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

In 1767 Mr. Farmer took the degree of B. D. and in 1769 was appointed by Dr. Terrick, then bishop of London, to be one of the preachers at the chapel royal, Whitehall. During the residence in London which this office required, he lodged with the celebrated Dr. Askew, in Queen’s Square, Bloomsbury, and became himself a collector of books at a time when such as are now thought invaluable could be picked up at stalls at the most trifling prices. In 1775, on the death of Dr. Richardson, he was chosen master of Emanuel college; Mr. Hubbard, the senior fellow, who had been chosen, declining it, with, says Mr. Cole, “his wonted moderation and disinterestedness, and giving his full suffrage to his friend Mr. Farmer.” He now took the degree of D. D. and was very soon succeeded in his tutorship by Dr. William Bennet, the present very learned and amiable bishop of Cloyne. In 1775-6, Dr. Farmer served, in his turn, the office of vicechancellor. During his holding this office an event occurred, which would scarcely be worth mentioning in a life of Dr. Farmer, had it not been grossly misrepresented. When the disturbances in America had become serious, the university of Cambridge, with numberless other loyal bodies, voted an address to the king, approving of the measures adopted by government to reduce the colonies to their duty; the address, however, was not carried unanimously, and was, in particular, opposed by Dr. John Jebb, so well known for his free opinions in politics and religion, and by some others, of whom, one man, a member of the caput, carried his opposition so far, as actually to refuse the key of the place which contained the seal necessary on such occasions. In this emergency the vicechancellor, Dr. Farmer, is said to have forced open the door with a sledge-hammer; and this act of violence is called courtly zeal, and all his subsequent preferments are attributed to it. But the fact'is, that the opening of this door (of a chest) was not an act of intemperate zeal. The sense of the university had been taken; the senate, by its vote, had given its sanction to the measure before the vicechancellor exerted his authority, and gave his servant his official orders to break open the chest.

Dr. Burney informs us that he found his poem on the death of Richard I. in the Vatican, among the Mss. bequeathed to that library by the queen of Sweden, with the original music by the bard himself, who was as much admired by his contemporaries for setting his poems to music, as writing them. A translation of the poem, and the music itself, may be seen in Dr. Barney’s History.

He was afterwards remanded to the Tower, where he continued till queen Mary’s accession to the crown in 1553; but was then released, and made chaplain to the queen. He became also again chaplain to Bonner, prebendary of St. Paul’s, dean of St. Paul’s, rector of Finchley in Middlesex, which he held only a few months; and then rector of Greenford in the same county. In 1554, he was one of the disputants at Oxford against Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, before they suffered martyrdom, but said very little against them; and during Mary’s reign, he was constantly employed in doing good offices to the afflicted protestants from the highest to the lowest. Francis Russel earl of Bedford, Ambrose and Robert Dudley, afterwards earls of Warwick and-Leicester, were benefited by his kindness; as was also sir John Cheke, whose life he and sir Thomas Pope, the founder of Trinity college, Oxford, are said to have saved, by a joint application to queen Mary. Feckenham was very intimate with sir Thomas, and often visited him at Tyttenhanger-house. Feckenham also interceded with queen Mary for the lady Elizabeth’s enlargement out of prison, and that so earnestly, that the queen was actually displeased with him for some time. In May 1556, he was complimented by the university of Oxford with the degree of doctor in divinity; being then in universal esteem for his learning, piety, charity, moderation, humility, and other virtues. The September following, he was made abbot of Westminster, which was then restored by queen Mary; and fourteen Benedictine monks placed there under his government, with episcopal power.

Upon the death of Mary, in 1558, her successor Elizabeth, not unmindful of her obligations to Feckenham, sent for him before her coronation, to consult and reward him; and, as it is said, offered him the archbishopric of Canterbury, provided he would conform to the laws; but this he refused. He appeared, however, in her first parliament, taking the lowest place on the bishop’s form; and was the last mitred abbot that sat in the house of peers. During his attendance there he spoke and protested against every thing tending towards the reformation; and the strong opposition which he could not be restrained from making, occasioned his commitment to the tower in 1560. After nearly three years confinement there, he was committed to the custody of Home bishop of Winchester: but having been old antagonists on the subject of the oath of supremacy, their present connection was mutually irksome, and Feckenham was remanded to the Tower in 1564. Afterwards he was removed to the Marshalsea, and then to a private house in Holborn. In 1571, he attended Dr. John Storie before his execution. In 1578 we find him in free custody with Cox bishop of Ely, whom the queen had requested to use his endeavours to induce Feckenham to acknowledge her supremacy, and come over to the church: and he was at length prevailed on to allow her supremacy, but could never be brought to a thorough conformity. Soon after, the restless spirit of some Roman catholics, and their frequent attempts upon the queen’s life, obliged her to imprison the most considerable among them: upon which Feckenham was sent to Wisbich-castle in the Isle of Ely, where he continued a prisoner to the time of his death, which happened in 1585. As to his character, Camden calls him “a learned and good man, that lived long, did a great-deal of good to the poor, and always solicited the minds of his adversaries to benevolence.” Fuller styles him, “a man cruel to none; courteous and charitable to all who needed his help or liberality.” Burnet says, “he was a charitable and generous man, who lived in great esteem in England.” And Dart concludes his account of him in these words: “though I cannot go so far as Reyner, to call him a martyr; yet I cannot gather but that he was a good, mild, modest, charitable man, and a devout Christian.”

Wood has given us the following catalogue of his works: 1. “A Conference dialogue-wise held between the lady Jane Dudley and Mr. John Feckenham, four days before her death, touching her faith and belief of the sacrament, and her religion, 1554.” In April 1554, he had been sent by the queen to this lady to commune with her, and to reduce her from the doctrine of Christ to queen Mary’s religion, as Fox expresses it. The substance of this conference may be seen also in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments of Martyrs.” 2. “Speech in the house of lords, 1553.” 5. “Two Homilies on the first, second, and third articles of the Creed.” 4. “Oratio funebris in exequiis ducissae Parmse,” &c. that is, “A funeral oration on the Death of the duchess of Parma, daughter of Charles V. and governess of the Netherlands.” 5. “Sermon at the exequy of Joan queen of Spain, 1555.” 6. The declaration of such scruples and staies of conscience, touching the Oath of Supremacy, delivered by writing to Dr. Home, bishop of Winchester, 1566.“7.” Objections or Assertions made against Mr. John Cough’s Sermon, preached in the Tower of London, Jan. 15, 1570.“8.” Caveat emptor:“which seems to have been a caution against buying abbey-lands. He had also written,” Commentaries on the Psalms,“and a” Treatise on the Eucharist,“which were lost among other things. Thus far Wood: but another author mentions, 9.” A Sermon on the Funeral of queen Mary, on “Ecclesiastes iv. 2.”

, a learned divine, was born Feb. 3, 1679, in the parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-fields, Westminster, and was educated first at Cheneys in Buckinghamshire, then at Westminster school under Dr. Busby, and lastly at the Charter-house under Dr. Walker, to whom he was a private pupil. At a proper age he was admitted of Edmund hall, Oxford, of which Dr. Mill, the celebrated critic, was at that time principal, and his tutor was Mr. Thomas Mills, afterwards bishop of Waterford in Ireland. In June 1702, he took his master’s degree, and in December following was ordained deacon, in the royal chapel at Whitehall, by Dr. Lloyd, bishop of Worcester. In June 1704 he was admitted to priest’s orders by Dr. Compton, bishop of London. In 1705-6, he first appeared as an author, in a piece entitled “Remarks on the Colebrook Letter/' a subject the nature of which we have not been able to discover. In 1708 he had the care of the English church at Amsterdam, but did not long continue in that situation, returning to England in 1709. Soon after his return he was appointed domestic chaplain to the duke of Rutland, at Belvoir castle, and sustained that relation to three successive dukes, for which noble house he always preserved the warmest gratitude and affection. In the same year (July 11, 1709) Mr. Felton was admitted to the degree of B. D. being then a member of Queen’s college. Having been employed as tutor to John lord Roos, afterwards third duke of Rutland, he wrote for that young nobleman’s use, his” Dissertation on reading the Classics, and forming a just style," 1711, 12mo. A fourth edition of this was published in 1730, but the best is that of 1757. It was the most popular, and best known of all Dr. Felton’s works, although in the present improved state of criticism, it may appear with less advantage.

In 1711, Mr. Felton was presented by the second duke of Rutland to the rectory of Whitewell in Derbyshire; and July 4, 1712, he preceded to the degree of doctor in divinity. On the death of Dr. Pearson, in 1722, he was admitted, by the provost and fellows of Queen’s college, principal of Edmund hall. In 1725, he printed a sermon which he had preached before the university, and which went through three editions, and excited no common attention, entitled “The Resurrection of the same numerical body, and its re-union to the same soul; against Mr. Locke’s notion of personality and identity.” His next publication, in 1727, was a tra'ct, written with much ingenuity, entitled “The Common People taught to defend their Communion with the Church of England, against the attempts and insinuations of Popish emissaries. In a dialogue between a Popish priest, and a plain countryman.” In 1728 and 1729, Dr. Felton was employed in preaching eight sermons, at lady Moyer’s lecture, at St. Paul’s, which were published in 1732, under the title of “The Christian Faith asserted against Deists, Arians, and Sociirians.” The sermons, when printed, were greatly augmented, and a large preface was given concerning the light and the law of nature, and the expediency and necessity of revelation. This elaborate work was dedicated to Dr. Gibson, bishop of London. In the title he is by some mistake called late principal of Edmund hall, a situation which he never resigned. In 1736 the duke of Rutland, being chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, gave him the rectory of Berwick in Elmet, Yorkshire, which he did not long live to enjoy. In 1739 he was seized with a rheumatic disorder; from which, however, he was so far recovered, after a confinement of nearly three months, that he thought himself able to officiate, in his church at Berwick, on Christmas-day, where he preached his last sermon, and with his usual fervour and affection. But having caught cold, which was followed by a defluxion, attended with a violent fever, he died March 1, 1739-40. During the whole of his disorder, he behaved with a resignation and piety becoming a Christian. He was interred in the chancel of the church of Berwick. He left behind him, intended for the press, a set of sermons on the creation, fall, and redemption of man; the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and the rejection and punishment of Cain, which were published by his son, the rev. William Felton, in 1748, with a preface containing a sketch of his father’s life and character. This work was the result of great attention. The sermons were first composed about 1730, and preached in the parish church of Whitwell in that and the following year. In 1733 he enlarged them, and delivered them again in the same church; and in 1736 when removed to Berwick, he transcribed and preached them at that place. But though he had applied much labour to the subject of the resurrection, he did not think that his discourses on that head, or any other of his university sermons, were fit for re-publication.

, an eminent scholar and translator, was born at Montacute, in Somersetshire in his youth he was for some time a chorister, which gave him an opportunity of being instructed in Latin as well as music. Being afterwards sent to Winchester school for academical education, he was admitted of New college, Oxford, and chosen fellow in 1552, studying chiefly the civil law. In queen Mary’s reign he was made chief master of a noted free-school at St. Edmundsbury, in Suffolk, where he acquired great reputation as a teacher. This station he retained for some part of queen Elizabeth’s reign, but an information having been laid against him, as unqualified by the laws of the reformation, he was obliged to quit it. Some time after he went to Flanders, and afterwards to Rome, where he was admitted into the English college, studied theology for four years, and took orders. Returning afterwards to Flanders, he became confessor to the English nuns at Louvain, where he lived forty years, employing his leisure hours in translating several books favourable to the Roman catholic religion. He died at an advanced age, Dec. 27, 1615, with an excellent character from those of his persuasion, for learning and piety. His publications are, 1. “Vitae quorundam martyrum in Anglia,” which is inserted in Bridgwater’s “Concertatio Ecclesise Catholicae in Anglia.” 2. Several of bishop Fisher’s English works, translated into Latin. 3. “Catechismus Tridentinus,” translated into English. 4. Osorius’s treatise against Walter Haddon, translated into English, Louvain, 1568, 8vo. 5. “The Life of St. Catherine of Sienna,” from the Italian, 1609, 8vo. 6. “A Treatise on Tribulation,” from the Italian of Caccia Guerra. 7. “Mysteries of the Rosary,” from Caspar Loartes. Fuller says that he proceeded Bachelor of Laws at New college, till (in 1562) for his popish activity, he was ejected by the queen’s commissioners. Wood, who mentions this in his Annals, although not in his “Athens,” leaves it doubtful whether he did not resign it of his own accord.

, an English navigator in the reign of Elizabeth, was descended from an ancient family in Nottinghamshire, where he had some property. This he sold, as did also his brother Geoffrey, being, it is said, more inclined to trust to their abilities, than the slender patrimony descended to them from their ancestors; and they were among the very few of those who take such daring resolutions in their youth, without living to repent of them in their old age. The inclination of Edward leading him to the choice of a military life, he served some time with reputation in Ireland; but upon sir Martin Frobisher’s report of the probability of discovering a northwest passage into the South seas, he resolved to embark with him in his second voyage, and was accordingly appointed captain of the Gabriel, a bark of twenty-five tons, in which he accompanied sir Martin in the summer of 1577, to the straits that now bear his name, but in their return he was separated from him in a storm, and arrived safely at Bristol, in a third expedition, which proved unsuccessful, he commanded the Judith, one of fifteen sail, and had the title of rear-admiral. The miscarriage of this voyage had not convinced Fenton of the impracticability of the project; he solicited another trial, and it was, after much application, granted him, though the particular object of this voyage is not easily discovered; his instructions from the privy-council, which are still preserved, say, that he should endeavour the discovery of a north-west passage, and yet he is told to go by the Cape of Good Hope to the East Indies, thence to the South seas, and to attempt his return by the supposed north-west passage, and not by any means to think of passing the Straits of Magellan, except in case of absolute necessity. The truth appears to be, he had interest enough to be allowed to try his fortune in the South-seas. He sailed in the spring 1582, with four vessels, and was making to Africa; thence he intended to sail to Brazil, in his course to the straits of Magellan, but having learnt that there was already a strong Spanish fleet there, he put into a Portuguese settlement, where he met with three of the Spanish squadron, gave them battle, and after a severe engagement, sunk their vice-admiral, and returned home in May 1583. Here he was well received, and appointed to the command of a ship sent out against the famous armada in 1588. In some accounts of this action he is said to have commanded the Antelope, in others, the Mary Rose; but his talents and bravery in the action are universally acknowledged, and it is certain he had a very distinguished share in those actions, the fame of which can never be forgotten. Little more is recorded of him, than that he spent the remainder of his days at or near Deptford, where he died in 1603. A monument was erected to his memory in the parish church of Deptford, at the expence of Richard earl of Cork, who had married his niece. According to Fuller, he died within a few days oi' his mistress, queen Elizabeth, and he remarks, “Observe how God set up a generation of military men both by sea and land, which began and expired with the reign of queen Elizabeth, like a suit of clothes made for her, and worn out with her; for providence designing a peaceable prince to succeed her, in whose time martial men would be rendered useless, so ordered the matter, that they all, almost, attended their mistress, before or after, within some short distance, unto her grave.” This, however, was not strictly true, for the celebrated earl of Nottingham, sir Charles Blount, sir George Carew, sir Walter Raleigh, sir William Monson, sir Robert Mansel, and other great officers by sea and land, survived queen Elizabeth.

, an eminent writer and statesman during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. was brother to the preceding, but the time of his birth does not appear. He was certainly educated liberally, though we cannot tell where; since, while a young man, he gave many proofs of his acquaintance with ancient and modern learning, and of his being perfectly versed in the French, Spanish, and Italian languages. He is well known for a translation from the Italian of “The History of the Wars of Italy, by Guicciardini,” the dedication of which to queen Elizabeth bears date Jan. 7, 1579. This was, however, his last work. He had published before, 1. “Certaine Tragical Discourses written oute of French and Latin,” 1567, 4to, reprinted 1579. Neither Ames nor Tanner appear to have seen the first edition. The work is, says Warton, in point of selection and size, perhaps the most capital miscellany of the kind, a. e. of tragical novels. Among the recommendatory poems prefixed is one from Turberville. Most of the stories are on Italian subjects, and many from Bandello. 2. “An Account of a Dispute at Paris, between two Doctors of the Sorbonne, and two Ministers of God’s Word,”1571, a translation. 3. “An Epistle, or Godly Admonition, sent to the Pastors of the Flemish Church in Antwerp, exhorting them to concord with other Ministers: written by Antony de Carro, 1578,” a translation. 4. “Golden Epistles; containing variety of discourses, both moral, philosophical, and divine, gathered as well out of the remainder of Guevara’s works, as other authors, Latin, French, and Italian. Newly corrected and amended. Mon heur viendra, 1577.” The familiar epistles of Guevara had been published in English, by one Edward Hellowes, in 1574; but this collection of Fenton’s consists of such pieces as were not contained in that work. The epistle dedicatory is to the right honourable and vertuous lady Anne, countess of Oxen ford; and is dated from the author’s chamber in the Blackfriars, London, Feb. 4, 1575. This lady was the daughter of William Cecil lord Burleigh; and it appears from the dedication, that her noble father was our author’s best patron. Perhaps his chief purpose in translating and publishing this work, was to testify his warm zeal and absolute attachment to that great minister.

"What the inducements were, which engaged him to leave his own country, in order to serve the queen in Irelaud, cannot easily be discovered; it is, however, certain that he went thither well recommended, and that being in particular favour with Arthur lord Grey, then lord deputy in that kingdom, he was sworn of the privy-council about 1581. It is more than probable that his interest might be considerably strengthened by his marriage with Alice, the daughter of Dr. Robert Weston, some time lord chancellor of Ireland, and dean of the arches in England, a man of great parts, and who had no small credit with the earl of Leicester, and other statesmen in the court of Elizabeth; and when he was once fixed in the office of secretary, his own great abilities and superior understanding made him so useful to succeeding governors, that none of the changes to which that government was too much subject in those days, wrought any alteration in his fortune. One thing, indeed, might greatly contribute to this, which was the stron<r interest he found means to raise, and never was at a loss to maintain, in England; so that whoever was lord lieutenant in Ireland, sir Geoffrey Fenton continued the queen’s counsellor there, as a man upon whom she depended, from whom she took her notions of state affairs in that island, and whose credit with her was not to be shaken by the artifices of any faction whatever. He took every opportunity of persuading the queen that the Irish were to be governed only by the rules of strict justice, and that the safety and glory of her government in that island depended on her subjects enjoying equal laws and protection of their property. The queen frequently sent for her secretary Fenton, to consult with him on her Irish affairs, which shews the high opinion she entertained of his understanding, though it often happened that when he was returned to his duty, the advisers of Elizabeth persuaded her to adopt measures the reverse of what Fenton had recommended. He was the means of extinguishing more than one rebellion, and of totally reducing the kingdom to submit to English government.

, an English gentleman of considerable learning and ingenuity, of great personal worth, and at the same time an enthusiast of a singular description, was the third son of Nicholas Ferrar, a merchant in London, and was born Feb. 22, 1592, in the parish of St. Mary Stayning, in Mark-lane, London. His lather traded very extensively to the East and West Indies, and to all the celebrated seats of commerce. He* lived in high repute in the city, where he joined in commercial matters with sir Thomas and sir Hugh Middleton, and Mr. Bateman. He was a man of liberal hospitality, but governed his house with great order. He kept a good table, at which he frequently received persons of the greatest eminence, sir John Hawkins, sir Francis Drake, sir Walter Raleigh, and others with whom he was an adventurer; and in all their expeditions he was ever in the highest degree attentive to the planting the Christian Religion in the New World. At home also he was a zealous friend to the established church, and always ready to supply his prince with what was required of him. He lent 300l. at once upon a privy-seal a sum at that time notinconsiderable. He had the honour of being written Esq. by queen Elizabeth.

, the martyred bishop of St. David’s in the sixteenth century, was an ancestor of the preceding, and born in Halifax parish, Yorkshire, probably at Ewood. He became, when a young man, a canon regular of the order of St. Austin, but in what priory or abbey is uncertain. Having partly received his academical education in Cambridge, he retired to a nursery for the canons of St. Austin, i.t Oxford, called St. Mary’s-college (where Erasmus had before studied), and here we find him in 1526, and also in Oct. 1533, when as a member of the said college, he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, having a little before been opponent in divinity. About the same time he became chaplain to archbishop Cranmer, after whose example he married, a practice at that time disallowed among the popish clergy, and in the time of queen Mary, made the ground of a criminal charge. Dodd, who treats him with more respect than some protestant biographers, adopts from Wood the account, that he was among the first of the university of Oxford that received a tincture of Lutheranism, in which he was confirmed by Thomas Garret, curate of Honey-lane in London, who provided him with books for that purpose, and that in the year above-mentioned he was chosen prior of a monastery of his order, called Nostel, or St. Oswald’s, in Yorkshire, which he surrendered to the commissioners upon the dissolution in 1540, being gratified with a pension of 100l. per annum.

This pension he enjoyed until his promotion to the see of St. David’s, to which he was consecrated Sept. 9, 154-8. He was the first bishop consecrated upon the bare nomination of the king, according to the statute which for that purpose was published in the first year of his (Edward VI.) reign. He had just before been one of the king’s "visitors in a royal visitation, and was at the same time appointed one of the preachers for his great ability in that faculty. As a bishop, Browne Willis says, he became a most miserable dilapidator, yielding up every thing to craving courtiers, and Wood speaks of him with all the rancour of a disciple of Gardiner. The fact, however, seems to be that when he first visited his diocese, he found, among other corruption^and dilapidations, that Thomas Young, the chaunter (afterwards archbishop of York), had pulled down the great hall in the palace for the sake of the lead, which he sold, and that he and Rowland Merick, one of the canons, and afterwards bishop of St David’s, had stripped the cathedral of plate and ornaments, which they likewise sold for their own benefit. On this Dr. Ferrar issued out his commission to his chancellor for visiting the chapter, as well as the restof the diocese, and a mistake in the drawing up of this commission appears to have given the bishop’s enemies the first advantage they had over him. The chancellor, tp whom he left the form of it, drew it up in the old popish words, in which the king’s supremacy was not sufficiently acknowledged, although the bishop professed to visit in the king’s name and authority. This, Young and Merick, with the bishop’s register, George Constantine, whom he had promoted, availed themselves of, not only to resist the commission, but to accuse the bishop of a pr&munire. The prosecution consequent on this, preventing him from, paying the tenths and first-fruits, afforded them another advantage, and he was imprisoned. They also exhibited fifty-six articles and informations against him, of the most frivolous kind, all which he fully answered; but the debt to the crown remaining unpaid, he was detained in prison until queen Mary’s reign, when he was attacked on the score of heresy, and on Feb. 4, 1555, was brought, in company with Hooper, Bradford, and other martyrs, before Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, who, after treating him with brutal contempt, sent him on the 14th of the same month to his diocese, where he was to be tried by his successor, Morgan, whose interest it was that he should be condemned. The principal charges against him were, his allowing the marriage of priests, denying the corporal presence in the sacrament, affirming that the mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead, declaring that the host ought not to be elevated or adored, and asserting thai man is justified by faith alone. All these Morgan pronounced to be damnable heresies, degraded Dr. Ferrar from his ecclesiastical functions, and delivered him to the secular power. In consequence of this sentence, he was burned at Carmarthen, on the south side of the marketcross, March 30, 1555. It was remarkable, that one Jones coming to the bishop a little before his execution, lamented the painfulness of the death he had to suffer; but was answered, that if he once saw him stir in the pains of his burning, he should then give no credit to his doctrine. And what he said he fully performed, for he stood patiently, and never moved, till he was beat down with a staff.

, or Jacobus Fabku, Stapulensis, a man of genius and learning, was born at Estaples, in Picardy, about 1440; and was one of those who contributed to revive polite literature in the university of Paris. He became, however, suspected of Lutheranism, and was obliged to give way to the outrage of certain ignorant zealots, who suffered him not to rest. He then retired from Paris to Meaux, where the bishop was William Briconnet, a lover of the sciences and learned men; but the persecution raised by the Franciscans at Meaux obliging the bishop, against his inclination, to desert Faber, the latter was forced to retire to Blois, and from thence to Guienne. Margaret queen of Navarre, sister to Francis I. honoured him with her protection, so that he enjoyed full liberty at Nerac till his death, which happened in 1537, when he was little short of a hundred.

He was one of those, who, like Erasmus, though they did not outwardly depart from the church of Rome, and also disapproved in some things the conduct of those who established the reformation in Germany, yet at the bottom were inclined to a change. He took a journey to Strasburg, by the queen of Navarre’s order, to confer with Bucer and Capito concerning the reformation of the church. He published, so early as 1512, a translation of St. Paul’s epistles, with critical notes and a commentary, in which he frequently censures the Vulgate. He published in 1522 similar notes and commentary upon the other parts of the New Testament. Natalis Bedda, a divine of Paris, censured his divinity, as well as that of Erasmus; and the inquisitors of Rome under Clement VIIL put his commentary on the whole New Testament in the catalogue of prohibited books, till it should be corrected and purged from its errors. Father Simon has passed a judgment on this work of Faber' s, which he concludes by observing, that “he ought to be placed among the most able commentators of the age. But Erasmus, who wrote at the same time, and with infinitely more politeness, greatly lessened his reputation. The works of Faber are no longer read at Paris; whereas those of Erasmus are highly esteemed even at this day.”

Some very singular things are related of his last hours. Margaret of Navarre was very fond of Faber, and visited him often. He and other learned men, whose conversation greatly pleased the queen, dined with her one day; when, in the midst of the entertainment, Faber began to weep. The queen asking the reason, he answered, That the enormity of his sins threw him into grief; not that he had ever been guilty of debaucheries, but he reckoned it & very great crime, that having known the truth, and taught it to persons who had sealed it with their blood, he had had the weakness to keep himself in a place of refuge, far from the countries where crowns of martyrdom were distributed. The queen, who was eloquent, comforted him; yet he was found dead a few hours after going to bed, which, considering his very advanced age, was not very extraordinary. He wrote several works in divinity, besides those above-mentipned, particularly an edition of the Psalter, in five languages, Paris, 1509, fol. “Traite de, Duplici, et unica Magdalena,” 4to “Agones martyruia mensis Januarii,” fol. without date of place or year, but of the beginning of the sixteenth century; a French version of the Bible, Antwerp, 1530, fol. very scarce, known by the name of the Emperor’s Bible, from the printer’s name. This translation, say the catholics, was the foundation of those which the protestants and doctors of Louvahi have published.

, or Nicolaus Faber, a very ingenious, learned, and pious man, was born at Paris, June 2, 1544, or according to Perrault, July 4, 1543; and liberally educated by his mother, his father dying in his infancy. During the course of his studies, as he was cutting a pen, a piece of the quill flew into his eye, and gave him such excessive pain, that hastily lifting up his hand to it, he struck it out with the knife. Having finished his application to the languages, he was sent to study the civil law at Tholouse, Padua, and Bologna. He did not come back till he had travelled through Italy: and he resided eighteen months in Rome, about 1571, where he cultivated a friendship with Sigonius, Muretus, and other learned men. He there acquired his taste for the investigation of antiquities, and brought away with him many curiosities. Upon hi$ return to France, he applied himself wholly to letters, and would hear no mention of marriage. His mother and brother dying in 1581, he lived with Peter Pithoeus, with whom he was very intimate; and having no occupation but study, he employed himself in reading the ancients, in correcting them by Mss. of which he had a great number in his own library, and in writing notes upon them. He laboured particularly on Seneca the rhetorician, whom he published in 1587, with a learned preface and notes, an. edition which we do not find mentioned by Dibdin oc Clarke. He applied himself also to studies of a different kind, to the mathematics particularly; in which he succeeded so well, that he discovered immediately the defect in Scaliger’s demonstration of the quadrature of the circle. When Henry the Fourth of France became at length the peaceable possessor of the crown, he appointed Faber preceptor to the prince of Conde. During this important trust, he found time to labour upon some considerable works; and composed that fine preface to the fragments of Hilary, in which he discovered so many important facts relating to the history of Arianism, not known before. After the death of Henry IV. he was chosen, by the queen, preceptor to Louis XIII. He died in 1611, or according to Perrault, Nov. 4, 1612.

, an English divine, and laborious writer, was born of reputable parents, at Hunmanby near Scarborough in Yorkshire in 1671. In his education he was much encouraged by his uncle the rev. Mr. Fiddes of Brightwell in Oxfordshire, who was as a father to him. After being instructed at a private school at Wickham in that neighbourhood, he was admitted of Corpus Christi, and then of University college, in Oxford; where by his parts and address he gained many friends. He did not, however, continue there; but, after taking a bachelor of arts degree in 1693, returned to his relations, and married, in the same year, Mrs. Jane Anderson, a lady of good family and fortune. In 1694, he was ordained priest by Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York; and not long after, presented to the rectory of Halsham in that county, of about 90l. per annum. Halsham, being situated in a marsh, proved the occasion of much ill health to Fiddes and his family; and he had the misfortune, while there, to be suddenly so deprived of his speech, as never after to be able to utter words very articulately, unless his organs were strengthened with two or three glasses of wine, which, as he was a mun of great temperance, was to him an excess. His diocesan, however, dispensed with his residence upon his benefice for the future; on which he removed to Wickham, and continued there some months. Being no longer able to display his talents in preaching, which before were confessedly great, and having a numerous family, he resolved to devote himself entirely to writing. For this purpose, he went to London in 1712; and, by the favour of dean Swift, was introduced to the earl of Oxford, who received him kindly, and made him one of his chaplains. The dean had a great esteem for Fiddes, and recommended his cause with the warmth and sincerity of a friend. The queen soon after appointed him chaplain to the garrison at Hull, and would probably have provided handsomely for him, had not death prevented her. Losing his patrons upon the change of the ministry in 1714, he lost the above mentioned chaplainship; and the expences of his family i icreasing, as his ability to supply them lessened, he was obliged to apply himself to writing with greater assiduity than ever. Yet he continued in high esteem with contemporary writers, especially those of his own party; and was encouraged by some of the most eminent men of those times. By the generosity of his friend and relation Dr. Radcliffe, the degree of bachelor of divinity was conferred upon him by diploma, Feb. 1, 1713, and in 1718 he was honoured by the university of Oxford with that of doctor, in consideration of his abilities as a writer. He died at the house of his friend Anstis at Putney, in 1725, aged fifty ­four years, leaving behind him a' family consisting of a wife and six children. His eldest daughter was married to the rev. Mr. Barcroft, curate of St. George’s, Hanover-square, who abridged Taylor’s “Ductor Dubitantium.” Dr. Fiddes was buried in Fulham churchyard, "near the remains of bishop Compton, to whom he had been much obliged.

, a very learned lady, of a family originally of Milan, is supposed to have been born about 1465. She was early instructed in the Greek and Latin languages, elocution, and the Aristotelian philosophy, to which she was partial, and maintained a correspondence with many of the literati of her age. She is said to have been of unblemished morals, great frankness of disposition, and occasional gaiety. Politian considered her as no less> a prodigy among her sex than Picus was among his, and was so struck with her character, that he visited Venice almost solely with a view to converse with her; and persons of all ranks vied in their respect for her, while crowned heads invited her by large offers to visit and settle in their courts. In 1487, Cassandra delivered a public oration before the university of Padua, “pro Alberto Lamberto Canonico Concordiensi,” a philosophical relation of hers, which is still extant. Some suppose her to have been in the practice of delivering public lectures in that university, but this is doubted by her biographer. She had once the honour of addressing a complimentary oration to Bona Fortia, queen of Sarmatia, when visiting Venice, which was delivered in the Bucentauro, sent out with a suitable train to meet and escort her into the Venetian port; on which occasion the queen presented her with a magnificent gold chain; but Cassandra, with that philosophic indifference which she had always evinced for this precious metal, gave it next day into the hands of the doge.

In 1594 he was chosen divinity reader to the honourable society of Lincoln’s-inn, and soon after presented by Mr. Richard Kingsmill, one of the benchers and surveyor of the court of wards, to the valuable rectory of Burghclear in Hampshire, where Mr. Kingsmill lived, and refused the living of St. Andrew, Holborn, which was afterwards offered to him, preferring a retired life, and passing the greater part of his time at Burghclear to his death. On April 9, 1594, he married Elizabeth, daughter of Mr. Richard Harris, sometime fellow of New college, Oxford, and rector of Hardwicke in Buckinghamshire, with which lady, who had received a very liberal education, he lived happily upwards of twenty years. On Sept. 27, 1598, he was made chaplain in ordinary to queen Elizabeth, after having, on the 23d preceding, preached a kind of probationary sermon before her majesty; and he was soon after made prebendary of Windsor. He was also joined in the special commission with William marquis of Winchester, and Thomas Bilson bishop of Winchester, &c. for ecclesiastical causes within the diocese of Winchester; and in another to exercise all spiritual jurisdiction in the said diocese, with Whitgift archbishop of Canterbury, Charles earl of Nottingham, Thomas bishop of Winchester, and others, by James I. 1603, to whom he was also chaplain in ordinary, and sent to the conference at Hampton court concerning ecclesiastical causes, held Jan. 14, 1603. In 1605, when the king was to be entertained at Oxford with all manner of scholastic exercises, he was sent for out of the country to bear a part in the divinity act. Sir Nathaniel Brent, afterwards warden of Merton, used to say that the disputation between Dr. Field and Dr. Aglionby, before king James, was the best he ever heard in his life, and that it was listened to with great attention and delight by all present. The question was, “An sancti et angeli cognoscant cogitationes cordium”

He performed the office of high steward at the trial of lord Stafford, who was found guilty of high treason by his peers, for being concerned in the popish plot. On May J2, 1681, he was created earl of Nottingham, and died, quite worn out, at his house in Queen-street, Lincoln’sinn-fields, Dec. Is, 1682, and was buried in the church of Ilaunston near Olney in Buckinghamshire, where his son erected a superb monument to hrs memory. Though he lived in very troublesome and difficult times, yet he conducted himself with such even steadiness, that he retained the good opinion of both prince and people. He was distinguished by his wisdom and eloquence; and was such an excellent orator, that some of his contemporaries have styled him the English Roscius, the English Cicero, &c. Burnet, in the preface to his “History of the Reformation,” telis us, that his great parts and greater virtues were so conspicuous, that it would be a high presumption in him to say any thing in his commendation being in nothing more eminent, than in his zeal for, and care of, the church of England. His character is described by Dryden, or rather Tate, in the second part of “Absalom and Achitophel,” under the name of Amri; but more reliance may be placed on the opinion of judge Blackstone. “He was a person,” says this learned commentator, “of the greatest abilities, and most incorrupted integrity; a thorough master and zealous defender of the laws and constitution of his country; and endued with a pervading genius that enabled him to discover and to pursue the true spirit of justice, notwithstanding the embarrassments raised by the narrow and technical notions which then prevailed in the courts of law, and the imperfect ideas of redress which had possessed the courts of equity. The reason and necessities of mankind, arising from the great change in property, by the extension of trade, and the abolition of military tenures, co-operated in establishing his plan, and enabled him, in the course of nine years, to build a system of jurisprudence and jurisdiction upon wide and rational foundations, which have also been extended and improved by many great men, who have since presided in chancery; and from that time to this, the power and business of the court have increased to an amazing degree.”

When king William and queen Mary therefore were advanced to the throne, he was offered the post of lord high chancellor of England, which he excused himself from accepting, alledging his unfitness for an employment that required a constant application; but was appointed one of the principal secretaries of state. In 1690, he attended his majesty to the famous congress at the Hague; and Jdng James II. took such umbrage at his services, that in his declaration upon his intended descent in 1692, his lordship was excepted out of his general pardon. In March 1693-4, he resigned his place of principal secretary. of state; and the year following had a public testimony given to the integrity of his conduct in a very remarkable instance; for, upon an examination in parliament into the bribery and corruption of some of their own members, in order to obtain a new charter for the East-India Company, it appeared by the deposition of sir Basil Firebrace, that his lurdship had absolutely refused to take five thousand guineas for his interest in promoting that charter, and five thousand pounds on passing the act for that purpose.

Upon the accession of queen Anne he was again appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, and in that station had a vote of the house of commons passed in his favour, “that he had highly merited the trust her majesty had reposed in him,” and the like sanction from the house of lords. However, on the 17th of April 1704, he resigned that employment, and accepted of no other post during all that reign, though large offers were made to engage him in the court interest and measures, upon the change of the ministry in 1710, his refusal of which so exasperated the opposite, party, that he was attacked with great virulence in several libels both in verse and prose. He continued therefore to give his opinion upon all occasions with great freedom, and in December the same year distinguished himself by a vigorous speech in the house of lords, representing, that no peace could be safe or honourable to Great Britain, if Spain and the West Indies were allotted to any branch of the house of Bourbon and had so much weight in that house, that the clause which he offered to that purpose to be inserted in the address of thanks, in answer to her majesty’s speech, was after a warm debate carried. He soon after moved likewise for an address to the queen, that her majesty would not treat except in concert with her allies. When his late majesty king George succeeded to the crown, his lordship was one of the lords justices for the administration of aflairs till his arrival; and on the 24th of September 1714, was declared lord-president of the council. But on the 29th of February 1715-16, he retired from all public business to a studious course of life; the fruits of which appeared in his elaborate answer to Mr. Whiston’s letter to him upon the subject of the trinity; for which, on the 22d of March 1720-21, he had the unanimous thanks of the university of Oxford in full convocation. He died January 21st, 1729-30, having just before succeeded to the title of earl of Winchelsea, into which that of Nottingham merged.

, of the family of the lord keeper, was the son of sir Thomas Finch of Eastwell in Kent, and was born in that county, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford. From that he went to Gray’s Inn, and after pursuing the usual course of law studies, became a counsellor of reputation, and was autumn or summer reader of that house in 2 James I. In 1614 he attained the rank of a Serjeant, and two years after was knighted. He died Oct. 11, 1625, leaving a son, John, who was afterward created lord Finch of Fordwich, and was keeper of the great seal. Sir Henry Finch wrote “Nomotechnia, ou description del Commun Leys d'Angleterre, &c.” Lond. 1613, fol. This “Description of the Common Law” was afterwards published by himself in English, under the title “Of Law, or a Discourse thereof,” Lond. 1627, (636, and 1661, 8vo. But a better translation was published in 1758 by an anonymous hand. He published also “On the Calling of the Jews,” a work which Wood has so imperfectly described that it is not easy to discover its drift. Finet (Sir John), a man considerable enough to be remembered, was son of Robert Finet of Soulton, near Dover, in Kent, and born in 1571. His great grandfather was of Sienna, in Italy, where his family was ancient; and coming into England a servant to cardinal Campegius, the pope’s legate, married a maid of honour to queen Catherine, consort to Henry VIII. and settled here. He was bred up in the court, where, by his wit, mirth, and uncommon skill in composing songs, he very much pleased James I. In 1614 he was sent into France about matters of public concern; and the year after was knighted. In 1626 he was made assistant to the master of the ceremonies, being then in good esteem with Charles I. He died in 1641, aged seventy. He wrote a book entitled “Fineti Philoxenus: Some choice observations touching the reception and precedency, the treatment and audience, the punctilios and contests of foreign ambassadors in England, 1656,” 8vo published by James Howel, and dedicated to lord LTsle. He also translated from French into English “The beginning, continuance, and decay of Estates, &c. 1606;” written originally by R. de Lusing.

As soon as he was made free, he began to trade for himself in the linen manufacture, with a stock not exceeding 100l. which, however, he improved so far, as to marry, in 1660, a citizen’s daughter with 500l. to her portion. This wife did not live many years, but after bringing him two children, died, while he was managing some affairs of trade at Cambridge: and, according to the assertion of his biographer, he dreamed at the same time at Cambridge, that his wife was breathing her last. Afterwards he settled in Lombard-street, and became so celebrated for his public^ spiritedness and benevolence, that he was noticed by all persons of consequence, and especially by the clergy. He became upon intimate terms with Whichcot, Wilkins, Tillotson, &c. so particularly with the last, that when obliged to be out of town, at Canterbury perhaps, where he was dean, he left to Mr. Firmin the provision of preachers for his Tuesday’s lecture at St. Laurence’s church near Guildhall. Mr. Firmin was afterwards so publicly known, as to fall under the cognizance of majesty itself. Queen Mary having heard of his usefulness in all public designs, those of charity especially, and that he was heterodox in the articles of the trinity, the divinity of our Saviour, and the satisfaction, spoke to Tillotson to set him right in those weighty and necessary points; who answered, that he had often endeavoured it; but that Mr. Firmin had now so long imbibed the Socinian doctrine, as to be beyond the reach of his arguments. His grace, however, for he was then archbishop, published his sermons, formerly preached at St. Laurence’s, concerning those questions, and sent Mr. Firmin one of the first copies from the press, who, not convinced, caused a respectful answer to be drawn up and published with this title, “Considerations on the explications and defences of the doctrine of the Trinity,” himself giving a copy to his grace: to which the archbishop, after he had read it, only answered, “My lord of Sarum,” meaning Dr. Burnet, “shall humble your writers;” still retaining, however, his usual kindness for Mr. Firmin.

, an eminent performer and composer for the hautbois, was born at Fribourg, and educated at a common reading school at a village in Bohemia, where all the children learn music, reading, and writing, as a matter of course. He first learned a little on the violin, but changed it soon for the hautbois, and became early in life so excellent a performer on that instrument, as to be appointed one of the king of Poland’s celebrated band ait Dresden. On the dissolution of this band he went to Berlin, where he had the honour, during a month, to accompany Frederick the late king of Prussia alone, four hours every day. From Berlin he went to Manheim, and thence to Paris, where he was heard with admiration, and as soon as he had acquired some money he came over to England, and here, as soon as he had been once heard in public, which was at a benefit, no other concert, public or private, was thought complete without his performance; and being engaged to play a concerto every night at Vauxhall, he drew thither all the lovers of music, but particularly professors. When the queen’s band was formed, Fischer was appointed one of her majesty’s chamber musicians; and when Bach and Abel, uniting, established a weekly subscription concert at Hanover-square, where, for a long time, no music was heard but that of these excellent masters, Fischer was allowed to compose for himself, and in a style so new and fanciful, that in point of invention, as well as tone, taste, expression, and neatness of execution, his piece was always regarded as one of the highest treats of the night, and heard with proportionate rapture.

Fischer left England in 178G, and in the beginning of the next year had not been heard of. His majesty inquired several times, with some solicitude, whether he had written to any of his friends in England, and was answered in the negative; one of them understood, by report, that he was at Strasburg. He returned, however, at the end of 1787, and continued in England during the rest of his life. About 1777 he had married a daughter of the admirable painter, Gainsborough, an enthusiastic lover of good music and performance, and of none so much as Fischer’s; indeed he enchanted the whole family with his strains, which were beyond measure captivating, and he stood so well at his instrument, that his figure had all the grace of a Tibian at the altar of Apollo, But this marriage was not auspicions; Fischer, with a good person, and superior genius for his art, was extremely deficient in colloquial eloquence, and in all those undefinable charms of conversation which engage the attention and endear the speaker. He had not a grain of sense but what he breathed through his reed; he never spoke more than three words at a time, and those were negatives or affirmatives. Yet, though he had few charms for a friend or companion, he delighted the public at large in a higher degree than is allowed to any but gifted mortals. This admirable musician was seized with an apoplectic fit April 29, 1800, during the performance of a solo at the queen’s house, at his majesty’s concert. Prince William of Gloucester, observing his situation, supported him out of the apartment, whence he was conveyed to his residence in Compton-street, Soho, where he expired about an hour afterwards.

In 1501, he took the degree of D. D. and the same year was chosen chancellor of the university; during the exercise of which office he encouraged learning and good manners, and is said by some to have had prince Henry under his tuition in that university. In 1502 he was appointed by charter the lady Margaret’s first divinity-professor in Cambridge; and in 1504, made bishop of Rochester, at the recommendation of Fox, bishop of Winchester, and never would exchange this bishopric, though then the least in England; for he called his church his wife, and was, used to say, “he would not change his little old wife, to whom he had been so long wedded, for a wealthier.” In 1505 he accepted the headship of Queen’s college, in Cambridge, which he held for little more than three years. The foundation of Christ’s-coliege was completed under his care and superintendence in 1506; and himself was appointed hy the statutes visitor for life, after the death of the munificent foundress. The king’s licence for founding St. John’s, was obtained soon after; but, before it was passed in due form, the king died, April 1, 1509, and the lady Margaret herself, the 29th of June following. The care of the new foundation now derolved upon her executors, of whom the most faithful and most active, and indeed the sole and principal agent, was Fisher; and he carried it on with the utmost vigour. In 1512 he was appointed to the council of Lateran, at Rome, but never went, as appears from procuratorial powers, and letters recommending him to great men there, still extant in the archives of St. John’s college. This college being finished in 1516, he went to Cambridge, and opened it with due solemnity; and was also commissioned to make statutes for it. He became afterwards a great benefactor to that college.

Upon Luther’s appearance and opposition to popery, in 1517, Fisher, a zealous champion for the church of Rome, was one of the first to enter the lists against him. He not only endeavoured to prevent the propagation of his doctrine in his own diocese, and in the university of Cambridge, over which as chancellor he had a very great influence, but also preached and wrote with great eanifstness against him. He had even resolved to go to Rome, but was diverted by Wolsey’s calling together a synod of the whole clergy, in which the bishop delivered himself with great freedom, on occasion of the cardinal’s stateliness and pride. Hitherto he had continued in great favour with Henry; but in the business of the divorce, in 1527, he adhered so firmly to the queen’s cause and the pope’s supremacy, that jt brought him into great trouble, and in the end proved his ruin. For the king, who greatly esteemed him for his honesty and learning, having desired his opinion upon his marriage with Catherine of Arragon, the bishop declared, that there was no reason at all to question the validity of it; and from this opinion nothing afterwards could ever make him recede.

When the question of giving Henry the title of the supreme head of the church of England was debated in convocation in 1531, the bishop opposed it with all his might; which only served the more to incense the court against him, and to make them watch all opportunities to get rid of so troublesome a person. He soon gave them the opportunity they sought, by his remarkable weakness in tampering with, and hearkening too much to the visions and impostures of Elizabeth Barton, the holy maid of Kent; who, among other things, pretended a revelation from God, that “if the king went forwards with 'the purpose he intended, he should not be king of England seven months after.” The court having against him the advantage they wanted, soon made use of it; they adjudged him guilty of misprision of treason, for concealing the maid’s speeches that related to the king; and condemned him, with five others, in loss of goods and imprisonment during the king’s pleasure; but he was released upon paying 300l. for his majesty’s use. Afterwards an act was made, which absolutely annulled Henry’s marriage with Catherine; confirmed his marriage with Anne Boleyn entailed the crown upon her issue, and upon the lady Elizabeth by name making it high treason to slander or do any thing to the derogation of this last marriage. In pursuance of this, an oath was taken by both houses, March 30, 1534, “to bear faith, truth, and obedience to the king’s majesty, and to the heirs of his body by his most dear and entirely beloved lawful wife queen Anne, begotten and to be begotten,” &c. Instead of taking this oath, Fisher withdrew to his house at Rochester: but had not been there above four days, when he received orders from the archbishop of Canterbury and other commissioners, authorised under the great seal to tender the oath, to appear before them at Lambeth. He appeared accordingly, and the oath being presented to him, he perused it awhile, and then desired time to consider of it; so that five days were allowed him. Upon the whole, he refused to take it, and was committed to the Tower April 26.

He was the author of several works, as, 1. “Assertionum Martini Lutheri confutatio.” 2. “Defensio Assertions Henrici Octavi de septem sacramentis,” &c. 3. “Epistola Responsoria Epistolge Lutheri.” 4. “Sacerdotii Defensio contra Lutherum.” 5, “Pro Damnatione Lutheri.” 6. “Pe veritate cornoris et sanguinis ChristJ in Eucharistia a adversus Oecolampadium.” 7. “De unica Magdalena.” 8. “Peirum fuisse Romse.” 9. “Several Sermons, among which was one preached at the funeral of Henry VII. and one at the funeral of Margaret countess of Richmond.” The latter was republished in 1708, by Thomas Baker, B. D. with a learned preface. And one preached at London, on the day that Luther’s writings were publicly burnt. 10. Several Tracts of a smaller nature upon subjects of piety. 11. “His opinion of king Henry VIII.'s marriage, in a letter to T. WoKey.” This is printed in the Collection of Records at the end of the second volume of Collier’s “Ecclesiastical History.” Most of the forementioned pieces, which were printed separately in England, were collected and printed together in one volume folio at Wurtzburg, in 1595. It is also supposed that he had a considerable hand in Henry VIII.'s book, “Assertio septern sacramentorum,” &c. although bishop Burnet seems angry with Sanders for saying so: it is nevertheless highly probable. In the Norfolk library of Mss. belonging to the royal society is an answer of bishop Fisher’s to a book printed at London in 1530, concerning king Henry’s marriage with queen Catherine.

, a poetical writer of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was the son of Alexander Fitzgeffrey, of a good family in Cornwall, and born in 1575. He became a commoner of Broadgate-ball, Oxford, in 1592, took the degrees in arts, and entered into orders. At length he became rector of St. Dominick, in his own county, where he was esteemed a grave and learned divine, as he was, while at the university, an excellent Latin poet. He died at his parsonage of St. Dominick, and was buried in the chancel of the church therein 1636. His works are, 1. “The Life and Death of Sir Francis Drake,” which being written in lofty verse, while he was A. B. he was then called “the high towering Falcon.” 2. “Affanias sive epigrammata lib. III. and Cenotaphia, lib. I.” Oxford, 1601, 8vo. 3. Several Sermcns. Wood has erroneously ascribed to him a collection of poetry, under the title of “Choice flowers and descriptions,” which belongs to Allot, but he appears to have been the author of a prose tract entitled “A curse for Corne-horders,” 1631, 4to, and a religious poem, called “The blessed Birth-day,” 1634, 4to; 1636, 1654, 8vo. An interesting account of some of his works may be seen in our authorities.

This learned lawyer’s works are, 1. “The Grand Abridgment collected by that most reverend judge, Mr. Anthony Fitzherbert, lately conferred with his own manuscript corrected by himself, together with the references of the cases to the books, by which they may be easily found; an improvement never before made. Also in this edition the additions or supplements are placed at the end of their respective titles.” Thus runs the title of the edition of 1577; but the most esteemed edition appears to be that printed in folio by Pynson, in 1516, with additions to the first part under the title “Residuum.” Ames also mentions an edition by Wynken de Worde, in 1516, and dates, Pynson’s edition 1514, but it is questionable whether this edition attributed to Wynken de Worde be not the production of a foreign printer. To the edition of 1577, is added a most useful and accurate table, by the care of William Rastall, serjeant at law, and also one of the jus tices of the common pleas, in the reign of queen Mary; which table, as well as the work, together with its author, is very highly commended by the lord chief justice Coke. It is indeed one of our most ancient and authentic legal records, as it contains a great number of original authorities quoted by different authors, which are not extant in the year-books, or elsewhere to be found in print. 2. “The Office and Authority of Justices of Peace, compiled and extracted out of the old books, as well of the Common Law, as of the Statutes, 1538,” and reprinted often, the last edition in 1617. 3. “The Office of Sheriffs, Bailiffs of Liberties, Escheators, Constables, Coroners,” &c. 1538. Though we give the titles in English, these three works are written in French only part of the second is in English. 4. “Of the. Diversity of Courts,” 1529, in French but translated afterwards by W. H. of Gray’s inn, and added by him to Andrew Home’s “Mirrour of Justices.” 5. “The New Natura Brevium,” 1534, in French; but afterwards translated, and always held in very high esteem. The last edition, published in 1794, 2 vols. 8vo, has the addition of a commentary, supposed to be written by chief justice Hale, and was collated with the former editions, and corrected, with some notes and references added, and the index considerably enlarged. 6. “Of the Surveying of Lands,” 1539. 7. “The Book of Husbandry, very profitable and necessary for all persons,” 1534, and several times after in the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth. It is said, in an advertisement to the reader, that this book was written by one Anthony Fitzherbert, who had been forty years an husbandman; from whence many have concluded, that this could not be the judge. But in tqe preface to his book “Of Measuring Lands,” he mentions his book “Of Agriculture,” and in the advertisement prefixed to the same book, it is expressly said, that the author of that treatise of “Measuring,” was the author likewise of the book “Concerning the Office of a Justice of Peace.” Whence it appears, that both those books were written by this author, who perhaps in the seasons which allowed him leisure to go into the country, might apply himself as vigorously to husbandry in the country, as to the law when in town; and commit his thoughts to paper. He appears to have been the first Englishman who studied the nature of soils, and the laws of vegetation, with philosophical attention. On these he formed a theory confirmed by experiments, and rendered the study pleasing as well as profitable, by realizing the principles of the ancients, to the honour and advantage of his country. These books being written at a time when philosophy and science were but just emerging from that gloom in which they had long been buried, were doubtless replete with many errors; but they contained the rudiments of true knowledge, and revived the study and love of agriculture.

, grandson of sir Anthony, and a very ingenious and learned man, was born in the county of Stafford, in 1552; and sent to either Exeter or Lincoln-college, in Oxford, in 1568. But having been bred a catholic, the college was uneasy to him; and though he would now and then hear a sermon, which was permitted him by an old Roman priest, who lived privately in Oxford, and to whom he recurred for instruction in matters of religion, yet he would seldom go to prayers, for which he was often admonished by the sub -rector of the house. At length, seeming to be wearied with the heresy of the times, as he called it, he receded without a degree to his patrimony: where also refusing to go to his parish church, he was imprisoned about 1572; but being soon set at liberty, he became still more zealous in his religion, maintaining publicly, that catholics ought not to go to protestant churches; for which, being like to suffer, he withdrew, and lived obscurely with his wife and family. In 1580, when the Jesuits Campian and Parsons came into England, he went to London, found them out, was exceedingly attached to them, and supplied them liberally: by which, bringing himself into dangers and difficulties, he went a voluntary exile into France, in 1582, where he solicited the cause of Mary queen of Scots, but in yam. After the death of that princess, and of his own wife, he left France, and went to Madrid, in order to implore the protection of Philip II.; but, upon the defeat of the armada, in 1588, he left Spain, and accompanied the duke of Feria to Milan. This duke had formerly been in England with king Philip, had married an English lady, and was justly esteemed a great patron of the English in Spain. Fitzherbert continued at Milan some time, and thence went to Rome; where, taking a lodging near the English college, he attended prayers as regularly as the residents there, and spent the rest of his time in writing books. He entered into the society of Jesus in 1614, and received priest’s orders much about the same time; after which he speedily removed into Flanders, to preside over the mission there, and continued at Brussels about two years. His great parts, extensive and polite learning, together with the high esteem that he had gained by his prudent behaviour at Brussels, procured him the government, with the title of rector, of the P^nglish college at Rome. This office he exercised for twenty-two years, vrith unblemished credit, during which time he is said to have been often named for a cardinal’s hat. He died there, Aug. 27, 1G40, in his eighty-eighth year, and was interred in the chapel belonging to the English college.

Having taken his degree of master of arts at Cambridge, he designed to enter into orders, and to settle on a small living near Derby, promised to him by a friend of his father’s. In the mean time, sir Joitas Moore, having notice of his design, wrote to him to come to London, whither he returned Feb. 1674-5. He was entertained in the house of that gentleman, who had other views for serving him, but Flamsteed persisting in his resolution to take orders, he did not dissuade him from it. March following, sir Jonas brought him a warrant to be the king’s astronomer, with a salary of iOOl. per annum, payable out of the office of ordnance, to commence from Michaelmas before; which, however, did not abate his inclinations for orders, so that at Easter following he was ordained at Elyhouse by bishop Gunning, who ever after conversed freely with him, and particularly upon the new philosophy and opinions, though that prelate always maintained the old. August 10, 1675, the foundation of the royal observatory at Greenwich was laid; and during the building of it, Flamsteed lodged at Greenwich; and his quadrant and telescopes being kept in the queen’s house there, he observed the appulses of the moon and planets to the fixed stars. In 1681, his “Doctrine of the Sphere” was published in a posthumous work of sir Jonas Moore, entitled, “A new System of the Mathematics,” printed in 4to.

His occupations prevented him from publishing much, yet there are some small pieces of his extant; as, 1. “An Oration made at Guildhall before the mayor, &c. concerning the late attempts of the queen’s majesties seditious subjects, Oct. 15,1571,” l'2mo. 2. “Annalium tarn Regum EdwardiV. Richard! II I. et Henrici VII. quam Henrici VIII. titulorum ordine alphabetico multo jam melius quam ante digestorum Elenchus, 1579 et 1597.” 3. “A Table to the Reports of Edmund Plowden,” in French. 4. “The Office of a Justice of Peace; together with instructions how and in what manner statutes shall be expounded, 1658,” 8vo, a posthumous publication. 5. A short copy of Latin verses prefixed to sir Thomas Chaloner’s “Repub. Anglorum instauranda.” 6. Notes upon Lambarde’s “ Areheion;” and several political discourses in ms. He is said also to have contributed much towards the last of the old editions of Holinshed.

, an English bishop, was descended from the family of Fleetwood just mentioned, and born in the Tower of London, in which his father, JefFery Fleetwood had resided, Jan. 21, 1656. He was educated at Eton, whence he was elected to king’s college in Cambridge. About the time of the revolution he entered into holy orders; and from the first was a celebrated preacher. He was soon after made chaplain to king William and queen Mary; and by the interest of Dr. Godolphin, at that time vice-provost of Eton, and residentiary of St. Paul’s, he was made fellow of that college, and rector of St. Austin’s, London, which is in the gift of the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s. Soon after he obtained also the lecture of St. Dunstan’s in the West, probably by his great reputation and merit as a preacher. In 1691 he published, 1. “Inscriptionum Antiquarum Sylloge,” &c. 8vo. This collection of ancient inscriptions consists of two parts: the first, containing remarkable pagan inscriptions collected from Gruter, Keinesius, Spon, and other writers the second, the ancient Christian monuments the whole illustrated with very short notes for the use of the young antiquary. In 1692 he translated into English, revised, and prefixed a preface to, 2. “Jurieu’s plain method of Christian Devotion, laid down in discourses, meditations, and prayers, fitted to the various occasions of a religious life;” the 27th edition of which was printed in 1750. In the mean time he was highly distinguished by his talents for the pulpit, which rendered him so generally admired, that he was frequently called to preach upon the most solemn occasions; as, before the king, queen, lordmayor, &c. In 1701 he published, 3. “An Essay upon Miracles,” 8vo, written in the manner of dialogue, and divided into two discourses. Some singularities in it occasioned it to be animadverted upon by several writers, particularly by Hoadly, in “A Letter to Mr. FleetvVood, 1702;” which letter is reprinted in Hoadly’s tracts, 1715, in 8vo. The author of Fleetwood’s life assures us that the bishop did not give up his opinions, though he disliked, and avoided controversy. This essay is said to contain the substance of what he would have preached at Mr. Boyle’s lectures, in case his health would have permitted him to undertake that task when it was offered him.

About a week before king William’s death, he was nominated to a canonry of Windsor; but the grant not having passed the seals in time, the house or commons addressed the queen to give that canonry to their chaplain. His patron, lord Godolphiri, laid the matter before the queen, who said, that, if king William had given it to Mr. Fleetwood, he should have it; and accordingly he was installed in 1702. In 1704 he published, without his name, a piece entitled, 4. “The Reasonable Communicant; or, an explanation of the doctrine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.” This book, of which there haVe been several editions, has, in the catalogue of the tracts distributed by the society for propagating Christian knowledge, been given to another person; but it is agreed, at length, to be Fleetwood’s. In 1705 he published, in two volumes, 8vo, 5. “Sixteen Practical Discourses upon the relative duties of parents and children, husbands and wives, masters and servants; with three sermons upon the case of Self-murder.” About this time he took a resolution of retiring from the noise and hurry of the town; much to the concern of his friends and admirers. His parishioners of St. Austin’s were so deeply affected with it, that, among other temptations, they offered to keep him a curate but nothing could divert him from his resolution so that he gave up his preferments, and withdrew to Wexham, a small rectory of about 60l. a year in Buckinghamshire. Here he enjoyed the tranquillity and pleasure of that privacy for which he had so much longed, in a commodious house and gardens; and what made this retirement more agreeable, was its nearness to his beloved Eton. Here also he indulged his natural inclination for the study of British history and antiquities, which no man understood better; and, in 1707, gave a specimen of his great skill therein, in 6. “Chrbnicon Preciosum; or, an account of the English money, the price of corn, and other commodities, for the last 600 years. In a letter to a student of the university of Oxford” without his name, but improved ina second edition, with plates, published in 1726.

He did not remain long in this retirement; for, in 1706, upon the death of Beveridge, he was nominated by the queen to the see of St. Asaph, without any solicitation, or even knowledge of his own; so that, as he assured a friend, the first intelligence he had of his promotion was from the Gazette. He was but just gone out from waiting as chaplain, when his predecessor died; upon which one of the ladies of the bed-chamber asking the queen whom she intended to make bishop of St. Asaph her majesty replied, “One whom you will be pleased with whom 3*ou have lately heard preach I intend it for Dr. Fleetwood.” This spontaneous goodness of the queen contributed to reconcile him to the world again; for he thought he saw the hand of God in it, and so was consecrated in June 1708. Tn this station he acted in the most exemplary manner. His biographer tells us, that “his great and clear reputation, his uncommon abilities and unblemished life., which set off the episcopal character with so much lustre, his obliging and easy deportment, free from the least tincture of pride, or shew of superiority, did not only place him above all indecent treatment, which was a great point gained in those unequal times, but procured much reverence and affection to his person from a clergy that almost to a man differed from him in principle.”

In the mean time he preached often before the queen, and several of those sermons were printed. He attended the house of lords constantly, and acted there with dignity and spirit. He visited his diocese; and his charge to his clergy, published in 1710, shews that he was a zealous, but not a furious churchman. Yet he was highly disgusted with the change of the ministry that year, and withdrew from, court. He could not he induced to give any countenance to the measures of the new ministry, though endeavours had been used, and intimations given by the queen herself, who had a great value for him, how pleasing his frequent coming to court would be to her. The same year, he published without his name> a piece entitled, 7. “The Thirteenth Chapter to the Romans vindicated from the abuses put upon it. Written by a Curate of Salop, and directed to the Clergy of that County, and the neighbouring ones of North Wales, to whom the author wisheth patience, moderation, and a good understanding, for half an hour.”* Upon the pretended authority of this chapter, the regal power had been magnified in such a manner, that tyranny might seem the ordinance of God, and the most abject slavery to be founded in the principles of religion. Thfc bishop was highly offended with this doctrine; and in this pamphlet argues, “that this chapter of St. Paul requires of the people any more submission to the higher powers, than the laws of their several countries require.”

Notwithstanding his difference with the ministry, when a fast was appointed to be kept, Jan. 16, 1711-12, he was chosen by the house of lords to preach before them; but, by some means or other getting intelligence that he had censured the peace, they contrived to have the house adjourned beyond that day. This put it indeed out of his power to deliver his sentiments from the pulpit; yet he put the people in possession of them, by sending them from the press. Though without a name, from the spirit and language it was easily known whose sermon it was. It gave offence to some ministers of state, who now only waited for an opportunity to be revenged; and this opportunity the bishop soon gave them, by publishing, 8. “Four Sermons; viz. On the Death of queen Mary, 1694; on the Death of the duke of Gloucester, 1700; on the Death of king William, 1701; on the Queen’s accession to the throne, 1702. With a preface,” 1712, 8vo. This preface, bearing very hard upon those who had the management of public affairs, was made an object of attack, and, upon a motion made for that purpose in the house of commons, an order was made to burn it, which was accordingly done on the 12th of May. The bishop, knowing this to be the effect of party rage, was very little affected with it; but rather pleased to think that the very means they had used to suppress his book, was only a more effectual way of publishing and exciting the whole nation to read it. It was owing to this, certainly, that it was printed in the Spectator, No. 384, and thereby dispersed into several thousand hands. This same year, and indeed before his sermons, he published, but without his name, 9. “The Judgment of the Church of England in the case of LayBaptism, and of Dissenter’s Baptism; by which it appears that she hath not, by any public act of hers, made or declared Lay-Baptism to be invalid. The second edition. With an additional letter from Dr. John Cosin, afterwards bishop of Durham, to Mr. Cordel, who scrupled to communicate with the French Protestants upon some of the modern pretences,” 8vo. This piece was occasioned by the controversy about Lay-Baptism, which was then au object of public notkv. In 1713, he published without his name, 10. “The Life and Miracles of St. Wenefrede, together with her Litanies, with some historical observations made thereon.” In the preface, he declares the motives which induced him to bestow so much pains upon this life of St. Wenefrede; and these were, that the concourse of people to the well which goes by her name was very great that the papists made use of this to influence weak minds that they had lately reprinted a large life of this saint in English; that these considerations might justly affect any protestant divine, and th,at for certain reasons they affected him in particular. Upon the demise of the queen, and the Hanover succession, this prelate had as much reason to expect that his zeal and services should be rewarded, as any of his rank and function: but he did not make any display of his merit, either to the king or his ministers. However, upon the death of Moore, bishop of Ely, in 1714, Tenison, then archbishop of Canterbury, strenuously recommended Fleetwood to the vacant see; and he was accordingly, without the least application from himself directly or indirectly, nominated to it.

, a miscellaneous writer in the sixteenth century, and a classical translator, was a native of London. In 1575 he published a version of the “Bucolics of Virgil,” with notes, a plain and literal translation verse for verse. In 589 he published a new version, both of the “Bucolics and Georgics” with notes, dedicated to John Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury. This is in the regular Alexandrine verse, without rhyme. He supervised, corrected, and enlarged the second edition of Holinshed’s Chronicle in 1585. He translated “Ælian’s Various History” into English in 1576, which he dedicated to Goodman, dean of Westminster, und^r the title of “Ælian’s Registre of Hystories,” 4to. He published also “Certaine select Epistles of Cicero into English,” Lond. 1576, 4to; and in the same year he imparted to our countrymen a fuller idea of the elegance of the ancient epistle, by his “Panoplie of Epistles from Tully, Isocrates, Pliny, and others,” Lond. 4to. He translated Synesius’s Greek “Panegyric on Baldness,” which had been brought into vogue by Erasmus’s “Moriae Encomium,” Lond. 1579', 12mo; at the end is his “Fable of Hermes.” Among some other pieces he Englished many celebrated books written in Latin about the fifteenth century and at the restoration of learning, which was a frequent practice, after it became fashionable to compose in English, and our writers had begun to find the force and use of their own tongue. Among his original pieces are, 1. “A memorial of the charitable almes deedes of William Lambe, gentleman of the chapel under Henry VIII. and citizen of London,” Lond. 1580, 8vo. 2. “The Battel between the Virtues and Vices,” ibid. 1582, 8vo. 3. “The Diamant of Devotion, in six parts,” ibid. 1586, 12mo. 4. “The Cundyt of Comfort,” 1579, &c. Verses by him are prefixed to various works published in his time. Sir William Cordall, the queen’s solicitor-general, was his chief patron. He had a brother, Samuel, who assisted in compiling the index to Holinshed, and who wrote an elegant Latin life of queen Mary, never printed. He has also a Latin recommendatory poem to Edward Grant’s “Spicilegium of the Greek Tongue,” &c. Lond. 1575, 8vo.

, an eminent Scotch politician, and ranked among the patriots of that country, was the son of sir Robert Fletcher of Saltown, in Scotland, and was born in 16S3. Being left fatherless while he was a child, he was placed under the tuition of Dr. Gilbert Bunu-t, then rector of Saltown, from whom he is supposed to have imbibed some of those political principles which he afterwards carried to a high degree of enthusiasm. He then spent some years of his youth in foreign travel, and first appeared as a public character in the station of a commissioner for East Lothian in the Scotch parliament, but his opposition to the arbitrary measures of the court, rendered it necessary to withdraw to Holland; and upon being cited to appear by a summons from the lords of the council, which it was known he could not obey, he was outlawed, and his estate confiscated. In 1683 he came over to England to assist, with his friend Mr. Baillie of Jerviswood, in the consultations held among the friends of liberty in England and Scotland, to concert measures for their common security; and by his prudence and address he avoided giving any pretext to the ministry for his apprehension. He returned to the continent, and in 1685 engaged in the enterprise of the duke of Monmouth. He landed in the west of England, but was obliged to quit the country again on account of a dispute which he had with a man who insulted him, and whom he shot dead, his temper being at all times most irascible. From England he went to Spain, and afterwards passed into Hungary, where he engaged in the war with the Turks, and distinguished himself by his valour and skill. The interest which he took in the fate of his country soon brought him back to join in the conferences which were held among the Scotch refugees in Holland, for the purpose of effecting a revolution; and upon that event taking place, he returned to Scotland, and resumed the possession of his estate. He was a member of the convention for the settlement of the new government in Scotland, and in all his political conduct he shewed himself the zealous asserter of the liberties of the people, without any regard to party distinction, and free from all views of his own interest. In 1698 he printed “A Discourse of Government with relation to Militias.” Also “Two Discourses concerning the Affairs of Scotland.” In one of these he suggests a plan for providing for the poor by domestic slavery, a most preposterous plan to be proposed by a friend to liberty. When a bill was brought into the parliament of Scotland for a supply to the crowq, in 1703, he moved that, previously to this, or to any other business, the house should consider what acts were necessary to secure their religion and liberties in case of the queen’s death, and he proposed various limitations of the prerogative, which were received in the “Act of Security,” passed through his exertions into a law, but rendered ineffectual by the subsequent union, to which he was a determined enemy. He died at London in 1716. His publications, and some of his speeches, were collected in one volume octavo, entitled, “The Political Works of Andrew Fletcher, Ksquire,” and his Life was lately published by the earl of Burhan, with a very high panegyric on his political virtues. Another very high character of him may be seen in our authority.

, bishop of Bristol, Worcester, and London, is generally said to have been a native of Kent, and as such is placed by Fuller among the Worthies of that county, where that name has been very common; otherwise, as he was one of the first fellows of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, upon archbishop Parker’s foundation, there would have been reason to suppose him a native either of Norwich or Norfolk, the Parker fellowships being appropriated to the natives of those places. He was, however, a scholar of Trinity college in 1563, where (as he proceeded M. A. and removed to Bene’t college in 1569) he had probably been admitted the year before. On his removing to Bene't, he entered upon the business of pupils, and other offices of the college; and in 1572 went to Oxford, where he was incorporated A. M. In September of that year, he was instituted to the prebend of Islington in th church of St. Paul, London, upon the presentation of Matthew Parker, gent, son to the archbishop, who probably had the patronage of that turn made over to him by bishop Grindal, in order to carry on his father’s scheme of annexing prebends to the fellowships he had founded. Accordingly he held this with his fellowship; and was made president upon Mr. Norgate’s promotion to the mastership the year following, but seems to have left the college soon after, with a testimonial of his learning and good behaviour, as well as of his having acquitted himself with credit in the offices of the college, in the public schools, and in the pulpit. In 1581 he proceeded D. D. and became chaplain to the queen, to whom he had been rero.nmcMiJed by archbishop Whitgift for the deanry of Windsor, but she chose rather to bestow on him that of Peterborough in 1583. In 1585, the prebend of SuttonLonga in the church of Lincoln was given to him, and he was likewise parson of Aidcrkirke in that diocese, and was presented by sir Thomas Cecil to the church of Barnack. Soon after this, he was appointed to attend upon the execution of Mary queen of Scots, at Fotheringhay castle, in which office some biographers have censured him for his endeavouring to bring that unhappy princess over to the protestant religion. In his speech, however, to her, as preserved by Strype, we see nothing more than an honest zeal, which perhaps men of cautious tempers would have reserved for a more promising opportunity.

In 1589, queen Elizabeth, with whom he was in high favour, promoted him to the bishopric of Bristol, and about the same time made him her almoner. Sir John Harrington says that he took this see on condition to lease out the revenues to courtiers, an accusation to which Browne Willis seems inclined to give credit. He was, however, translated to Worcester in 1592, and about two years after that to London, in consequence of his particular solicitation to the lord treasurer. Soon after he was promoted to the see of London, he gave out twenty-seven articles of inquiry to the churchwardens upon his primary visitation; and by these means, according to Neal, many of the nonconformists, or rather puritans, as they were at this time called, suffered imprisonment. But he was soon interrupted in these proceedings, by marrying, for his second wife, the widow of sir John Baker, of Sisingherst in Kent, a very handsome woman. Queen Elizabeth, who had an extreme aversion to the clergy’s marrying, was highly offended at the bishop. She thought it very indecent for an elderly clergyman, a bishop, and one that had already had one wife, to marry a second: and gave such a loose to her indignation, that, not content with forbidding him her presence, she ordered archbishop Whitgift to suspend him from the exercise of his episcopal function, which was accordingly done. He was afterwards restored to his bishopric, and in some measure to the queen’s favour: yet the disgrace sat so heavy on his mind, that it is thought to have hastened his end. He died suddenly in his chair, at his house in London, June 15, 1596; being, to all appearance, well, sick, and dead, in a quarter of an hour. He was an immoderate taker of tobacco; the qualities of which being then not well known, and supposed to have something poisonous in them, occasioned Camden to impute his death to it, as he does in his Annals of Elizabeth’s reign. He was buried in his cathedral, near bishop Aylmer, but without any monument. Of his character it is not easy to form a very favourable judgment, nor does it appear that he is censurable for any great errors, except that he was perhaps too compliant with some of the caprices of his royal mUiress His appearance and person wr re stately, which made him be called Prcsul spttndidus, hut this did not arise from pride, as those who were most intimate with him commended his modesty and humility. There are no works ascribed to his pen, except some regulations for the better government or his diocese, and the reformation of his spiritual courts, which are printed among the records in Collier’s “Ecclesiastical History.” By his first wife, whose name is not known, he had the more celebrated subject of the following article.

, brother to bishop Fletcher, and a native of the same county, was a very ingenious man. He received his education at Eton; and, in 1565, was elected thence to KingVcollege in Cambridge, where he took a bachelor’s of arts degree in 1596, a master’s in 1573, and that of LL. D. in 1581. He was, says Wood, an excellent poet, and a very accomplished man; and his abilities recommending him to queen Elizabeth, he was employed by her as a commissioner into Scotland, Germany, and the Low Countries. Of his poetical talent, however, no proofs are known to be extant. In 1588, he was sent ambassador to Russia; not only to conclude a league with the emperor there, but also to re-establish and put into good order the decayed trade of our Russia company. He met, at first, with a cold reception, and even rough usage: for the Dutch, envying the exclusive privilege which the Russia company enjoyed of trading thither, had excited prejudices against them: and a false rumour then spread, of our fleet being totally destroyed by the Spanish armada, had created in the czar a contempt for the English, and a presumption that he might safely injure those who were not in a capacity to take revenge. But the ambassador soon effaced those impressions; and having obtained advantageous conditions, returned to England with safety and honour. Fuller says, that upon his arrival at London, “he sent for an intimate friend, with whom he heartily expressed his thankfulness to God for his safe return from so great a danger. For the poets cannot fancy Ulysses more glad to be come out of the den of Polyphemus, than he was to be rid of the power of such a barbarous prince: who counting himself, by a proud and voluntary mistake, emperor of all nations, cared not for the law of all nations; and who was so habited in blood, that, had he cut off this ambassador’s head, he and his friends might have sought their own amends, but the question is, where they would have found it.” Shortly after his return, he was made secretary to the city of London, and a master of the Court of Requests: and, in June 1597, treasurer of St. Paul’s. This worthy person died in 1610, in the parish of St. Catherine Colman, Fenchurch-street; and was probably buried in that church. From the observations he had made during his embassy into Russia, he drew up a curious account, “Of the Russe Commonwealth: or manner of Government by the Russe Emperor, commonly called the Emperor of Moskovia, with the manners and fashions of the people of that country,” 1590, 8vo. This work was quickly suppressed, lest it might give offence to a prince in amity with England: but it was reprinted in 1643, 12mo, and is inserted in Hakluyt’s “Navigations, Voyages,” &c. vol. I. only a little contracted. Camden, speaking of this book, styles it “libellum in quo plurima observanda.” Dr. Fletcher also wrote, “A Discourse concerning the Tartars,” the object of which was to prove that they are the Israelites, or ten tribes, which being captivated by Salmanasser, were transplanted into Media. This opinion was afterwards adopted by Whiston, who printed the discourse in the first volume of his curious “Memoirs.”

When the revolution took place, Florian retired to Seaux, hoping that in that retreat, as he confined himself entirely to his studies, he would be overlooked in the general proscription of men of talents; but he was known to have been the intimate of a nobleman, and upon the simple niandat of the infamous Robespierre, he was arrested. His judges reproached him with having prefixed to his “Numa” some verses in praise of the queen; and upon this accusation, he was dragged to prison. Here he began the first book of his “Guillaume Tell,” a poem, the admirers of which must regret that it was not completed. In this prison, also Florian finished his poem entitled “Kbrahim,” in four cantos; a work replete with beauties, in which are depicted with the pencil of Fenelon, fraternal affection, patriarchal virtue, noble jealousy, and the passion of love in all its strength and delicacy. This Hebrew poem was among all his productions the favourite work of Florian; and that which, at the same time that it afforded him the most pleasure in composing it, was also written with the greatest facility. At length, however, the overthrow of Robespierre renovated the hopes, and re-animated the courage of his victims. Among the rest, Florian, who had long considered himself devoted to death, was released, and again retired to the country; but whether from the agitation of his mind in prison, or from the confinement and unwholesome food, he soon fell into a decline, which proved fatal Sept. 13, 1794. Florian’s works consist of short dramas, novels, and pastorals, written witb. great attention to nature and simplicity, butupon the whole, we think better adapted to afford pleasure to his countrymen, than to those who look for more vigour of genius, and less of the sickly sentimental style. So many of them, however, have been introduced to the knowledge of the English reader by translations, that it is not necessary to enlargemuch on their beauties or defects. His pastoral romances, “Estelle,” “Galathea,” &c. are unquestionably the most favourable specimens of his genius; but we doubt the perpetuity of their popularity without those peculiar charms which can be conveyed only in their original language. His “Fahles” have been much admired in France, and esteemed the best since the days, of Fontaine. In all his works he preserves that attention to benevolence and moral feeling which distinguished him in his life.

, the Resolute, as he used to style himself, was born in London in the reign of Henry VIII. and descended from the Florii of Sienna, in Tuscany. A little before that time his father and mother, who were Waldenses, had fled from the Valtoline into England, from the persecutions of popery; but when Edward the Sixth died, and the protestant religion became oppressed under Mary, they left England, and went to some other country, where John Florio received his juvenile literature. Upon the re-establishment of protestantism by Elizabeth, they returned; and Florio for a time lived in Oxford. About 1576, Barnes bishop of Durham, sending his son to Magdalencollege, Florio was appointed to attend him as preceptor in French, and Italian; at which time he was admitted a member of that college, and became a teacher of those languages in the university. After James came to the cvown, he was appointed tutor to prince Henry in those languages; and at length made one of the privychamber, and clerk of the closet to queen Anne, to whom he was also tutor. He was a very useful man in his profession, zealous for the protestant religion, and much devoted to the English nation. Retiring to Fulham in Middlesex, to avoid the plague which was then in London, he was seized and carried off by it in 1625, aged about eighty.

He was the author of several works: 1. “First Fruits, which yield familiar speech, merry proverbs, witty sentences, and golden sayings,” 1578, 4to, and 1591, 8vo. 2. “Perfect Introduction to the Italian and English Tongues.” Printed with the former, and both dedicated to Robert earl of Leicester. 3. “Second Fruits to be gathered of twelve trees, of divers but delightsome tastes to the tongues of Italian and English men,” 151H, 8vo. 4. “Garden of Recreation, yielding six thousand Italian Proverbs;” printed with the former. 5. “Dictionary, Italian and English,” 1597, folio. It was after* ards augmented by him, and published in 1611, in folio, by way of compliment to his royal mistress, under this title, “Queen Anna’s New World of Words.” This was a work of great merit, being at that time by far the most perfect of the kind. The author, however, laboured to make it still more perfect, by collecting many thousand words and phrases, to be added to the next edition; but, not living to complete this, the care of it fell to one Gio. Torriano, an Italian, and professor of the Italian tongue in London; who, after revising, correcting, and supplying many more materials out of the Dictionary of the Academy della Crusca, printed them in 1659, folio, all in their proper places. 6. “The Essays of Montaigne,” translated into English, and dedicated to queen Anna, 1603, 1613, 1632, folio. Prefixed to this work we find rather a long copy of verses, addressed to him by Samuel Daniel, the poet and historiographer, whose sister Florio had married. Wood says, that he wrote other things, but he had not seen them.

, an eminent physician, was born at Hinters, in Staffordshire, about 1649, and received his education at the university of Oxford, where the degree of doctor of physic was conferred upon him, on the 8th of July, 1680. He settled himself in the practice of his profession at Litchfield, in his native county; where his indefatigable attention to the sick, and the consequent practical skill which he attained, not only procured for him the confidence of the inhabitants, but gained him a reputation so extensive, that his sovereign honoured him with knighthood, as a reward for his talents. He was a great friend to the use of cold bathing, and left no means untried, by which he might disseminate the knowledge of its utility and safety, and bring the practice into general vogue: he particularly recommended it in chronic rheumatisms, and in nervous disorders, and he maintained that consumptions had prevailed extensively in England only since the practice of baptizing children by immersion had been relinquished. This recommended his work in a very particular manner to the attention of the Baptists, whose historian, Crosby, has made some extracts from it in corroboration of the propriety of baptism by immersion. It appears to have been by sir John’s advice, that Dr. Johnson, when an infant, was sent up to London to be touched by queen Anne for the evil; a proof that he had not surmounted the prejudices of his age. Sir John died Feb. 1, 1734. The following are the titles of his different publications: 1. “The Touchstone of Medicines,” London, 1687, 8vo. 2. “The Preternatural state of the Animal Humours described by their sensible qualities,” London, 1696, 8vo, in which he maintained the doctrine of fermentation. 3; “An Enquiry into the right use of Baths,” London, 1697, 8vo. This work afterwards appeared under different titles, such as “Ancient Psychrolusy revived,” London, 1702 and the subject was more amply treated in another edition “History of hot and cold Bathing, ancient and modern, with an Appendix by Dr. Baynard,” London, 1709, and again in 1715, and 1722. It was also in some measure renewed in his “Essay to restore the dipping of infants in their baptism,” 1721. 4. His next work was “A Treatise on the Asthma,” first published in 1698, and re-published in 1717 and 1726. He was himself the subject of asthma from the age of puberty, yet lived to be an old man. 5. “The Physicians’ Pulsewatch,” 1707 and 1710, in 2 vols. 8vo. Sir John Floyer was one of the first to count the pulsations of the arteries; for although the pulse had been the subject of observation from ancient times, the number of beats in a given time had not been attended to. 6. “Medici na Geronomica; of preserving old men’s health; with an appendix concerning the use of oil and unction, and a letter on the regimen of younger years,” Lond. 1724. Several of these treatises were translated into the continental languages.

, or de Fluctibus, an English philosopher, was the son of sir Thomas Fludd, knight, sometime treasurer of war to queen Elizabeth in France and the Low Countries; and was born at Milgate, in the parish of Bearsted, in Kent, in 1574. He was admitted of St. John’s-college, Oxford, in 1591; and having taken both the degrees in arts, applied himself to physic. He then spent six years in travelling through France, Spain, Italy, and Germany: in most of which countries he not only became acquainted with several of the nobility, but read lectures to them. After his return, being in high repute for his chemical knowledge, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor of physic. This was in 1605; about which time he practised in London, and became fellow of the college of physicians. He did not begin to publish till 1616, but afterwards became a voluminous writer, being the author of about twenty works, mostly written in Latin, and as dark and mysterious in their language, as in their matter. Some of his productions were aimed against Kepler and Mersennus; and he had the honour of replies from both those philosophers. He wrote two books against Mersennus; the first entitled “Sophias cum Moria certamen, in quo lapis Lydius, a falso structore Patre Marino Mersenno Monacho reprobatus, celeberrima voluminis sui Babylonici in Genesim figmenta accuratæ examinat.” Franc. 1629, folio. The second, “Summum Bonorum, quod est verum Magiae, Cabalae, Alchymije, Fratrum Roseug Crucis Verorum, subjectum: in dictarum scientiarum laudem, in insignis calumniatoris Fr. Mar. Mersenni dedecus publicatum, per Joachim. Frizium,” 1629, folio. Mersennus desiring Gassendus to give his judgment on these two books of Fludd against him, that great man drew up an answer divided into three parts: the first of which sifts the principles of Fludd’s whimsical philosophy, as they lie scattered throughout his works the second is against “Sophiae cum Moria certamen” and the third against “Summum Bonorum,” &c. This answer, called “Examen Fluddanae Philosophise,” is dated Feb. 4, 1629, and is printed in the third volume of Gassendus’s works in folio. In the dedication to Merseniius, this antagonist fairly allows Fludd the merit of extensive learning. His other works were: 1. “Utriusque Cosmi, majoris et minoris, Technica Historia,” Oppenheim, 1617, in two volumes foiio. 2. “Tractatus Apologeticus integritatena societatis de Rosea cruce defendens,” Leyden, 1617. 3. “Monochordon mundi symphoniacum, eu Replicatio ad Apologiam Joannis Kepleri,” Francfort, 1620. 4. “Anatomise Theatrum triplici effigie designatum,” ibid. 1623. 5. “Philosophia Sacra et vere Christiana, seu Meteorologia Cosmica,” ibid, 1626. 6, “Mediclna Cathotica, sen, Mysticum artis Medicandi Sacrarium,” ibid. 1626. 7. “Integrum Morborum Mysterium,” ibid. 1631. 8. “De Morborum Signis,” ibid. 1631. These two treatises are a part of the Medicina Catholica. 9. “Clavis Philosophise et Alchyrniae Fluddanse,” ibid. 1633. 10. “Philosophia Mosa'ica,” Goudae, 1638. 11. “Pathologia Daemoniaca,” ibid. 1640.

, an eminent English scholar and antiquary, was the eldest son of Martin Folkes, esq. counsellor at law, and one of the benchers of Gray’s Inn, and was born in Queen-street, Lincoln’s-hm-fields, Oct. 29, 1690. From the age of nine to that of sixteen, he was under the tuition of the learned Mr. Cappel, son and successor to Mr. Lewis Cappel, Hebrew professor at Saumur, in France, which he quitted when that university was suppressed in 1695. After making great proficiency in the Greek and Roman classics under this master, Mr. Folkes was in 1707 entered of Clare-hall, Cambridge, where his progress in all branches of learning, and particularly in mathematics and philosophy, was such, that when he was scarcely more than twenty-three years of age, he was in 1714 admitted a fellow of the royal society, and two years afterwards had so distinguished himself as to be chosen one of the council. About this time he made his first communication to the society, relative to the eclipse of a fixed star in Gemini by the body of Jupiter. This was followed at various times by other papers, for which it may be sufficient to refer to the Philosophical Transactions. In Oct. 1717 he had the degree of M. A. conferred on him by the university of Cambridge, when that learned body had the honour of a visit from king George I. He was chosen a second time of the council of the royal society, December 14, 1718, and continued to be re-chosen every year till 1727; and in Jan. 1723, had the farther distinction of being appointed by their illustrious president, sir Isaac Newton, one of his vice-presidents nor were these honours unjustly bestowed for Mr. Folkes was not only indefatigable himself in observing the secret operations and astonishing objects of nature, but also studious to excite the same vigilance in others. In February 1720, he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries.

, an ingenious gentleman of the seventeenth century, was the son of sir John Ford, knt. and was born at Up-park in the parish of Harting in Sussex, in 1605. He became a gentleman commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1621, but left it without taking a degree, after which Wood has not been able to trace his history, until he served the office of high sheriff for Sussex, and demonstrated his loyalty to Charles I. who conferred on him the honour of knighthood at Oxford, Oct. 4, 1643. About that time he bore a colonel’s commission in the army, or, according to Clarendon, had a regiment of horse in lord Hopton’s troops, and was afterwards a considerable sufferer for his adherence to the royal cause. In 1647, he and Dr. Stephen Goffe were imprisoned on. suspicion of being accessary to his majesty’s escape from Hampton court. How or when he was released we are not told, but as he had married general Ireton’s sister, he might owe his release to the influence of his brother-inlaw with the parliamentary party. In 1656 we find him employed in certain mechanical inventions of considerable importance. With Cromwell’s encouragement, and at the request of the citizens of London, he contrived machinery for raising the Thames water into all the higher streets of the city, a height of ninety-three feet. This he is said to have accomplished in a year’s time, and at his own expence; and the same machinery was afterwards employed in other parts of the kingdom for draining mines and lands, which it performed better and cheaper than any former contrivance. He also constructed the great water engine at Somerset-house, for supplying the Strand, &c. but this obstructing the prospect from the windows, queen Catherine, the consort of Charles II. caused it to be pulled clown. After the restoration he invented a mode of coining copper money (Wood says, farthings) which could not possibly be counterfeited, as each piece was made to differ from another in some minute circumstance. He failed in procuring a patent for these for England, but obtained one for Ireland. He went over accordingly to carry his design into execution there, but died before he could accomplish it, on Sept. 3, 1670, and his body being brought over, was interred in the family buriai place at Harting. Wood speaks of him as a man who might have done great things if he had met with proper encouragement. He published, 1. “A Design for bringing a River from Rickmansworth in Hertfordshire to St. Giles’s in the Fields, near London; the benefits of it declared, and the objections against it answered,” Lond. 1641, 4to. 2. “Experimental Proposals how the king may have money to pay and maintain his fleets, with ease to the people London may be re-built, and all proprietors satisfied money may be lent at six per cent, on pawns and the fishing trade set up, and all without straining or thwarting any of our laws or customs,” ibid. 1666, 4to. To this last was added a “Defence of Bill Credit.” About 1663 he had printed a proposal fur the raising of money by bills of exchange, which should pass current instead of money, to prevent robbery.

, an eminent English lawyer in the reign of Henry VI. was descended from an ancient family in Devonshire: but we cannot learn either the place or time of his birth. It is also uncertain in which ^university he studied, or whether he studied in any. Prince, in his -Worthies of Devonshire, supposes him to havebeen educated at Oxford, and bishop Tanner fixes him to Exeter, college: and the great learning every where shewn in his writings makes these conjectures probable. When he turned his thoughts to the municipal laws of the land, he settled at Lincoln’s Inn, where he quickly distinguished himself by his knowledge of civil as well as common law. The first date that occurs, with respect to his preferments, is the fourth year of Henry VI.; when, as Dugdale informs us, he was made one of the governors of Lincoln’s Inn, and honoured with the same employment three years after. In 1430 he was made a serjeant at law; and, as himself tells us, kept his feast on that occasion with very great splendour, In 1441 he was made a king’s serjeant at law; and, the year after, chief justice of the king’s bench. He is highly commended by our most eminent writers, for the wisdom, gravity, and uprightness, with which he presided in that court for many years. He remained in great favour with the king, of which he received a signal proof, by an unnsual augmentation of his salary. He held his office through the reign of Henry VI. to whom he steadily adhered, and served him faithfully in all his troubles; for which, in the first parliament of Edward IV. which began at Westminster, Nov. 1461, he was attainted of high treason, in the same act by which Henry VI. queen Margaret, Edward their son, and many persons of the first distinction, were likewise attainted. After this, Henry fled into Scotland, and it is generally believed, that he then made Fortescne chancellor of England. His name, indeed, upon this occasion, is not found recorded in the patent rolls; because, as Selden says, “being with Henry VI. driven into Scotland by the fortune of the wars wijth the house of York, he was made chancellor of England while he was there.” Several writers have styled him chancellor of England; and, in his book “De laudibus legum Anglia;,” he calls himself “Cancellarius Angliae.”

In April 1463, he embarked with queen Margaret, prince Edward, and many persons of distinction, who followed the fortunes of the house of Lancaster, at Hamburg, and landed at Sluys in Flanders; whence they were conducted to Bruges, thence to Lisle, and thence into Lorrain. lu this exile he remained for many years, retiring from place to place, as the necessities of the royal family required: for though, during that space, the queen and prince were often in motion, and great efforts were made to restore. Henry, yet, considering the age of Fortescue, it is not probable that he was suffered to expose himself to such hazards; especially as he might do them better service by soliciting their interest at different courts. It is certain, that he was not idle; but, observing the excellent understanding of prince Edward, who applied himself wholly to military exercises, and seemed to think of nothing but qualifying himself for an expert commander, he thought it high time to give him other impressions, and to infuse into his mind just notions of the constitution of his country, as well as due respect to its laws; so that, if Providence should favour his designs, he might govern as a king, and not as a tyrant, or a conqueror. With this view 1 as we learn from his introduction, he drew up his famous work, entitled “De Laudibus Legtirn Anglise;” which, though it failed of its primary intention, that hopeful prince being not long after cruelly murdered, will yet remain an everlasting monument of this great and good man’s respect and affection for his country. This very curious and concise vindication of our laws was received with great esteem when it was communicated to the learned of that profession; yet it was not published till the reign of Henry VIII. when it was printed hy Edward Whitchurch, in 16mo, but without a date. In 1516 it was translated by Robert Mulcaster, and printed by R. Tottel, and again in 1567, 1573, and 1575; also by Thomas White in 1598, 1599, and 1609. Fortescue, with HenghamVs “Summa magna et parva,” was likewise printed in 1616 and 1660, 12mo, and again, with Selden’s notes, 1672, 12mo. In 1737 Fortescue was printed in folio; and lastly, in 1775, an English translation with the original Latin, was published in 8vo, with Selden’s notes, and a great variety of remarks relative to the history, antiquities, and laws of England, with a large historical preface by F. Gregor, esq. In 1663, E. Waterhouse, esq. published “Fortescue illustratuV” a commentary on the “De Laudibus,” which, although prolix and defective in style, Mr. Hargrave thinks may be resorted to with great advantage, and may very much facilitate the labours of more judicious and able inquirers. When lord chancellor, sir John is said to have drawn up the statute 2$ Henry VI. “of resumption of certain grants of the crown,” which, though much relied upon by the writers on that subject, is not extant in any present edition of the statutes. The house of Lancaster having afterwards a prospect of retrieving their fortunes, the queen and the prince went over to England, Fortescue with many others accompanying them. They did not succeed, so that this chancellor was forced to reconcile himself as well as he could to the victorious Edward IV.; for which purpose he wrote a kind of apology for his own conduct. Tlws treatise, though it has never been published, Selden had seen; as he tells us in his preface to Fortescue' s book, “L)e Laudibus, <kc.” After all these extraordinary changes of masters and fortunes, he preserved his old principles in regard to the English constitution; as appears from another valuable and learned work, written by him in English, and published in the reign of queen Anne, with this title: “The difference between an absolute and limited monarchy, as it more particularly regards the English constitution: being a treatise written by sir John Fortescue, knight, lord chief justice, and lord high chancellor of England, under king 'Henry VI. Faithfully transcribed from the manuscript copy in the Bodleian library, and collated with three other manuscripts (which were afterwards printed). Published with some remarks by John Fortescue Aland, of the Inner Temple, esq. F. R. S. 1714,” 8vo. There is a manuscript of this work in the Cotton library, in the title of which it is said to be addressed to Henry VI. but many passages in it shew it to have been plainly written in favour of, and for the service of, Edward IV. A second edition, with amendments, was published in 1719, 8vo. As for this author’s other writings, which were pretty numerous, as they were never printed, we know nothing more of them than we learn from the titles, and the commendations bestowed upon them by those who had perused them. They have, however, been carefully preserved in libraries, some of them being still extant under the following titles “Opusculum de natura Legis Naturae, et de ejus censura in successione regnorum supremorum;” “Defensio juris Domus Lancastriae” “Genealogy of the House of Lancaster” “Of the title of the House of York” “Genealogise Ilegum Scotios” “A Dialogue between Understanding and Faith” "A Prayer Book which savours touch of the times we live in,' 1 &c. It would certainly be a gratification, if not a benefit, to the learned world, if his manuscripts were printed; for he was a man of general knowledge, great observation, and his writings would probably throw much light upon the dark parts of our history and antiquities.

, D. D. and principal of St. Edmund Hall in Oxford, was the eldest of seven sons of Henry and Elizabeth Fothergill. He was born on the last day of 1705, N. S. at Lockholme in Ravenstonedale, in the county of Westmorland, where the family had long been situated and possessed of a competent estate, which had descended from father to son for many generations. He received the first part of his education in the place of his nativity, at a free grammar school, founded and endowed by a person of the same name and family. He was afterwards removed to Kendal-school, and from thence, at sixteen years of age, to Queen’s college in Oxford; where he became fellow, and an eminent tutor. On Oct. 17, 1751, he was elected principal of St. Edmund hall, an.d presented to the vicarage of Bramley in Hampshire. After having been long afflicted with an asthma, he died Oct. 5, 1760, and was buried in the chapel of Edmund hall, at the north end of the communion-table; where his modesty forbade any monument to be erected to his memory. He was author of two volumes of sermons, in octavo. The first consists of occasional discourses published by himself; the second was printed from his Mss. and published by his brother: both were reprinted in 1765.

, knt. whose ancestors were seated at Narford, in Norfolk, so early as the reign of Henry III. was educated as a commoner of Christchurch, Oxford, under the care of that eminent encourager of literature, Dr. Aldrich. He at the same time studied under Dr. Hickes the Anglo-Saxon language, and its antiquities; of which he published a specimen in Hickes’s “Thesaurus,” under the title of “Numismata Anglo-Saxonica et Anglo-Danica, hreviter illustrataab Andrea Fountaine, eq. aur. & aedis Christi Oxon. alumno. Oxon. 1705,” in which year Mr. Hearne dedicated to him his edition of Justin the historian. He received the honour of knighthood from king William; and travelled over most parts of Europe, where he made a large and valuable collection of pictures, ancient statues, medals, and inscriptions; and, while in Italy, acquired such a knowledge of virtu, that the dealers in antiquities were not able to impose on him. In 1709 his judgment and fancy were exerted in embellishing the “Tale of a Tub” with designs almost equal to the excellent satire they illustrate. At this period he enjoyed the friendship of the most distinguished wits, and of Swift in particular, who repeatedly mentions him in the Journal to Stella in terms of high regard. In December, 1710, when sir Andrew was given, over by his physicians, Swift visited him, foretold his recovery, and rejoiced at it though he humourously says, “I have lost a legacy by his living for he told me he had left me a picture and some books,” &c. Sir Andrew was vice-chamberlain to queen Caroline while princess of Wales, and after she was queen. He was also tutor to prince William, for whom he was installed (as proxy) knight of the Bath, and had on that occasion a patent granted him, dated Jan. 14, 1725, for adding supporters to his arms. Elizabeth his sister, married colone.1 Clent of Knightwick, in Worcestershire. Of his skill and judgment in medals ancient and modern, he made no trifling profit, by furnishing the most considerable cabinets of this kingdom; but if, as Dr. Warton tells us, Annius in the “Dunciad” was meant for him, his traffic was not always of the most honourable kind. In 1727 he was appointed warden of the mint, an office which he held till his death, which happened Sept. 4, 1753. He was buried at Narford, in Norfolk, where he had erected an elegant seat, and formed a fine collection of old china ware, a valuable library, an excellent collection of pictures, coins, and many curious pieces of antiquity. Sir Andrew lost many miniatures by a fire at White’s original chocolate-house, in St. James’s-street, where he had hired two rooms for his collections. A portrait of him, by Mr. Hoare of Bath, is in the collection at Wilton house; and two medals of him are engraved in Snelling’s “English Medals,” 1776. Montfaucon, in the preface to “L'Antiquit6 Explique,” calls sir Andrew Fountaine an able antiquary, and says that, during his stay at Paris, that gentleman furnished him with every piece of antiquity that he had collected, which could be of use to his work; several were accordingly engraved and described, as appears by sir Andrew’s name on the plates.

He was the author of many excellent works, as, 1. “The Principles and Practices of certain moderate divines of the Church of England, abusively called Latitudinarians, greatly misunderstood, truly represented and defended,” 1670, 8vo. This is written in the way of dialogue. 2. “The Design of Christianity or, a plain demonstration and improvement of this proposition, viz. that the enduing men with inward real righteousness and true holiness, was the ultimate end of our Saviour’s coming into the world, and is the great intendment of his blessed Gospel,” 1671, 8vo. John Bunyan, the author of the Pilgrim’s Progress, having attacked this book, the author vindicated it in a pamphlet with a very coarse title; 3. “Dirt wiped out; or, a manifest discovery of the gross ignorance, erroneousness, and most unchristian and wicked spirit of one John Bunyan, Lay-preacher in Bedford, c.” 1672, 4to. 4. “Libertas Evangelica; or, a Discourse of Christian Liberty. Being a further pursuance of The Design of Christianity,” 1630, 8vo. 5. Some pieces against popery; as, “The Resolution of this case of conscience, whether the Church of England’s symbolizing, so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it lawful to hold communion with the Church of Rome?” 1683, 4to. “A Defence of the Resolution, &c.” 1684, 4to. “Examination of Cardinal Bellarmine’s fourth note of the Church, viz. Amplitude, or Multitude and Variety of Believers.” “The texts which Papists cite out of the Bible, for the proof of their doctrine concerning the obscurity of the Holy Scriptures, examined,” 1687, 4to. The two last are printed in “The Preservative against Popery,” folio. He published, also, 6. Two pieces on the doctrine of the Trinity, “Certain Propositions, by which the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is so explained, according to the ancient fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to natural reason. Together with a defence of them, &c.” 1694, 4to. “A Second Defence of the Propositions, &c.” 1695, 4to. 7. Eighteen Occasional Sermons; one of which was on “The great wickedness and mischievous effects of Slandering, preached in the parish church of St. Giles’s, Nov. 15, 1685, on Psalm ci. 5, with a large preface of the author, and conclusion in his own vindication,” 1685, 4to. 8. “An Answer to the Paper delivered by Mr. Ashton at his execution,” 1690, 4to. 9. “A Discourse on the great disingenuity and unreasonableness of repining at afflicting Providences, and of the influence which they ought to have upon us, published upon occasion of the death of queen Maw; with a preface containing some observations touching her excellent endowments and exemplary life,” 1695, 8vo.

, a celebrated English printer, was born at Bristol, educated at Winchester school, and admitted fellow of New college, in Oxford, in 1555, after two years of probation, where also he took his master’s degree. But refusing to comply with the terms of protestant conformity in queen Elizabeth’s reign, he resigned his fellowship, after holding it about four years, and, leaving England, took upon him the trade of printing, which he exercised partly at Antwerp, and partly at Louvain; and thus did signal service to the papists, in printing their books against the protestaut writers. Wood says that he was well skilled in Greek and Latin, a tolerable poet and orator, a theologist not to be contemned; and so versed also in criticism and other polite literature, that he might have passed for another Robert or Henry Stephens. He reduced into a compendium the “Summa Theologiæ” of Thomas Aquinas, under the title of “Loca Communia Theologica,” and wrote “Additiones in Chroiiica Genebrandi;” a “Psalter for Catholics,” which was answered by Sampson Dean, of Christ-church, Oxford, 1578; also epigrams, and other verses. He also translated from Latin into English, “The Epistle of Osorius,” and “.The Oration of Pet. Frarin, of Antwerp, against the unlawful insurrection of the protestants, under pretence to reform religion,” Antwerp, 1566. This was answered by William Fulke, divinity-professor in Cambridge. Fowler^died at Newmark, in Germany, Feb. 13, 1579.

, an eminent English divine and churchhistorian, was born at Boston in Lincolnshire, of honest and reputable parents in 1517, the very year that Luther began to oppose the errors of the church of Rome. His father dying when he was young, and his mother marrying again, he fell under the tutelage of a father-in-law, with whom he remained till the age of sixteen. He was then entered of Brazen Nose college in Oxford, where he had for his chamber-fellow, the celebrated dean Nowell, and perhaps the same tutor, Mr. John Hawarden or Harding, who was afterwards principaj of the college, and to whom Fox dedicated his work on the Eucharist. In May 1538, he took, the degree of bachelor of arts. He was soon distinguished for his uncommon abilities and learning; was chosen fellow of Magdalen college, and became master of arts in 1543. He discovered in his younger years a genius for poetry, and wrote in an elegant style several Latin comedies, the subjects of which were taken from the scriptures. We have a comedy of his, entitled, “De Christo Triumphante,” printed in 1551, and at Basil in 1556, 8vo; which was translated into English by Richard Day, son of John Day, the famous printer in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and published with this title, “Christ Jesus Triumphant, wherein is described the glorious triumph and conquest of Christ over sin, death, and the law,” &c. 1579; and in 1607, in 8vo. It was again published in the original in 1672, and dedicated to all schoolmasters, in order that it might be admitted into their respective schools, for the peculiar elegance of its style, by T. C. M. A. of Sidney-college, in Cambridge. The date of the first edition (1551), shows that Anthony Wood was mistaken in asserting that Fox wrote it at Basil, to which place he did not go until after the accession of queen Mary in 1553.

After queen Mary’s death, which bishop Aylrner says Fox foretold at Basil the day before it happened, and Elizabeth was settled on the throne, and the protestant religion established, Fox returned to his native country, where he found a very faithful friend in his former pupil, now fourth duke of Norfolk; who maintained him at his house, and settled a pension on him, which was afterwards confirmed by his son. In 1572, when this unhappy duke of Norfolk was beheaded for his treasonable connection with Mary queen of Scotland, Mr. Fox and dean Nowell attended him upon the scaffold. Cecil also obtained for Fox, in 1563, of the queen a prebend in the church of Salisbury, though Fox himself would have declined accepting it; and though he had many powerful friends, as Walsingham, sir Francis Drake, sir Thomas Gresham, the bishops Grindal, Pilkington, Aylmer, &c. who would have raised him to considerable preferments, he declined them: being always unwilling to subscribe the canons, and disliking some ceremonies of the church. When archbishop Parker summoned the London clergy to Lambeth, and inquired of them whether they would yield conformity to the ecclesiastical habits, and testify the same by their subscriptions, the old man produced the New Testament in Greek, “To this’ (says he) will I subscribe.” And when a subscription to the canons was required of him, he refused it, saying, “I have nothing in the church save a prebend at Salisbury and much good may it do you, if you will take it away from me.” Such respect, however, did the bishops, most of them formerly his fellow exiles, bear to his age, parts, and labours, that he continued in it to his death. But though Fox was a non-conformist, he was a very moderate one, and highly disapproved of the intemperance of the rigid puritans. He expresses himself to the following effect in a Latin letter, written on the expulsion of his son by the puritans from 'Magdalen-college, on the groundless imputation of his having turned papist; in which are the following passages. “I confess it has always been my great care, if I could not be serviceable to many persons, yet not knowingly to injure any one, and least of all those of Magdalen college. I cannot therefore but the more wonder at the turbulent genius, which inspires those factious puritans, so that violating the laws of gratitude, despising my letters and prayers, disregarding the intercession of the president himself (Dr. Humphreys), without any previous admonition, or assigning any cause, they have exercised so great tyranny against me and my son; were I one, who like them would be violently outrageous against bishops and. archbishops, or join myself with them, that is, would become mad, as they are, I had not met with this severe treatment. Now because, quite different from them, I have chosen the side of modesty and public tranquillity; hence the hatred, they have a long time conceived against me, is at last grown to this degree of bitterness. As this is the case, 1 do not so much ask you what you will do on my account, as what is to be thought of for your sakes: you who are prelates of the church again and again consider. As to myself, though the taking away the fellowship from my son is a great affliction to me, yet because this is only a private concern, I bear it with more moderation: I am much more concerned upon account of the church, which is public. I perceive a certain race of men rising up, who, if they should increase and gather strength in this kingdom, I am sorry to say what disturbance I foresee must follow from it. Your prudence is not ignorant how much the Christian religion formerly suffered by the dissimulation and hypocrisy of the monks. At present in these men I know not what sort of new monks seems to revive; so much more pernicious than the former, as with more subtle artifices of deceiving, under pretence of perfection, like stage-players who only act a part, they conceal a more dangerous poison; who while they require every thing to be formed according to their own `strict discipline' and conscience, will not desist until they have brought all things into Jewish bondage.” Conformably to these sentiments, he expresses himself on many other occasions, in which he had no private interest, and the two succeeding reigns proved that he had not judged rashly of the violent tempers and designs of some of the puritans. Those, however, who detest their proceedings against the son of a man who had done so much for the reformation, will be pleased to hear that he was restored to his fellowship a second time, by the queen’s mandate.

In 1564 he sent a Latin panegyric to the queen, upon her indulgence to some divines, who had scruples respecting a strict conformity, and yet were suffered to hold dignities in the church. In July 1575 he wrote a Latin letter to the queen, to dissuade her majesty from putting to death two anabaptists, who bad been condemned to be burnt. Fuller, who transcribed this letter from the original, has published it in his “Church History/' and Collier, who has too frequently joined the popish cry against Fox, yet allows that it is written in a very handsome Christian strain. Ib this letter, Fox declares,” that with regard to those fanatical sects, he does not think they ought to be countenanced in a state, but chastised in a proper manner; but that to punish with flames the bodies of those, who err rather from blindness than obstinacy of will, is cruel, and more suitable to the example of the Romish church, than the mildness of the gospel; and in short such a dreadful custom, as could never have been introduced into the meek and gentle church of Christ, except by the popes, and particularly by Innocent III. who first took that method of restraining heresy. He observes that he does not write thus out of an indulgence to error, but, as he is a man, out of regard to the lives of men, that they may have an opportunity of repenting of their errors. He declares a tenderness for the lives, not only of men, but even of brute animals themselves; and affirms, that he could never pass by a slaughter-house, without the strongest sense of pain and regret. He entreats her majesty, therefore, to spare the lives of these wretches,“&c. But Fuller tells us, that though the queen constantly called Mr. Fox” her Father," yet she gave him a flat denial as to the saving of their lives, unless they recanted their errors, which they refused, and were executed.

None of these, however, are likely to add much to his fame, which is now exclusively founded on his “Acts and Monuments,” 'more familiarly known as “Fox’s Book of Martyrs.” Of this vast undertaking, some brief account cannot be uninteresting. We have before noticed that he conceived the plan, and executed some part of it when he was at Basil, but reserved the greatest part of it until his return home, when he might avail himself of living authorities. It appears by his notes that the completion of it occupied him for eleven years, during which his labour must have been incessant. His assistants, however, were numerous. Among those who pointed out sources of information, or contributed materials, was Grindal, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who, when an exile for his religion, established a correspondence in England for this purpose, and received accounts of most of the acts and sufferings of the martyrs in queen Mary’s reign. It is said also to have been owing to GrindaPs strict regard to truth, that the publication of the work was so long delayed, as he rejected all common reports that were brought over, unless confirmed by the most satisfactory evidence. It was this scrupulous fidelity which induced him to advise Fox at first only to print separately, such memoirs of certain individuals as could be authenticated, which accordingly was done, although these separate publications are now seldom to be met with. At length after a residence of some years in England, employed in collecting written and oral information, the first edition was published at London in 1563, in one thick vol. folio, with the title “Acts and Monuments of these latter and periilous days touching matters of the Churcbe, wherein are comprehended and described the great persecutions and horrible troubles, that have been wrought and practised by the Romish prelates, speciallye in this realms of England and Scotland, from the year of our Lorde a thousand unto the time now present, &c. Gathered and collected according to the true copies and wrytinges certificatorie, as well of the parties themselves that suffered, as out of the bishops registers, which were the doers thereof.” Mr. Fox presented a copy of this edition to Magdalen-college, Oxford, and at the same time wrote a Latin letter to Dr. Lawrence Humphreys, printed by Hearne in his Appendix, No. V. to his preface to “Adami de Domersham Hist, de rebus gestis Glastonensibus,” Oxon. 1727. This volume, which relates principally to the history of martyrdom in England, was afterwards enlarged, first to two, and at length to three volumes, folio, embracing a history of the Christian church, from the earliest times, and in every part of the world. The ninth edition appeared in 1684, with copper-plates, those in the former editions being in wood, which last, however, are preferred by collectors, some of them containing real portraits. The publishers of the last editioa had almost obtained a promise from Charles II. to revive the order made in queen Elizabeth’s time for placing the work in the common halls of archbishops, bishops, deans, colleges, churches. But, if we look at the date, 1684, and recollect the hopes then entertained, of re-establishing popery, we shall 'not be much surprized that this order was not renewed, nor perhaps, from the improved state of the press, and of education, was it necessary. Since that time, however, there has been no republication of the complete work, although the English part continues to this day a standard book among the publishers of works in the periodical way, who have also furnished their readers with innumerable abridgments in every form. Yet as the original has long been rising in price, we may hope that the liberal spirit of enterprise which has lately produced new editions of the English Chronicles, will soon add to that useful collection a reprint of Fox, with notes, corrections, and a collation of the state papers and records.

Young Francklin, however, was educated at Westminster school, where he was admitted a scholar in 1735, and whence in 1739 he was elected to Trinity-college, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow. He was afterwards for some time an usher at Westminster-school, and first appeared as an author, in a translation of “Phalaris’s Epistles,” 1749, 8vo, and of “Cicero on the Nature of the Gods.” About the same time he is said to have published “An Inquiry into the. Astronomy and Anatomy of the Ancients,” which was reprinted in 1775, 8vo. In June 1750, he was chosen Greek professor of Cambridge, in opposition of Mr. Barford, of King’s-college, and in the same year became involved in a dispute with the university on the following occasion. On the 17th of November, he with a number of gentlemen educated at Westminster school, having met at a tavern, according to custom, to celebrate queen Elizabeth’s anniversary, they were interrupted by the senior proctor, who came into the company after 11 o'clock at night, and ordered them to depart, it being an irregular hour. For disobeying this order, some of them were reprimanded by the vice-chancellor, and others fined. Francklin, who was one of the party, had his share in the business, and is supposed to have written a pamphlet entitled “An Authentic Narrative of the late extraordinary proceedings at Cambridge, against the Westminster Club,” Loud. 1751, 8vo, denying the charge of irregularity, and laying the blame on the proctor. This dispute engaged the attention of the university for some time, as those who plead for the relaxation of discipline will never be without abettors.

In 1753, he published a poem called “Translation,” in which he announced his intention of giving a translation of “Sophocles.” In January 1757, on the periodical paper called “The World” being finished, he engaged to publish a similar one, under the title of “The Centinel,” but after extending it to twenty-seven numbers, he was obliged to drop it for want of encouragement, The next year he published “A Fast Sermon” preached at Queen-street chapel, of which he was minister, and at St. Paul’s Coveut-garden, of which he was lecturer; and he afterwards published a few sermons on occasional topics, or for charities. In 1759 appeared his translation of “Sophocles,” 2 vols. 4to, which was allowed to be a bold and happy transfusion into the English language of the terrible simplicity of the Greek tragedian. This was followed by a “Dissertation on ancient Tragedy,” in which he mentioned Arthur Murphy by name, and in terms not the most courtly. Murphy, a man equally, or perhaps more irritable, replied in a poetical “Epistle addressed to Dr. Johnson,” who calmly permitted the combatants to settle their disputes in their own way, which, we are told, amounted to a cessation of hostilities, if not to an honourable peace. At this time Francklin is said to have been a writer in the Critical Review, which indeed is acknowledged in an article in that review, and might perhaps be deduced from, internal evidence, as, besides his intimacy with Smollet, his works are uniformly mentioned with very high praise. In 1757 he had been preferred by Trinity-college to the livings of Ware and Thundrich, in Hertfordshire, and although his mind was more intent on the stage than the pulpit, he published in 1765 a volume of “Sermons on the relative duties,” which was well received by the publick. Next year he produced at Drury-lane theatre, the tragedy of “The Earl of Warwick,” taken, without any acknowledgement, from the French of La Harpe. In Nov. 1767, he was enrolled in the list of his majesty’s chaplains. In 1768 he published apiece of humour, without his name, entitled “A Letter to a Bishop concerning Lectureships,” exposing the paltry shifts of the candidates for this office at their elections; and next year he wrote “An Ode on the Institution of the Royal Academy.” In March of the same year, he translated Voltaire’s “Orestes” for the stage. In July 1770 he took the degree of D. D. but still debased his character by producing dramatic pieces of no great fame, and chiefly translations; “Electra,” “Matilda,” and “The Contract,” a farce. About 1776 he was presented to the living of Brasted, in Surrey, which he held until his death. He had for some years employed himself on his excellent translation of the works of *' Lucian,“which he published in 1780, in 2 vols. 4to. He was also concerned with Smollet, in a translation of Voltaire’s works, but, it is said, contributed little more than his name to the title-pages. There is a tragedy of his still in ms. entitled” Mary Queen of Scots.“Dr. Francklin died at his house in Great Queen-street, March 15, 1784. He was unquestionably a man of learning and abilities, but from peculiarities of temper, and literary jealousy, seems not to have been much esteemed by his contemporaries. After his death 3 volumes of his” Sermons" were published for the benefit of his widow and family. Mrs. Francklin died in May 1796. She was the daughter of Mr. Venables, a wine-merchant.

surnamed the Great, the third king of Prussia, son of Frederic William I. was born Jan. 24, 1712, and educated in some measure in adversity; for when he began to grow up, and discovered talents for poetry, music, and the fine arts in general, his father, fearing lest this taste should seduce him from studies more necessary to him as a king, opposed his inclinations, and treated him with considerable harshness. In 1730, when the prince was eighteen, this disagreement broke out; he endeavoured to escape, was discovered, and thrown into prison, and Kat, a young officer who was to have attended his flight, was executed before his eyes. His marriage in 1733, with the princess of Brunswick Wolfenbuttel, restored at least apparent harmony in the family. But in his forced retirement, young Frederic had eagerly cultivated his favourite sciences, which continued to divert his cares in the most stormy and anxious periods of his life. He ascended the throne in May 1740, and almost immediately displayed his ambitious and military dispositions, by demanding Silesia from Maria Theresa, heiress of the emperor Charles VI. in his Austrian and Hungarian dominions, and pursuing his claim by force of arms. The emperor died October 20, 1740, and Lower Silesia had submitted to Frederic in November 1741. France stepped forward to support his pretensions; but in June 1742, he had signed a treaty at Breslaw, with the queen of Hungary, which left him in possession of Silesia and the county of Glatz. In the spring of 1744, either suspecting that the treaty of Breslaw would be broken, or moved again by ambition, betook arms under pretence of supporting the election of the emperor Charles VII. and declared war against Maria Theresa, who refused to acknowledge that prince. The war was continued with various success, but on the whole very gloriously for Frederic, till the latter end of 1745. It was concluded by a treaty signed at Dresden on Christmas day, by which the court of Vienna left him in possession of Upper and Lower Silesia (excepting some districts, and the whole county of Glatz) on condition that he should acknowledge Francis I. of Lorraine as emperor.

out some partiality for him, since he to spak to the queen in the manner

Soon after he obtained his liberty he was made physician to the prince of Wales; and, on that prince’s accession to the throne as George II. became physician to the queen, who honoured him with a share of her confidence and esteem. Very early in 1727-8, bishop Atterbury addressed to Dr. Freind his celebrated “Letter on the Character of Japis,” of whom he justly considered this learned physician to be the modern prototype. But whatever opinion he entertained of his professional abilities, it appears from “Atterbury’s Correspondence” that he had some reason to regret, if not resent, Dr. Freind’s becoming a favourite at court, and as Mr. Morice informs us, “an absolute courtier.” Dr. Freind did not, however, long enjoy this favour, but died of a fever, July 26, 1728, in his fifty-second year. Their majesties expressed the utmost concern at his death, and settled a pension upon his widow, Anne, eldest daughter of Thooias Morice, esq. paymaster of the forces in Portugal. Dr. Freind married this lady in 1709, and by her had an only son, John, who was educated at Westminster school, and became afterwards a student at Christ Church in Oxford. He died in 1752, unmarried. Dr. Freind was buried at Hitcham in Buckinghamshire, near which he had a seat; but there is a monument erected to him in Westminster-abbey, with a suitable inscription. He had himself rendered the like kind office to more than one of his friends, being peculiarly happy in this sort of composition; for the inscription on the monument of Sprat, bishop of Rochester, was from his pen; but that on Philips, which had been ascribed to him, is since ascertained to be by Atterbury. Dr. Wigan published his Latin works together at London, in 1733, in folio, adding to them a translation of his “History of Physic” into the same language, with an excellent historical preface; and to the whole is prefixed an elegant dedication to his royal patroness the late queen, by his brother Dr. Robert Freind. His works were reprinted at Paris in 1735, 4to.

, eldest brother of the preceding, was born in 16'67, and admitted in 1680 at Westminster school, whence he was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in. 1686. While a student there he wrote some good verses on the inauguration of king William and queen Mary, which were printed in the Oxford collection. In, the celebrated dispute between Bentley and Boyle, Mr. Freind was a warm partizan for the honour of his college, but was eventually more lucky with Bentley than his brother, Dr. John. A neice of our author’s was married to a son of Dr. Bentley, who, after that event, conceived a better opinion of the Christ Church men, and declared that “Freind had more good learning in him than ever he had imagined.” Mr. Freind proceeded M. A. June I, 1693, became second master of Westminster school in 1699, and accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. July 7, 1709. In 1711 he published a sermon preached before the house of commons, Jan. 30, 1710-11, and in the same year he succeeded Duke, the poet, in the valuable living of Witney, in Oxfordshire; became head master of Westminster school, and is said either to have drawn up, or to have revised the preamble to the earl of Oxford’s patent of peerage. In March 1723, the day after his brother, Dr. John, was committed to the Tower, he caused much speculation in Westminster school and its vicinity, by giving for a theme, tf Frater, ne desere Fratrem.“In 1724 he published Cicero’s” Orator,“and in 1728 Mr. Bowyer, the celebrated printer, was indebted to him for the Westminster verses on the coronation of George II. In April 1729, Dr. Freind obtained a canonry of Windsor, which in 173l i he exchanged for a prebend of Westminster, and in 1733 he quitted Westminster school. In 1734 he was desirous of resigning Witney to his son (afterwards dean of Canterbury); but could not do it without the permission of bishop Hoadly, which he had little reason to expect. On application, however, to that prelate, through queen Caroline and lady Sundon, he received this laconic answer,” If Dr. Freind can ask it, I can grant it." Dr. Freind’s letters to lady Sundon are still existing, and prove that he had as little scruple in asking, as bishop Hoadly had in flattering a lady, who, by her influence with queen Caroline, became for a considerable time the sole arbitress of churchpreferments. In 1744 Dr. Freind resigned his stall at Westminster in favour of his son, and died August 9, 1751. By Jane his wife, one of the two daughters of Dr. Samuel Delangle, a prebendary of Westminster, he had two sons, Charles, who died in 1736, and William, his successor at Witney, and afterwards dean of Canterbury.

, a learned classical editor, was born in 1608, in the city of Dim in Swabia, and after studying law in the universities of Marpurg and Giessen, came to Strasburgh, where some poetical attempts in the German language recommended him to Matthias Bernegger, who made him his librarian. With this advantage, he applied to those classical pursuits on which his fame rests. He came afterwards to France, where he was admitted among the king’s interpreters, but did not remain here above three years, returning in 1637 to Strasburgh, where he married the daughter of his patron Bernegger. The university of Upsal making him very liberal offers, he accepted the professorship of eloquence, and filled that office for five years. Queen Christina then invited him to her court, appointed him her librarian and historiographer, with 2000 crowns salary, and a table; but the air of the country not agreeing with him, he was obliged to quit this profitable situation in 1655, and return home. Freinshewas a man of extensive learning; for, besides Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, he was familiar with almost all the living languages of Europe, and his fame induced the elector Palatine, when he projected the restoration of the university of Heidelberg, to appoint him honorary professor, and electoral counsellor. He accordingly removed with his family to Heidelberg in 1656, and died there in 1660.

, an enterprizing English navigator, was born near Doncaster, in Yorkshire, of low parents, but it is not known in what year. Being brought up to navigation, he very early displayed the talents of an eminent sailor, and was the first Englishman that attempted to find out a north-west passage to China. He made offers of this to several English merchants for fifteen years together; but meeting with no encouragement from them, he at length obtained recommendations to Dudley earl of Warwick, and other persons of rank and fortune. Under their influence and protection he engaged a sufficient number of adventurers, and collected proper sums of money. The ships he provided were only three; namely, two barks of about twenty-five tons each, and a pinnace of ten tons. With these he sailed from Deptford June 8, 1576; and the court being then at Greenwich, the queen beheld them as they passed by, “commended them, and bade them farewell, with shaking her hand at them out of the window.”

Bending their course northward, they came on the 24th within sight of Fara, one of the islands of Shetland; and on the llth of July discovered Friezeland r which stood high, and was all covered with snow. They could not land by reason of the ice and great depth of water near the shore; the east point of this island, however, they named “Queen Elizabeth’s Foreland.” On the 28th they had sight of Meta Incognita, being part of New Greenland; on which also they could not land, for the reasons just mentioned. August the 10th, he went on a desert island three miles from the continent, but staid there only a few hours. The next day he entered into a strait which he called “Frobisher’s Strait;” and the name is still retained. On the J2th, sailing to Gabriel’s Island, they came to a sound, which they named Prior’s Sound, and anchored in a sandy bay there. The 15th they sailed to Prior’s Bay, the 17th to Thomas Williams’s Island, and the 18th came to an anchor under Burcher’s Island. Here they went on shore, and had some communication with the natives; but he was so unfortunate as to have five of his men and a boat taken by those barbarians. They were like the Tartars, or Samoeids, with long black hair, broad faces, flat noses, and tawny; the garments both of men and women were made of seal-skins, and did not differ in fashion; but the women were marked in the face with blue streaks down the cheeks, and round the eyes. Having endeavoured in vain to recover hit men, he set sail again for England the 26th of August; and, notwithstanding a terrible "storm on the 7th, arrived safe at Harwich on the 2d of October.

He took possession of that country in the queen of England’s name; and, in token of such possession, ordered his men to bring whatever they could first find. ( One among the rest brought a piece of black stone, much like seacoal, but very heavy. Having at his return distributed fragments of it among his friends, one of the adventurer’s wives threw a fragment into the fire; which being taken out again, and quenched in vinegar, glittered like gold; and, being tried by some refiners in London, was found to contain a portion of that rich metal. This circumstance raising prodigious expectations of gold, great numbers earnestly pressed Frobisher to undertake a second voyage the next spring. The queen lent him a ship of the royal navy of 200 tons; with which, and two barks of about 30 tons each, they fell down to Gravesend May 26, 1577, and there received the sacrament together; an act of religion not so frequently performed as it ought to be, among men exposed to so many perils, and more particularly under the protection of heaven. They sailed from Harwich on the 3 1st of May, and arrived in St. Magnus Sound at the Orkney Islands, upon the 7th of June; from whence they kept their course for the space of twenty-six days, without seeing any land. They met, however, with great drifts of wood, and whole bodies of trees; which were either blown off the cliffs of the nearest lands by violent storms, or rooted up and carried by floods into the sea. At length, on the 4th of July, they discovered Friezeland; along the coasts of which they found islands of ice of incredible bigness, some being 70 or 80 fathoms under water, besides the part that stood above water, and more than half a mile in circuit. Not having been able safely to land in this place, they proceeded for Frobisher’s Straits; and on the 17th of the same month made the North Foreland in them, otherwise called Hall’s Island; as also a smaller island of the same name, where they had in their last voyage found the ore, but could not now get a piece so large as a walnut. They met with some of it, however, in other adjacent islands, but not enough to merit their attention. They sailed about to make what discoveries they could, and gave names to several bays and isles; as Tackman’s Sound, Smith’s Island, Beare’s Sound, Leicester’s Isle, Anne countess of Warwick’s Sound and Island, York Sound, &c.

The captain’s commission directed him in this voyage only to search for ore, and to leave the further discovery of the north-west passage till another time. Having, therefore, in the countess of Warwick’s Island, found a good quantity, he took a lading of it; intending the first opportunity to return home. He set sail the 23d of August, and arrived in England about the end of September. He was most graciously received by the queen; and, as the gold ore he brought had an appearance of riches and profit, and the hope of a north-west passage to China was greafcly increased by this second voyage, her majesty appointed commissioners to make trial of the ore, and examine thoroughly into the whole affair. The commissioners did so, and reported the great value of the undertaking, and the expediency of further carrying on the discovery of the north-west passage. Upon this, suitable preparations were made with all possible dispatch; and, because the mines newly found out were sufficient to defray the adventurers charges, it was thought necessary to send a select number of soldiers, to secure the places already discovered, to make further discoveries into the inland parts, and to search again for the passage to China. Besides three ships as before, twelve others were fitted out for this voyage, which were to return at the end of the summer with a lading of gold ore. They assembled at Harwich the 27th of May, and sailing thence the 31st, they came within sight of Friezeland on the 20th of June; when the general, going on shore, took possession of the country in the queen of England’s name, and called it West-England. They met with many storms and difficulties in this voyage, which retarded them so much, that the season was too far advanced to undertake discoveries; so that, after getting as much ore as they could, they sailed for England, where, after a stormy and dangerous voyage, they arrived about the beginning of October.

It does not appear how captain Frobisher employed himself from this time to 1585, when he commanded the Aid, in sir Francis Drake’s expedition to the West Indies. In 1588, he bravely exerted himself against the Spanish Armada, commanding the Triumph, one of the three largest ships in that service, and which had on board the greatest number pf men of any in the whole English fleet. July 26th, he received the honour of knighthood, from the hand of the lord high admiral, at sea, on board his own ship and when afterwards the queen thought it necessary to keep a fleet on the- Spanish coast, he was employed in that service, particularly in 1590, when he commanded one squadron, as sir John Hawkins did another. In 1594, he was sent with four men of war, to assist Henry the Fourth of France, against a body of leaguers and Spaniards then in possession of part of Bretagne, who had fortified themselves very strongly at Croyzon near Brest. But in an assault upon that fort, Nov. 7, he was wounded with a ball in the hip, of which he died Soob after he had brought the fleet safely back to Plymouth; and was buried in that town. Stow tells us, the wound was not mortal in itself, but became so through the negligence of his surgeon, who only extracted the bullet, without duly searching the wound and taking out the wadding, which caused it to fester.

He had but just left school, and was scarcely twenty years ol i, when at the intreaty of “his dear lord and master sir Robert de Namur, lord of Beaufort,” he undertook to write the history of the wars of his own time, more particularly of those which ensued after the battle of Poitiers. Four years afterwards, having gone to England, he presented a part of this history to queen Philippa of Hainault, the wife of Edward III. However young he might then be, he had already travelled into the most distant provinces of France. The object of his visit to England was to tear himself from the pains of an attachment which had tormented him for a long time. This passion took possession of his heart from his infancy; it lasted ten years, and sparks of it were again rekindled in a more advanced age. The history of this attachment may be seen in our authority. It appears to have been first childish, and then romantic, and for his feelings in either state, we have only poetical evidence, and from that we learn that he had more mistresses than one. He had made two journies to England, but on which occasion he presented his history to queen Philippa is not certain. It was well received, however, and probably gained him the title of Clerk (secretary or writer) of the chamber to that princess, which he was in possession of from 1361. She is said frequently to have amused herself, in that age of romantic gallantry, by making Froissart compose amorous ditties; but this occupation must be considered solely as a relaxation that no way impeded more serious works, since during the five years he was attached to the service of queen Philippa, he travelled at her expence to various parts of Europe, the object of which seems to be a research after whatever might enrich his history.

Of all the particulars of Froissart’s life during his residence in England, we only know that he was present at the separation of the king and queen in 1361, with their son the prince of Wales and the princess his lady, who were going to take possession of the government of Acquitaine; and that he was between Eltham and Westminster in 1363, when king John passed on his return to England. There is in his poems a pastoral which seems to allude only to that event. With regard to his travels during the time he was attached to the service of the queen, he' employed six months in Scotland, and penetrated as far as the Highlands. He travelled on horseback with his portmanteau behind him, and followed by a greyhound. The king of Scotland, and many lords whose names he has preserved to us, treated him so handsomely, that he could have wished tq have returned thither. William earl of Douglas lodged him during fifteen days in his castle of Dalkeith, near Edinburgh; but we are ignorant of the date of this journey, and of another which he made into North Wales. It may be inferred, however, that he was at this time no ordinary character, and that he must have possessed talents and accomplishments to entitle him, to so much respect.

He was in France, at Melun sur Seine, about April 20, 1366; perhaps private reasons might have induced him to take that road to Bourdeaux, where he was on All Saints’ day of that year, when the princess of Wales was brought to bed of a son, who was afterwards Richard II. The prince of Wales setting out a few days afterwards for the war in Spain, Froissart accompanied him to Dax, where the prince resided some time. He had expected to have attended him during the continuance of this grand expedition; but the prince would not permit him to go farther; and shortly after his arrival, sent him back to the queen his mother. Froissart could not have made any long stay in England, since in the following year, 1368," he was at different Italian courts. It was this same year, that Lionel duke of Clarence, son of the king of England, espoused Joland, daughter of Galeas II. duke of Milan. Froissart, who probably was in his suite, was present at the magnificent reeeption which Amadeus count of Savoy, surnamed the count Verd, gave him on his return: he describes the feasts on this occasion, which lasted three days; and does not forget to tell us that they danced a virelay of his composition. From the court of Savoy he returned to Milan, where the same count Amadeus gave him a good cotardie, a sort of coat, with twenty florins of gold; and from thence to Bologna and Ferrara, where he Feceived f forty ducats from the king of Cyprus, and then to Rome. Instead of the modest equipage he travelled with into Scotland, he was now like a man of importance, travelling on a handsome horse attended by a hackney.

It was about this time that Froissart experienced a loss which nothing could recompense, the death of Philippa, which took place in 1369. He composed a lay on this melancholy event, of which, however, he was not a witness; for he says, in another place, that in 1395 it was twenty-seven years since he had seen England. According to Vossius and Bullart he wrote the life of queen Philippa; but this assertion is not founded on any proofs. Independently of the employment of clerk of the chamber to the queen of England, which Froissart had held, he had been also of the household of Edward III. and even of that of John, king of France. Having, however, lost his patroness, he did not return to England, but went into his own country, where he obtained the living of Lestines. Of all that he performed during the time he exercised this ministry, he tells us nothing moiv than that the tavernkeepers of Lestines had live hundred francs of his money in ike short space of liuwj he was their rector. It is mentioned in a ms journal of the bishop of Chartres, chunceHor to the duke of Anjou, that according to letters sealed Dec. 12, 138 >, this prince caused to be seized fifty-six quires of the Chronicle of Froissart, rector of the parish church of Lestines, which the historian had sent to be illuminated, and then to be forwarded to the king of England., the enemy of France. Froissart attached himself afterwards to Winceslaus of Luxembourg, duke of Brabant, perhaps in quality of secretary. This prince had a taste for poetry; he had made by Froissart a collection of his songs, rondeaus, and virrlays, and Froissart adding s-nne of his own pieces to those of the prince, formed a soft of romance, under the title of “Meliador, or the Kujght of the Sun;” hut the duke did not live to see the completion of the work, for he died in 1334.

, an English poet, was the son of a gentleman, who had been post-master in the reign of queen Anne, and the grandson of sir Philip Frowde,a loyal officer in king Charles I.'s army. He was sent to the university of Oxford, where he had the honour of being distinguished by Addison, who took him under his protection. While be remained there be became the author of several pieces of poetry, some of which, in Latin, were pure and elegant enough to entitle them to a place in the “Muse Anglicanae.” He wrote likewise two tragedies: “The Fall of Saguntum,” dedicated to sir Robert Walpole; and “Philotas,” addressed to the earl of Chesterfield. Neither of these were very successful on the stage, to which they were thought less adapted than to the closet. He died at his lodgings in Cecil-street in the Strand, Dec. 19, 1738; and in the London Daily-Post had the following character given him': “Though the elegance of Mr. Frowde’s writings has recommended him to the general public esteem, the politeness of his genius is the least amiable part of his character; for he esteemed the talents of wit and learning, only as they were conducive to the excitement and practice of honour and humanity. Therefore, with a soul chearful, benevolent, and virtuous, he was in conversation genteelly delightful, in friendship punctually sincere, in death Chnstianly resigned. No man could live more beloved; no private man could die more lamented.”

, a Romish saint, is usually called the Apostle of Ethiopia, on account of his having first propagated Christianity in that country, in the fourth century. He was the nephew of one Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, who being induced to travel to Ethiopia, carried with him his two nephews, Frumentius and Edesius, with whose education he had been entrusted. In the course of their voyage homewards, the vessel touched at a certain port to take in provisions and fresh water, and the whole of the passengers were murdered by the barbarians of the country, except the two children, whom they presented to the king, who resided at Axuma, formerly one of the greatest cities of the East. The king, being charmed with the wit and sprightliness of the two boys, had them carefully educated, and when grown up, made Edesius his cup-bearer, and Frumentius, who was the elder, his treasurer and secretary of state, entrusting him with all the public writings and accounts. Nor were they less highly honoured after the king’s death by the queen, who was regent during her son’s minority. Frumentius had the principal management of affairs, and soon turned his attention to higher objects than the politics of the country. He met with some Roman merchants who traded there, and having by their means discovered some Christians who were in the kingdom, he encouraged them to associate for the purposes of religious worship; and at length erected a church for their use; and certain natives, instructed in the gospel, were converted. On the young king’s accession to the government, Frumentius, though with much reluctance on the part of the king and his mother, obtained leave to return to his own country. Edesius accordingly returned to Tyre; but Frumentius, on his arrival at Alexandria, communicated his adventures to Athanasius the bishop, and informed him of the probability of converting the country to Christianity, if missionaries were sent thither. On mature consideration, Athanasius told him, that none was so fit for the office as himself. He consecrated him therefore first bishop of the Indians, and Frumentius returning to a people who had been acquainted with his integrity and capacity, preached the gospel with much success, and erected many churches, although the emperor Constantius endeavoured to introduce Arianism, and actually ordered that Frumentius should be deposed, and an Arian bishop appointed; but the country was happily out of his reach. Frumentius is supposed to have died about the year 360. The Abyssinians honour him as the apostle of the country of the Axumites, which is the most considerable part of their empire.

, an English historian and divine, was the son of the rev. Thomas Fuller, minister of St. Peter’s, in Aldwincle, in Northamptonshire, and born there in 1608. The chief assistance he had in the rudiments of learning was from his father, under whom he made so extraordinary a progress, that he was sent at twelve years of age to Queen’s-college, in Cambridge; Dr. Davenant, who was his mother’s brother, being then master of it, and soon after bishop of Salisbury. He took his degrees in arts, that of A. B. in 1624-5, and that of A. M. in 1628, and would have been fellow of the college; but there being already a Northamptonshire man a fellow, he was prohibited by the statutes from being chosen, and although he might have obtained a dispensation, he preferred removing to Sidney-college, in the same university. He had not been long there, before he was chosen minister of St. Bennet’s, in the town of Cambridge, and soon became a very popular preacher. In 1631, he obtained a fellowship in Sidney-college, and at the same time a prebend in the church of Salisbury. This year also he issued his first publication, a work of the poetical kind, now but little known, entitled “David’s Hainous Sin, Heartie Repentances, and Heavie Punishment,” in a thin 8vx>.

, an English physician, but perhaps better known for a very useful work on morals, was born June 24, 1654, and was educated at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees in medicine, that of M. B. in 1676, and that of M. D. in 1681. He does not appear to have been a member of the college of physicians of London, but settled at Sevenoak in Kent, where he was greatly esteemed. He was a great benefactor to the poor, and a zealous assertor of their rights, having, not long before his death, prosecuted the managers of a considerable charity given to the inhabitants of that town by sir William Senoke (a foundling of the place, and in 1418 lord mayor of London) and obliged them to produce their accounts in chancery, and to be subject for the future to an annual election. Here Dr. Fuller died, Sept. 17, 1734. The moral work which he published was entitled “Introductio ad prudentiam; or directions, counsels and cautions, tending to prudent management of affairs of common life,” 1727, 12mo, compiled for the use of his son. To this he added, what may be reckoned a second volume, with the title of “Introductio, &c.; or the art of right thinking, assisted and improved by such notions as men of sense and experience have left us in their writings, in order to eradicate error, and plant knowledge,” 1731-2, 12mo. His medical works were, 1. “Pharmacopreia extemporanea,” 1702 and 1714, 8vo. 2. “Pharmacopoeia Bateana,” 1718, 12mo. 3.“Pharmacopoeia Domestica,” 1723, 8vo, 4.“Of eruptive fevers, measles, and small-pox,” 1730, 4to. There is another work entitled “Medici na Gymnastica,” which has been sometimes attributed to him, but was written by a Francis Fuller, M. A. of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and published in 1704.

, an English surgeon, was born in 1507; and educated under Richard Ferris, afterwards serjeantsurgeon to queen Elizabeth. He was surgeon in the army of king Henry VIII. at Montruil, in 1544; and in that of king Philip at St. Quintin, in 1557, but afterwards settled in London, and became very eminent in the practice of surgery. He was living in 1586. Tanner gives the following list of his writings: “The Institution of a Chirurgeon.” “An Enchiridion of Surgery,” in four books. “On Gun-shot wounds.” “Antidotarie,” in two books. All these were printed together, London, 1563, 8vo. “A compendious method of curing praeternatural Tumours.” “On the several kinds of Ulcers, and their cure.” “A Commentary on Guido de Cauliaco.” “An Herbal, for the use of surgeons.” “A brief declaration of the worthy Art of Medicine, and the office of a Chirurgeon.” “An epitome of Galen de Natural. Facultat.” The two last were printed with a translation of " Galen de Methodo MedenoV' It cannot be supposed that any of these are now of much value, but some of them contain curious information respecting the state of the profession at that time.

, a brave officer of the army, and not less celebrated for his piety, was born at Carriden, in Linlithgow shire, in Scotland, Jan. 10, 1687-8. He was the son of captain Patrick Gardiner, of the family of Torwoodhead, by Mrs. Mary Hodge, of the family of GladsKiitir. His family was military, his father, his uncle by the mother’s side, and his elder brother, all fell in battle. He was educated at the school of Linlithgow, but was soon removed from it, owing to his early zeal to follow his father’s profession. At the age of fourteen he had an ensign’s commission in the Dutch service, in which he continued until 1702; when he received the same from queen Anne, and being present at the battle of Ramillies, in his nineteenth year, was severely wounded and taken prisoner by the French. He was carried to a convent, where he resided until his wound was cured; and soon after was exchanged. In 1706 he obtained the rank of lieutenant, and after several intermediate promotions, was appointed major of a regiment commanded by the earl of Stair, in whose family he resided for several years. In January 1730, he was advanced to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the same regiment, in which he continued until April 1743, when he received a colonel’s commission over a regiment of dragoons. During the rebellion in Scotland, in 1745, his regiment being in that country, and the rebel army advancing to Edinburgh, he was ordered to march with the utmost expedition to D unbar, which he didj and that hasty retreat, with the news soon afterwards received of the surrender of Edinburgh to the rebels, struck a visible panic into the forces he commanded. This affected his gallant mind so much, that on the Thursday before the battle of Preston-pans, he intimated to an officer of considerable rank, that he expected the event would be as it proved; and to a person who visited him, he said, “I cannot influence the conduct of others as I could wish; but I have one life to sacrifice to my country’s safety, and I shall not spare it.” On Friday Sept. 20th, the day before the fatal battle, when the whole army was drawn up, about noon, the colonel rode through the ranks of his regiment, and addressed them in an animated manner, to exert themselves with courage in defence of their country. They seemed much affected by his address, and expressed a very ardent desire of attacking the enemy immediately, a desire in which he, and another gallant officer of distinguished rank, would have gratified them, had it been in their power, but their ardour and their advice were overruled by the strange conduct of the commander-in-chief, sir John Cope, and therefore all that colonel Gardiner could do, was to spend the remainder of the day in making as good a disposition as the circumstances would allow. He continued all night under arms, wrapped Mp in his cloak, and sheltered under a rick of barley which happened to be in the field. By break of day the army was roused by the noise of the approach of the rebels; and the attack was made before sun -rise. As soon as the enemy came within gun-shot, they commenced a furious fire; and the dragoons which constituted the left wing immediately fled. The colonel at the beginning of the attack, which lasted but a few minutes, received a ball in his left breast, which made him give a sudden spring in his saddle; upon which his servant, who had led the horse, would have persuaded him to, retreat; but he said it was only a flesh-wound, and fought on, though he presently after received a shot in his right thigh. The colonel was for a few moments supported by his men, and particularly by about fifteen dragoons, who stood by him to 'the last; but after a faint fire, the regiment in general was seized with a panic; and though their colonel and some other brave officers did what they could to rally them, they at lust took to a precipitate flight. Just in the moment when colonel Gardiner seemed to be making a pause to deliberate what duty required him to do in such a circumstance, he saw a party of the foot fighting bravely near him, without an officer to lead them, on which he rode up to them immediately, and cried out aloud, “Fire on, my lads, and fear nothing.” As he had uttered these words, a Highlander advanced towards him with a scythe fastened to a long pole, with which he gave him such a deep wound in his right arm, that his sword dropped from his band, and several others coming about him at the same time, while he was thus dreadfully entangled with that savage weapon, he was dragged from his horse. The moment he fell, another Highlander gave him a stroke either with a broad -sword, or a Lochaber axe, on the hinder part of the head, which was the mortal blow. All that his faithful servant, John Forster, who furnished this account, saw further at this time, was, that as his hat was falling olf, he took it in his left hand, waved it as a signal for him to retreat, and added, which were the last words he ever heard him speak, “Take care of yourself.” The servant immediately fled to a mill, about two miles distant, where he changed his dress, and disguised like a miller’s servant, returned with a cart about two hours after the engagement. He found his master not dnly plundered of his watch and other things of value, but even stripped of his upper garments and boots. He was, however, still breathing, and from appearances, not altogether insensible. In this condition he was conveyed to the church of Tranent, and from that to the clergyman’s house, where he expired about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, Saturday Sept. 21, 1745. The rebels entered his house before he was carried off from the field, and plundered it. His remains were interred on the Tuesday following, Sept. 24, at the parish church of Tranent. Even his enemies spoke honourably of him, and seemed to join in lamenting the fall of so brave and so worthy a man. Nor was it for bravery only that colonel Gardiner was distinguished. He was perhaps one of the most pious men of his age and country. He was, says his biographer, in the most amazing manner, without any religious opportunity, or peculiar advantage, deliverance, or affliction, reclaimed on a sudden, in the vigour of life and health, from a life of licentiousness, not only to a steady course of regularity and virtue, but to high devotion, and strict, though unaffected sanctity of manners. All this is amply illustrated in Dr. Doddridge’s well-known life of this gallant hero, whose death was as much a loss, as the cause of it, the battle of Preston-pans, was a disgrace to his country.

, bishop of Winchester, and chancellor of England, was the illegitimate son of Dr. Lionel Woodvill or Wydville, dean of Exeter, and bishop of Salisbury, brother to Elizabeth, queen consort to Edward IV. He was born in 1483, at Bury St. Edmonds, in Suffolk, and took his name from his reputed father , whom his mother married, though in a menial situation, to conceal the incontinence of the bishop. After a proper education at school, he was sent to Trinity-hall, in Cambridge; where pursuing his studies with diligence, he soon obtained reputation by the quickness of his parts, and was particularly distinguished for his elegance in writing and speaking Latin, as well as for his uncommon skill in the Greek language . In the former he made Cicero his pattern, and became so absolute a master of his style, as to be charged with affectation in that respect. With these attainments in classical learning, he applied himself to the civil and canon law; and took his doctor’s degree in the first of these, in 1520; in the latter, the following year; and it is said, was the same year elected master of his college.

But his views were far from being confined to the university. He had some time before been taken into the family of the duke of Norfolk, and thence into that of Cardinal Wolsey, who made him his secretary. This post he now held, and it proved the foundation of his rise at court. The cardinal having projected the treaty of alliance with Francis I. in 1525, employed his secretary to draw up the plan, and the king coming to his house at Morepark, in Hertfordshire, found Gardiner busy at this work. He looked at it, liked the performance extremely well, the performer’s conversation better, and his fertility in the invention of expedients best of all; and from this time Gardiner was admitted into the secret of affairs, and entirely confided in, both by the king and his first minister. He received a public mark of that confidence in 1527, when he was sent to Rome, in order to negociate the arduous business of Henry’s divorce from queen Katharine. Edward Fox, provost of King’s-college, in Cambridge, went with him on this embassy; but Gardiner was the chief, being esteemed the best civilian in England at this time; and having been admitted into the king’s cabinet-­council for this affair, he is styled in the cardinal’s credential letters to the pope, “primary secretary of the most secret counsels.” He was now in such favour with the cardinal, that, in these very letters, he called Gardiner the half of himself, “Dimidium sui,” than whom none was dearer to him. He wrote that Gardiner should unlock his [the cardinal’s] breast to the pope; who, in hearing him speak, he might think he heard the cardinal himself. The successful issue of this embassy in obtaining a new commission, directed to the cardinals Wolsey and Campejus, as well as Gardiner’s address in the negociation, may be seen in the general histories of England. We shall only notice one particular not mentioned there, which is his success in disposing Campejus to make a tour to England. This requiring some extraordinary management, Gardiner took it upon himself; and having put every thing requisite to set the affair in a proper light at home, into the hands of his colleague Fox, dispatched him to carry the account to the king, who joined with Anne Boleyn in applauding the ingenuity, intrepidity, and industry of the new minister. But the loudest in his praises was the cardinal, in whose private business Gardiner had reconciled the pope to the endowment of his two colleges at Oxford and Ipswich, out of the revenues of the dissolved lesser monasteries. This added to the rest, made such an impression upon the cardinal’s mind, that crying out, “O inestimable treasure and jewel of this realm!” he desired Fox to remark those words, and insert them in his letter. There was still another instance of Gardiner’s abilities and attachment to Wolsey, which had its share in exciting this burst of admiration. During the course of this embassy, the pope falling dangerously ill, the cardinal set all his engines to work, to secure the keys provisionally to himself, in case of a new election, and the suffrages of one-third part of the cardinals were procured for him. He dispatched orders immediately to provide that those cardinals should be withdrawn to a place of safety, and should there declare him pope, though the majority should appear against him; assuring his own party, that they should be vigorously sustained by king Henry and his allies. This scheme, however, was rendered abortive by the recovery of Clement VII. but the pains taken in it by the cardinal’s agents, among whom Gardiner had at least an equal share, could not fail to be highly pleasing to him. In the event, indeed, the king had most reason to be satisfied with his minister, who gave his opinion that all solicitations at Rome would be lost time; the pope, in his judgment, being immoveable in the resolution to do nothing himself; though he might not improbably be brought to confirm such a sentence as his majesty could draw from the legates Henry, fully persuaded in the issue of the sincerity and judgment of this advice, recalled Gardiner, resolving to make use of his abilities in managing the legantine court .

In 1535, Cranmer visiting the see of Winchester, in virtue of his metropolitan power, Gardiner disputed that power with great warmth. Some time afterwards, he resumed his embassy to France, where he procured the removal of Pole (then dean of Exeter, afterwards cardinal) out of the French dominions, having represented him as his master’s bitter enemy; and this was the original root of that disagreement between them, which in time became public. Before his return this second time, being applied to by Cromwell for his opinion about a religious league with the protestant princes of Germany, he declared himself against it, and advised a political alliance, which he judged would last longer, as well as answer the king’s ends better, if strengthened by subsidies. In 1538 he was sent ambassador to the German diet at Ratisbon, where he incurred the suspicion of holding a secret correspondence with the pope. Whatever truth there may be in this charge, it is certain that Lambert this year was brought to the stake by his instigation, for denying the real presence in the sacrament. This instance of a sanguinary temper was then shown before the statute of the six articles was enacted; a law on which many were put to death, and which he undeniably framed and promoted in the house of lords to the utmost extent of his influence. This act passed in 1540; and the first person condemned by it, and burnt in Smithfield, the same year, was Robert Barnes, who at his death declared his suspicion of Gardiner’s having a hand in it . Upon the death of Cromwell, his rival long in the king’s favour, the university of Cambridge, where he still held his mastership of Trinity-hall, chose him their vice-chancellor; and in return he shewed his sense of it by an assiduity in his office among them, and a warm zeal to assist them on all occasions with his interest at court; which, as long as the sunshine of any signal service lasted, was very good. But in this, his case, like other courtiers, was subject to the sudden vicissitudes of light and shade which so remarkably checquered the series of that reign; and this minister was no more excepted than his fellows from complying with those conditions of ministerial greatness, which were indispensable as long as Henry sat at the helm: and, though he tells us himself that, after the king had let him into the secret, that he could look sour and talk roughly, without meaning much harm, he ever after bore those sallies with much less anxiety, and could stand a royal rattling pretty well ; yet this was only sometimes, and on some occasions. For upon others, we rind him submitting to very disagreeable supplications and expressions of deep humility, and great sense of his failings, directly contrary to the convictions of his own conscience and understanding. Of this we have the following remarkable instance. The bishop had for his secretary a relation of his own name, Gardiner, who, in some conferences with Fryth the martyr, had acquitted himself so well that they were judged fit for the public view. This young clergyman was much in his master’s favour, yet he fell under a prosecution upon the act of supremacy; and being very obstinate, was executed as a traitor, March 7, 1544. This was made an engine against the bishop by his enemies, who whispered the king that he was very likely of his secretary’s opinion, notwithstanding all he had written; and that if he was once in the Tower, matter enough would come out against him. On this suggestion, his majesty consented to his proposed imprisonment. But the bishop being informed of it in time, repaired immediately to court; confessed all that his majesty had charged him with, whatever it was; and thus, by complying with the king’s humour, and shewing the deepest concern for real or pretended failings, obtained full pardon, to the great mortification of his enemies. We have selected this instance from many others of a similar nature, all which are evident proofs of Gardiner’s want of honest and sound principle, because it may be of use in discovering his real principles upon the subject of the supremacy, which will at last be found to be nothing more, in fact, than an engine of his political craft. It has indeed been alleged in his behalf, that he was not always so servile and ready an instrument of the king’s will, especially upon the matter of the supremacy, and Strype publishes (Memorials, vol. I. p. 215) a letter in the Cottonian library, which Gardiner wrote to the king in consequence of his majesty’s being angry with him for approving some sentiments in a book that seemed to impugn his supremacy. But if this letter, as Strype conjectures, was written about 1535, this was the time when the king had some thoughts of a reconciliation with the see of Rome, and of returning the supremacy to the pope, which being very well known to Gardiner, might encourage him to speak with the more freedom on that subject. Gardiner, than whom no man seems to have more carefully studied the king’s temper, was not accustomed to look upon himself as undone because he sometimes received such notices of his majesty’s displeasure as threw some other courtiers into the most dreadful apprehensions. This knowledge and his artful use of it taught him to seek his own safety, in taking a share with others, in the divorce of Anne of Cleves, and that of queen Catherine Howard; the first of which, if we consider his skill in the law, must have been, against his conscience, and the second as much against his inclination, on account of his attachment to that noble family. The same regard for himself might also, had he been in the kingdom at the time, have led him to take a part against queen Anne Boleyn, sir Thomas More, and bishop Fisher.

All his sagacity, subtlety, and contrivance, however, were not sufficient to save him from a cloud, which shewed itself in the close of this reign; a change which might be attributed to the unsteadiness of the master, were there not facts sufficient to throw the imputation in some measure upon the servant.' Certain it is, though upon what particular provocation is not known, that he engaged deeply in a plot against the life of Cranmer; which being discovered and dispersed by the king, his majesty, fully satisfied of the archbishop’s innocence, left all his enemies, and among the rest Gardiner, to his mercy. The malice, though forgiven by Cranmer, cannot be supposed to be forgotten by Henry. But this did not hinder him from making use of this willing servant, against his last queen, Katharine Parr. That lady, as well as her preceding partners of the royal bed, falling under her consort’s distaste, he presently thought of a prosecution for heresy; upon which occasion he singled out Gardiner, whose inclinations that way were well known, as a proper person for his purpose to consult with. Accordingly the minister listened to his master’s suspicions, improved his jealousies, and cast the whole into the form of articles; which being signed by the king, it was agreed to sendKatherine to the Tower. But she had the address to divert the storm from breaking upon her head, and to throw some part of it upon her persecutors. The paper of the articles, being entrusted to chancellor Wriothesly, was dropt out of his bosom, and carried to her; and she, with the help of this discovery to her royal consort, found charms enough left to dispel his suspicions: the result whereof was, severe reproaches to the chancellor, and a rooted displeasure to the bishop, insomuch that the king would never see his face afterwards. His behaviour to him corresponded with that resentment. In the draught of his majesty’s will, before his departure on his last expedition to France, the bishop’s name was inserted among his executors and counsellors to prince Edward. But after this, when the will came to be drawn afresh, he was left out; and though sir Anthony Brown moved the king twice, to put his name as before into it, yet the motion was rejected, with this remark, that “if he (Gardiner) was one, he would trouble them all, and they should never be able to rule him.” Besides this, when the king saw him once with some of the privy- counsellors, he shewed his dislike, and asked his business, which was, to acquaint his majesty with a benevolence granted by the clergy: the king called him immediately to deliver his message, and having received it, went away. Burnet assigns Gardiner’s known attachment to the Norfolk family for the cause of this disgrace: but, whatever was the cause, or whatever usage he met with on other occasions, this justice is undeniably due to him, that he ever shewed a high respect to his master’s memory, and either out of policy or gratitude, he always spoke and wrote of him with much deference.

In the course of the proceedings, Gardiner always behaved himself contemptuously toward the judges, and particularly called them sacramentarians and heretics; on which account he was ordered to be removed to a meaner lodging in the Tower; to be attended by one servant only, of the lieutenant’s appointment to have his books and papers taken from him to be denied pen, ink, or paper; and nobody suffered to visit him. However, as he continued a close prisoner here during the rest of Edward’s reign, the severity of this order was afterwards mitigated; as appears from various pieces written by him in this confinement. He is said to have kept up his spirits and resolution, and it is not improbable, that he foresaw the great alteration in affairs which was speedily to take place. The first dawning of this began to appear on the demise of king Edward, when Mary was publicly proclaimed queen July 19, 1553. On Aug. 3 she made her solemn entry into the Tower, when Gardiner, in the name of himself and his fellow-prisoners, the duke of Norfolk, duchess of Somerset, lord Courtney, and others of high rank, made a congratulatory speech to her majesty, who gave them all their liberty. The spokesman took his seat in council the same day, and on the 8th performed the obsequies for the late king in the queen’s presence. On the 9th he went to Winchester-house in Southwark, after a confinement of somewhat more than five years; and was declared chancellor of England on the 23d. He had the honour of crowning the queen Oct. I, and on the 5th opened the lirst parliament in her reign. By these hasty steps Gardiner rose to the prime ministry; and was possessed at this time of more power, civil and ecclesiastical, than any English minister ever enjoyed, except his old master cardinal Wolsey. He was also re-chosen chancellor of Cambridge, and restored to the mastership of Trinity-hall there, of which, among his other preferments, he had been deprived in the former reign.

The great and important attain* transacted under his administration, in bringing about the change in the constitution by queen Mary, are too much the subject of general history to be related here. The part that Gardiner acted is very well known; and although from the arrival of cardinal Pole in England, he held only the second place in affairs relating to the church, in matters of civil government, his influence was as great as before, and continued without the least diminution to the last. By his advice a parliament was summoned to meet in Oct. 1555. As he was always a guardian of the revenues of the ecclesiastics, both regular and secular, he had at this time projected, some additional security for church and abbey lands. He opened the session with a well-judged speech, Oct. 21, and. was there again on the 23d, which was the last time of his appearing in that assembly. He fell ill soon after, and died Nov. 12, aged seventy-two. His death was occasioned probably by the gout; the lower parts of his body, however, being mortified, and smelling offensively, occasion was hence taken to consider the manner of his death as a judgment. The report that he was seized with the disury in consequence of the joy with which he was transported on hearing of the martyrdom of Latimer and Ridley, has been disproved by the dates of that event, and of his illness, in this way. Fox says that when seized with the disorder he was put to bed, and died in great torments a fortnight afterwards. But, says Collier, Latimer and Ridley suffered Oct. 16, and Gardiner opened the parliament on the 2 1st, and was there again on the 23d, and lastly, died Nov. 12, not of the disury, but the gout. The reader will determine whether the disorder might not have been contracted on the 16th, and increased by his subsequent exertions; and whether upon the whole, Collier, with all liis prejudices in favour of popery, which are often very thinly disguised, was likely to know more of the master than the contemporaries of Gardiner. Godwin and Parker say that he died repeating these words, “Erravi cum Petro, at non flevi cum Petro;” i. e. “I have sinned with Peter, but I have not wept with Peter.”

He wrote several books, of which the principal are, 1. “De vera Obedientia, 1534.” 2. “Palinodia dicti libri” when this was published is not known. 3. “A necessary doctrine of a Christian mart, set forth by the king’s majestie of England, 1543.” 4. “An Explanation and Assertion of the true Catholic Faith, touching the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, &c. 1551.” 5. “Confutatio Cavillatiqnum quibiu sacrosanctum Eucharistise sacramentum ab impiis Capernaitis impeti solet, 1551.” This he composed while a prisoner in the Tower: he managed this controversy against Peter Martyr and others, who espoused Cranmer. After the accession of queen Mary, he wrote replies in his own defence, against Turner, Bonet, and other protestant exiles. Some of his letters to Smith and Cheke, on the pronunciation of the Greek tongue, are still extant in Bene't-­college library at Cambridge. The controversy made a great noise in its time, but was not much known afterwards; till that elegant account of it appeared in public, which is given by Baker in his “Reflections on Learning,” p. 28, 29, who observes, that our chancellor assumed a power, that Cæsar never exercised, of giving laws to words. However, he allows that, though the controversy was managed with much warmth on each side, yet a man would wonder to see so much learning shewn on so dry a subject. J)u Fresne was at a loss where the victory lay; but Roger Ascham, with a courtly address, declares, that though the knights shew themselves better critics, yet Gardiner’s letters manifest a superior genius; and were only liable to censure, from his entering further into a dispute of this kind, than was necessary for a person of his dignity.

, a person memorable in English history for having been privy to the celebrated conspiracy called “The Gunpowder Plot,” was born in Nottinghamshire in 1555, and bred at Winchester school; whence he went to Rome, and took the Jesuit’s habit in 1575. After studying under Bellarmin, Saurez, and Christopher Clavius, he was for some time professor of philosophy and Hebrew in the Italian college at Rome; and when Clavius, professor of mathematics, was disabled by old age, he supplied his place in the schools. He returned to England in 1586, as provincial of his order; although it was made treason the year before, for any Romish priest to come into the queen’s dominions. Here, under pretence of establishing the catholic faith, he laboured incessantly to raise some disturbance, in order to bring about a revolution; and with this view held a secret correspondence with the king of Spain, whom hs solicited to project n expedition against his country. This not proceeding so fast as he would have it, he availed himself of the zeal of some papists, who applied to him, as head of their order, to resolve this case of conscience; namely, “Whether, for the sake of promoting the catholic religion, it might be permitted, should necessity so require, to involve the innocent in the same destruction with the guilty?” to which this casuist replied without hesitating, that, “if the guilty should constitute the greater number, it might.” This impious determination gave the first motion to that horrible conspiracy, which was to have destroyed at one stroke the king, the royal family, and both houses of parliament; but the plot being providentially discovered, Garnet was sent to the Tower, and was afterwards tried, condemned to be hanged for high-treason, and executed at the west end of St. Paul’s, May 3, 1606. He declared just before his execution, that he was privy to the gunpowder plot; but, as it was revealed to him in confession, thought it his duty to conceal it. But besides this miserable subterfuge, it was proved that he knew something of it, out of confession. He has been placed by the Jesuits among their noble army of martyrs. He was pyobably an enthusiast, and certainly behaved at his execution in a manner that would have done credit to a better cause. It is said, however, upon other authority, that he declined the honour of martyrdom, exclaiming, “Me niartyretn O quale martyrem” “I a martyr! O what a martyr!” Dodd’s account of his execution is rather interesting. He published some works, among which are enumerated, i. “A treatise of Christian Renovation or Birth,” London, 1616, 8vo. 2. “Canisius’s Catechism, translated from the Latin,” ibid. 1590, 8vo, and St. Omers, 1622. Several works were published in defence of the measures taken against, him.

, or Gerards, a Flemish painter, was born at Bruges in 1561, and practised history, landscape, architecture, and portrait. He also engraved, illuminated, and designed for glass-painters. His etchings for Esop’s fables, and view of Bruges were much esteemed. He came to England not long after the year 1580, and remained here until his death in 1635, having been painter to queen Elizabeth and Anne of Denmark. His works are numerous, though not easily known, as he never used any peculiar mark. In general they are neat, the ruffs and liabits stiff, and rich with pearls and other jewels. His flesh-colours are thin and light, tending to a blueish tincture. His procession of queen Elizabeth to Hunsdonhouse has been engraved by Vertue, who thought that part of the picture of sir Thomas More’s family at Burford might have been completed by this painter.

In politics, Dr. Garth was prompted not more by good sense than by good disposition, to make his muse subservient to his interest, only by proceeding uniformly in the same road, without any malignant deviations. Thus, as he had enjoyed the sunshine of the court during lord Godolphin’s administration in queen Anne’s reign, that minister had the pleasure to find him among the first of those who paid the muse’s tribute on the reverse of his fortune in 1710; and in the same unchangeable spirit, when both the sense and poetry of this address were attacked by Prior with all the outrage of party virulence, he took no notice of it; but had the satisfaction to see an unanswerable defence made for him, by Addison. The task, indeed, was easy, and that elegant writer in the conclusion of it observes, that the same person who has endeavoured to prove that he who wrote the “Dispensary” was no poet, will very suddenly undertake to shew that he who gained the battle of Blenheim, was no general. There was, indeed, no need of a prophetic spirit to inspire the prediction. It was written in Sept. 1710; and the following year, in December, the duke of Marlborough was removed from all his places, and having obtained leave to go abroad, embarked at Dover for Ostend, Nov. 30, 1712. Dr. Garth had lived in the particular favour and esteem of this great man while in power, and when he was out of power he lamented in elegant verse, his disgrace and voluntary exile.

On his return to England, he resided partly in Gray’sinn, and partly at Walthamstow. In his “Flowers” he informs us, that he had, in the midst of his youth, determined to abandon all vaine delights, and to return to Gray’s-inn, there to undertake again the study of the common law; and that at the request of five gentlemen of the inn, namely Francis and Anthony Kinwelmersh, Messrs. Vaughan, Nevile, and Courtop, he wrote what he calls his “Memoires.” These tasks, however, may have been performed at an earlier period of life, if it can be proved that he left the inn twice before this time, but his general design now was to trust to his wit, and to publish his early poems, and those other works, written in his more serious moments, that were intended to counteract the licentious tendency of his amatory verses. In the summer of 1575, he accompanied queen Elizabeth in one of her stately progresses, and wrote for her amusement, in the month of July, a kind of mask, entitled “The Princely Pleasures of Kenelworth Castle.” Some of the verses were not only written, but spoken by him on this occasion; but the whole of the entertainment, owing to the unfavourable weather, was not performed. On his return from this progress, his principal residence, while preparing his works, was at Waltliamstow. Here it appears, by Whetstone’s account, he wrote the “Steele Glasse,” the “Glass of Government,” the “Delicate Diet,” a book of hunting, and the “Doom’s Day Drum,” which last was not published until after his death. He left other pieces behind him, some of which were afterwards printed in various collections, but without his name.

Although he enjoyed the esteem of many of his poetical contemporaries, and the patronage of lord Grey of Wilton, the earl of Bedford, sir Walter Rawleigh, and other persons of distinction; yet during this period, he complains bitterly of the envy of rivals, and the malevolence of critics, and seems to intimate that, although he apparently bore this treatment with patience, yet it insensibly wore him out, and brought on a bodily distemper which his physicians could not cure. In all his publications, he takes every opportunity to introduce and bewail the errors of his youth, and to atone for any injury, real or supposed, which might have accrued to the public from a perusal of his early poems, in which, however, the proportion of indelicate thoughts is surely not very great. His biographers, following the Oxford historian, have hitherto placed his demise at Walthamstow in 1578; but Whetstone, on whom we can more certainly rely, informs us that he died at Stamford in Lincolnshire, Oct. 7, 1577. He had perhaps taken a journey to this place for change of air, accompanied by his friend Whetstone, who was with him when he died, so calmly, that the moment of his departure was not perceived. He left a wife and son behind him, whom he recommended to the liberality of the queen, whether successfully, or what became of them, cannot now be known. The registers of Stamford and of Walthamstow have been examined without success.

, a distinguished English bishop, was born about 1662, at Slapton in Northamptonshire; and, being sent to Westminster school in 1676, was admitted on the foundation, and elected to Christ Church, in Oxford, where he of course became a student in 1680. He took the degrees in arts in 1687; after which, entering into orders, and proceeding in divinity, he took a bachelor’s degree in that faculty, June 23, 1694. The same year he was made preacher to the hon. society of Lincoln’s Inn, in which station he acquitted himself so well that he was appointed to preach Mr. Boyle’s lecture in 1697. Having finished those eight sermons, he drew them up in the form of a continued discourse, which he published the same year. The subject of this piece being a defence of religion in general against atheism, Gastrell prosecuted the design further, in asserting the truth of the Christian religion against the deists. This he published in another discourse, in 1699, by way of continuation, or second part of the same subject. He commenced D. D. July 13, 1700; being then chaplain to Robert Harley, esq. speaker of the house of commons. The ferment that had been raised by the dispute between South and Sherlock upon the Trinity, being still kept up, Dr. Gastrell, in 1702, published“Some Considerations concerning the Trinity, and the ways of managing that Controversy:” and the same year was collated to a canonry of Christ Church in Oxford. Meanwhile, he continued to give public proofs of his hearty concern for religion; and published, in 1707, his excellent work entitled “The Christian Institutes, or the sincere Word of God, &c.” collected out of the Old and New Testament, digested under proper heads, and delivered in the words of scripture. This has been repeatedly printed. The same year also, being appointed to preach the sermon at the aniversary meeting of the charity-schools in London, he printed that discourse; in which the peculiar advantage of these charities is set in a new light, by contrasting them with the popish monasteries. Mr. Collins, in his “Essay concerning the use of Reason,” having animadverted on some things in the doctor’s “Considerations concerning the Trinity,” which had gone through two editions, he this year published a third, subjoining a vindication of the work, in answer to Collins. In 1711 he was chosen proctor in convocation for the chapter of Christ Church, and appointed one of the chaplains in ordinary to the queen. In 1714 he published “Remarks upon the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, by Dr. Samuel Clarke,” who acknowledged that the objections to his doctrine were there set forth to particular advantage, by the skill of a very able and learned writer, and proposed with a reasonable and good spirit. He resigned the preacher’s place at Lincoln’s-inn this year, upon his promotion to the see of Chester; and he was allowed to hold his canonry of Christ Church in commendam. He had for some time before been appointed one of the commissioners for building the fifty new churches in and about London; and had become a member of the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts.

Thus his merit found all the reward and encouragement which he could expect, from the court and ministry of queen Anne; but this brought him under the displeasure of the administration in the succeeding reign, "which, being shewn, as he conceived, without any just or reasonable grounds, was resented by him. At this period he became a patron to the university; and appeared warmly in its vindication in the house of lords, when it was attacked there for a pretended riot on the birth-day of the prince of Wales in 1717. At the same time he testified the greatest abhorrence of this and all other marks of disloyalty, and used all his influence to prevent and check them.

, a French engraver and man of letters, was born at Paris in 1740, and became the pupil of Le Bas, who taught him the arts of design and engraving. Being early convinced of the importance of learning in his profession, he devoted much of his time to study, and became so celebrated for the productions of his pen as well as his graver, that he was elected a member of various literary societies both at home and abroad. As an artist he succeeded principally in engraving portraits; and his portrait of the queen of Louis XV. is considered as a chef-d'oeuvre; nor was he much less esteemed in France as a writer. In Fontenay’s Dictionary of Artists, published in 1770, he wrote the articles concerning engravers, with much candour, spirit, and discrimination. His other publications are, 1. “Observations sur le Costume Franchise,” in the “Journal des beaux arts,” 1774. 2. “De l'orjgine et de la suppression des Cloches.” 3. “Voyage au Havre.” 4. “Amour maternel,” a successful dramatic piece. 5. “Iconolo'gie, ou Traite complet des allegories et emblemes,” 4'vols. 8vo. 6. “Essai sur la gravure.” 7. “Traite d‘anatomie a l’usage des artistes,” fol. with fine engravings. He is also said to have written *' Le Desaveu des artistes," 1776, 8vo. He died at Paris Nov. 28, 1803.

In the mean time the most promising views opened to him at court; he was caressed by some leading persons in the ministry; and his patroness rejoiced to see him taken from her house the same year, to attend the earl of Clarendon, as secretary in his embassy to the court of Hanover. But, whatever were his hopes from this new advancement, it is certain they began and ended almost together; for queen Anne died in fifteen days after their arrival at Hanover. This, however, did not prove an irreparable loss; his present situation made him personally known to the succeeding royal family; and returning home he made a proper use of it, in a handsome compliment to the princess of Wales, on her arrival in England. This address procured him a favourable admittance at the new court; and that raising a new flow of spirits, he wrote his farce, “The What d'ye call it,” which appeared upon the stage before the end of the season, and was honoured by the presence of the prince and princess. The profits, likewise, brought some addition to his fortune; and his poetical merit being endeared 'by the sweetness and sincerity of his nature, procured him an easy access to persons of the first distinction. With these he passed his time with much satisfaction, notwithstanding his disappointment in the hopes of favours from the new court, where he met with nothing more valuable than a smile. In 1716 he made a visit to his native county at the expence of lord Burlington, and repaid his lordship with an humourous account of the journey. The like return was made for Mr. Pulteney’s favour, who took him in his company the following year to Aix, in France.

These noble additions to his fame, his fortune, and his friendships, inspired him with fresh vigour, raised him to a degree of confidence and assurance, and he was even prompted to think that “The Wife of Bath,” despised and rejected as it had been in 1714, when first acted, might, with some improvements which he could now give it, be made to taste the sweets of this happy change in his fortune. In this temper he revised and altered it, and brought it again upon the stage in 1729, but had the mortification to see all his sanguine hopes of its success blasted; it met with the same fate in the play-house as formerly. This rebuff happened in March 1729-30; and as he was easily depressed, produced a degree of melancholy, which, with the return of his constitutional distemper the colic, gave a new edge to the sense of his disappointments at court, with respect to the “Beggar’s Opera.” By that satire, he had flattered himself with the hopes of awing the court into a disposition to take him into favour, in order to keep so powerful a pen in good humour. But this last refinement upon his misery, added to former indignities, threw him into a dejection, which he in vain endeavoured to remove, by another tour into Somersetshire, in 1731. The state both of his body and mind cantiot be so forcibly described, as it is in his own account of it to Pope. “My melancholy,” says he, “increases, and every hour threatens me with some return of my distemper. Nay, I think I may rather say, I have it on me. Not the divine looks, the kind favours and expressions of the divine duchess, who hereafter shall be in place of a queen to me, nay, she shall be my queen, nor the inexpressible goodness of the duke, can in the least chear me. The drawing: room no more receives light from these two stars. There is now (what Milton says in hell) darkness visible. O that I had never known what a court was! Dear Pope, what a barren soil (to me so) have I been striving to produce something out of! Why did not I take your advice before my writing fables for the duke, not to write them, or rather to write them for some young nobleman? It is my hard fate, I must get nothing, write for them or against them.” In this disposition, it is no great wonder that we find him rejecting a proposal, made to him by this last-mentioned friend in 1732, of trying his muse upon the hermitage, then lately built by queen Caroline in Richmond-gardens; to which he answers with a fixed despondency, that “he knew himself unworthy of royal patronage.”

, an Italian painter, whose family name was Lomi, which he exchanged for that of his maternal uncle, Gentileschi, was born at Pisa in 1563. After having made himself famous at Florence, Rome, Genoa, and in other parts of Italy, he removed to Savoy; whence he went to France, and at last, upon the invitation of Charles I. came over to England. He was well received by that king, who appointed him lodgings in his court, together with a considerable salary; and employed him in his palace at Greenwich, and other public places. The most remarkable of his performances in England, were the cielings of Greenwich and York-house. He painted a Madona, a Magdalen, and Lot with his two Daughters, for king Charles; all which he performed admirably well. After the death of the king, when his collection of paintings were exposed to sale, nine pictures of Gentileschi were sold for 600l. and are now said to be the ornaments of the hall in Marlborough-house. His most esteemed work abroad was the portico of cardinal Bentivoglio’s palace at Rome, and a “David standing over Goliah,” painted with a vigour and vivacity of tints that make' him start from the canvass, and give the idea of a style yet unknown. This is in the house Cambiasi, at Genoa. He made several attempts in portrait- painting, but with little success his talent lying altogether in histories, with figures as large as the life. He was much in favour with the duke of Buckingham, and many others of the nobility. After twelve years continuance in England, he died here in 1647, and was buried in the queen’s chapel at Somersethouse. His head is among the prints taken from Vandyke, by whom he had been painted.

, an eminent civilian at Oxford, was the son of Matthew Gentilis, an Italian physician, the descendant of a noble family of the Marcbe of Ancona, who left his country about the end of the sixteenth century, on account of his having embraced the protestant religion. Taking with him his sons Albericus and Scipio, he went into the province of Carniola, where he received his doctor’s degree, and then into England, after his eldest son Albericus, who was born in 1550. He was educated chiefly in the university of Perugia, where, in 1572, he was made doctor of civil law. He came into England probably about 1580, as in that year he appears to have been kindly received by several persons here; and among others, by Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, then chancellor of the university of Oxford, who gave him letters of recommendation to the university, stating that he had left his country for the sake of his religion, and that it was his desire to bestow some time in reading, and other exercises of his profession, at the university, &c. He accordingly went to Oxford, and by favour of Dr. Donne, principal of New inn Hall, had rooms allowed him there, and at first was maintained by contributions from several colleges, but afterwards had an allowance from the common funds of the university. In the latter end of the same year, 1580, he was incorporated LL. D. and for some years employed his time on his writings, most of which were published at London or Oxford. He resided also some time either in. Corpus or Christ Church, and, as Wood says, “became the flower of the university for his profession.” In 1587 queen Elizabeth gave him the professorship of civil law, on which he lectured for twenty-four years with great xeputation. Hre he died, in the latter end of March or the beginning of April 1611, although others say at London, June 19, 1608, and was buried near his father, who also died in England, but where is uncertain. Wood’s account seems most probable. He left a widow, who died at Rickmansworth in 1648, and two sons, one of which will be noticed in the next article. Wood enumerates twentyseven volumes or tracts written by him, all in Latin, and mostly on points of jurisprudence, on which, at that time, his opinion appears to have had great weight. Grotius praises and acknowledges his obligations to his three books “De Jure Belli” and his “Lectiones Virgilianae,” addressed to his son, prove that he had cultivated polite literature with success.

, a surgeon and famous herbalist of the time of queen Elizabeth, was born at Namptwich, Cheshire, in 1545. He practised surgery in London, and rose to eminence in that profession. Mr. Granger says, “he was many years retained as chief gardener to lord Burleigh, who was himself a great lover of plants, and had the best collection of any nobleman in the kingdom; among these were many exotics, introduced by Gerarde.” This is conh'rmed by the dedication of the first edition of his Herbal, in 1597, to that illustrious nobleman, in which he says he had “that way employed his principal study, and almost all his time,” then for twenty years. It appears therefore that he had given up his original profession. Johnson, the editor of his second edition, says, “he lived some ten years after the publishing of this work, and died about 1607;” so that he survived his noble patron nine years.

, an eminent English historian, was descended from an ancient family of that name in Kent. His grandfather, Edward Gibbon, a citizen of London, was appointed one of the commissioners of customs under the Tory administration of the last four years of queen Anne, and was praised by lord Bolingbroke for his knowledge of commerce and finance. He was elected one of the directors of the unfortunate South-sea company, in 1716, at which time he had acquired an independent fortune of 60,000l. the whole of which he lost when the company failed in 1720. The sum of 10,000l. however, was allowed for his maintenance, and on this foundation he reared another fortune, not much inferior to the first, an<,i secured a part of it in the purchase of landed property. He died in December 1736, at his house at Putney, and by his last will enriched two daughters, at the expence of his son Edward, who had married against his consent. This son was sent to Cambridge, where at Emanuel college, he “passed through a regular course of academical discipline,” but left it without a degree, and afterwards travelled. On his return to England he was chosen, in 1734, member of parliament for the borough of Petersfield, and in 1741 for Southampton. In parliament he joined the party which after a long contest, finally drove sir Robert Walpole and his friends from their places. Our author has not concealed that “in the pursuit of an unpopular minister, he gratified a private revenge against the oppressor of his family in the South-sea persecution.” "Walpole, however, was not that oppressor, for Mr. CoxC has clearly proved that he frequently endeavoured to stem the torrent of parliamentary vengeance, and to incline the sentiments* of the house to terms of moderation.

Thus furnished, Mr. Gibbs went from Holland to Italy, and there applied himself assiduously to the study of architecture, under the best masters. About 1710 he came to England; where he found his noble patron in the ministry, and highly in favour with the queen. Lord Mar introduced him to his friends as a gentleman of great knowledge in his profession; and an act of parliament having been passed about this time for building fifty new churches, Mr. Gibbs was employed by the trustees named in the act, and gave a specimen of his abilities, in planning and executing St. Martin’s church in the fields, St. Mary’s in the Strand, and several others. Being now entered on business, he soon became distinguished; and although his generous patron had the misfortune to be exiled from his native country, Mr. Gibbs’s merit supported him among persons of all denominations, and he was employed by persons of the best taste and greatest eminence. The liadcliffe library at Oxford, begun June 16, 1737, and finished in 1747; the King’s college, Royal library, and Senatehouse, at Cambridge; and the sumptuous and elegant monument for John Holies, duke of Newcastle, done by order and at the expence of his grace’s only child, the countess of Oxford and Mortimer, are lasting evidences of his abilities as an architect. Some years before his death, he sent to the magistrates of Aberdeen, as a testimony of his regard for the place of his nativity, a plan of St. Nicholas church, which was followed in the re-building of it, and which was probably among the last of his performances.

, bishop of London, son of Edward Gibson, of Knipe in Westmorland, was born at Bampton in the same county, in 1669; and, having laid the foundation of classical learning at a school in that county, entered a scholar of Queen’s-college, Oxford, in 1686. The study of the Northern languages being then particularly cultivated in this university, Gibson applied himself vigorously to that branch of literature, in which he was assisted by Dr. Hickes. The quick proficiency that he made appeared in a new edition of William Drummond’s “PolemoMiddiana,” and James V. of Scotland’s “Cantilena Rustica:” which he published at Oxford, 1691, in 4to, with notes. His observations on those facetious tracts afford proofs both of wit and learning. But his inclination led him to more solid studies; and, in a short time after, he translated into Latin the “Chronicon Saxonicum,” and published it, together with the Saxoa original, and his own notes, at Oxford, 1692, in 4to. This work he undertook by the advice of Dr. Mill, the learned editor of the “Greek Testament,” in folio and it is allowed by the learned to be the best remains extant of Saxon antiquity. The same year appeared a treatise, entitled, “Librorum Manuscriptorum in duabus insignibus Bibliothecis, altera Tenisoniana Londoni, altera Dugdaliana Oxonii, Catalogus.” Edidit E. G. Oxon, 1692, 4to. The former part of this catalogue, consisting of some share of sir James Ware’s manuscript collection, was dedicated to Dr. Thomas Tenison, then bishop of Lincoln, as at that time placed in his library. He had an early and strong inclination to search into the antiquities of his country; and, having laid a necessary foundation in the knowledge of its original languages, he applied himself to them for some years with great diligence, which produced his edition of Camden’s “Britannia,” and other works, no-' ticed hereafter and he concluded, in thisbranch of learning, with “Reliquiffi Spelmannianae, or the Posthumous works of sir Henry Spelman, relating to the laws and antiquities of England,” which, with a life of the author, he published at Oxford, 1698, folio. This he likewise dedicated to Dr. Tenison, then Abp. of Canterbury; and probably, about that time, he was taken as domestic chaplain into the archbishop’s family: nor was it long after, that we find him both rector of Lambeth, and archdeacon of Surrey. Tenison dying Dec. 14, 1715, Wake, bishop of Lincoln, succeeded him; and Gibson was appointed to the see of Lincoln. After this advancement, he went on indefatigably in defence of the government and discipline of the Church of England: and on the death of Robinson, in 1720, was promoted to the bishopric of London. Gibson’s talents seem to have been perfectly suited to the particular duties of this important station; upon the right management of which the peace and good order of the civil, as well as the ecclesiastical, state of the nation so much depend. He had a particular turn for business, which he happily transacted, by means of a most exact method that he used on all occasions: and this he pursued with great advantage, not only in the affairs of his own diocese in England, which he governed with the most precise regularity, but in promoting the spiritual affairs of the church of England colonies, in the West-Indies. The ministry, at this time, were so sensible of his great abilities in transacting business, that there was committed to him a sort of ecclesiastical ministry for several years; and especially during the long illness of Abp. Wake, almost every thing that concerned the church was in a great measure left to his care.

, commonly called the Dwarf, was a painter of some eminence in the time of sir Peter Lely, to whose manner he devoted himself, and whose picture’s he copied very faithfully. He was originally servant to a lady at Mortlake, who, observing that his genius led him to painting, put him to De Cleyn, to be instructed in the? rudiments of that art. De Cleyn was master of the tapestry-works at Mortlake, and famous for the cuts which he designed for some of Ogilby’s works, and for Sandys’s translation of Ovid. Gibson’s paintings in water-colours were well esteemed; but the copies he made of Lely’s portraits gained him the greatest reputation. He was greatly in favour with Charles I. to whom he was page of the back -stairs; and he also drew Oliver Cromwell several times. He had the honour to instruct in drawing queen Mary and queen Anne, when they were princesses, and he went to Holland to wait on the former for that purpose. He married one Mrs. Anne Shepherd, whb was also a dwarf. Charles I. was pleased, out of curiosity or pleasantry, to honour their marriage with his presence, and to give away the bride. Waller wrote a poem on this occasion, “of the marriage of the dwarfs.” Fenton, in his notes on it, tells us, that he had seen this couple painted by sir Peter Lely; and that they appeared to have been of an equal stature, each of them measuring three feet ten inches. They had, however, nine children, five of which attained to maturity, and were proportioned to the usual standard of mankind. To recompense the shortness of their stature, nature gave this little couple an equivalent in length of days for Gibson died in Covent-garden, in his 75th year, in 1690; and his wife, surviving him almost 20 years, died in 1709, aged 89. Gibson’s nephew, William, was instructed in the art of painting both by him and sir Peter Lely, and became also eminent. His excellence, like his uncle’s, lay in copying after sir Peter Lely; although he was a good limner, and drew portraits for persons of the first rank. His great industry was much to be commended, not only for purchasing sir Peter Lely’s collection after his death, but likewise for procuring from the continent a great variety of valuable works, which made his collection of prints and drawings equal to that of any person of his time. He died of a lethargy in 1702, aged 58. There was also one Edward Gibson, William’s kinsman, who was instructed by him, and first painted portraits in oil; but afterwards, finding more encouragement in crayons, and his genius lying that way, he applied himself to them. He was in the way of becoming a master, but died when he was young.

, a native of Morpeth in Northumberland, was famous in the sixteenth century, for the studies of physic, divinity, history, and botany, in which he made considerable progress. Bale bears witness to his character as a physician, by saying, that he performed almost incredible cures. He was a friend to the reformation, and wrote some pieces in defence of that cause, for which he was obliged to become a fugitive in the reign of queen Mary; but, on the accession of Elizabeth, returned, and died in London in 1562. Among his works are, 1. “A breve Chronicle of the bishops of Rome’s blessynge, &c.” a work supposed to be the same called by others “The treasons of the prelates,” in English rhyme, Lond. ICmo, printed by John Daye, consisting of only eight leaves. 2. “The sum of the acts and decrees made by divers bishops of Rome,” from the Latin, 12mo, no date. 3. “A treatise behoovefull as well to preserve the people from pestilence, as to help and recover them, &c.” 1536, 4to. The following remain in manuscript, “An herbal” “Treatise against unskilful chemists, &c.”

, a brave officer and navigator, was born in 1539, in Devonshire, of an ancient family, and though a second son, inherited a considerable fortune from his father. He was educated at Eton, and afterwards at Oxford, but is not mentioned by Wood, and probably did not remain long there. His destination was the law, for which purpose he was to have been sent to finish his studies in the Temple; but being introduced at court by his aunt, Mrs. Catherine Ashley, then in the queen’s service, he was encouraged to embrace a military life. Having distinguished himself in several expeditions, particularly in that to Newhaven, in 1563, he was sent over to Ireland to assist in suppressing a rebellion excited by James Fitzmorris; and for his signal services he was made commander in chief and governor of Munster, and knighted by the lord-deputy, sir Henry Sidney, on Jan. 1, 1570, and not by queen Elizabeth in 1577, as Prince asserts. He returned soon after to England, where he married a rich heiress. In 1572 he sailed with a squadron of nine ships, to reinforce colonel Morgan, who at that time meditated the recovery of Flushing; and when he came home he published in 1576, his “Discourse to prove a passage by the North-west to Cathaia, and the East Indies,” Lond. This treatise, which is a masterly performance, is preserved in Hakluyt’s Voyages. The style is superior to most writers of that age, and shows the author to have been a man of considerable reading. The celebrated Frobisher sailed the same year, probably in consequence of this publication. In 1578, sir Humphrey obtained from the queen a very ample patent, empowering him to discover and possess in North America any lands then unsettled. He accordingly sailed to Newfoundland, but soon returned to England without success; yet, in 1583, he embarked a second time with five ships, the largest of which put back on occasion of a contagious distemper on board. Gilbert landed at Newfoundland, Aug. 3, and two days after took possession of the harbour of St. John’s. By virtue of his patent he granted leases to several people; but though none of them remained there at that time, they settled afterwards in consequence of these leases, so that sir Humphrey deserves to be remembered as the real founder of our American possessions. His half-brother, sir Walter Raleigh, was a joint adventurer on this expedition, and upon sir Humphrey’s death took out a patent of the same nature, and sailed to Virginia. On the 20th August in the above year (1583), sir Humphrey put to sea again, on board of a small sloop, for the purpose of exploring the coast. After this he steered homeward in the midst of a tempestuous sea, and on the 9th of September, when his small bark was in the utmost danger of foundering, he was seen by the crew of the other ship sitting in the stern of the vessel, with a book in his hand, and was heard to cry out, “Courage, my lads! we are as sear heaven at sea as at land.” About midnight the bark was swallowed up by the ocean; the gallant knight and all his men perished with her. He was a man of quick parts, a brave soldier, a good mathematician, and of a very enterprizing genius. He was also remarkable for his eloquent and patriotic speeches both in the English and Irish parliaments. At the close of the work above-mentioned, he speaks of another treatise “On Navigation,” which he intended to publish, but which is probably lost.

, a learned physician, who first discovered several of the properties of the load -stone, was born at Colchester, where his father was recorder, in 1540; and after an education at a grammarschool, was sent to Cambridge. Having studied physic for some time, he went abroad for his farther improvement; and in one of the foreign universities, had the degree conferred upon him of M. D. He returned to England with a considerable reputation for his learning in general, and had especially the character of being deeply skilled in philosophy and chemistry; and resolving to make his knowledge useful to his country by practising in this faculty, be presented himself a candidate to the college of physicians in London, and was elected a fellow of that society about 1573. Thus, every way qualified for it, he practised in this metropolis with great success and applause; which being observed by queen Elizabeth, whose talent it was to distinguish persons of superior merit, she sent for him to court, and appointed him her physician in ordinary; and gave him, besides, an annual pension, to encourage him in his studies. In these, as much as his extensive business in his profession would permit, he applied himself chiefly to consider and examine the various properties of the load-stone; and proceeding in the experimental way, a method not much used at that time, he discovered and established several qualities of it not observed before. This occasioned much discourse; and spreading his fame into foreign countries, great expectations were raised from his treatise on that subject, which were certainly not disappointed when he printed it, in 1600, under the following title, “De Magnete, magneticisque Corporibus & de rnagno magnete Tellure, Physioiogia nova,” i.e. “Of the Magnet (or Loadstone) and magnetical Bodies, and of that great magnet the Earth.” It contains the history of all that had been written on that subject before his time, and is the first regular system on this curious subject, and may not unjustly be styled the parent of all the improvements that have been made therein since. In this piece our author shews the use of the declination of the magnet, which had been discovered by Norman in finding out the latitude, for which purpose also he contrived two instruments for the sea. This invention was published by Thomas Blondeville, in a book entitled “Theoriques of the Planets, together with the making of two Instruments for Seamen, For finding out the Latitude without Sun, Moon, or Stars, invented by Dr. Gilbert,” 1624. But the hopes from this property, however promising at first, have by a longer experience beeo found to be deceitful.

, an eminent English divine, and for his excellent character and usefulness, called the “Apostle of the North,” was descended from a good family in Westmoreland, and born in 1517, at Kentmire in that county. He was the son of Edwin Gilpin, by Margaret daughter of William Laton of Delain in Cumberland. From his earliest youth he was inclined to a contemplative life, thoughtful, reserved, and serious, which giving his parents an early presage of his future piety, they determined to educate him for the church. His first years wete spent at a public school, whence he was removed to Oxford, and at the age of sixteen was entered upon the foundation at Queen’s college. Besides his academical studies, to which he applied with great industry, he appears to have read while here some of the works of Erasmus, which at their first appearance were not very popular, and discovered in them a treasure of real learning, which he had in vain sought after in the writings then in most esteem. But as he had now determined to apply himself to divinity, he made the Scriptures his chief study; and was particularly anxious to gain an accurate knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages, in the study of which he was much assisted by Mr. Neal, a fellow of New college, and afterwards Hebrew professor at Oxford. He had not been long in the university before he was considered as a young man of good parts and considerable learning, and admired and loved for a remarkable sweetness of disposition, and unaffected sincerity in his manners. At the usual term he took the degree of M. A. and about the same time was elected fellow of his college.

If at this time, from perusing the writings of Erasmus, or by any other means, he entertained scruples respecting the religion of the Romish church, in which he had been bred up, he had the discretion to suppress his sentiments, and before he said any thing which might shake the faith of others, he determined to establish his own. He had not been long settled in his fellowship before a very public testimony was given to the reputation he had acquired, by his being one of the first in Oxford who were recommended to cardinal Wolsey for Christ Church college, which he had just founded, and accordingly Mr. Gilpin removed thither from Queen’s, and continued his former studies. From the nature of these, and the ingenuity and honesty of his disposition, it is not improbable that he might in time have been led by his own reasonings to that discovery of truth he aimed at; but Providence rewarded a pious endeavour, by throwing in his way the means of an earlier attainment of it. Under the patronage of Edward VI. who had now succeeded Henry VIII. Peter Martyr went to Oxford, where he read divinity lectures in a strain to which the university had been hitherto little accustomed, and particularly refuted the doctrine of tl^e corporal pretence. This occasioned a controversy of much warmth, such was Mr. Gilpia't credit at the university that the popish party were very solicitous to engage him on theic side. But, although he was as yet but imperfectly acquainted with the arguments of the reformers, he had, it seems, lately discovered, through a dispute he had been engaged in with Dr. Hooper, afterwards bishop of Worcester, that several of the Romish doctrines were not so well supported by Scripture as was commonly imagined; and, with a mind in this unsettled condition, he thought himself but ill qualified to espouse either side publicly. lit consequence, however, of repeated importunities, he ventured to appear in a public disputation against Peter Martyr, the consequence of which was, his ingenuously owning that he could not maintain his opinions, and a determination to enter into no more controversies until he had gained the full information he was in pursuit of. Peter Martyr acknowledged this candid behaviour, so different from that of Gilpin’s fellow disputants, Chedsey, Morgan, Tresham, &c. and often told his friends that it was the subject of his daily prayers that God would be pleased at length to touch the heart of this pious papist with the knowledge of true religion. Nor, says his biographer, did he pray in vain; for Mr. Gilpin from this time became every day more reconciled to the reformers.

Gilpin now embarked for Holland, whence he immediately went to Mechlin to visit his brother George, then a 2ealous papist, but afterwards a warm advocate for the reformation, and the translator from Dutch into English of that keen satire against popery, entitled “The Beehive of the Roman church.” He went afterwards to Louvain, where he resolved to settle for sometime, making occasional excursions to other placet. Loinrain was then one of the chief places for students in divinity. Some of the most eminent divines on both sides of the question resided there, and the most important topics of religion were discussed with gfeat freedom. Of such opportunities he soon began to avail himself, and the consequence was his imbibing juster notions of the doctrines of the reformation: he saw things in a clearer and stronger light, and felt a satisfaction in the change he Uad made, to whichhe had hitherto been n stranger. While thus pursuing his studies, he heard the important news from England of queen Mary’s accession to the crown, whose bigotry was well known, and in whom the signs of a persecuting spirit already appeared; and at the same time learned that his relation bishop Tonstal was released from the Tower, and reinstated in his bishopric. The first consequence of this last event was the offer of a living, which Mr. Gilpin declined in a long letter, the unaffected piety of which disarmed all resentment on the part of the bishop, and led him rather to admire a behaviour, in which the motives of conscience shewed themselves so superior to those of interest. After remaining two years in Flanders, to which his countrymen were daily flocking to escape the sanguinary laws of queen Mary, he took a journey to Paris, in order to print the bishop of Durham’s book on the Sacrament, with which that prelate had intrusted him. This work of Tonstal’s was written so much in a spirit of moderation respecting the extravagant popish doctrine of the Sacrament, that Gilpin was generally supposed to have corrupted it, which he refuted by shewing the bishop’s letter of thanks for his “care and fidelity” as an editor. While Mr. Gilpin staid at Paris, he lodged with Vascosan, the eminent printer, to whom he had been recommended by his friends in the Netherlands, and who shewed him great regard, introducing him to the most considerable men in that city. Here popery became quite his aversion; he saw more of its superstition and craft than he had yet seen; the former among the people, the latter among the priests, who scrupled not to avow how little truth was their concern. Here also he found his old acquaintance Mr. Neat, of New college, who was now become an inflexible bigot to popery, and resisted all Gilpin’s endeavours to reclaim him. This was the same Neal, who was afterwards chaplain to bishop Bonner, and distinguished himself by being sole voucher of the very improbable and silly story of the Nag’s head consecration.

His enemies, in the mean time, were not thus silenced. Though they had been defeated a second time, they were only the more spirited up by that additional rancour which generally attends the baffled designs of the malicious. Convinced how impossible it was to work up the bishop of Durham’s zeal to the height they wished, they therefore laid thirty-two articles against their intended victim before bishop Bonner. Bonner extolled their laudable zeal for religion, and promised that the heretic should be at a stake in a fortnight. Of this determination Mr. Gilpin’s friends in London apprized him by a special messenger, but he had long been preparing to suffer for the truth, and now determined not to decline it. He even had a garment made in which he might go decently to the stake, and used to put it on evejy day until Bonner’s messengers apprehended him. In his way to London, it is said he broke his leg, which put a stop for some time to his journey, and before he was able to travel, queen Mary died, and he was get at liberty. This account of his accident has been doubted, but it is certain that the news of the queen’s death met him upon the road, and put a stop to any farther prosecution. He then returned to Houghton through crowds of people, triumphantly expressing the utmost joy, and blessing God for his deliverance.

When the popish bishops were deprived, and many sees by that means vacant, Mr. Gilpin’s friends at court, particularly the earl of Bedford, thought it a good opportunity to use their interest in his favour, and he was accordingly nominated to the see of Carlisle, but notwithstanding the pressing solicitations of his noble friends, and of Sandys, bishop of Worcester, he persisted in declining this high honour, as being unworthy of it. It is somewhat strange that Nicolson in his “Historical Library,” and Heylin in his “Church History,” should ascribe his conduct to lucrative motives, a calumny which has been amply refuted by his biographer. Both these writers indeed seem to have been very little acquainted with Mr. Gilpin’s character, in which disinterestedness bore so principal a part. The year after his refusal of*the bishopric of Carlisle, he was offered the provostship of Queen’s college, Oxford, which he also refused; and thus having had in his option almost every kind of preferment which an ecclesiastic i capable of holding, he sat down with one living, which gratified the utmost of his desires.

Soon after queen Elizabeth’s accession, a general visitation was held. An assembly of divines, among whom were Parker, Grindal, and Sandys, having finished a body of injunctions aud articles, commissions were issued out, impowering proper persons to enforce them; the oath of supremacy was to be tendered to the clergy, and a subscription imposed. When the visitors came to Durham, Mr. Gilpin was requested to preach before the clergy, against the pope’s supremacy. To this he had no objection, but did not like the thoughts of subscribing, having some doubts with regard to one or more of the articles. His curate having not these scruples, he hoped that his subscription might satisfy the visitors; but next clay, when the clergy were assembled to subscribe, as an instance of respect Mr. Gilpin was first called upon. The emergency allowed him no time for reflection. He just considered with himself, that upon the whole these alterations in religion were certainly right; that he doubted only in a few immaterial points; and that, if he should refuse, it might be a means to keep others back. He then took up the pen, and, with some hesitation, at length subscribed. Afterwards retiring, he sent a letter to the visitors, acquainting them in what sense he subscribed the articles; which they accepted very favourably.

When in order to enlighten the nation in true learning and religion, public schools began to be recommended, Mr. Gilpin endeavoured to promote the good work with the utmost of his ability. As his manner of living was most affluent and generous, and his hospitality and charities made daily a larger demand upon him, it was thought extraordinary, that, amidst such great expences, he should entertain the design of building and endowing a grammar school; yet his exact ceconomy soon enabled him to accomplish this, and the effects of his endowment were very quickly seen: his school was no sooner opened than it began to flourish, and to afford the agreeable prospect of a succeeding generation rising above the ignorance and errors of their forefathers. He not only placed able masters in his school, whom he procured from Oxford, but himself constantly inspected it, and took an active part in the education of the scholars. Such was his benevolence that whenever he met with a poor boy upon the road, he would make trial of his capacity l)y a few questions; and if he found it such as pleased him, he would provide for his education. From the school also he sent several to the universities, where he maintained them wholly at his own expence. Nor was this munificent and uncommon care unrewarded. Many of his scholars became great ornaments to the church, and exemplary instances of piety, among whom have been particularly mentioned, Henry Ayray, afterwards provost of Queen’s college; George Carleton, bishop of Chichester; and Hugh Broughton. It was also at Mr. Gilpin’s suggestion that his friend bishop Pilkington founded a school at the place of his nativity in Lancashire, the statutes of which he revised and corrected at the bishop’s request. Mr. Gilpin’s general reputation for learning and piety, made it the desire of persons of all religious persuasions to have their cause credited by his authority; and among others, the first dissenters, or puritans, who had contracted prejudices against certain church ceremonies, habits, &c. made early applications to Mr. Gilpin, but without effect. The reformation, he said, was just; essentials were there concerned; hut at present he saw no ground for disaffection. " The church of England, he thought, gave no reasonable offence. Some things there might be in it, which had been perhaps as well avoided (probably meaning the use of the vestments), but to disturb the peace of a nation for such trifles, he thought, was quite unchristian. And what indeed appeared to him chiefly blameable in the dissenters, was, that heat of temper with which they propagated their opinions, and treated those who differed from them. Such was not his practice, for he confined all his dislike to their sentiments, urged with intemperate warmth, but bore not the least ill-will to their persons. One of the most intimate friends he ever had was Mr. Lever, a minister of their persuasion, and a sufferer in their cause. It is almost needless to add, that he found it equally or more easy to resist the solicitations of the papists, who lamented, as they well might, that so good a man had forsaken their communion, and consequently they left no methods untried to bring him back.

, a nonconformist divine and physician, probably of the same family with the preceding, was a native of Cumberland, and educated in Queen’s college, Oxford, whence he took the degree of M. D. but afterwards entered into holy orders, and became minister of Greystock, in his own county; but preached with great applause in London, at Lambeth, the Savoy, &c. and in many other parts of the kingdom; till he was silenced for refusing to comply with the act of uniformity, 1662. He afterwards practised physic in the north of England, particularly at Newcastle, where he was greatly esteemed by all that knew him, both as a physician and a divine. He died in 1657. He was the author of several treatises; but his discourse on “Satan’s Temptations,” 1677, 4to, is most esteemed.

, a skilful mathematician, was born December 13, 1633, at Bitonto. He spent his youth in idleness and debauchery, and married a young woman without any fortune; and having killed one of his brothersin-law, who reproached him with his indolence and laziness, he entered as a soldier in a fleet fitted out by the pope against the Turks. The admiral, finding that he did not want genius, gave him a writer’s place which happened to be vacant; and Giordani, being obliged in consequence to learn arithmetic, eagerly studied that of Clavius, and acquired a taste for mathematics. Returning to Rome, in 1659, he was made keeper of the castle of St. Angelo, and devoted the leisure that office afforded him to mathematical studies, in which he made so rapid a progress, that queen Christina chose him for her mathematician during her stay at Rome; and Louis XIV, appointed him to teach mathematics in the academy of painting and sculpture which he had founded in that city, 1666. Giordani was made engineer to the castle of St. Angelo by pope Clement X., appointed mathematical professor at the college della Sapienza 1685, and admitted into the academy of the Arcadi, May 5, 1691. He died November 3, 1711. His principal works are, “Euclide restitute,” foiio; “De componendis gravium momentis,” folio; “Fundamentum doctrines motus gravium,” 1705, folio; “Ad Hyacinthum Christophorum Epistola,” 1705, folio.

, a herald and heraldic writer, was the son of Thomas Glover, of Ashford in Kent, the place of his nativity. He was first made Portcullis Poursuivant, and afterwards in 1571, Somerset herald. Queen Elizabeth permitted him to travel abroad for improvement. In 1582, he attended lord Willoughby with the order of the garter, to Frederick II. of Denmark. In 1584, he waited with Clarenceux on the earl of Derby, with that order to the king of France. No one was a greater ornament to the college than this gentleman; the suavity of his manners was equal to his integrity and skill: he was a most excellent, and very learned man, with a knowledge in his profession which has never been exceeded, perhaps been paralleled; to this, the best writers of his own and more recent time* bear testimony. He left two treatises, one “I)e Nobilitate politica vel civili” the other “A Catalogue of Honour” both of which were published by his nephew, Mr. Thomas Milles, the former in 1608, the latter in 1610, both folio, to “revive the name and learned memory of his deceased friend and uncle, whose private studies for the public good deserved a remembrance beyond forgetful time.” His answer to the bishop of Ross’s book, in which Mary queen of Scots’ claim to the crown was asserted, was never published. He made great collections of what had been written by preceding heralds, and left of his own labours relative to arms, visitations of twenty-four counties, and miscellaneous matters belonging to this science, all written by himself. He assisted Camden in his pedigrees for his Britannia; communicated to Dr. David Powell, a copy of the history of Cambria, translated by H. Lloyd; made a collection of the inscriptions upon the funeral monuments in Kent; and, in 1584, drew up a most curious survey of Herewood castle, in Yorkshire. Mr. Thoresby had his collection of the county of York taken in 1584, and his catalogue of northern gentry whose surnames ended in son. He died in London, says Stow, April 14, (Lant and others, 10), 1588, aged only forty-five years, and was buried in St. Giles’s church, Cripplegate. His loss was severely felt by all our lovers of English antiquities. His “Ordinary of Arms” was augmented and improved by Edmondson, who published it in the first volume of his Body of Heraldry.

On the accession of James II. he was appointed lord chamberlain to the queen, and on the removal of the earl of Rochester, was again made one of the commissioners of the treasury. On the landing of the prince of Orange, he was one of the commissioners sent by king James to treat with that prince, which employment he discharged with great address and prudence. In the debate concerning the vacancy of the throne, after the abdication of king James, his lordship, out of a regard to the succession, voted for a regency; yet when king William was advanced to the throne, his majesty appointed him one of the lords commissioners of the treasury, and a privy-councillor, and in 1690 he was appointed first lord of the treasury. In 1695, he was one of the seven lords justices for the administration of the government, during the king’s absence, as he was likewise the year following, and again in 1701, when he was restored to the place of first commissioner of the treasury, from which he had been removed in 1697. On the accession of queen Anne, he was constituted lord high treasurer, which post he had long refused to accept, till the earl of Marlboro ugh pressed him in so positive a manner, that he declared, he could not go to the continent to command the armies, unless the treasury was put into his hands; for then he was sure that remittances would be punctually made to him. Under his lordship’s administration of this high office, the public credit was raised, the war carried on with success, and the nation satisfied with his prudent management. He omitted nothing that could engage theteubject to bear the burthen of the war with chearfulness; and it was owing to his advice, that the queen contributed one hundred thousand pounds out of her civil list towards it. He was also one of those faithful and able counsellors, who advised her majesty to declare in council against the selling of offices and places in her household and family, as highly dishonourable to herself, prejudicial to her service, and a discouragement to virtue and true merit, which alone ought and should recommend persons to her royal approbation. And so true a friend was his lordship to the established church, that considering how meanly great numbers of the clergy were provided for, he prevailed upon her majesty to settle her revenue of the first-fruits and tenths for the augmentation of the small vicarages. In July 1704 he was made knight of the garter; and in December 1706, advanced to the dignity of earl of Godolphin and viscount Rialton. But notwithstanding all his great services to the public, on the 8th of August 1710, he was removed from his post of lord high treasurer.

, an English prelate, was born in 1517 at Oakingham in Berkshire; and being put to the grammar-school there, quickly made such a progress as discovered him to be endowed with excellent parts. But his parents being low in circumstances, he must have lost the advantage of improving them by a suitable education, had they not been noticed by Dr. Richard Layton, archdeacon of Bucks, a zealous promoter of the reformation, who, taking him into his house, and instructinghim in classical learning, sent him to Oxford, where he was entered of Magdalen college about 1538. Not long after, he lost his worthy patron; but his merit, now become conspicuous in the university, had procured him other friends; so that he was enabled to take the degree of B. A. July 12, 1543. The same merit released his friends from any farther expence, by obtaining him, the year ensuing, a fellowship of his college; and he proceeded M. A. in 1547. But he did not long enjoy the fruits of his merit in a college life; his patron, the archdeacon, had taken care to breed up Godwin in the principles of the reformation, and this irritating some popish members of the college, they made his situation so uneasy, that, the free-school at Brackley in Northamptonshire becoming vacant in 1549, and being in the gift of the college, he resigned his fellowship, and accepted it. In this station, he married the daughter of Nicholas Purefoy, of Shalston, in the county of Bucks, and lived without any new disturbance as long as Edward VI. was at the helm: but, upon the accession of Mary, his religion exposed him to a fresh persecution, and he was obliged to quit his school. In this exigence, although the church was his original intention, and he had read much with that view, yet now it became more safe to apply to the study of physic; and being admitted to his bachelor’s degree in that faculty, at Oxford, July 1555, he practised in it for a support till Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, when he resolved to enter into the church. In this he was encouraged by Bullingham, bishop of Lincoln, who gave him orders, and made him his chaplain; his lordship also introduced him to the queen, and obtained him the favour of preaching before her majesty; who was so much pleased with the propriety of his manner, and the grave turn of his oratory, that she appointed him one of her Lentpreachers. He had discharged this duty by an annual appointment, with much satisfaction to her majesty, for a series of eighteen years. In 1565, on the deprivation of Sampson, he was made dean of Christ church, Oxford, and had also the prebend of Milton-ecclesia in the church of Lincoln conferred on him by his patron bishop Bullingham. This year also he took his degrees of B. and D. D. at Oxford. In 1566, he was promoted to' the deanery of Canterbury, being the second dean of that church: and queen Elizabeth making a visit to Oxford the same year, he attended her majesty, and among others kept an exercise in divinity against Dr. Lawrence Humphries, the professor; in which the famous Dr. Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, was moderator. In June following he was appointed by archbishop Parker, one of his commissioners to visit the diocese of Norwich; and that primate having established a benefaction for a sermon on Rogation Sunday at Thetford in Norfolk and other places, the dean, while engaged in this commission, preached the first sermon of that foundation, on Sunday morning July 20, 1567, in the Green-yard adjoining to the bishop’s palace at Norwich. In 1573 he quitted his prebend of Milton-ecclesia, on being presented by Cooper, then bishop of Lincoln, to that of Leighton-Bosard, the endowment of which is considered the best in the church of Lincoln. In 1576 he was one of the ecclesiastical commissioners, empowered by the queen to take cognizance of all offences against the peace and good order of the church, and to frame such statutes as might conduce to its prosperity.

The see of Bath and Wells had in 1584 been vacant since the death of Dr. Gilbert Berkley in Nov. 1581. To this bishopric the queen now nominated dean Godwin, who accordingly was consecrated Sept. 13, 1584. He immediately resigned the deanery of Canterbury; and as he arrived at the episcopal dignity “as well qualified,” says his contemporary, sir John Harrington, “for a bishop as might be, umeproveable, without simony, given to good hospitality, quiet, kind, and affable,” it is to be lamented that he was unjustly opposed in the enjoyment of what he deserved. At the time of his promotion there prevailed among the courtiers no small dislike to the bishops; prompted by a desire to spoil them of their revenues. To cover their unjust proceedings, they did not want plausible pretences, the effects of which Godwin too severely experienced. He was a widower, drawing towards seventy, and much enfeebled by the gout, when he came to the see; but in order to the management of his family, and that he might devote his whole time to the discharge of his high office, he married a second wife, a widow, of years suitable to his own. An illiberal misrepresentation, however, of this affair was but too readily believed by the queen, who had a rooted aversion to the marriages of the clergy, and the crafty slanderers gratified their aim in the disgrace of the aged prelate, and in obtaining part of his property. This unfortunate affair, which affected his public character as well as his private happiness, contributed not a little to increase his infirmities. He continued, however, attentive to the duties of his function, and frequently gave proof that neither his diligence nor his observation were inconsiderable. During the two last years of his life, his health more rapidly declined, and he was also attacked with a quartan ague. He was now recommended by his physicians to try the benefit of his native air. Accordingly he came to Oakingham with this intention, but breathed his last there, Nov. 19, 1590. He was buried in the chancel of Oakingham church, where is a modest inscription to his memory, written by his son, the subject of the next article.

The memory of bishop Godwin will ever be respected. His own merit brought him into public notice, and when he rose in the church he adorned it by his amiable qualities. Though he was a distinguished scholar, yet he did not publish any of his labours. Among the Parker Mss. in Bene't college, Cambridge, is a sermon which he preached before the queen at Greenwich in 1566, concerning the authority of the councils and fathers.

He became B. D. in 1593, and D. D. in 1595; in which year, resigning the vicarage of Weston, he was appointed rector of Bishop’s Liddiard, in the, same county. He still continued assiduous in pursuing ecclesiastical biography; and, having made an handsome addition to his former collections, published the whole in 1601, 4to, tinder the title, “A Catalogue of the Bishops of England, since the first planting of the Christian religion in this island; together with a brief history of their lives and memorable actions, so near as can be gathered of antiquity.” It appears, by the dedication to lord Buckhurst, that our author was at this time chaplain to this nobleman, who, being in high credit with queen Elizabeth, immediately procured him the bishopric of Llandaff. This was said to be a royal reward for his Catalogue, and this success of it encouraged him to proceed. The design was so much approved, that afterwards he found a patron in James I.; and sir John Harrington, a favourite of prince Henry, wrote a treatise by way of supplement to it, for that prince’s use. This was drawn purely for that purpose, without any intention to publish it; but it appeared afterwards with the title of “A brief view of the state of the Church of England.” It is carried on only to the year 1608 (when it was written) from the close of our author’s works. Our author therefore devoted all the time he could spare from the duties of his function towards completing and perfecting this Catalogue; and published another edition in 1615, with great additions and alterations. But, this being very erroneously printed, by reason of his distance from the press, he resolved to turn that misfortune into an advantage and accordingly sent it abroad the year after, in a new elegant Latin dress partly for the use of foreigners, but more perhaps to please the king, to whom it was dedicated, and who in return gave him the bishopric of Hereford, to which he was translated in 1617. His work has since been reprinted, with a continuation to the time of publication, 1743, by Dr. Richardson, in an elegant folio volume, with a fine portrait of Godwin, and other embellishments.

In 1616 he published in Latin, “Rerum Anglicarum Henrico VIII. &c.” which was translated and published by his son, Morgan Godwin, under the title of “Annales of England, containing the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and queen Mary,” fol. These, as well as his lives of the bishops, are written in elegant Latin, and with much impartiality. In 1630, he published a small treatise, entitled “A computation of the value of the Roman Sesterce and Attic Talent.” After this he fell into a low and languishing disorder, and died in April 1633. He married, when a young man, the daughter of Wollton, bishop of Exeter, by whom he had many children. He appears to have been a man of great learning and personal worth, and a zealous champion for the church of England. His son, Dr. Morgan Godwin, was archdeacon of Shropshire, and translated, as we have noticed, his father’s “Annales.” He was ejected by the parliamentary commissioners, and his family reduced to distress: he died in 1645, leaving a son of his own names, who was educated at Oxford, and afterwards became a minister in Virginia, under the government of sir William Berkeley, but was at last beneficed near London. When he died is not mentioned. He wrote some pamphlets, while in Virginia, on the state of religion there, and the education of the negroes. The late rev. Charles Godwin, an antiquary, and benefactor to Baliol college, Oxford, who died in 1770, appears to have been a son of Charles Godwin, of Mon mouth, another son of bishop Francis Godwin.

, a French poet, was born in 1567, at St. Just de Lussac, near Brouage in Saintongue. He was a gentleman by birth, and his breeding was suitable to it. Alter a foundation of grammarlearning, he finished his studies at Bourdeaux; and having gone through most of the liberal sciences, under the best masters of his time, he betook himself to Paris, in the view of making the most of his parts; for, being the cadet of a fourth marriage by his father, his patrimonial finances were a little short. At Paris, he soon introduced himself to the knowledge of the polite world, by sonnets, epigrams, and other small poetical pieces, which were generally applauded: but, reaping little other benefit, he was obliged to use the strictest oeconomy, to support a tolerable figure at court, till the assassination of the king by Ravillac, in 1610, provoked every muse in France. The subject was to the last degree interesting, and our poet exerted his talent to the utmost in some verses which pleased the queen- regent, Mary de Medicis, so highly, that she rewarded him with a pension of 1200 crowns nor was there a man of his condition, that had more free access to her, or was more kindly received by her. He was also in the same favour with the succeeding regent, Anne of Austria, during the minority of Lewis XIV.

, a Scotch antiquary, the eldest son of John Goodal, a farmer in Banfshire, Scotland, was born about 1706. In 1723 he entered himself a student in King’s college, Old Aberdeen, but did not continue there long enough to take a degree. In 1730 he obtained employment in the Advocates’ library, Edinburgh, of whicli he was formally appointed librarian in 1735. He now assisted the celebrated Thomas lluddiman in compiling the catalogue of that library, upon the plan of the “Bibliotheca Cardinalis Imperialis,” and it was published in folio in 1742. About the same time he projected a life of Mary queen of Scots, to whose cause he was inflexibly devoted; but this design appears to have been relinquished for his publication, entitled “An Examination of the Letters said to be written by Mary to James earl of Both well,” 1754, 2 vols. 8vo, in which he endeavoured to prove these letters to be forgeries. In this work it is said that he had done more, had he had less prejudice, and greater coolness. He certainly had diligence of research, sagacity of investigation, and keenness of remark; but his zeal sometimes carried him out of his course, his prejudice often blunted his acuteness, and his desire of recrimination never failed to enfeeble the strength of his criticism. In 1754 he published an edition, with emendatory notes, of sir John Scot’s “Staggering state of Scots Statesmen,” and wrote a preface and life to sir James Balfour’s “Practicks.” He contributed also to Keith’s “New Catalogue of Scotch Bishops,” and published an edition of Fordun’s “Scotichronicon,” which was not executed with judgment. His introduction to it was afterwards translated into English, and published at London in 1769. He died July 28, 1766, in very poor circumstances, owing to a habit of intemperance.

, a noted puritan, who has been sometimes classed among the reformers of religion in Scotland, was born at Chester about 1520, and in 1536 entered a student of Brazemiose college, Oxford, where he took both degrees in arts. In 1547 he was constituted one of the senior students of Christ church, of the foundation of Henry VIII. About the end of the reign of king Edward VI. he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and chosen divinity lecturer of the university. On the accession of queen Mary he was obliged to quit the kingdom, with many other protestants, and retire to Francfort. Here he became involved in the disputes which arose among the English exiles respecting forms of divine worship, some adhering to the model of the church of England, as far as appeared in the Book of Common Prayer, and others, among whom was Goodman, contending for a more simple form. After these disputes had occasioned a separation among men whose common sufferings might have made them overlook lesser matters, Goodman went to Geneva, where he and the celebrated John Knox were chosen pastors of the English church, and remained there until the death of queen Mary. While there he assisted Knox in compiling “The Book of Common Order,” which was used as a directory of worship in their congregations, and he is said to have taken a part in the Geneva translation of the Bible. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he went into Scotland, where, in 1560, he was appointed minister at St. Andrew’s, and in other respects by his public services assisted in establishing the reformation in that nation. About 1565 he removed to England, and accompanied sir Henry Sidney in his expedition against the rebels in Ireland, in the character of chaplain. In 1571 he was cited before archbishop Parker, for having published, during his exile, a book answering the question “How far superior powers ought to be obeyed of their subjects, and wherein they may be lawfully, by God’s word, obeyed and resisted” This had been written against the tyrannical proceedings of queen Mary but, as his positions were of a kind too general not to be applicable to sovereigns of another description, and become an apology for rebellion, he consented to a recantation, and an avowal of his loyalty to queen Elizabeth. He lived many years after this, and was preacher at Chester, where he died in 1601, or 1602. Besides the above mentioned, he wrote “A Commentary on Amos,” but not, as Wood says, “The first blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous regiment of Women,” which was written by Knox.

, an eminent English prelate, was the second son of Edward Goodrich of East Kirby in Lincolnshire. He was admitted pensioner of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, soon after 1500, became fellow of Jesus college in 1510, commenced M. A. in 1514, and the following year was proctor of the university. Being of a studious turn, he made great proficiency in several branches of learning, particularly in the civil and canon laws. In 1529, he was appointed one of the syndics to return an answer from the university of Cambridge, concerning the lawfulness of king Henry VIII.’s marriage with queen Catherine: and from his readiness to oblige the king in that business, was recommended to his royal favour. He was presented to the rectory of St. Peter’s Cheap in London, by cardinal Wolsey, at that time commendatory of the monastery of St. Alban’s; and soon after was made canon of St. Stephen’s, Westminster, and chaplain to the king. On the death of Dr. West, bishop of Ely, his nephew and godson Dr. Nicholas Hawkins, archdeacon of Ely, at that time the king’s ambassador in foreign parts, was designed to succeed him; but he dying before his consecration could be effected, the king granted his licence to the prior and convent, dated March 6, 1534, to choose themselves a bishop; who immediately elected in their chapter-house the 17th of the same month, Thomas Goodrich, S.T.P. which was confirmed by the archbishop April 13th following, in the parish church of Croydon.

In 1540 he was appointed by the convocation to be one of the revisers of the translation of the New Testament, and St. John’s gospel was allotted to his share. He was also named one of the commissioners for reforming the ecclesiastical laws, both by Henry VIII. and Edward VI. as well as by the university of Cambridge; and had a hand in compiling the “Common Prayer Book” of the church of England, 1548 and likewise “The Institution of a Christian Man,” which was called the Bishops’ Book, as being composed by archbishop Cranmer, and the bishops Stokesly, Gardiner, Sampson, Repps, Goodrich, Latimer, Shaxton, Fox, Barlow, &c. Besides this, he was of the privy council to king Henry VIII. and Edward VI. and employed by them in several embassies, and other business of the state. In 1551, he was made lord chancellor of England, in the room of lord Rich, which office he discharged with singular reputation of integrity, though in matters of religion he was suspected by some, of too much disposition to temporize in favour of popery, upon the accession of queen Mary; and Dodd, though somewhat faintly, claims him as a popish bishop. It is certain he was suffered to retain his bishopric to his death, although the seals were taken from him. He was esteemed a patron of learned men; and expended large sums in building and embellishing his palaces, particularly at Ely, where the long gallery carries tokens of his munificence. He died at Somersham May 10, 1554; and was buried in the middle of the presbytery of his cathedral church, under a marble, with his effigies in brass, mitred, in his pontifical habit, and the great seal, as lord chancellor, in one of his hands, and an inscription round it.

, one of the most violent of the republican sectaries in the time of Charles I. but whom no sect seems to own, was born in 1593, and educated at Queen’s college, Cambridge. In 1633 he was presented to the living of St. Stephen’s, Coleman-street, from which he was turned out by what was called the “committee for plundered ministers,” because he refused to baptise the children of his parish promiscuously, and refused to administer the sacrament to his whole parish. He was an independent, and carried on many warm disputes with the presbyterian party. What was more singular in these days, was his embracing the Arminian doctrines, which he defended with great vigour both by the pulpit and press; and such was the general turbulence of his temper, and conceit in his own opinions, that he is said to have been against every man, and every man against him. Being a decided republican, he peculiarly gratified the savage spirit of the times by promoting the condemnation of the king, which he afterwards endeavoured to justify in a pamphlet called “The Obstructors of Justice,” the wickedness, absurdity, and impiety of which Mr. Neal has very candidly exposed. At the restoration it was thought he would have been excepted from the act of indemnity, but, although he afterwards was permitted to live, a proclamation was issued in 1660 against the above pamphlet, and in that he is stated to have been “late of Coleman-street, clerk,” and-to have fled. His pamphlet was burnt by the hands of the hangman. Returning afterwards, he kept a private conventicle in Coleman-street, where he died in 1665. His works, now in very little repute, are chiefly theological, among which the following may be mentioned: 11 Redemption Redeemed,“in folio.” The divine Authority of the Scriptures,“4to;” An Exposition of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans," 4to.

was a celebrated poet and translator, who lived in the sixteenth century, but of whom little is known, unless that he was educated at Christ’s College, Cambridge, whence he removed to Staples Inn. Mr. Ellis conjectures that he might have been born about 1538. We have no doubt that he was the same Barnaby Googe who was a relation and retainer to sir William Cecil, queen Elizabeth’s minister, and who was gentleman-pensioner t6 the queen. Mr. Churton thinks, with great probability, that he was the father of Barnaby Googe, master of Magdalen college, Cambridge, who was incorporated at Oxford in August 1605, when king James was there. In 1563 he published a very elegant little volume, now of the greatest rarity, entitled “Eglogs, Epitaphs, and Sonnetes.” One of the sonnets, superior, as the rest are, in point of harmony, to most of the productions of those days, is addressed to Alexander No well, afterwards the celebrated dean of St. Paul’s, and reprinted in Mr. Churton’s elaborate life of that divine. It is said there are only two copies of this volume in existence, one in the possession of Mr. Heber, who purchased it at George Steevens’s sale, and the other in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge Googe’s principal translation was the “Zodiake of Life,” from Marcellus Palingenius Stellatus, a very moral, but tiresome satire, perfectly unconnected with astronomy, the author merely distinguishing each of the twelve books of his poem by the name of a celestial sign. The first three books appeared in 1560, and the first six in 1561; the whole was printed complete in 1565, 12mo. In 1570 he translated from Naogeorgus, a poem on Antichrist; in 1577, Herebach’s ceconomical treatise on agriculture; and in 1579, Lopes de Mendoza’s Spanish proverbs, and afterwards Aristotle’s “Table of the Ten Categories.” The few specins published from these very rare works are highly favourable to the author’s talents and principles.

, a native of Scotland, and onc distinguished by his party writings on political and religious subjects, was born at Kircudbright in Galloway, about th fend of the seventeenth century. He had an university education, and went through the common course of aca* demical studies; but whether at Aberdeen or St. Andrew’s is uncertain. When a young man he came to London, and at first supported himself by teaching the languages, but afterwards commenced party writer, and was employed by the earl of Oxford in queen Anne’s time; but we know not in what capacity. He first distinguished himself in the Bangorian controversy by two pamphlets in defence of Hoadly, which recommended him to Mr. Tjrenchard, an author of the same stamp, who took him into his house, at first as his amanuensis, and afterwards into partnership, as an author. In 1720, they began to publish, in conjunction, a series of letters, under the name of “Cato,” upon various and important subjects relating to the public. About the same time they published another periodical paper, under the title of “The Independent Whig,” which was continued some years after Trenchard’s death by Gordon alone. The same spirit which appears, with more decent language, in Cato’s letters against the administration in the state, shews itself in this work in much more glaring colours against the hierarchy in the church. It is, in truth, a gross and indecent libel on the established religion, which, however, Gordon was admirably qualified to write, as he had no religion of his own to check his intemperate sallies. After Trenchard’s death, the minister, sir Robert Walpole, knowing his popular talents, took him into pay to defend his measures, for which end he wrote several pamphlets. At the time of his death, July 28, 1750, he was first commissioner of the wine-licences, an office which he had enjoyed many years, and which diminished his patriotism surprisingly. He was twice married. His second wife was the widow of his friend Trenchard by whom he had children, and who survived him. Two collections of his tracts have been preserved the first entitled, “A Cordial for Low-spirits,” in three volumes; and the second, “The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken,” in two volumes. But these, like many other posthumous pieces, had better have been suppressed. His translations of Sallust and Tacitus, now, perhaps, contribute more to preserve his name, although without conferring much reputation on it. His Tacitus appeared in 2 vols. fol. in 1728, with discourses taken from foreign commentators and translators of that historian. Sir Robert Walpole patronised a subscription for the work, which was very successful; but no classic was perhaps ever so miserably mangled. His style is extremely vulgar, yet affected, and abounds with abrupt and inharmonious periods, totally destitute of any resemblance to the original, while the translator fancied he was giving a correct imitation.

With the warmest sense of those favours, he presently shewed himself not unworthy of the royal bounty, by the many valuable books which he published in England which, from this time, he adopted for his own country and finding the ecclesiastical constitution so much to his mind, he entered into priest’s orders in that church, and became a zealous advocate for it, as coming nearer in his opinion to the primitive pattern than any other. In this spirit he published, in 1698, and the following year, “Spicilegium Ss. Patrum, &c.” or a collection of the lesser works and fragments, rarely to be met with, of the fathers and heretics of the three first centuries; induced to this compilation, as he expressly declared, by the consideration, that there could be no better expedient for healing the divisions of the Christian, church, than to reflect on the practice and opinions of the primitive fathers. Both these volumes were reprinted at Oxford in 1700, 8vo, and some remarks were made upon the first in a piece entitled “A new and full method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, by Jer. Jones, 1726,” 8vo. From the same motive he printed also Justin Martyr’s “First Apology” in 1700; and the works of Irenaeus in 1702; both which were animadverted upon by Thirlby, the editor of Justin Martyr, and Massuet, the editor of Irenaeus. Upon the accession of queen Anne to the throne this year, besides continuing his pension, her majesty sought an occasion of giving some farther proofs of her special regard for him; and she was not long in rinding one.

From his first arrival he had resided a great part of his time in that university, with which he was exceedingly delighted. Besides the Bodleian library there, he met with several persons of the first class of learning in theological and sacred criticism, among whom he found that freedom of conversation and communication of studies which is inseparable from true scholars; but still the Alexandrian ms. was the chief object of his labour. He examined it with his usual diligence, and coniparing it with a copy from that of the Vatican at Rome, he found it in so many places preferable to the other, that he resolved to print it as soon as possible. With this view, in 170^, he drew up a particular account of the preferences of this to the Vatican ms. especially in respect to the book of “Judges,” and published it, together with three specimens, containing so many different methods of his intended edition, wishing to be determined in his choice by the learned. This came out in 1705, with proposals for printing it by subscription, in a letter addressed to Dr. Mill, principal of Edmund-hall, Oxford; and that nothing might be wanting which lay in the power of that learned body to promote the work, he was honoured with the degree of D. D. early the following year, upon which occasion Dr. Smalridge, who then officiated as regius professor, delivered two Latin speeches, containing the highest compliments to his merit. The success was abundantly answerable to his fondest wishes: besides the queen’s bounty, he received another present from his own sovereign the king of Prussia; and subscriptions from the principal nobility, clergy, and gentry, crowded daily upon him from all parts.

, a French historian, was born in 1565, and, after a liberal education, became counsellor and master of the requests to Mary de Medicis, queen of France. He frequented the court in his youth, and devoted himself to the service of Henry IV. by whom he was much esteemed and trusted. Being a man of probity, and void of ambition, he did not employ his interest with Henry to obtain dignities, but spent the greatest part of his life -in literary retirement. Among other works which he composed, are “The History of Henry IV.” and “The History of Lewis XIII. to the death of the Marshal d'Ancre,” in 1617; both which were published in /olio, under the title of “Decades.” The former he presented to Lewis XIII. who read it over, and was infinitely charmed with the frankness of the author: but the Jesuits, who never were friendly to liberality of sentiment, found means to have this work castrated in several places. They served “The History of Lewis XIII.” worse; for, Le Grain having in that performance spoken advantageously of the prince of Conde, his protector, they had the cunning and malice to suppress those passages, and to insert others, where they made him speak of the prince in very indecorous terms. Conde was a dupe to this piece of knavery, till Le Grain had time to vindicate himself, by restoring this as well as his former works to their original purity. He died at Paris in 1643, and ordered in his will, that none of his descendants should ever trust the education of their children to the Jesuits; which clause, it is said, has been punctually observed by his family.

This piece, being generally read, was thought to have had considerable influence on the public resolutions, and certainly recommended him to both parties in the way of his profession. Those who differed from him in opinion admired his courage, and were desirous of making use of his abilities; as on the other hand, those who were friends to the revolution were likewise so to him, which brought him into great business, and procured him, by special commissions, frequent employment from the crown. In all these he acquitted himself with so much honour, that, as soon as the union of the two kingdoms came to be seriously considered in the English court, queen Anne unexpectedly, as well as without application, created him a baronet in 1705, in the view of securing his interest towards completing that design; and upon the same principle her majesty about a year after appointed him one of the judges, or (as they are styled in Scotland) one of the senators of the college of justice.

, viscount Lansdowne, an English poet, was descended of a family distinguished for their loyalty; being second son of Barnard Granville, esq. brother to the first earl of Bath of this name, who had a principal share in bringing about the restoration of Charles II. and son of the loyal sir Bevil Greenvile, who lost his life fighting for Charles I. at Lansdowne in 1643. He was born in 1667, and in his infancy was sent to France, under the tuition of sir William Ellys, a gentleman bred up under Dr. Busby, and who was afterwards eminent in many public stations. From this excellent tutor he not only imbibed a taste for classical learning, but was also instructed in all other accomplishments suitable to his birth, in which he made so quick a proficiency, that after he had distinguished himself above all the youths of France in martial exercises, he was sent to Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1677, at ten years of age; and before he was twelve, spoke some verses of his own composing to the duchess of York, afterwards queen-consort to James II. at her visit to that university in 1679. On account of his extraordinary merit, he was created M. A. at the age of thirteen, and left the college soon after.

Upon the accession of queen Anne, he stood as fair in the general esteem as any man of his years, now about thirty-five. He had always entertained the greatest veneration for the queen, and he made his court to her in the politest manner in Urganda’s prophecy, spoken by way of epilogue at the first representation of the “British Enchanters,” where he introduced a scene representing the queen, and the several triumphs of her reign. He entered heartily into the measures for carrying on the war against France; and, with a view to excite a proper spirit in the nation, he translated the second “Olynthian” of Demosthenes, in 1702. This new specimen of his, learning gained him many friends, and added highly to his reputation; and, when the design upon Cadiz was projected the same year, he presented to Mr. Harley, afterwards earl of Oxford, an authentic journal of Mr. Wimbledon’s expedition thither, in 1625; in order that, by avoiding the errors committed in a former attempt upon that place, a more successful plan might be formed. But, little attention being given to it, the same mistakes were committed, and the same disappointment ensued: with this difference only, that the duke of Ormond had an opportunity to take his revenge at Vigo, and to return with glory, which was not Wimbledon’s fate.

By a laudable oeconomy Granville had hitherto preserved himself from those embarrassments, which in more advanced life he is said to have incurred, and his father, who was just dead, had made some provision for him, which was increased by a small annuity left him by his uncle the earl of Bath, who died not long after. These advantages, added to the favours which his cousin John Grenville had received from her majesty in being raised to the peerage by the title of lord Grenville of Pothericlge, and his brother being made governor of Barbadoes, with a fixed salary of 2000l. the same enabled him to come into the house of commons, as member for Fowey in Cornwall, in the first parliament of the queen. In 1706, his fortune was improved farther by the loss of his eldest brother, sir Bevil, who died that year, in his passage from Barbadoes, in the flower of his age, unmarried, and universally lamented. Hence our younger brother stood now as the head-branch of his family, and he still held his seat in the house of commons, both in the second and third parliaments of the queen. But the administration being taken out of the hands of his friends, with whom he remained steadily connected in the same principles, he was cut off from any prospect of being preferred at court.

SacheverelPs trial, which happened not long after, brought on that remarkable change in the ministry in 1710, when Mr. Granville^s friends came again into power. He was elected for the borough of Helston, but, being returned at the same time for the county of Cornwall, he chose to represent the latter; and on September 29, he was declared secretary at war, in the room of Robert Walpole, esq. afterwards the celebrated minister. He continued in this office for some time, and discharged it with reputation; and, towards the close of the next year, 1711, he married the lady Mary, daughter of Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, at that time possessed of a considerable jointure, as widow of Thomas Thynne, esq. He had just before succeeded to the estate of the elder branch of his family, at Stow; and December 31, he was created a peer of Great Britain, by the title of lord Lansdowne, baron of Bideford, in the county of Devon. In this promotion he was one of the twelve peers who were all created at the same time; and so numerous a creation, being unprecedented, gave much offence, although but little in his case. His lordship was now the next male-issue in that noble family, in which two peerages, that of the earl of Bath, and that of lord Grenville of Potheridge, had been extinguished almost together: his personal merit was universally allowed; and as to his political sentiments, those who thought him most mistaken, allowed him to be open, candid, and uniform. He stood always high in the favour of queen Anne; and with great reason, having upon every occasion testified the greatest zeal for her government, and the most profound respect for her person. For these reasons, in the succeeding year, 1712, he was sworn of her majesty’s privy-council, made controller of her household, about a year after advanced to the post of treasurer in. the same office; and to his other honours, says Dr. Johnson, was added the dedication of Pope’s “Windsor Forest.” His lordship continued in his office of treasurer to the queen, until her death, when he kept company with his friends in falling a sacrifice to party-violence, being removed from his treasurer’s place by George I. Oct. 11, 1714.

He continued abroad at Paris almost the space of ten years; and, being sensible that many juvenilities had escaped his pen in his poetical pieces, made use of the opportunity furnished by this retirement, to revise and correct them, in order to republication. Accordingly, at his return to England in 1732, he published these, together with a vindication of his kinsman just mentioned, in two volumes, 4to. To these may be added a tract in lord Somers’s collection, entitled “A Letter from a nobleman abroad to his friend in England,” 1722. The late queen Caroline having honoured him with her protection, the last verses he wrote were to inscribe two copies of his poems, one of which was presented to her majesty, and the other to the princess royal Anne, late princess dowager of Orange. The remaining years of his life were passed in privacy and retirement, to the day of his death, which happened January 30, 1735, in his sixty-eighth year; having lost his lady a few days before, by whom having no male issue, the title of Lansdowne became in him ex'tinct.

, a learned lawyer, was born at Delft in 1600. He wrote various works upon legal and political subjects, by which he acquired a considerable reputation. Among these are “Libertas Veneta, seu Venetorurn in se et suos imperandi Jus.” This was published in 1634, and in 1644 he defended the republic of Venice, in a dispute with the duke of Savoy concerning precedence; for which service, that republic created him a knight of St. Mark. He had also before this, attempted to confute Buchanan’s treatise “De Jure Majestatis,” in a work dedicated to Christina, queen of Sweden, who was known to be a great assertor of regal privileges. Grasswinkel defended the liberty of the seas against Selden, and Burgus, a native of Genoa, in his work “Maris Liberi Vindiciae,” and with so much judgment, in their opinion, that the States of Holland gave him a pension of 500 florins, with the title of Advocate-general of the marine, until an opportunity offered of rewarding his merit with a more honourable employment; which was afterwards that of advocate of the exchequer, and register and secretary of the chambre-mi-partie. He was author, likewise, of a treatise in two volumes, 4to, “On the Sovereignty of the States of Holland.” He died of an apoplexy at Mechlin, Oct. 12, 1666.

Long previous, however, to these high appointments, he was elected, May 26, 1698, master of Bene't college, upon the recommendation of his friend Tenison, and proved an excellent governor of that society. Soon after he became master, he introduced the use of public prayers in the chapel immediately after the locking up of the gates, that he might know what scholars were abroad, and if necessary, visit their chambers: this practice was found so beneficial as to be continued ever since. In other respects, when vice-chancellor, which office he served in 1699 and 1713, and at the public commencement, he acquitted himself with great skill and dignity. The zeal also which he shewed for the protestant succession in the house of Hanover, upon the death of queen Anne, and his prudent conduct at that juncture, were so acceptable to the court, that they are thought to have laid the foundation of his church preferments; an earnest of which George I. gave him in appointing him one of his domestic chaplains the year following. Dr. Greene resigned the mastership of his college in 1716. He married Catherine sister of bishop Trimnell, by whom he had two sons and seven daughters. Having made a handsome provision for this family, he died in a good old age, May 18, 1738, and was buried in his cathedral. Those who knew him most intimately inform us that it was his unfeigned and uniform endeavour to exercise a conscience void of offence towards God and man, and to discharge his duty, in the several relations he bore to his fellow creatures, to the best of his judgment and abilities, with the same faith and spirit which appear through all his writings. These writings are, 1. “The Sacrament of the. Lord’s Supper explained to the meanest capacities,” Lond, 1710, 12mo, in a familiar dialogue between a minister and parishioner. 2. “The principles of religion explained for the instruction of the weak,” ibid. 1726, 12mo. 3. “Four discourses on the four last things, viz. Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell,” ibid. 1734, 12mo; and seven occasional sermons,

, a gallant naval officer, was the son of sir Roger, of an ancient family, in the west of England, and was born about 1540. At the age of sixteen, by the permission of queen Elizabeth, he served in the imperial army in Hungary, against the Turks. Upon his return, he engaged with the troops employed for the reduction of Ireland, and obtained so much reputation as to be appointed sheriff of the city of Cork, and in 1571, he represented the county of Cornwall in parliament. He was afterwards high sheriff of the county, and received the honour of knighthood; but the bias of his mind was chiefly fixed upon plans of foreign discovery and settlement, proposed by his relation sir Walter Raleigh, and when the patents were made out, he obtained the command of a squadron fitted out for the purpose, consisting of seven small vessels. With these he sailed in the spring of 1585, and reaching the coast of Florida in June, he left there a colony of one hundred men, and then sailed homewards. He made other voyages, and on occasion of the Spanish invasion, was appointed one of a council of war, to concert means of defence, and received the queen’s commands not to quit the county of Cornwall. In 1591 he was appointed vice-admiral of a squadron, fitted out for the purpose of intercepting a rich Spanish fleet from the West Indies. This fleet, when it appeared, was convoyed by a very superior force, and Greenville was urged to tack about; but he preferred, and no doubt his sailors agreed with him, taking chance of breaking through the enemy’s fleet, which almost immediately surrounded him. The Spanish admiral, with four other ships, began a clos? attack at three in the afternoon the engagement lasted till break of day next morning, during which the Spaniards, notwithstanding their vast superiority, were driven off fifteen times. At length the greater part of the English crew being either killed or wounded, and the ship reduced to a wreck, no hope of escape remained. The brave commander had been wounded at the beginning of the action, but he caused his wounds to be dressed on deck, and refused to go down into the hold, and in that state he was shot through the body. He was now taken to the cabin, and while in the act of being dressed, the surgeon was killed by his side. The admiral still determined to hold out, wishing rather to sink the ship than surrender, but the offers of quarter from the Spaniards induced the men to yield. Sir Richard was taken on board the Spanish ship, and honourably treated, but died of his wounds in about three days. He has sometimes been blamed for rashness, but of this his censurers appear to be very imperfect judges.

, a younger son of the preceding, and brother to sir John Greenville first eari of Bath, of his name, was born in Cornwall, admitted gentleman commoner of Exeter college, Sept. 22, 1657, actually created in convocation master of arts Sept. 28, 1660. About this time he married Anne, the daughter of Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham, who conferred several preferments on him, as the rectories of Easington and Elwick in. the county palatine of Durham; the archdeaconry of Durham, to which he was collated on the death of Dr. Gabriel Clarke, Sept. 16, 1662, and to the first stall of prebendaries of the church of Durham, Sept. 24, 1662, from whence he was removed to the second, April 16, 1668. On December 20, 1670, he was created doctor of divinity, being then one of the chaplains in ordinary to Charles II.; and on the 14th of December, 1684, he was installed dean of Durham in the place of Dr. John Sudbury deceased. In the register of Eton college we find that immediately after the restoration, Dr. Greenville was recommended in very strong terms to the master and fellows for a fellowship, by three several letters from the king, but for what reason this recommendation did not take effect, does not appear; probably he might wave his interest on account of other preferment which was more acceptable to him. On the 1st of February 1690, he was deprived of all his >referments upon his refusal to comply with the new oaths >f allegiance and supremacy to the prince of Orange then in possession of the throne, a change which he utterly abhorred, always considering the revolution as a rebellion and usurpation. Soon after the prince of Orange’s landing, he left Durham in order to retire into France; and sometimes lived at Corbeil (from whence it is supposed his family originally sprung), but more frequently at Paris and St. Germain’s, where he was very civilly treated and much countenanced by the queen-mother, as we find in several of his own letters, notwithstanding what has been falsely asserted by Mackay in an account of the court of St. Germain’s. He owns he _was sometimes attacked by the priests, but with much good manners and civility. Mr* Wood says, that during his retirement, he was, on the death of Dr. Lamplugh, nominated to the see of York, by king James II. though never consecrated; but this seems rery doubtful. In April 1695 he came incognito into EngJand; but soon returned. For some time before his death he enjoyed but a very indifferent state of health, having been much troubled with a sciatica, and other infirmities. He died at Paris, after a series of many sufferings, on April 7, 1703, N. S. and was buried at the lower end of the Holy Innocents’ church in that city. Lord Lansdowne in a letter to a nephew of his, who was going to enter into holy orders, says of him, “You had an uncle whose mejnory I shall ever revere: make him your example. Sanctity sate so easy, so unaffected, and so graceful upon him, that in him we beheld the very beauty of holiness. He was as cheerful, as familiar, as condescending in his conversation, as he was strict, regular, and exemplary in his piety; as well bred and accomplished as a courtier, and as reverend and venerable as an apostle. He was indeed apostolical in every thing, for he abandoned all to follow his Lord and Master.” There seems little reason to doubt this character, as far as it respects Dr. Greenville’s private character, but in bigotry for restoration of James II. he probably excelled all his contemporaries, and from some correspondence lately published in the Life of Dr. Comber, his successor in the deanery of Durham, there is reason tp doubt whether in his latter days his mind was not unsound. He published, 1. “The Complete Conformist, or seasonable advice concerning strict conformity and frequent celebration of the Holy Communion,” preached on the 7th of January, being the first Sunday after the Epiphany, 1682, in the cathedral church of Durham, on John i. 29, Loud. 1684, 4to. To which is added “Advice or a letter written to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Durham,” to the same purpose. 2. “A Sermon preached in the cathedral church of Durham, upon the revival of the ancient and laudable practice of that and some other cathedrals, in having sermons on Wednesdays and Fridays during Advent and Lent,” on Rom. xiii. 11, Loud. 1686, 4to. 3. “Counsels and Directions divine and moral: in plain and familiar letters of advice to a young gentleman his nephew, soon after his admission into a college in Oxford,” Lond. 1685, 8vo. Besides these pieces which we have just mentioned, our author, immediately after his retiring into France, published some small tracts at Rouen, which are very scarce, and not very correctly printed; and perhaps it is remarkable that such an unusual favour should be permitted in a popish country to a dignified clergyman of the church of England. The titles of the pieces printed at Rouen are, viz. 4. “The resigned and resolved Christian and faithfull and undaunted loyalist: in two plaine farewell sermons, and a loyal farewell visitation speech. Both delivered amidst the lamentable confusions occasioned by the late foreign invasion and home-defection of his majestie’s subjects in England. By Denis Granville, D. D. deane and archdeacon of Durham, now in exile, chaplaine in ordinary to his majestic. .Whereunto are added certaine Letters to his relations and friends in England, shewing the reasons and manner of his withdrawing out of the kingdom.” “A Letter to his brother the earl of Bathe.” “A Letter to his bishop the bishop of Durham.” “A Letter to his brethren the prebendaries” “A Letter to the clergy of his archdeaconry.” “A Letter to his curates, at Easington and Sedgefield,” printed at Rouen, 1689. 5. “The chiefest matters contained in sundry Discourses made to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Durham, since his majestic‘ s coming to the crown. Summed up and seasonably brought again to their view in a loyal farewell visitation speech on the 13th of November last, 88, being ten days after the landing of the prince of Orange.*’ This is dated from his study at Rouen Nov. 15, 1689. With a preface to the reader and an advertisement. 6.” A copy of a paper penned at Durham, by the author, Aug. 27, 1688, by way of reflection on the then dismal prognostics of the time.“7.” Directions which Dr. Granville, archdeacon of Durham, rector of Sedgefield and Easington, enjoins to be observed by the curates of those his parishes, given them in charge at Easter-visitation held at Sedgefield, in the year 1669."

However that be, it is almost as certain that his reluctance was sincere, as that he at length accepted the dignity, and was enthroned pope, Sept. 3, 590. And it appeared by his conduct, that they could not have elected a person more worthy of this exalted station; for, besides his great learning, and the pains he took to instruct the church, both by preaching and writing, he had a very happy talent to win over princes, in favour of the temporal as well as spiritual interests of religion. It would be tedious to run over all the particulars of his conduct on these occasions; and his converting the English to Christianity, a remarkable fact in our history, is on that account generally known. In this attempt Gregory owed his success to the assistance of queen Ethelburga, who not only prompted the king Ethelbert her consort, to treat the pope’s missionaries kindly, but also to become himself a convert.

The same year he composed his “Dialogues,” a work filled with fabulous miracles and incredible stories; the style is also, low, and the narration coarse yet they were received with astonishing applause and Theodilinda, queen of the Lombards, having converted her husband to the catholic faith, the pope rejoiced at it, and sent his “Dialogues,” composed the following year, to that princess. She is thought to have made use of his book at this time for the conversion of that people, who were easily influenced by such compositions, for the same reason pope Zachary, about 150 years after, translated it into Greek for the use of those people, who were so delighted with it, that they gave St. Gregory the surname of Dialogist. Still these dialogues being the composition of Gregory is a point now thought very doubtful. In the year 594, he excommunicated and suspended the bishop of Salona, the metropolis of Dalmatia, who, however, paid no regard to the exercise of his power in these censures. The same year he laboured to convert the infidels in Sardinia by gentle methods/ according to his system: which was, to punish heretics, especially at their first rise, as rebels and traitors, but to compel infidels only indirectly; that is, treating the obstinate with some rigour, and persuading them as much by promises, threats, and gentle severities, as by argument and reason. This was the distinction he made in treating with the Manichees and pagans.

In the year 595, he refused to send the empress Constantia any relics of St. Paul, which she had requested, desiring to look at the body of that apostle. On this occasion he relates several miraculous punishments for such a rash attempt, all as simply devised as those in his< Dialogues." The same year he warmly opposed John patriarch of Constantinople, for assuming the title of oecumenical or universal, which he himself disclaimed, as having Do right to reduce the other bishops to be his substitutes; and afterwards forbad his nuncio there to communicate with that patriarch, till he should renounce the title. His humility, however, did not keep him from resenting an affront put upon his understanding, as he thought, by the emperor, for proposing terms of peace to the Lombards, who besieged Rome this year: the same year he executed the famous mission into England; and as Brunehaut, queen of France, had been very serviceable in it, he wrote a letter of thanks to her on the occasion. The princess is represented as a profligate woman, but very liberal to the ecclesiastics; founding churches and convents, and even sueing t9 the pope for relics. This was a kind of piety which particularly pleased Gregory; and accordingly, he wrote to the queen several letters, highly commending her conduct in that respect, and carried his complaisance so far as to declare the French happy above all other nations in having such a sovereign. In the year 598, at the request of the Christian people at Caprita, a small island at the bottom of the gulph of Venice, he ordered another bishop to be ordained for that place, in the room of the present prelate, who adhered to the Istrian schism. This was done contrary to the orders of the emperor Maurice, against taking any violent measures with schismatics.

But while he was thus intent in correcting the mischiefs of the late war, he saw it break out again in Italy, and still to the disadvantage of the empire, the affairs of which were in a critical situation, not only in the provinces of the west, but every where else. Gregory was much afflicted with the calamities of this last war, and at the same time his illness increased. The Lombards made a truce in November 603, which was to continue in -force till April 605. Some time after, the pope received letters from queen Theodilinda, with the news of the birth and baptism of her son Adoaldus. She sent him also some writings of the abbot Secundinus upon the fifth council, and desired him to answer them. Gregory “congratulates her on having caused the young prince, destined to reign over the Lombards, to be baptised in the catholic church.” And as to Secundinus, he excuses himself on account of his illness: I am afflicted with the gout,“says he,” to such a degree, that I am not able even to speak, as your envoys know; they found me ill when they arrived here, and left me in great danger when they departed. If God restores my health, I will return an exact answer to all that the abbot Secundinus has written to me. In the mean time, I send you the council held under the emperor Justinian, that by reading it he may see the falsity of all that he has heard against the holy see and the catholic church. God forbid that we should receive the opinions of any heretic, or depart in any respect from the letter of St. Leo, and the four councils:“he adds,” I send to the prince Adoaldus, your son, a cross, and a book of the gospel in a Persian box; and to your daughter three rings, desiring you to give them these things with your own hand, to enhance the value of the present. I likewise beg of you, to return my thanks to the king, your consort, for the peace he made for us, and engage him to maintain it, as you have already tlone."

In 1584 Gregory incurred the suspicion, although some think without foundation, of having encouraged the assas, smation of Elizabeth queen of England, by Parr, an Eng* lisn catholic, who was detected in a conspiracy against the queen’s life. This pope contributed greatly to correct and amend Gratian’s decretals, which he enriched with learned He died of a quinsey, in the eighty-fourth year of Jbis age, and the 14th of his pontificate, in 1586. Several of his “Letters,” “Harangues,”&c. are said to be in existence.

About the beginning of the last century, he removed with his family to Aberdeen, and in the time of queen Anne’s wars employed his thoughts upon an improvement in artillery, in order to make the shot of great guns more destructive to the enemy, and executed a model of the engine he had contrived. The late Dr. Reid, in his additions to the lives of the Gregorys, published in Hutton’s Dictionary, informs us that he conversed with a clockmaker at Aberdeen, who had been employed in making this model; but having made many different pieces by direction without knowing their intention, or how they were to be put together, he could give no account of the whole. After making some experiments with this model, which satisfied him, Mr. Gregory was so sanguine in the hope of being useful to the allies in the war against France, that he set about preparing a field equipage with a view to make a campaign in Flanders, and in the mean time sent his model to his son the Savilian professor, the subject of our next article, that he might have his, and sir Isaac Newton’s opinion of it. His son shewed it to Newton without letting him know that his own father was the inventor of it. Sir Isaac was much displeased with it, saying, that if it had tended as much to the preservation of mankind, as to their destruction, the inventor would have deserved a great reward: but, as it was contrived solely for destruction, and would soon be known by the enemy, he rather deserved to be punished, and urged the professor very strongly to destroy it, and if possible, to suppress the invention. It is probable the professor followed this advice, as he died soon after, and the model was never found. Sir Isaac’s objection, however, appears rather to be fastidious, and might apply with equal force to any improvement in muskeis, &c. or to gunpowder itself. When the rebellion broke out in 1715, Mr. Gregory went a second time to Holland, and returned when it was over to Aberdeen, where he died about 1720, aged ninety-three, leaving behind him a history of his own time and country, which was never published. One of his daughters was mother to the late celebrated Dr. Thomas Reid of Glasgow, by whom the above particulars were first communicated.

When Dr. David Gregory, the Savilian professor, quitted Edinburgh, he was succeeded in the professorship at that university by his brother James, likewise an eminent mathematician; who held that office for thirty-three years, and, retiring in 1725, was succeeded by the celebrated Maclaurin. A daughter of this professor James Gregory, a young lady of great beauty and accomplishments, was the victim of an unfortunate attachment, that furnished the subject of Mallet’s well-known ballad of “William and Margaret.” Another brother, Charles, was created professor of mathematics at St. Andrew’s by queen Anne, in 1707. This office he held with reputation and ability for thirty-two years; and, resigning in 1739, was succeeded by his son, who eminently inherited the talents of his family, and died in 1763.

In the performance of these services, Gresham often stretched his own credit, and kept up the exchange at his own risk, by which he frequently lost several hundred pounds at a time; and on one particular time he took up 50,000l. for the king’s service. In the course of these transactions, he had frequently occasion to meddle with political affairs, as well as those immediately committed to his charge, through the application of the emperor’s sister, then regent in the Netherlands, as well as that of the Icing his master; so that he made at least forty journeys from England to Antwerp during the remainder of the short reign of Edward VI. These services were so acceptable to the young monarch, that about three weeks before his death, he granted to Mr. Gresham, as a mark of his favour, Iool a year to him and his heirs for ever. Mr. Gresham also obtained, in the course of that reign grants of estates and reversions to the value of about 300l. a year. He was but a young man when first employed by king Edward; and the skill and prudence displayed in the various matters in which he was employed, discovered an uncommon knowledge of mercantile affairs. But notwithstanding his abilities, and the considerable services he had rendered to the crown, he was, upon the accession of queen Mary, removed from his agency. This induced him to draw up a memorial of his services to the late king, which he sent to a minister of state to be laid before her majesty; and the services lepresented as done, not only to the king, but to the nation in general, by the increase both of money and trade, and the advancement of the public credit, being observed to be fact, he was taken soon after into the queen’s service, and reinstated in his former employment, as appears by the commissions given him at different times during that reign. After the decease of queen Mary, in 1558, he was taken immediately into the service of queen Elizabeth, who employed him on her accession to provide and buy up arms; and in 1559 she conferred on him the honour of knighthood, and appointed him her agent in foreign parts. In this state of credit and reputation, he thought proper to provide himself with a mansion-house in the city, suitable to his station and dignity; and with this spirit built a large and sumptuous house for his own dwelling, on the west-side of Bishopsgate-street, London, afterwards called Gresham-college, where he maintained an establishment becoming his character and station. But this flow of prosperity received a heavy check by the loss of his only son, aged 16 years, who died in 1564, and was buried in St. Helen’s church, opposite to his mansion house.

At this time the merchants of London met in Lombardstreet, exposed to the open air and all the injuries of the weather. To remedy wbich inconvenience, sir Thomas’s father during his shrievalty wrote a letter to sir Thomas Audeley then lord-privy-seal, acquainting him that there were certain houses in that street belonging to sir George Monoux, which if purchased and pulled down, a handsome exchange might be built on the ground; he therefore desired his lordship to move his majesty, that a letter might be sent to sir George, requiring him to sell those houses to the mayor and commonalty of the city of London for that purpose. The building he supposes would cost upwards of 2000l., 1000l. of which he doubts not to raise before he was out of his office: but nothing effectual was done in it. Sir Thomas therefore took up his father’s design, and improving upon his spirit, proposed that if the citizens would give him a piece of ground in a proper place large enough for the purpose, he would build ari exchange at his own expence with large and covered walks, where the merchants and traders of all sorts might daily assemble and transact business at all seasons, without interruption from the weather or impediments of any kind. This generous offer was gratefully accepted, and in 1566 several houses upon Cornhill and the back of it, with three alleys, called Swan-alley, New-alley, and St. Christopher’s alley, containing in all eighty houses, were purchased by the citizens for more than 3532l. and sold for 478l. on condition of pulling them down, and carrying off the stuff. This done, the ground-plot was made plain at the charges of the city, and possession given to sir Thomas, who was styled “Agent to the queen’s highness” and who, on the 7th of June, laid the first stone of the foundation and the work was forthwith followed with such diligence, that by Nov. 1567, the same was covered with slate, and the shell shortly after fully finished. It is said that the timber of which this fabric was built, was first framed and put together at Battisford, near Ipswich, in Suffolk, and thence brought to London.

The plan of this edifice, was formed from the exchange at Antwerp, being an oblong square, with a portico supported with pillars of marble, ten on the north and south sides, and seven on the east and west; under which stood the shops each seven feet and a hall' long, and five feet broad, in all 120, twenty-five on each side east and west, and thirty-four and an half north, and thirty-five and an half south, each of which paid sir Thomas 47. 105. a year upon an average. There were likewise other shops fitted up at first in the vaults below, but the dampness and darkness rendered these so inconvenient, that the vaults were soon let out to other uses; upon the roof stood at each earner, upon a pedestal, a grasshopper, which was the crest of sir Thomas’s arms. This edifice was fully completed, and the shops opened in 1569; and Jan. 29, 1570, queen Elizabeth attended by her nobility, came from Somerset-house thither, and caused it by a trumpet and a herald to be proclaimed “The Royal Exchange.” The story, however, of sir Thomas’s having on this day reduced a costly pearl to powder, and drank it up in a glass of wine, seems to rest on very slender foundation, and is very inconsistent with his character, who knew how to unite the magnificence of the nobleman with the prudence of the merchant.

In the mean time he had scarcely entered upon the execution of this noble design, when in 1566, he was sent over to Antwerp to take up the sum of 14,667l. Flemish money, for her majesty, and prolong the time of payment for 34,3S5l. more; and in December of the same year, there was another debt of the queen’s prolonged of S532l. Flemish. Sir Thomas, however, perceiving the disadvantage of borrowing money from foreigners, at an exorbitant interest, advised her majesty to take up what money she wanted of her own merchants; which advice, however, was not immediately adopted, but in 1569 an opportunity occurred which rendered his advice necessary. The quarrel which at this time took place between queen Elizabeth and the king of Spain, obliged the English merchants to send their effects to Hamburgh, on which the duke of Alva, governor of the Netherlands, prohibited all commerce with England. Upon this, secretary Cecil, who was then at the head of the exchequer, had nis tears lot the merchants would not have money enough to carry on their trade, and the queen lest the falling off in the duties on cloth might prevent her paying her debts abroad. Sir Thomas, however, when consulted, told the secretary that in his opinion the queen needed be at no difficulty to pay her creditors, if she saw her merchants well paid in London their first payment, which was half of her debt to them; for by the time the other half should be payable, the merchants would have plenty of money both here and at Hamburgh. He assured him, that the commodities shipped by our merchants from Hamburgh were well worth 100,000l.; and those shipped hence with our goods thither, were worth upwards of 200,000l. so that the duty upon cloths (10,000l. at least) would enable the queen to discharge her debt. As to the secretary’s fears respecting the merchants, sir Thomas observed that there was no foundation for them, considering the great vent our commodities had at Hamburgh already, and were likely to have, and therefore he advised that the first payment agreed on at Hamburgh should above all things be provided for; assuring the secretary, that he knew certainly that the duke of Alva was more troubled with the queen’s great credit, and with the vent of her commodities at Hamburgh, than he was with any thing else, and “quaked for fear;” that this xvas one of the principal hindrances to the payment of the tenth, penny, then demanded by the duke for the sale of any kind of goods in the Netherlands; which he believed would be his undoing. He then renewed his advice respecting borrowing of her own subjects in preference to foreigners, urging many reasons grounded on facts. When, however, the motion of lending money to the queen was first proposed among the merchants by sir Thomas, it met with great opposition, and was negatived in the common-hall; but upon more mature consideration afterwards several of the merchants and aldermen lent her majesty various sumg of money, to the value of 16,000l. for six months, at 6 per cent, interest for that time. She gave bonds to each of them separately for re-payment, and likewise -other accustomed bonds to discharge them of the statute of usury; and when the six months were expired, she prolonged the payment for six month? more, paying the same interest, with brokage. As her majesty was thus enabled to borrow money of her own subjects, instead of foreigners, and the commerce with Flanders, particularly Antwerp, was now prohibited, sir Thomas’s office as agent for her majesty in those parts, ceased of course. But in 1572, to shew her regard for him, she was pleased to appoint him, together with the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, and other persons of eminence, assistants to the lord mayor for the government of the city of London during her intended progress that summer. This method was afterwards continued on similar occasions, and sir Thomas Gresham was joined in the commission till 1578.

Though sir Thomas had purchased very large estates in several counties of England, yet he thought a country seat near London, to which he might retire from business and the hurry of the city as often as he pleased, would be very convenient. With this view he bought Osterley-park, near Brentford, in Middlesex, where he built a large magnificent seat within the park, which he impaled, being well wooded, and furnished with many ponds stocked with fish and fowl, and of great use for mills, as paper-mills, oilmills, and corn-mills. In 1578, queen Elizabeth visited Osterley, where sir Thomas entertained her magnificently. On this occasion, having given it as her opinion that the court before the house would look better divided with a wajl, sir Thomas in the night sent for workmen from London, who so speedily and so silently performed their task, that before morning the wall was finished, to the great surprize of the queen and her courtiers, one of whom, however, observed, that it was no wonder that he who could build a change should so soon change a building. This became afterwards the property of the family of Child, and is now that of the right hon. the earl of Jersey, by marriage into that family.

Mr. Ward has drawn sir Thomas’s character at large, and observes, that he had the happiness of a mind every way suited to his fortune, generous and benign; ready to perform any good actions and encourage them in others. He was a great friend and patron of our celebrated rnartyrologist John Fox. He was well acquainted with the ancient and several modern languages; he had a very comprehensive knowledge of all affairs relating to commerce, whether foreign or domestic; and his success was not less, being in his time esteemed trie richest commoner in England. He transacted queen Elizabeth’s mercantile affairs so constantly, that he was called “The Royal Merchant,” and his house was sometimes appointed for the reception of foreign princes upon their first arrival at London. As no one could be more ready to perform any generous actions which might contribute to the honour of this country, so he very well knew how to make the best use of them for the most laudable purposes. Nor was he less serviceable both to the queen and her ministry on other occasions, who often consulted him, and sought his advice in matters of the greatest importance relating to the welfare of the government. But the most shining part of his character appears in his public benefactions. The royal exchange was not pnly a singular ornament to the city of London, and a great convenience to the merchants, who wanted such a place to meet and transact their affairs in, but likewise contributed very much to the promotion of trade, both by the number of shops erected there, and the much greater number of the poor; who were employed in working for them. And the donation of his own mansionhouse for a seat of learning and the liberal arts, with the handsome provision made for the endowment and support of.it, was such an instance of a generous and public spirit as has been equalled by few, and must perpetuate his memory with the highest esteem and gratitude so long as any regard to learning and virtue is preserved among us. Nor ought his charities to the poor, his alms-houses, and the liberal contributions to the ten prisons and hospitals in London and Southwark, to be omitted.

, lord Brooke, an ingenious writer, was the eldest son of sir Fulk Greville, of Beauchamp-court (at Alcaster) in Warwickshire, and born there in 1554. It is conjectured, that he was educated at the school in Shrewsbury; whence he was removed to Cambridge, and admitted a fellow-commoner at Trinitycollege; and some time after, making a visit to Oxford, he became a member of that university, but of what college is not certain. Having completed his academical studies, he travelled abroad to finish his education and Upon his return, being well accomplished, was introduced to the court of queen Elizabeth by his uncle Robert Greville, where he was esteemed a most ingenious person, and particularly favoured by the lovers of arts and sciences. He was soon nominated to some beneficial employment in the court of marches of Wales by his kinsman, sir Henry Sidney, then lord-president of that court and principality.

Our author was not then above twenty-two years of age, so that this post may be esteemed an honourable attestation of his merit. But the nature of it did not please him; his ambition prompted him to another course of life. He had already made some advances in the queen’s favour, had attained a competent familiarity with the modern languages, and some expertness in the martial exercises of those times; these were qualifications for a foreign employment, which was more agreeable to the activity of his temper, and promised a quicker access to some of the first posts in the state. In reality he was so eager to advance his fortune in this line, that to gratify his desire, he ventured to incur his royal mistress’s displeasure, and made several attempts in it, not only with, but even without her majesty’s consent. Out of many of these we have an account of the few following from his own pen. First, when the two mighty armies of Don John and the duke Casimire were to meet in the Low-countries, he applied and obtained her majesty’s leave under her own hand, to go thither; but after his horses with all other preparations were shipped at Dover, the queen (who always discouraged these excursions) sent her messenger, sir Edward Dyer, with her mandate to stop him. He was so much vexed at this disappointment, that afterwards, when secretary Walsingham was sent ambassador in 1578, to treat with those two princes, an opportunity of seeing an affair in which so much Christian blood and so many Christian empires were concerned, was so tempting, that he resolved not to risque a denial, and therefore stole away without leave, and went over with the secretary incog. The consequence was, that at his return the queen forbade him her presence for many months. To the same ambition may also be referred his engagement with sir Philip Sidney to accompany sir Francis Drake in his last expedition but one to the WestIndies in 1515, in which they were both frustrated by the same authority. Again, when the earl of Leicester was sent general of her majesty’s forces the same year, and had given Mr. Greville the command of one hundred horse, “Then I,” to use his own words, “giving my humour over to good order, yet found that neither the intercession of this grandee, seconded with my own humble suit, and many other honourable friends of mine, could prevail against the constant course of this excellent lady (the queen) with her servants, so as I was forced to tarry behind, and for this importunity of mine to change my course, and seem to press nothing before my service about her; this princess of government as well as kingdoms made me live in her court a spectacle of disfavour too long as I conceived.”

During his excursions abroad, his royal mistress granted him the reversion of two of the best offices in the court of the marches of Wales, one of which falling to him in 1580, he met with some difficulties about the profits. In this contest he experienced the friendship of sir Philip Sidney, who by a letter written to his father’s secretary, Mr. Molyneux, April 10, 1581, prevailed on him not to oppose his cousin Greville' s title in any part or construction of his patents; and a letter of sir Francis Walsingham to the president, the next day, April 11, put an end to the opposition that had been made from another quarter. This office appears to be clerk of the signet to the council of Wales, which is said to have brought him in yearly above 2000l. arising chiefly from the processes which went out of that court, all of which are made out by that officer. He was also constituted secretary for South and North Wales by the queen’s letters patent, bearing date April 25, 1583. In the midst of these civil employments he made a conspicuous figure when the French ambassadors, accompanied by great numbers of their nobility, were in England a second time to treat of the queen’s marriage with the duke of Anjou, in 1581. Tilts and tournaments were the courtly entertainments in those days; and they were performed in the most magnificent manner on this occasion by two noblemen, beside sir Philip Sidney and Fulk Greville, who with the rest behaved so bravely as to win the reputation of a most gallant knight. In 1586 these two friends were separated by the unfortunate death of the former, who be* queathed to his dear friend one moiety of his books.

During this glorious reign he frequently represented his county in the house of commons, together with sir Thomas Lacy; and it has been observed that a better choice could not have been made, as both of them were learned, wise, and honest. He continued a favourite of queen Elizabeth to the end of her reign. The beginning of the next opened no less in his favour. At the coronation of James I. July 15, 1603, he was made K. B. and his office of secretary to the council of the court of marches of Wales was confirmed to him for life, by a patent bearing date July 24. In the second year of this king he obtained a grant of Warwick castle. He was greatly pleased with this favour; and, the castle being in a ruinous condition, he laid out at least 20,000l. in repairing it.

He was afterwards possessed of several very beneficial places in the marches court of Wales, and at this time he seems to have confined his views within the limits of these offices. He perceived the measures of government quite altered, and the state waning from the lustre in which he had seen it shine; besides, he had little hopes of being preferred to any thing considerable in the ministry, as he met with some discouragements from sir Robert Cecil, the secretary, and the persons in power. In this position of affairs he seems to have formed some schemes of retirement, in order to write the history of queen Elizabeth’s life. With this view he drew up a plan, commencing with the union of the two roses in the marriage of Henry VII. and had made some progress in the execution of it; but the perusal of the records in the council chest being denied him by the secretary, as he could not complete his work in that authentic and substantial manner which would do him credit, he broke off the design, and disposed himself to revise the product of his juvenile studies and his poetical recreations with sir Philip Sidney.

During the life of the treasurer Cecil, he obtained no advancement in the court or state; but, in 1615, some time after his death, was made under-treasurer and chancellor of the exchequer; in consequence of which he was called to the board of privy-council. In 1617 he obtained from the king a special charter, confirming all such liberties as had been granted to any of his ancestors in behalf of the town of Alcester, upon a new reserved rent of ten shillings a year; and, in 1620, was created lord Brooke of Beau* champ-court. He obtained this dignity as well by his merit and fidelity in the discharge of his offices as by his noble descent from theNevils, Willoughbys de Brook, and Beauchamps. In September 1621, he was made one of the lords of the king’s bed-chamber; and on this, resigning his post in the exchequer, he was succeeded therein by Richard Weston, afterwards earl of Portland. After the demise of king James, he continued in the privy-council of Charles I. in the beginning of whose reign he founded a historylecture in the university of Cambridge, and endowed it with a salary of lOOl. per annum. He did not long survive this last act of generosity; for, though he was a munificent patron of learning and learned men, he at last fell a sacrifice to the extraordinary outrage of a discontented domestic. The account we have of this fatal event is, that his lordship, neglecting to reward one Ralph Heywood, who had spent the greatest part of his life in his service, this attendant expostulated thereupon with his lordship in his bed-chamber, at Brook-house in Holborn; and, being severely reproved for it, presently gave his lordship a mortal stab in the back with a knife or sword; after which he withdrew into another room, and, locking the door, murdered himself with the same weapon. He died September 30, 1628, and his corpse being wrapt in lead, was conveyed from Brook-house, Holborn, to Warwick; where it was interred on the north side of the choir of St. Mary’s church, there, in his own vault, which had formerly been a chapter-house of the church; and where, upon his monument, there is this inscription: “Fulke Greville, servant to queen Elizabeth, counsellor to king James, and friend to sir Philip Sidney. Tropheum peccati.” He made that dear friend the great exemplar of his life in every thing; and Sidney being often celebrated as the patron of the muses in general, and of Spenser in particular, so we are told, lord Brooke desired to be known to posterity under no other character than that of Shakspeare’s and Ben Jonson’s master, lord-chancellor Egerton and bishop Overal’s patron. His lordship also obtained the office of clarencieux at arms for Mr. Camden, who very gratefulty acknowledged it in his life-time, and at his death left him a piece of plate in his will. He also raised John Speed from a mechanic to be an historiographer.

, was an illustrious personage of the blood royal of England by both parents: her grandmother on her father’s side, Henry Grey marquis of Dorset, being queen-consort to Edward IV.; and her grandmother on her mother’s side, lady Frances Brandon, being daughter to Henry VII. queen-dowager of France, and mother of Mary queen of Scots. Lady Jane was born, 1537, at Bradgate, her father’s seat in Leicestershire, and very early gave astonishing proofs of the pregnancy of her parts; insomuch that, upon a comparison with Edward VI. who was partly of the same age, and thought a kind of miracle, the superiority has been given to her in every respect. Her genius appeared in the works of her needle, in the beautiful character in which she wrote; besides which, she played admirably on various instruments of music, and accompanied them with a voice exquisitely sweet in itself, and assisted by all the graces that art could bestow. These, however, were only inferior ornaments in her character; and, as she was far from priding herself upon them, so, through the rigour of her parents in exacting them, they became her grief more than her pleasure.

If lady Jane received this letter in the country, it is probable she did not stay there long after, since some changes happened in the family which must have brought her to town; for, her maternal uncles, Henry and Charles Brandon, both dying at Buckden, the bishop of Lincoln’s palace, of the sweating sickness, her father was created duke of Suffolk, October 1551. Dudley earl of Warwick was also created duke of Northumberland the same day, and in November the duke of Somerset was imprisoned for a conspiracy against him as privy-counsellor. During this interval came the queen-dowager of Scotland from France, who, being magnificently entertained by king Edward, was also, among other ladies of the blood royal, complimented as her grandmother, by lady Jane, who was now at court, and much in the king’s favour. In the summer of 1552 the king made a great progress through some parts of England, during which, lady Jane went to pay her duty to his majesty’s sister, the lady Mary, at Newhall, in Essex; and in this visit her piety and zeal against popery prompted her to reprove the lady Anne Wharton for making a curtesy to the host, which, being carried by some officious person to the ear of the princess, was retained in her heart, so that she never loved lady Jane afterwards; and, indeed, the events of the following year were not likely to work a reconciliation.

But the pomp and splendor attending their nuptials was the last gleam of joy that shone in the palace of Edward, who grew so weak in a few days after, that Northumberland thought it high time to carry his project into execution. Accordingly, in the beginning of June, he broke the matter to the young monarch; and, having first made all such colourable objections as the affair would admit against his majesty’s two sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, as well as Mary queen of Scots, he observed, that, “the lady Jane, who stood next upon the royal line, was a person of extraordinary qualities that her zeal for the reformation was unquestioned that nothing could be more acceptable to the nation than the prospect of such a princess that in. this case he was bound to set aside all partialities of blood and nearness of relation, which were inferior considerations, and ought to be over-ruled by the public good.” To corroborate this discourse, care was taken to place about the king those who should make it their business to touch frequently upon this subject, enlarge upon the accomplishments of lady Jane, and describe her with all imaginable advantages: so that at last, the king’s affections inclining to this disposition of the crown, he consented to overlook his sisters, and set aside his father’s will. Agreeably to which, a deed of settlement being drawn up In form of law' by the judges, was signed by his majesty^ and all the lords of the council.

This difficult affair once accomplished, and the letters patent having passed the seals before the close of the month, the next step was to concert the properest method for carrying this settlement into execution, and till that was done to keep it as secret as possible. To this end Northumberland formed a project, which, if it had succeeded, would have made all things easy and secure. He directed letters to the lady Mary in her brother’s name, requiring her attendance at Greenwich, where the court then was; and she had got within half a day’s journey of that place when the king expired, July 6, 1553; but, having timely notice of it, she thereby avoided the snare which had been so artfully laid to entrap her. The two dukes, Suffolk and ^Northumberland, found it necessary to conceal the king’s decease, that they might have time to gain the city of London, and to procure the consent of lady Jane, who was so far from having any hand in this business, that as yet she was unacquainted with the pains that had been taken to procure her the title of queen. At this juncture, Mary sent a letter to the privy council, in which, though she did not take the title of queen, yet she clearly asserted her right to the crown; took notice of their concealing her brother’s death, and of the practice into which they had since entered; intimating, that there was still room for reconciliation, and that, if they complied with their duty in proclaiming her queen, she could forgive and even forget what was past: but in answer to this they insisted upon the indubitable right, and their own unalterable fidelity to queen Jane, to whom they persuaded the lady Mary to submit.

These previous steps being taken, and the tower and city of London secured, the council quitted Greenwich and came to London; and July 10, in the forenoon, the two last mentioned dukes repaired to Durham-house, where the lady Jane resided with her husband, as part of Northumberland’s family. There the duke of Suffolk with much solemnity explained to his daughter the disposition the late king had made of his crown by letters patent; the clear sense the privy-council had of her right; the consent of the magistrates and citizens of London; and, in conclusion, himself and Northumberland fell on their knees, and paid their homage to her as queen of England, The poor lady, somewhat astonished at their discourse, but not at all moved by their reasons, or in the least elevated by such unexpected honours, returned them an answer to this effect: “That the laws of the kingdom and natural right standing for the king’s sisters, she would beware of burdening her weak conscience with a yoke which did belong to them that she understood the infamy of those who had permitted the violation of right to gain a sceptre that it were to mock God and deride justice, to scruple at the stealing of a shilling, and not at the usurpation of a crown. Besides,” said she, “I am not so young, nor so little read in the guiles of fortune, to suffer myself to be taken bjr them. If she enrich any, it is but to make them the subject of her spoil; if she raise others, it is but to pleasure herself with their ruins what she adored but yesterday is to-day her pastime and, if I now permit her to adorn and crown me, 1 must to-morrow suffer her to crush and tear me to pieces. Nay, with what crown does she present me! a crown which hath been violently and shamefully wrested from Catharine of Arragon, made more unfortunate by the punishment of Anne Boleyn, and others that wore it after her: and why then would you have me add my blood to theirs, and be the third victim, from whom this fatal crown may be ravished with the head that wears it But in case it should not prove fatal unto me, and that all its venom were consumed, if fortune should give me warranties of her constancy, should I be well advised to take upon me these thorns, which would dilacerate, though not kill me outright; to burden myself with a yoke, which would not fail to torment me, though I were assured not to be strangled with it My liberty is better than the chain you proffer me, with what precious stones soever it be adorned, or of what gold soever framed. I will not exchange my peace for honourable and precious jealousies, for magnificent and glorious fetters. And, if you love me sincerely and in good earnest, you will rather wish me a secure and quiet fortune, though mean, than an exalted condition, exposed to the wind, and followed by some dismal fall.”

However, she was at length prevailed upon, by the exhortations ofher father, the intercession of her mother, the artful persuasions of Northumberland, and above all, the earnest desires of her husband, whom she tenderly loved, to yield her assent to what had been and was to be done. And thus, with a heavy heart, she suffered herself to be conveyed by water to the Tower, where she entered with all the state of a queen, attended by the principal nobility, and, which is very extraordinary, her train supported by the duchess of Suffolk, her mother, in whom, if in any of this line, the right of succession remained. About six in the afternoon she was proclaimed with all due solemnities in the city; the same day she also assumed the regal, and proceeded afterwards to exercise many acts of sovereignty; but, passing over the transactions of her short reign, which are the subject of general history, it is more immediately our business to conclude this article with her behaviour on her fall. Queen Mary was no sooner proclaimed, than the duke of Suffolk, who then resided with his daughter in the Tower, went to her apartment, and, in the softest terms he could, acquainted her with the situation of their affairs, and that, laying aside the state and dignity of a queen, she must again return to that of a private person to which, with a settled and serene countenance, she made this answer “I better brook this message than my former advancement to royalty out of obedience to you and my mother, I have grievously sinned, and offered violence to myself. Now I do willingly, and as obeying the motions of my soul, relinquish the crown, and endeavour to salve those faults committed by others (if at least so great a fault can be salved) by a willing relinquishment and ingenuous acknowledgement of them.”

Thus ended her reign, but not her misfortunes. She "saw the father of her husband, with all his family, and many of the nobility and gentry, brought prisoners to the tower for supporting her claim to the crown; and this grief must have met with some accession from his being soon after brought to the block. Before the end of the month, she had the mortification of seeing her own father, the duke of Suffolk, in the same circumstances with herself; but her mother, the duchess, not only remained exempt from all punishment, but had such an interest with the queen as 10 procure the duke his liberty on the last day of the month. Lady Jane and her husband, being stiil in confinement, were Nove'mber 3, 1553, carried from the Tower to Guildhall with Cranmer and others, arraigned and convicted of high treason before judge Morgan, who pronounced on them sentence of death, die remembrance of which afterwards affected him so far, that he died ravingHowever, the strictness of their confinement was mitigated in December, by a permission to take the air in the queen’s garden, and other little indulgences. This might give some gleams of hope; and there are reasons to believe the queen would have spared her life, if Wyat’s rebellion had not happened; but her father’s being engaged in that rebellion gave the ministers an opportunity of persuading the queen, that she could not be safe herself, while lady Jane and her husband were alive: yet Mary was not brought without much difficulty to take them off. The news made no great impression upon lady Jane the bitterness of death was passed she bad expected it long, and was so well prepared to meet her fate, that she was very little discomposed.

But the queen’s charity hurt her more than her justice. The day first fixed for her death was Friday February the 9th; and she had, in some measure, taken leave of the world by writing a letter to her unhappy father, who she heard was more disturbed with the thoughts of being the author of her death than with the apprehension of his own*. In this serene frame of mind, Dr. Feckenham, abbot of Westminster, came to her from the queen, who was very desirous she should die professing herself a papist, as her father-in-law had done. The abbot was indeed a very fit instrument, if any had been fit for the purpose, having, with an acute wit and a plausible tongue, a great tenderiless in his nature. Lady Jane received him with much civility, and behaved towards him with so much calmness and sweetness of temper, that he could not help bein overcome with her distress: so that, either mistaking or pretending to mistake her meaning, he procured a respite of her execution till the 12th. When he acquainted her with it, she told him, “that he had entirely misunderstood her sense of her situation; that, far from desiring her death might be delayed, she expected and wished for it as the period of her miseries, and her entrance into eternal happiness.” Neither did he gain any thing upon her in regard to popery; she heard him indeed patiently, but answered all his arguments with such strength, clearness, and steadiness of mind, as shewed plainly that religion had been her principal care . On Sunday evening, which was the last she was to spend in this world, she wrote a letter in the Greek tongue, as some say, on the blank leaves at the end of a testament in the same language, which she bequeathed as a legacy to her sister the lady Catharine Grey; a piece which, if we had no other left, it is said, were sufficient to render her name immortal. In the morning, the lord Guilford earnestly desired the officers, that he might take his last fare well of her; which though they willingly permitted, yet upon notice she advised the contrary, “assuring him that such a meeting would rather add to his afflictions then increase his quiet, wherewith they had prepared their souls for the stroke of death; that he demanded a lenitive which would put fire into the wound, and that it was to be feared her presence would rather weaken than strengthen him that he ought to take courage from his reason, and derive constancy from his own heart that if his soul were not firm and settled, she could not settle it by her eyes, nor conform it by her words that he should do well to remit this interview to the other world that there, indeed, friendships were happy, and unions indissoluble, and that theirs would be eternal, if their souls carried nothing with them of terrestrial, which might hinder them from rejoicing.” All she could do was, to give him a farewell out of a window, as he passed to the place of his dissolution, which he suffered on the scaffold on Tower-hill with much Christian meekness. She likewise beheld his dead body wrapped in a linen cloth, as it passed under her window to the chapel within the Tower.

Her fate was universally deplored even by the persons best-affected to queen Mary; and, to a woman of any feeling, it must certainly have given much disquiet to begin her reign with such an unusual effusion of blood; especially in the present case of a near relation, one formerly honoured with her friendship and favour, who had indeed usurped, but without desiring or enjoying, the royal diaclem which she assumed, by the constraint of an ambitious father and an imperious mother, and which at the first motion she chearfully and willingly resigned. This made her exceedingly lamented at home and abroad; the fame of her learning and virtue having reached over Europe, excited many commendations, and some express panegyrics in different nations and different languages. Immediately after her death, there came out a piece, entitled, “The precious Remains of Lady Jane Grey,” in 4to.

In 1553, he fled from the persecution under queen Mary into Germany; and, residing at Strasbourg, made himself master of the German tongue, in order to preach in the churches there; in the disputes at Francfort about a new model of government and form of worship, which was to be different from the last liturgy of king Edward, he sided with Cox and others against Knox and his followers. Returning to England on the accession of Elizabeth, in 1558, he was employed among others, in drawing up the new liturgy to be presented to the queen’s first parliament; and was also one of the eight protestant divines, chosen to hold a public dispute with the popish prelates about that time. His talent for preaching was likewise very serviceable, and he was generally appointed to that duty on all public occasions. On May 15, 1559, he preached at St. Paul’s at the first reading of the common-prayer before the privy-council, nobility, lord mayor, and aldermen. About the same time he was appointed one of the commissioners in the north, o the royal visitation for restoring the supremacy of the crown, and the protestant faith and worship. This visitation extended also to Cambridge, xvhere Dr. John Young being removed for refusing the oath of supremacy, from the mastership of Pembroke-hall, Grindal was chosen by the fellows to succeed him in 1559. This office, however, he accepted with reluctance, and finding that he could not reside, he resigned it in May 1562, if not before; yet so highly was he beloved by the society, that the three succeeding masters were chosen by his recommendation.

In July the same year, he was nominated to the bishopric of London, vacant by the deposition of Bonner. The juncture was very critical, and the fate of the church revenues depended upon the event. An act of parliament had lately passed, whereby her majesty was empowered to exchange the ancient episcopal manors and lordships for tithes and impropriations; a measure extremely regretted by these first bishops, who scrupled whether they should comply in a point so injurious to the revenue of their respective sees, which must suffer considerably by these exchanges; and which too would cut off all hope of restoring the tithes, so long unjustly detained from the respective churches, for the maintenance of the incumbents. In this important point our new-nominated bishop consulted Peter Martyr in a letter dated August of this year; nor did he accept of the bishopric till he had re* ceived an opinion in favour of it from that divine, who said that the queen might provide for her bishops and clergy in such manner as she thought proper, that being none of GrindaPs concern. He also communicated to that divine his scruples concerning the habits and some customs then used in the church, on both which Martyr gave him the advice of a sensible and moderate man who regarded more weighty matters. Before this answer could be received, Grindal was consecrated Dec. 1, but the exchange of lands with the queen not being fully settled, he could not compound for his first fruits, and consequently he was hindered from exercising his episcopal function, and was obliged to have the queen’s express authority for that purpose. We may here remark that Cox bishop of Ely, Barlow of Chichester, and Scory of Hereford, were consecrated at the same time by archbishop Parker, with whom they all joined in a petition to her majesty to stop these exchanges, and they offered her as an equivalent, 1000 marks a year during their lives. In 1560, he was made one of the ecclesiastical commissioners, in pursuance of an act of parliament to inspect into the manners of the clergy, and regulate all matters of the church; and the same year he joined with Cox and Parker, in a private letter to the queen, persuading her to marry. In 1561, he held his primary visitation. In 1563 he assisted the archbishop of Canterbury, together with some civilians, in preparing a book of statutes for Christ church, Oxford, which as yet had none fixed. This year he was also very serviceable, in procuring the^ English merchants, who were ill used at Antwerp and ether parts of the Spanish Netherlands, and who had been very kind to the English exiles in the late reign, a new settiemeut Embden, in East-Frieslaml; and the same year, at the request of sir William Cecil, secretary of state, he wrote animadversions upjn a treatise entitled “Christiani Hominis Norma,” &c. “The Rule of a Christian Man,” the author of which, one Justus Velsius, a Dutch enthusiast, had impudently, in some letters to the queen, used menaces to her majesty; hut being at last cited before the ecclesiastical commission, was charged to depart the kingdom.

On April 15, 1564, he took the degree of D. D. at Cambridge, and the same year executed the queen’s express command, for exacting uniformity in the clergy; but proceeded so tenderly and slowly, that the archbishop thought fit to excite and quicken him; whence the puritans supposed him inclined to their party. However, he brought several nonconformists to comply; to which end he pub* Jished a letter of Henry Bullinger, minister of Zurich, in Switzerland, to prove the lawfulness of compliance, which had a very good effect. The same year, October 3, on the celebration of the emperor Ferdinand’s funeral, he preached a sermon at St. Paul’s, afterwards printed, from which Strype has given extracts. In 1567 he executed the queen’s orders in proceeding against the prohibited and unlicensed preachers; but was so treated by some with reproaches and rude language, that it abated much of his favourable inclinations towards them, which was felt and resented on their part. Even although some years afterwards he both procured the liberty of some separatists who had been imprisoned according to law, and indulged their ministers with a licence to preach on their promising not to act against the laws, yet they immediately abused that liberty, and when he proceeded against them for it, they had the boldness to lodge a complaint in the privy council representing his dealings with them. The archbishop, touched with their ingratitude, joined with the council in opinion that such men ought to be severely punished as a warning to others. Grimial was also threatened with a premunire by some of his clergy for raising a contribution upon them the preceding year for the persecuted Protestants abroad, without the queen’s licence. But this did not discourage him, and having procured a commission from her majesty to visit the Savoy, the hospital appointed for the relief and entertainment of poor travellers, he deprived the master, who had almost ruined the charity by his abuses and mismanagement. This was the last piece of service he performed for his diocese, being on May I, 1570, translated to the see of York. He owed this promotion to secretary Cecil and archbishop Parker, who liked his removal from London, as not being resolute enough for the government there. The same year he wrote a letter to his patron Cecil, that Cartwright the famous nonconformist might be silenced; and in 1571, at his metropolitical visitation, he shewed a hearty zeal, by his injunctions, for the^discipline and good government of the church. In 1572 he petitioned the queen to renew the ecclesiastical commission. In 157* he held one for the purpose of proceeding against papists, whose number daily diminished in his diocese, which he was particularly careful to provide with learned preachers, as being in his opinion the best method of attaining that end. He rejected therefore such as came for institution to livings if they were found deficient in learning, and in this policy he was encouraged by the queen, to whom it was highly agreeable. In other respects he had frequently to contend with the avarice of the courtiers, some of whom, would have greatly impoverished the church, if he and Other prelates had not opposed them.

Grindal laboured to redress these irregularities by setting down rules and orclers for the management of these exercises; however, the queen still disapproved of them, as seeing probably how very apt they were to be abused. She did not like that the laity should neglect their secular affairs by repairing to those meetings, which she thought might fill their heads with notions, and so occasion dissentions and disputes, and perhaps seditions in the state. And the archbishop being at court, she particularly declared herself offended at the number of preachers as well as the exercises, and ordered him to redress both; urging, that it was good for the church to have few preachers, that three or four might suffice for a county, and that the reading of the Homilies to the people was sufficient. She therefore required him to abridge the number of preachers, and put down the religious exercises. This did not a little afflict him. He thought^ and very properly, the queen infringed upon his office, to whom, next to herself, the highest trust of the church of England was committed; especially as this command was peremptory, and made without at alladvising with him, and that in a matter so directly concerning religion: he wrote a letter to her majesty, declaring, that his conscience would not suffer him to comply with her commands.

This refusal was dated December 20, 1576. The queen therefore having given him sufficient time to consider well his resolution, and he continuing inflexible, she sent letters next year to the bishops, to forbid all exercises and prophesyings, and to silence all preachers and teachers not lawfully called, of which there were no small number; and in June the archbishop was sequestered from his office, and confined to his house by an order of the court of starchamber. In November the lord-treasurer wrote to him about making his submission, with which he not thinking fit to comply, his sequestration was continued; and iri January there were thoughts of depriving him, which* how-­ever, were laid aside. June 1579, his confinement was either taken off, or else he had leave to retire to his house at Croydon; for we find him there consecrating the bishop of Exeter in that year, and the bishops of Winchester, and Lichfield and Coventry, the year following. This part of his function was exercised by a particular commission from the queen, who in council appointed two civilians to manage the other affairs of his see, the two of his nomination being set aside. Yet sometimes he had special commands from the queen and council to act in person, and issued out orders in his own name; and in general was as active as he could be, and vigilant in the care of his diocese as occasion offered. In 1580, for instance, when there happened a violent earthquake, our archbishop having issued an order for prayer and humiliation, composed a prayer for families throughout his diocese, which was allowed by the council, who in a letter to him commended his great zeal, and required him to enjoin the observation of his new order of prayer in all other dioceses. The council also referred to him the decision of a dispute that happened the same year at Merton college, Oxford, of which he was visitor, as archbishop; and soon after he was employed by the lord treasurer in a controversy between the university and town of Cambridge.

The precise time of his restitution does not clearly appear, yet several of his proceedings shew, that he was m. the full possession of the metropoiitical power in 1582, in which yet it is also certain hfc lost his eye-sight. Sir John Harrington imagines that his being blind was only a report circulate^ by his friends, in order to conceal his being in confinement by the queen’s order in his own house, but Strype has amply refuted this supposition. He was also much broken down by hard study and infirmities, especially the strangury and colic, with which he had long been afflicted; and losing all hopes of recovering his sight, he resigned his see towards the latter end of 1582, and although by no means a favourite with his royal mistress at this time, she thought proper to grant him a pension for his life. With this provision he retired to Croydon, where be died July 6, 1583, and was interred in that church, where a stone monument was erected to his memory.

Collier, whose authority is of some consequence in this case, clears Grindal from all imputations of puritanism, and speaking of the articles at one of his metropolitical visitations, observes, that he was no negligent governor, nor a person of latitude or indifference for the ceremonies of the church; but, on the other hand, he was more deeply concerned for her doctrines, and a strenuous assertor of them. He was celebrated as a preacher in king Edward VI.'s time, both at court and in the university; and in the beginning of queen Elizabeth’s reign, when the protestant religion was to be declared and inculcated to the people, he was one of the chief persons employed in the pulpit at St. Paul’s, and before the queen and nobility.

In 1755, came out his “Flora Orientalis,” 8vo, the materials of which were afforded by the collection made by llau wolf, in his travels in the East during 1573, 1574, and 1575, and which, by favour of queen Christina of Sweden, came afterwards into the hands of the learned Vossius, who allowed the chief British botanists of his day to study and quote it. Gronovius determined by it above 330 species of oriental plants, which was a valuable addition to the knowledge of that day. The work is arranged after the Linnaean method, but trivial names, though invented and published in the first edition of the “Species Plantaruin,” two y?ars before, are not adopted, nor does the author appear to have used this publication. He was, however, in frequent correspondence with Linnæus, whom he furnished with numerous specimens of American plants sent by Clayton, and with whom he conferred on the subject of fishes amongst others, Haller mentions him as having written learned notes to the 20th and following books of Pliny. He continued to enrich his museum, and to devote it to the use of all who were desirous of consulting it, as long as he lived. In 1750 Gronovius is represented as labouring under the gout, as well as a hernia, but he lived to the age of seventy-two, dying in 1762. His herbarium was, after the death of his son, purchased by sir Joseph Banks.

He had always entertained a very high opinion of Gustavus king of Sweden; and that prince having sent to Paris Benedict Oxenstiern, a relation of the chancellor, to bring to a final conclusion the treaty between France and Sweden, this minister became acquainted with Grotius, and resolved, if possible, to draw him to his master’s court: and Grotius writes, that if that monarch would nominate him ambassador, with a proper salary for the decent sup* port of the dignity, the proposal might be accepted. In this situation Salvius, vice-chancellor of Sweden, a great statesman, and a man of learning, being then at this city, Grotius was introduced to him, and saw him frequently. Polite literature was the subject of their conversation. Salvius conceived a great esteem for Grotius, and the favourable report he made of him to the high-chancellor Oxenstiern determined the latter to write to Grotius to come to him, that he might employ him in affairs of the greatest importance. Grotius accepted of this invitation; and setting out for Francfort on the Maine, where that minister Avas, arrived there in May 1634. He was received with the; greatest politeness by Oxenstiern, who did not yet, how-> ever, explain his intentions. In confidence of the highchancellor’s character, and apparent sincerity, he sent for his wife, who arrived at Francfort with his daughters and son, in the beginning of August The chancellor after for some time continuing to heap civilities upon him, without mentioning a word of business, ordered that he should follow him to Mentz, and at length declared him counsellor to the queen of Sweden, and her ambassador to the court of France.

As soon as he could thtis depend upon an establishment, he resolved to renounce his country, and to make it known by some public act, that he considered himself as no longer a Dutchman. In this spirit he sent his brother letters for the prince of Orange and the Dutch to that purport, July 13 of this year: he likewise wrote to Rotterdam, whick had deferred nominating a pensionary after the sentence passed against him, that they might proceed to an election, since they must no longer look upon him as a Dutchman. He set out from Mentz on his embassy to France in the beginning of 1636, and made his public entry into Paris, March 2, and was introduced to Louis XIII. on the sixth. The great business of this embassy was to obtain the French king’s assistance to Sweden against the imperialists, in transacting which, he always supported with great firmness the rights and honours belonging to the rank of an ambassador. He continued in that character in -France till 1644, when he was recalled at his own request. In order to his return, having obtained a passport through Holland, he embarked at Dieppe, and arrived at Amsterdam in 1645, where he was extremely well received, and entertained at the public expence. That city fitted out a vessel to carry him to Hamburgh, where he was, May 16, this year. He went next day to Lubeck, and thence to Wismar, where count Wrangle, admiral of the Swedish fleet, gave him a splendid entertainment, and afterwards sent a man of war with him to Calmar, whither the chancellor sent a gentleman with his coach to bring him to Suderacher. He continued there about a fortnight with the chancellor and other ambassadors, who treated him with great honours. Returning to Calmar, he went by land to Stockholm, whither queen Christina came from Upsal to see him.

Her majesty had, before his departure from France, asured him that she was extremely satisfied with his services; and she now gave him several audiences, and made him dine with her, and he appeared to be abundantly pleased with the honours he received but as he saw they were in no haste to do any thing for him, and only rewarded him with compliments, he grew uneasy, and asked leave to retire. He was confirmed in this resolution, by finding the court filled up with persons that had conceived a jealousy against him; besides, the air of Sweden did not agree with him. The queen several times refused to gr;i:;t him his dismission, and signified that if he would continue in her service in quality of counsellor of state, and bring his family into Sweden, he should have no reason to repent it: but he excused himself on account of his heahh, which could not bear the cold air of that kingdom. He asked a passport, which they Delaying to grant, he became so uneasy that he resolved to go without it. Leaving

Stockholm, therefore, he went to a. sea-port two leaguus distant, in order to embark for Lubeck. The queen, being informed of his departure, sent a gentleman to tell him she wanted to see him once more, otherwise she should think he was displeased with her. He returned therefore to Stockholm, and explained himself to the queen, who seemed satisfied with his reasons, and made him a large present in money, amounting to 12 or 13,000 imperials; adding to it some silver plate which was not finished sooner, and which he was assured had delayed the granting of his passport. That was afterwards issued; and the queen gave him a vessel, on-board which he embarked, August 12, for Lubeck.

, an Italian poet, commonly called, from his misfortune, Cieco D‘Adria, was born Sept. 7, 1541, in the ancient town of Adria, which gives name to the gulph called the Adriatic. His parents were of a noble but decayed family. He lost his sight a few days after his birth, and never recovered it. Yet this did not check his proficiency in learning; able masters were provided, under whom he made astonishing progress, although we may conceive with considerable difficulty to his instructors. He lays, indeed, in one of his orations, that when a new master visited him, he used to say, *’ you must teach me how I am to teach you." His talents and acquirements, however, procured him very early fame, and such was his natural eloquence, that at the age of fourteen he was chosen on two very solemn occasions, the one when the queen of Poland visited Venice, and the other on the election of the Doge Lorenzo Priuli, to give a public harangue in that city, where Casa and other orators had been so much celebrated, and acquitted himself with the greatest credit. His youth and his blindness might probably procure him favour, but according to his biographer, he was received with equal applause at other times and places, and under other circumstances. Having an early turn for poetry as well as oratory, he attempted to write for the stage, and although inferior to the other dramatic poets who then flourished at Ferrara, Rome, and Florence, he became a favourite with the people of Adria. In other cities to which he was invited as a public speaker, at Ferrara, Bologna, and Rovigo, he was received with every mark of distinction. Several princesses, as Laura of Este, and Laura Gonzaga, who patronized genius, frequently visited him, and made him rich presents. Yet he remained poor, fortune being in general more liberal of honours than of riches. Although blind, he appears to have felt the tender passion, which he has often introduced in his lyric poetry and in his dramas; in the latter, indeed, he treats of love matters in a style which gives but an unfavourable idea of his delicacy. In 1585 he acquired much reputation at Vincenza by playing the part of CEdipus when represented by the academicians in the famous Olympic theatre of Palladio. He did not, however, appear on this occasion, until the last act, when CEdipus appears blind. He was at this time in full health, but was suddenly attacked with a disorder at Venice, which proved fatal Dec. 13 of that year. His remains were carried to his own country, and interred with great funeral honours. His works consist of orations, published at Venice 1598, 4to, and tragedies, two pastorals, and other pieces of poetry, printed separately. They are distinguished rather by genius than judgment, and abound in that play of words, and those extravagant metaphors which were so much the taste of the subsequent age, and which appear most out of place in his pastorals.

, an eminent Orientalist of Italy, was born about 1596, at Magliano. After going through his studies, he entered among the regular minor clerks, and made his profession at Rome in 1612. His genius prompted him to the study of languages, to which he devoted himself entirely; so that he acquired the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Syriac, Persian, and Arabic languages, but excelled chiefly in the Arabic. He spent the greatest part of his life in translating books from that language, and in writing books in it, to facilitate the learning of it to others. He taught it many years in the college della Sapienza at Rome; and was indeed so perfect a master of it, that he spoke an oration in it before Christina, queen of Sweden, in 1656. The eastern prelates presented a petition to Urban VIII. to have the Bible translated into Arabic; and, the congregation “de propaganda fide” complying with their desires, Guadagnolo was immediately selected as the person best qualified to undertake this great work. He began it in 1622, and finished it in 1649; having, however, assistants under him, and sometimes only acting the part of a corrector. During the time that he was employed in it, he gave an account twice a week of ?vhat progress he had made to a congregation assembled for that purpose. It was published ai Home, 1671, in 3 vols. folio, with this title, “Biblia Sacra Arabica Sacra? Congregationis de propaganda fide jussu edita ad usuia ecclesiarum orientalium. Additis c regione Bibliis Vulgatis Latinis.” In 1631 he published a Latin work entitled “Apologia pro Christiana Religione, qua responde* tur ad objectiones Ahmed filii Zin Alabedin Persoe Asphaensis contetitas in Ifbro inscripto, Politor Speculi,” 4to. The history of this work was as follows: A Spaniard had published a religious book entitled “The true Lookingglass;” which falling into the hands of a learned Persian, he wrote an answer to it in his native tongue, entitled ‘.’ The Polisher of the Looking-glass“and added these words at the end of it” Let the pope answer it.“This book being brought to Rome in 1625, Urban VIII. ordered Guadagnolo to refute it; which he did so effectually, that the Persian, to whom it was sent, renounced the Mahometan faith, and became as zealous a defender of Christianity as he had before been an opposer of it. Guadagnolo published his apology in Arabic, in 1637, 4to. He wrote another work in Arabic and Latin, entitled” Considerations against the Mahometan Religion;“in which he shews, that the Koran is a mere rhapsody of falsehood and imposture. He published also at Rome, in 1642,” Breves Institutiones Linguae Arabicae," folio; a very methodical grammar. He had also compiled a dictionary in that language, but the publication of it was prevented by his death, which happened in 1656. The ms. is preserved in the convent of San Lorenzo in Lucina.

, an eminent Swiss divine, and one of the first reformers, was born at Zurich in 1529. In his youth he attained an accurate knowledge of Greek and Latin, and acquired much fame as an orator and Latin poet. He married the daughter of Zuinglius, and being admitted into orders, preached at Zurich from 1542 to 1575, when he was chosen to succeed Bullinger, as first minister of the protestant church there. His writings also, which consisted of homilies, or sermons on the prophets, evangelists, and apostles, procured him great fame both at home and abroad, and were long regarded as standard books among the protestant churches. He died Nov. 25, 1586. In the early part of queen Elizabeth’s reign we find him corresponding with the English divines who had been exiles in the preceding reign, and brought over an attachment to the simple forms of the Genevan church, which Elizabeth wished to discourage. His works, as enumerated by Verheiden, consist of Latin poems, commentaries on various books of the Scripture, works on grammar and history, and some translations. His son, of the same names, spent some years in Merton college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1573, and returning to Zurich, became minister of St. Peter’s church there. Wood attributes several Latin poems to him, some of which we suspect were the production of his father: but this young man died in 1577, when oniy twenty five years of age.

The few specimens left of Guercino’s first manner, are at Bologna and Cento; of the second, are, in general, all he painted at Rome in fresco or in oil, the Aurora in the Villa Ludovisi, the St. Petronilla now in the Louvre, and the Dido in the Spada collection, and of that style is the cupola of the dome in Piacenza; of the third manner, though it bears many traces of the second, the picture of the Circumcision, once at Bologna, now in the Louvre, is the most celebrated. Guercino was invited to Rome by Gregory XV. and after two years spent there with much success, returned home whence he could not be drawn by the most powerful allurements from either the kings of England or France. Nor could Christina, queen of Sweden, prevail with him to leave Bologna, though in her p-ssage through it she made him a visit, and would not be satisfied till she had taken him by the hand; “that hand,” said she, “which had painted 106 altar-pieces, 144 pictures for people of the first quality in Europe, and had, besides, composed ten books of designs.” He received the honour of knighthood from the duke of Mantua. He died a bachelor in 1666, very rich, notwithstanding vast sums of money, which he had expended in building chapels, founding hospitals, and other acts of charity: for, it is reported, that he was every where as much venerated for his exemplary piety and charity, as for his knowledge and skill in his profession.

, a Spanish writer, was born in the province of Alaba, towards the end of the fifteenth century, and was brought up at court. After the death of Isabella, queen of Castile, he turned Franciscan monk, but afterwards having made himself known at court, became preacher and historiographer to Charles V. He was much admired for his politeness, eloquence, and great parts, but his preaching and conversation proved very superior to his writing. His style was found to be extravagantly figurative, and full of antitheses, but this was trifling, compared with his notions of writing history, and the liberty he took to, falsify whatever he pleased, and to advance as matter of fact the inventions of his own brain, and when censured for it, alleged by way of excuse, that no history, excepting the Holy Scripture, is certain enough to be credited. Being in the emperor’s retinue he had an opportunity of visiting a great part of Europe, an4 was made bishop of Guadix, in the kingdom of Granada, and then bishop of Mondonedo, in Galicia. He died in 1544, or 1548. He was the author of several works in Spanish, the most famous of which is his “Dial of Princes, or Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,” which has been translated into all the languages of Europe. Vossius says it “has nothing in it of Antoninus, but is all a fiction, and the genuine offspring of Guevara himself, who scandalously imposes upon the reader, plainly against the duty of an honest man, but especially of a bishop. In the mean time he has many things not unuseful nor unpleasant, especially to a prince, whence it is entitled The Dial of Princes’.” Those who may be supposed to have spoken of Guevara in the most indulgent manner, have yet been forced to set him in a most scandalous light. “It deserves our pity rather than our censure,” says Nicolas Antonio, “that a writer of such fame should think himself at liberty to forge ancient facts, and to play with the history of the world, as with Æsop’s Fables or Lucian’s Monstrous Stories.” Among Guevara’s works must be ranked his “Epistles,” with which some have been so charmed, that they have not scrupled to call them Golden Epistles; but Montaigne says, “Whoever gave them this title, had a very different opinion of them from what I have, and perhaps saw more in them than I do.” Bayle had such a contempt for Guevara as an author, as to speak with surprize of “the eagerness of foreigners in translating some of his works into several languages.” Mr. Hay ley, however, remarks, that if we may judge of his personal character from his “Letters,” he appears to have been an amiable man. In one he reproves a female relation, with good nature, for intemperate sorrow on the death of a little dog and in another he draws the character of a true friend, with great energy of sentiment and expression. One of Guevara’s sayings, that heaven is filled with those that have done good works, and hell with those that have resolved to do them," has been, under a different form of expression, ascribed to other writers.

, an Italian poet, was born at Pavia^ in Milan, 1650, and sent to Parma at sixteen years of age. His uncommon talents for poetry recommended him so powerfully at court, that he received great encouragement from the duke. He composed some pieces at that time, which, though they savoured of the bad taste thei> prevailing, yet shewed genius, and a capacity for better things. He had afterwards a desire to see Rome, and, in 1683, going thither by the permission of the duke of Parma, and being already known by his poems y found no difficulty in being introduced to persons of the first distinctiort. Among others, Christina queen of Sweden wished to see him; and was so pleased with a poem, which he composed at her request, that she had a great desire to retain him at her court. The term allowed him by the duke being expired, he returned to Parma; but the queen having signified her desire to that prince’s resident at Rome, and the duke being acquainted with it, Guidi was sent back to Rome in May 1685.

His abode in this city was highly advantageous to him; for, being received into the academy which was held at the queen of Sweden’s, he became acquainted with several of the learned who were members of it. He began then to read the poems of Dante, Petrarch, and Chiabrara; which reformed the bad taste he had contracted. The reading of these and other good authors entirely changed his manner of writing; and the pieces he wrote afterwards were of quite a different style and taste. Though the queen of Sweden was very kind to him, and obtained a good benefice for him from Innocent XI. yet he did not cease to feel the esteem of his master the duke of Parma, but received from him a pension, which was paid very punctually. The death of his royal patroness happened in 1689, but he did not leave Rome; lor the duke of Parma gave him an apartment in his palace there, and his loss was abundantly recompensed by the liberality of many persons of quality. In July 1691, he was made a member of the academy of Arcadi at Rome, under the name of Erilo Cleoneo, nine months after its foundation, and was one of its chief ornaments. Clement XI. who knew him well, and did him kind offices while he was a cardinal, continued his favours to him after he was raised to the pontificate.

Though the writers of his life tell us of some prose piece before it, yet the first production we know of is “Poesie Liriche,” Parma, 1681; which, with “L'Amalasunta,” an opera, printed there the same year, he afterwards made no account of, they being written during the depravity of his taste. In 1687 he published at Rome, “Accademia per musica;” written by order of Christina of Sweden, for an entertainment, which that princess gave to the earl of Castlemain, whom James II. of England sent ambassador to Innocent XI. to notify his accession to the throne, and to implore his holiness’ s assistance in reconciling his three kingdoms to Popery. “L'Endimione di Erilo Cleoneo, pastor Arcade, con un discorso di Bione Crateo al card male Albano. In Roma, 1692.” The queen of Sweden formed the plan of this species of pastoral, and furnished the author with some sentiments, as well as with some lines, which are marked with commas to distinguish them from the rest. The discourse annexed, to point out the beauties of the piece, was written by John Vincent Gravina. “LeRime,” Roma, 1704. In this he declares, that he rejects all his works, which had appeared before these poems, except his “L'Endimione.” “Sei Omelie di M. S. Clemente XI. Spiegate in versi,” Roma, 1712, folio, a very magnificent work, and adorned with cuts, but not properly either a version or a paraphrase, the author having only taken occasion, from some passages in these homilies, to compose verses according to his own genius and taste.

, king of Sweden, commonly called the Great, a title which, if great valour united with great wisdom, great magnanimity with regard to himself, and great consideration of the wants and infirmities of others, have any claim, he seems well to have deserved. He was born at Stockholm in 1594. His name Gustavus he inherited from his grandfather Gustavus Vasa, and he was called Adolphus from his grandmother Adolpha. His education was calculated to form a hero, and seems, in all respects, to have resembled that bestowed on Henry the Fourth of France. He had a great genius, a prodigious memory, and a docility and desire of learning almost beyond example. He ascended the throne of Sweden in 1611, being then no more than fifteen; but the choice he made of ministers and counsellors proved him fully adequate to govern. His valour in the field was tried first against Denmark, Muscovy, and Poland. He made an honourable peace with the two first, and compelled the last to evacuate Livonia. He then formed an alliance with the protestants of Germany against the emperor, and what is commonly called the league. In two years and a half he overran all the countries from the Vistula as far as the Danube and the Rhine. Every thing submitted to his power, and all the towns opened to him their gates. In 1631 he conquered Tilly, the imperial general, before Leipsic; and a second time at the passage of the Lech. In the following year, he fought the famous battle in the plains of Lutzen, where he unfortunately fell at the immature age of thirty-eight, Nov. 16, 1632. Besides his other noble qualities he loved and cultivated the sciences. He enriched the university of Upsal; he founded a royal academy at Abo, and an university at Dorp in Livonia. Before his time there were no regular troops in Sweden; but he formed and executed the project of having 80,000 men constantly well armed, disciplined, and cloathed. This he accomplished without difficulty, on account of the love and confidence which his subjects without reserve reposed in their king. Some historians have delighted to draw a parallel between Gustavus and the great Scipio, and it is certain that they had many traits of character in common. Scipio attacked the Carthaginians in their own dominions; and Gustavus undertook to curb the pride of Austria by carrying the war into the heart of her country. Here indeed the advantage is with Gustavus; for, the Carthaginian power was already debilitated; but the emperor’s had before never received any check. He died literally, as it is said of him, with the sword in his hand, the word of command on his tongue, and victory in his imagination. His life has been well written by our countryman Harte; and he appears in all respects to have deserved the high and numerous encomiums which writers of all countries have heaped upon his memory. Some have suspected this exalted character to have lost his life from the intrigues of cardinal Richelieu; others from Lawemburgh, one of his generals, whom Ferdinand the emperor is said to have corrupted. He left an only daughter, whom he had by the princess Mary of Brandenburg, and who succeeded her father at the age of five. This princess was the celebrated Christina queen of Sweden.

, founder of Guy’s hospital, was the son of Thomas Guy, lighterman and coal-dealer in Horseleydown, Southwark. He was put apprentice, in 1660, to a "bookseller, in the porch of Mercers’ chapel, and set up trade with a stock of about 200l. in the house that forms the angle between Cornhill and Lombard-street. The English Bibles being at that time very badly printed, Mr. Guy engaged with others in a scheme for printing them in Holland, and importing them; but, this being put a stop to, he contracted with the university of Oxford for their privilege of printing then), and carried on a great Bible trade for many years to considerable advantage. Thus he began to accumulate money, and his gains rested in his hands; for, being a single man and very penurious, his expences were very trifling. His custom was to dine on his shop-counter, with no other table,-cloth than an old newspaper; he was also as little nice in regard to his apparel. The bulk of his fortune, however, was acquired by the less reputable purchase of seamen’s tickets during queen Anne’s wars, and by South-sea stock in the memorable year 1720.