad Hembury in Devonshire. Here he pursued his labours with increasing assiduity, and composed most of his writings. He had for some years occasionally visited and spent some time in London; but, in 1775, finding his constitution much impaired by the moist atmosphere of Devonshire, with which it never agreed, he, removed to London entirely, after some unsuccessful attempts to exchange his living for another, of equivalent value, in some of the middle counties. In London, by the solicitation of his numerous friends, he engaged the chapel, belonging to the French reformed, near Leicester-fields; where he preached twice in the week, while his health permitted, and afterwards occasionally, as much as, or rather more than, he was well able to do. He died Aug. 11, 1778. His body was buried, agreeable to his own desire, communicated to some friends, in Tottenham-court chapel. It is supposed that his intense application to study, which he frequently pursued through the night to three and four o'clock in the morning, was the means of inducing his disorder, and of accelerating his end. From this severe pursuit, so long as his body was able to bear it, he could not be dissuaded.

His publications were, 1. “The Church of England vindicated from the charge of Arminianism; and the case of Arminian Subscription particularly considered; in a Letter to the rev. Dr. Nowell,” 1769. 2. “The Doctrine of absolute Predestination stated and asserted; with a preliminary discourse on the Divine Attributes: translated in great measure, from the Latin of Jerom Zanchius; with some account of his Life prefixed,” 1769. 3. “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, relative to his pretended abridgment of Zanchius on Predestination,” 1770, 2d edit. 1771. 4. “A Caveat against unsound Doctrines: a Sermon preached at Blackfryars, April 29, 1770.” 5. “Jesus seen of Angels; and God’s mindfulness of man: three Sermons, preached at Broad Hembury, Devon, Dec. 25, 1770.” 6. “Free Thoughts on the projected Application to Parliament for the Abolition of Ecclesiastical Subscriptions,” 1771. 7. “More work for Mr. John Wesley: or a vindication of the Decrees and Providence of God from the defamations of a late printed paper, entitled ' The Consequence proved/ 1772.” 8. “Clerical Subscription no grievance: a Sermon, preached at the annual Visitation of the archdeaconry of Exeter, May 12, 1772.” 9. “Historical Proof of the Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England,” 1774, 2 vols. 8vo. 10. “Free-will and merit fairly examined; or men not their own Saviours: a Sermon preached at Blackfryars, May 25, 1774.” 11. “Good News from Heaven or, the Gospel a joyful sound a Sermon, preached at the Lock-chapel, June 19, 1774.” 12. “The scheme of Christian and Philosophical necessity asserted, in answer to Mr. John Wesley’s tract on that subject,” 1775. 13. “Joy in Heaven, and the Creed of Devils: two Sermons, preached in London,” 1775. 14. “Moral and Political Moderation recommended” a Sermon, preached on the general fast, Dec. 13, 1776. 15. “Collection of hymns for public and private worship,” 1776. 16. “His dying avowal, dated Knightsbridge,” July 22, 177S. Since his death, a complete edition of his Works has been printed in 6 vols. 8vo, besides a volume of posthumous pieces, concerning the authenticity of which some doubts had been entertained, but these were removed by a letter from his executor, Mr. Hussey of Kensington, to whom he gave permission to publish them. How far this was done with judgment has been doubted. It is certain that some of Mr. Toplady’s posthumous works have placed his character in a different point of view from that in which his followers and admirers were wont to contemplate it.

As Mr. Toplady had thus laboured in all his works 'for the revival of Calvinism, he passed with the generality, and particularly with the public critics, for an enthusiast, with all its supposed accompaniments of austerity, bigotry, and separation from the enjoyments of life and from all society but that of his immediate followers. When therefore in his posthumous works it was discovered that he was much more a man of the world than ever had “been suspected, the opinion of many of his admirers was in some measure altered. It appeared indeed that he mixed very freely in all the habits of social intercourse with persons of all persuasions and denominations; and we have seen a letter of his in print, in which he not only enters on an elaborate defence of card-playing, but speaks even with gentleness on the subject of theatrical and other public amusements. His admirers thought all this might be candid, or liberal, but they could not conceive it to be consistent with the spirit and tendency of his works, nor indeed discoverable in them. Of his defences of Calvinism, his ' Historical Proof” is by far the most able, and although the same arguments or proofs have been more recently repeated in a memorable controversy, excited by Mr. Overton’s publications, they have not been placed either in a more fair or more clear light than by Mr. Toplady. As a controversialist, in his disputes with Wesley and others, he has been blamed for a degree of acrimony unworthy of his cause; but he possessed a warm and active imagination, and a degree of zeal which was not always under the guidance of judgment. Against Wesley he may be said to have had a confirmed antipathy, and employed ridicule as well as argument in opposing his opinions and conduct. The last act of his life was to publish what he called his “Dying Avowal,” in which he contradicted a report circulated by Wesley or his followers, respecting his having changed his sentiments. In this short “Avowal,' 7 he informs us that his Arminian prejudices received their first shock from reading Dr. Manton’s sermons on the xviiih chapter of St. John’s Gospel. Besides the works abovementioned, Mr. Toplady was the editor, for some year?, of” The Gospel Magazine,“began in 1774; and in it, under the article,” Review of Books, 1 * will be found some of his bitterest philippics against Wesley. Upon the whole, however, he must be considered as one of the ablest of modern writers in defence of Calvinism, and brought a larger share of metaphysical acuteness into the controversy than any man of his time.