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

In the attempt to do this, neither Lipsius, Fabricius, nor even Drakenborch, the most famous editor of Livy, appeared to have succeeded; and their conjectures for the purpose could not be admitted, without considerable violence to the text. How well Dr. Vincent succeeded appeared by the generous approbation of the illustrious Heyne on the continent, and of the no less acute Porson at home. The few points in which these critics differed from him, the author fairly states in a short preface, and endeavours to answer but leaves the ultimate decision to the reader. Two successive years produced two publications, the result of our author’s long and careful study of the analysis of languages. The first of these, entitled “The Origination of the Greek Verb, an Hypothesis,” appeared in 1794; and was followed, in 1795, by “The Greek Verb analyzed, an Hypothesis, in which the source and structure of the Greek language in general is considered.” The latter of these was principally a sequel to the first, and an extension of its theory. Sagacity and learning are eminently displayed in both these publications; nor is it easy to say which quality is most conspicuous in them, sagacity in sug* gesting probable reasons for the various inflections of verbs in the Greek, and afterwards in other languages; or learning, in the production of proofs or illustrations in support of every fact assumed. The principal notion is, that such inflections were derived from some simple and very short original verb, signifying to do or to exist, which being afterward subjoined to radicals denoting various actions or modes of being, formed their tenses, modes, and other variations. The idea was happy, and it is astonishing how far it may be pursued; and nothing can more fully prove its foundation in probable conjecture, than that it had occurred, nearly at the same time, to a writer at Edinburgh, who published it in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica:” the time of composition so exactly coincided, that neither author could possibly have seen or heard of the theory of the other. In both it was equally original.

Dr. Vincent had long been diligently employed upon a much more arduous task, and more connected with the studies, to which he was by preference attached. In 1797, he published the result of those labours r in his celebrated commentary on Arrian’s “Voyage of Nearchus,” which formed the basis of our author’s reputation. On a work so well known, it is not necessary that we should expatiate at any great length. Nearchus’s voyage is related by Arrian of Nicomedia (See Arrian), and is comprised in his “ludica,” or general account of India, and is professedly taken from the journal of Nearchus himself. The authenticity of the narrative had indeed been questioned by some learned men; but it is so victoriously defended by Dr. Vincent, in the concluding section of his preliminary Disquisitions, that Schmieder, the latest editor of Arrian, has translated the whole of his arguments into Latin; and has subjoined them to the objections of Dodwell, as a complete and satisfactory refutation. So strongly was Schmieder himself of the same opinion, that in his preface to the Indica he says, that “they who deny the genuineness of this account are hardly worth refuting.”

If this obscurity could have been completely removed by any sagacity or patience, it would undoubtedly have yielded to the labours of Dr. Vincent. His researches extended to every possible source of information, ancient and modern, rist excepting the oral intelligence of individuals who had recently visited those coasts, and whom he was always anxious to see and to consult. Dr. Horsley, then dean of Westminster, a man who had tew if any superiors in learning and sagacity, was often his adviser on difficult points. He admired the zeal and talents of the author, and strongly marked his regard for him and his work, by furnishing uvo very profound dissertations on astronomical subjects. To Mr. Wales he sometimes resorted for similar information; candidly confessing his own want of skill in that branch of knowledge. But his most abundant source of original information was found in the friendly kindness of Mr. Dalrymple, then hydrographer to the admiralty, who opened to him, without reserve, all the stores of his vast geographical collections, and documents of every kind. Of this indulgence he was most happy to avail himself, and often refers to charts and journals, so communicated, to which there were no other means of access.

Dr. Vincent persevered with such vigour, that the first part of “The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, containing an account of the Navigation of the ancients, from the sea of Suez, to the coast of Zanguebar: with dissertations,” was published in 1800, only three complete years after the Nearchus. It cannot be doubted that the chief researches, necessary for this continuation of the author’s great design, were already made, and much of the materials prepared; otherwise, the interval could not have been sufficient, even for a man who had no other occupation, to produce so elaborate a volume. The appendix alone contains more matter of curious information than many bulky works; particularly the copious alphabetical list of Grecian armies of export and import; and the dissertation of the Adulitic inscription: matters collateral to the general inquiry, and illustrative of the whole work.

“The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea,” though usually called Adrian’s, is confessedly not the work of the author of the Voyage of Nearchus. This is avowed by Dr. Vincent, in entering upon the subject. It had probably been imputed to Arrian in later times, from his having written the Periplus of the Euxine Sea. Whether ewn i<<e name properly belonged to this writer is altogether uncertain; and the probability is rather against it: but, from the most accurate examination of the work, Dr. Vincent thinks that the author, whatever was his true name, was a Greek merchant of Alexandria, between the times of the emperors Claudius and Adrian, in the first or second century, and probably by near a century prior to Arrian of Nicornedia. The author was certainly a man who had sailed ora board of a Greek fleet from Egypt to the Gulph of Cambay, if not beyond it. Those who had assigned a different age or character to his author, Dr. Vincent has answered in a manner the most satisfactory.

The “Second Part of the Periplus,” which completes the whole design, appeared in 1805, making a larger volume than the first, furnished with further dissertations, and an additional appendix of commercial articles, thus completing the knowledge of oriental commerce and oriental geography, as they existed among the ancients. Both parts of the Periplus were dedicated to the king. Throughout this work Dr. Vincent followed the same plan which he had formed for his Nearchus: not translating his author, but supplying a continual commentary upon his text, the sections of which are formed by the stations of the navigator, or the geographical divisions of the coast. This plan was here even more necessary than it had been in the former work, since in this the account of each place consists frequently of little more than a mere invoice of the usual exports and imports, very curious when explained, but very unsatisfactory, because unintelligible to a common reader in the original form. He has said, therefore, very properly, in his first disquisition, “of this work no adequate idea could be formed by a translation; but a comparison of its contents with the knowledge of India, which we have obtained, since Gama burst the barrier of discovery, cannot but be acceptable to those who value geography, as a science, or delight in it, as a picture of the world.”

Soon after the appearance of the first part of the “Periplus,” Dr. Vincent, being then past sixty, began to feel the effects of constant exertion and confinement in the deteriorated state of his health. He had been, at that time, eleven years head master of Westminster, and thirty-nine years in his various situations in the school, and very naturally began to entertain a wish for retirement; and having been presented in 1801 to a stall in the church of Westminster, he immediately determined to carry hi* wish into effect at a very early period. But he was first to render an essential service, not only to Westminster, but to all dur public schools. These schools, whose plans and regulations have been matured by the practice of ages, had lately been the subject of attack by two very eminent divines, who complained that religion was neglected in the systems and conduct of our publicschools. Dr. Vincent was naturally roused at this alarming accusation unjust as he felt it to be, and unfounded as he immediately undertook to prove it, with respect, at least, to the great school over which he so honourably presided; and for which alone he thought himself responsible. He published almost immediately “A Defence of Public Education,” addressed to a learned prelate, whose attack upon it had 'been most conspicuous. Confining himself to such facts as he could assert upon his own knowledge, he took little notice of other schools than his own; but his defence was conducted with such manly plainness, and at the same time with such becoming zeal for religion as well as for education, that -its effect was irresistible. It passed through three editionsj in a period surprisingly short, and taught him, for tb first time, what it is to be a popular writer. It was, in fact, the only publication from which he ever derived pecuniary profit; and that profit, as the first fruits of his authorship, he good-huroouredly presented to Mrs. Vincent. Compliments upon his defence were now poured in from various quarters; and he had the gratificatioa afterwards of knowing that the king, whose judgment rarely erred in matters to which he seriously applied it, was particularly pleased to have his public schools defended, and still more with the spirit and effect of the defence.

But the author was still very far from anticipating the further advantage that he was to derive from it. Among the persons most highly gratified by this tract, was lord Sidmouth, then Mr. Addington, the friend and ornament of another illustrious school, Winchester. It powerfully recalled his attention to the various merits and long public services of the author; and with that promptness and liberality of decision, of which his short administration furnished more instances than many of the longest, he recommended Dr. Vincent to his majesty, as successor to his friend bishop Horsley, in the deanery of Westminster. The king did not fail to express his satisfaction in giving the appointment; and, at a subsequent opportunity, was pleased even to express regret, that the see of Rochester had not. as in many former instances, gone with the deanery. This appointment vacated of course the inferior situations of prebendary and master of the school, the latter of which he left, accompanied by the most gratifying marks of affection from those who had been under his care.

The first use made by the dean of his higher advancement was to obtain the presentation of a living, for a curate who had been his assistant at Allhallows twenty-four years. His own eldest son was then in orders, and totally unbeneficed; but he paid, what he considered as a debt of gratitude, before he would consent to think of his own more immediate concerns. For this forbearance he was soon rewarded; and in the second year after his promotion, the rectory of St. John’s, Westminster, came to his choice, and when he accepted it for himself, he had the satisfaction of obtaining the living of Allhallows for his son. He might have continued to hold it, but he preferred resigning it in that manner. He held St. John’s only about two years, when he exchanged it for the rectory of Islip, in Oxfordshire, which is also in the patronage of the church of Westminster. He was presented to it by the chapter in 1805.

In the new edition, the three former publications were formed into two handsome and uniform volume*; with the geui-nil title of “The Commerce and Navigation of the Aucieuts in the Indian Ocean, by William Vincent, D. D. dean of Westminster.” Each volume had also a second till the first for the voyage of Nearchus, the second for the Peripius. Gratitude now demanded the introduction of lord Sidmouth’s name, to whose unsolicited patronage the author owed so much. To him, therefore, the whole work was now dedicated, in. a sincere and manly strain of acknowledgment; retaining, however, the two dedications to the king, which had introduced the two parts of the Periplus. It was afterwards translated into German and French, the latter by M. Billecoq, under the express authority of Buonaparte. At that period of inveterate enmity on his part, it would not have been safe, perhaps, to translate an English work, on any subject, without that sanction. Approbation so undeniably impartial gave the author a pleasure, which he avowed as frankly as he did his other sentiments; and that satisfaction was complete, when, in 1814, a degree from Goitingen, conferred upon him by diploma, was transmitted to him, with the most honourable testimony borne to the merit and value of his works. Though far from anxious for fame, he was much above affecting an insensibility to it, which no man ever felt who was capable of deserving it.

While the second edition of his great work was passing through the press, he suffered a domestic loss, which they only who are equally attached to their home can justly estimate. Mrs. Vincent died early in 1807: and his sense of her merits has been strongly expressed in a Latin inscription, which he wrote to be placed over her grave at Westminster. But the heaviest evils that would otherwise have followed upon this destitution were happily prevented by the interposition of his nearest relatives. His eldest son, with his truly amiable wife, and a growing family, immediately relinquished house-keeping, alid became his constant inmates, both in town and country; omitting no possible attention that duty and affection could suggest, to make his home again delightful to him. They succeeded, as they deserved, to the utmost of their wishes. The dean recovered his spirits, resumed his usual labours and his usual relaxations, and persevered in both, to almost the latest hour of his life.

But though he continued his remarks and additions to the Ancient Commerce, as his further reading enabled him, he had in truth dismissed all thoughts of further publication on that subject. But the opinion of his friend, Mr. archdeacon Nares, after some time prevailed upon him to add a supplemental volume, for the sake of adding to his work the Greek text of Arrian’s Indica, (including the Journal of Nearchus) with that of the Pseudo-Arrian, which was before too scarce for scholars in general to obtain. This volume concluded the dean’s separate publications. He printed, indeed, afterwards, a letter in French to a M. Barbié (as he chose to write himself, but more probably Barbier) du Bocage, who had very unhandsomely attacked his voyage of Nearchus; but this he never published. It contained a dignified remonstrance, without asperity, with a man whom the writer treats with a respect, little merited by the mode of the attack.

“Of the character and talents of Dr. Vincent,” says his biographer, “a tolerably correct notion may be collected from the foregoing narrative *. That he was benevolent, charitable, generous, and placable, should undoubtedly be added to that view. That which, perhaps, would be least conceived, by those who had no personal knowledge of him, is the ease with which he could, on fit occasions, and without the smallest impropriety, sink the man of learning and research, in the cheerful friend and unassuming companion.”

Da Vinci now set up for himself; and executed many pictures at Florence of great credit, and the universality of his genius soon appeared. He had a perfect knowledge of the theory of his art. He was, by far, the best anatomist and physiologist of his time, the first who raised a spirit for anatomical study, and gave it credit, and certainly the first man we know of who introduced the practice of making anatomical drawings. His first attempt, according to Vasari, was a book of the anatomy of a horse; he afterwards applied with more diligence to the human anatomy, in which study he reciprocally received and communicated assistance to Marc. Antonio della Torra, an excellent philosopher, who then read lectures in Pavia, and wrote upon this subject. For him Da Vinci made a book of studies, drawn with red chalk, and touched with a pen, with great diligence, of such subjects as he had himself dissected: where he made all the bones, and to those he joined, in their order, all the nerves, and covered them with the muscles. And concerning those, from part to part, he wrote remarks in letters of an ugly form, which are written by the left hand, backwards, and not to be understood but by those who know the method of reading them. These very drawings and writings are now in his majesty’s collection of drawings. After inspecting them some years ago, Dr. Hunter expressed his full persuasion that Da Vinci was the best anatomist, at that time, in the world , Lionardo was also well skilled in optics and geometry, almost every branch of literature, and the arts. He was a good architect, an able carver, and extremely well versed in the mechanics: he had a fine voice, and understood music, and both played and sang with taste and skill. Having also the advantage of a well-formed person, he excelled in all the manly exercises. He understood the management of a horse, and took delight in appearing well mounted: and he was very dextrous in the use of arms’. His behaviour also was polite, and his conversation so engaging, that no man ever partook of it without pleasure, or left it without regret.

After Lionardo had been labouring some years for the service of Milan, in quality of architect and engineer, he was requested by the duke to adorn it by his paintings; and be painted, among other things, his celebrated “Last Supper.”. Francis I. was so charmed with this, that, finding it impracticable to have it removed into France, he ordered a copy to be taken, which was placed at St. Germains; while the original, being painted in oil, and upon a wall not sufficiently secured from moisture, has been defaced long ago. The wars of Italy began how to interrupt him; and his friend and patron duke Lewis being defeated and carried prisoner to France, the academy was destroyed, the professors dispersed, and the arts effectually banished out of Milan. In 14^9, the year before duke Lewis’s defeat, Lionardo, be'ing at Milan, was desired, by the priucipals of the place, to contrive some new device for the entertainment of Lewis XII. of France, who was just then ready to make his entrance into that city. Lionardo consented; and accordingly made a very curious automaton of the figure of a lion, whose inside was so well furnished with machinery, that it marched out to meet the king; made a stand when it came before him; reared up its hinder legs; and, opening his breast, presented a scutcheon, with fleurs-de-lis quartered upon it.

The disorders of Lombardy, and the misfortunes of his patrons the Sforzi, obliging Lionardo to quit Milan, h retired to Florence, where he flourished under the patronage of the Medici. In 1503 the Florentines resolving to have their council- chamber painted, Lionardo, by a public decree, was elected to the office and got Michael Angelq to assist him in painting one side of it, while he himself painted the other: Michael Angelo was then but a young man, yet had acquired a great reputation, and was not afraid to vie with Lionardo, but jealousy arose between them; an.d each having his partizans, they became open enemies. About this time, Raphael was led by Lionardo’s reputation to Florence; the first view of whose works astonished him, and produced a change in his style, to which all the glory he afterwards acquired has been ascribed by some. Lionardo remained in Florence till 1513, and then is stated to have. gone to Rome, which it is said he had never seen. Leo X. received him graciously, and resolved to employ him; upon which, Lionardo set himself to the distilling of oils, and the preparing of varnish, to cover his paintings with. Leo, informed of this, said smartly enough, that “nothing could be expected from a man, who thought of finishing his works before he had begun them.” There seems, however, some reason to doubt, whether Lionardo ever was at Rome in Leo’s time. It seems more certain that about this time, having an invitation from Francis I, he removed into France. He was above seventy years of age when he undertook this journey; and it is probable that the fatigues of it, together with the change of climate, contributed to the distemper of which he died. He languished several months at Fontainebleau; during which time the king went frequently to see him: and one day, as he was raising himself up in bed to thank the king for the honour done him, he was at that instant seized with a fainting fit; and, Francis stooping to support him, he expired in the arms of that monarch. He died in 1520.

The second period is that which he spent at Milan in the service of Lodovico Sforza. There he staid till 1499, with little exertion in painting, if we except the most capital as the most celebrated of his works, perhaps the compendium of his powers, the Last Supper, in the refectory of the Dominicans. Of this performance, which the whole history of painting agrees to class among the first products of art, three heads only remain by Lionardo’s own hand, and those rather delineated than coloured. Had he contented himself to paint it in distemper instead of oil, we should now be in the possession of a work, which was already found half decayed by Armenini, fifty years after it had been finished, and is spoken of by Scannelli, who examined it in 1642, as evanescent, and a thing tfcut once was.

The third period dates from the return of Lionardo to Florence, after the fall of Francesco Sforza. The thirteen years of his stay there produced some of his best works; the celebrated portrait of Mona Lisa, a labour of four years, though still declared unfinished; the cartoon of St. Anna, prepared for an altar-piece at the church A'Servi, which never was coloured; the other cartoon of the battle of Niccolo Piccinino, in competition with Michael Angelo, and likewise never made use of, because his endeavour to paint it in oil on the wall had failed. He employed perhaps anpther method in a Madonna with the child, at St. Onofrio of Rome, a Raffaelesqne picture, but peeling in many places off the pannel. To this period probably belongs his own portrait in the ducal gallery, in an age which does not disagree with these years, a head whose energy leaves all the rest in that room far behind; and that other, in a different cabinet, which is called the portrait of Raffaello; and that half-figure of a young nun in the palace Niccolini, so much celebrated by Bottari. Christ among the doctors, formerly a picture of the Doria palace; the supposed portrait of queen Gioyanna with architecture; and Vertumnus with Pomona, commonly called vanity and modesty, a work as often copied as inimitable, in the Barberini; seem to coincide with this epoch; and we may count with them the Madonna begging the lily of the infant Christ in the Albani, a picture full of graces, and considered by Mengs as the masterpiece of the collection. It would however be too bold a conjecture to decide the date of every picture painted by an artist whose life was spent in search of new methods, and who too often dropped his work before it had received its finish.

Lionardo da Vinci broke forth with a splendour which eclipsed all his predecessors: made up of all the elements of genius, favoured by form, education, and circumstances, all ear, all eye, all grasp painter, poet, sculptor, anatomist, architect, engineer,chemist, machinist, musician, philosopher, and sometimes empiric he laid hold of every beauty in the enchanted circle, but, without exclusive attachment to one, dismissed in her turn each. Fitter to scatter hints than to teach by example, he wasted life insatiate in experiment. To a capacity which at once penetrated the principle and real aim of the art, he joined an inequality of fancy that at one moment lent him wings for the pursuit of beauty, and the next flung him on the ground to crawl after deformity. We owe to him chiaroscuro with all its magic, but character was his favourite study; character he has often raised from an individual to a species, and as often depressed to a monster from an individual. His notion of the most elaborate finish, and his want of perseverance, were at least equal. Want of perseverance alone could make him abandon his cartoon designed for the great council-chamber at Florence, of which the celebrated contest of horsemen was but one group; for to him who could organize that composition, Michael Angelo himself might be an object of emulation, but could not be one of fear. His line was free from meagreness, and his forms presented beauties; but he appears not to have been very much acquainted with the antique. The strength of his conception lay in the delineation of male heads; those of his females owe nearly all their charms to chiaroscuro; they are seldom more discriminated than the children they follow; they are sisters of one family.

This work, on which, Blackstone informs us, he employed above half a century, is styled by Mr. Hargrave an immense body of law and equity, and that learned gentleman recommends it, notwithstanding all its defects and inaccuracies, as a necessary part of every lawyer’s library. He further says, it is indeed a most useful compilation, and would have been infinitely more so, if the author had been less singular and more nice in his arrangement and method, and more studious to avoid repetition; faults which proceeded in a great measure from the author’s error in judgment, in attempting to engraft his own very extensive judgment on that of Mr. Sergeant Rolle. This stupendous work vras reprinted in 1792 and 1794, 24 vols. royal 8vo; it was followed by six supplemental volumes, undertaken by James Edward Watson, Samuel Corny n, James Sedgwick, Henry Alcock, John Wyatt, James Humphreys, Alexander Anstruther, and Michael Nolan, esqrs. who laid them before the public in 1799, 1800, 1801, 1805, and 1806, each gentleman having taken up his own apportioned burthen of the task.

, a learned and excellent divine, a popular and laborious preacher, and a most industrious and useful man in his college, was born at Blaston in Leicestershire, and educated in Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he commenced M. A. and was remarkable for his sober and grave behaviour, not being chargeable even with the venial levities of youth. From the university he was elected (most probably at the recommendation of his contemporary Thomas Cleiveland) school-master at Hinckley; where he entered into holy orders, and (as appears by an extract from the register of that parish) married, and had at least one child. After remaining some time in the faithful discharge of his office at Hinckleyschool, he obtained the rectory of Weddington, in Warwickshire; and, at the beginning of the civil war, was driven from his parish, and forced to take shelter in Coventry. When the assembly of divines which established the presbyterian government in 164 1 was called, Mr. Vines, who was a good speaker, was unanimously chosen of their number; and, as Fuller says, was the champion of the party. While he was at London he became the minister of St. Clement Danes, and vicar of St. Lawrence Jewry; afterwards he removed to Watton, in Hertfordshire; and was appointed master of Pembroke Hall, in Cambridge, in 1645, by the earl of Manchester, on the ejection of Dr. Benjamin Lavey; but resigned that and his living of St. Lawrence Jewry in 1650, on account of the engagement. He joined in a letter from the principal ministers of the city of London (presented Jan. 1, 1645, to the assembly of divines sitting at Westminster by authority of parliament), complaining against the independents. He was a son of thunder, and therefore compared to Luther; yet moderate and charitable to them that differed from him in judgment. The parliament employed him in all their treaties with the king; and his majesty, though of a different judgment, valued him for his ingenuity, seldom speaking to him without touching his hat, which Mr. Vines returned with most respectful language and gestures. This particular was the more remarkable, as no other of the parliament commissioners ever met with the same token of attention. Dr. Grey, in his answer to Neal, relates that when Mr. Vines returned from this treaty, he addressed one Mr. Walden, saying, “Brother, how hath this nation been fooled We have been told that our king is a child, and A foot- but if I understand any thing by my converse with him, which I have had with great liberty, he is as much of a Christian prince as ever I read or heard of since onr Saviour’s time. He is a very precious prince, and is able of himself to argue with the ablest divines we have. And among all the kings of Israel and Jndah, there was none like him.”

When sentence of death was pronounced on this unhappy sovereign, Mr. Vines came with the other London ministers to offer their services to pray with his majesty the morning before his execution. The king thanked them, but declined their services. Vines was an admirable scholar; holy and pious in his conversation, and indefatigable in his labours, which wasted his strength, and brought him into a consumption when he had lived but about fifty -six years. He was a very painful and laborious minister, and spent his time principally amongst his parishioners, in piously endeavouring “to make them all of one piece, though they were of different colours, and unite them in judgment who dissented in affection.” In 1654 he was joined in a commission to eject scandalous and ignorant ministers and schoolmasters in London. He died in 1655, and was buried Feb. 7, in the parish-church of St. Lawrence Jewry, which having been consumed in the general conflagration of 1666, no memorial of him is there to be traced. His funeral-sermon was preached Feb. 7, by Dr. Jacomb, who gave him his just commendation. He was a perfect master of the Greek tongue, a good philologist, and an admirable disputant. He was a thorough Calvinist, and a bold honest man, without pride or flattery. Mr. Newcomen calls him “Disputator acutissimus, Concionator felicissimus, Theologus eximius.” Many funeral poems and elegies were made upon his death.

Their tranquillity was at length disturbed by an edict of Charles IX. artfully procured by the Jesuits, which forbad the French churches from having any preachers who were not natives of France. Viret then, in 1563, retired to Orange, whence the pious Jeanne D'Albret, queen of Navarre, invited him to Beam. He preached also some time at Ortez, and died in that country in 1571, in the sixtieth year of his age. He had always been of a weakly constitution, and his health had been much injured by two attempts on his life by the enemies of the reformation, once when he was nearly poisoned at Geneva, and a second time when he received a stab from a knife, and was left for dead. He was a man of a meek and gentle disposition^ but of such winning eloquence, that many of his hearers conceived a kind of attachment to him, although they did not subscribe to his doctrines. Of the three great contemporaries in the church of Geneva, Calvin, Farel, and Viret, it was said that Calvin was admired for his profound erudition, Farel for his zeal and warmth, and Viret for his persuasive eloquence. Viret also, in his writings at least, had a happy talent in turning the superstitions he opposed into ridicule, and this he did with such effect that Dupin and other catholic biographers of later date cannot forgive him.

We cannot however imagine, that such an extraordinary gemus could lie long inactive and unexerted. It is related that, in the warmth of early youth, he formed a noble design of writing an heroic poem, “On the wars of Rome;” but, after some attempts, was discouraged from proceeding by the roughness and asperity of the old Roman names, which not only disgusted his delicate ear, but, as Horace expresses it, “quse versu dicere non est.” He turned himself, therefore, to pastoral; and, being captivated with the beauty and sweetness of Theocritus, was ambitious to introduce this new species of poetry among the Romans. His first performance in this way is supposed to have been written the year before the death of Julius Caesar, when the poet was in his twenty-fifth year: it is entitled “Alexis.” Possibly “Palaemon” was his second, which is a close imitation of the fourth and fifth Idylls of Theocritus. Dr. Warton places “Silenus” next: which is said to have been publicly recited on the stage by Cytheris, a celebrated comedian. Cicero, having heard this eclogue, cried out in an extasy of admiration, that the author of it was “magna3 spes altera Romae;” esteeming himself, say the commentators, to be the first. But the words may be understood in a very different sense, and more honourable to Cicero. The subject of this eclogue, we should remember, was an account of the Epicurean philosophy, both natural and moral, which had been but lately illustrated by Lucretius, an author, of whom Cicero was so eminently fond, as to revise and publish his work. Upon hearing therefore the beautiful verses of Virgil upon the same subject, Cicero exclaimed to this purpose: “Behold another great genius rising up among us, who will prove a second Lucretius.” Dr. Warton at least has suggested this very ingenious and natural interpretation. Virgil’s fifth eclogue is composed in allusion to the death and deification of Cassar. The battle of Philippi, in the year 7 12, having put an end to the Roman liberty, the veteran soldiers began to murmur for their pay; and Augustus, to reward them, distributed among them the lands of Mantua and Cremona. Virgil was involved in this common calamity, and applied to Varus and Pollio, who warmly recommended him to Augustus, and procured for him his patrimony again. Full of gratitude to Augustus, he composed the “Tityrus,” in which he introduces two shepherds; one of them complaining of the distraction of the times, and of the h.avock the soldiers made among the Mantuan farmers; the other, rejoicing for the recovery of his estate, and promising to honour the person who restored it to him as a god. But our poet’s joy was not of long continuance: for we are told, that, when he returned to take possession of his farm, he was violently assaulted by the intruder, and would certainly have been killed by him, if he had not escaped by swimming hastily over the Mincio. Upon this unexpected disappointment, melancholy and dejected, he returned to Rome, to renew his petition; and, during his journey, seems to have composed his ninth eclogue. The celebrated eclogue, entitled “Pollio,” was composed in the year 714, upon the following occasion. The consul Pollio on the part of Antony, and Maecenas on the part of Caesar, iiad made up the differences between them; by agreeing, that Octavia, half sister to Caesar, should be given in marriage to Antony. This agreement caused an universal joy; and Virgil, in this eclogue, testified his. Octavia was with child by her late husband Marcellus at the time of this marriage; and, as the Sibylline oracles had foretold, that a child was to be born about this time who should rule the world and establish perpetual peace, the poet ingeniously supposes the child in Octavia’s womb to be the glorious infant, under whose reign mankind was to be happy, the golden age to return from heaven, and fraud and violence to be no more. In this celebrated poem, the author with great delicacy at the same time pays his court to both the chiefs, to his patron Pollio, to Octavia, and to the unborn infant. It is dedicated to Pollio by name, who was at that time consul, and therefore we are sure of the date of this eclogue, as it is known he enjoyed that high office in the year 714. In the year 715, Pollio was sent against the Parthini, a people of Illyricum; and during this expedition Virgil addressed to him a beautiful eclogue, called “Pharmaceutria.” His tentti and last eclogue is addressed to Gallus. These were our poet’s first productions; and we have been the more circumstantial in our account of some of them, as many particulars of his life are intimately connected with them.

Being in his thirty-fourth year, he retired to Naples, and laid the plan of his inimitable “Georgics,” which he undertook at the entreaties of Maecenas, to whom he dedicated them; not to rival and excel Hesiod, as he had lately done Theocritus, but on a noble and political motive, and to promote the welfare of his country. Great was the desolation occasioned by the civil wars: Italy was almost depopulated: the lands were uncultivated and unstocked: a famine and Insurrection ensued; and Augustus himself hardly escaped being stoned by the people, who attributed this calamity to ambition. His wise and able minister therefore resolved, if possible, to revive the decayed spirit of husbandry, to introduce a taste for agriculture, even among the great; and could not think of a better method to effect this, than to recommend it by the insinuating charms of poetry. Virgil fully answered the expectations of his polite patron; for the “Genroics” contain all those masterly beauties that might be expected from an exalted genius, whose judgment and imagination were in full maturity and vigour, and who had leisure to give the last polish and perfection to his incomparable workmanship. They are divided into four books; and the subjects of them are particularly specified in the first lour lines of the first book. Corn and ploughing are the subject of the first book, vines of the second, cattle of the third, and bees of the fourth.

He is supposed to have been in his forty-fifth- year when he began to write the “Æneid;” the design of which is thus explained by an able master in classical literature. Augustus being freed from his rival Antony, the government of the Roman empire was to be wholly in him; and though he* chose to be called their father, he was, in every thing but the name, their king. But the monarchical form of government must naturally displease the Romans: and therefore Virgil, like a good courtier, seems to have laid the plan of his poem to reconcile them to it. He takes advantage of their religious turn, and of some old prophecies that must have been very flattering to the Roman people, as promising them the empire of the whole world. He weaves these in with the most probable account of their origin, that of being descended from the Trojans. He shews, that ^neas was called into their country by the express order of the gods; that there was an uninterrupted succession of kings from him to Romulus; that Julius Ca;sar was of this royal race, and that Augustus was his sole heir. The result of which was, that the promises made to the Roman people in and through this race, terminating in Augustus, the Romans, if they would obey the gods, and be masters of the world, were to yield obedience to the new establishment under that prince. The poem, therefore, may very well be considered as a political work: Pope used to say, “it was evidently as much a party-piece, as Absalom and Achitophel:” and, if so, Virgil was not highly encouraged by Augustus and Maecenas for nothing. The truth is, he wrote in defence of the new usurpation of the state; and all that can be offered in his vindication, which however seems enough, is, that the Roman government could no longer be kept from falling into a single hand, and that the usurper he wrote for was as good a one as they could have. But, whatever may be said of his motives for writing it, the poem has in all ages been highly applauded. Augustus was eager to peruse it before it was finished; and entreated him by letters to communicate it. Macrobius has preserved to us part of one of Virgil’s answers to the emperor, in which the poet excuses himself; who, however, at length complied, and read himself the sixth book to the emperor, when Octavia, who had just lost her son Marcellus, the darling of Rome, and adopted son of Augustus, made one of the audience. Virgil had artfully inserted that beautiful lamentation for the death of young Marcellus, beginning with “O nate, ingentem luctum ne quaere tuorum” but suppressed his name till he came to the line “Tu Marcellus eris:” upon hearing which Octavia could bear no more, but fainted away, overcome with surprise and sorrow. When she recovered, shfc made the poet a present of ten sesterces for every line, which amounted in the whole to above 2OOO/.

The “Æneid” being brought to a conclusion, but not to the perfection our author intended to give it, he resolved to travel into Greece, to correct and polish it at leisure. It was probably on this occasion, that Horace addressed that affectionate ode to him “Sic te Diva potens Cypri,” &c. Augustus, returning victorious from the East, met with Virgil at Athens, who thought himself obliged to attend the emperor to Italy: but the poet was suddenly seized with a fatal distemper, which, being increased by the agitation of the vessel, put an end to his life as soon as he landed at Brundusium. He died Sept. the 22d, in his fifty-second year. He had ordered in his will, that the “Æneid” should be burnt, as an unfinished poem; but Augustus forbade it, and had it delivered to Varius and Tucca, with the strictest charge to make no additions, but only to publish it correctly. He died with such steadiness and tranquillity, as to be able to dictate his own epitaph, in the following words:

Parthenope cecini Pascua, Kura, Duces." His bones were carried to Naples, according to his earnest request; and a monument was erected at a small distance from the city. He was of a swarthy complexion, tall, of a sickly constitution, afflicted with frequent head-aches and spitting of blood, very temperate, sober, and chaste, whatever may have been surmised to the contrary. That he wrote in his youth some indecent verses is not to he doubted, since the younger Pliny, who had done the same, justifies himself by his example; and, in his “Bucolics,” he relates very criminal passions; but it does not thence follow that he was tainted with them. On the contrary, it is delivered down to us as a certain truth, that the inhabitants of Naples gave him the name of Parthenias, on account of the purity of his words and manners. He was so very bashful, that he frequently ran into the shops, to prevent being gazed at in the streets; yet so honoured by the Roman people, that once, coming into the theatre, the whole audience rose, out of respect to him. He was of a thoughtful and melancholy temper, spoke little, loved retirement and contemplation. His fortune was not only easy, but affluent: he had a delightful villa in Sicily, and a fine house and well furnished library near Maecenas’s gardens on the Esquiline-hill at Rome. He revised his verses with prodigious severity, and used to compare himself to a she-bear, which licks her cubs into shape. He was so benevolent and inoffensive, that most of his contemporary poets, though they envied each other, agreed in loving and esteeming him. Among Caligula’s follies we may undoubtedly reckon his contempt and hatred of Virgil; who, he had the confidence to say, had neither wit nor learning, and whose writings and effigy he endeavoured to remove out of all libraries. The emperor Alexander Severus, on the contrary, called him the Plato of the poets, and placed his picture with that of Cicero in the temple in which he had placed Achilles and other great men. So did Silius Italicus the poet, when he kept Virgil’s birthday, as Pliny relates, with greater solemnity than his own; and so did our sir William Temple, who did “not wonder that the famous Dr. Harvey, when he was reading Virgil, should sometimes throw him down upon the table, and say, `He had a devil'.” With regard to the characteristical difference between Virgil and Homer, so much disputed, it may with truth be affirmed, that the former excelled all other poets in judgment, and the latter in invention; the former is the greater genius, the latter the most correct writer. “Methinks the two poets,” says Mr. Pope, “resemble the heroes they celebrate. Homer, boundless and irresistible as Achilles, bears all before him, and shines more and more, as the tumult increases Virgil, calmly daring, like Æneas, appears undisturbed in the midst of the action, disperses all about him, and conquers with tranquillity. Or, when we look on their machines, Homer seems like his own Jupiter in his terrors, shaking Olympus, scattering the lightnings, and firing the heavens: Virgil, like the same power in his benevolence, counselling with the gods, Jaying plans for empires, and regularly ordering his whole creation.”

, an ancient English historian, was born in 1075, and was the son of Odelinus, chief counsellor of Roger de Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury. He was first educated at Shrewsbury, and at the age of ten was sent over to Normandy to the monastery of St. Ercole’s and in his eleventh year became a member of the order of that society. In his thirty-third year he was admitted into the priesthood. His history is entitled “Histories ecclesiasticae libri XIII in tres partes divisi, quarum postremae duae res per Normannos in Francia, Anglia, Sicilia, Apulia, Calabria, Palestina, pie streneque gestas, ab adventu Rollonis usque ad annum Christi 1124 complectuntur.? Nicolson, in his Historical Library, gives but an inclifferent opinion of the merits of this historian; but baron Maseres, who has lately republished a part of Vitalis, along with other historical collections of ancient times, 4to, from Duchesne’s” Scriptores Normanni," estimates him more highly, and recommends the publication of the whole. There is no other book, he thinks, that gives so full and authentic an account of the transactions of the reign of William the Conqueror. Orderic was living in 1143, but how much longer is uncertain.

, one of the revivers of literature, was born at Valentia, in Spain, in 1492. He learned grammar and classical learning in his own country, and went to Paris to study logic and scholastic philosophy, the subtleties and futility of which he had soon the good sense to discover, and when he removed from Paris to Louvain, he there published a book against them, entitled “Contra Pseudo-Dialecticos.” At Louvain he undertook the office of a preceptor, and exerted himself with great ability and success in correcting barbarism, chastising the corruptors of learning, and reviving a taste for true science and elegant letters. This so raised his reputation that he was chosen to be preceptor to William de Croy, afterwards archbishop of Toledo, and cardinal, who died in 1521. In July 1517 he was made, though then at Louvain, one of the first fellows of Corpus Christi college, in Oxford, by the founder; his fame being spread over England, as well on account of his great parts and learning as for the peculiar respect and favour with which queen Catherine of Spain honoured him. In 1522 he dedicated his “Commentary upon St. Augustin de Civitate Dei” to HenryVlII; which, says Wood, was so acceptable to that prince, that cardinal Wolsey, by his order, invited him over to England; but this must be a mistake, for in a letter of the cardinal’s to the university in 1519, mention is made of his being then reader of rhetoric, and that by the cardinal’s appointment. He was also employed to teach the princess Mary polite literature and the Latin tongue: it was for her use that he wrote “De Ratione studii puerilis,” which he addressed to his patroness queen Catharine, in 1523; as he did the same year “De institutione fceminae Christiance,” written by her command. During his stay in England he resided a good deal at Oxford, where he was admitted doctor of law, and read lectures in that and the belles lettres. King Henry conceived such an esteem for him, that iie accompanied his queen to Oxford, in order to be present at the lectures which he read to the princess Mary, who resided there: yet, when Vives afterwards presumed to speak and write against the divorce of Catherine, Henry considered his conduct as criminal, and confined him six months in prison. Having obtained his liberty, he returned to the Netherlands, and resided at Bruges, where he married, and taught the belles lettres as long as he lived. He died in 1537, or, according toThuanus, 1541.

, a celebrated Italian mathematician, was born at Florence in 1621, or, according to some, in 1622. He was a disciple of the illustrious Galileo, and lived with him from the seventeenth to the twentieth year of his age. After the death of his great master he passed two or three years more in prosecuting geometrical studies without interruption, and in this time it was that he formed the design of his Restoration of Aristeus. This ancient geometrician, who was contemporary with Euclid, had composed five books of problems “De Locis Solidis,” the bare propositions of which were collected by Pappus, but the books are entirely lost; which Viviani undertook to restore by the force of his genius. He discontinued his labour, however, in order to apply himself to another of the same kind, which was, to restore the fifth book of Apollonius’s Conic Sections. While he was engaged in this, the famous Borelli found, in the library of the grand duke of Tuscany, an Arabic manuscript, with a Latin inscription, which imported, that it contained the eight books of Apollonius’s Conic Sections; of which the eighth however was not found to be there. He carried this manuscript to Rome, in order to translate it, with the assistance of a professor of the Oriental languages. Viviani, very unwilling to lose the fruits of his labours, procured a certificate that he did not understand the Arabic language, and knew nothing of that manuscript: he was so jealous on this head, that he would not even suffer Borelli to send him an account of any thing relating to it. At length he finished his book, and published it 1659, in folio, with this title, “De Maximis et Minimis Geometrica Divinatio in quintum Conicorum Apollonii Fergsei.” It was found that he had more than divined; as he seemed superior to Apollonius himself. After this he was obliged to interrupt his studies for the service of his prince, in an affair of great importance, which was, to prevent the inundations of the Tiber, in which Cassini and he were employed for some time, though nothing was entirely executed.

Viviani had, says P'ontenelle, that innocence and simplicity of manners which persons commonly preserve, who have less commerce with men than with books; without that roughness and a certain savage fierceness which those often acquire who have only to deal with books, not with men. He was affable, modest, a fast and faithful friend, and, what includes many virtues in one, he was grateful in the highest degree for favours.

, an eminent Dutch divine, and the founder of a sect, if it may be so called, who were in opposition to the Cartesian philosophy, was born at Heusden, March 3, 1589, of an ancient and considerable family. His education commenced in the schools of his native place, and was greatly promoted by a memory of more than common retention, which he displayed to the astonishment of his teachers and friends, while he was learning Greek and Latin, rhetoric, arithmetic, and logic. It is said that he could repeat without book three entire comedies of Terence, as many of Plautus, the first book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the first book of Horace’s Odes, &c. and many other extensive parts of the authors he read. After finishing his classical course, he was sent in 1604 to Leyden, where he passed seven years, increasing his knowledge of the Greek language, but particularly employed on the study of the belles lettres, philosophy, and theology. In general science he had made such progress, as to be able to give lectures on logic, during his divinity course, and had among other pupils the celebrated Burgersdicius, afterwards professor of philosophy at Leyden. Voetius was also solicited to take the degree of doctor, but some particular reasons prevented him at this time. Having completed his academical studies in 1611, he returned to Heusden, and became a candidate for the ministry. He had also a design to have visited Germany, France, and England, but was long confined by an illness; and on his recovery was appointed to officiate in the church of Vlymen, a village between Heusden and Bois-le-Duc. He preached also occasionally at Engelen, about a league from Vlymen, and in both places with great ability and reputation, for about six years. In 1617 he accepted a call to Heusden, where he settled for seventeen years, although repeatedly invited to superior situations in Rotterdam and other parts of the United Provinces. In 1619, he assisted for six months at the synod of Dort, and during this time, along with three of his brethren, preached at Gouda against the Arminians or Remonstrants, to whom he was always a decided enemy, and was as zealous a friend to the doctrines of Calvin. While at Heusden, he preached occasionally at other places, and in 1629 to the army which besieged Bois-le-duc, and after the capture of that city he officiated there for about nine months alone with three other ministers. During his residence here, he and his brethren published a sort of manifesto, inviting all the inhabitants, and particularly the clergy, to a conference, either public or private, on the points in dispute between the reformed and the Romish church. Jansenius answered this manifesto in a work entitled '“Alexipharmacum civibus Sylvsc-ducensibus propinatum ad versus mi nistrorum suorum fascinum,” Brussels, 1630, This produced a controversy, of whicu we have already given an account. (See Jansen, p. 470——471).

It was in 1639 that he began to attack Des Cartes, and although upon this account Mosheim chooses to accuse him of want of a philosophical spirit, it may be seen from our account of Des Cartes, that men of acknowledged philosophical spirit had much reason to suspect that if impiety was not expressed, it might be inferred from some of the principles of Des Cartes. All that can be said against Voetius, if according to the dogmas of modern liberality he must be blamed, is, that he evinced a degree of zeal and warmth which was proportioned to the serious conse^­quences he expected from the spread of Cartesianisrn. Several works were published on both sides, the titles of which may be found in any of our authorities. Des Cartes defended his principles, and the disciples and followers of Voetius being obliged to assist their master, the controversy became extensive. Mosheim allows that Voetius was not only seconded by those Belgic divines who were the most eminent at this time for their learning, and the soundness of their theology, such as Rivet, Des Marets, and Maestricht, but was also followed and applauded by th greatest part of the Dutch clergy. The controversy was also augmented by the proceedings of certain doctors, who applied the principles and tenets of Des Cartes to the illustration of theological truth. The followers of Voetius were called Vyetians, and the division between them and the Cartesians long subsisted in Holland, and was the cause of much tlisnnion, petty animosity, and controversy.

Notwithstanding the controversies and writings which occupied a considerable part of the life of Voetius, and his academical and pastoral duties, he lived to a very advancvd age, dying Nov. 1, 1676, in his eighty-eighth year. The most valuable of the works he left, not of the controversial kind, is his “Select Disputationes Theolegicce,” or Theses, 1648, &c. 5 vols. 4to. Voetius had two sons, Daniel and Paul, who also left several works the former died in 1660, the latter in 1667. John Voet, son of Paul, was doctor and professor of law at Herborn, and died 1714, leaving a “Commentary on the Pandects,” Hagse, 1734-, 2 vols. fol. which is valued, and some other works on law.

, the Garrick of Russia, whose talents for the stage were as great as those of Snmorokof for dramatic composition, was a tradesman’s son at Yaroslaf. This surprising genius, who was born in 1729, having discovered very early proofs of great abilities, was sent for his education to Moscow, where he learnt the German tongue, music, and drawing. His father dying, and his mother marrying a second husband, who had established a manufacture of saltpetre and sulphur, he applied himself to that trade; and, going upon the business of his fatherin-law to Petersburg!) about 1741, his natural inclination for the stage led him to frequent the German plays, and to form an intimate acquaintance with some of the actors. Upon his return to Yaroslaf, he constructed a stage in a large apartment at his father-in-law’s house; painted the scenes himself; and, with the assistance of his four brothers, acted several times before a large assembly. Their first performances were the scriptural histories composed by the archbishop of Rostof; these were succeeded by the tragedies of Lomonozof and Sumorokof; and sometimes satirical farces of their own composition against the inhabitants of Yaroslaf. As the spectators were admitted gratis at every representation, his father-in-law objected to the cxpence. Accordingly Volkof constructed in 1750, after his own plan, a large theatre, partly by subscription, and partly at his own risk: having supplied it with scenes which he painted himself, and dresses which he assisted in making, and having procured an additional number of actors, whom he regularly instructed, he and his troop performed with great applause before crowded audiences, who cheerfully paid for their admission. In 1752 the empress Elizabeth, informed of their success, summoned them to Petersburg, where they represented in the theatre of the court the tragedies of Sumorokof. In order to form the new troop to a greater degree of perfection, the four principal actors were placed in the seminary of the cadets, where they remained four years. At the conclusion of that period a regular Russian theatre was established at the court, three actresses were admitted, Sumorokof was appointed director, and 1000l. was allowed for the actors. Beside this salary, they were permitted to perform once a week to the public, and the admission-money was distributed among them without deduction, as the lights, music, and dresses, were provided at the expeoce of the empress. The chief performances were the tragedies and comedies of Sumorokof, and translations from Moliere and other French writers. The company continued to flourish under the patronage of Catharine II.; and the salaries of the actors were gradually increased to 2200l. per annum. Volkof and his brother were ennobled, and received from their imperial mistress estates in land: he performed, for the last time, at Moscow, in the tragedy of Zemira, a short time before his death, which happened in 1763, in the thirty-fifth year of his age. He equally excelled in tragedy and comedy; and his principal merit consisted in characters of madness. He was tolerably versed in music, and was no indifferent poet.

, the greatest literary character which France produced in the last century, was born at Paris, February 20, 1694. His father, Francis Arouet, was “ancien notaire du Chatelet,” and treasurer of the chamber of accounts; his mother, MaryMargaret Daumart. At the birth of this extraordinary man, who lived to the age of eighty-five years and some months, there was little probability of his being ‘reared, and for a considerable time he continued remarkably feeble. In his earliest years he displayed a ready wit and a sprightly imagination: and, as he said of himself, made verses before he was out of his cradle. He was educated under Father Por6, in the college of Louis the Great; and such was his proficiency, that many of his essays are now existing, which, though written when he was between twelve and fourteen, shew no marks of infancy. The famous Ninon de l’Enclos, to whom this ingenious boy was introduced, left him a legacy of 2000 livres to buy him a library. Having been sent to the equity-schools on his quitting college, he was so disgusted with the dryness of the law, that he devoted himself entirely to the Muses. He was admitted into the company of the abb< Chaulieu, the marquis de la Fare, the duke de Sully, the grand prior of Vendo;ne, marshal Villars, and the chevalier du Bouillon; and caught from them that easy taste and delicate humour which distinguished the court of Louis XIV. Voltaire had early imbibed a turn for satire; and, for some philippics against the government, was imprisoned almost a year in the Bastile. He had before this period produced the tragedy of “Oedipus,” which was represented in 1718 with great success; and the duke of Orleans, happening to see it performed, was so delighted, that he obtained his release from prison. The poet waiting on the duke to return thanks: “Be wise,” said the duke, “and I will take care of you.” “I am infinitely obliged,” replied the young man; “but I intreat your royal highness not to trouble yourself any farther about my lodging or board.” His father, whose ardent wish it was that the son should have been an advocate, was present at one of the representations of the new tragedy: he was affected, even to tears, embraced his son amidst the felicitations of the ladies of the court, and never more, from that time, expressed a wish that he should become a lawyer. About 1720, he went to Brussels with Madam de Rupelmonde. The celebrated Rousseau being then in that city, the two poets met, and soon conceived an unconquerable aversion for each other. Voltaire said one day to Rousseau, who was shewing him “An Ode to Posterity,” “This is a letter which will never reach the place of its address.” Another time, Voltaire, having read a satire which Rousseau thought very indifferent, was advised to suppress it, lest it should be imagined that he “had lost his abilities, and preserved only his virulence.” Such mutual reproaches soon inflamed two hearts already sufficiently estranged. Voltaire, on his return to Paris, produced, in 1722, his tragedy of “Mariamne,” without success. His “Artemira” had experienced the same fate in 1720, though it had charmed the discerning by the excellence of the poetry. These mortifications, joined to those which were occasioned by his principles of imprudence, his sentiments on religion, and the warmth of his temper, induced him to visit England, where he printed his “Henriade.” King George I. and particularly the princess of Wales (afterwards queen Caroline) distinguished him by their protection, and obtained for him a great number of subscriptions. This laid the foundation of a fortune, which was afterwards considerably increased by the sale of his writings, by the munificence of princes, by commerce, by a habit of regularity, and by an ceconomy bordering on avarice, which he did not shake off till near the end of his life. On his return to France, in 1728, he placed the money he carried with him from England into a lottery established by M. Desforts, comptroller-general of the finances; he engaged deeply, and was successful. The speculations of finance, however, did not check his attachment to the belles lettres, his darling passion. In 1730, he published “Brutus,” the most nervous of all his tragedies, which was more applauded by the judges of good writing than by the spectators. The first wits of the time, Fontenelle, La Motte, and others, advised him to give up the drama, as not being his proper forte. He answered them by publishing “Zara,” the most affecting, perhaps, of all his tragedies. His “Lettres Philosophiques,” abounding in bold expressions and indecent witticisms against religion, having been burnt by a decree of the parliament of Paris, and a warrant being issued for apprehending the author in 1733, Voltaire very prudently withdrew; and was sheltered by the marchioness du Chatelet, in her castle of Cirey, on the borders of Champagne and Lorraine, who entered with him on the study of the “System” of Leibnitz, and the “Principia” of Newton. A gallery was built, in which Voltaire formed a good collection of natural history, and made a great many experiments on light and electricity. He laboured in the mean time on his “Elements of the Newtonian Philosophy,” then totally unknown in France, and which the numerous admirers of Des Cartes were very little desirous should be known. In the midst of these philosophic pursuits, he produced the tragedy of “Alzira.” He was now in the meridian of his age and genius, as was evident from the tragedy of “Mahomet,” first acted in, 174-1 but it was represented to the “procureur general” as a performance offensive to religion and the author, by order of cardinal Fleury, withdrew it from the stage. “Merope,” played two years after, 1743, gave an idea of a species of tragedy, of which few models have existed. It was at the representation of this tragedy that the pit and boxes were clamorous for a sight of the author; yet it was severely criticised when it came from the press. He now became a favourite at court, through the interest of madam d'Etoile, afterwards marchioness of Pompadour. Being employed in preparing the festivities that were celebrated on the marriage of the dauphin, he attained additional honours by composing “The Princess of Navarre.” He was appointed a gentleman of the bed-chamber in ordinary, and historiographer of France. The latter office had, till his time, been almost a sinecure; but Voltaire, who had written, under the direction of the count d'Argenson, the “History of the War of 1741,” was employed by that minister in many important negociations from 1745 to 1747; the project of invading England in 1746 was attributed to him and he drew up the king ofFrance’s manifesto in favour of the pretender. He had frequently attempted to gain admittance into the academy of sciences, but could not obtain his wish till 1746 , when he was the first who broke through the absurd custom of filling an inaugural speech with the fulsome adulation of Richelieu; an example soon followed by other academicians. From, the satires occasioned by this innovation he felt so much uneasiness, that he was glad to retire with the marchioness du Chateletto Luneville, in the neighbourhood of king Stanislaus. The marchioness dying in 1749, Voltaire returned to Paris, where his stay was but short* Though he had many admirers, he was perpetually complaining of a cabal combined to filch from him that glory of which he was insatiable. “The jealousy and manoeuvres of a court,” he would say, “are the subject of conversation; there is more of them among the literati.” His friends and relations endeavoured in vain to relieve his anxiety, by lavishing commendations on him, and by exaggerating his success. He imagined he should find in a foreign country a greater degree of applause, tranquillity, and reward, and augment at the same time both his fortune and reputation, which were already very considerable. The king of Prussia, who had repeatedly invited him to his court, and who would have given any thing to have got him away from Silesia, attached him at last to his person by a pension of 22,000 livres, and the hope of farther favour . From the particular respect that was paid to him, his time was now spent in the most agreeable manner; his apartments were under those of the king, whom he was allowed to visit at stated hours, to read with him the best works of either ancient or modern authors, and to assist his majesty in the literary productions by which he relieved the cares of government. But this happiness was soon at an end; and Voltaire saw, to his mortification, when it was too late, that, where a man is sufficiently rich to be master of himself, neither his liberty, his family, nor his country, should be sacrificed for a pension. A dispute which our poet had with Manpertuis, the president of the academy at Berlin, was followed by disgrace . It has been said that the king of Prussia dismissed him with this reproof: “I do not drive you away, because I called you hither; I do not take away your pension, because I have given it to you; I only forbid you my presence.” Not a word of this is true; the fact is, that he sent to the king the key of his office as chamberlain, and the cross of the order of merit, with these verses:

But the king returned him the key and the ribbon. Things assumed a different aspect when he took shelter with the duchess of Saxe Gotha. Maupertuis, as Voltaire himself related, took the advantage of misrepresenting him in his absence; and he was detained by the king’s order, at Francfort on the Maine, till he had given up a volume of“Royal Verses.” Having regained his liberty, be endeavoured to negociate a return to Paris; but this he was not able to accomplish, since one of his poems, the “Pucelle D' Orleans,” which was both impious and obscene, had begun to make a noise. He was resident for about a year at Colwar, whence retiring to Geneva, he purchased a beautiful villa near that city, where he enjoyed the homages of the Genevans, and of occasional travellers; and for a short time was charmed with his agreeable retirement, which the quarrels that agitated the little republic of Geneva compelled him soon to quit. He was accused of privately fomenting the disputes, of leaning towards the prevailing party, and laughing at both. Compelled to abandon Les Delices (which was the name of his countryhouse), he fixed himself in France, within a league of Geneva, in Le Pays de Gex, an almost savage desert, which he had the satisfaction of fertilizing. The village of Ferney, which contained not above 50 inhabitants, became by his means a colony of 1200 persons, successfully employed for themselves and for the state. Numbers of artists, particularly watchmakers, established their manufactures under the auspices of Voltaire, and exported their wares to Russia, Spain, Germany, Holland, and Italy. He rendered his solitude still more illustrious by inviting thither the great niece of the famous Corneille, and by preserving from ignominy and oppression Sirven and the family of Calas, whose memory he caused to be restored. In this retirement Voltaire erected a tribunal, at which he arraigned almost all the human race. Men in power, dreading the force of his pen, endeavoured to secure his esteem. Aretin, in the sixteenth century, received as many insults as rewards. Voltaire, with far more wit and address, obtained implicit homage. This homage, and some generous actions, which he himself occasionally took care to proclaim, either with a view that they should reach posterity, or to please the curious, contributed as much to extend his reputation as the marks of esteem and bounty he had received from sovereign princes. The king of Prussia, with whom he still maintained an uninterrupted correspondence, had his statue made in porcelain, and sent to him, with the word Immortali engraven on its base. The empress of Russia sent him a present of some magnificent furs, and a. box turned by her own hands, and adorned with hi& portrait and 20 diamonds. These distinctions did not prevent his sighs for Paris. Overloaded with glory and wealth, he was not happy, because he never could content himself with what he possessed. At length, in the beginning of 1778, he determined to exchange the tranquillity of Ferney for the incense and bustle of the capital, where he met with the most flattering reception. Such honours were decreed him by the academies as till then had been unknown; he was crowned in a full theatre, and distinguished by the public with the strongest enthusiasm. But the philosopher of fourscore soon fell a victim to thi* indiscreet officiousness: the fatigue of visits and attendance at theatrical representations, the change of regimen and mode of living, inflamed his blood, already too much disordered. On his arrival, he had a violent haemorrhage, which greatly impaired him. Some days before his last illness, the idea of approaching death tormented him. Sitting at table with the marchioness de Villette, at whose house he had taken up his abode, after a solemn reverie, he said, “You are like the kings of Egypt, who, when they were at meat, had a death’s head beTore them.” On his arrival at Paris, he said, “he was come to seek glory and death;” and to an artist, who presented him the picture of his triumph, replied, “A tomb would be fitter for me than a triumph.” At last, not being able to obtain sleep, he took a large dose of opium, which deprived him of his senses. He died May 30, 1778; and was buried at Sellices, a Benedictine abbey between Nogent and Troyes; Many accounts have been published respecting his behaviour when in the nearer view of death. Some of these are so contradictory, that it is difficult to attain the exact truth. His infidel friends, Diderot, D'Alembert, and others, took every pains to represent that he died as he had lived, a hardened infidel, and a blasphemer; but they have not been credited, and it is more generally believed that he was visited on this awful occasion with the remorse of a man, whose whole life had been a continued attempt to erect vice and immorality on the ruins of revealed religion. The mareschal cle Richelieu is said to have fled from the bed-side, declaring it to be a sight too terrible to be sustained; andTronchin, the physician, asserted that the furies of Orestes could give but*a faint idea of those of Voltaire.

While he had the vomiting of blood, he confessed himself, and even made a sort of profession of faith: this was supposed to be policy and illusion, and served only to shew the suppleness of this singular man; who was a freethinker at London, a Cartesian at Versailles, a Christian at Nancy, and an infidel at Berlin. In society, he was alternately an Aristippus and a Diogenes. He made pleasure the object of his researches: he enjoyed it, and made it the object of his praise; he grew weary of it, and turned it into ridicule. By the natural progress of such a character, he passed from a moralist to a buffoon, from a philosopher to an enthusiast, from mildness to passion, from flattery to satire, from the love of money to the love of luxury, from the modesty of a wise man to the vanity of an impious wit. It has been said, that by his familiarity with the great, he indemnified himself for the constraint he was sometimes under among his equals; that he had sensibility without affection; that he was voluptuous without passions, open without sincerity, and liberal without generosity. It has been said, that, with persons who were jealous of his acquaintance, he began by politeness, went on with coldness, and usually ended by disgust, unless perchance they were writers who had acquired reputation, or men in power, whom he had adroitness enough to attach to his interests. It has been said that he was steadfast to nothing by choice, but to every thing by irregular starts of fancy. “These singular contrasts,” says M. Pelisson, “are not less evident in his physical than in his moral character. It has been remarkable, that his physiognomy partook of those of an eagle and an ape: and who can say that this contrast was not the principle of his predominant taste for antithesis? What an uncommon and perpetual change from greatness to meanness, from glory to contempt! How frequently has he combined the gravity of Plato with the legerdemain of Harlequin!” Hence the name of Micromegas, the title of one of his own crudities, which was given him by La Beaumelle, has been confirmed by the public voice. This is the portrait of an extraordinary personage; and such was Voltaire, who, like all other extraordinary men, has occasioned some strong enthusiasts and eccentric critics. Leader of a new sect, having survived many of his rivals, and eclipsed, towards the end of his career, the poets his contemporaries; he possessed the most unbounded influence, and has brought about a melancholy revolution in wit and morals. Though he has often availed himself of his amazing talents to promote the cause of reason and humanity, to inspire princes with toleration, and with a horror for war; yet he was more delighted, more in his element, and we are sorry to add more successful, when he exerted himself in extending the principles of irreligion and anarchy. The lively sensibility which animates his writings pervaded his whole conduct; and it was seldom that he resisted the impressions of his ready and overflowing wit, or the first feelings of his heart. Voltaire stands at the head of those writers who in France are called Beaux Esprits; and for brilliancy of imagination, for astonishing ease, exquisite taste, versatility of talents, and extent of knowledge, he had no superior, scarcely an equal among his countrymen. But, if genius be restricted to invention, Voltaire was deficient. His most original pieces are, his “Candide,” a tissue of ridiculous extravagancies, which may be traced to Swift; and his infamous poem, the “Pucelle,” for which he was indebted to Chapelain and Ariosto. His “Henriade” is the finest epic poem the French have; but it wants the sublimity of Homeric or Miltonic invention. The subject, indeed, could not admit supernatural machinery. It is, as lord Chesterfield said (who did not mean to depreciate it) “all good sense from beginning to end.” It is an excellent history in verse, and the versification is as harmonious as French versification can be, and some of his portraits are admirably touched; but as a whole, as an epic, it sinks before the epics of Greece and Rome, of Italy and England.

, whose family name was Ricciarelli, but who is better known by the name of his birth-place, Volterra, where he was born in 1509, was the reputed pupil of Peruzzi and Razzi at Siena, and the assistant of Perino del Vaga at Rome. He acquired the best part of his celebrity from a decided adherence to the principles, style, and subsequent patronage and assistance, of Michael Angelo, who accelerated his progress, enriched him with designs, and made him his substitute in the works of the Vatican. For proofs of actual assistance we need not recur to his frequent attendance on Daniele whilst he painted in the Farnesina, and the tale of the colossal head which he is said to have drawn with a coal on the wall during his absence, and which is still left to exhibit its questionable lines; the best evidence of that assistance was the fresco of the Trinita del Monte, now a ruin of the revolution: if that wonderful performance, the first of the three that were considered as the master- pieces of the art in Rome, evinced in composition and style the supenntendance, advice, and corrections, of Michael Angelo, its principal parts could only be considered as the work of his own hand; that master-hand alone could embody the weight of death in the sinking figure of the Saviour, and point the darts of woe that pierced the mother’s breast in the face and dereliction of the Madonna, without destroying the superhuman beauty of either. The remainder emulates, but arrives not at the same degree of perfection. The male assistants have more labour than energy, and, though with propriety subordinate, proportions scarcely equal to the task. In the female group, so beautifully contrasted, gesture seems to prevail over sentiment; even the figure of St. John, with all its characteristic excellence, by the fear it expresses, rather interrupts than assists the sublime pathos and sacred silence of the scene.

, a very celebrated Dutch poet, was born Nov. 17, 1587. He was bred an anabaptist; afterwards joined the Arminians, for whose defence he employed his pen with great zeal; and in his old age turned Roman Catholic. His verses, it is said, would have equalled those of the greatest poets, had he been acquainted with the ancients; but he had no other master than his own genius, and did not begin to learn Latin till he was near thirty. Vondel married Mary de Wolf in 1610, and opened a hosier’s shop at Amsterdam, leaving however all the care of it to his wife, while he was wholly occupied with poetry. The profligacy of his son having at length deranged his affairs, he obtained a place worth 650 livres yearly, but discharged the business of it so negligently, that in compassion to his situation he was permitted to keep the place as a sinecure. He died February 5, 1679, in his ninety-second year. Vondel’s poems have been collected in 9 vols. 4to. The most celebrated are, “The Park of Animals;” “The Heroes of God;” “The Destruction of Jerusalem,” a tragedy; “The Grandeur of Solomon;” Jl1 Palamede, or Innocence oppressed,“a celebrated tragedy, which he wrote while an Arminian. By Palamede he meant the famous Barneveldt, who was condemned to death by prince Maurice. Vondel exclaims in this piece against both the prince and the synod of Dort, in terms which sufficiently point them out, and was near being carried to the Hague, and tried in consequence of it; but some magistrates saved him, and he escaped by paying a fine of 300 florins. He wrote also satires against the protestant ministers, full of passion and invective; and a poem in favour of the catholic church, entitled” The Mysteries, or Secrets of the Altar," &c. He translated one of Grotius’s tragedies into Dutch, on which that celebrated writer expressed a high sense of Venders friendship, in condescending to translate his works, when he could write much better of his own.

, one of those Latin historians who are usually denominated “Historiae Augustas Scriptores,” flourished as the others did in the time of Dioclesian and Constantine, about the beginning of the fourth century. He was a native of Syracuse, and a believer in Apollonius Tyanacus, whose life he intended to write. He is reckoned superior to the rest of the Hist. Aug. Scriptores in the elegance of his style and in the perspicuity of his manner; though far inferior in both to the writers of the Augustan age. He wrote the life of Aurelian, Tacitus, Florianus, and others.

, an eminent divine of the Arminian persuasion, was born at Cologn, July 19, 1569. His father, who was a dyer, had not yet renounced popery, and caused him to be baptised in the forms of that religion, but he afterwards secretly joined the protestants. He had ten children, and designing Conrade for a learned profession, had him taught grammar at a school in the village of Bedberdyk, whence he sent him, in 1583, to Dusseldorp, and there he continued his classical studies till 1586. He afterwards removed to St. Lawrence’s college in Cologn, but was prevented from taking his degrees in philosophy by two impediments, which are so dissimilar that it is difficult to say which predominated. The one was because he could not conscientiously take an oath to submit to the decisions of the council of Trent; the other, because on account of the declining state of his father’s affairs, it became necessary for him to give up his studies, and go into trade. Whether he would have refused the oaths, if this had not been the case, is left to conjecture, but he now employed two years in acquiring arithmetic, the French and Italian languages, and such other knowledge as might be useful in trade. He was soon after, however, enabled by some circumstances, not related in our authority, to resume his more learned studies, and going to Herborn in 1589, studied divinity under Piscator, who from a Calvinist had become an Armiriian. Vorstius also, probably for a maintenance, took pupils, and accompanied some of them to Heidelberg in 1593, where the following year he was admitted to the degree of D. D. In 1595 he paid a visit to the universities of Switzerland, and that of Geneva. At Basil, he twice maintained two theses, the one on the Sacraments, the other on the causes of Salvation. He was preparing a third dispute against Socinus* “De Christo servatore” (concerning Christ the saviour); but being desirous of concluding his journey, he did not finish this

In 1611, he went to Leyden, with his family, and, although he brought with him the most authentic testimonials of his being orthodox, and prudent in his conduct and manner of life, the Calvinistic clergy became alarmed at having the divinity professorship filled by one who promised to perpetuate the errors of Arminius; and therefore represented, in the strongest terms, the danger that might accrue from the appointment of Vorstius. They even called to their aid the opinions of foreign universities and potentates. Among the latter, our king James I. who had caused Vorstius’s book “De Deo” to be burnt at London and the two universities, and now had drawn up a catalogue of the several heresies he had found in that work, commanded his resident at the Hague to notify to the States, that he greatly detested those heresies, and those who should tolerate them. The States answered, that, if Vorstius maintained the errors laid to his charge, they would not surfer him to live among them. Tin’s answer not being satisfactory, he again pressed them with greater earnesiness to banish Vorstius, though he should deny the errors laid to his charge; but, if he should own and persist in them, he was firmly of opinion, that burning was too miiJ a punishment for him. He declared, that, if they did not use their utmost endeavours to extirpate this rising heresy, he should publicly protest against such abominations; in quality of defender of the faith, should exhort all Protestant churches to join in one general resolution to extinguish these abominable newly-broached heresies; and, with regard to himself, would forbid all his subjects to frequent so pestilential a place as the university of Leyden. To his menaces he added the terrors of his pen, and published a book against Vorstius; who replied in the most respectful terms but at fast, through the influence of the king’s deputies, was declared unworthy of the professorship, divested of his employment, and sentenced to perpetual banishment by the synod of Dort. He lay concealed two years, until at length he found an asylum in the dominions of the duke of Holstein, who took the remains of the Artninians under his protection, and assigned them a spot of ground for building a city. He died atToningen, Sept. 29, 1622. His body was carried to Fredericstadt, the newly-raised city of the Arminians, where he was buried with considerable splendour. He wrote many things against the Roman Catholics, as well as his own particular adversaries.

There was a Simon de Vos, born at Antwerp in 1603, who painted history equally well in large and in small sizes, with a free pencil, and a touch light and firm; his colouring being in general lively and agreeable, produced a good effect. His figures were well designed, although sometimes a little too much constrained in the attitudes; and he often wanted elegance and dignity in his ideas, as well as grace in the airs of his figures. But he shewed extraordinary force and nature in his pictures of the chase; and one of his compositions in that style is in the cabinet of the Elector Palatine. Houbraken says that Simon de Vos was alive in. 1662. At Antwerp, there is a picture by him of St. Norbert receiving the sacrament, in v.hich are introduced a great number of portraits extremely well painted. De Vos, sir Joshua Reynolds remarks, particularly excelled in portraits. In the poor-house at Antwerp, there was, when sir Joshua visited it, his own portrait by himself, in black, leaning on the back of a chair, with a scroll of blue paper in his hand, so highly finished, in the broad manner of Corregio, that nothing could exceed it.

In Feb. 1602, he married a minister’s daughter of Dort, who died in 1607, having brought him three children. He married a second wife six months after, by whom he had five sons and two daughters. This fertility in Vossius, which was at the same time attended with a wonderful fertility in his pen, made Grotius say, with some pleasantry, that he did not know whether Vossius had a better knack at producing children or books; “scriberetne accuratius, an gigneret felicius.?” These children were educated with the utmost care, so that his house was called the habitation of Apollo and the Muses; but he had the misfortune to survive them all, except Isaac Vossius. One of his daughters, a very accomplished young lady, was drowned while sliding, according to the custom of the country, upon the canals near Leyden. In 1614, an attempt was made to draw him to Steinfurt, to be divinity-professor there; but the university of Leyden having named him at the same time to be director of the theological college which the States of Holland had just founded in that town, he preferred the latter situation; and his office of professor of eloquence and chronology, which was conferred upon him four years after, was peculiarly agreeable to his taste. Though he took all imaginable care to keep himself clear from the disputes about grace and predestination, which then ran high among the ministers of that country, yet his precautions did not avail, for he was entangled in spite of them. He had rendered himself suspected and obnoxious to the Gomarists, who had prevailed in the synod of Dort held in 1612, because he had openly favoured the toleration of the Remonstrants, and because, in his history of the Pelagian controversy, printed in 1618, he had affirmed, that the sentiments of St. Augustin upon grace and predestination were not the most ancient, and that those of the Remonstrants were different from those of the Semi-Pelagians. And although he did not separate himself from the communion of the Anti-Remonstrants, yet they, knowing well that he neither approved their doctrines nor their conduct, procured him to be ejected from his professorship at the synod of Tergou, held in 1620. The year after, another synod was held at Rotterdam; where it was ordered, that he should be received again, provided he would promise neither to do nor say any thing against the synod of Dort, and would also retract the errors advanced in his history of Pelagianism. It was with great reluctance that he consented to these terms, but the loss which he would suffer by resistance, induced him in 1624 to make such promises as appeared satisfactory.

But of whatever detriment his Pelagian history might be to him in Holland, it procured him both honour and profit from England, where it was by some exceedingly well received. Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, whose great object was to establish Arminianism, admired Vossius’s work so much, that he procured him a prebend in the church of Canterbury, while he resided at Leyden; but he afterwards, in 1629, came over to be installed, took a doctor of law’s degree at Oxford, and then returned. While at Oxford he discovered and encouraged the talents of Dr. Pocock, as we have already noticed in our account of that celebrated orientalist. In 1630, the town of Amsterdam having projected the foundation of an university, cast their eyes upon Vossius, as one likely to promote its reputation and credit. The literati, magistrates, and inhabitants of Leyden, complained loudly of this design, as injurious to their own university; which, they said, 'had had the preference assigned to it above all the other towns of Holland, because Leyden had sustained in 1574 a long siege against the Spaniards; and they were still more averse to it, on account of their being likely to lose so great an ornament as Vossius. Amsterdam, however, carried its purpose into execution; and Vossius went thither, in 1633, to be professor of history. He died there in 1649, aged seventy-two years; after having written and published as many works as, when they came to be collected and printed at Amsterdam in 1695 and the five following years, amounted to 6 vols. in folio. The principal of them are, “Etymologicon Linguae Latinae;” “De Origine & Progressu Idololatriae;” “De Historicis Græcis;” “De Historicis Latinis;” “De Arte Grammatica;” “De vitiis sermonis & glossematis Latino-Barbaris;” “Institutiones Oratoriae;” “Institutiones Poetica;” “Ars Historica,” the first book of the kind ever published; “De quatuor artibus popularibus, Grammatice, Gymnastice, Musice, & Graphice;” “De Philologia;” “De universa Matheseos natura & constitutione;” “De Philosophia;” “De Philosophorum sectis;” “De veterum Poetarum temporibus.” Most of these, particularly his account of the Greek and Latin historians, poets, have always been considered as works of authority and accuracy. He was an indefatigable student, and wrote with considerable rapidity. Granger, in an anecdote perhaps not worth repeating, says that our wonder at the number of Vossius’s works will be somewhat abated when we consider the following circumstance in a ms. of Mr. Ashmole, in his own museum. He says he had it from Dr. John Pell. “Gerard Vossius wrote his Adversaria on one side of a sheet of paper, and joined them together, and would so send them to the press, without transcribing.” Our wonder may be more rationally abated by considering that he employed the greater part of the day and even of the night in study, and was a most scrupulous ceconomist of time. When his friends came to pay him visits, he never allowed any of them more than a quarter of an hour. On one occasion, when Christopher Schrader, who knew his custom, had staid out his quarter, and was about to leave him, Vossius kept him another quarter, after which he pointed to the hour-glass which was always before him, and said, “You see how much time I have given you.”

M. des Maizeaux, in his life of St. Evremond, has recorded several particulars relative to the life and character of Isaac Vossius, which are certainly not of a very favourable cast. St. Evremond, he tells us, used to spend the summers with the court at Windsor, and there often saw Vossius; who, as St. Evremond described him, understood almost all the languages in Europe, without being able to speak one of them well; who knew to the very bottom the genius and customs of antiquity, yet was an utter stranger to the manners of his own times. He expressed himself in conversation as a man would have done in a commentary upon Juvenal or Petronius. He published books to prove, that the Septuagint version was divinely inspired; yet discovered, in private conversation, that he believed no revelation at all: and his manner of dying, which was far from being exemplary, shewed that he did not. Yet, to see the frailty of the human understanding, he was in other respects the weakest and most credulous man alive, and ready to swallow, without chewing, any extraordinary and wonderful thing, though ever so fabulous and impossible. This is the idea which St. Evremond, who knew him well, has given of him. If any more proofs of his unbelief are wanting, Des Maizeaux has given us them, in a note upon the foregoing account of St. Evremond. He relates, that Dr. Hascard, dean of Windsor, with one of the canons, visited Vossius upon his death-bed, and pressed him to receive the sacrament; but could not prevail, though they begged of him at last, that, “if he would not do it for the love of God, he would at least do it for the honour of the chapter.” Des Maizeaux relates another fact concerning Vossius, which he received from good authority; namely, that, when Dr. Hascard pressed him to take the sacrament, he replied, “I wish you would instruct me how to oblige the farmers to pay me what they owe me: this is what I would have you do for me at present.” Such sort of replies are said to have been common with him; and that once, when a brother of his mother was sick, and a minister was for giving him the communion, he opposed it, saying, “this is a pretty custom enough for sinners; but my uncle, far from being a sinner, is a man without vices.” As to his credulity and propensity to believe in the most implicit manner any thing singular and extraordinary, Mons. Renaudot, in his dissertations added to “Anciennes Relations des Indes & de la Chine,” relates, that Vossius, having had frequent conferences with the father Martini, during that Jesuit’s residence in Holland for the printing his “Atlas Chinois,” made no scruple of believing all which he told him concerning the wonderful things in China; and that he even went farther than Martini, and maintained as a certain fact the antiquity of the Chinese accounts above that of the books of Moses. Charles II. who knew his character well, used to call him the strangest man in the world for “there is nothing,” the king would say, “which he refuses to believe, except the Bible;” and it is probable, that the noble author of the “Characteristics” had him in his eye while he was writing the following paragraph. “It must certainly be something else than incredulity, which fashions the taste and judgment of many gentlemen, whom we hear censured as Atheists, for attempting to philosophize after a newer manner than any known of late. I have ever thought this sort of men to be in general more credulous, though after another manner, than the mere vulgar. Besides what I have observed in conversation with the men of this character, I can produce many anathematized authors, who, if they want a true Israelitish faith, can make amends by a Chinese or Indian, one. If they are short in Syria or the Palestine, they have their full measure in America or Japan. Histories of Incas or Iroquois, written by friers and missionaries, pirates and renegadoes, sea-captains and trusty travellers, pass for authentic records, and are canonical with the virtuosos of this sort. Though Christian miracles may not so well satisfy them, they dwell with the greatest contentment on the prodigies of Moorish and Pagan countries.” This perfectly corresponds with the nature and character of Isaac Vossius, although lord Shaftesbury might have more than one in his eye when he wrote it.

His works, though very numerous, are yet neither so numerous nor so useful as his father’s. His first publication was “Periplus Scylacis Caryandensis & Anonymi Periplus Ponti Euxini, Græce & Latinæ, cum notis.” Amst. 1639, 4to. Although he was only a youth of twenty-one when he published this, James Gronovius judged his notes worth inserting in the new augmented edition which he gave of these authors at Leyden 1697, under the title of “Geographia antiqua,” in 4to. The year after, 1640, he published “Justin,” with notes, at Leyden, in 12mo, also a juvenile production, but of no particular value. “Ignatii Epistolæ, & Barnabæ Epistola, Græce & Latinæ, cum notis,” Amst. 1646, in 4to. He was the first who published the genuine epistles of Ignatius, from a Greek manuscript in the library at Florence, which was found to agree exactly with the ancient Latin version which archbishop Usher had published two years before. His notes have been inserted in Le Clerc’s edition of the “Patres Apostolici.” “Pomponius Mela de situ orbis, cum observationibus,” Hagse Com. 1648, 4to. Salmasius is the subject of his animadversion in these notes. “Dissertatio de vera estate mundi, &c.” Hagae Com. 1659, 4to. This dissertation, in which it is attempted to establish the chronology of the Septuagint upon the ruin of that of the Hebrew text, was attacked by many authors, and particularly by Hornius, to whom Vossius replied in “Castigationes ad Scriptum Hornii de ætate Mundi,” Hagse Com. 1659, 4to. Hornius defended what he had written, the same year; and Vossius, the same year, replied to him again in “Auctarium Castigationum, &c.” 4to. Hornius was not however to be silenced, but published another piece, still in the same year; and then father Pezron adopted and maintained the opinion of Vossius, in his book, entitled “L'Antiquite de temps retablie,” 1661. Vossius published “De Septuaginta Interpretibus, eorumque translatione & chronologia Dissertationes;” and, in 1663, “Appendix ad hunc librum, seu Responsiones ad objecta variorum Theologorum:” both in 4to. His next publications were upon philosophical subjects, as “Deluce,” “De motu marium & ventorum,” “De Nili & aliorum fluminum origine;” which are not thought of much consequence. "De Poematum Cantu et Viribus Rythmi, Oxon. 1673,“in 8vo, in which are some curious remarks.” De Sibyllinis aliisque, quae Christi natalem præcessere, Oraculis,“Oxon. 1679: reprinted in” Variarum Observationum Liber.“”Catullus, & in eum Isaaci Vossii Observationes,“Lond. 1684, 4to, and Leyden, 1691. There is a great deal of erudition in these notes of Vossius, mixed with gross indelicacies. The greatest part of a treatise by Adrian Beverland,” De prostibulis veterum,“the printing of which had been prohibited, was inserted in them; but this being discovered, the press was stopped from proceeding any farther; and the edition, the first of those mentioned above, though begun and carried on in Holland, was brought over to England to be finished; as may appear from the different characters of the end, the title, and the preface. In 1685, he published a thin quarto volume at London, entitled,” Variarum Observationum Liber,“in which are contained the following dissertations:” De Antiquae Romae & aliarum quarundam urbitnn magnitudine; De Artibus & Scientiis Sinarum; De Originæ & Progressu Pulveris Bellici apud Europaeos; De Triremium & Libnrnicarum constructione; De emendatione Longitudinum; De patefacienda per Septentrionem ad Japonenses & Indos navigatione; De apparentibus in Luna circulis; Diurna Telluris coriversione omnia gravia ad medium tendere;“to which are subjoined,” De Sibyllinis Oraculis, Responsio ad Objecta nupera: Criticae Sacræ,“and” Ad iteratas P. Simonii objectiones altera Responsio.“Vossius’s propensity to the marvellous, and his prejudices for antiquity, appear from the first page of this book of various observations; where he tells us, that ancient Rome was twenty times as large as Paris and London put together are at present; and assigns it fourteen millions of inhabitants; which however is nothing in comparison of the single town of Hanchou in China, whose inhabitants, he assures us, amount to twenty millions, besides the suburbs. This” Variarum Observationum Liber,“however, as well as Isaac Vossius’s works in general, all shew ingenuity and learning, and there are in them some singular and striking observations; but yet very little knowledge is to be drawn from, and very little use to be made of them. Thirlby says very justly of him, that he was a man of great learning, had excellent parts, and sufficient judgment, but never troubled his head about what was the truth in any question whatever. If criticism, or philosophy, or theology, was the subject, it was, says Thirlby,” quite enough for him to cast about for and invent things new, out of the way, and wonderful; but whether these strange and newly-discovered things were true or false, was a point which he left to be examined by those who might think it worth their while.“The last of his works we shall notice is,” Observationum ad Pomponium Melam appendix: accedit ad tertias P. Simonii objectiones Responsio, c.“Lond. 1686, 4to. James Gronovius, having used Vossius ill in his edition of” Mela,“at Leyden, 1685, in 8vo, is in this appendix paid in kind; Humphrey Hody is also answered, in a short piece contained in this publication; who had advanced something against Vossius’s notions of the Septuagint version, in his” Dissertatio contra Historiam Aristeae de LXX. Interpretibus,“printed at Oxford,” 1685.

The journalists of Trevoux have contrasted the different merits of Gerard and Isaac Vossius, by drawing a parallel between them, which very well illustrates the character of each, and may form a proper conclusion to this article. Nothing,“say they,” can be more opposite than the characters of this father and son; nothing more different than the make of their understandings. In the father, judgment prevails; in the son, imagination: the father labours slowly; the son goes on with ease: the father distrusts the bestfounded conjectures; the son loves nothing but conjectures, and those bold and daring: the father forms his opinions upon what he reads; the son conceives an opinion, and then reads: the father endeavours to penetrate the sense of the author he cites, and pays a proper deference to their authority, as to masters; the son imposes his own sense on these authors, and regards them as slaves, who ought to give testimony as he would have them: the father’s aim was to instruct; the son’s to parade and make a noise: truth was the father’s darling object; novelty the son’s. In the father, we admire vast erudition, orderly arranged and clearly expressed; in the son, a dazzling turn of style, singular thoughts, and a vivacity, which even pleases in a bad cause: the father has written good books; the son has written curious books. Their hearts also were as unlike and different as their heads. The father was a man of probity and regular in his manners; was unhappily born a Calvinist, yet had the service of religion always in his view , and approached as nearly to the true faith as mere reason could enable him. The son was a libertine both in principle and practice, made religion the object of his insults, and only studied to find out the weak sides of it: his indelicate and shameful notes upon Catullus, printed at the close of his life, shew also plainly enough what kind of man he was.“Of Gerard John Vossius’s other sons, who did not survive him, we may notice Dionysius Vossius, who was born at Dort, and became learned in the Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, Arabic, French, Italian, and Spanish languages. He wrote, among other small things,” Maimonides de Idololatria, cum Latina versione et notis,“printed at the end of his father’s work” de origine et progressu Idololatrire;“and some notes upon Cæsar’s Commentaries, to be found in the edition of Graevius, at Amsterdam, in 1697. Francis Vossius, another son, published a Latin poem in 1640, upon a naval victory gained by Van Tromp. Gerard, a third son, was the editor of Paterculus, the Elzevir of 1639, 12mo: and Matthew, a fourth son, published at Amsterdam, in 1635,” Annalium Hollandise Zelandiseque libri quinque," 4to.

, a French painter, very celebrated in his day, was born at Paris in 1582, and bred up under his father, who was a painter also. He knew so much of his art, and was in such repute at twenty years of age, that Mons. de Saucy, who was going ambassador to Constantinople, took him with him as his painter. There he drew the picture of the grand signer; and, though it was impossible to do it otherwise than by the strength of memory, and from a view of him at the ambassador’s audience, yet it proved a great likeness. Thence he went to Venice; and afterwards, settling himself in Rome, became so illustrious* in his profession, that, besides the favours which he received from pope Urban VIII. and the cardinal his nephew, he was chosen prince of the Roman academy of St. Luke. He staid fourteen years in Italy; and then, in 1627, Lewis XIII. who, in consideration of his capacity, hatl allowed him a pension all the while he was abroad, sent for him borne to work in his palaces. He practised both in portrait and history; and furnished some of the apartments of the Louvre, the palaces of Luxemburg and iSt. Germains, the galleries of cardinal Richelieu, and other public places, with his works. His greatest perfection lay in his colouring, and his brisk and lively pencil; otherwise he was but tery indifferently qualified. He had no genius for grand compositions, was unhappy in his invention, unacquainted with the rules of perspective, and understood but little of the union of colours, or the doctrine of lights and shadows. Yet France was indebted to him for destroying the insipid and barbarous manner which then reigned, and for beginning to introduce a better taste. The novelty of Vouet’s manner, and the kind reception he gave all who came to him, made the French painters, his contemporaries, follow it, and brought him disciples from all parts. Most of the succeeding painters, who were famous in their profession, were bred up under him, as Le Brun, Perrier, Mignard, Le Sueur, Dorigny, Du Fresnoy, and several others, whom he employed as assistants in a great number of pictures he drew, and from his instructions they well knew how to execute his designs. He had the honour also to instruct the king himself in the art of designing.

He died, rather worn out with labour than years, in 1641, aged fifty-nine. Dorigny, who was his son-in-law, as well as his pupil, engraved the greatest part of his works. He bad a brother, whose name was Auhin Vouet, who painted after his manner, and was a tolerable performer.

, an extraordinary artist, was born at Schafhausen, in May 1650. He travelled and resided long at Rome and Venice. On his return he married Elizabeth Ott, and died in April 1717. This is nearly all the information which the attention and the taste of his country has preserved of a man, who, on the evidence of his few remaining works, commands a place among the best artists of his time. Some anecdotes indeed are told, relative to his circumstances, which were as ludicrously penurious as Brauwer’s. At Berne and Basle, they still shew his Adieu and death of Adonis, and the Adultress in the Temple. Schafhausen possesses the Rape of the Sabines, the judgment of Paris, Scipio and the Celtiberian princess, the death of Cleopatra, and that of Cato; and at Geneva there are yet some subjects painted by him from the Metamorphoses of Ovid. Veyth’s style of design is an imitation of the forms of Michael Angelo, but not a compilation from his figures. His method of drawing is wild and great: seldom he makes use of the pen; dashes of white on stained paper mark the lights, the paper the middle tints, and a little black the shade. In composition he sometimes sacrificed the main subject to the episodic part, if it happened to invite by picturesque allurements. In~ colour, though he followed the Venetian principle, especially Bassan, he had a characteristic and varied tone drawn from the nature of the subjects.

That work of Wace’s which his learned biographer places first, was composed in 1155. It is his translation in verse of the famous “Brut of England,” so called from Brutus the great grandson of Æneas, and first king of the Britons. It contains the history of the kings of Great Britain, almost from the destruction of Troy to the year 689 of the common sera. Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, had imported the original from Armoric Britain, Geoffroy of Monmouth translated it into Latin, and Wace into French verse. Several copies of this work are in the British Museum, one at Bene't college, Cambridge, and one, at least, a very superb one, in the royal library at Paris, supposed to be coeval with the author. The verses of this poem are always masculine of eight syllables, and feminine of nine; by which circumstance the error of attributing this work, as Fauchet has done, to a Huistace, or Wistace, is detected; for, by substituting Wace, as is found in the ancient ms. the verses acquire their necessary measure. Warton has fallen into this mistake by depending upon Fauchet; and the same error is repeated by several French writers. The learned Tyrwhitt was the first person who attempted to clear up a subject which from time to time became more involved in darkness, and to vindicate our author from the errors or injustice of modern writers. By means of sound criticism, the authority of the manuscripts in the British Museum, and the testimony of Layamon and Robert de Brunne, he proved, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that Wace was the author of the translation of the “Brut” into French verse. Lastly, Dr. Burney, in, his < c History of Music," by means of the rules of French poetry alone, demonstrated the want of fidelity in the manuscripts which had misled Fauchet and all other writers, who, as he had done, drew their materials from faulty and imperfect copies.

Such a multitude of works from the pen of the same author engaged the attention of Henry II. who, to reward his merit, bestowed on him a canonry in the cathedral of Bayeux. Monsieur Lancelot, in his explanation of the tapestry of queen Matilda, preserved in the treasury of that cathedral, has contended that Wace borrowed several facts which he could not have found elsewhere from that valuable monument, but for this there seems very slight foundation. Dumoutier in his.“Nenstria pia” says that Wace was canon of Caen, but it is certain there was no chapter established in that city. That of St. Sepulchre, which still remains, was not founded till 1219. It is true, that in March 1152, Philip de Harcourt, bishop of Bayeux, founded three new canonries in his cathedral church, and to endow them, annexed the parish churches of Notre Dame, St. John, and St. Peter, belonging to the city of Caen; perhaps Wace being afterwards provided with one of these benefices, might have been called canon of Caen, because the chief place of his prebend was situated in that city; this conjecture acquires the greater probability on account of a practice still existing in Normandy of describing every canon by the name of the place appropriated to his canonry.

Huet, and almost every one of those who have spoken of our poet, have maintained that he had been clerk of the chapel to king Henry II. Wace, however, mentions nothing concerning this dignity, although he minutely describes all the favours which that monarch conferred upon him; he is even so attentive upon this subject, that he assures us the king gave him many things, but had promised him more. Besides, as the title of clerk of the King’s chapel was a very honourable one, which generally led the way to a bishopric, we may presume from his silence that he was not invested with it. Monsieur Huet has certainly been misled by the description of clerk, which Wace often assumes; but he should have remarked, that he never calls himself clerc du roi, but always clerc de Caen, or clerc lisant, a title which then signified nothing more than a learned man, and which was even given to laymen, since Henry I. was surnamed Beauclerc.

Of Wace’s personal history we have no farther account, but with regard to the advantages attending the perusal of the productions of Wace, his biographer says very truly, that “The antiquary will at first remark with astonishment, that their language (that of the Normans) has been preserved even to our own days in the countries of Lower Normandy. He will perceive their progress in the various arts; their attainments in that of war; their arms and their military customs their method of attacking castles and strong holds the state of their marine and their commerce; the height to which they have carried architecture and other sciences, together with the monuments they have left us. The genealogist will find many curious and interesting facts relating to ancient families; he will feel himself rewarded in the perusal of the names of the knights who were present at the battle of Hastings; and of the noble actions by which each of them signalized his valour. In a word, the historian will learn with pleasure many circumstances and details which are not to be found in any other writer.”

, an eminent Irish Roman catholic, and reckoned a great ornament to his country, was born at Waterford, Oct. 16, 1588. His first studies were begun at home under the tuition of his brother Matthew, who took him to Portugal in the fifteenth year of his age, and placed him in a seminary established for the Irish at Lisbon, where he applied to philosophy for six months under the direction of the Jesuits. In 1605, after having passed his noviciate, he was admitted among the Franciscans, and afterwards continued his studies at their convents at Liria, at Lisbon, and afterwards at Coimbra, in all which places he was admired for the diligence and success of his application. After being admitted into priest’s orders he removed to Salamanca, where he continued some time, and was made superintendant of the students, and lecturer in divinity, in both which offices he gave great satisfaction. In 1618, when Anthony a Trejo, vicar-general of the Franciscans, was advanced to the bishopric of Carthagena, in Spain, and appointed legate extraordinary to pope Paul V. upon one of those disputes which frequently agitated the Romish church, respecting the immaculate conception, the bishop, although he had the choice of many men of the Spanish nation, eminent for learning and talents in business, yet preferred Wadding to be chaplain of this embassy, although then but thirty years old, and a foreigner.

Accordingly, having introduced our divine at court, the bishop took him with him to Rome, where they were lodged in the palace of cardinal Gabriel a Trejo, the bishop’s brother, who employed Wadding in compiling or composing from the libraries and archives of Rome such arguments and proofs as related to the question before them; and he even visited Assisi, Perugia, Naples, and many other places fr the same purpose. Besides this, at the request of some who had perused what he had brought together with great satisfaction, he was induced to write a history of that legation, not indeed with a view to publication, but having intrusted the ms to some who were of opinion it ought not to be concealed, it was at last published by Maximilian de Bouchorne, at Louvaine, under the title “Legatio Philippi III. et IV. Hispaniae regum, ad sanctissimos D. D. Paulum V- et Gregorium XV. et Urbanum VIII. pro definienda controversia conceptions B. Mariae Virginia; per illustrissimum, &c. Anthonium a Trejo,” &c. Lonvain, 1624, folio.

But while this legation was going on, he removed from the cardinal’s palace, as enjoying there a course of life which he thought incompatible with his profession of Franciscan, and took up his residence at the Franciscan-convent of St. Peter, where he was honoured with the respect of many of the dignified ecclesiastics of Rome; and on the departure of the bishop to Spain, when the care of the legation was entrusted to the duke of Albuquerque, the Spanish ambassador at Rome, Wadding was appointed his assistant, and was, says his biographer, the life of the whole negotiation. He wrote three pamphlets on the subject of the immaculate conception, the titles of which we may be excused from giving. During the time he could spare from the business of this legation, he published an edition of some works of St. Francis, from Mss. in the public libraries, under the title of “Opusculorum St. Francisci Libri tres,” Antwerp, 1623. Before this time he performed what will probably be thought a more acceptable service to theological studies, in undertaking to print Calasio’s Concordance (see Calasio). Calasio died at Rome, wliile Wadding was there, leaving this large work in manuscript. Wadding, who saw its merits, regretted that it should be lost; and being unable of himself to defray the expence of printing, applied to pope Paul V. and to Benignus a Genua, the general of the Franciscans, by whose encouragement the whole was published at Rome in 1621, 4 vols, folio, under the inspection of Wadding, who prefixed to it a learned treatise “De Hebraic lingoos origine, praestaiitia et militate.” Pope Paul dying while the work was in the press, he dedicated it to his successor, Gregory XV. He published also, from original Mss. the works of some other Spanish divines, and wrote a life of Thomasius, patriarch of Constantinople, “Vita B. Petri Thomce Aquitani Carmelitse,” &c. Lyons, 1637, 8vo. But the most labourius effort of editorship was his rescuing from obscurity all the manuscript copies of Duns Scotus’s works, transcribing, collating, and correcting, and afterwards publishing the whole, in twelve folio volumes, at Lyons, in 1639.

, esq. of Edge and Merrifield, in Somersetshire, in which county he was born, the founder of Waclham-college, Oxford, was a descendant of the ancient family of YVadhams of Devonshire; but the period of his birth is not known, nor have we many particulars of his personal history. According to Wood, he was a gentleman-commoner either of Christ-church, or CorpusChrist! college, where he is supposed to have been admitted about 1548. He inherited an estate which he increased to more than 3000l. a-year, and accumulated about 14,000^. in money. A large portion of this property he resolved to devote to some foundation of public utility. His first intention is said to have been to found a college at Venice for such Englishmen of the Roman catholic persuasion as might wish to enjoy their education and religion, now no longer tolerated in England. From this it may be inferred, that he was himself attached to popery; but his adherence could not be inflexible, as he was soon persuaded by his friend Mr. Grange to erect a college in Oxford, in imitation of the others, where the established religion was now cultivated with zeal. His, or rather his wife’s, appointing, that the warden should not be married, may be thought a part of the old persuasion; but it must be remembered, that the marriage of the clergy was one of the last changes of opinion to which the nation was completely reconciled. Queen Elizabeth was always against it; and it was prohibited by the statutes of Jesus-college. A more ridiculous reason has been traditionally assigned for Mrs. Dorothy Wadham’s injunction against marriage; she is said to have been refused by the first warden; but she was at this time seventy-five years old, and he considerably advanced, which renders this story highly improbable. As Mr. Wadham died before this design could be carried into execution, he bequeathed the management of it to his wife, the daughter of siv William Petre, secretary of state, who so often occurs as a benefactor to the university of Oxford. This lady, assisted by trustees, and with a zeal proportioned to her husband’s spirited design, completed the necessary purchases, buildings, and endowment. She survived her husdand nine years, died May 16, 1618, aged eighty-four, and was buried with her husband in the north transept of the church of Ilminster in Somersetshire, under a stately monument of alabaster, on which are their figures on brass plates; but the whole is considerably decayed.

This was once a place of great fame in the university, and may be traced to very high antiquity. In 1251, pope Innocent IV. granted a power to the friars eremites of St. Austin, to travel into any countries, build monasteries, and celebrate divine service. With this permission, they first established a house in London, but deputed some of their number to go to Oxford, where they hired an obscure bouse near the public schools. Acquiring some reputation for their skill in philosophy and divinity, or at least what were then so called, they attracted the attention of sir John Handlove, or Handlow, of Burstall in Buckinghamshire, a very opulent gentleman, who purchased for them a piece of ground, enlarged afterwards by a gift from Henry III. On this tney built a house and chapel in a sumptuous form, and held schools for divinity and philosophy of such reputation, that, before the divinity school was built, the university acts were kept, and the exercises in arts were performed in this place. It was in particular enjoined that every bachelor of arts should once in ea^h year dispute, and once answer, at this house, and this continued until the dissolution, when the disputations were removed to St. Mary’s, and afterwaids to the schools. Alter the dissolution, the premises were let, on a lease of twenty-one years, at 3l. yearly, to Thomas Carwarden, or Carclon, esq. who appears to have demolished the whole, and carried off the materials. In 1552, king Edward VI. sold the site to Henry duke of Suffolk, and Thomas Duport, gentleman, who almost immediately conveyed it to Henry Baylie, M. D. formerly a fellow of New college, for forty-five shillings yearly. In 1553, Baylie sold it to his father-in-law, Edward Freere, of Oxford, who left it to his son William, by whom, in 1587, it was again sold to the mayor, bailiffs, and commonalty of Oxford lor the principal sum of 450l.

, an eminent nonconformist, was born in St. Saviour’s, Southwark, in 1630, and educated in Christ’s college, Cambridge, where he was under the tuition of Dr. Owtram, a tutor of eminence. In 1652 he was appointed minister of Newington Butts, where he not only spent his time, but a great part of his fortune in works of piety and charity. He distributed Bibles among the poor, and constantly visited his parishioners, and instructed them from house to house. There was a singular circumstance, very creditable to him in this appointment to St. Mary’s Newington. Our readers perhaps need not be told that at this- time the elections to churches were popular; and it so happened that the parishioners were divided into two parties, each of which, unknown to the other, presented its petition at Westminster to the committee who determined church preferments; and when these petitions were opened, they were found to be both in favour of Mr. Wadsworth. He also lectured occasionally in various city churches, and at last was chosen to the living of St. Lawrence Pountney, whence he was ejected at the restoration. He afterwards preached privately at Newington, Theobalds, and Southwark. He received nothing Tor his labours, but was content to spend and be spent in his great master’s service. His diary, printed at the end of his life, contains the strongest proofs of his being an excellent Christian; and it is no less evident, says Granger, from his practical works, that he strove to make others as good Christians as himself. He died of the stone, the 29th of October, 1676, aged forty-six. His funeral sermon was preached by Mr. Bragge. He published various pious treatises, enumerated by Calamy, few of which have descended to our times.

Among these are, 1. “A Letter to the author of the late Letter out of the country, occasioned by a former Letter to a member of the House of Commons, concerning the bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension.” 2. “An Answer to a late pamphlet entitled Obedience and Submission to the present Government demonstrated from bishop Overall’s Convocation Book: with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance,” London, 1690. 3. “An Answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Vindication of the Case of allegiance due to sovereign powers, which he made in reply to an Answer to a late pamphlet entitled Obedience and Submission to the present government demonstrated from bishop Overall’s Convocation book, with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance, &c,” London, 1692. 4. “An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Sherlock written in vindication of that part of Josephus’s History, wtiicb gives the account of Jaddas’s submission to Alexander, against the Answer to the piece entitled Obedience and Submission to the present Government,” Lond. 1692. 5. “A Letter out of Suffolk to a friend in London, giving some account of the late sickness and death of Dr. William Sancroft late lord archbishop of Canterbury,” London, 1694. 6. “A Letter out of Lancashire to a friend in London, giving some account of the tryals there. Together with some seasonable and proper remarks upon it; recommended to the wisdom of the Lords and Commons assembled in parliament,” London, 1694. 7. “A Letter to a gentleman elected a knight of the shire to serve in the present parliament,” London, 1694. 8. “Remarks on some late Sermons, and in particular on Dr. Sherlock’s sermon at the Temple December the 30th, 1694, in a letter to a friend. The second edition, with additions. Together with a letter to the author of a pamphlet entitled A Defence of the archbishop’s Sermon, &c. and several other Sermons, &c.” London, 1695. 9. “An account of the proceedings in the House of Commons, in relation to the recoining the clipped money, and falling the price of guineas. Together with a particular list of the names of the members consenting and dissenting; in answer to a Letter out of the country,” London, 1696. 10. “A Vindication of king Charles the Martyr; proving that his majesty was the author of ' Eixav BawiAjw, against a memorandum said to be written by the earl of Anglesey, and against the exceptions of Dr. Walker and others. To which is added a preface, wherein the bold and insolent assertions published in a passage of Mr.JBayle’s Dictionary relating to the present controversy are examined and confuted. The third edition, with large additions together with some original letters of king Charles the First, &c.” Lond. 1711, in 4to. The two former editions were in 8vo, the first printed in 1693, and the second in 1697. 11. “A Defence of the Vindication of king Charles the Martyr; justifying his majesty’s title to Efxcuv 'BacriMw, in answer to a late pamphlet entitled Amyntor,” London, 1699. Mr. Wagstaffe also wrote prefaces before, I. “Symmons’s Restitutus: containing two epistles, four whole sections or chapters, together with a postscript, and some marginal observations, &c. which were perfectly omitted in the first edition of Mr Symmons’s book, entitled” A Vindication of king Charles I. and republished by Dr Hollingworth,“London, 1693. 2.” The devout Christian’s Manual, by Mr. Jones,“London, 1703. 3.” A Treatise of God’s Government, and of the justice of his present dispensations in this world. By the pious, learned, and most eloquent Sulvian, a priest of Marseilles, who lived in the fifth century. Translated from the Latin by R. T. presbyter of the church of England,“London, 1700. These two pamphlets are also of Mr. Wagstaffe’s writing, 1.” The present state of Jacobitism in England,“ibid. 1700;” A second part in answer to the first“which was written by the bishop of Salisbury, &c. &c. Wagstaflfe derived most credit from his endeavours to prove the” Eikon Basilike“to be the genuine production of king Charles; but on this subject we must refer our readers to the life of bishop Gauden, and especially the authorities there quoted. Mr. Wagstaffe had a son who resided at Oxford in the early part of his life, but afterwards went abroad, and resided at Rome many years in the character of protestant chaplain to the chevalier St. George, and afterwards to his son. He was there esteemed a man of very extensive learning. Dr. Townson was acquainted with him at Rome, both on his first and second tour in 1743 and 1768. He lived in a court near a carpenter’s shop, and upon Dr. Townson’s inquiring for him, the carpenter knew of no such person.” He did live somewhere in this yard some years ago.“” I have lived here these thirty years, and no person of such a name has lived here in that time.“But on farther explanation, the carpenter exclaimed,” Oh, you mean // Predicatore; he lives there,“pointing to the place. This Mr. Wagstaffe died at Rome, Dec. 3, 1770, aged seventy-eight. Mr. Nichols has preserved some jeux d‘esprits, and some epitaphs written by him, and there is a letter of his to Tom Hearne, in the ’.' Letters written by Eminent Persons,” lately published at Oxford, 1813, 3 vols. 8vo.

, a physician, whose writings, as well as his indolent habits of life, seem to have very strongly resembled those of the facetious Dr. William King of the Commons, was related to the preceding Wagstaffes, and descended from a very ancient family, who were lords of the manor of Knightcote in Warwickshire. He was born in 1685, and being the only son of his father the rector of Cublington in Buckinghamshire, he was educated with great care, and sent early to school at Northampton. In his sixteenth year he was removed to Lincoln college, Oxford, where he was soon distinguished, not only for talents and learning, but for a facetious humour which made his conversation very acceptable to persons of superior rank and standing in the university. After taking his degree of B. A. in 1703, he had some, thoughts of entering into the church, from no better motive, however, than the hopes of being preferred by a relation; but after taking his degree of A. M. in 1707, he left the university, and coming up to London, visited another relation, the rev. Thomas Wagstaffe, who then was a physician; and marrying this gentleman’s daughter some time afterwards, resolved on medicine as a profession, in which his wife’s relations did their utmost to assist him. After her death, he formed a second eligible union with the daughter of Charles Bernard, esq. sergeant-surgeon to queen Anne. Not long after this marriage, he completed his degrees in physic, in 1714, and returning to town was admitted fellow both of the college of physicians, and in 1717 of the Royal Society. Business gradually increasing, he was chosen one of the physicians of St. Bartholomew’s hospital, which trust he discharged with great reputation, as to skill and humanity. He appears, however, to have been a man of indolence, and of some irregular habits, which brought on lowness of spirits, and decay of health. In hopes of recovery he went to Bath in March 1724-5, but died there May 5, in the fortieth year of his age. His works were the same year collected under the title of “The Miscellaneous Works of Dr. William Wagstaffe, physician to St. Bartholomew’s hospital,” &c. 8vo. Their contents are characteristic of the author’s peculiar humour, and his opinions of his contemporaries. 1. “A comment upon the History of Tom Thumb,” in ridicule of Addison’s papers on “Chevy Chase.” 2. “Crispin the Cobler’s confutation of Ben H(oadly), in an. epistle 10 him.” 3. “The Story of the St. A(lba)n’s ghost,” &c. 4. “The testimonies of the citizens of Fickleborough, concerning the life and character of Robert Huish, commonly called Bob, &c.” 5. “The representation of the loyal subjects of Albinia.” 6. “The character of Richard St(ee)le, esq.:” not a very just one. 7. “The state and condition of our Taxes considered.” 8. “The Plain Dealer,” 16 numbers. 9. “Preface to the complete history of the treaty of Utrecht.” 10. “A Letter from the facetious Dr. Andrew Tripe, at Bath, to his loving brother the profound Greshamite, &c.” Most of these tracts were written in his early years, and without his name. He was also the author of two scarce little volumes, called “Annotations on the Tatler,” frequently quoted in the variorum editions of that periodical paper.

, a learned politician, was the son of Arthur Wake, rector of Billing, in Northamptonshire, master of the hospital of St. John at Northampton, and canon of Christ Church; and was born, it is supposed, at Billing, about 1575. He became a member of the university of Oxford in 1593, and in 1598 was elected probationer-fellow of Merton college. In 1604 he was chosen public orator, and in that capacity had frequent opportunities, sometimes before the king and court at their visits to the university, of delivering speeches in a pure and eloquent style. In 1609 he travelled in France and Italy, and after his return was made private secretary to sir Dudley Carleton, one of the chief secretaries of state, and discovering, in this situation, talents which might qualify him for diplomatic commissions, his majesty (James I.) employed him as ambassador to Venice, Savoy, and other courts. Previous to his setting out for Savoy in 1619, he received the order of knighthood. In 1625 he sat as member of parliament for the university of Oxford, and his speeches added considerably to his reputation. His accomplishments likewise, both as a scholar and a gentleman, were greatly admired. He died in 1632, while at Paris, in the service of Charles I. and his body being brought to England, was interred in the chapel at Dover castle. His funeral, which was very magnificent, was expressly at the charge of the king, who had intended him for the place of secretary of state had he lived.

, an eminent English prelate, descended from an ancient family, was born in 1657, at Blandford, in Dorsetshire, where his father, of the same names, was a gentleman of considerable property. He was probably educated at first at home, whence his father carried him to Oxford, with a view to place him in Trinity college, but an accidental interview with Dr. Fell, dean of Christ Church, determined him in favour of that college, of which he was accordingly admitted a student in 1672. Having taken his degree of A. B. in 1676, and that of A. M. in 1679, he fixed his choice on divinity as a profession, rather against the intention of his father, who wished to provide for him in the clothing business. He then entered into holy orders, and in 1682 accompanied, in quality of chaplain, lord viscount Preston, also of Christ Church, who was appointed envoy extraordinary to the court of France.

While in France he is said to have made a considerable figure in the learned world, and was applied to by Dr., now bishop Fell, to procure the collation of some valuable Greek Mss. of the New Testament at Paris, for the use of Dr. Mill, whose edition Dr. Fell patronised. In the beginning of the reign of James II. he returned home with lord Preston, and was soon after chosen preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s Inn. This, it would appear, was against the wish of the king, who, on the death of his predecessor, Dr. Claget, sent a message to the society, desiring them not to proceed to an election until they heard from him, but they returned an answer that they bad already chosen Dr. Wake. During his residence in France an incident occurred which occasioned his first appearance as an author, and his being known as an able writer both at home and abroad. Bossuet, the bishop of Meaux (See Bossuet) had now published his very artful “Exposition of the Roman Catholic Faith,” a copy of which came into the hands of Mr. Wake, who, in the preface to his Answer, gives a very curious account of the different alterations the work had undergone, in order to answer the real purposes for which it was written. He observes, that “the first design of monsieur de Meaux’s book was either to satisfy or to seduce the late mareschal de Turenne. How far it contributed thereunto I am not able to say, but am willing to believe that the change that honourable person made of his religion was upon somewhat better grounds than the bare Exposition of a few articles of the Roman faith; and that the author supplied either in his personal conferences with him, or by some other papers to us unknown, what was wanting to the first draught, which we have seen of this. The manuscript copy which then appeared, and for about four years together passed up and down in private hands with great applause, wanted all those chapters of the Eucharist, Tradition, the Authority of the Church and Pope, which now make up the most considerable part of it; and in the other points which it handled, seemed so loosely and favourably to propose the opinions of the church of Rome, that not only many undesigning persons of that communion were offended at it, but the protestants, who saw it, generally believed that monsieur de Meaux durst not publicly own what in his Exposition he privately pretended to be their doctrine. And the event shewed that they were not altogether mistaken. For in the beginning of 1671 the Exposition being with great care, and after the consideration of many years, reduced into the form in which we now see it, and to secure all, fortified with the approbation of the archbishop of Rheims, and nine otheV bishops, who profess that ‘ having examined it with all the care which the importance of the matter required, they found it conformable to the doctrine of the church, and as such recommended it to the people which God had committed to their conduct,’ it was sent to the press. The impression being finished and just ready to come abroad, the author, who desired to appear with all advantage to himself and his cause that was possible, sent it to some of the doctors of the Sorbonne for their approbation to he joined to that of the bishops, that so no authority, ordinary or extraordinary, might be wanting to assert the* doctrine contained in it to be so far from the suspicion the Protestants had conceived of it, that it was truly and without disguise Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. But, to the great surprise of monsieur de Meaux, and those who had so much cried up his treatise before, the doctors of the Sorbonne, to whom it was communicated, instead of the approbation that was expected, confirmed what the Protestants had said of it; and, as became their faculty, marked several of the most considerable parts of it, wherein the Exposition by the too great desire of palliating had absolutely perverted the doctrine of their church. To prevent the open scandal, which such a censure might have caused, with great industry and all the secrecy possible the whole edition was suppressed, and the several places, which the doctors had marked, changed; and the copy so speedily sent back to the press again, that in the end of the same year another much altered was publicly exposed, as the first impression that had at all been made of it. Yet this could not be so privately carried on, but that it soon came to a public knowledge; insomuch that one of the first answers that was made to it, charged monsieur de Meaux with this change. I do not hear, that he has ever yet thought fit to deny the relation, either in the advertisement prefixed to the later editions of his book, wherein yet he replies to some other passages of the same treatise, or in any other vindication: whether it be that such an imputation was not considerable enough to be taken notice of, or that it was too true to be denied, let the reader judge. But certainly it appears to us not only to give a clear account of the design and genius of the whole book, but to be a plain demonstration, how improbable soever monsieur de Meaux would represent it, * that it is not impossible for a bishop of the Church of Rome, either not to be sufficiently instructed in his religion to know what is the doctrine of it; or not sufficiently sincere, as without disguise to represent it.' And since a copy of that very book so marked, as has been said, by the doctors of the Sorbonne, is fallen into my hands, I shall gratify the reader’s curiosity with a particular view of the changes that have been made, that so he may judge whether of the two was the cause of those great advances which the author in that first edition had thought fit to make towards us.” Such was part of the preface to Mr. Wake’s “Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England,” 1686, 4to, which he was induced to undertake, by having observed that the French catholics with whom he had conversed, had, from ignorance, or the misrepresentations of their instructors, entertained very false notions of the points in controversy between the Churches of Rome and England.

In 1701, two years before the publication of the lastmentioned work, he was installed dean of Exeter, whence in 1705, he was promoted to the bishopric of Lincoln. In the House of Peers he first distinguished himself by a long and learned speech in favour of a comprehension with the dissenters, a measure which other well-meaning divines of the church had fondly adopted; and expressed himself with equal zeal against the intemperate writings of Sacheverell. In Jan. 1715-16, on the death of archbishop Tenison, he was translated to the metropolitan see, and as he had lived to see the folly of giving way to the enemies of the hierarchy by way of reconciling them to it, he both voted and spoke in the House of Lords against the repeal of the schism and conformity bill in 1718. Among other things, he remarked, that “the acts, which by this bill were to be repealed, were the main bulwark and supporters of the established church; that he had all imaginable tenderness for all the well-meaning conscientious dissenters; but he could not forbear saying, that some amongst them made a wrong use of the favour and indulgence that was shewn them upon the revolution, though they had the least share in that event.” From the same experience he was led to oppose the design entered into by some very powerful persons, the year following, to repeal the corporation and test acts. It was well known that Hoadly was at the bottom of this design, and that his famous sermon on “The nature of Christ’s kingdom” was a preparatory step. The archbishop therefore thought it proper to declare his dislike of the measure, as Hoadly had proposed it, in an indirect way, and wrote a Latin letter addressed to the superintendant of Zurich, which was published there under the title of “Oratio historica de beneficiis in ecclesiam Tigurinum collatis.” In this he took occasion to remark, that “The church of England, broken in pieces with divisions, and rent with schisms, is distracted with so many and such various sorts of separatists from her communion, that they want proper names to distinguish themselves from one another, and to describe themselves to other men. And I wish this was our greatest matter of complaint. But that which the spirit of God foretold should come to pass, must be fulfilled,” Even among ourselves men have arisen, speaking perverse things,“But why do I say men? Even pastors and bishops themselves pull down with their own hands the church, in which they minister, and to whose doctrine they have more than once subscribed. They, to whom the preservation of the church is committed, and whose duty it is to watch against her enemies, and to reprove, restrain, and punish them according to their demerits; even these endeavour to overthrow the authority of that church, for which they ought not only to contend, but upon occasion even to lay down their lives. What the pleas and tenets of these innovators are, you may in some measure know from two pamphlets lately written in the French tongue. Let it here suffice to s.ay in a word, that these men are highly displeased with all confessions of faith, and with all subscriptions to articles; and would have a liberty, or rather a license granted for all men, not only to believe^ but to speak, write, and preach, whatsoever they think fit, though the grace of the holy spirit, the divinity of Christ, and all other fundamental articles of our religion should thereby be overturned. What Christian is not amazed, that those things should be said of any men that bear but the name of Christians? Who can but lament, that those grievous wolves are not only not driven away from the sheepfold, but received even within the walls of the church, and admitted to her honours, offices, and government? But so it is, that while we regard only the things of this world, we wholly forget those that concern another. And because by the toleration and advancement of such men, some (who have nothing more at heart than to keep themselves in their places and power) hope to ingratiate themselves with the populace, they are not at all solicitous what becomes of the church, of the faith, of religion, or in short of Jesus Christ himself and his truth. Pardon me, most worthy sir, that giving way to a just grief, I express rny resentment against these enemies of our religion more sharply than my manner is. 1 should think myself guilty of betraying the faith, if I did not, whenever occasion serves, anathematize these heretics.”

In the same spirit archbishop Wake joined the earl of Nottingham in bringing a bill into parliament in 1721, levelled at the Arian heresy, and entitled “A Bill for the more effectual suppression of blasphemy and profaneness,” which, however, was rejected in the House of Lords, and brought on the archbishop the charge of inconsistency, because in the cases of Whiston and Clarke, in 1711 and 1712, he had spoken with moderation of their Arianism. Whiston wrote a very angry letter to the archbishop on this occasion, which is printed in his life, but to which the archbishop thought, and probably most of those who read it will think, no answer necessary.

That for which archbishop Wake appears to have been most blamed, was the share he had in a scheme of union between the English and Gallican churches; but in this, as in other parts of his conduct, the blame seems to have arisen principally from misrepresentation, at the same time that we are willing to allow that the scheme itself was a weak one, and never likely to produce any good. The outline of the affair, which is related more at large in the Appendix to the last edition of Mosheim’s History, No IV. is this. In 1717 some mutual civilities had passed between the archbishop and the celebrated ecclesiastical historian Dupin, as men of letters, by means of the rev. Mr. Beauvoir, then chaplain to lord Stair, the English ambassador at Paris. In the course of these civilities, Dupin wrote to the archbishop a Latin letter in Jan. 1718, in which, having congratulated the church of England on the enjoyment of so eminent a prelate for its metropolitan, he took occasion to express his desire for an union between the two churches of England and France, and wished to enter into a correspodence with his grace with that view. The archbishop, in return, after thanking him for his compliment, observed, that it was full time both for himself (Dupin) and the rest of his brethren of the Sorbonne, to declare openly their true sentiments of the superstition and ambition of the court of Rome; that it was the interest of all Christians to unmask that court, and thereby reduce it to those primitive limits and honours which it enjoyed in the first ages of the church. In some farther correspondence, the archbishop explained the belief, tenets, and doctrine of the chuch of England, the manner of its beginning to reform and shake off all foreign power and superstition both in church and state, and its acknowledgment that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only founder, source, and head of the church. In all his letters both to Dupin and others, he insisted constantly on this article, and always maintained the justice and orthodoxy of every individual article of the church of England, without making the least concession towards any approbation of the ambitious pretensions of the church of Rome. Some of the doctors of the Sorbonne readily concurred in this scheme, and Dupin drew up an essay towards an union, which was to be submitted for approbation to the cardinal de Noailles, and then to be transmitted to his grace. This essay, which was called a “Commonitorium,” was read by, and had the approbation of the Sorbonne, and in it was ceded the administration of the sacrament in both kinds, the performing of divine service in the vulgar tongue, and the marriage of the protestant clergy; and the invocation of saints was given up as unnecessary. The project engrossed the whole conversation of the city of Paris, and the Engiish ambassador was congratulated upon it by some great personages at court. The regent duke of Orleans himself, and the abbe Du Bois, minister of foreign affairs, and De Fleury, the attorney general, at iirst seemed to acquiesce, or at least not to interfere; but, after all, no considerate person could expect much from the scheme, which was entirely prevented by the Jesuits, who sounded the alarm, and represented the cardinal de Noailles and his friends the Jansenists as about to make a coalition with the heretics.

Thus much it has been thought necessary to advance, in vindication of the character of Dr. Wake, which, after long enjoying the good opinion of mankind, was at last, with equal fury and falsehood, attacked by the author of the “Confessional,” who does not scruple to say, speaking of the archbishop, that “this pretended champion of the Protestant religion had set on foot a project for union with a Popish church, and that with concessions in favour of the grossest superstition and idolatry.” Nothing could be farther from Wake’s purpose, and nothing more at variance with the whole tenour of his public life or private sentiments; and, in truth, the whole of the above correspondence with the popish doctors was a matter of private sentiment, and neither party appears to have been authorized by, or to have consulted the church to which they respectively belonged. Had that been done, it is not quite clear that the plan, even as far as it has been divulged, would have been more acceptable in England than in France. The best part of it, the best object at which it aimed, was the separation of the church of France from the jurisdiction of the pope.

Wake was of a pacific spirit: this appears in all his correspondence; and his correspondence appears to have extended to the leading men of every ecclesiastical community in Europe. He shewed a great regard to the foreign protestant churches, notwithstanding the difference of their discipline and government from that of the church of England; and blames those who would not allow their religious assemblies the denomination of churches, and who deny the validity of their sacraments. He declared, on the contrary, those churches to be true Christian churches, and expresses a warm desire of their union with the church of England. We must particularly notice his correspondence in 1719 with Mr. Jablonski of Poland, be-' cause it has a direct reference to that part of his character which the author of the “Confessional” has so unwarrantably misrepresented. Jablonski, from a persuasion of Dr. Wake’s great wisdom, discernment, and moderation, had consulted him as to a proposed union between the Lutherans and the church of Rome. In his answer, the archbishop gives the strongest cautions to the Polish Lutherans against entering into any treaty of union with the Roman catholics, except on a footing of perfect equality, and in consequence of a previous renunciation, on the part of the latter, of the tyranny, and even of the superiority and jurisdiction of the church of Rome and its pontiff; and as to what concerns points of doctrine, he exhorts them not to sacrifice truth to temporal advantages, or even to a desire of peace.

Archbishop Wake was a man of a pacific, gentle, and benevolent spirit, and an enemy to feuds, animosities, and party-prejudices, which divide the professors of religion, and by which Christianity is exposed to the assaults of its virulent enemies, and wounded in the house of its pretended friends. Dr. Richardson says justly of him, that his accurate and superior knowledge of the Romish hierarchy, and of the constitution of the church of England, furnished him with victorious arms, both for the subversion of error, and the defence of truth. He was a man of great liberality, and munificent in his charities and expences. Of the latter Exeter, Bugden, Lambeth, and Croydon can bear testimony. He is said to have expended about 11,000l. in the repairs of the two palaces of Lambeth and Croydon. He bequeathed his excellent and copious library of printed books and Mss. with his coins, the whole valued at 10,000l. to Christ Church, Oxford. His lady died in 1731; by her he had six daughters, who all survived him, and were married into families of note.

In 1776 he was elected fellow, and continued the prosecution of his classical and theological studies through that and the following year. The first of his publications appeared in 1776, a small collection of Latin poems, with a few notes on Horace. In 1777 he gained the second of the bachelor’s prizes, a gold medal given by the chancellor. On the 22d of March, 1778, he was ordained a deacon by the bishop of Peterborough, and takes occasion from this event to declare that “he was so little satisfied with the requisition of subscription, and the subjects of that subscription themselves, that he afterwards regarded this acquiescence as the most disingenuous action of his whole life.” He then accepted a curacy at Stockport in Cheshire, whence he afterwards removed to a similar situation at Liverpool. Here he complains that the clergy, both conformist and nonconformist, paid little attention to him, and at the same time his dissatisfaction with the doctrine and worship of the church continued to increase. His dislike of the church was indeed now becoming inveterate, and devoid of all candour. Among his anecdotes when at Liverpool, he gives one of a church clergyman, who purloined the sacrament money; this clergyman had once been a dissenter, and Mr. Wakefield imputes his committing this crime to his having left the dissenters and conformed to the church.

"Although Mr. Wakefield’s principles had induced him to renounce his clerical office in the church of England, and he had become a dissenter from her doctrine and worship, yet he was far from uniting with any particular class of those who are usually denominated dissenters. He had an insuperable repugnance to their mode of performing divine service; and he held in no high estimation the theological and philosophical knowledge which it has been the principal object of their seminaries of education to communicate. It has already been observed, that the basis of his own divinity was philology. Classical literature, therefore, as containing the true rudiments of all other science, was that on which he thought the greatest stress should be laid, in a system of liberal education. This point he inculcated with an earnestness which probably appeared somewhat dictatorial to the conductors of the institution.

“Further, in the progress of his speculations, he had been led to form notions concerning the expediency and propriety of public worship, extremely different from those of every body of Christians, whether in sects or establishments; and as he was incapable of thinking one thing and practising another, he had sufficiently made known his sentiments on this subject, as well in conversation, as by abstaining from attendance upon every place of religious assembly. They who were well acquainted with him, knew that in his own breast piety was one of the most predominant affections; but the assembling for social worship had for so many ages been regarded as the most powerful instrument for the support of general religion, that to discourage it was considered as of dangerous example, especially in a person engaged in the education of youth. Notwithstanding, therefore, his classical instructions in the college were received by the students almost with enthusiastical admiration, and conferred high credit on the institution, a dissolution of his connection with it took place in the summer of 1791.”

Entering at length into the dangerous path of politics, he published “Remarks on the General Orders of the Duke of York,” in which he arraigned the justice of the war with France in terms which are supposed to have exercised the utmost forbearance of the ministry. But in his “Reply to some parts of the bishop of Lanclaff’s Address,” he passed those limits, and a prosecution being commenced, he was sentenced, upon conviction, to a two years imprisonment in Dorchester gaol. While here, his sufferings were as much as possible alleviated by the zeal of his friends, who raised a subscription of 5000l., which eased his mind as to a future provision for his family, and probably far exceeded what he could ever have been able to leave them, under any probable circumstances.

"Gilbert Wakefield was a diligent, and, we believe, a sincere inquirer after truth but he was unhappily so framed in temper and habits of mind, as to be nearly certain of missing it, in almost every topic of inquiry. Knowing his own assiduity, and giving himself ample credit for sagacity, he thought that he was equal to the decision of every possible question. Conscious also of integrity, he never suspected that he could be biassed by any prejudices, and, therefore, had no doubt that his conclusions were always right. But unfortunately he had prejudices of the most seductive kinds. He was prejudiced, in the first instance, against every established opinion, merely because it was established; and, very sparingly allowing to others the qualities for which he thought himself distinguished, he was always perfectly ready to believe, that all inquirers, who formed different conclusions, were either weak or dishonest. In this strange error he was invincibly confirmed by the very sacrifices he had made, early in life, to his own opinions. He must be honest, he thought, because he had sacrificed his interest to his judgment: others must be dishonest because their interest happened to coincide with their opinions. He loved a notion the more, for having made himself a martyr to it; and would probably have given it up, if ever it had become the opinion of the majority. He never seems to have suspected that his mind might be biassed to maintain these notions, for which he had once solemnly pledged his sagacity, or sacrificed his advantages; and thus he became bigotted to almost every paradox which had once possessed his very eccentric understanding. This was not only the case in religious questions, but equally so in critical doctrines. He was as violent against Greek accents, as he was against the Trinity; and anathematized the final v, as strongly as Episcopacy; though in these questions he stood in opposition to professou Person, and all the best Greek scholars of modern as well as ancient times; no less than in his faith, or rather lack of faith, he contradicted the majority of the profoundest theologians and wisest men.

“That he was strictly and enthusiastically honest, ought, we think, to be allowed, in the fullest sense of the terms; and his mind, naturally ardent, soon became so enamoured with this consciousness (which is undoubtedly, to a mind capable of relishing it, abundantly delightful) that he seems to have acquired even a passion for privations; as witnessing to himself an integrity which could cheerfully sacrifice inclination to conviction. These feelings, added to his pride of independent thinking, led him, we doubt not, to abstain from wine; to have relinquished in part, and to be tending entirely to give up, the use of animal food; with various other instances of peculiarity. Not even the Creator, who ordained that animals should afford sustenance to each other, could obtain credit with him, against his private opinions: nor would he see even the obvious truth, that if the use of animal food were abandoned, a small number would be produced, to die by miserable decay, while whole classes and genera would gradually become extinct. In all things it was the same with G. W. Whatever coincided not with his ideas of rectitude, justice., elegance, or whatever else it might be, was to give way at once, and be rescinded at his pleasure, on pain of the most violent reprehension to all opponents: whether it were an article of faith, a principle of policy, a doctrine of morality, or a reading in an ancient author, still it was equallycut and slash, away it must go, to the dogs and vultures. These exterminating sentences were also given with such precipitancy, as not to allow even a minute for consideration. To the paper, to the press, to the world, all was given at once, frequently to the incurring of most palpable absurdity. Thus the simple elegance of” O beate Sexti“in Horace, was proposed, in an edition of that author, to be changed to” O bea Te, Sexti," though the alteration, besides being most bald and tasteless, produced a blunder in quantity so gross, that no boy even in the middle part of a public school could have been thought pardonable in committing it. It may easily be judged, whether a man of such precipitance, and so blind a self-confidence, was likely to be successful as an investigator of truth. So very far was he from it, that though no man of common sense perhaps ever literally exemplified the latter part of Dryden’s famous line on Zimri——

“But why, it may be asked, should we thus mark the character of a man, who can no longer offend, and of whom therefore, as a trite maxim of candour pretends, nothing but good should be said. The folly of the maxim has been recognized by many men of sense; because if ever a man’s character can with propriety be scrutinized, it is when any exposure of his faults can no longer injure his interests, or wound his feelings. In the present instance, it becomes necessary, because, in the volumes now before us, (his Life in 2 vols. 8vo), an attempt is made to hold him up to an admiration, which might be hoped to give currency to some of his most pernicious opinions. The admirers oi him and of his notions are complimented as the only lovers of truth and freedom; and he is endeavoured to be represented as a martyr, of which character, if he had much of the constancy, he had proportionably little of the other estimable qualities. Instead of exhibiting him as a model, we should rather lament him as a strong example of human imperfection; in which some great qualities of soul and understanding were rendered pernicious to himself and others, by faults original or habitual, which perverted them in almost every exertion. Thus his sincerity became offensive, his honesty haughty and uncharitable, his intrepidity factious, his acuteness delusive, and his memory, assisted by much diligence, a vast weapon which his judgment was totally unable to wield. In such a picture, notwithstanding some fine features, there is more to humble than to flatter the pride of man; and to hold it up to almost indiscriminate admiration is neither prudent nor useful.”

Mr. Wakefield’s brother, the Rev. Thomas Wakefield, appointed minister of Richmond, by his father in 1776, and who died Nov. 26, 1806, was a man peculiarly distinguished by benevolence of disposition, benignity of manners, and liberality of sentiment. A memoir of him, in which his virtues and his benevolent disposition are described much at large by the Rev. Dr. Charles Symmons, wa.s printed and circulated soon after his death. The poignant regret occasioned by his loss caused others of his friends to employ their pens in the delineation of his amiable character, particularly the Rev. Edward Patteson, of Richmond, who preached his funeral sermon, and John May, esq. who inserted a character of him at considerable length in the parish register.

, a learned divine in the reign of Henry VIII. was born in the north of England, and educated at the university of Cambridge, whence, after taking his degrees in arts, he went abroad to study the Oriental languages. In a few years he made a considerable progress in the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac; and taught those languages both in Paris and in Germany. In 1519 he was Hebrew professor at Louvain, but after holding that office only a few months, he returned home, and became chaplain to Dr. Pace, then dean of St. Paul’s, who recommending him to the king as an able linguist, he was sent to Cambridge, and there honoured with the degree of B. D. which qualified him for ecclesiastical preferments. When the controversy relating to king Henry VIII.'s divorce commenced, Wakefield is said to have been of the queen’s party, and thought the divorce unjustifiable, but was afterwards induced to be of the king’s opinion. Dodd says that the reason he gave for changing sides was the circumstance of prince Arthur’s having consummated the marriage, of which he was not before aware; and Dodd adds, that “as the world is apt to judge the worst of things of this nature, Mr. Wakefield was represented as a mercenary writer, especially by those that maintained the queen’s cause.” We have, however, the evidence of another Roman catholic biographer that the world was not much to blame for its unfavourable opinion. Phillips, in his Life of cardinal Pole, assures us, that a letter is extant, “to Wakefield’s eternal infamy,” addressed by secretary Pace to the king, in which he informs him, that “he had treated with Dr. Wakefield of the divorce, and that the doctor was ready to solve the question, either in the negative or affirmative, just as the king thought proper, and in such a manner as all the divines in England should not be able to make any reply.” This letter is dated 1526. Accordingly he soon after wrote a work in favour of the divorce; and in 1530, the king sent him to Oxford, and made him public professor of Hebrew; by which means he had an opportunity of being more serviceable to his majesty. In 1532, he was made a canon of Wolsey’scollege, and incorporated bachelor of divinity. He appears to have been a lover of learning, and when, in 1536, the lesser monasteries were dissolved, he took care to save from destruction several valuable books and Mss. especially such as were in Greek and Hebrew; and, among others, several curious Mss. in Ramsay-abbey, particularly a Hebrew dictionary, which had been lodged there by Robert Holbeach, a monk of that monastery in the reign of Henry IV. Wakefield died at London, Oct. 8, 1537. He left some learned works, as, 1, “Oratio de laudibus et militate trium linguarum, Arabics, Chaidaicae, et liebraicae, atque id -viaicis qua- ii utfoque Testajnr- io niveniuntur,” 15^4, 4to. Thepmuei w. Wynix lie Worde; and the author complains, that he was obliged to omit his whole third part, because the printer had no Hebrew types. Some few Hebrew and Arabic characters, however, are introduced, but extremely rude, and evidently cut in wood. They are the first of the sort used in England. 2. “Koster Codicis,” &c. the same mentioned by Bale and Pits, with the title “De non ducenda fratria,” and is the book he wrote in favour of king Henry’s -divorce, Lond. 1628, 4to. Tanner and Wood attribute other pieces to him, but they are probably in ms. except “Syntagma de Hebraeorum codicum incorruptione,” 4to, without date; and " Paraphrasis in Hbrum Koheleth (Ecclesiasticen) succincta, clara, et fidelis, 4to.

, a very eminent Protestant divine, was born October 3, 1573, at Ghent, of an ancient family, which has produced many distinguished magistrates. He officiated as pastor at several different places; declared in favour of the Counter-remonstrants, enjoyed the friendship and confidence of prince Maurice, and was one of those who drew up the canons of the famous synod of Dort. Walæus became afterwards professor of divinity at Leyden, and died July 9, 1639, leaving “Compendium EthicaeAristotelicae,” Leyden, 1636, 12mo. The greatest part of the Flemish translation of the Bible, made by order of the States, and which first appeared in 1637, was executed by him, and almost the whole of the New Testament. John Walæus his son, was professor of medicine at Leyden, where he died in 1649. He made some discoveries on the circulation of the blood, and taught Harvey’s system, although not without some attempt to deprive him of the honour of being the original inventor. His principal publication was “Epistolas de motu chyli et sanguinis,” Leyd. 1641.

, a Carmelite monk of great learning in the fourteenth century, was born at Walden in Essex, about 1367. His father’s name was John Netter, but he chose to be denominated, as indeed was very commoil then, from the place of his nativity. He was educated among the Carmelites in London, whence he removed for the farther prosecution of his studies to Oxford. Here he continued some years, and received the degree of doctor in divinity, after which he returned to London, and took the habit of the Carmelites. Being introduced at the court of Henry IV. he became a favourite with the king, and was appointed the principal champion of the church against heretics, and especially those who had adopted the tenets of Wickliff, Huss, or Jerome of Prague. In 1409 he was sent by the king to the grand council at Pisa, where he is said to have been much admired for his eloquence and learning. After his return to England, he was made provincial of his order; and Henry V. admitted him of his privy-council, and appointed him his confessor. In 1415 he was sent to the council of Constance, and about 1419, was employed to negociate peace between Uladislaus, king of Poland, and Michael, general of the Teutonic order. In 1422 the king died in the arms of Waldensis, at Vincennes in France. He became afterwards a favourite with the young king Henry VI. and was appointed his confessor. In 1430 he attended the king to France, and at Roan was seized with an acute disease, of which he died Nov. 2, and was buried in the convent of Carmelites in that city. He appears to have been a man of abilities; Pits says that he was master of the Greek and Hebrew languages, and in general a polite scholar. His principal work, the only one printed, is his “Doctrinale antiquum fidei ecclesias catholicse,” Paris, 1521—1523, 3 vols, folio, and reprinted at Saumur, Venice, and Paris. Mr. archdeacon Churton, in his valuable Lives of the founders of Brasenose-college, informs us, that the bishop of Lincoln, Russel, being harassed and fatigued, as he feelingly complains, with the multitude of heretics at Oxford in 1491, met with this book of Waldensis, and resolved to make extracts from it (vol. III. “de sacramentalibus”), for the more speedy and effectual refutation of the “insane dogmas, with which, he says, so many of his countrymen were infected.” Having framed his compendium with great care, by a written injunction under his own hand he ordered it to be preserved in the registry of the see, for the benefit of his successors in their examinations of “heretical depravity;” pronouncing an anathema at the same time against any one who should obliterate the title, expressive of the design of the performance and the name of the compiler. The original copy of this “touchstone of error,” which was completed at Woburn on the feast of the Epiphany 1491-2, is still extant in the library of University-college, Oxford.

, one of the earliest reformers of the church from Popery, but erroneously said to be the founder of that body of reformed Christians called the Waldenses, was an opulent merchant of Lyons in the twelfth century. The first time when he appears to have opposed the errors of the religion in which he was educated, was about 1160, when the doctrine of transubstantiation was confirmed by pope Innocent III. with the addition that men should fall down before the consecrated wafer and worship it as God. The absurdity of this forcibly struck the mind of Waldo, who opposed it in a very courageous manner. It does not appear, however, that he had any intention of withdrawing himself from the communion of the Romish church, or that in other respects he had any very serious notions of religion. The latter appears to have been produced first by the sudden death of a person with whom he was in company. This^lett very serious impressions on his mind, and he betook himself to reading the scriptures. At that time the Latin vulgate Bible was the only edition of the Scriptures in Europe; but that language was accessible to few. Waldo, however, from his situation in life, had had a good education, and could read this volume. “Being somewhat learned,” says Reinerius, “he taught the people the text of the New Testament.” He was also now disposed to abandon his mercantile pursuits, and distributed his wealth to the poor as occasion required, and while the latter flocked to him to partake of his alms, he also attended to their spiritual instruction, and either translated, or procured to be translated the four gospels into French; and thus the inhabitants of Europe were indebted to him for the first translation of the Bible into a modern tongue, since the time that the Latin had ceased to be a living language.

But pope Alexander III. had no sooner heard of these proceedings than he anathematized the reformer and his adherents, commanding the archbishop to proceed against them with the utmost rigour. Waldo was now compelled to quit Lyons; his flock, in a great measure, followed their pastor, and hence, say the ecclesiastical historians, a dispersion took place not unlike that which arose in the church of Jerusalem on the occasion of the death of Stephen. The effects were also similar. Waldo himself retired into Dauphiny, where he preached with abundant success; his principles took deep and lasting root, and produced a numerous body of disciples, who were denominated Leonists, Vaudois, Albigenses, or Waldenses; for the very same class of Christians is designated by these various appellations at different times, and according to the different countries, or quarters of the same country in which they appeared. From the name Waldenses, a corruption of Vallenses, or Vaudois, i. e. those xvho inhabited the valleys of Piedmont, occasion was taken to prove that these ancient churches had no existence till the time of Waldo. Waldo appears to have visited Picardy, propagating his doctrines, and finally, according to Thuanus, settled in Bohemia, where de died in 1179.

, an eminent Puritan divine, was born at Hawkshead in Lancashire, in 1581, and was educated at St. John’s-college, Cambridge. After completing his studies there he went to London, and in 1614 became rector of St. John’s the Evangelist in Watling-street, where he continued nearly forty years, refusing every other offer of preferment. About the same time he became chaplain to Dr. Felton, bishop of Ely, who made choice of him the very morning of his consecration. He distinguished himself in the popish controversy; and, in 1623, held a public disputation with a priest of the name of Smith, before a very large assembly, and by consent of both parties, an account of it was afterwards published. He had likewise some encounters with Fisher, the celebrated Jesuit, and others who were deemed the most able disputants on the side of the church of Rome. In 1635 he was brought into trouble, for having preached a sermon in favour of the sacred observance of the Sabbath; archbishop Laud was so unwise as to admonish him for thjs, and afterwards had hitn prosecuted in the Star-chamber, fined and imprisoned. The parliament reversed this sentence, and condemned the whole proceedings against Mr. Walker, and he was restored to his living of St. John’s. In 1643, he was chosen one of the assembly of divines, and was also one of the witnesses against archbishop Laud, and one of those who took upon them to swear that the unfortunate prelate had endeavoured to introduce popery. In his sermons, too, before the parliament, he made use of those expressions, which tended to lessen the king in the eyes of the people; and although he was one of those who afterwards petitioned against his majesty’s death, he was also one of those who did not reflect how much their violent harangues and sermons had contributed to that event. He died in 1651, aged seventy years, and was interred in his own church in Watling-street. Fuller gives him a high character, as a man “well skilled in the Oriental languages, and an excellent logician and divine. He was a man of a holy life, an humble spirit, and a liberal ham!, who well deserved of Zion college library and who, by his example and persuasion, advanced a thousand pounds for the maintenance of preaching ministers in his native country.” He published, 1. “The sum of a Disputation between Mr. Walker, pastor of St. John the Evangelist, and a Popish priest, calling himself Mr. Smith, but indeed Norris,” 1623. 2. “Fisher’s folly unfolded, or the vaunting Jesuit’s challenge answered,” 1624. 3. “Socinianism in the fundamental point of Justification discovered and confuted.” 4. “The doctrine of the Holy Weekly Sabbath,” 1641. 5. “God made visible in all his Works,” 1644; besides several sermons preached before the parliament. We shall have occasion to mention another publication of Mr. Walker’s, when we come to speak of Anthony Wotton.

, an Irish divine, celebrated for his military courage, was born of English parents in the county of Tyrone in Ireland, and educated in the university of Glasgow in Scotland. He became afterwards rector of Donoghmore, not many miles from the city of London* derry. When king James II. after the revolution, landed in Ireland, Mr. Walker, alarmed at the danger of the prctestaut religion, raised a regiment at his own expence to defend the cause he was bound to espouse. Apprehensive that James would visit Londonderry (for he had taken Coleraine and Kilmore), he rode full speed to Lundee, the governor, to apprize him of the danger. That officer at first slighted the information, but was soon convinced h'ow much he was indebted to him. Walker, returning to Lifford, joined colonel Crafton, and by Lunclee’s direction, took post at the Long Causeway, which he defended a whole night; but at length, obliged to give way to a superior force, he retreated to Londonderry, where he endeavoured to inspire the panic-struck governor with -courage to brave the storm, but in vain; he left the place either through fear or treachery. Walker, however, bravely united with major Baker to defend the place, which would have appeared bordering upon rashness, if they had been able generals. James commanded a numerous army in person, which was well supplied with every requisite for a siege. The besieged had no means for a long defence; they were men who, flying from their houses, had taken shelter in this place; they had not more than twenty cannon, nor more than ten days’ provision, and had no engineers, nor horses for foraging parties or sallies. Still resolved to suffer the greatest extremities rather than yield, they did all that desperate men could effect. They sent to king William to inform him of then-determination, imploring speedy relief. Major Baker dying, the command devolved chiefly on Walker, who exercised it with a stoic philosophy that has few parallels. Horses, dogs, cats, rats, and mice, were devoured by the garrison, and even salted hides were used as food. Mr. Walker suffered in common with his men, and even prompted them to make several sallies; and as the Irish constantly fled, the officers suffered dreadfully. Londonderry having a good harbour, he hoped that the king might be enabled to raise the siege that way, for by land there were no hopes of succour. But the fatality which frustrated every attempt of James, prevented him from storming the place, which might at any time have been done; on the contrary he determined on a blockade, and to starve the garrison into a surrender. With this view he had a bar made across the arm of the sea, which, as be supposed, would prevent vessels from entering the town. This succeeded, and all hope to the besieged seemed to be destroyed. Walker, perceiving the danger of a general defection, assembled his wretched garrison in the cathedral, and endeavoured to inspire them with a reliance on Providence. In this he was so successful, that they returned to their labours invigorated, and immediately had the happiness to discover three ships, under the command of major-general Kirk, who had sent a message to Walker before, intimating that when he could hold out no longer, he would raise the siege at the hazard of himself, his men, and his vessels. Whilst both parties were preparing for the dreadful trial, Kirk sailed round the bar, under a heavy discharge from the enemy, and succeeded in crossing it, by which the siege was raised in the night of July 21, 1689.

, author of some valuable and popular works on the English language, was born March 18, 1732, at Colney-hatch, a hamlet in the parish of Friern-Barnet. Of his parents little is known, and it does not appear that he was enabled to receive a liberal education. He was intended for some trade, but had a reluctance to every effort of that kind, and went when young upon the stage, on which he had some, although no brilliant success. He continued, however, to accept various theatrical engagements until 1768, when he finally quitted the stage; and in January 1767 joined Mr. James Usher (see Usher) in forming a school at Kensington Gravel-pits, but their partnership lasted only about two years, after which Mr. Walker began to give those instructions on elocution, which formed the principal employment of his future life, and procured him a very just fame. About the same time he instituted his inquiries into the structure of language, and the rationale of grammar, and particularly directed his attention to the orthoepy of the English language, in which he endeavoured, by tracing it to its principles, to form a consistent and analogical theory. The unwearied attention he bestowed upon the subject, enabled him to accomplish this end, and to demonstrate the errors, inconsistencies, and affectations which had crept into pronunciation, and which had been propagated, rather than corrected, By many or' those who had hitherto professed to teach it. He therefore resolved to make the public participators in the result of his researches; and in 1772 he published, by way of prospectus, a quarto pamphlet entitled, “A general idea of a Pronouncing Dictionary of the English language,” a work which, though an imperfect attempt had been made by Dr. Kenrick, in his “Rhetorical Dictionary,” might yet be considered as a desideratum. But as he found it impossible to proceed on tiiis without farther encouragement than was then offered, he compiled an English Dictionary on a smaller scale, and on a plan not hitherto attempted, in which the words should be arranged according to their terminations; a mode of arrangement which, though not calculated for general use, possesses many peculiar advantages. This he published in 1775, under the title of “A Dictionary of the English language, answering at once the purposes of rhyming, spelling, and pronouncing;” it has since been republisheu under the shorter title of “A Rhyming Dictionary.”

, a learned divine, first of the church of England, and then of the Romish church, was born at Worsbrough, near Barnsley, in the west riding of Yorkshire, not in 1615, as is said in the Biographia Britannica, but probably in the following year, as he was baptised Sept. 17, 1616. He was educated at University college, Oxford, under the tuition of Abraham Woodhead, who proved afterwards a great champion for the popish cause. Having taken his degree of bachelor of arts in July 1635, he was in August following chosen fellow of his college. In April 1638, he proceeded master of arts, entered into holy orders, and became a noted tutor. During the rebellion, he was one of the standing extraordinary delegates of the university for public business, and one of the preachers before the court of Charles I. at Oxford. According to Smith, he preached once, probably in his turn, and was requested by his majesty to preach a second time, on which account the convocation granted him his grace for bachelor of divinity, whenever he should think fit to take that degree; but in May 1648 he was ejected from his fellowship by the parliamentary visitors, and then went to the continent, residing principally at Rome, where he is said to have “improved himself in all kinds of polite literature.” He seems also to have confirmed the secret liking he had to the Roman catholic religion, although as yet he thought proper to conceal the circumstances. After the restoration he was reinstated in his fellowship, but went again to Rome as travelling tutor to some young gentlemen. After his return he might have been elected master of his college, on the death of his namesake, but no relation, Dr. Thomas Walker, in 1665. This he declined for the present, but accepted it in 1676, after the death of Dr. Richard Clayton, who had succeeded Dr. Thomas Walker.

While these repeated offers of the mastership show in what estimation he was held by the college on account of his learning, it seems rather singular that the change in his principles should be either not known, or disregarded, for at this time, we are told, ^he was assistant to his tutor Abraham Woodhead, who kept a popish seminary at Hoxton. It was not long, however, before his conduct attracted the notice of parliament, partly on account of his assisting in this popish seminary at Hoxton, and partly on account of the “Life of Alfred,” then published, by which he evidently appeared to be popishly affected. We do not find that any proceedings followed this notice of his conduct, and when king James II. came to the throne, and measures were openly taking for the establishment of popery, Walker thought it no longer necessary to conceal his sentiments, but went to London in July 1685, in order to be consulted, and employed in such changes as it was hoped might be brought about in the university. On his return to college, he absented himself from the chapel^and in the beginning of March following, openly declared himself a Roman catholic, which exposed him to every kind of insult, popery being at this time, as ^lagdalen college soon shewed, the utter aversion of the university. Disregarding this, he had mass privately in his lodgings, until he could fit up a chapel within the limits of the college. Ii 1687, by virtue of letters patent from king James, he set up a press, for the avowed purpose of printing books against die reformed religion. The patent specifies the names of the books (many of which were written by his friend Abraham Woodhead), and exempts him from any penalties to which he might be subject by the statutes against popery. The number of copies to be published of each work is limited to 20,000 within the year. He procured also other letters patent, by which he, and some fellows of his college, were excused from attending the public service of the church. Under this authority he opened his new chapel for mass. This, says Smith, he did by seizing “the lower half of a side of the quadrangle, next adjoining to the college chapel, by which he deprived us of two low rooms, their studies and their bed-chambers: and after all the partitions were removed, it was some way or other consecrated, as we suppose, to divine services: for they had mass there every day, and sermons at least in the afternoon on the Lord’s days.” He also procured a mandate from rhe king to sequester the revenue of a fellowship towards the maintenance of his priest. He put up a statue of James II. over the inside of the gate, and when the king came to Oxford, he entertained him at vespers in this new chapel.

After this he appears to have gone abroad for some time, but returned to England, and lived a retired life, principally snpported by one of his old scholars, the celebrated Dr. Radclifie, who, although averse to his principles, had a sincere regard for him, and took him into his house. He died Jan. 21, 1699, and was buried at Pancras churchyard, at the expence of Dr. Radcliffe, who caused a stone to be placed over his grave, with the initials of his name, O. W. in a cypher, to which are added the words *' per bonam famam atque infatniam," which are the Vulgate reading of a clause in 2 Corinthians vi. 3.

, a learned physician and medical writer, was born at Powick, in Worcestershire, 1708. He was the son of Mr. John Wall, an opulent tradesman of the city of Worcester, who served the office of mayor in 1703. He received the early part of his education at a grammar-school at Leigh-Sinton, and at the college school of Worcester, whence he was elected scholar of Worcester-college, Oxford, in June 1726. In 1735, he was elected fellow of Merton -college, soon after which he took the degree of bachelor of physic, and removed to the city of Worcester, where he was many years settled in practice. In 1759, he took the degree of M. D. Besides an ingenious “Treatise on the virtues of Malvern-waters,” which he brought into reputation, he enriched the repositories of medical knowledge with many valuable tracts, which, since his death, have been collected into an octavo edition, by his son, the present learned Dr. Martin Wall, F. R. S. clinical-professor of. the university, and were printed at Oxford in 1780. He married Catherine youngest daughter of Martin Sandys, esq. of the city of Worcester, barrister at law, and uncle to the first lord Sandys. Dr. Wall was a man of extraordinary genius, which he improved by early and indefatigable industry in the pursuit of science; but he was more particularly eminent in those branches of natural philosophy which have an immediate connexion with the arts, and with medicine. He was distinguished likewise through his whole life by an uncommon sweetness of manners, and cheerfulness of disposition, which, still more than his great abilities, made his acquaintance courted, and his conversation sought, by persons of all ranks and ages. His practice, as a physician, was extended far beyond the common circle of practitioners in the country, and he was particularly eminent for benevolence, courtesy, penetration, and success. His native country still boasts many monuments of the application of his eminent talents to her interests. To his distinguished skill in chemistry, and his assiduous researches (in conjunction with some other chemists) to discover materials proper for the china-ware, the city of Worcester owes the establishment of its porcelain-manufacture. Besides the improvements he suggested and put in execution for the accommodation of visitors at Malvern, it was to his zeal and diligence the county of Worcester is in no small degree indebted for the advantages of the infirmary, which he regularly attended during his whole life. His principal amusement was painting; and it has been said of him, that, if he had not been one of the best physicians, he would have been the best painter of his age. This praise is perhaps too high, yet his designs for the two frontispieces to “Hervey’s Meditations,” that for Cambridge’s “Scribleriad,” and for the East window of the chapel of Oriel-college, Oxford, are very creditable specimens of his talents. He died at Bath, after a lingering disorder, June 27, 1776, and lies buried in the abbey-church. The tracts published by his son, are, 1. “Of the extraordinary effects of Musk in convulsive disorders.” 2. “Of the use of the Peruvian Bark in the small-pox.” 3. “Of the cure of the putrid sore-throat.” 4. “Mr. Oram’s account of the Norfolk-boy.” 5. “Observations on that case, and on the efficacy of oil in wormcases.” 6. “Experiments and Observations on the Mal­* vern- waters.” 7. “Letters to Sir George Baker, &c. on the poison of lead, and the impregnation of cyder with that metal.” 8. “A Letter to Dr. Heberden on the Angina Pectoris.” 9. “Supplement; containing an account of the epidemic fever of 1740, 1741, and 1742.” The editor has enriched this publication with various notes, which discover an extensive acquaintance with the subjects in question, and a candid and liberal turn of mind. To the treatise on Malvern-waters Dr. Martin Wall has also subjoined an appendix of some length, containing an experimental inquiry into their nature; from which it appears, that the Holywell-water at Malvern owes its virtues principally to its extreme purity, assisted by the fixed air which it contains.

Dr. Wall stands confessedly at the head of those writers who have supported the practice of infant-baptism; and his antagonists Gale, Whiston, and the baptist historian Crosby, all unite in praising his candour and piety. He was vicar of Shorebam for the long space of fifty-two years. He once had an offer of a living of 300l. a year, Chelsfield, three miles from Shoreharn, which his conscience would not allow him to accept; but he afterwards consented to take one of about one fifth the value, at twelve miles distance, that of Milton, near Gravesend. By an only daughter, Mrs. Catherine Waring, of Rochester, he had sixteen grand-children. This lady communicated some anecdotes of her father, printed in Atterbury’s Correspondence, by which it appears that he was a man of a facetious turn, and there are some of his letters to Atterbury in that correspondence. He was such a zealot for this prelate, that he would have lighted up all Whittlebury -forest, in case of his recall, at his own expence.

When the English army reached Stirling they discovered the Scots encamped near the abbey of Cambuskeneth, on the opposite banks of the Forth. Cressingham, treasurer of Scotland, whose covetousness and tyranny had been one great cause of this revolt, earnestly pressed the earl of Surrey to pass his army over the bridge of Stirling, and attack the enemy. Wallace, who observed all their motions, allowed as many of the English to pass as he thought be could defeat, when, rushing upon them with an irresistible impetuosity, they were all either killed, drowned, or taken prisoners. li> the heat of the action, the bridge, which was only of wood, broke down, and many perished in the river; and the earl of Surrey, with the other part of his army, were melancholy spectators of the destruction of their countrymen, without being able to afford them any assistance: and this severe check, which the English received on Sept. 11, 1297, obliged them to evacuate Scotland. Wallace, who after this great victory was saluted deliverer and guardian of the kingdom by his followers, pursuing the tide of success, entered England with his army, recovered the town of Berwick, plundered the counties of Cumberland and Northumberland, and returned into his own country loaded with spoils and glory.

The news of these surprising events being carried to king Edward I. who was then in Flanders, accelerated his return, and soon after he raised a vast army of 80,000 foot and 7000 horse, which the Scots were now in no condition to resist. Their country, for several years, had been almost a continued scene of war, in which many of its inhabitants had perished. Some of their nobles were in the English interest, some of them in prison; and those few who had any power or inclination to defend the freedom of their country, were dispirited and divided. In particular, the ancient nobility began to view the power and popularity of William Wallace with a jealous eye: which was productive of very fatal consequences, and contributed to the success of Edward in the battle of Faikirk, fought July 22, 12D8, in which the Scots were defeated with great slaughter.

We hear little of Wallace after this until 1303-4, when king Eo!ward had made a complete conquest of Scotland, and, appointing John de Segrave governor of that kingdom, returned to England about the end of August. But Wallace, even after this, and although he had been excluded by the jealousy of the nobles from commanding the armies or influencing the councils of his country, still continued to assert her independency, This, together with the remembrance of many mischiefs which he had done to his English subjects, and perhaps some apprehension that he might again rekindle the flames of war, made Edward employ various means to get possession of his person; and at length he was betrayed into his hands by sir John Monteith, his friend, whom he had made acquainted with the place oi his concealment. The king immediately ordered Wallace to be carried in chains to London: to be tried as a rebel and traitor, though he had never made submission, or sworn fealty to England, and to be executed on Towerhill, which was accordingly done, Aug. 23, 1305. This, says Hume, was the unworthy fate of a hero, who, through a course of many years, had, with signal conduct, intrepidity, and perseverance, defended, against a public and oppressive enemy, the liberties of his native country.

Waller was not one of those idolaters of praise who cultivate their minds at the expence of their fortunes. Rich as he was by inheritance, he took care early to grow richer, by marrying Mrs. Banks, a great heiress in the city, whom the interest of the court was employed to obtain for Mr. Crofts. Having brought him a son, who died young, and a daughter, who was afterwards married to Mr. Dormer of Oxfordshire,* she died in childbed, and left him a widower of about five and twenty, gay and wealthy, to please himself with another marriage.

Being too young to resist beauty, and probably too vain to think himself resistible, he fixed his heart, perhaps half fondly and half ambitiously, upon the lady Dorothea Sidney, eldest daughter of the earl of Leicester, whom he courted by all the poetry in which Sacharissa is celebrated; and describes her as a sublime predominating beauty, of lofty charms, and imperious influence; but she, it is said, rejected his addresses with disdain. She married, in 1639, the earl of Sunderland, who died at Newbury in the royal cause; and, in her old age, meeting somewhere with Waller, aske<l him, when he would again write such verses upon her “When you are as young, madam,” said he, “and as handsome, as you were then.” In this part of his life it was that he was known to Clarendon, among the rest of the men who were eminent in that age for genius and literature. From the verses written at Penshurst, it has been collected that he diverted his rejection by Sacharissa by a voyage; and his biographers, from his poem on the Whales, think it not improbable that he visited the Bermudas; but it seems much more likely that he should amuse himself with forming an imaginary scene, than that so important an incident, as a visit to America, should have been left floating in conjectural probability. Aubrey gives us a report that some time between the age of twenty-three and thirty, “he grew mad,” but did not remain long in this unhappy state; and he seems to think that the above disappointment might have been the cause. It'is remarkable that Clarendon insinuates something of this kind as having happened to him, when taken up for the plot hereafter to be mentioned. The historian’s words are, “After Waller had, with incredible dissimulation, acted such a remorse of conscience, his trial was put off out of Christian compassion, till he might recover his understanding.” Neither of these perhaps is decisive as to the fact, but the coincidence is striking.

From his twenty-eighth to. his thirty-fifth year, he wrote his pieces on the reduction of Sallee on the reparation of St. Paul’s; to the King on his navy the panegyric on the Queen mother; the two poems to the earl of Northumberland; and perhaps others, of which the time cannot be discovered. When he had lost all hopes of Sacharissa, he looked round him for an easier conquest, and gained a lady of the family of Bresse, or Breaux. The time of his marriage is not exactly known. It has not been discovered that his wife was won by his poetry; nor is any thing told of her, but that she brought him many children, He doubtless, says Johnson, praised some whom he would have been afraid to marry, and perhaps married one whom he would have been ashamed to praise. Many qualities contribute to domestic happiness, upon which poetry has no colours to bestow; and many airs and sallies may delight imagination, “which he who flatters them never can approve. There are charms made only for distant admiration. No spectacle is nobler than a blaze. Of this wife, however, his biographers have recorded that she gave him five sons and eight daughters, aud Aubrey says that she was beautiful and very prudent. During the long interval of parliament, he is represented as living among those with whom it was most honourable to converse, and enjoying an exuberant fortune with that independence of liberty of speech and conduct which wealth ought always to produce. Being considered as the kinsman of Hampden, he was therefore supposed by the courtiers not to favour them; and when the parliament was called in 1640, it appeared that, his political character had not been mistaken. The king’s demand of a supply produced from him a speech full” of complaints of national grievances, and very vehement; but while the great position, that grievances ought to be redressed before supplies are 'granted, is agreeable enough to law and reason, Waller, if his biographer may be credited, was not such an enemy to the king, as not to wish his distresses lightened; for he relates, “that the king sent particularly to Waller, to second his demand of some subsidies to pay off the army; and sirHenry Vane objecting against first voting a supply, because the king would not accept unless it came up to his proportion, Mr. Waller spoke earnestly to sir Thomas Jermyn, comptroller of the household, to save his master from the effects of so bold a falsity: c for,‘ he said, ’ I am but a country gentleman, and cannot pretend to know the king’s mind:' but sir Thomas durst not contradict the secretary; and his son, the earl of St. Alban’s r afterwards told Mr. Waller, that his father’s cowardice ruined the king.”

In the Long Parliament, which met Nov. 3, 1640, Waller represented Agrnondesbam the third time; and was considered by the discontented party as a man sufficiently trusty and acrimonious to be employed in managing the prosecution of Judge Crawley, for his opinion in favour of ship-money; and his speech shews that he did not disappoint their expectations. He was probably the more ardent, as his uncle Hampden had been particularly engaged in the dispute, and, by a sentence which seems generally to be thought unconstitutional, particularly injured. He was not however a bigot to his party, nor adopted all their opinions. When the great question, whether episcopacy ought to be abolished, was debated, he spoke against the innovation with great coolness, reason, and firmness; and it is to be lamented that he did not act with spirit and uniformity. When the Commons began to set the royal authority at open defiance, Waller is said to have withdrawn from the House, and to have returned with the king’s permission; and, when the king set up his standard, he sent him a thousand broad-pieces. He continued, however, to sit in parliament; but spoke,“says Clarendon,” with great sharpness and freedom, which, now there was no danger of being out-voted, was not restrained; and therefore used as an argument against those who were gone upon pretence that they were not suffered to deliver their opinion freely in the House, which could not be believed, when all men knew what liberty Mr. Waller took, and spoke every day with impunity against the sense and proceedings of the House."

Waller had a brother-in-law, Tomkyns, who was clerk of the queen’s council, and had great influence in the city. Waller and he, conversing with great confidence, told both their own secrets and those of their friends: and, surveying the wide extent of their conversation, imagined that they found in the majority of all ranks great disapprobation of the violence of the Commons, and unwillingness to continue the war. They knew that many favoured the king, whose fear concealed their loyalty: and they imagined that, if those who had these good intentions could be informed of their own strength, and enabled by intelligence to act together, they might overpower the fury of sedition, by refusing to comply with the ordinance for the twentieth part, and the other taxes levied for the support of the rebel army, and by uniting great numbers_in a petition for peace. They proceeded with great caution. Three only met in one place, and no man was allowed to impart the plot to more than two others; so that, if any should be suspected or seized, more than three could not be endangered.

It is the opinion of Clarendon, that in Waller’s plan no violence or sanguinary resistance was comprised; that he intended only to abate the confidence of the rebels by pifblie declarations, and to weaken their power by an opposition to new supplies. This, in calmer times, and more than this, is done without fear; hut such was the acrimony of the Commons, that no method of obstructing them was safe. About the same time another design was formed by sir Nicholas Crispe, an opulent merchant in the city, who gave and procured the king- in his exigencies an hundred thousand pounds, and when he was driven from the royal exchange, raised a regiment and commanded it. His object appears to have been to raise a military force, but his design and Waller’s appear to have been totally distinct.

The discovery of Waller’s design is variously related. In “Clarendon’s History” it is told, that a servant of Tomkyns, lurking behind the hangings when his master was in conference with Waller, heard enough to qualify him for an informer, and carried his intelligence to Pym. A manuscript, quoted in the “Life of Waller,” relates, that “he was betrayed by his sister Price, and her Presbyterian chaplain Mr. Goode, who stole some of his papers and, if he had npt strangely dreamed the night before that his sister had betrayed him, and thereupon burnt the rest of his papers by the fire that was in his chimney, he had certainly lost his life by it.” The question cannot be decided. It is not unreasonable to believe that the men in power, receiving intelligence from the sister, would employ the servant of Tomkyns to listen at the conference, that they might avoid an act so offensive as that of destroying the brother by the sister’s testimony.

The plot was published in the most terrific manner. On the 31st of May (1643), at a solemn fast, when they were listening to the sermon, a messenger entered the church, and communicated his errand to Pym, who whispered it to others that were placed near him, and then went with them out of the church, leaving the rest in solicitude and amazement. They immediately sent guards to proper places, and that night apprehended Tomkyns and Waller; having yet traced nothing but that letters had been intercepted, from which it appeared that the parliament and the city were soon to be delivered into the hands of the cavaliers. They perhaps yt*l knew little themselves, beyond some general and indistinct notices. “But Waller,” says Clarendon, “was so confounded with fear and apprehension, that he confessed whatever he had said, heard, thought, or seen; all that he know of himself, and all that he suspected of others, without concealing any person of what degree or quality soever, or any discourse that he had ever, upon any occasion, entertained with them: what such and such Jadies of great honour, to whom, upon the credit of his wit and great reputation, he had been admitted, had spoken to him in their chambers upon the proceedings in the Houses, and how they had encouraged him to oppose them; what correspondence and intercourse they had with some ministers of state at Oxford, and how they had conveyed all intelligence thither.” He accused the earl of Portland and lord Con way as co-operating in the transaction; and testified that the earl of Northumberland had declared himself disposed in favour of any attempt that might check the violence of the parliament, and reconcile them to the king.

Tomkyns was seized on the same night with Waller, and appears likewise to have partaken of his cowardice; for he gave notice of Crispe’s having obtained from the king a commission of array, of which Clarendon never knew howit was discovered. Tomkyns had buried it in his garden, where, by his direction, it was dug up; and thus the rebels obtained, what Clarendon confesses them to have had, the original copy. It can raise no wonder that they formed one plot out of these two designs, however remote from each other, when they saw the same agent employed in both, and found the commission of array in the hands of him who was employed in collecting the opinions and affections of his people.

In consequence of this letter, the Lords ordered Portland and Waller to be confronted; when the one repeated his charge, and the other his denial. The examination of the plot being continued (July 1,) Thinn, usher of the House of Lords, deposed, that Mr. Waller having had a conference with the lord Portland in an upper room, lord Portland said, when he came down, “Do me the favour to tell my lord Northumberland, that Mr. Waller has extremely pressed me to save my own life and his, by throwing the blame upon the lord Conway and the earl of Northumberland.” Waller, in his letter to Portland, tells him of the reasons which he could urge with resistless efficacy in a personal conference; but he overrated his own oratory; his vehemence, whether of persuasion or intreaty, was returned with contempt. One of his arguments with Portland is, that the plot is already known to a woman. This woman was doubtless lady Aubigny, who, upon this occasion, was committed to custody; but who, in reality, when she delivered the commission of array, knew not what it was. The parliament then proceeded against the conspirators, and Tom,kyns*and Chaloner were hanged. The earl of Northumberland, being too great for prosecution, was only once examined before the Lords. The earl of Portland and lord Conway, persisting to deny the charge, and no testimony but Waller’s yet appearing against them, were, after a long imprisonment, admitted to bail. Hassel, the king’s messenger, who carried the letters to Oxford, died the night before his trial. Hampden escaped

For the place of his exile he chose France, and stayed some time at Roan, where his daughter Margaret was born, who was afterwards his favourite, and his amanuensis. He then removed to Paris, where he lived Vith great splendour and hospitality; and from time to time amused himself with poetry, in which he sometimes speaks of the rebels, and their usurpation, in the natural language of an honest man. At last it became necessary for his support, to sell his wife’s jewels, and being thus reduced, he solicited from Cromwell permission to return, and obtained it by the interest of colonel Scroop, to whom his sister was married. Upon the remains of his fortune he lived at Hallbarn, a house built by himself, very near to Beaconsfield, where his mother resided. His mother, though related to Cromwell * and Hampden, was zealous for the royal cause; and when Cromwell visited her used to reproach him; he, in return, would throw a napkin at her, and say he would not dispute with his aunt; but finding in time that she acted for the king as well as talked, he made her a prisoner to her own daughter, in her own house. This daughter was Mrs. Price, who is said to have betrayed her brother*

* This seems a mistake. What has of Cromwell. Yet Mr, Noblf states giv‘en rise to the notion that Waller that the patriot Uamp’len was lirsteouwas a relation of Cromwell, was their sin both to Cromwell and to Waller,. always calling cousin t a usual custom and Cromwell therefore used to call at that time, where any family cou- Waller’s mother aunt t and Waller connexions were, though the parties were 'sin. sot actually allied. Noble’s Memoirs dictated by real veneration for his memory, for he had little to expect; he had received nothing but his pardon from Cromwell, and was not likely to ask any thing from those who should succeed him.

nable drunke at Somerset House, where, company without drinking but Ned Waller.“The praisegiven him by St. Evremond is a proof of his reputation; for it was only by his reputation that he could be known, as a writer, to a man who, though he lived a great part of a long life upon an English pension, never condescended ta understand the language of the nation that maintained him. In parliament, Burnet says, Waller was the delight of the house, and though old, said the- liveliest things of any among them. 1 * His name as a speaker often occurs in Grey’s” Debates," but Dr. Johnson, who examined them, says he found no extracts that could be more quoted as exhibiting sallies of gaiety than cogency of argument. He was, however, of strch consideration, that his remarks were circulated and recorded; nor did he suffer his reputation to die gradually away, which might easily happen in a long life; but renewed his claim to poetical distinction, as occasions were offered, either by public events, or private incidents; and contenting himself with the influence of his* muse, or loving quiet better than influence, he never accepted any office of magistracy. He was not, however, without some attention to his fortune; for he asked from the king (in 1665) the provostship of Eton college, and obtained it; but Clarendon refused to put the seal to the grant, alleging that it could be held only by a clergyman. It is known that sir Henry Wotton qualified himself for it by deacon’s orders.

To this opposition, the author of his life in the “Biographia Britannica” imputes the violence and acrimony with which Waller joined Buckingham'! faction in the prosecution of Clarendon. If this be true, the motive was illiberal and dishonest, and shewed that more than sixty years had not been able to teach him morality. His accusation of Clarendon is such as conscience can hardly be supposed to dictate without the help of malice. “We were to be governed by janizaries instead of parliaments, and are in danger from a worse plot than that of the fifth of November; then, if the lords and commons had been destroyed, there had been a succession; but here both had been destroyed for ever.” This is the language of a man who is glad of an opportunity to rail, and ready to sacrifice truth to interest at one time, and to anger at another. who, after hearing the question argued by lawyers for tbrae days, determined that the office could be held only by a clergyman, according to the act of uniformity, since the provosts had always received institution as for a parsonage from the bishops of Lincoln. The king then said, he eould not break the law which he had made; and another (Dr. Cradock) was chosen. It is not known whether he asked any thing more, but he continued obsequious to the court through the rest of Charles’s reign.

At the accession of king James, in 1685, he was, in his eightieth year, chosen member for Saltash, in Cornwall, and wrote a “Presage of the downfall of the Turkish Empire,” which he presented to the king on his birth-day. James treated him with kindness and familiarity, of which instances are given by Fenton. One day, taking him into his closet, the king asked him how he liked one of the pictures: “My eyes,” said Waller, “are dim, and I do not know it.” The king said it was the princess of Orange. “She is,” said Waller, “like the greatest woman in the world.” The king asked who that was, and was answered, queen Elizabeth. “I wonder,” said the king, “you should think so but, I must confess, she had a wise council.” “And, sir,” said Waller, “did you ever know a fool chuse a wise one” When the king knew that he was about to marry his daughter to Dr. Birch, a clergyman, he ordered a French gentleman to tell him that “the king wondered he eould think of marrying his daughter to a falling church.” “The king,” said Waller, “does me great honour,in taking notice of my domestic affairs but I have lived long enough to observe that this falling church has got a trick of rising again.” He took notice to his friends of the king’s conduct; and said that “he would be left like a whale upon the strand.” Whether he was privy to any of the transactions which ended in the revolution, is not known. His heir joined the prince of Orange.

The character of Waller, both moral and intellectual, has been drawn by Clarendon, to whom he was familiarly known, with nicety, which certainly none to whom he was not known can presume to emulate. “Edmund Waller,” says that excellent historian, “was born to a very fair estate, by the parsimony or frugality of a wise father and mother; and he thought it so commendable an advantage, that he resolved to improve it with the utmost care, upon which in his nature he was too much intent; and, in order to that, he was so much reserved and retired, that he was scarcely ever heard of till by his address and dexterity he had gotten a very rich wife in the city, against all the recommendation, and countenance, and authority, of the court, which was thoroughly engaged on the behalf of Mr. Crofts; and which used to be successful in that age against any opposition. He had the good fortune to have an alliance and friendship with Dr. Morley, who had assisted and instructed him in the reading many good books, to which his natural parts and promptitude inclined him, especially the poets; and, at the age when other men used to give over writing verses (for he was near thirty years of a&Q when he first engaged himself in that exercise, at least that he was known to do so), he surprized the town with two or three pieces of that kind; as if a tenth Muse had been newly born to cherish drooping poetry. The doctor at that time brought him into that company which was most celebrated for good conversation; where he was received and esteemed with great applause and respect. He was a very pleasant discourser, in earnest and in jest; and therefore very grateful to all kind of company, where he was not the less esteemed for being very rich. He had been even nursed iti parliaments, where he sat when he was very young; and so, when they were resumed again (after a long intermission), he appeared in those assemblies with great advantage; having a graceful way of speaking, and by thinking much upon several arguments (which his temper and complection, that had much of melancholic, inclined him to) he seemed often to speak upon the sudden, when the occasion had only administered the opportunity of saying what he had thoroughly considered, which gave a great lustre to all he said, which yet was rather of delight than weight. There needs no more be said to extol the excellence and power of his wit, and pleasantness of his conversation, than that it was of magnitude enough to cover a world of very great faults that is, so to cover them that they were not taken notice of to his reproach viz. a narrowness in his nature to the lowest degree; an abjectness and want of courage to support him in any virtuous undertaking an insinuating and servile flattery, to the height the vainest and most imperious nature could be contented with; that it preserved and won his life from those who were most resolved to take it, and on an occasion in which he ought to have been ambitious to have lost it; and then preserved him again from the reproach and contempt that was due to him for so preserving it, and for vindicating it at such a price, that it had power to reconcile him to those whom he had most offended and provoked; and continued to his old age with that rare felicity, that his company was acceptable when his spirit was odious; and he was at least pitied, where he was most detested.”

Such is the account of Clarendon; on which it may not be improper, says Dr. Johnson, to make some remarks. He was very little known till he had obtained a rich wife in the city.*' He obtained a rich wife about the age of three-and-twenty; an age, before which few men are conspicuous much to their advantage. He was known, however, in parliament and at court; and, if he spent part of his time in privacy, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he endeavoured the improvement of his mind as well as of his fortune. That Clarendon might misjudge the motive of his retirement is the more probable, because he has evidently mistaken the commencement of his poetry, which he supposes him not to have attempted before thirty. As his first pieces were perhaps not printed, the succession of his compositions was not known; and Clarendon, who cannot be imagined to have been very studious of poetry, did not rectify his first opinion by consulting Waller’s book. Clarendon observes also, that he was introduced to the wits of the age by Dr. Morley; but the writer of his Life relates that he was already among them, when, hearing a noise in the street, and inquiring the cause, they found a son of Ben Jonson under an arrest. This was Morley, whom Waller set free at the expence of 100l. took him into the country as director of his studies, and then procured him admission into the company of the friends of literature. But of this fact, says Johnson, Clarendon had a nearer knowledge than the biographer, and is therefore more to be credited.

Of the laxity of his political principles, and the weakness of his resolution, he experienced the natural effect, by losing the esteem of every party. From Cromwell he fiad only his recall; and from Charles the Second, who delighted in his company, he obtained only the pardon of his relation Hampden, and the safety of Hampden’s son. As far as conjecture can be made from the whole of his writing, and his conduct, he was habitually and deliberately a friend to' monarchy. His deviation towards democracy proceeded from his connection with Hampden, for whose sake he prosecuted Crawley with great bitterness; and the invective which he pronounced on that occasion was so popular, that twenty thousand copies are said by his biographer to have been sold in one day. It is confessed that his faults still left him many friends, at least many companions. His convivial power of pleasing is tiniversally acknowledged; but those who conversed with him intimately, found him not only passionate, especially in his old age, but resentful; so that the interposition of friends was sometimes necessary. His wit and his poetry naturally connected him with the polite writers of his time: he was joined with lord Buckhurst in the translation of Corneille’s Pompey; and is said to have added.ins help to that of Cowley in the original draught of the Rehearsal.

The care of his fortune, which Clarendon imputes to him in a degree little less than criminal, was either not constant or not successful; for, having inherited a patrimony of three thousand five hundred pounds a year in the time of James the First, and augmented it at least by one wealthy marriage, he left, about the time of the revolution, an income of not more than twelve or thirteen hundred; which, when the different value of money is reckoned, will be found perhaps not more than a fourth part of what he once possessed. Of this diminution, part was the consequence of the gifts which he was forced to scatter, and the fine which he was condemned to pay at the detection of his plot; and if his estate, as is related in his Life, was sequestered, he had probably contracted debts when he lived in exile; for we are told, that at Paris he lived in splendor, and was the only Englishman, except the lord St. Alban’s, that kept a table. His unlucky plot compelled him to sell a thousand a year; of the waste of the rest there is no account, except that he is confessed by his biographer to have been a bad ceconomist. He seems to have deviated from the common practice; to have been a hoarder in his first years, and a squanderer in his last. Of his course of studies, or choice of books, notbing is known more than that he professed himself unable to read Chapman’s translation of Homer without rapture. His opinion concerning the duty of a poet is contained in his declaration, that “he would blot from his works any line, that did not contain some motive to virtue.” For his merit as a poet, we may refer with confidence to Johnson, whose life of Waller we have generally followed in the preceding sketch, and on which he appears to have bestowed more than usual pains, and is in his facts more than usually accurate. English versification, it is universally allowed, is greatly indebted to Waller, and he is every where elegant and gay. To his contemporaries he must have appeared more rich in invention, than modern critics are disposed to allow, because, as Johnson observes, they have found his novelties in later books, and do not know or inquire who produced them first. Dr. Warton thinks it remarkable that Waller never mentions Milton, whose Comus, and smaller poems, preceded his own; and he ae* counts for this by Milton’s poetry being unsuitable to the French taste on which Waller was formed *.

ject by bishop Atterbury, who was the and borrowed a fine allusion to prince

Ben Jonson and Fletcher he commends (who yet was far from being a perfect in good earnest; their dramatic works master of him). As for his cloud-corngave him no pain; that sort of writing pel/ing, and two or three more comhe never pretended to. Denham’s high pound words, I believe he went not to

, an eminent parliamentary general, was born in 1597. He was descended, as well as the preceding poet, from the ancient family of the Wallers of Spendhurst, in the county of Kent; and received at Magdalen-ball and Hart-hall, Oxford, his first education, which he afterwards completed at Paris. He began his military career in the service of the confederate princes against the emperor, in which he acquired the reputation of a good soldier, and upon his return home, was distinguished with the honour of knighthood. He was three times married; first to Jane, daughter and heiress of sir Richard Reynell, of Ford in Devonshire, by whom he had one daughter, Margaret, married to sir Wiliiana Courtenay of Powderham castie, ancestor of the present lord viscount Courtenay; secondly, to the lady Anne Finch, daughter of the first earl of Winchelsea, by whom he had one son, William, who was afterwards an active magistrate for the county of Middlesex, and a strenuous opposer of all the measures of king Charles the Second’s government; and one daughter, Anne, married to sir Philip Harcourt, from whom is descended the present earl of that name. Of the family of Sir William’s third wife, we are not informed.

Sir Wilfem Waller was elected a member of the long parliament for Andover; and having suffered under the severity of the star-chamber, on the occasion of a private quarrel with one of his wife’s relations, as well as imbibed in the course of his foreign service early and warm prejudices in favour of the presbyterian discipline, he became a determined opponent of the court. While employed at the head of the parliamentary forces, under the earl of Essex, he was deputed to the command of the expedition against Portsmouth, when colonel Goring, returning to his duty, declared a resolution of holding that garrison for his majesty. In this enterprise, sir William conducted himself with such vigour and ability, that he reduced the garrison in a shorter time and upon better terms than could have been expected; and afterwards obtained the direction of several other expeditions, in which he likewise proved remarkably successful. After many signal advantages, however, he sustained some defeats by the king’s, forces, particularly at Roumlway Down near the Devizes, and at Cropready-bridge in Oxfordshire. On each or those occasions, the blame was thrown by him on the jealousy of other officers; and neither the spirit nor the judgment of his own operations were ever questioned. The independents, who weie becoming the strongest party, both in the army and the parliament, had wished him to become their general, on terms which, either from conscience or military honour, he could not comply with. By the famous self-denying ordinance he was removed from his command, but still maintained so great an influence and reputation in the army, as rendered him not a little formidable to the rising party; and he was thenceforth considered as a leader of the presbyterians against the designs of the independents. He was one of the eleven members impeached of high treason by the army. This forced him to withdraw for some time; but he afterwards resumed his seat in parliament, until, in 1648, with fifty others, he was expelled by the army, and all of them committed to ifferent prisons, on suspicion of attachment to the royal cause. He was afterwards committed to custody on suspicion of being engaged in sir George Booth’s insurrection, m Aug. 1658, but in November was released upon bail. In Feb. 1659 he was nominated one of the council of state, and was elected one of the representatives of Middlesex, in the parliament which began April 25, 1660. He died at Osterley-park in Middlesex, Sept. 19, 1668, and was buried in the chapel in Tothill-street, Westminster. Mr. Seward very erroneously says he was buried in the Abbey-chnrch at Bath. It is his first wife who was buried there, but there is a monumental statue of sir William, as well as of the lady, which perhaps occasioned the mistake. There is a tradition that when James II, visited the Abbey, he defaced the nose of sir William upon this monument, which Mr. Warner in his “History of Bath” allows to be defaced, but Mr Seward asserts that “there appear at present no traces of any disfigurement.” Of a circumstance so easily ascertained, it is singular there should be two opinions. Anthony Wood gives, as the literary performances of sir William Waller, some of his letters and dispatches respecting his victories, but the on,ly article which seems to belong to that class is his “Divine meditations upon several occasions; with a daily directory,” Lond. 1680, 8vo. These were written during his retirement, and give a very faithful picture of his honest sentiments, and of his frailties and failings. Wood also mentions his “Vindication for taking up arms against the king,” left behind in manuscript, in which state it remained until 17y3, when it was published under the title of “Vindication of the Character and Conduct of sir William Waller, knight; commander in chief of the parliament forces in the West: explanatory of his conduct in taking up arms against king Charles I. Written by himself And now first published from the original manuscript. With an introduction by the editor,” 8vo. The ms. came from one of the noble families descended from him. It appears to be written with great sincerity, as well as precision, and contains many interesting particulars, relative to the democratical parties which struggled for superiority after the king had fallen into their power. The style seems to bear a stronger resemblance to that of the age of James the First, or his immediate predecessor, than to the mode of composition generally practised in England about the middle of the last century. If any thing can confirm the declaration that sir William was actuated solely by disinterested motives, it is the veneration which he professes to entertain for the constitution of his country. He avows himself a sincere friend to the British form of government, consisting of king, lords, and commons; and it appears, that, from the beginning, his imputed apostacy from the cause of public freedom, or rather of democratical tyranny,- ought justly to he ascribed to the cabals of the republican leaders, and not to any actual change which had ever taken place in his own sentiments. The volume, indeed, is not only valuable as an ingenuous and explicit vindication, but as a composition abounding with shrewd observation’s, and rendered interesting by the singular manner, as well as the information of the author, who seems to have been no less a man of vivacity and good sense, than of virtue and learning.

, an eminent English mathematician, was born Nov. 2S, 1616, at Ashford in Kent, of which place his father of the same names was then minister, but did not survive the birth of this his eldest son above six years. He was now left to the care of his mother, who purchased a house at Ashford for the sake of the education of her children, and placed him at school there, until the plague, which broke out in 1625, obliged her to remove him to Ley Green, in the parish of Tenterden, under the tuition of one James Movat or Mouat, a native of Scotland, who instructed him in grammar. Mr. Movat, says Dr. Wallis, “was a very good schoolmaster, and his scholar I continued for divers years, and was by him well grounded in the technical part of grammar, so as to understand the rules and the grounds and reasons of such rules, with the use of them in such authors, as are usually read in grammar schools: for it was always my affectation even from a child, in all parts of learning or knowledge, not merely to learn by rote, which is soon forgotten, but to know the grounds or reasons of what I learn, to inform my judgment as well as furnish my memory, and thereby make a better impression on both.” In 1630 he lost this instructor, who was engaged to attend two young gentlemen on their travels, and would gladly have taken his pupil Wallis with them; but his mother not consenting on account of his youth, he was sent to Felsted school in Essex, of which the learned Mr. Martin Holbeach was then master. During the Christmas holidays in 1631, he went home to his mother at Ashford, where finding that one of his brothers had been learning to cypher, he was inquisitive to know what that meant, and applying diligently was enabled to go through all the rules with success, and prosecuted this study at spare hours on his return to Felsted, where also he was instructed in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues, and in the rudiments of logic, music, and the French language.

In 1632 he was sent to Cambridge, and admitted of Emanuel college, under the tuition first of Mr. Anthony Burgess, afterwards rector of Sutton Colfield; next of Thomas Horton, afterwards master of Queen’s college, and lastly of the celebrated Benjamin Whichcot. It is not improbable that he had his divinity from the first two, and somewhat of his style from the last of these tutors. At his first entrance upon academical studies, he was reconciled to having staid a year or two longer at school than appeared necessary, or than he liked, since he found that owing to the knowledge he had accumulated in that time, he was now able to keep pace with those who were some years his seniors. “I found,” he says, “that beside the improvement of what skill I had in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages (which I pursued with diligence) and other philologic studies, my first business was to be the study of logic. In this I soon became master of a syllogism, as to its structure and the reason of its consequences, however cryptically proposed, so as not easily to be imposed on by fallacious or false syllogisms, when I was to answer or defend; and to manage an argument with good advantage, when I was to argue or oppose; and to distinguish ambiguous words or sentences, as there was occasion; and was able to hold pace with those, who were some years my seniors, and had obtained the reputation of a good disputant. And indeed I had the good hap all along, both at school and in the university, to be reputed (if not equal) not much inferior to those of the best of my rank. From logic I proceeded to ethics, physics, and metaphysics (consulting the schoolmen on such points), according to the methods of philosophy then in fashion in that university. And I took into the speculative part of physic and anatomy, as parts of natural philosophy; and, as Dr. Glisson (then public professor of physic in that university) hath since told me, I was the first of his sons, who, in a public disputation, maintained the circulation of the blood, which was then a new doctrine, though I had no design of practising physic. And I had then imbibed the principles of what they now call the new philosophy; for I made no scruple of diverting from the common road of studies then in fashion to any part of useful learning; presuming that knowledge is no burthen; and, if of any part thereof I should afterwards have no occasion to make use, it would at least do me no hurt; and what of it I might or might not have occasion for, I could not then foresee. On the same account I diverted also to astronomy and geography, as parts of natural philosophy, and to other parts of mathematics; though at that time they were scarce looked upon with us as academical studies then in fashion. As to divinity, on which I had an eye from the first, I had the happiness of a strict and religious education all along from a child. Whereby I was not only preserved from vicious courses, and acquainted with religious exercises, but was early instructed in the principles of religion and catechetical divinity, and the frequent reading of scripture and other good books, and diligent attendance on sermons: and whatever other studies I followed, I was careful not to neglect this: and became timely acquainted with systematic and polemic divinity, and had the repute of a good proficient therein.” The length of this extract we trust will be excused, as it is but seldom we attain that interesting part of biography, the progress of early studies.

Soon after his admittance into Emanuel college, he was chosen of the foundation, and admitted a scholar of the house, but by the statutes he was incapable of a fellowship, it being provided that there should not be more than one fellow of the same county at the same time, and there was already one of the county of Kent, Mr. Wellar, who continued in the college long after Mr. Wallis left it. Wallis, however, was so highly esteemed by the society, that when he declared his design of leaving the college, Dr. Richard Holdsworth, then master, and the fellows, had a consultation about founding a new fellowship on his account, that he might not remove from them. But the times growing confused, there was no room for executing such a design, and Mr. Wail is removed to Queen’s college in Cambridge, where he was chosen fellow, and continued so, till by his marriage he vacated his fellowship. In Hilary term 1636-7, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and about four years after that of master; and then removed to Queen’s, probably in consequence of the interest of Dr. Horton, his former tutor, and now master of that college.

Being designed for the church, he had studied divinily with great care, and now was admitted to holy orders by Dr. Walter Curie, bishop of Winchester. In 1641 he left college to be chaplain to sir William Darley, at Bustercramb in Yorkshire. In the following year he acted in the same capacity to lady Vere, widow of sir Horatio Vere. It was during her occasional residence in London that he was enabled to discover his surprising talent in decypheringj and as this had an important effect on his future life and fame, it may be necessary to give his own account of the discovery. “About the beginning of our civil wars, in th* year 1642, a chaplain of sir William Waller’s, one evening as we were sitting down to supper at the lady Vere’s in London, with whom I then dwelt, shewed me an intercepted letter written in cypher. He shevyed it me as a curiosity (and it was indeed the first thing I had ever seen written in cyphers), and asked me, between jest and earnest, whether I could make any tiling of it; and he was surprized, when I said, upon the first view, perhaps I might, if it proved no more but a new alphabet. It was about ten o'clock, when we rose from supper. I then withdrew to my chamber to consider it; and by the number of different characters therein (not above 22 or 23) I judged, that it could not be more than a new alphabet, and in about two hours time, before I went to bed, I had decyphered it; and I sent a copy of it. so decyphered the next morning to him from whom I had it. And this was my first attempt at decyphering. This unexpected success on an easy cypher was then looked upon as a great matter; and I was somewhile after pressed to attempt one of another nature, which was a letter of Mr. secretary Windebank, then in France, to his son in England, in a cypher hard enough, and not unbecoming a secretary of state. It was in numeral figures, extending in number to above seven hundred, with many other characters intermixed; but not so hard as many that I have since met with. I was backward at first to attempt it, and after I had spent some time upon it, threw it by as desperate; but after some months resumed it again, and had the good hap to master it. Being encouraged by this success beyond expectation, I afterwards ventured on many others, some of more, some of less difficulty; and scarce missed of any that I undertook for many years, during our civil wars, and afterwards. But of late years the French, methods of cypher are grown so intricate beyond what it was wont to be, that I have failed of many, tho' I have mastered divers of them. Of such decyphered letters there be copies of divers remaining in the archives of the Bodleian library in Oxford, and many more in my own custody, and with the secretaries of state.” The copies of decyphered letters, mentioned by Dr. Wallis to be in the archives of the Bodleian library, were reposited by him there in 1653, and are in the doctor’s own hand-writing, with a memorandum at the beginning, to this purpose: “A collection of several letters and other papers, which were at several times intercepted, written in cypher,' decyphered by John Wallis, professor of geometry in the university of Oxford; given to the public library there,” anno domin‘t 1653. This part of our author’s skill gave him afterwards no small trouble, and might possibly have been of very bad consequences to him, had he not had some friends in power, particularly the earl of Clarendon and sir Edward Nicholas secretary of state, who valued him for his great learning and integrity, and were sensible of his affection for the royal family, and his loyalty to the king, and the many good services he had done his majesty before the restoration. The doctor’s enemies soon after the restoration eiH deavoured to represent him as an avowed enemy to the royal family; and to prove this they reported, that he had during the civil wars decyphered king Charles I.’s letters taken in his cabinet at Naseby; and that the letters so decyphered by him were to be seen in the books of cyphers, which our author had given to the university. This report being revived upon the accession of king James II. to the crown, the doctor wrote a letter in his own vindication to his great friend Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford/dated April 8, 1685 which was as follows

“I understand there have of late been complaints made of me, that I decyphered the late king’s letters, meaning those taken in the late king’s cabinet at Naseby- fight, and after printed. As to this, without saying any thing, whether it be now proper to repeat what was done above forty years ago, the thing is quite otherwise. Of those letters and papers (whatever they were) I never saw any one of them but in print; nor did those papers, as I have been told, need any decyphering at all, either by me or anybody else, being taken in words at length just as they were printed, save that some of them were, I know not by whom, translated out of French into English. ‘Tis true, that afterwards some other letters of other persons, which had been occasionally intercepted, were brought to my han’ds; some of which 1 did decypher, and some of them I did not think fit to do, to the displeasing of some, who were then great men. And I managed my selfe in that whole busi^ ness by such measures, as your lordship, I think, would not bee displeased with. I did his majesty who then was (king Charles the first) and his 'friends many good offices, as I had opportunity both before and after that king’s death; and ventured farther to do them service, than perhaps some, of those, who now complaine of mee, would have had the courage to do, had they been in my circumstances. And I did tp his late majesty, k. Charles the second, many good services both before and since his restauration, which himselfe has been pleased divers times to profess to mee with great kindnes. And if either my lord chancellor Clarendon, or Mr. secretary Nicholas, or his late majesty, were now alive, they would give mee a very different character from what, it seemes, some others have done. And I thinke his majesty that now is kn<Mves somewhat of it, and some other persons of honour yet -alive, &c.”

In our authorities are other proofs of his innocence in this matter; but we presume it cannot be denied that he had been of service to the republican government by this peculiar talent. He had always joined with them, and in 1653 he had the sequestered living of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch- street, granted to him. The same year he published in 4to, Truth tried; or, Animadversions on the Lord Brooke’s Treatise of the nature of Truth'.“His mother dying this year, he became possessed of a handsome fortune. In 1644 he was appointed one of the scribes or secretaries to the assembly of divines at Westminster, to whose conduct and views he gives a very different colouring from what we meet with in most of the publications of that time.” The parliament,“he asserts,” had a great displeasure against the order of bishops, or rather not so much against the order, as the men, and against the order for their sakes; and had resolved upon the abolition of episcopacy as it then stood, before they were agreed what to put instead of it; and did then convene this assembly to consult of some other form to be suggested to the parliament, to be by them set up, if they liked it, or so far as they should like it. The divines of this assembly were, for the generality of them, conformable, episcopal men, and had generally the reputation of pious, orthodox, and religious protestants; and (excepting the seven independents, or, as they were called dissenting brethren) I do not know of any nonconformist among them as to the legal conformity then required. Many of them were professedly episcopal, and, I think, all of them so episcopal, as to account a well-regulated episcopacy to be at least allowable, if not desirable and advisable; yet so as they thought the present constitution capable of reformation for the better. When I name the divines of this assembly, I do not include the Scots commissioners, who, though they were permitted to be present there, and did interpose in the debates, as they saw occasion, yet were no members of that assembly, nor did vote with them, but acted separately in behalf of the church of Scotland, and were zealous enough for the Scots presbytery, but could never prevail with the assembly to declare for it. On the other hand, the independents were against all united church government of more than one single congregation, holding that each single congregation, voluntarily agreeing to make themselves a church, and choose their own officers, were of themselves independent, and not accountable to any other ecclesiastical government, but only the civil magistrate, as to the public peace; admitting indeed that messengers from several churches might meet to consult in common, as there might be occasion, but without any authoritative jurisdiction* Against these, the rest of the assembly was unanimous, (and the Scots commissioners with them) that it was lawful by the word of God for divers particular congregations (beside the inspection of their own pastor and other officers) to be united under the same common government; and such communities to be further subordinate to provincial and national assemblies; which is equally consistent with episcopal and presbyterian principles. But whether with or without a bishop or standing president of such assemblies, was not determined or debated by them. When any such point chanced to be suggested, the common answer was, that this point was not before them, but was precluded by the ordinance by which they sat; which did first declare the abolition of episcopacy (not refer it to their declaration), and they only to suggest to the parliament somewhat in the room of that so abolished, And this is a true account of that assembly as to this point (and when as they were called presbyterians, it was not in the sense of anti-episcopal, but anti-independents), which I have the more largely insisted on, because there are not many now living who can give a better account of that assembly than I can. To this may be objected their agreement to the covenant, which was before I was amongst them. But this, if rightly understood, makes nothing against what I have said. The covenant, as it came from Scotland, and was sent from the parliament to the assembly, seemed directly against all episcopacy, and for setting up the Scots presbytery just as among them. But the assembly could not be brought to assent to it in those terms, being so worded as, to preserve the government of the church of Scotland, and to reform that of England, and so to reduce it to the nearest uniformity. But before the assembly could agree to it, it was thus mollified, to preserve that of Scotland (not absolutely, but) against the common enemy; and to reform that of England (not so as it is in Scotland, but) according to the word of God, and the exarnpleof the best reformed churches; and to endeavour the nearest uniformity; which might be as well by reforming that of Scotland, as that of England, or of both. And whereas the covenant, as first brought to them, was against popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, profaneness, &c. they would by no means be persuaded to admit the word prelacy, as thus standing absolute. For though they thought the English episcopacy, as it then stood, capable of reformation for the better in divers things, yet to engage indefinitely against all prelacy, they would not agree. After many days debate on this point (as I understood from those who were then present) some of the parliament, who then pressed it, suggested this expedient, that by prelacy they did not understand all manner of episcopacy or superiority, but only the present episcopacy, as it now stood in England, consisting of archbishops, bishops, and their several courts and subordinate officers, &c. And that if any considerable alteration were made in any part of this whole frame, it was an abolition of the present prelacy, and as much as was here intended in these words; and that no more was intended but a reformation of the present episcopacy in England. And in pursuance of this it was agreed to be expressed with this interpretation; prelacy, that is, church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, arch-deacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy. And with this interpretation at length it passed; and the Scots commissioners in behalf of their church agreed to those amendments. I know some have been apt to put another sense upon that interpretation; but this was the true intendment of the assembly, and upon this occasion."

In March of this year, 1644, he married Susanna, daughter of John and Rachel Clyde of Northiam, Northamptonshire. In 1645, the weekly meetings, which gave birth to the Royal Society, being proposed, he attended them along with Dr. John Wilkins (afterwards bishop of Chester), Dr. Jonathan Goddard, Dr. George Ent, Dr. Giisson, Dr. Merret, doctors in physic, Mr. Samuel Foster, then professor of astronomy at Gresham college, Theodore Haak, a German of the palatinate, and then resident in London, who is said to have first suggested those meetings, and many others. These meetings were held sometimes at Dr. Goddard’s lodgings in Wood-street, sometimes in Cheapside, and sometimes at Gresham college, or some place near adjoining.

Notwithstanding this opposition to the ruling powers, he was in June following appointed by the parliamentary visitors, Savilian professor of geometry at Oxford, in room of Dr. Peter Turner, who was ejected; and now quitting his church, he went to that university, entered of Exeter college, and was incorporated master of arts. Acceptable as this preferment was, he was not an inattentive observer of the theological disputes of the time; and when Baxter published his “Aphorisms of Justification and the Covenant,” our author published some animadversions on them, which Baxter acknowledged were very judicious and moderate. Before the end of this year, Wallis, in perusing the mathematical works of Torricelli, was particularly struck with what. he found there of Cavalleri’s method of indivisibles, this being the first time he had heard or seen any thing of that method, and conceived hopes of attaining by it some assistance in the problem concerning the quadrature of the circle. He accordingly spent a very considerable time in studying it, but found some insuperable difficulties, which, with what he had accomplished, he communicated to Mr. Seth Ward, then Savilian professor of astronomy, Rook, professor of astronomy at Gresham college, and Christopher Wren, then fellow of All Souls, and several other eminent mathematicians at that time in Oxford, but not meeting with the assistance he wished, he desisted from the farther pursuit. In 1653, he published a grammar of the English tongue, for the use of foreigners in Latin, under this title: “Grammatica Linguse Anglicanae, cum Tractatu de Loquela seu Sonorum Formatione,” in 8vo. In the piece “De Loquela,” &c. he tells us, that “he has philosophically considered the formation of all sounds used in articulate speech, as well of our own as of any other language that he knew; by what organs, and in what position, each sound was formed; with the nice distinctions of each, which in some letters of the same organ are very subtle: so that by such organs, in such position, the breath issuing from the lungs will form such sounds, whether the person do or do not hear himself speak.” This we shall find he afterwards endeavoured to turn to an important practical use. In 1654, he was admitted to the degree of D.D. after performing the regular exercise, which he printed afterwards, and in August of that year, made some observations on the solar eclipse, which happened about that time. About Easter, 1655, the proposition in his “Arithmetica Infinitorum,” containing the quadrature of the circle, being printed, he sent it to Mr. Oughtred; and soon after, in the same year, he published that treatise in 4to, dedicated to the same eminent mathematician. To this he prefixed a treatise on conic sections, which he sdtin a new light, considering them as absolute planes, constituted of an infinite number of parallelograms, without any relation to the cone, and demonstrated their properties from his new method of infinites.

In the same year, on the death of Dr. Gerard Langbaine, Dr. Wallis was chosen to succeed him in the place of “Gustos Archivorum” to the university. But he was not elected to this office without some struggle. Dr. Richard Zouch, a learned civilian, who, as his friend Mr. Henry Stubbe represents the. case, had been an assessor in the vice chancellor’s court for, thirty years and more, and was well versed in the statutes, liberties, and privileges of the Universit3 T stood in opposition to our author. But the election being carried for Dr. Wallis, provoked Mr. Stubbe, a great admirer of Mr. Hobbes, to publish a pamphlet entitled, “The Savilian Professor’s Case stated:” London, 1658, in 4to. Dr. Wallis replied to this; and Mr. Stubbe republished his case with enlargements, and a vindication of it against the exceptions of Dr. Wallis. Anthony Wood, who is inveterately prejudiced against Dr.Wallis, gives a suitable misrepresentation of this affair. In July of the same year (1658) he received a letter from sir Kenelrn Digby, in which were contained two prize questions’ proposed by M. Pascal, for squaring and finding the gravity of some sections of the cycloid; and though he had never before considered' that curve, yet he sent a solutiorr to both the questions, but too, late, it would appear, according to the time fixed at Paris, for him to receive the prizes. This however occasioned hi& publishing in 1659, a letter “De Cissoide.et corporibus inde genitis.”

It appears that just before the restoration, he had done considerable service to the royal cause by his art of decyphering, and on that event, Charles II. received him very graciously, and he was not only confirmed in both his places, of SaviMan professor, and keeper of the archives, but likewise was made one of the king’s chaplains in ordinary. In 1661 he was one of the divines who were appointed to review the book of Common Prayer. He afterwards complied with the terms of the act of. uniformity, and continued a steady conformist to the church of England until his death.

We have already mentioned his Grammar of the English tongue, published in 1653. By some observations in & that work, he had been led to suppose it possible to teach the deaf and dumb to speak. On this it is probable he had wade many experiments; and communicated what he had tried to his friends, who now were desirous to bring the matter to the test. Accordingly he was persuaded to employ his skill on one Daniel Whalley of Northampton, who had been deaf and dumb from a child. About January, 1661-2, he began to teach this person, and with such success, that in little more than a year, he taught him to pronounce distinctly even the most difficult words, and to express his mind in writing. He was likewise able to read distinctly the greater part of the Bib!e, could express himself intelligibly in ordinary affairs, understand letters written to him, and write answers to them, if not elegantly, yet so as to be understood. This being known, attracted the curiosity of the public in no common degree. Whalley was brought to the Royal Society, May the 21st, 1662, and to their great satisfaction, pronounced 'distinctly enough such words as were proposed to him by the company; and though not altogether with the usual tone or accent, yet so as easily to be understood. He did the like several times at Whitehall in the presence of his “majesty, prince Rupert, and others of the nobility; and the doctor was desired to try his skill on Alexander Popham, esq. a son of lady Wharton, by her former husband, admiral Popham. His mother, it is said, when she was big with him, received a sudden fright, in consequence of which his head and face were a little distorted, the whole right side being somewhat elevated, and the left depressed, so that the passage of his left ear was quite shut up, and that of the right ear proportionally distended and too open. However Dr. Holder says, that he was not so deaf, but that he could hear the sound of a lute string, holding one end of it in his teeth; and when a drum was beat fast and loud by him, he could hear those, who stood behind him, calling him gently by his name. When he was of the age of ten or eleven years, he was recommended to the care of Dr. William Holder, then rector of Blechindon in Oxfordshire, and taken by him into his house in 1659, where he learned to speak and pronounce his name, and some other words. Of this Wood gives us the following account; that Dr. Holder” obtained a great name for his most wonderful art in making a young gentleman, Alexander Popham, who was born deaf and dumb, to speak; that he was the first that is remembered ever to have succeeded therein in England, or perhaps in the world; and because it was a wonderful matter, many, curious scholars went from Oxford to see and hear the person speak.“However this be, three years after, viz. in 1662, this young gentleman was sent by his relations to Dr. Wallis, for him to teach him to speak, as he had taught Mr. Whalley. Wood owns, that Mr. Popham being called home by his friends, he began to lose what he had been taught by Dr. Holder. And Dr. Wallis observes, that both Mr. Whalley and Mr. Popham, notwithstanding the proficiency they had made under him in learning to speak, were apt to forget, after their departing from him, much of that nicety, which before they had, in the distinct pronouncing some letters, which they would recover, when he had been occasionally with them to set them right, they wanting the help of an ear to direct their speaking, as that of the eye directs the hand in writing. 14 For which reason,” says he, “a man, who writes a good hand, would soon forget so to do, if grown blind. And therefore one, who thus learns to speak, will, for the continuance and improvement of it, need somebody continually with him, who may prompt him, when he mistakes.” Dr. Wallis remarks likewise, that Dr. Holder had attempted to teach Mr. Popham to speak, “but gave it over.” This seems very likely to be true, because his friends did not send him again to Dr, Holder, but desired Dr. Wallis to teach him. However that be, a dispute took place between the two doctors. A letter of Dr. Wallis concerning this cure was inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions” of July 1670. This was represented, as if he had vainly assumed to himself the glory of teaching this young gentleman to speak, without taking any notice of what had been before done to him by Dr. Holder, who therefore published in 1678 at London in 4to, “A Supplement to the Philosophical Transactions of July 1670, with some Reflections on Dr. Wallis’ s Letter there inserted.” To this Dr. Wallis replied the very same year, entitling his papers, which were directed to the lord viscount Brouncker, president of the Roya.1 Society, “A Defence of the Royal Society, and the Philosophical Transactions, particularly those of July 1670, in answer to the Cavils of Dr. William Holder,” London, 1673, in 4to. To this Dr. Holder made no reply. The reverend and learned Mr. John Lewis of ?crgate observes, in a ms life by him of Dr. Wallis communicated to the authors of the General Dictionary, that without lessening Dr. Holder’s great abilities, it is a plain and certain fact, that Dr. Wallis had, in his tract `De Loquela,' discovered the theory of this by considering very exactly, what few attended to, the accurate formation of all sounds in speaking; without which it were in vain to set about this task. This tract was printed no less than six years before Dr. Holder undertook to try his skill of teaching a dumb man to speak on Mr. Popham. And it is no disingenuous reflection to suppose, that Dr. Holder had seen it, and profited by it; whereas it does not appear, that Dr. Wallis could have the least hint from him, when he at first taught Mr. Whalley. But Wood, to shew how just and equitable a judge he was of this difference, tells us, that he knew full well, that Dr. Wallis at any time could make black white, and white black, for his own ends, and had a ready knack of sophistical evasions. Base reflections, which confute themselves, and expose their inventor 1“However, Dr. Wallis published his method of instructing persons deaf and dumb to speak and understand a language, which was printed in the Philosophical Transactions. And” I have,“says he,” since that time, upon the same account, taught divers persons (and some of them very considerable) to speak plain and distinctly, who did before hesitate and stutter very much; and others to pronounce such words or letters, as before they thought impossible for them to do, by teaching them how to rectify such mistakes in the formation, as by some impediment or acquired customs they had been subject to."

In 1690, he published “The doctrine of the Blessed Trinity briefly explained;” on which he received a written letter, subscribed W. J. with the post-mark September 23, returning him thanks for his book. This letter he printed, and in answer to it-published a second letter dated September 27, 1690, and afterwards a third, dated October 28, 1690. Before this third letter was published there came out a pamphlet, entitled “Dr. Wallis’s Letter touching the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity answered by his Friend.” This occasioned the doctor to add a postscript dated November the 15th, 1690. Soon after came out a tract, entitled “An -Answer to-Dr. Wallis’s three letters,” and another entitled “The Arian’s Vindication of himself against Dr. Wallis’s fourth letter on the Trinity.” This produced a fifth letter of the doctors on the same subject, dated February 14, 1690-1. " Observations’- were likewise made on these four letters concerning the Trinity and Creed of Athanasius. This induced the doctor to write a sixth letter, dated March the 14th, 1690-1. W. J. wrote the doctor a second letter, which was answered by the doctor in a seventh letter, who likewise published three sermons on John xviL 3. and afterwards an eighth letter, dated November the 23d, 139 1

He had also a controversy on infant-baptism, which occasioned his writing a tract “De Pgedobaptismo” and another on the Sabbath, with Thomas Bampfield, a counsellor at law, who, in 1691, published a work to prove that the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday rather than on Sunday. In answer to this Dr. Wallis produced his “Defence of the Christian Sabbath,” 1692, two editions of which were quickly sold. Bampfield wrote a reply, to which Dr. Wallis rejoined, and there the dispute ended.

Anne, the doctor’s eldest daughter, was born June 4, 1656, and married, December 23, 1675, to John Blencow, of an ancient family at Marston St. Laurence, in Northamptonshire, then barrister-at-law, and afterwards knighted, and promoted to be one of the barons of the exchequer, and afterwards one of the justices of the king’s bench. It has been said, that the promotion of this gentleman to these honourable posts was owing to the doctor, who having excused himself on account of his age from accepting the offer of a bishopric, told his friends that he had a son-inlaw a barrister-at-law and that if they would promote him, he should be as much obliged as if he was promoted himself. The doctors daughter had by sir John seven children, viz. John, Mary, Anne, Thomas, William, Elizabeth, and Susanna, who were all living in 1696,

Elizabeth, the doctor’s youngest daughter, was born September 23, 1658, and married February 21, 1681, to William Benson, son to George and Mary Benson, of Towcester, in Northamptonshire, who dying on November 5, 1691, left her a widow without any children.

, a worthy English divine, and botanical writer, was born in 1714, in or near the parish of Ireby, in Cumberland. He was of Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1740, and acquired some reputation as a sound scholar. Though possessed of good natural abilities, and no small share of acquired knowledge, he lived and died in an humble station. His disposition was so mild, and his sense of duty so proper, that he passed through life without a murmur at his lot. Early in life he married a lady near Portsmouth, where he at that time resided on a curacy. For fifty-six years they enjoyed the happiness of their'matrimonial connexion an happiness that became almost proverbial in their neighbourhood. After spending a few years in the south of England, he became curate of Simonburn, in Northumberland; and while here, indulged his taste for the study of botany, and filled his little garden with curious plants. This amusement led him gradually into deeper researches into natural history; and, in 1769, he published a “History of Northumberland,” 2 vols. 4to, the first of which, containing an account of minerals, fossils, &c. found in that country, is reckoned the most valuable. In other respects, as to antiquities, &c. it is rather imperfect, and unconnected. His fortune, however, did not improve with the reputation which this work brought him, and a dispute with his rector occasioned him to leave his situation, when he and his wife were received into the family of a clergyman who had formerly been his friend at college. He was curate for a short time at Haughton, near Darlington, in 1775, and soon afterwards removed to Billingham, near Stockton, where he continued until increasing infirmities obliged him to resign. He then removed to the village of Norton, where he died July 23, 1793, in the seventyninth year of his age. About two years before his death a small estate fell to him by the death of a brother; and to the honour of the present bishop of Durham (but certainly not to the surprize of any one that knows that munificent prelate), when the circumstances and situation of Mr. Wallis were represented to him, he allowed him an annual pension from the time of his resigning his curacy. From a sense of gratitude, Mr. Wallis, just at the close of life, was employed in packing up an ancient statue of Apollo, found at Carvoran, a Roman station on the wall, on the confines of Northumberland, as a present to the learned Daines Barrington, brother to the bishop. In the earlier part of his life Mr. Wallis published a volume of letters to a pupil, on entering into holy orders.

, D. D. and F. R, S. was an English Benedictine monk, and a Roman catholic bishop also senior bishop and vicar apostolic of the western district, as well as doctor of theology of the Sorbonne. He died at Bath in 1797, in the seventy-sixth year of his age; and the forty-first of his episcopacy. He was the last survivor of those eminent mathematicians who were concerned in regulating the chronological style in England, which produced a change of the style in this country in 1752. Besides some ingenious astronomical essays in the Philosophical Transactions, he printed several separate works, both on mathematics and theology; as, 1. “Analyse cles Mesures des Rapports et des Angles,” 1749, 4to, being an extension and explanation of Cotes’ s '“Harmonia Mensurarum.” 2. “Theorie du monument des Aspides,” 1749, 8vo. 3. “De inaequalitatibus motuum Lunarium,” 1758, 4to. 4. “An Explanation of the Apocalypse, Ezekiel’s Vision,” &c. By the fire at Bath in the time of the riots, 1780, several valuable manuscripts which he had compiled in the course of his life and travels through many countries, were irretrievably lost.

He was now elected member for Castle-Rising, and sat for that borough in the two short parliaments which were assembled in the last two years of the reign of king William, and soon became an active member for the whig party. In 1702 he was chosen member of parliament for King’s- Lynn, and represented that borough in several succeeding parliaments. In 1705 he was nominated one of the council to prince George of Denmark, as lord high admiral of England; in 1708 he was appointed secretary at war; and, in 1709, treasurer of the navy. In 1710 he was one of the managers of the trial of Sacheverel, but when the whig-ministry was dismissed he was removed from all his posts, and held no place afterwards during queen Anne’s reign. In 1711 he was voted by the House of Commons guilty of a high breach of trust and notorious corruption in his office of secretary at war; and it was resolved that he should be committed to the Tower, and ex- ­pelled the House. Upon a candid review of this affair, there does not appear sufficient proof to justify the severity used towards him; and perhaps his attachment to the Marlborough ministry, and his great influence in the House, owing to his popular eloquence, were the true causes of his censure and imprisonment, as they had been before of his advancement. All the whigs, however, on this occasion, considered him as a kind of martyr in their cause. The borough of Lynn re-elected him in 1714, and, though, the House declared the election void, yet they persisted in the choice, and he took a decided part against the queen’s tory-ministry. In the well-known debate relating to Steele for publishing the “Crisis,” he greatly distinguished himself in behalf of liberty, and added to the popularity he had before acquired. The schism-bill likewise soon after gave him a fine opportunity of exerting his eloquence, and of appearing in the character of the champion of civil and religious liberty. On the death of the queen a revolution of politics took place, and the whig-party prevailed both at court and in the senate. Walpole had before recoinmended himself to the house of Hanover, by his zeal for its cause when the Commons considered the state of the nation with regard to the protestant succession: and he had now the honour to procure the assurance of the House to the new king (which attended the address of condolence and congratulation), “That the Commons would make good all parliamentary funds.” It is therefore not surprising that his promotion soon took place after the king’s arrival; and that in a few days he was appointed receiver and paymaster general of all the guards and garrisons, and of all other the land forces in Gveat Britain, paymaster of the royal hospital at Chelsea, and likewise a privy counsellor. On the opening of a new parliament, a committee of secrecy vtfas chosen to inquire into the conduct of the late ministry, of which Walpole was appointed chairman; and, hy his management, articles of impeachment were read against the earl of Oxford, lord Bolingbroke, the duke of Ormond, and the earl of Stratford. The eminent service he was thought to have done the nation, and the crown, by the vigorous prosecution of those ministers who were deemed the chief instruments of the peace, was soon rewarded by the extraordinary promotions of first commissioner of the treasury, and chancellor and undertreasurer of the exchequer,

In two years time a misunderstanding appeared amongst his majesty’s servants; and it became evident that the interest of secretary Stanhope and his adherents began to outweigh that of the exchequer, and that Wai pole’s power was visibly on the decline. King George had purchased of the king of Denmark the duchies of Bremen and Verden, which his Danish majesty had gained by conquest from Charles XII. of Sweden. The Swedish hero, enraged to see his dominions publicly set to sale, conceived a resentment against the purchaser, and formed a design to gratify his revenge on the electorate of Hanover. Upon a message sent to the House of Commons by the king, secretary Stanhope moved fora supply, to enable his majesty to concert such measures with foreign princes and states as might prevent any change or apprehensions from the designs of Sweden for the future. This occasioned a warm debate, in which it was remarkable that Walpole kept a profound silence. The country-party insisted that such a proceeding was contrary to the act of settlement. They insinuated that the peace of the empire was only a pretence, but that the security of the new acquisitions was the real object of this unprecedented supply; and they took occasion to observe too, that his majesty’s own ministers seemed to be divided. But Walpole thought proper, on this surmise, to speak in favour of the supply, which was carried by a majority of four voices only. In a day or two he resigned all his places to the king; and, if the true cause of his defection from the court had been his disapprobation of the measures then pursuing, his conduct would have been considered in this instance as noble and praiseworthy. But they who consider the intrigues of party, and that he spoke in favour of these measures, will find little room to suppose that his resignation proceeded from any attachment to liberty or love of his country. He resigned most probably with a view to be restored with greater plenitude of power; and the number of his friends, who accompanied him in his resignation, prove it to have been a mere factious movement. On the day of his resignation he brought in the famous sinking-fund bill: he presented it as a country-gentleman; and said he hoped it would not fare the worse for having two fathers; and that his successor (Mr. Stanhope) would bring it to perfection. His calling himself the father of a project, which has since been so often employed to other purposes than were at first declared, gave his enemies frequent opportunity for satire and ridicule; and it has been sarcastically observed, that the father of this fund appeared in a very bad light when viewed in the capacity of a nurse. In the course of the debates on this bill, a warm contest arose between Walpole and Stanhope on some severe reflections thrown upon him, the former lost his usual serenity of temper, and replied with great warmth and impetuosity. The acrimony on both sides produced unbecoming expressions, the betraying of private conversation, and the revealing a piece of secret history, viz. “the scandalous practice of selling places and reversions.” A member said on the occasion, “I am sorry to see these two great men fall foul of one another however, in my opinion, we must still look on them as patriots and fathers of their country and, since they have by mischance discovered their nakedness, we ought, according to the custom of the East, to cover it, by turning our backs upon them.”

who is represented as having called number of his opponents, he said " All

The remainder of his life he spent in tranquillity and retirement, and died, 1745, in his seventy- first year. Whatever objections his ministerial conduct may be liable to, yet in his private character he is universally allowed to have had amiable and benevolent qualities. That he was a tender parent, a kind master, a beneficent patron, a firm friend, an agreeable companion, are points that have been seldom disputed; and Pope, who was no friend to courts and courtiers, has paid him, gratis, a handsomer compliment on the last of these heads than all this liberality could ever purchase. In answer to his friend, who persuades him to go and see sir Robert, he says,

By Mr. Coxe’s memoirs, lord Walpole is placed in a far more important point of view than he had heretofore ob-r tained, and it appears that no one could be more intrusted with the secret springs of ministerial action; but ne partook of the obloquy which followed his brother, and has consequently been misrepresented by those compilers of history who depend for their information on party pamphlets. Lord Hardwicke said of him, that “he negociate'd with firmness and address; and with the love of peace, which was the system of his brother, he never lost sight of that great object, keeping up the sources of national strength and wealth, He was a great master of the commercial and political interests of this country, and deservedly raised to the peerage.” Mr. Coxe adds, that his moral conduct was irreproachable; that he was sincere in his belief of Christianity, and zealous and constant in performing the duties of religion and that he maintained an unimpeachable character for truth and integrity, as well in his public as in his private capacity.

Finding himself disinclined to enter so early into the business of parliament, he prevailed on his father to permit him to go abroad, and Mr. Gray consented to accompany him in his travels. They left England on the 29th of March, 1739, and took their route by the way of France to Italy, viewing whatever was remarkable in the several places they visited, and at some of them, particularly Florence, residing several months. About July 1741 the two friends came to a rupture, and parted at Reggio, each pursuing his journey homewards separately. Of this quarrel, the circumstances, as we have remarked in Mr. Gray’s article, are not clearly known; but Mr. Walpole enjoined Mr. Mason to charge him with the chief blarre, confessing, that more attention, complaisance, and deference, to a warm friendship, and superior judgment and prudence, might have prevented a rupture which gave much uneasiness to them both, and a lasting concern to the survivor. A reconciliation is said to have been effected between them by a lady who wished well to both parties; but the cordiality which had subsisted between them never wholly returned, as Mr. Walpole was entirely unnoticed by Mr. Gray in his last will. Mr. Walpole, however, was the first person to whom, in 1750, Mr. Gray communicated his celebrated “Elegy in a Country Church-yard,” and by him it was communicated to several persons of distinction. In 1758, also, Walpole employed Mr. Bentley to ornament an edition of his friend’s poems with beautiful designs and engravings, and printed it at his own press at Strawberry-hill.

On Mr. Walpole’s return to England, he was chosen member for Callington, in the parliament which met in June 1741, and had soon an opportunity of evincing, that he was not likely to become either a silent or inactive member. On the 23d of March 1741-2, on a motion being made for an inquiry into the conduct of sir Robert Walpole for the preceding ten years, he opposed the proposition in a speech of some length, with great spirit, and greatly to the credit of his filial piety. He was not, however, a frequent speaker, and had no great relish for parliamentary duties. In 1747, he was chosen for the borough of Castle Rising, and for King’s Lynn, in 1754 and 1761. The tenor of his life was not much varied by accident or adventure; though about 1749 he narrowly escaped the pistol of a highwayman, the relation of which we shall give in his own words, in one of his “Worlds.” “An acquaintance of mine was robbed a few years ago, and very neat shot through the head by the going-off of the pistol of the accomplished Mr. Maclean; yet the whole affair was conducted with the greatest good-breeding on both sides. The robber, who had only taken a purse this way because he had that morning been disappointed. of marrying a great fortune, no sooner returned to his lodgings, than he sent the gentleman two letters of excuses, which with less wit than the epistles of Voiture, had ten times more natural and easy politeness in the turn of their expression. In the postscript he appointed a meeting at Tyburn at twelve at night, where the gentleman might purchase again any trities he had lost; and my friend has been blamed for not accepting the rendezvous, as it seemed liable to be construed by ill-natured people into a doubt of the honour of a man who had given him all the satisfaction in his power for having unluckily been near shooting him through the head.”

The same year, Mr. Walpole published his “Historic Doubts of the Life and Reign of King Richard III.” 4to. This performance endeavours to establish the favourable idea given of this monarch by sir George Buck, the historian; but this defence did not receive universal assent: it was controverted in various quarters, and generally considered as more ingenious than solid. It was answered by Frederick Guy Dickens, esq. in a 4 to volume; and the evidence from the wardrobe- roll was controverted by Dr. Milles and Mr. Masters, in papers read before the Society of Antiquaries; and now it was discovered that Mr. Walpole, who affected the utmost humility as an author, and most politely deferred to the opinion of others, could not bear the least contradiction, and one or both of these latter pieces gave him so much disgust, that he ordered his name to be struck out of the list of members, and renounced the honour annexed to it from his connection with the body of antiquaries. Yet in this plausible work, the character of Richard is in some measure cleared from many of the enormities charged upon him by historians and poets; and, particularly, the absurdity of representing him as a mass of personal deformity, is justly exposed.

One of the predominant features in Mr. Walpole’s character was, a veneration for birth and rank, to which he certainly had pretensions in the long list of his ancestors) although among them we find few distinguished benefactors to their country. This passion, however, which in his political career he joined with principles that have not beaw thought connected with it> led him to search after those illustrious examples in whom birth and rank have been allied with genius. His industry soon produced the pleasing compilation entitled “A Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors,” which, although greatly enlarged in the edition published with his works, has been thought meagre by those who did not consider that he professed to give a catalogue only. To what size and importance might it not have swelled, had he given the lives of the authors on the scale usually allowed in biographical compilations? In this work, the chief excellence is in his characters: they are admirable as portraits; and, like portraits, they have some of the faults, as well as beauties, of the most celebrated masters. We have often referred, and been greatly indebted, to Mr. Park’s splendid, accurate, and highly improved edition of this work, published in 1806, 5 vols. 8vo.

, an Irish catholic of great learning liberality, was born at Moortown, in the county of Kildare, irr the early part of the seventeenth century. He was a friar of the Franciscan order, and was professor of divinity at Louvain, where he probably was educated. Returning to Ireland, he went to Kilkenny at the time the pope’s nuncio was there, but was not of his party. On the contrary, he made many endeavours to persuade the Ifish Roman catholics to the same loyal sentiments as he himself held; and after the restoration of Charles II. when he was procurator of the Romish clergy of Ireland, he persuaded many of them to subscribe a recognition or remonstrance, not only of their loyalty to the king, but of their disclaiming the pope’s supremacy in temporals. This drew upon him the resentment of many of his brethren, and particularly of the court of Rome. Such hopes, however, were entertained of this important change in the sentiment! of the Irish catholics, that in 1666 the court thought proper to permit their clergy to meet openly in synod at Dublin, in order, as was expected, to authorize the above remonstrance by a general act of the whole body. But this assembly broke up without coming to any decision, and the duke of Ormond, then lord lieutenant, considered it necessary to proceed against those who refused to give any security for their allegiance. But when, in 1670, lord Berkeley succeeded him, by some secret orders or intrigues of the popishly-affected party in England, Walsh, and those who had signed the remonstrance, were so persecuted as to be obliged to leave the country. Walsh came to London, and by the interest of the duke of Ormond, got an annuity of lOOl. for life. He had lived on terms of intimacy with the duke for nearly forty years, and had never touched much on the subject of religion until the reign of James II. when he made some overtures to gain the duke over to popery; but desisted when he found his arguments had no effect. Dodwell took some pains, although in vain, to convert Walsh, hoping, that as they had cast him out of the communion of the church of Rome, he might be persuaded to embrace that of the church of England. Walsh died in September 1687, and was buried in St. Dun* stan’s in the West.

, an eminent statesman in the reign of queen Elizabeth, of an ancient family in Norfolk, was the third and youngest son of William Walsingham of Scadbury, in the parish of Chislehurst, in Kent, by Joyce, daughter of Edmund Denny, of Cheshunt in Hertfordshire. He was born at Chislehurst in 1536. He spent some time at King’s-college in Cambridge, but, to complete his education, travelled into foreign countries, where he acquired various languages and great accomplishments. These soon recommended him to be agent to sir William Cecil, lord Burleigh; and under his direction he came to be employed in the most important affairs of state. His first engagement was as ambassador in France during the civil wars in that kingdom. In August 1570, he was sent a second time there in the same capacity, to treat of a marriage between queen Elizabeth and the duke of Alençon, with other matters; and continued until April 1573 at the court of France, where he acquitted himself with great capacity and fidelity, sparing neither pains nor money to promote the queen’s interest, who, however, did not support him with much liberality. It was even with great difficulty that he could procure such supplies as were necessary for the support of his dignified station. In a letter from him (Harleian Mss. No. 260), to the earl of Leicester, dated Paris, March 9, 1570, he earnestly solicits for some allowance on account of the great dearth in France; desiring lord Leicester to use his interest in his behalf, that he might not be so overburthened with the care how to live, as to be hindered from properly attending to the business for which he was sent thither. Five days after he wrote a letter to lord Burleigh, which gives a curious account of the distresses to which Elizabeth’s representative was reduced by her singular parsimony. “Your lordship knoweth necessity hath no law, and therefore I hope that my present request, grounded on necessity, will weigh accordingly. And surely if necessity forced me not hereto, I would forbear to do it for many respects. I do not doubt, after my lord of Buckhurst’s return, but you shall understand, as well by himself, as by others of his train, the extremity of dearth that presently reigneth here; which is such as her majesty’s allowance doth not, by 5l. in the week, defray my ordinary charges of household. And yet neither my diet is like to any of my predecessors, nor yet the number of my horses so many as they heretofore have kept. I assure your lordship, of 800l. I brought in my purse into this country, I have not left in money and provision much above 300/; far contrary to the account I made, who thought to have had always 500l. beforehand to have made my provisions, thinking by good husbandry somewhat to have relieved my disability otherwise,” &c. In another letter, dated June 22, 1572, he again solicits lord Burleigh for an augmentation of his allowance, alledging, that otherwise he should not be able to hold out: but notwithstanding this and other solicitations, there is much reason to believe that the queen kept him in considerable difficulties.

After his return, in 1573, he was appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, and sworn a privy-counsellor, and soon after received the honour of knighthood. He now devoted himself solely to the service of his country and sovereign; and by his vigilance and address preserved her crown and life from daily attempts and conspiracies. ID 1578, he was sent on an embassy to the Netherlands, and in 1581, went a third time ambassador to France, in order to treat of the proposed marriage between the queen and the duke of Anjou; and also to conclude a league offensive and defensive between both kingdoms He resided in France from about the middle of July to the end of the year. In 1583, he was sent into Scotland on an embassy to king James, attended with a splendid retinue of one hundred and twenty horse. The particular design of this embassy is not very clearly expressed by historians. It appears to have been partly occasioned by king James having taken into his councils the earl of Arran, a nobleman very obnoxious to queen Elizabeth. Sir James Melvil, who was at this time at the Scottish court, mentions their expecting the arrival of secretary Walsingham, “a counsellor,” he says, “of worthy qualities, who had great credit with the queen of England.” Sir James was sent to welcome him, and to inform him, “That his majesty was very glad of the coming of such a notable personage, who was known to be endued with religion and wisdom, whom he hail ever esteemed as his special friend, being assured that his tedious travel in his long voyage (being diseased as he was) tended to more substantial points for the confirmation of the amity between the queen his sister and him, than had been performed at any time before.”

Walsingham had then an audience of the Scotch king, and after several other private conferences with him, set out again for England. But during his stay in Scotland he declined having any intercourse with the earl of Arran, < c for be esteemed the said earl,“says Melvit,” a scorner of religion, a sower of discord, and a despise* of true and honest men; and therefore he refused to speak with him, or enter into acquaintance; for he was of a contrary nature, religious, true, and a lover of all honest men.“Arran, in resentment, did every thing he could to affront Walsingham; but the latter, on his, return, made a very advantageous representation to Elizabeth, of the character and abilities of king James. Hume observes, that Elizabeth’s chief purpose in employing Walsingbam on an embassy” where so little business was to be transacted, was Ab Jearn, from a man of so much penetration and discernment, the real character of James. This young prince possessed very good parts, though not accompanied with that vigour and industry which his station required; and as he excelled in general discourse and conversation, Walsingham entertained a higher idea of his talents than he was afterwards found, when real business was transacted, to have fully merited.“Lloyd, who imputes universal genius to Walsingham, says, that he could ^ as well fit the humour of king James with passages out of Xenophon, Thucydides, Plutarch, or Tacitus, as he could that of Henry king of France with Rabelais’s conceits, or the Hollander with mechanic discourses.”

Soon after this sir Francis was made chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. As to his share in baffling the designs of the court of Spain, Welwood, in his “Memoirs,” informs us that Walsingham, by a refined piece of policy, defeated, for a whole year together, the measures that the Spanish monarch had taken for fitting out his armada to invade England. “The vast preparations,” he says, “that were making for a considerable time in Spain, kept all Europe in suspense, and it was not certain against whom they were designed; though it was the general opinion they were to subdue the Netherlands all at once, which Spain was sensible could not be done without a greater force by sea as well as land, than had hitherto been employed for that service. Queen Elizabeth thought fit to be upon her guard, and had some jealousies that she might be aimed at: but how to find it out was the difficulty, which at length Walsingham overcame. He had intelligence from Madrid, that Philip had told his council that he had dispatched an express to Rome with a letter written with his own hand to the pope, acquainting him with the true design of his preparations, and asking his blessing upon ity which for some reasons he would not disclose to them till the return of the courier. The secret being thus lodged with the pope, Walsingham, by means of a Venetian priest retained at Rome as his spy, got a copy of the original letter, which was stolen out of the pope’s cabinet by a gent tleman of the bed-chamber, who took the keys out of the pope’s pocket w.hile he slept. And upon this intelligence Walsingham found a way to retard the Spanish invasion for a whole year, by getting the Spanish bills protested at Genoa, which should have supplied them with money to carry on their preparations.” In our article of Thomas Sutton, founder of the Charter-house, we have mentioned that this gentleman was Walsingham’s chief agent in getting these bills protested.

Of the remainder of sir Francis Walsingham' s life we have few particulars. It appears, that, in 1589, he entertained queen Elizabeth at his house at Barn Elms, and, as was usual in all her majesty’s visits, her whole court. Previously to this visit, the queen had taken a lease of the manor of Barn- Elms, which was to commence after the expiration of sir Henry Wyai’s, in 160O. Her interest in this lease she granted by letters patent, bearing date the twenty-first year of her reign, to sir Francis Walsingham and his heirs. Sir Francis, in addition to his other dignities, was a knight of the garter, and recorder of Colchester. He passed his latter days mostly in this retirement at Barnes, and when any of his former gay companions came to see him and told him he was melancholy, he is said to have replied, “No, I am not melancholy; I am serious; and 'tis fit I should be so. Oh! my friends, while we laqgh, all things are serious round about us: God is serious, who exerciseth patience towards us: Christ is ser,ious, who shed his blood for us: the Holy Spirit is serious, in striving against the obstinacy of our hearts: the holy scriptures bring to our ears the most serious things in the world: the holy sacraments represent the most serious and awful matters: the whole creation is serious in serving God and us: all that are in heaven and hell are serious: how then can we be gay?”

Sir Francis Walsingham was a puritan in his religious principles, and at first a favourer of them in some matters of discipline. To them he offered, in 1583, in the queen’s name, that provided they would conform in other points, the three ceremonies of kneeling at the communion, wearing the surplice, and the cross in baptism, should be expunged out of the Common-prayer. But they replying to these concessions in the language of Moses, that “they would not leave so much as a hoof behind,” meaning, that they would have the church-liturgy wholly laid aside, and not be obliged to the performance of any office in it; so unexpected an answer lost them in a great measure Walsingham’s affection. His general character has been thus summed up, from various authorities: “He was undoubtedly one of the most refined politicians, and most penetrating statesmen, that ever any age produced. He bad an admirable talent both in discovering and managing the secret recesses of human nature: he had his spies in most courts of Christendom, and allowed them a liberal maintenance; for his grand maxim was, that” knowledge is never too dear.“He spent his whole time and faculties in the service of the queen and her kingdoms; on which account her majesty was heard to say that” in diligence and sagacity he exceeded her expectation.“He is thought (but this, we trust, is unfounded) to have had a principal hand in laying the foundation of the wars in France and Flanders; and is said, upon his return from his embassy in France, when the queen expressed her apprehension of the Spanish designs against that kingdom, to have answered*” Madam, be content, and fear not. The Spaniard hath a great appetite, and an excellent digestion. But I have fitted him with a bone for these twenty years, that your majesty shall have no cause to dread him, provided, that if the fire chance to slack which I have kindled, you will be ruled by me, and cast in some of your fuel, which will revive the “flame.” He would cherish a plot some years together, admitting the conspirators to his own, and even the queen’s presence, very familiarly; but took care to have them carefully watched. His spies constantly attended on particular men for three years together; and lest they should not keep the secret, he dispatched -them into foreign parts, taking in new ones in their room. His training of Parry, who designed the murder of the queen; the admitting of him, under the pretence of discovering the plot, to her majesty’s presence; and then letting him go where he would, only on the security of a centinel set over him, was an instance of reach and hazard beyond common apprehension. The queen of Scots’ letters were all carried to him by her own servant, whom she trusted, and were decyphered for him by one Philips, and sealed up again by one Gregory; so that neither that queen, nor any of her correspondents ever perceived either the seals defaced, or letters delayed. Video et taceo, was his saying, before it was his mistress’s motto. He served himself of the court factions as the queen did, neither advancing the one, nor depressing the other. He was familiar with Cecil, allied to Leicester^ and an oracle to Hadcliffe earl of Sussex. His conversation was insinuating, and yet reserved. He saw every man, and none saw him. “His spirit,” says Lloyd, “was as public as his parts; yet as debonnaire as he was prudent, and as obliging to the softer but predominant parts of the world, as he was serviceable to the more severe; and no less dextrous to work on humours than to convince reason* He would say, he must observe the joints and flexures of affairs; and so could do more with a story, than others could with an harangue. He always surprized business, and preferred motions in the heat of other diversions; and if he must debate it, he would hear all, and with the advantage of foregoing speeches, that either cautioned or confirmed his resolutions, he carried all before him in conclusion, without reply. To him men’s faces spake as much as their tongues, and their countenances were in* dexes of their hearts. He would so beset men with questions, and draw them on, that they discovered themselves whether they answered or were silent. He maintained fifty-three agents and eighteen spies in foreign courts; and for two pistoles an order had all the private papers in Europe. Few letters escaped his hands; and he could read their contents without touching the seals. Religion was the interest of his country, in his judgment, and of his soul; therefore he maintained it as sincerely as he lived it. It had his head, his purse, and his heart. He laid the great foundation of the protestant constitution as to its policy, and the main plot against the popish as to its ruin.”

, duke of Fridland, a celebrated German commander, was born in 1584, and descended of a noble and ancient Bohemian family. His education appears to have been irregular. At first he had no inclination for study, but later in life he applied himself to astronomy and politics, at Padua. After his return to his own country, he married, but being soon left a widower, he went to the siege of Gradisca, in Friuli, and offered his services to the archduke Ferdinand, against the Venetians. When the troubles broke out in Bohemia, he offered himself to the emperor, with an army of thirty thousand men, on condition of being their general. The emperor having consented, Walstein marched at the head of this army, and reduced the diocese of Halberstadt and the bishopric of Halle he ravaged also the territories of Magdeburgh and Anhalt; defeated Mansfeldt in two battles retook all Silesia; vanquished the marquis d‘Urlach conquered the archbishopric of Bremen and Holsace, and made himself master of all the country between the ocean, the Baltic sea, and the Elbe; leaving only Gluckatadt to the king of Denmark, whom he also drove from Pomerania, where he had made a descent. After the treaty of Lubec, the emperor gave him the titles and spoils of the duke of Mecklenburgh, who had rebelled; but Walstein published an edict about that time, ordering the restitution of ecclesiastical property in the territories just given him; and the’ protest* tants, being alarmed, called in Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, to their assistance. This step so intimidated the emperor, that he permitted Walstein to be removed, and sent only Tilly against Gustavus. Tilly having been defeated at Leipsic by the Swedes, the conqueror rushed into Germany like a torrent, which obliged the emperor to recall Walstein, whom he appointed generalissimo. Walstein accordingly entered the lists with the Swedish monarch; defeated him, and was defeated in his turn; took from him almost the whole of Bohemia, by the capture of Prague, and fought with various success till the bloody battle of Lutzen, November 16, 1632, which Walstein lost, though Gustavus Adolphus was killed at the commencement of the action. Walstein, notwithstanding this defeat, finding himself delivered from so formidable a prince, was suspected of aiming at independence; and these suspicions being increased by his refusing to submit to the court of Vienna in any of his enterprises, the emperor degraded him, and gave the command to Galas. Walstein, alarmed at this, made the officers of his army take an oath of fidelity to him at Pilsen, January 12, 1634, and retired to Egra, a strong city on the frontiers of Bohemia and Saxony; but Gordon, a Scotchman, lieutenant-colonel and governor of Egra, nattered by the hopes of great preferment, conspired against him with Butler, an Irishman, to whom Walstein had given a regiment of dragoons, and Lasci, a Scotchroan, captain of his guards. These three, who are said to have been instigated to this crime by the court of Vienna, murdered him in his chamber, February 15, 1634. He was, at that time, fifty years old. The family of Walstein is distinguished in Germany, and has produced several other great men.

, a learned English bishop, and editor of the celebrated Polyglott Bible* was born at Cleaveland in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in 1600. He was admitted sizer of Magdalen college, Cambridge, under Mr. John Gooch, but in 1616 removed to Peter-House college, where he took a master of arts degree in 1623. About that time, or before, he taught a school, and served as a curate in Suffolk, whence he removed to London, and lived for a little time as assistant or curate to Mr. Stock, rector of Allhallows in Bread-street. After the death of Mr. Stock, he became rector of St. Martin’s Orgar in London, and of Sandori in Essex; to the latter of which he was admitted in January 1635, and the same day to St. Giles’s-in-theFields, which he quitted soon after. The way to preferment lay pretty open then to a man of his qualities; for, he' had not only uncommon learning, which was more regarded then than it had been of late years, but he was also exceedingly zealous for the church and king. In 1639, he commenced doctor of divinity; at which time he was prebendary of St. Paul’s and chaplain to the king. He possessed also another branch of knowledge, which made him very acceptable to the clergy: he was well versed in the laws of the land, especially those which relate to the patrimony and liberties of the church. During the controversy between the clergy and inhabitants of the city of London, about the tithes of rent, he was very industrious and active in behalf of the former; and upon that occasion made so exact and learned a collection of customs, prescriptions, Jaws, orders, proclamations, and compositions, for many hundred years together, relating to that matter, (an abstract of which was after wards published,) that the judge declared, “there could be no dealing with the London ministers if Mr. Walton pleaded for them.” Such qualities, however, could only render him peculiarly obnoxious to the republican party, and accordingly, when they had assumed the iuperiority, he was summoned by the House of Commons as a delinquent; was sequestered from his living of St. Martin’s Orgar, plundered, and forced to fly; but whether be went to Oxford directly, or to his other living of Sandon in Essex, does not appear. It is, however, certain that he was most cruelly treated at that living likewise, being grievously harassed there and once, when he was sought for by a party of horse, was forced to shelter himself in a broom-field. The manner of his being sequestered from this living is a curious specimen of the principles of those who were to restore the golden age of political justice. Sir Henry Mild may and Mr. Ashe, members of parliament, first themselves drew up articles against him, though no way concerned in the parish, and then sent them to Sandon to be witnessed and subscribed. Thus dispossessed of botli his livings, he betook himself for refuge to Oxford, as according to Lloyd, he would otherwise have been murdered,

On August 12, 1645, he was incorporated in the university of Oxford. Here it was that he formed the noble scheme of publishing the Polyglott Bible; and, upon the decline of the king’s cause, he retired to the house of Dr. William Fuller, his father-in-law, in London, where, though frequently disturbed by the prevailing powers, he lived to complete it. The “Biblia Polyglotta” was published at London in 1657, in 6 vols. folio; wherein the sacred text was, by his singular care and oversight, printed, not only in the vulgar Latin, but also in the Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, Samaritan, Arabic, Æ'thiopic, Persic, and Greek, languages each having its peculiar Latin translation joined therewith, and an apparatus fitted to each for the better understanding of those tongues. In this great work, so far as related to the correcting of it at the press, and the collating of copies, he had the assistance of several learned persons; the chief of whom was Mr. Edmund Castell, afterwards professor of Arabic at Cambridge. Among his other assistants were Mr. Samuel Clarke of Mertou college, and Mr. Thomas Hyde of Queen’s college, Oxford: he had also some help from Mr. Whelock, Mr. Thorndike, Mr. Edward Pocock, Mr. Thomas Greaves, &c. Towards printing the work, he had contributions of mqney from many noble persons and gentlemen, which were put intothe hands of sir William Humble, treasurer for the said work. The Prolegomena and Appendix to it were attacked in 1659, by Dr. John Owen, in “Considerations,” &c. who was answered the same year by Dr. Walton, in a piece under the title of “The Considerator considered: or, a brief View of certain Considerations upon the Biblia Polyglotta, the Prolegomena, and Appendix. Wherein, among other things, the certainty, integrity, and the divine authority, of the original text is defended against the consequences of Atheists, Papists, Ariti-Scripturists, &c. inferred from the various readings and novelty of the Hebrew points, by the author of the said Considerations; the Biblia Polyglotta and translations therein exhibited, with the various readings, prolegomena, and appendix, vindicated from his aspersions and calumnies; and the questions about the punctuation of the Hebrew text, the various readings, and the ancient Hebrew character, briefly handJed,” 8vo. These prolegomena, which have always beeti admired, and afford indeed the principal monument of his learning, consist of sixteen parts: 1. Of the nature, origin, division, number, changes, and use of languages. 2. Of letters, or characters, their wonderful use, origin and first invention, and their diversity in the chief languages. 3. Of the Hebrew tongue, its antiquity, preservation, change, excellency, and use, ancient characters, vowel points, and accents. 4. Of the principal editions of the Bible. 5. Of the translations of the Bible. 6. Of the various readings in the Holy Scripture. 7. Of the integrity and authority of the original texts. 8. Of the Masora, Keri, and Ketib, various readings of the Eastern and Western Jews, Ben Ascher, and Ben Napthali, and of the Cabala. 9. Of the Septuagint, and other Greek translations. 10. Of the Latin Vulgate. 11. Of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the versions of the same. 12. Of the Chaldee language, and versions.13. Of the Syriac tongue, and versions. 14. Of the Arabic language and versions. 15. Of the Ethiopia tongue and versions; and, 16. Of the Persian language and versions. As these instructive prolegomena were highly valued by scholars on the continent, they were reprinted at Zurich in 1573, fol. by Heidegger, with Drusius’s collection of Hebrew proverbs; and about 1777 Dr. Dathe printed an edition at Leipsic in 8vo, with a preface containing many judicious and learned remarks on several of Dr. Walton’s opinions.

Nine languages, as we have observed, are used in this Polyglott, yet there is no one book in the whole Bible printed in so many. In the New Testament, the four evangelists are in six languages; the other books only in five; tnd those of Judith and the Maccabees only in three. The Septuagint version is printed from the edition at Rome in 1537. The Latin is the Vulgate of Clement VILI. But for these and many other particulars of the history and progress of this work, so great an honour to the English press, we must refer to Dr. Clark’s Bibliographical Dictionary, and that invaluable fund of information, Mr. Nichols’s Literary Anecdotes. The alterations in the preface to the Polyglott, in which the compliments to Cromwell are omitted or altered so as to suit Charles II. have been long the topic of curious discussion, which has had the effect to give a factitious value to the copies that happen to have the preface unaltered. This was a few years ago in some measure destroyed by Mr. Lunn, the bookseller, who printed a fac simile of the republican preface, as it has been called, which may be added by the possessors of the royal copies.

After the restoration, Dr. Walton had the honour to present the Polyglott Bible to Charles II., who made him chaplain in ordinary, and soon after promoted him to the bishopric of Chester. In September 1661, he went to take possession of his see; and was met upon the road, and received with such a concourse of gentry, clergy, militia both of the city and county, and with such acclamations of thousands of the people, as had never been known upon any such occasion. This was on the 10th of September, and on the 11th he was installed with much ceremony; “a day,” says Wood, “not to be forgotten by all the true sons of the Church of England, though cursed then in private by the most rascally faction and crop-eared whelps of those parts, who did their endeavours to make it a May-game and a piece of foppery.” This glory, however, which attended bishop Walton, though it seems to have been great, was yet short-lived; for, returning to London, he died at his house in Aldersgate-street, Nov. the 29th following, and was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral, where a monument with a Latin inscription was erected to his memory, of which a broken stone now only remains, with a few words of the inscription, in the vault of St. Faith’s under St. Paul’s. Dr. Walton was twice married. His first wife was Anne, of the Claxton family of Suffolk. She died May 25, 1640, aged forty-three, and was buried in the chancel of Sundon church, where a handsome monument was erected to her memory. His second wife was Jane, daughter to the celebrated Dr. Fuller, vicar of St. Giles’s Cripplegate. Dr. Walton had published at London, in 1655, “Introdu'ctio ad lectionem Linguarum Orientalium,” in 8vo.

, a gallant naval officer, memorable for the brevity of his dispatches, appears to have been of obscure origin, nor is any thing known of his history until his appointment, in 1692, to be first lieutenant of the Devonshire, an eighty- gun ship. From this time we have only accounts of his removals from one ship to another, without any opportunity of particularly displaying his courage, until 1718, when he commanded the Canterbury of sixty guns, and was sent under the command of sir George Byng to the Mediterranean. On the 1 Ith of August, the British fleet, then off Sicily, which had during the preceding day^ and night, been in pursuit of the Spaniards, having come up so close to them as to render an engagement unavoidable, the marquis de Mari, one of their rear admirals, separated from the body of the fleet, and ran in for the Sicilian shore, with six ships of war, and all the gallies, store-ships, bomb-ketcbes, and fire-ships. Captain Walton was immediately detached after them with six ships of the line, by the commanderiri-chief, who himself pursued the remainder, and soon Jbegan the attack, the issue of which was, that he captured four Spanish ships of war, one of them mounting sixty guns, commanded by rear admiral Mari himself, one of fifty-four, one of forty, and one of twenty-four guns, with a bomb-vessel and a ship laden with arms; and burnt one ship of war mounting fifty-four guns, two of forty, and one of thirty, a fire-ship, and a bomb-ketch. It may admit of some dispute, whether this brave officer derived a greater degree of popular favour from the gallantry of his conduct, or the very singular account he rendered of it to his commander-in-chief, and to the world. The whole of his dispatches were comprised in the following laconic note "Sir, Canterbury, off Syracuse, Aug. 16, 1718.

, a celebrated writer on the art of angling, and the author of some valuable lives, was born at Stafford in August 1593. His first settlement in London, as a shopkeeper, was in the Royal Burse in Cornhill, built by sir T. Gresharn, and finished in 1567. In this situation he could scarcely be said to“have had elbow-room; for, the shops over the Burse were but seven feet and a half long, and five wide; yet he carried on his trade till some time before 1624, when” he dwelt on the north side of Fleet- street, in a house two doors west of the end of Chancery-lane, and abutting on a messuage known by the sign of the Harrow;“by which sign the old timber -house at the south-west corner of Chancery-lane, in Fleet-street, till within these few years, was known. A citizen of this age would almost as much disdain to admit of a tenant for half his shop, as a knight would to ride double; though the brethren of one of the most ancient orders of the world were so little above this practice, that their common seal was the device of two riding one horse. He married probably about 1632; for in that year he lived in a house in Chancery-lane, a few doors higher up on the left hand than the former, and described by the occupation of a sempster or milliner. The former of these might be his own proper trade; and the latter, as being a feminine occupation, might be carried on by his wife: she, it appears, was Anne, the daughter of Mr, Thomas Ken, of Furnival’s-inn, and sister of Thomas, afterwards Dr. Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells. About 1643 he left London, and, with a fortune very far short of what would now be called a eompetencv, seems to have retired altogether from business. While he continued in London, his favourite recreation was angling, in which he was the greatest proficient of his time; and, indeed, so great were his skill and experience in that art, that there is scarcely any writer on the subject since his time who has not made the rules and practice of Walton his very foundation. It is, therefore, with the greatest propriety that Langbaine calls him” the common father of all anglers." The river that he seems mostly to have frequented for this purpose was the Lea, which has it source above Ware in Hertfordshire, and falls into the Thames a little below Blackwall; unless we will suppose that the vicinity of the New River to the place of his habitation might sometimes tempt him out with his friends, honest Nat. and R. Roe, whose loss he so pathetically mentions, to spend an afternoon there. In 1662 he was by death deprived of the solace and comfort of a good wife, as appears by a monumental inscription in the cathedral church of Worcester.

Living, while in London, in the parish of St. Dunstan in the West, of which Dr. John Donne, dean of St. Paul’s, was vicar, he became of course a frequent hearer of that excellent preacher, and at length, as he himself expresses it, his convert. Upon his decease, in 1631, sir H. Wotton requested Walton to collect materials for a life of the doctor, which sir Henry had undertaken to write; but, sir Henry dying before he had completed the life, Walton undertook it himself; and in 1640 finished and published it, with a collection of the doctor’s sermons, in folio. Sir H. Wotton dying in 1639, Walton was importuned by King to undertake the writing of his life also and it was finished about 1644. The precepts of angling, that is, the rules and directions for taking fish with a hook and line, till Walton’s time, having hardly ever been reduced to writing, were propagated from age to age chiefly by tradition; but Walton, whose benevolent and communicative temper appears in almost every line of his writings, unwilling to conceal from the world those assistances which his long practice and experience enabled him, perhaps the best of any man of his time, to give, in 1653 published in a very elegant manner his K Complete Angler, or Contemplative Man’s Recreation,“in small 12mo, adorned with exquisite cuts of most of the fish mentioned in it. The artist who engraved them has been so modest as to conceal his name; but there is great reason to suppose they are the work of Lombart, who is mentioned in the” Sculptura“of Mr. Evelyn; and also that the plates were of steel.” The Complete Angler“came into the world attended with en. comiastic verses by several writers of that day. What reception in general the book met with may be naturally inferred from the dates of the subsequent editions; the second came abroad in 1655; the third in 1664; the fourth in 1668, and the fifth and last in 1676, Sir John Hawkins bad traced the several variations which the author from time to time made in these suhsequent editions, as well by adding new facts and discoveries as by enlarging on the more entertaining parts of the dialogue. The third and fourth editions of his book have several entire new chapters; and the fifth, the last of the editions published in his life-time, contains no less than eight chapters more than the first, and twenty pages more than the fourth. Not having the advantage of a learned education, it may seem unaccountable that Walton so frequently cites authors that have written only in Latin, as Gesner, Cardan, Aldrovandus, Rondeletius, and even Albertus Magnus; but it may be observed, that the voluminous history of animals, of which the first of these was author, is in effect translated into English by Mr. Edward Topsel, a learned divine, chaplain, as it seems, in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, to Dr. Neile, dean of Westminster: the translation was published in 1658, and, containing in it numberless particulars concerning frogs, serpents, caterpillars, and other animals, though not of fish, extracted from the other writers above-named, and others, with their names to the respective facts, it furnished Walton with a great variety of intelligence, of which in the later editions of his book he has carefully availed himself: it was therefore through the medium of this translation alone that he was enabled to cite the other authors mentioned above; vouching the authority of the original writers, as he elsewhere does sir Francis Bacon, whenever occasion occurs to mention his natural history, or any other of his works. Pliny was translated to his hand by Dr. Philemon Holland; as were also Janus Dubravius” de Piscinis & Piscium natura,“and Lebault’s” Maison Rustique,“so often referred to by him in the course of his work. Nor did the reputation of” The Complete Angler“subsist only in the opinions of those for whose use it was more peculiarly calculated; but even the learned, either from the known character of the author, or those internal evidences of judgment and veracity contained in it, considered it as a work of merit, and for various purposes referred to its authority. Dr. Thomas Fuller, in his” Worthies,“whenever he has occasion to speak of fish, uses his very words. Dr. Plot, in his” History ofMaffordshire,“has, on the authority of our author, related two of the instances of the voracity of the pike, and confirmed them by two other signal ones, that had then lately fallen out in that county. These are testimonies in favour of Walton’s authority in matters respecting fish and fishing; and it will hardly be thought a diminution of that of Fuller to say, that he was acquainted with, and a friend of, the person whom he thus implicitly commends. About two years after the restoration, Walton wrote the life of Mr. Richard Hooker, author of the” Ecclesiastical Polity:“he was enjoined to undertake this work by his friend Dr. Gilbert Sheldon, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who, by the way, was an angler. Bishop King, in a letter to the author, says of this life,” I have often seen Mr. Hooker with my father, who was afterwards bishop of London, from whom, and others at that time, I have heard of the most material passages which you relate in the history of his life.“Sir William Dugdale, speaking of the three posthumous books of the” Ecclesiastical Polity,“refers the reader” to that seasonable historical discourse lately compiled and published, with great judgment- and integrity, by that much-deserving person Mr. Isaac Walton."

The life of Mr. George Herbert, as it stands the fourth and last in the volume in which that and the three former are collected, seems to have been written the next after Hooker’s: it was first published in 1670. Walton professes himself to have been a stranger to the person of Herbert; and though he assures us his life of him was a free-will offering, it abounds with curious information, and is no way inferior to any of the former. Two of these lives, viz. those of Hooker and Herbert, we are told, were written under the root of Walton’s good friend and patron Dr. George Morley, bishop of Winchester; which seems to agree with Wood’s account, that, after his quitting London, he lived mostly in the families of the eminent clergy of that time;" and none who consider the inoffensiveness of his manners and the pains he took in celebrating the lives and actions of good men, can doubt his being much ' beloved by them.

In 1670, these lives were collected and published in octavo, with a dedication to the above bishop of Winchester, and a preface, containing the motives for writing them; this preface is followed by a copy of verses, by his intiniate friend and adopted son, Charles Cotton, of Beresford in Staffordshire, esq. the author of the second part of the Complete Angler.“The” Complete Angler“having, in the space of twenty. three years, gone through four editions, Walton, in 1676, and in the eighty-third year of his age, was preparing a fifth, with additions, for the press; when Cotton wrote a second part of that work. Cotton submitted the manuscript to Walton’s perusal, who returned it with his approbation, and a few marginal strictures; and in that year they were published together. Cottons book had the title of” The Complete Angler; being instructions how to angle for a trout or grayling, in a clear stream, Part II." and it has ever since been received as a second part of Walton’s book. In the title-page is a cipher, composed of the initial letters of both their names; which cipher, Cotton tells us, he had caused to be cut in stone, and set up over a fishing- house that he had erected near his dwelling, on the bank of the little river Dove, which divides the counties of Stafford and Derby.

ford, Dr. Featly, Dr. Holdsworth, sir Hales of Eton. there were then several letters of Walton extant, in the Ashmolean Museum, relating to a life of sir Henry Savile, which Walton had entertained thoughts of writing. He also undertook to collect materials for a life of Hales. Mr. Anthony Farringdon, minister of St. Mary Magdalen, Milkstreet, London, had begun to write the life of this memorable person, but, dying before he had completed it, his papers were sent to Walton, with a request from Mr. Fulman, who had proposed to himself to continue and finish it, that Walton would furnish him with such information as was to his purpose. Fulman did not live to complete his design; but a life of Mr. Hales, from other materials, was compiled by the late Mr. Des Maizeaux, and published by him in 1719, as a specimen of a new “Biographical Dictionary.” In 1683, when he was ninety years old, Walton published “Thealma and Clearchus, a pastoral history, in smooth and easy verse, written long since by John Chalkhil, esq. an acquaintance and friend of Edmund Spenser:” to this poem he wrote a preface, containing a very amiable character of the author. He lived but a very little time after the publication of this poem for, as Wuod says, he ended his days on the 15th of Dec. 1683, in the great frost, at Winchester, in the house of Dr. William Hawkins, a prebendary of the church there, where he lies buried.

After this, a general acquaintance with the laws of his country seems to have been his leading acquirement, and hence, when he became a representative in parliament, he was nominated one of the eight chief managers in the impeachment of the duke of Buckingham. The account of Mr. Wandesforde’s share in that transaction, as given by llushworth, is much to the credit of his moderation and prudence. In the new parliament, which met March 17, 1628, he made a conspicuous figure, and acted a truly constitutional part, supporting the privileges of the people when attacked, and when these were secured by a confirmation of the petition of right, adhering to his sovereign. About 1633, it was proposed by Charles I. to send Mr. Wandesforde ambassador to Spain; but this honour was declined, from his not wishing to engage in any public employment. Soon after, however, when his friend lord Wentworth was fixed on to go as lord-deputy.to Ireland, Mr. Wandesforde was persuaded to accompany him as master of the rolls, from motives of personal regard. He arrived at Dublin in July 1633, where he built a new office of the rolls at his own cost. In 1636 he was made one of the lords justices of Ireland, in the absence of lord Wentworth, and knighted. Retiring to his seat at Kil r dare, he completed his book of “Instructions to his Son,” which bears date Get, 5, 1636. He soon after sold Kildare to lord Wentwortb, and purchase^ the estate of Castlecomer, where he established a manufactory for cottons, and founded a colliery. In 164-0 he was appointed lord-deputy in the place of lord Strafford, and gave such satisfaction to the king by his* conduct in that high station, that he was created baron Mowbray and Musters, and viscount Castle^ comer. On the receipt of the patent, however, he exclaimed, “Is it a fit time for a faithful subject to appear higher than usual, when his king, the fountain of honours, is likely to be reduced lower than ever?” He therefore ordered the patent to be concealed, and his grandson was the first who assumed its privileges.

, a literary antiquary of great learning and accuracy, was the son of the rev. Nathanael Wanley, some time vicar of Trinity-church in Coventry. This Nathanael Wanley was born at Leicester in 1633, and died in 1680. Besides the vicarage of Trinity-church, it is probable that he had another in Leicestershire, from the following title-page, “Vox Dei, or the great duty of self reflection upon a man’s own wayes, by N. Wanley, M. A. and minister of the gospel at Beeby in Leicestershire,” London, 1658. He was of Trinity-college, Oxford, B. A. 1653, M. A. 1657, but is not mentioned by Wood. The work which now preserves his name is his “Wonders of the Little World,” 1678, fol. a work to be classed with Clark’s “Examples,” 2 vols. fol. or Turner’s “Remarkable Providences,” containing a vast assemblage of remarkable anecdotes, &c. many of which keep credulity on the stretch. As these were collected by Mr. Wanley from a number of old books, little known, or read, it is not improbable that such researches imparted to his son that taste for bibliographical studies which occupied his whole life. At least it is certain that Humphrey, (who was born at Coventry, March 21, 1671-2, and was bred first a limner, and afterwards some other trade), employed all his leisure time, at a very early period, in reading old books and old Mss. and copying the various hands, by which he acquired an uncommon faculty in verifying dates. Dr. Lloyd, then bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, sent him to Edmund-hall, Oxford, of which Dr. Mill was then principal, whom he greatly assisted in his collations of the New Testament. Hearne says, that during his stay in this hall, he attended but one lecture, which was in logic, which he swore he could not comprehend. Dr. Charlett, master of University-college, hearing of Wanley’s attention to matters of antiquity, induced him to remove to his own college, which he soon did, residing at the master’s lodgings, who, says Hearne, “employed him in writing trivial things, so that he got no true learning.” He certainly acquired the learned languages, however, although it does not appear that he attended much to the usual course of academic studies, or was ambitious of academic honours, as his name does not appear in the list of graduates. By Dr. Charlett’s means he was appointed an under-keeper of the Bodleian library, where he assisted in drawing up the indexes to the catalogue of Mss. the Latin preface to which he also wrote. Upon leaving Oxford, he removed to London, and became secretary to the society for propagating Christian knowledge; and at Dr. Hickes’s request, travelled ovor the kingdom, in search of Anglo-Saxon Mss. a catalogue of which he drew up in English, which was afterwards translated into Latin by the care of Mr. Thwaites, and printed in the “Thesaurus Ling. Vet. Septen.” Oxon. 1705, fol. He was soon after employed in arranging the valuable collections of Robert earl of Oxford, with the appointment of librarian to his lordship. In this employment he gave such particular satisfaction, that he was allowed a handsome pension by lord Harley, the earl’s eldest son and successor in the title, who retained him as librarian till his death. In Mr. Wanley’s Harleian Journal, preserved among the Lansdowne Mss. in the British Museum, are several remarkable entries, as will appear by the specimens transcribed below .

About 1708, he first began to compile the catalogue of lord Oxford’s Mss. and proceeded as far as No. 2407 of the present printed catalogue. Throughout the whole, he shews great learning and judgment, and his strictures are so just, that there is much reason to lament his not having lived to put the finishing hand to a work, for which he was in every respect so well qualified. This, which was said of Wanley, in the preface to the first edition of the printed catalogue in 1762, may still be repeated, without any disrespect to his successors, because it is to be feared that much useful information was lost by his death. Besides these labours, Wanley published a translation of Ostervald’s “Grounds and principles of the Christian relicrion, explained in a catechetical discourse for the instruction of young people.” This was revised by Dr. Stanhope, and primed at London, 1704, 8vo. Hearne, who seems to have had a pique at Wanley, represents him as an unsteady, capricious man; and of this there are some evidences in his own journal. Hearne likewise asserts that he was imprudent and dissipated, but for this we have no other proof, and if he left considerable property, he had not been unwise in that respect. There is an original picture of him in the Bodleian library; another, half-length, sitting, in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries. A mezzotinto print of him was scraped by Smith, in 1718, from a painting by Hill.

, a learned German, was born in 1635, at Erfort, in Thuringia, where his father was minister of a Lutheran church. After having studied philosophy and theology at Konigsberg, he put himself under Job Ludolf, in order to learn “the Oriental tongues of that celebrated professor. Ludolf taught him the Ethiopic amorvg others; and then sent him at his own expence into England to print his” Ethiopic Dictionary,“which came out at London in 1661. Ludolf complained of Wansleb for inserting many false and ridiculous things, and afterwards gave a new. edition of it himself. Dr. Edmhnd Castell was at that time employed upon his” Lexicon Heptaglotton," and was much gratified to find in Wansleb a man who could assist him in his laborious undertaking; he received him therefore into his house, and kept him three months. Wansleb was no sooner returned to Germany, tban Ernest the pious, duke of Saxe-Gotha, being informed of his qualifications, sent him to Ethiopia: the prince’s design was, to establish a correspondence between the Protestant Europeans and Abyssines, with a view to promote true religion among the latter. Wansleb set out in June 1663, and arrived at Cairo in Jan. following. He employed the remainder of the year in visiting part of Egypt; but the patriarch of Alexandria, who has jurisdiction over the churches of Ethiopia, dissuaded him from proceeding to that kingdom, and sent his reasons to Ernest in an Arabic letter, which is still extant in the library of the duke of Saxe-Gotha.

Wansleb left Alexandria in the beginning of 1-665, and arrived at Leghorn; but durst not return to his own country, because duke Ernest was greatly displeased with his conduct, in neglecting the chief object of his embassy, and employing in an improper manner the sums he had received. He went therefore to Rome, where he abjured Lutheranism, and entered into the order of St. Dominic in 1666. In 1670, he was sent to Paris, where being introduced to Colbert, he was commissioned by that minister to return to the East, and to purchase manuscripts and medals for the king’s library. He arrived at Cairo in 1672, continued in Egypt near two years, and in that time sent to France 334 manuscripts, Arabic, Turkish, and Persic. The Mahometans growing jealous of this commerce which Wansleb carried on, he removed from Egypt to Constantinople, and had promised to go from that place in search of manuscripts to mount Athos; but excused himself on pretence that Leo Allatius had taken away the best for the use of the Vatican. He was preparing to set out for Ethiopia, when he was recalled to France by Colbert; who, it seems, had just reason to be displeased with his conduct, as Ernest had been before him. He arrived at Paris in April 1676, and might have been advanced not only to the royal professorship of Oriental languages, but even to a bishopric, if his irregular life and manners had not stood in his way. He lived neglected for two or three years, and then died in June 1679.

, a heraldic writer and antiquary, was the son of Benjamin Warburton, of Bury in Lancashire, by Mary, his wife, eldest daughter, and at length heiress of Michael Buxton, of Buxton, in Derbyshire. He was born Feb. 28, 1681-2. According to Mr. Grose, he received no education, and was originally an exciseman; Mr. Grose adds that he was ignorant not only of the Latin, but of his native language, and so far from understanding mathematics, he did not even understand guaging, which, “like navigation, as practised by our ordinary seamen, consists only in multiplying and dividing certain numbers, or writing by an instrument, the rationale of both which they are totally ignorant of.” It appears from Mr. Brooke Somerset’s notes, that Toms, who owed his rise to him, told that gentleman that he had great natural abilities, but no education. Grose observes, that “his life was one continued scene of squabbles and disputes with his brethren, by whom he was despised and detested.” Toms remarks, that “though his conduct was faulty, yet he was extremely illused, especially by the younger Anstis, who was of a violent tyrannical disposition,” and there seems reason to suspect that his quarrelsome disposition, rather than his incapacity, has occasioned many of the discreditable reports which have accompanied his name. As a collector of antiquities he appears to have been indefatigable.

The first appearance he made in public was in 1716, when he published his map of Northumberland. In 1719 he was elected a fellow both of the Royal and Antiquary societies, and could not then, we presume, have been thought the ignoramus which he has since been represented. He remained a member of the Society of Antiquaries to the last, but was ejected from the Royal in June 1757, in consequence of not having made his annual payments for a great number of years. In June 1720 he was created Somerset herald, and appears to have been constantly at variance with the superiors of the college. In 1722-3 he published in four closely printed 4to pages, “A List of the Nobility and Gentry of the counties of Middlesex, Essex, and Hertford, who have subscribed, and ordered their coats of arms to be inscribed on a new map of those counties, which is now making by John Warburton, esq.” In August 1728, he gave notice, that “he keeps a register of lands, houses, &c. which are to be bought, sold, or mortgaged, in England, Scotland, or Wales, and if required, directs surveys thereof to be made: also solicits grants of arms, and performs all other matters relating to the office of a herald. For which purpose daily attendance is given at his chambers in the Heralds’ office, near Doctors Commons, London. He answers letters post-paid, and advertises, if required.” This quackery did not probahly raise him very high in the opinion of his brethren. In 1749, he published a map of Middlesex on two sheets of imperial atlas, with the arms of the nobility and gentry on the borders. But the earl marshal, supposing these to be fictitious, by his warrant commanded him not to take in any subscriptions for arms, nor advertise or dispose of any maps, till the right of such person respectively to such arms were first proved, to the satisfaction of one of the kings of arms. In his book of “London and Middlesex illustrated,” after observing the above injunction of the earl marshal, he subjoins, “which person’s (Anstis) partiality being well known to this author, he thought it best to have another arbitrator joined with him, and therefore made choice of the impartial public, rather than submit his performance wholly to the determination of a person so notoriously remarkable for knowing nothing at all of the matter. 7 ' After censuring the notion, that trade and gentility are incompatible, as a doctrine fitted only for a despotic government, and judiciously remarking the moral impossibility there would soon be of proving descents and arms for want of visitations, he returns to attack the heads of the college, by saying, that such proofs are obstructed by the exorbitant and unjustifiable fees of three heralds, called kings at arms, who receive each 30l. for every new grant. In his” London and Middlesex illustrated," he gave the names, residences, genealogy, and coat- armour of the nobility, principal merchants, and other eminent families, emblazoned in their proper colours, with references to authorities.

Mr. Warburton married twice: one of his wives was a widow with children, for he married her son, when a minor, to one of his daughters. Amelia, another, married Oct. 23, 1750, to captain John Elphinston, afterwards viceadmiral and commander-in-chief of the Russian fleet, who died very greatly respected by the late empress, Catherine IL who created him knight of the order of St. George: he was deservedly honoured and beloved by all who knew him. This gallant officer died in November 1789, at Cronstat, after a short illness. By his last wife, our author had John Warburton, esq. who resided many years in Dublin, and was pursuivant to the court of exchequer in Ireland: he married, in 1756, Ann-Catherine, daughter of the rev. Edward-Rowe Mores, rector of Tunstal in Kent, and sister of Edward-Rowe Mores, esq. M.A. and F.R. and A. S., so well known for his skill in antiquity, and the large collections of choice Mss. and books he left at his death, which were sold by Mr. Paterson in 1779. This Mr. W T arbarton, leaving Dublin, became one of the exons belonging to his majesty’s yeomen of the guard at St. James’s. Mr. Noble says, that going into France since the troubles in that kingdom, he was one of the few English who fell victims to the sanguinary temper of the usurpers, being guillotined for a pretended sedition, by order of the national convention committee at Lyons, in December 1793; but a correspondent in the Gentleman’s Magazine says that the Mr. Warburton, who was guillotined, was the nephew and not the son of the herald.

, an English prelate of great abilities and eminence, was born at Newark-upon-Trent, in the county of Nottingham, Dec. 24, 1698. His father was George Warburton, an attorney and town-clerk of the place in which this his eldest son received his birth and education. His mother was Elizabeth, the daughter of William Hobman, an alderman of the same town; and his parents were married about 1696. The family of Dr. Warburton came originally from the county of Chester, where his great-grandfather resided. His grandfather, William Warburton, a royalist during the rebellion, was the first that settled at Newark, where he practised the law, and was coroner of the county of Nottingham. George Warburton, the father, died about 1706, leaving his widow and five children, two sons and three daughters, of which the second son, George, died young; but, of the daughters, one- survived her brother. The bishop received the early part of his education under Mr. Twells, whose son afterwards married his sister Elizabeth; but he was principally trained under Mr. Wright, then master of Okehamschool in Rutlandshire, and afterwards vicar of Campden in Gloucestershire. Here he continued till the beginning of 1714, when his cousin Mr. William Warburton being made head -master of Newark-school, he returned to his native place, and was for a short time under the care of that learned gentleman. During his stay at school, he did not distinguish himself by any extraordinary efforts of genius or application, yet is supposed to have acquired a competent knowledge of Greek and Latin. His original designation was to the same profession as that of his father and grandfather; and he was accordingly placed clerk to Mr. Kirke, an attorney at East Markham in Nottinghamshire, with whom he continued till April 1719, when he was qualified to engage in business upon his own account. He was then admitted to one of the courts at Westminster, and for some years continued the employment of an attorney and solicitor at the place of his birth. The success he met with as a man of business was probably not great. It was certainly insufficient to induce him to devote the rest of his life to it: and it is probable, that his want of encouragement might tempt him to turn his thoughts towards a profession in which his literary acquisitions would be more valuable, and in which he might more easily pursue the bent of his inclination. He appears to have brought from school more learning than was requisite for a practising lawyer. This might rather impede than forward his progress; as it has been generally observed, that an attention to literary concerns, and the bustle of an attorney’s office, with only a moderate share of business, are wholly incompatible. It is therefore no wonder that he preferred retirement to noise, and relinquished what advantages he might expect from continuing to follow the law. It has been suggested by an ingenious writer, that he was for some time usher to a school, but this probably was founded on his giving some assistance to his relation at Newark, who in his turn assisted him in those private studies to which he was now attached; and his love of letters continually growing stronger, the seriousness of his temper, and purity of his morals, concurring, determined him to quit his profession for the church. In 1723 he received deacon’s orders from archbishop Dawes and his first printed work then appeared, consisting of translations from Cæsar, Pliny, Claudian, and others, under the title of “Miscellaneous Translations in Prose and Verse, from Roman Poets, Orators, and Historians,” 12mo. It is dedicated to hig early patron, sir Robert Sutton, who, in 1726, when Mr. Warburton had received priest’s orders from bishop Gibson, employed his interest to procure him the small vicarage of Gryesly in Nottinghamshire. About Christmas, 1726, he came to London, and, while there, was introduced to Theobald, Concanen, and other of Mr. Pope’s enemies, the novelty of whose conversation had at this time many charms for him, and he entered too eagerly into their cabals and prejudices. It was at this time that he wrote a letter to Concanen, dated Jan. 2, 1726, very disrespectful to Pope, which, by accident, falling into the hands of the late Dr. Akenside, was produced to most of that gentleman’s friends, and became the subject of much speculation. About this time he also communicated to Theobald some notes on Shakspeare, which afterwards appeared in that critic’s edition of our great dramatic poet. In 1727, his second work, entitled “A Critical and Philosophical Enquiry into the Causes of Prodigies and Miracles, as related by Historians,” &c. was published in 12mo, and was also dedicated to sir Robert Sutton in a prolix article of twenty pages. In 1727 he published a treatise, under the title of “The Legal Judicature in Chancery stated,” which he undertook at the particular request of Samuel Burroughs, esq. afterwards a master in Chancery, who put the materials into his hands, and spent some time in the country with him during the compilation of the work. On April 25, 1728, by the interest of sir Robert Sutton, he had the honour to be in the king’s list of masters of arts, created at Cambridge on his majesty’s visit to that university. In June, the same year, he was presented by sir Robert Sutton to the rectory of Burnt or Brand Broughton, in the diocese of Lincoln, and neighbourhood of Newark, where he fixed himself accompanied by his mother and sisters, to whom he was ever a most affectionate relative. Here he spent a considerable part of the prime of life in a studious retirement, devoted entirely to letters, and there planned, and in part executed, some of his most important works. They, says his biographer, who are unacquainted with the enthusiasm which true genius inspires, will hardly conceive the possibility of that intense application, with which Mr. Warburton pursued his studies in this retirement. Impatient of any interruptions, he spent the whole of his time that could be spared from the duties of his parish, in reading and writing. His constitution was strong, and his temperance extreme; so that he needed no exercise but that of walking; and a change of reading, or study, was his only amusement.

Several years elapsed after obtaining this preferment, before Mr. Warburton appeared again in the world as a writer. In 1736 he exhibited a plan of a new edition of Velleius Paierculus, which he printed in the “Bibliotheque Britannique, ou Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans de la Grande Bretagne, pour les mois’ Juillet, Aout, & Sept. 1736. A la Haye.” The design never was completed. Dr. Middleton, in a letter to him dated April 9, 1737, returns him thanks for his letters, as well as the Journal, which, says he, “came to my hands soon after the date of my last. I had before seen theforce of your critical genius very successfully employed o'n Shakspeare, but did not know you had ever tried it on the Latin authors. I am pleased with several of your emendations, and transcribed them into the margin of my editions; though not equally with them all. It is a laudable and liberal amusement, to try now and then in our reading the success of a conjecture but, in the present state of the generality of the old writers, it can hardly be thought a study fit to employ a life upon, at least not worthy, I am sure, of your talents and industry, which, instead of trifling on words, seem calculated rather to correct the opinions and manners of the world.” These sentiments of his friend appear to have had their due weight; for, from that time, the intended edition was laid aside, and never afterwards resumed. It was in this year, 1736, that he may be said to have emerged from the obscurity of a private life into the notice of the world. The first publication, which rendered him afterwards famous, now appeared, under the title of “The Alliance between Church and State; or, the necessity and equity of an established religion and a test-law, demonstrated from the essence and end of civil society, upon the fundamental principles of the law of nature and nations.” In this acute and comprehensive work he discusses the obligation which lies upon every Christian community to tolerate the sentiments, and even the religious exercises of those who, in the incurable diversity of human opinion, dissent from her doctrines; and the duty which she owes to herself of prohibiting by some test the intrusion into civil offices of men who would otherwise endanger her existence by open hostility, or by secret treachery. His biographer, bishop Kurd, remarks, that this work was neither calculated to please the high church divines, nor the low but, he adds, that “although few at that time were convinced, all were struck by this essay of an original writer, and could not dissemble their admiration of the ability which appeared in the construction of it.” “There was, indeed,” continues Hurd, “a reach of thought in this system of church policy, which would prevent its making its way at once. It required time and attention, even in the most capable of its readers, to apprehend the force of the argumentation, and a more than common share of candour to adopt the conclusion, when they did. The author ha^i therefore reason to be satisfied with the reception of his theory, such as it was; and having thoroughly persuaded himself of its truth, as well as importance, he continued to enlarge and improve it in several subsequent editions; and in the last, by the opportunity which some elaborate attempts of his adversaries to overturn it, had afforded him, he exerted his whole strength upon it, and has left it in a condition to brave the utmost efforts of future criticism.” The late bishop Horsley, in his “Review of the case of the Protestant Dissenters” published in 1787, says that Warburton has in this work “shewn the general good policy of an establishment, and the necessity of a test for its security, upon principles which republicans themselves cannot easily deny. His work is one of the finest specimens that are to be found, perhaps, in any language, of scientific reasoning applied to a political subject.”

Warburton’s Divine Legation, says the same masterly writer to whom we are indebted for the preceding observavations , is one of the few theological, and still fewer controversial works, which scholars perfectly indifferent to such subjects will ever read with delight. The novelty of the hypothesis, the masterly conduct of the argument, the hard blows which this champion of faith and orthodoxy is ever dealing about him against the enemies of both, the scorn with which he represses shallow petulance, and the inimitable acuteness with which he exposes dishonest sophistry, the compass of literature which he displays, his widely extended views of ancient polity and religion, but, above all, that irradiation of unfailing and indefectible genius which, like the rich sunshine of an Italian landscape, illuminates the whole, — all these excellences will rivet alike the attention of taste, and reason, and erudition, as Jong as English literature shall exist while many a< standard work, perhaps equally learned and more convincing, is permitted to repose upon the shelf. But it is in his episodes and digressions that Warburton'S powers of reason and brilliancy of fancy are most conspicuous. They resemble the wanton movements of some powerful and half-broken quadruped, who, disdaining to pace along the highway under a burden which would subdue any other animal of his species, starts aside at every turn to exercise the native elasticity of his muscles, and throw off the waste exuberance of his strength and spirits. Of these the most remarkable are his unfortunate hypothesis concerning the origin and late antiquity of the Book of Job, his elaborate and successful Disquisition on Hieroglyphics and Picturewriting, and his profound and original Investigation of the Mysteries.

Mr. Warburton’s extraordinary merit had now attracted the notice of the heir-apparent to the crown, in whose immediate service we find him in June 1738, when he published “Faith working by Charity to Christian edification; a sermon preached at the last episcopal visitation for confirmation in the diocese of Lincoln; with a preface, shewing the reasons of its publication; and a postscript, occasioned by some letters lately published in the Weekly Miscellany: by William Warburton, M. A. chaplain to his royal highness the prince of Wales.” A second edition of “The Divine Legation” also appeared in November 1738. In March 1739, the world was in danger of being deprived of this extraordinary genius by an intermitting fever, which with some difficulty was relieved by a plentiful use of the bark. His reputation was now rising everyday; and he about this time rendered a service tt> Pope, by means of which he acquired an ascendancy over that great poet, which will astonish those who observe the air of superiority which, until this connection, had been shewed in all Pope’s friendships, even with the greatest men of the age. The “Essay on Man” had been now published some years and it is universally supposed that the author had, in the composition of it, adopted the philosophy of lord Bolingbroke, whom on this occasion he had followed as his guide, without understanding the tendency of his principles. In 1758 M. de Crousaz wrote some remarks on it, accusing the author of Spinosism and Naturalism; which falling into Mr. Warburton’s hands he published a defence of the first epistle in “The Works of the Learned,” and soon after of the remaining three, in seven letters, of which six were pri.nted in 1739, and the seventh in June 1740, under the title of “A Vindication of Mr. Pope’s Essay on Man, by the author of the Divine Legation.” The opinion which Mr. Pope conceived of these defences, as well as of their author, will be best seen in his letters. In consequence, a firm friendship was established between them, which continued with much undiminished fervour until the death of Mr. Pope, who, during the remainder of his life, paid a deference and respect to his friend’s judgment and abilities which will be considered by many as almost bordering on servility.

In 1741 the second volume of “The Divine Legation,” in two parts, containing books IV. V. VI. was published; as was also a second edition of the “Alliance between Church and State.” In the summer of that year Mr. Pope and Mr. Warburton, in a country-ramble, took Oxford in their way, where they parted; Mr. Pope, after one day’s stay, going westward; and Mr. Warburton, who stayed aday after him to visit Dr. Conybeare, then dean of Christ Church, returning to London. On that day the vice chancellor, Dr. Leigh, sent a message to his lodgings with the usual compliment, to know if a doctor’s degree in divinity would be acceptable to him; to which such an iuiiswer was returned as so civil a message deserved. About the same time Mr. Pope had the like offer made him of a doctor’s degree in law, which he seemed disposed to accept, until he learnt that some impediment had been thrown in the way of his friend’s receiving the compliment intended for him by the vice-chancellor. He then absolutely refused that proposed to himself. “Mr. Pope,” says Hurd, “retired with some indignation to Twickenham, but consoled himself and his friend with this sarcastic reflection, ' We shall take our degree together in fame, whatever we do at the university?” This biographer also informs us that “the university seemed desirous of enrolling their narmes among their graduates,” but that “intrigue and envy defeated this scheme.” He adds, that this was “the fault of one or two of its (the university’s) members,” a number surely insufficient to produce such an effect. But the real history of this matter seems never to have been given.

Mr. Pope’s affection for Mr. Warburton was of service to him in more respects than merely increasing his fame. He introduced and warmly recommended him to most of his friends, and amongst the rest to Ralph Allen, esq. of Prior Park, whose niece he some years afterwards married. In consequence of this introduction, we find Mr. Warburton at Bath in 1742. There he printed a sermon which had been preached at the abbey-church, on the 24th of October, for the benefit of Mr. Allen’s favourite charity, the general hospital, or infirmary. To this sermon, which was published at the request of the governors, was added, “A* short account of the nature, rise, and progress, of the General Infirmary, at Bath.” In this year also he printed a dissertation on the Origin of Books of Chivalry, at the end of Jarvis’s preface to a translation of Don Quixote, which, Mr. Pope tells him, he had not got over two paragraphs of before he cried out, < Aut Erasmus, aut Dmbolus. 1 “I knew you,” adds he, “as certainly as the ancients did the Gods, by the first pace and the very gait. I have not a moment to express myself in; but could not omit this, which delighted me so much.” Mr. Tyrwhitt, however, has completely demolished Warburton’s system o-n this subject. Pope’s attention to his interest did not rest in matters which were in his own power; he recommended him to some who were more able to assist him; in particular, he obtained a promise from lord Granville, which probably, however, ended in nothing. He appears also to have been very solicitous to bring lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Warburton together, and the meeting accordingly took place, but we are told by Dr. Warton, they soon parted in mutual disgust with each other. In 1742 Mr. Warburton published “A critical and philosophical Commentary on Mr. Pope’s Essay on Man: in which is contained a Vindication of the said Essay from the misrepresentations of Mr. de Resnel, the French translator, and of Mr. de Crousaz, professor of philosophy and mathematics in the academy of Lausanne, the commentator.” It was at this period, when Mr. Warburton had the entire confidence of Pope, that he advised him to complete the Dunciad, by changing the hero,- and adding to it a fourth book. This was accordingly executed in 1742, and published early in 1743, 4to, with notes by our author, who, in consequence of it, received his share of the castigation which Gibber liberally bestowed on both Pope and his annotator. In the latter end of the same year. he published complete editions of “The Essay on Man,” and “The Essay on Criticism:” and,from the specimen which he there exhibited of his abilities, it may be presumed Pope determined to commit to him the publication of those works which he should leave. At Pope’s desire, he about this time revised and corrected the “Essay on Homer,” as it now stands in the last edition of that translation. The publication of “The Dunciad” was the last service which our author rendered Pope in his life-time. After a lingering and tedious illness, the event of which had been long foreseen, this great poet died on the 30th of' May, 1744; and by his will, dated the 12th of the preceding December, bequeathed to Mr. Warburton one half of his library, and the property of all such of his works already printed as he had not otherwise disposed of or alienated, and all the. profits which should arise from any edition to be printed after his death; but at the same time directed that they should be published without any future alterations. In 1744 Warburton’s assistance to Dr. Z. Grey was handsomely acknowledged in the preface to Hudibras; but with this gentleman he had afterwards a sharp controversy (See Grey.) “The Divine Legation of Moses” had now been published some time; and various answers and objections to it had started up from different quarters. In this year, 1744, Mr Warburton turned his attention to these attacks on his favourite work; and defended himself in a manner which, if it did not prove him to be possessed of much humility or diffidence, at least demonstrated that he knew how to wield the weapons of controversy with the hand of a master. His first defence now appeared under the title of “Remarks on several Occasional Reflections, in answer to the Rev, Dr. Middleton, Dr. Pococke, the master of the Charter-house, Dr. Richard Grey, and others; serving to explain and justify divers passages in the Divine Legation as far as it is yet advanced: wherein is considered the relation the several parts bear to each other and the whole. Together with an Appendix, in answer to a late pamphlet, entitled” An Examination of Mr. W's Second Proposition,“8vo. And this was followed next year by” Remarks on several Occasional Reflections; in answer to the Rev. Doctors Stebbing and Sykes; serving to explain and justify the Two Dissertations, in the Divine Legation, concerning the command to Abraham to offer up his son, and the nature of the Jewish theocracy, objected to by those learned writers. Part II. and last;“8vo. Both these answers are couched in those high terms of confident superiority which marked almost every performance that fell from his pen during the remainder of his life. Sept. 5, 1745, the friendship between him and Mr. Allen was more closely cemented by his marriage with his niece, Miss Tucker, who survived him. At this juncture the kingdom was under a great alarm, occasioned by the rebellion breaking out in Scotland. Those who wished well to the then-established government found it necessary to exert every effort which could be used against the invading enemy. The clergy were not wanting on their part; and no one did more service than Mr. Warburton, who published three very excellent and seasonable sermons at this important crisis. I,” A faithful portrait of Popery by which it is seen to be the reverse of Christianity, as it is the destruction of morality, piety, and civil liberty. A sermon preached at St. James’s church, Westminster, Oct. 1745,“Sva. II.” A sermon occasioned by the present unnatural Rebellion, &e> preached in Mr. Allen’s chapel, at Prior Park, near Bath, Nov. 1745, and published at his request,'? 8vo. III. “The nature of National Offences truly stated. A sermon preached on the general fast-day, Dec. 18, 1745,” 1746, 8vo. On account of the last of these sermons he was again involved in a controversy with his former antagonist, Dr. Stebbing, which occasioned “An Apologetical Dedication to the Rev. Dr. Henry Stebbing, in answer to his censure and misrepresentations of the sermon preached on the general fast-day to be observed Dec. 18, 1745,” 1746, 8yo. Notwithstanding his great connections, his acknowledged abilities, and his established reputation, a reputation founded on the durable basis of learning, and upheld by the decent and attentive performance of every duty incident to his station; yet we do not find that he received any addition to the preferment given him in 1728 by sir Robert Sutton (except the chaplaihship to the prince of Wales) until April 1746, when he was unanimously called by the society of Lincoln’s Inn to be their preacher. In November he published “A Sermon preached on the Thanksgiving appointed to be observed the 9th Oct. for the suppression of the late unnatural Rebellion,” 1746, 8vo. In 1747 appeared his edition of “Sbakspeare,” from which he derived very little reputation. Of this edition, the nameless critic already quoted, says, “To us it exhibits a phenomenon unobserved before in the operations of human intellect a mind, ardent and comprehensive, acute and penetrating, warmly devoted to the subject and furnished with all the stores of literature ancient or modern, to illustrate and adorn it, yet by some perversity of understanding, or some depravation of taste, perpetually mistaking what was obvious, and perplexing what was clear; discovering erudition of which the author was incapable, and fabricating connections to which he was indifferent. Yet, with all these inconsistencies, added to the affectation, equally discernible in the editor of Pope and Shakspeare, of understanding the poet better than he understood himself, there sometimes appear, in the rational intervals of his critical delirium, elucidations so happy, and disquisitions so profound, that our admiration of the poet (even of such a poet), is suspended for a moment while we dwell on the excellencies of the commentator.”

"But what, it may be asked, is the evidence by which a fact so astonishing is supported Not the triumphant declamations of Christian, even of contemporary Christian writers, who, after all, with one voice, and with little variety of circumstances, bear witness to the truth of it, but that of^ friend of Julian himself, a soldier of rank, an heathen though candid and unprejudiced; in one word, the inquisitive, the honest, the judging Am. Marcellinus. The story is told by that writer, though in his own awkward latinity, very expressively and distinctly. We will add as a specimen of our author’s power, both in conception and language, the following rules for the qualification of an unexceptionable witness.

In 1751, Mr. Warburton published an edition of Pope’s “Works,” with notes, in nine volumes, octavo and in the same year printed “An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Middleton, inserted in a pamphlet entitled The Argument of the Divine Legation fairly stated,” &c. 8vo. and “An Account of the Prophecies of Arise Evans, the Welsh Prophet, in the last Century;” the latter of which pieces afterwards subjected him to much ridicule. In 1753, Mr. Warburton published the first volume of a course of Sermons, preached at Lincoln’s-inn, entitled “The Principles of natural and revealed Religion occasionally opened and explained;” and this, in the subsequent year, was followed by a second. After the public had been some time promised lord Bolingbroke’s Works, they were about this time printed. The known abilities and infidelity of this nobleman had created apprehensions, in the minds of many people, of the pernicious effects of his doctrines; and nothing but the appearance of his whole force could have convinced his friends how little there was to be dreaded from arguments against religion so weakly supported. The personal enmity, which had been excited many years before between the peer and our author, had occasioned the former to direct much of his reasoning against two works of the latter. Many answers were soon published, but none with more acuteness, solidity, and sprightliness, than “A View of Lord Bolingbroke’s Philosophy, in two Letters to a Friend,” 1754. The third a/id fourth letters were published in 1755, with another edition of the two former; and in the same year a smaller edition of the whole; which, though it came into the world without a name, was universally ascribed to Mr. Warburton, and afterwards publicly owned by him. To some copies of this is prefixed an excellent complimentary epistle from the president Montesquieu, dated May 26, 1754. At this advanced period of his life, that preferment which his abilities might have claimed, and which had hitherto been withheld, seemed to be approaching towards him. In September 1754 he was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary, and in the 'next year was presented to a prebend * in the cathedral of Durham, worth 500l. per annum, on the death of Dr. Mangey. About the same time, the degree of doctor of divinity was conferred on him by Dr. Herring, then archbishop of Canterbury; and, a new impression of “The, Divine Legation” having being called for, he printed a fourth edition of the first part of it, corrected and enlarged, divided into two volumes, with a dedication to the earl of Hardwicke. The same year appeared “A Sermon preached before his grace Charles duke of Marlborough president, and the Governors of the Hospital for the small-pox and for inoculation, at the parish church of St. Andrew, Holborn, on Thursday, April the 24th, 1755,” 4to; and in 1756 “Natural and Civil Events the Instruments of God’s moral Government, a Sermon preached on the last public Fast-day, at Lincoln’s-inn Chapel,” 4to. In 1757, a pamphlet was published, called “Remarks on Mr. David Hume’s Essay on the Natural History of Religion;” which is said to have been composed of marginal observations made by Dr. Warburton on reading Mr. Hume’s book; and which gave so much offence to the author animadverted upon, that he thought it of importance enough to deserve particular mention in the short account of his life. On Oct. 11, in this year, our author was ad­* Soon after he attained this pre- Neal’s History of the Puritans, which ferment, he wrote the Remarks on are now added to his Works. “vanced to the deanery of Bristol and in 175&republished the second part of” The Divine Legation,“divided into two parts, with a dedication to the earl of Mansfield, which deserves to be read by every person who esteems the wellbeing of society as a concern of any importance. At the latter end of next year, Dr. Warburton received the honour, so justly due to his merit, of being dignified with the mitre, and promoted to the vacant see of Gloucester. He was consecrated on the 20th of Jan. 1760; and on the 30th of the same month preached -before the House of Lords. In the next year he printed” A rational Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,“12mo. In 1762, he published” The Doctrine of Grace: or, the office and operations of the Holy Spirit vindicated from the insults of Infidelity and the abuses of Fanaticism,“2 vols. 12mo, one of his performances which does him least credit; and in the succeeding year drew upon himself much illiberal abuse from some writers of the popular party, on occasion of his complaint in the House of Lords, on Nov. 15, 1763, against Mr. Wilkes, for putting his name to certain notes on the infamous” Essay on Woman.“In 1765, anotber edition of the second part of” The Divine Legation“was published, as volumes III. IV. and V.; the two parts printed in 1755 being considered as volumes I. and II. It was this edition which produced a very angry controversy between him and Dr. Lowth, whom in many respects he found more than his equal. (See Lowth, p. 438.) On this occasion was published,” The second part of an epistolary Correspondence between the bishop of Gloucester and the late professor of Oxford, without an Imprimatur, i.e. without a cover to the violated Laws of Honour and Society,“1766, 8vo. In 1776, he gave a new edition of” The Alliance between Church and State;“and” A Sermon preached before the incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign Parts, at the anniversary Meeting in the parish church of St. Mary-le-bow, on Friday, Feb. 21,“8vo. The next year produced a third volume of his” Sermons,“dedicated to lady Mansfield and with this, and a single” Sermon preached at St. Lawrence-Jewry on Thursday, April 30, 1767, before his royal highness Edward duke of York, president, and the governors of the London Hospital. &c.“4to, he closed his literary labours. His faculties continued unimpaired for some time after this period; and, in 1769, he gave the principal materials to Mr. Ruffhead, for his” Life of Mr. Pope." He also transferred 500l. to lord Mansfield, judge Wilmot, and Mr. Charles Yorke, upon trust, to found a lecture in the form of a course of sermons; to prove the truth of revealed religion in general, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the prophecies in the Old and New Testament, which relate to the Christian church, especially to the apostacy of Papal Rome. To this foundation we owe the admirable introductory letters of bishop Hurd and the well- adapted continuation of bishops Halifax and Bagot, Dr. Apthorp, the Rev. R. Nares, and others. It is a melancholy reflection, that a life spent in the constant pursuit of knowledge frequently terminates in the loss of those powers, the cultivation and improvement of which are attended to with too strict and unabated a degree of ardour. This was in some degree the misfortune of Dr. Warburton. Like Swift and the great duke of Marlborough, he gradually sunk into a situation in which it was a fatigue to him to enter into general conversation. There were, however, a few old and valuable friends, in whose company, even to the last, his mental faculties were exerted in their wonted force; and at such times he would appear cheerful for several hours, and on the departure of his friends retreat as it were within himself. This melancholy habit was aggravated by the loss of his only son, a very promising young gentleman, who died of a consumption but a short time before the bishop himself resigned to fate June 7, 1779, in the eighty-first year of his age. A neat marble monument has been lately erected in the cathedral of Gloucester, with the inscription below *.

the Christian Religion; Dr. Johnson’s character of this literary phenomenon is too remarkable to be omitted. “About this time (1738), Warburton began to make his appearance in the first ranks of learning. He was a man of vigorous faculties, a mind fervid and vehement, supplied by incessant and unlimited inquiry, with wonderful extent and variety of knowledge, which yet had not oppressed his imagination nor clouded his perspicacity. To every work he brought a memory full fraught, together with a fancy fertile of original combinations; and at once exerted the powers of the scholar, the reasoner, and the wit. But his knowledge was too multifarious to be always exact, and his pursuits were too eager to be always cautious. His abilities gave him a haughty consequence, which he disdained to conceal or mollify; and his impatience of opposition disposed him to treat his adversaries with such contemptuous superiority as made his readers commonly his enemies, and excited against the advocate the wishes of some who favoured the cause. He seems to have adopted the Roman emperor’s determination, ‘oderint dum metuant;’ he used no allurements of gentle language, but wished to compel rather than persuade. His style is copious without selection, and forcible without neatness; he took the words that presented themselves: his diction is coarse and impure, and his sentences are unmeasured.” To this character, which has been often copied, we shall subjoin some remarks from the able critic of whom we have already borrowed, and whose opinions seem entitled to great attention.

“Warburton’s whole constitution, bodily as well as mental, seemed to indicate that he was born to be an extraordinary man: with a large and athletic person he prevented the necessity of such bodily exercises as strong constitutions usually require, by rigid and undeviating abstinence. The time thus saved was uniformly devoted to study, of which no measure or continuance ever exhausted his understanding, or checked the natural and lively flow of his spirits. A change in the object of his pursuit was his only relaxation; and he could pass and n pass from fathers and philosophers to Don Quixote, in the original, with perfect ease and pleasure. In the mind of Warburton the foundation of classical literature had been well laid, yet not so as to enable him to pursue the science of ancient criticism with an exactness equal to the extent in which he grasped it. His master-faculty was reason, and his master-science was theology; the very outline of which last, as marked out by this great man, for the direction of young students, surpasses the attainments of many who have the reputation of considerate divines. One deficiency of his education he had carefully corrected by cultivating logic with great diligence. That he has sometimes mistaken the sense of his own citations in Greek, may perhaps be imputed to a purpose of bending them to his own opinions. After all, he was incomparably the worst critic in his mother tongue. Little acquainted with old English literature, and as little with those provincial dialects which yet retain much of the phraseology of Shakespeare, he has exposed himself to the derision of far inferior judges by mistaking the sense of passages, in which he would have been corrected by shepherds and plowmen. His sense of humour, like that of most men of very vigorous faculties, was strong, but extremely coarse, while the rudeness and vulgarity of his manners as acontrovertist removed all restraints of decency or decorum in scattering his jests about him. His taste seems to have been neither just nor delicate. He had nothing of that intuitive perception of beauty which feels rather than judges, and yet is sure to be followed by the common suffrage of mankind: on the contrary, his critical favours were commonly bestowed according to rules and reasons, and for the most part according to some perverse and capricious reasons of his own. In short, it may be adduced as one of those compensations with which Providence is ever observed to balance the excesses and superfluities of its own gifts, that there was not a faculty about this wonderful man which does not appear to have been distorted by a certain inexplicable perverseness, in which pride and love of paradox were blended with the spirit of subtle and sophistical reasoning. In the lighter exercises of his faculties it may not unfrequently be doubted whether he believed himself; in the more serious, however fine-r spun his theories may have been, he was unquestionably honest. On the whole, we think it a fair subject of speculation, whether it were desirable that Warburton’s education and early habits should have been those of other great scholars. That the ordinary forms of scholastic institution would have been for his own benefit and in some respects for that of mankind, there can be no doubt. The gradations of an University would, in part, have mortified his vanity and subdued his arrogance. The perpetual collisions of kindred and approximating minds, which constitute, perhaps, the great excellence of those illustrious seminaries, would have rounded off‘ some portion of his native asperities; he would have been broken by the academical curb to pace in the trammels of ordinary ratiocination; he would have thought always above, yet not altogether unlike, the rest of mankind. In short, he would have become precisely what the discipline of a college was able to make of the man, whom Warburton most resembled, the great Bentley. Yet all these advantages would have been acquired at an expence ill to be spared and greatly to be regretted. The man might have been polished and the scholar improved, ’but the phenomenon would have been lost. Mankind might not have learned, for centuries to come, what an untutored mind can do for itself. A self-taught theologian, untamed by rank and unsubdued by intercourse with the great, was yet a novelty; and the manners of a gentleman, the formalities of argument, and the niceties of composition, would, at least with those who love the eccentricities of native genius, have been unwillingly accepted in exchange for that glorious extravagance which dazzles while it is unable to convince, that range of erudition which would have been cramped by exactness of research, and that haughty defiance of form and decorum, which, in its rudest transgressions against charity and manners, never failed to combine the powers of a giant with the temper of a ruffian.”

Bishop Warburton’s widow was re-married, at Wyke in Dorsetshire, in August 1781, to the rev. John Stafford Smith. B.D. his lordship’s chaplain, who, in her right, became owner of Prior Park. In 1788, a handsome edition of the bishop’s Works was carefully printed, from his last corrections and improvements, in 7 volumes 4to, at the v expence of Mrs. Smith, under the immediate superintendence of bishop Hurd. This edition was followed in 1794 by a “Discourse, by way of general preface to the 4to edition of bishop Warburton’s Works, containing some account of the life, writings, and character of the author.” For many reasons this “Life” appeared to be unsatisfactory , and two very important faults were imputed to it. It was partial, and it was defective. It will however always be read, as the last, and evidently an elaborate production of bishop Hurd, and as the ablest apology that can be offered for the failings of his friend. Since bishop Kurd’s death, the characteristics of both the author and biographer were amply displayed in a volume of very curious “Letters” which passed between Warburton and Hurd during a long course of years. To these must be added, although we less approve the motive and the spirit which produced such a publication, a volume that appeared in 1789, with the title, “Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian, not admitted in their works,” 8vo. Throughout Mr. Nichols’s “Literary Anecdotes,” likewise, but especially in vol. V. may be found many interesting particulars of bishop Warburton and his friends, and many of his letters, contributed from various authentic sources.

, a poet and miscellaneous writer, was of low extraction, and born in Oxfordshire about 1667. Jacob said of him, in his Lives of the Poets, that he kept a public house in the city, but in a genteel way, which was much frequented by those who were adverse to the Whig administration. Ward, however, was affronted when he read this account, not because it made him an enemy to the Whigs, or the keeper of a public house, but because his house was said to be in the city. In a book, therefore, called “Apollo’s Maggot,” he declared this account to be a great falsity, protesting that his public house was not in the city, but in Moorfelds. Oldys says he lived a while in Gray’s-­Inn, and for some years after kept a public house in Moorfields, then in Clerkenwell, and lastly a punch-house in Fulwood’s-Rents, within one door of Gray’s-Inn, where he would entertain any company who invited him with many stories and adventures of the poets and authors he had acquaintance with. He was honoured with a place in the “Dunciad” by Pope, whom, however he contrived to vex, by retorting with some spirit. He died June 20, 1731, and was buried the 27th of the same month in St. Pancras church-yard, with one mourning-coach for his wife and daughter to attend his hearse, as himself had directed in his poetical will, which was written by him June 24, 1725. This will was printed in Appleby’s Journal, Sept. 28, 1731. Ward is most distinguished by his well-known “London Spy,” a coarse, but in some respect a true, description of London manners. He wrote one dramatic piece, called “The Humours of a Coffee-house,” and some poems in the Hudibrastic style, but not “England’s Reformation,” as asserted in Mr. Reed’s edition of the Biog. Dram. 1782. That was the production of Thomas Ward, who will be mentioned hereafter.

, a learned and useful writer, was born in London about 1679. His father was a dissenting minister of the same name, born at Tysoe, in Warwickshire, who married Constancy Rayner, a woman of extraordinary piety and excellence of temper, by whom he had fourteen children. She died in April 1697, when her funeral sermon was preached and printed by the Rev. Walter Crosse; and Mr. Ward survived her twenty years, dying Dec. 28, 1717, in the eighty-second year of his age. Of his numerous family he left only two, a daughter, and the subject of this article.

His son John appears to have early contracted a love for learning, and longed for a situation in which he could make it his chief object. He was for some years a clerk in the navy office, and prosecuted iiis studies at his leisure hour* with great eagerness, and had the assistance of a Dr. John Ker, who appears to have been originally a physician, as he took his degree of M. D. at Leyden, but kept an academy at Highgate, and afterwards in St. John’s-square, Clerkenwell. Mr. Ward continued in the navy-office until 1710, when he resigned his situation, and opened a school in Tenter-alley, Moorfields, which he kept for many years, being more desirous, as he said, to converse even with boys upon subjects of literature, than to transact the ordinary affairs of life with men. In 1712, he became one of the earliest members of a society of gentlemen, who agreed to meet once a week, or as often as their affairs would permit, to prepare and read discourses, each in his turn, upon the civil law, and the law of nature and nations. In the prosecution of this laudable design, they went through the “Corpus Juris civilis,” Grotius “De Jure belli et pacis,” Puffendorff “De officio hominis et civis,” and ended with Cicero “De Officiis.” Some of the society were divines, and some lawyers; and as their affairs from time to time obliged any of them to leave the society, they were succeeded by others. But in order to preserve a perfect harmony and agreement among themselves, it was always a standing rule not to admit any new member, till he was first proposed by one of their number, and approved of by all the rest. This society, with some occasional interruptions, was kept up till Michaelmas-term 1742. Several of the members were afterwards persons of distinction both in church and state, and Mr. Ward continued highly esteemed among them while the society subsisted.

that author not approving of the translation of the first edition by Maittaire, which was never printed. In the same year Mr. Ward was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, of which he became a vice-president in 1752, and continued in that office until his death. In 1724, he subjoined to an edition of Vossius’s “Elementa Rhetorica,” printed at London, a treatise “De Ratione interpungendi,” containing a system of clear and easy rules with regard to pointing, superior to what had before appeared on that subject/ In 1726, when Dr. Middleton published his dissertation “De Medicorum apud veteres Romanos degenlium conditione,” Ward answered it, at the suggestion of Mead, and a short controversy took place (See Middleton), which has been already noticed. When Buckley was about to print his splendid edition of Thuanus, Mr, Ward translated his three letters to Dr. Mead into Latin. In 1732, at the request of the booksellers who were proprietors of Lily’s grammar, he gave a very correct edition of it, and in the preface a curious history of that work. The same year he contributed to Horsley’s “Britannia Romana” an “Essay on Peutinger’s table, so far as it relates to Britain.” He had also communicated many remarks to Horsley; and Ward’s copy, now in the British Museum, contains many ms corrections and additions.

In Feb. 1735-6, Mr. Ward was chosen a member of the society of antiquaries, and in 1747, being proposed by Roger Gale, esq. one of the vice-presidents, was elected director on the resignation of Dr. Birch, who, from an inflammation in his eyes, had been prevented for some months from performing the business of it; and in 1755 he was appointed one pf the vice-presidents, which office he held until his death. In 1736 he assisted Ainsworth in the publication of his Dictionary, and performed the same service to the subsequent editors, as long as he lived. In this same year he became a member of the Society for the encouragement of Learning, by printing valuable books at their own expence. During its existence, which, for various reasons, was not long, Mr. Ward had the care of the edition of Maximus Tyrius, to which he contributed the prefatory dedication and in the preface to the edition of “Ælian de animalibus,” the editor Abraham Gronovius is full of acknowledgments to Mr. Ward for his assistance in that work. In Dec. 1740, his “Lives of the Professors of Gresham College” were published at London, in folio, a work which Dr. Birch justly pronounces a considerable addition to the literary history of our country . Of this also there is a copy in the British museum, with considerable ms additions by the author.

As to his private character, Dr. Birch says that his piety was sincere and unaffected, and his profession as a Christian was that of a protestant dissenter, with a moderation and candour which recommended him to the esteem of those members of the established church who had the pleasure of his acquaintance or friendship. His modesty was equal to his learning, and his readiness to contribute to any work of literature was as distinguished as his abilities to do it. Dr. Lardner and Dr. Benson may be mentioned as acknowledging his assistance in their theological pursuits.

Of his works were published in his life-time, 1. “Suffragium collegiale theologorum M. Britanniae de quinque controversis remonstrantium articulis; item, concio in Phil. II, 12, 13, de gratia discriminante,” London, 1627, 4to, reprinted 1633. 2. “Eadem concio,” ibid. 1626, 4to, 3. “Magnetis reductorium theologicum, tropologicum, in quo ejus verus usus indicatur,” ibid. 1637, 8vo. The following were published after his death by Dr. Seth Ward, the subject of the following article (but no relation), who, it appears, had kindly administered to his necessities while in confinement. 4. “Dissertatio inter eum et Thomam Gatakerum de baptismatis infantilis vi et efficacia,” ibid. 1652, 8vo. 5. " Determinationes theologies,' 7 ibid. 1658, along with a treatise on justification and prelections on original sin.

He had not been in this noble family long before the visitation of the university of Oxford began; the effect of which was, that many learned and eminent persons were turned out, and among them Mr. Greaves, the Savilian professor of astronomy, who had a little before distinguished himself by his work upon the Egyptian pyramids. Mr. Greaves laboured to procure Ward for his successor, whose abilities in this way were universally known and acknowledged, and effected it. Ward then entered himself of Wadham-college, for the sake of Dr. Wilkins, who was the warden; and, Oct. 1649, was incorporated master of arts. At this time there were several learned men of the university, and in the city, who often met at the warden’s lodgings in Wadham college, and sometimes elsewhere, to improve themselves by making philosophical experiments. Among these were Dr. Wilkins and Mr. Ward, Mr. Robert Boyle, Dr. Willis, Dr. Goddard, Dr. Wallis, Dr. Bathurst, Mr. Rooke, &c. Besides reading his astronomical lectures, Mr. Ward preached frequently, though not obliged to it, for sir Henry Savile had exempted his professors from all university exercises, that they might have the more leisure to attend to the employment he designed them for. Mr. Ward’s sermons were strong, methodical, and clear, and sometimes pathetic and eloquent.

About this time, Dr. Brownrig, the ejected bishop of Exeter, lived retired at Sunning in Berkshire; where Mr. Ward, who was his chaplain, used often to wait upon him. In one of these visits, the bishop conferred on him the precentorship of the church of Exeter; and told him, that, though it might then seem a gift and no gift, yet that upon, the king’s restoration, of which the bishop was confident, it would be of some emolument to him. He paid the bishop’s secretary the full fees, as if he were immediately to take possession, though this happened in the very height of their despair; and Ward’s acquaintance rallied him upon it, telling him that they would not give him half a crown for his precentorship. But the professor knew that, let things take what turn they would, he was now safe; and that, if the king ever returned, it would be a valuable promotion, and in fact it afterwards laid the foundation of his future riches and preferment.

In 1654, both the Savilian professors performed their exercise in order to proceed doctors in divinity; and, when they were to be presented, Wallis claimed precedency. (See Wallis.) This occasioned a dispute; which being decided in favour of Ward, who was really the senior, Wallis went out grand compounder, and by that means obtained the precedency. In 1657 he was elected principal of Jesus-college by the direction of Dr. Mansell, who had been ejected from that headship many years before; but Cromwell put in one Francis Howell, with a promise of So/. a year to Dr. Ward, which was never paid. In 1659 he was chosen president of Trinity-college, although absolutely disqualified for the office, and was therefore obliged, at the restoration, to resign it. At that time, however, he was presented to the vicarage of St. Lawrence-Jewry: for, though he was not distinguished by his sufferings during the exile of the royal family, yet he was known to be so averse to the measures of the late times, and to be so well affected to the royal cause, that his compliances were forgiven. He was installed also, in 1660, in the precentorship of the church of Exeter. In 1661 he became fellow of the Royal Society, and dean of Exeter; and the following year was advanced to the bishopric of that church. Dr. Pope tells us, he was promoted to that see, without knowing any thing of it, by the interest of the duke of Albemarle, sir Hugh Pollard, and other gentlemen, whom he had obliged during his residence at Exeter.

Bishop Ward was one of those unhappy persons who have the misfortune to outlive their faculties. He dated his indisposition of health from a fever in 1660, of which he was not well cured; and, the morning he was consecrated bishop of Exeter in 1662, he was so ill, that he did not imagine he should outlive the solemnity. After he was bishop of Salisbury he was seized with a dangerous scorbutical atrophy and looseness: but this was removed by riding-exercise. Yet, in course of time, melancholy and loss of memory gradually came upon him; which, joined with some difference he had with Dr. Pierce, the dean of his church, to whom he had refused an unreasonable request, and who pursued him. with great virulence and malice, at length totally deprived him of all sense. He lived to the Revolution, but without knowing anything of that event, although he subscribed in May 1688 the bishops’ petition against reading king James’s declaration of liberty of conscience, and died at Knightsbridge Jan. 6, 1689, in the seventy-second year of his age. He was interred in his cathedral at Salisbury, where a monument was erected to his memory, by his nephew, Seth Ward, treasurer of the church. The bishop died unmarried.

Mr. Oughtred, in the preface to his “Clavis Mathematica,” calls him “a prudent, pious, and ingenious, person; admirably skilled, not only in mathematics, but also in all kinds of polite literature.” Mr. Oughtred informs us, that he was the first in Cambridge who had expounded his “Clavis Mathematica,” and that, at his importunate desire, he made additions to, and republished that work. Bishop Burnet says, “Ward was a man of great reach, went deep in mathematical studies, and was a very dexterous man, if not too dexterous; for his sincerity was much questioned. He had complied during the late times, and held in by taking the covenant; so he was hated by the high men as a time-server. But the lord Clarendon saw, that most of the bishops were men of merit by their sufferings, but of no great capacity for business. So he brought Ward in, as a man fit to govern the church; and Ward, to get his former errors to be forgot, went into the high notions of a severe conformity, and became the most considerable man on the bishops’ bench. He was a profound statesman, but a very indifferent clergyman.”

Bishop Ward’s works are, 1. “A Philosophical Essay towards an Eviction of the Being and Attributes of God, the Immortality of the Souls of Men, and the Truth and Authority of Scripture.” Oxford, 1652, 8vo. 2, “De Cometis, ubi de Cometarum natura disseritur, Nova Cometarum Theoria, & novissimae Cometa? historia proponitur. Praelectio Oxonii habita.” Oxford, 1653, 4to. 3. “Inquisitio in Ismaelis Bullialdi Astronomiae Philolaicae fundamenta,” Printed with the book “De Cometis.” 4. “Idea Trigonometric demonstrate in usum juventutis Oxon/' Oxford, 1654, 4to. 5.” Vindiciae Academiarusn: containing some brief Animadversions upon Mr. John Webster’s Book styled The Examen of Academies.“Oxford, 1654, 4to. To thrs book is prefixed an Epistle written to the Author by one who subscribes himself N. S.. and who is supposed to be Dr. John Wilkins, those two letters, being the last of both his names. 6.” Appendix concerning what Mr. Hobbes and Mr. William Deli have published on the same Arguments.“Printed at the end of” Vindiciffi Academiarum.“7.” In Thomse Hobbii Philosophiam Exercitatio Epistolica. Ad ampliss. eruditissimumque virum D. Johannem Wilkinsium S.T.D Collegii Wadhamensis Gardianum. Cui subjungitnr Appendicula ad Calumnias ab eodem Hobbio (in sex Documentis nuperrime editis) in Authorera congestas, ResponsioJ“Oxford, 1656, 8vo. 8.” Astronomia Geometrica, ubi methodus^proponitur, qui primariorum Planetarum Astronomia, sive Elliptica, sive circularis possit Geometrice absolvi." London^ 1656, 8vo. 9. Several Sermons: as I. Against Resistance of lawful Powers, preached November the 5th, 1661, on Rom. xiii. 2. II. Against the Anti-scripturists, preached February the 20th 1669, on 2 Tina. iii. 16. III. Concerning the sinfulness^ danger, an-d remedies of Infidelity, preached February the 16th, 1667, on Heb. iii. 12. London, 1670, 8vo. IV. Sermon before the House of Peers at Westminster, October the 10th, 1666, on Eccles. ii. 9. V. Sermon concerning the strangeness, frequency, and desperate consequence of Impenitency, preached -April the 1st, 1666, soon after the Plague, on Revel, ix. 20. VL Sermon against Ingratitude, on Deut. xxxii. 6. VI 1. An Apology for the Mysteries of the Gospel, preached February the 1.6th, 1672, on Rom. i. 16. Some of which Sermons having been separately printed at several times, were all published in one volume at London, 1674, 8vo. VIII. The Christian’s Victory over Death, preached at the funeral of George dukeofAlbemarle in the Collegiate church of Westminster, April the 30th, 1670, on I Cor. xv. 57. London, 1670, 4to. IX. The Case of Joram, preached before the House of Peers, January the 30th, 1673, on 2 Kings vi. last verse. London, 1674, 4to.

, whom we mentioned under the article Edward Ward, as being the real author of the Hudibrastic poem called “England’s Reformation,” was, according to Dodd, a learned schoolmaster, who becoming a Roman catholic, in the reign of James II. published several books concerning religion. Dodd says that in these tc he was so successful, that, though a layman, he was able to give diversion to some of the ablest divines of the church of England. He some time rode in the king’s guards; and it was no small confusion to his adversaries, when they understood who it was they engaged with; imagining all the while, they were attacking some learned doctor of the Roman communion.“After the revolution he retired into Flanders, where he died soon after. He left two children, a daughter who became a nun, and a son whom Dodd speaks of as” now (about 1742) a worthy catholic clergyman."

, an eminent antiquary, was descended from the ancient family of De Ware, or De Warr in Yorkshire, the only remains of which are, or lately were, in Ireland. His grandfather, Christopher Ware, was an early convert to the protestant religion in the beginning of the reign of queen Elizabeth, and that principally by the arguments and persuasion of Fox, the celebrated martyrologist. His father James, who was liberally educated, was introduced to the court of queen Elizabeth, where he soon because noticed by the ministers of state, and in 1588 was sent to Ireland as secretary to sir William Fitz-Wiiliams, the lord deputy. He had not filled this office long before he was made clerk of the common pleas in the exchequer, and afterwards obtained the reversion of the patent place of auditor general, a valuable appointment, which remained nearly a century in his family, except for a short time during the usurpation; and his income having enabled him to make considerable purchases in the county and city of Dublin, &c. his family may be considered as now removed finally to Ireland. While on a visit ui E;i^l md, James I. bestowed on him the honour of knighthood, and as a particular mark of favour, gave his eldest son the reversion of the office of auditor general. He also sat in the Irish parliament which began May 1613, for the borough of Mallow in the county of Cork. He died suddenly, while walking the street in Dublin, in 1632. By his lady, Mary, sister of sir Ambrose Briden, of Maidstone in Kent, he had five sons and five daughters. His eldest son, the subject of this article, was born in Castlestreet, Dublin, Nov. 26, 1594, and discovering early a love of literature, his father gave him a good classical education as preparatory to his academical studies. In 1610, when sixteen years of age, he was entered a fellow commoner in Trinity college, Dublin, under the immediate tuition of Dr. Anthony Martin, afterwards bishop of Meath, and provost of the college; but his private tutor and chamber-fellow was Dr. Joshua Hoyle, an Oxford scholar, and afterwards professor of divinity. Here Mr. Ware applied to his studies with such success, that he was admitted to his degree of M. A. much sooner than usual.

After continuing about six years at college, he improved what he had learned at his father’s house. It was here that he became acquainted with the celebrated Dr. Usher, then bishop of Meath, who discovering in him a taste for antiquities, gave him every encouragement in a study in which himself took so much delight. From this time a close friendship commenced between them, and Usher, in his work “De Primordiis,” took occasion to announce to the public what might be expected from sir James Ware’s labours. In the mean time his father proposed a match to him, which proved highly acceptable to all parties, with Mary, the daughter of Jacob Newman, of Dublin, esq* But this alteration in his condition dicf not much interrupt his favourite studies. He had begun to collect Mss. and to make transcripts from the libraries of Irish antiquaries and genealogists, and from the registers and chartularies of cathedrals and monasteries, in which he spared no e*­pence, and had frequent recourse to the collections of Usher, and of Daniel Molyneux, Ulster king at arms, an eminent antiquary, and his particular friend, whom in one of his works he calls “venerandee antiquitatis cultorem.”