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

On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he left his retreat in Norfolk, and being on a visit to his friends at Cambridge, was sent for up to town by his old acquaintance and contemporaries at the university, sir Nicholas Bacon, now lord-keeper of the great seal, and sir William Cecil, secretary of state, who well knew his worth. But he was now become enamoured of retirement, and suspecting they designed him for some high dignity in the church, of which however no intimation had yet been given, he wrote them many letters, setting forth his own inabilities and infirmities, and telling the lord-keeper in confidence, “he would much rather end his days upon some such small preferment as the mastership of his college, a living of twenty nobles per ann. at most, than to dwell in the deanry of Lincoln, which is 200 at the least.” These statesmen, however, still considered him as in every respect the best fitted for the archbishopric of Canterbury; and the reluctance he showed to accept it, and the letters he wrote both to them and the queen, only served to convince all parties that they had made a proper choice. He was accordingly consecrated on Dec. 17, 1559, in Lambeth chapel, by William Barlow, late bishop of Bath and Wells, and then elect of Chichester; John Story, late bishop of Chichester, and then elect of Hereford; Miles Coverdale, bishop of Exeter, and John Hodgkin, suffragan bishop of Bedford. An original instrument of the rites and ceremonies used on this occcasion, corresponding exactly with the archbishop’s register, is still carefully preserved in Bene't college library, and proved of great service, when the papists, some years after, invented a story that Parker was consecrated at the Nag’s head inn, or tavern, in Cheapside. That this was a mere fable has been sufficiently shown by many authors, and is acknowledged even by catholic writers. Being thus constituted primate and metropolitan, Dr. Parker endeavoured to fill the vacant sees with men of learning and piety, who were well affected to the reformation; and soon after his own consecration, he consecrated in his chapel at Lambeth, Grindal, bishop of London; Cox, bishop of Ely; Sandys, bishop of Worcester; Jewell, bishop of Salisbury; and several others. The subsequent history of archbishop Parker is that of the church of England. He had assisted at her foundation, and for the remainder of his life had a principal hand in the superstructure. Referring, however, to ecclesiastic history, and particularly to Strype’s invaluable volume, for the full details of the archbishop’s conduct, we shall confine ourselves to a few of the most prominent of those measures in which he was personally concerned. Soon after his consecration he received a letter from the celebrated Calvin, in which that reformer said that “he rejoiced in the happiness of England, and that God had raised up so gracious a queen, to be instrumental in propagating the true faith of Jesus Christ, by restoring the gospel, and expelling idolatry, together with the bishop of Rome’s usurped power.” And then in order to unite protestants together, as he had attempted before in king Edward’s reign, he intreated the archbishop to prevail with her majesty, to summon a general assembly of all the protestant clergy, wheresoever dispersed; and that a set form and method (namely of public service, and government of the church) might be established , not only within her dominions, but also among all the reformed and evangelical churches abroad. Parker communicated this letter to the queen’s council, and they took it into consideration, and desired the archbishop to return thanks to Calvin; and to signify that they thought his proposals very fair and desireable, but as to church-government, to inform him, that the church of England would adhere to the episcopal form. The death of Calvin prevented any farther intercourse on this subject, but Strype has brought sufficient evidence that Calvin was not absolutely averse to episcopacy, and that he was as zealous for uniformity as our archbishop, who has been so much reproached for his endeavours to promote it.

In 1561, archbishop Parker and some of the other prelates made an application to the queen against the use of images, to which her majesty still discovered a very great inclination, and it may be inferred that they induced her to change her opinion on this matter, from the anecdote given in our account of dean Nowell, who incurred her displeasure by only presenting her with a prayer-book, illustrated with engravings. In other respects she adhered to many of her father’s notions, and when about this time she took a journey into Essex and Suffolk, she expressed great displeasure at finding so many of the clergy married, and at observing so many women and children in cathedrals and colleges. She had, indeed, so strong an aversion to matrimony in the clergy, that it was owing to Cecil’s courage and dexterity, as appears by a letter of his to Parker, that she did not absolutely prohibit the marriage of all ecclesiastics. He was, however, obliged to consent to an injunction, “that no head or member of any college or cathedral, should bring a wife, or any other woman, into the precincts of it, to abide in the same, on pain of forfeiture of all ecclesiastical promotions.” Archbishop Parker took the liberty to remonstrate with the queen against this order, and on this interview she treated the institution of matrimony with contempt, declared to him that she repented her making any of them bishops, and wished it had been otherwise; nay, threatened him with injunctions of another nature, which his grace understood to be in favour of the old religion. In his letter to Cecil on this occasion, he assures him that the bishops have all of them great reason to be dissatisfied with the queen; that he repents his having engaged in the station in which he was; and that the reception which he had from her majesty the day before, had quite indisposed him for all other business, and he could only mourn to God in the bitterness of his soul; but if she went on to force the clergy to any compliance, they must obey God rather than men, and that many of them had conscience and courage enough to sacrifice their lives in defence of their religion.

But, whatever our archbishop might suffer from the despotic caprices of the queen, he had yet more trouble with the dissentions which appeared in the church itself, and never ceased to prevail, in a greater or less degree, until the whole fabric was overturned in the reign of Charles I. These first appeared in the opposition given to the ecclesiastic habits by a considerable number of divines, and those men of worth and piety, who seemed to be of opinion that popery might consist in dress as well as doctrine. By virtue of the clause in the act of uniformity, which gave the queen a power of adding any other rites and ceremonies she pleased, she set forth injunctions ordering that the clergy should wear seemly garments, square caps, and copes, which had been laid aside in the reign of king Edward. Many conformed to these in every circumstance, but others refused the cap and surplice, considering them as relics of popery, and therefore both superstitious and sinful. The queen, enraged at this opposition, which was favoured even by some of her courtiers, wrote a letter to the two archbishops, reflecting with some acrimony on it, as the effect of remissness in the bishops; and requiring them to confer with her ecclesiastical commissioners, that an exact order and uniformity might be maintained in all external rites and ceremonies; and that none hereafter should be admitted to any ecclesiastical preferment, but those who were disposed to obedience in this respect. Archbishop Parker, accordingly, with the assistance of several of his brethren, drew up ordinances for the due order in preaching and administering the sacraments, and for the apparel of persons ecclesiastical. According to these, the preachers were directed to study edification, and to manage controversy with sobriety; exhorting the people to frequent the communion, and to obey the laws, and the queen’s injunctions. All the licences for preaching were declared void and of no effect, but were to be renewed to such as their bishops thought worthy of the office; and such as preached unsound doctrine were to be denounced to the bishop, and not contradicted in the church. These who had licences were to preach once in three months; and those who were unlicensed, were to read homilies. In administering the sacrament, the principal minister was to wear a cope, but at all other prayers only the surplice; in cathedrals they were to wear hoods, and preach in them; the sacrament was to be received by every body kneeling; every minister saying the public prayers, or administering the sacraments, was to wear a surplice with sleeves; and every parish was to provide a communion-table, and to have the ten commandments set on the east wall above it. The bishops were to give notice when any persons were to be ordained, and none were to be ordained without degrees. Then followed some rules about wearing apparel, caps, and gowns; to all which was added, a form of subscription to be required of all who were admitted to any office in the church; that they would not preach without licence, that they would read the Scriptures intelligibly, that they would keep a register-book, that they would use such apparel in service-time especially as was appointed, that they would keep peace and quiet in their parishes, that they would read some of the Bible daily, and in conclusion, that they would observe uniformity, and conform to all the laws and orders already established for that purpose; and to use no sort of trade, if their living amounted to twenty nobles.

It might have been expected that these ordinances would have pleased the queen, as being in conformity with her wishes, and, in fact, in answer to her orders; but the opponents of the habits, who began to be called Puritans, applied to their friends at court, and especially to her great favourite Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, who prevailed so far with her majesty, that all her former resolution disappeared, and she refused to sanction the ordinances with her authority, telling the archbishop, that the oath of canonical obedience was sufficient to bind the inferior clergy to their duty, without the interposition of the crown. The archbishop, hurt at such capricious conduct, and at being placed in such a situation between the court and the church, told Cecil, that if the ministry persisted in their indifference, he would “no more strive against the stream, fume or chide who would;” and it is most probable his remonstrances prevailed, for the above ordinances were a few days after published, under the name of Advertisements; and he then proceeded upon them with that zeal which procured him from one party the reproach of being a persecutor, and from the other the honour of being a firm friend and supporter of the church-establishment. The particular steps he took, the trials he instituted, and the punishments he inflicted, are detailed at length by Strype and other church-historians; but on the merit of his conduct there is great diversity of opinion. It has been said, both in excuse and in reproach of his measures, that he was too subservient to the queen. To us it appears, that he took as much liberty in advising the queen, and in contending with her humours, as any prelate or statesman of her reign, and that what he did to promote uniformity in the church arose from a sincere, however mistaken opinion, that uniformity was necessary to the advancement of the reformation, and in itself practicable. All that is wrong in this opinion must be referred to the times in which he lived, when no man conceived that an established church could flourish if surrounded by sectaries, and when toleration was not at all understood in its present sense.

He continued to struggle with the difficulties attending his office and measures, until his seventy-first year, when, finding himself in a declining condition, he signed his will April 5, 1575, and died on May 17 following. He was buried in his own chapel at Lamleth, with a Latin inscription by his friend Dr. Walter Haddon: but this was demolished, and his bones taken up and scattered, during the usurpation; nor was it known what became of them till they were discovered by Dugdale, in archbishop Sancroft’s time, who again replaced them in the midst of the area of the chapel, as a small marble stone facing the altar, with this inscription upon it, now denotes, "Corpus Matthæi archiepiscopi tandem hie quiescit:" the monument itself, with an epitaph upon it of his own drawing up, being since removed into the anti-chapel.

Concerning his learning and zeal for the promotion of learning, there is no difference of opinion. His skill in ancient liturgies was such, that he was one of the first selected to draw up the Book of Common Prayer; and when he came to be placed at the head of the church, he laboured much to engage the bishops, and other learned men, in the revisal and correction of the former translations of the Bible. This was at length undertaken and carried on under his direction and inspection, who assigned particular portions to each of his assistants, which he afterwards perused and corrected, and spared no pains in getting it completed. It was first published in 1568, and has usually been called the “Bishop’s Bible,” and ran its course with the Geneva translation, until the present version was executed, in the reign of king James. He also published a "Saxon homily on the Sacrament,“translated out of Latin into that language, by Ælfric a learned abbot of St. Alban’s, about 900 years before; with two epistles of the same, in which is not the least mention of the doctrine of transubstantiation. He was the editor also of editions of the histories of Matthew of Westminster and Matthew of Paris, and of various other works, enumerated by Tanner; some of which were either composed by him, or printed at his expence. The work on which he is thought to have spent most time was that” De Antiquitate Britanniæ Ecclesiæ;“but his share in this is a disputed point among antiquaries. In his letter to the lord treasurer, to whom he presented a copy, he speaks of it as his own collection, which had been the employment of his leisure hours. Dr. Drake likewise, in the preface to his edition of it, quotes a letter of the archbishop’s in the college-library, in which he expressly styles it,” My book of Canterbury Predecessors;“and archbishop Bramhall was of opinion, that the conclusion of the preface proved Parker himself to have been the author. But notwithstanding these testimonies, the matter is doubtful. Selden was the first who called it in question, although without giving his reasons; and sir Henry Spelman considered Dr. Ackworth to have been either the author or collector of the work. Archbishop Usher thinks that Ackworth wrote only the first part, concerning the British antiquities; and he, Selden, and Wharton, ascribe the lives of the archbishops to Josselyn, and make Parker little more than the director or encourager of the whole. And this certainly seems to be confirmed by the copy now in the Lambethlibrary. This copy, which originally belonged to that library, but was missing from the year 1720, was replaced in 1757 by Dr. Trevor, bishop of Durham, who found it in the Sunderland-library. This, which Dr. Ducarel thought the only perfect one existing, contains many manuscript papers, letters, and notes, respecting archbishop Parker and the see of Canterbury; and, among these, some proofs that Ackworth and Josselyn had a considerable share in the composition of the work. At the beginning of St. Augustine’s life we find this note:” These 24 pages of St. Augustine’s life were thus begun by George Acworth Dr. of laws, at the appointment of Matthew Parker Abp.of Cant, and the lives of all the archbishops should have in this course been perfected—(some words not intelligible)—but deth prevented it.“This Dr. Ackworth, as we have mentioned in our account of him (vol. I.) was alive in 1576, but how long after is not known, but as this is a year after our prelate’s death, there seems some difficulty in understanding the latter part of this note, without adopting archbishop Usher’s opinion above mentioned. We also find in the Lambeth copy, on the title-page of the history, the following note:” This Historie was collected and penned by John Josselyn, one of the sons of sir Thomas Josselyn, knight, by the appointment and oversight of Matthew Parker archbishop of Cant. the said John being entertained in the said archb. house, as one of his antiquaries, to whom, besides the allowance afforded to him in his howse, he gave to hym the parsonage of Hollinborn in Kent," &c.

It seems probable therefore that Parker planned this work, and supplied his assistants with materials from his own collections respecting ecclesiastical antiquities. It was printed probably at Lambeth, where the archbishop had an establishment of printers, engravers, and illuminators, in a folio volume, in 1572. The number of copies printed appears to have been very small, some think not more than four or five, for private distribution; but this must be a mistake; for Dr. Drake mentions his having consulted twenty-one copies, most of which, he adds, were imperfect. The copies extant, however, in a perfect state, are very few: Strype mentions only five, and one of these, which he calls the choicest of all, belonged to archbishop Sancroft, came afterwards into the hands of Mr. Wharton, and appears to be the one now at Lambeth. There is a very fine copy in the British Museum, bound in green velvet embroidered, which appears to have been the presentation-copy to queen Elizabeth. A bad edition of the work was published at Hanover in 1605; and a very elegant one by Dr. Drake in 1729, folio. In 1574, a short life of archbishop Parker was published abroad, most probably by one of his enemies among the puritans, under the title “The Life of the 70 Archbishopp of Canterbury, presently settinge. Englished, and to be added to the 69 lately sett forth in Latin. This number of seventy is so complete a number as it is great pitie ther should be one more: but that as Augustin was the first, so Matthew might be the last.” Of this scurrilous publication an account may be seen in the “Restituta,” vol. I.

To the university of Cambridge, and particularly to his own college, he was a most munificent benefactor, founding, at his own expence, many fellowships and scholarships. He was also the founder of the first Society of Antiquaries, over which he presided during his life, and in this office was succeeded by archbishop Whitgift. He had the taste and spirit of an antiquary from his earliest years, and employed his interest, when he rose in the world, as well as his fortune, in accumulating collections, or transcripts of manuscripts, from the dissolved monasteries. In his library is a letter from the privy-council, dated July 1568, signifying the queen’s pleasure, that the archbishop, or his deputies, should be permitted to peruse all the records of the suppressed houses. The greatest favour, therefore, which he conferred on literature, was the invaluable collection of Mss. and printed books which he gave to his college, and which is there still preserved. Fuller styled this collection “the Sun of English Antiquity, before it was eclipsed by that of sir Robert Cotton,” and justly, as it contained more materials, relating to the civil and ecclesiastical history of this kingdom, than had ever been collected. The manuscripts are of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. Some are as old as the tenth, ninth, and eighth. They relate to the writings of the fathers and school-divinity, to civil and ecclesiastical matters, to the concerns of various religious houses, of the university, &c. Many of them are in the old Saxon character, and they are all well described in Nasmith’s Catalogue. A copy of his will is preserved in the College-library, as are two pictures of him in oil, with a beautiful one in water-colours, taken in the seventieth year of his age, at the end of the college-statutes. His only surviving son, John, was knighted in 1603, and died in 1618, but there is nothing remarkable in his history; and the family is now thought to be extinct.

In 1665 he was elected a fellow of the royal society, and published about the same time some physico-theological essays, in Latin, with the title “Tentamina Physico-Theologica de Deo; sive Theologia Scholastica, ad normarn novae et reformats philosophise concinnata,” Lond. 1665, 4to. This he dedicated to archbishop Sheldon. The work was attacked by N. Fairfax, M. D. in a treatise with the whimsical title of “The Bulk and Selvedge of the World.” In 1666 he published “A free and impartial Censure of the Platonic Philosophy;” and shortly after “An account of the nature and extent of the Divine Dominion and Goodness, especially as they refer to the Origenian hypothesis concerning the pre-existence of souls, together with a special account of the vanity and groundlessness of the hypothesis itself,” Oxon. 166o, 4to. About Michaelmas, 1667, archbishop Sheldon appointed him one of his chaplains, a proof that at this time he was in estimation; and this seems to have led the way to higher preferment. He now left Oxford, and resided at Lambeth, under the eye of his patron; who, in June 1670, collated him to the archdeaconry of Canterbury, in the room of Dr. Sancroft, afterwards archbishop. On Nov. 26, the same year, having accompanied William prince of Orange on his visit to Cambridge, he bad the degree of D. D. conferred upon him. On Nov. 18, 1672, he was installed prebendary of Canterbury and had the rectories of Ickham and Chartham, in Kent, conferred upon him by the archbishop about the same time. About this time he published some of those writings against the presbyterians which involved him in a controversy. The first of these was his “Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity, wherein the authority of the civil magistrate over the consciences of subjects in matters of external religion is asserted.” This was first answered by the anonymous author of “Insolence and Impudence triumphant,” &c. 1669; and by Dr. John Owen, in “Truth and Innocence vindicated.” He then published “A Defence and Continuation of Ecclesiastical Polity (against Dr. Owen),” Lond. 1671, 8vo “Toleration discussed,” &c. 1670, 4to “A Discourse in Vindication of bishop Bramhall and the Church of England, from the fanatic charge of Popery,” &c. This was prefixed to a “Treatise” of the said bishop, written in his own defence, 1672, 8vo. A humourous censure of this piece being published by Andrew Marvell, entitled '< The Rehearsal Transprosed,“&c. our author, in the same humourous taste, wrote” A Reproof to the Rehearsal Transprosed,“1673, 8vo. Wood, however, observes, that,” finding himself beaten in this cudgelling way, his high spirit was abated for ever after, and though Marvell replied to his ‘ Reproof,’ yet he judged it more prudent to lay down the cudgels. It put him upon a more sober, serious, and moderate way of writing.“(See Marvell.) Parker’s last publication in this controversy was” A free and impartial Inquiry into the causes of that very great esteem and honour the Nonconformist Ministers are in with their followers,“1673, 8vo. In 1678 he published his” Disputationes de Deo et providentia divina,“&c. 4to, which is highly commended by Dr. Henry More in the general preface to his works. This was followed by other works, entitled” Demonstration of the divine authority of the Law of Nature, and of the Christian Religion,“1681, 4to” The Case of the Church of England briefly stated in the three first and fundamental principles of a Christian Church. I. The Obligation of Christianity by Divine Right. II. The Jurisdiction of the Church by Divine Right. III. The institution of Episcopal Superiority by Divine Right,“London, 8vo;” An account of the Government of the Christian Church, in the first six hundred years; particularly shewing, I. The Apostolical practice of Diocesan and Metropolitical Episcopacy. II. The usurpation of patriarchal and papal authority. III. The war of two hundred years between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, of universal supremacy,“London, 1683, 8vo;” Religion and Loyalty, or, a demonstration of the power of the Christian Church within itself, supremacy of sovereign powers over it, and duty of passive obedience and nonresistance to all their commands, exemplified out of records,“&c. 8vo and the year following, the second part of the same work, containing” the history of the concurrence of the imperial and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Government of the Church, from the beginning of the reign of Jovian to the end of Justinian," 1685, 8vo.

After the death of Edward VI. he joined the exiles abroad, and took up his residence at Zurich, where he remained till the death of queen Mary. Here he met with his pupil Jewell, and on the change of affairs in England they intended to have returned together, but Parkhurst, thinking that Jewell had not chosen the safest route for his travels, left him and went by himself, the consequence of which was that Parkhurst was robbed of all he had on the road, and Jewell arrived safe in England, and had the satisfaction of relieving the wants of his former benefactor. Soon after Parkhurst arrived, he was elected to the see of Norwich April 13, 1560, and consecrated by archbishop Parker, &c. on Sept. 1. He held the living of Cleve for some time after this along with his bishopric. He now married Margaret, daughter of Thomas Garnish, of Kenton in Suffolk, esq. by Margaret his wife, daughter of sir Hugh Francis, of Giffard’s Hall in Suffolk, knight. In 1566, by virtue of a commission from the principal ministers of the university of Oxford, directed to Laurence Humphrey, the queen’s divinity professor, he and four other bishops were created doctors of divinity, Oct. 30, in the house of one Stephen Medcalf in London, in the presence of William Standish, public notary and registrar of the university, and others.

In the conduct of his diocese, it appears that he differed in many respects from his metropolitan archbishop Parker, and exerted his authority towards the puritans with such moderation, as was accounted “great remissness.” This produced frequent remonstrances on the part of the archbishop. To one of the last of these recorded by Strype, our prelate returned for answer, “What I am and what my doings are, cannot be hidden. And therefore do refer myself to the reports not of any one, but of all severally. This I find by good proof, that the rough and austere manner of ruling doth the least good. And on the other part, the contrary hath and doth daily reclaim and win divers. And therefore do I chuse rather to continue my accustomed and natural form and manner, which I know, how it hath and doth work, than with others by rigour and extremity to over-rule,” &c.

Strype, on the authority of his contemporary Becan, who knew him well, gives him this character: “He was naturally somewhat hasty; but soon appeased again. He would speak his mind freely, and fear none in a good cause. A true friend, and easily reconciled to any against whom he had taken a displeasure. He appointed in his diocese (that was large) for the better oversight thereof, ten commissaries, to whom he, as occasion served, sent instructions for the regulation and order of his see. He could have been willing to allow a liberty of officiating in the church, to such as could not conform to some of the ceremonies of it, looking upon them as indifferent matters; but upon command from above, he readily obeyed his prince’s and metropolitan’s authority. He was a friend to prophesies; that is, to the meetings of the ministers in several appointed parish churches in his diocese, as in St. Edmund’s Bury, &c. to confer together about the interpretation and sense of the scriptures. But the queen forbidding it, upon some abuses thereof, the archbishop signified to him her will, and he in obedience sent to his archdeacons and commissaries, to have them forborn for the future.” “As for his life and conversation, it was such as might be counted a mirror of virtue; wherein appeared nothing but what was good and godly; an example to the flock in righteousness, in faith, in love, in peace, in word, in purity. He preached diligently, and exhorted the people that came to him. He was a learned man, as well in respect of human learning, as divine, well seen iti the sacred Scriptures; an earnest protestant, and lover of sincere religion; an excellent bishop, a faithful pastor, and a worthy example to -all spiritual ministers in his diocese, both for doctrine, life, and hospitality.” This character is confirmed by Bale, in the dedication to Parkhurst, of his “Reliques of Rome,” printed in 1563.

Having been warmly recommended by Swift to archbishop King, this prelate gave him a prebend in 1713, and in May 1716, presented him to the vicarage of Finglass, in the diocese of Dublin, worth 400l. a-year. “Such notice,” says Dr. Johnson, “from such a man, inclines me to believe, that the vice of which he has been accused was not gross, or not notorious.” But he enjoyed these preferments little more than a year, for in July 1717 he died at Chester, on his way to Ireland, in his thirty-eighth year. Dying without male issue, his estate, but considerably embarrassed by his imprudence, devolved to his nephew, sir John Parnell, bart. one of the justices of the King’s-bt-nch in Ireland, and father to the Irish chancellor of the Exchequer, sir John Parnell, who died in 1801. justly founded, are, his “Rise of Woman;” the “Fairy Tale;” the “Hymn to Contentment;” “Health;” the “Vigil of Venus” the “Night-piece on Death” the <c Allegory on Man,“and” The Hermit.“These have been respectively criticised by his biographers Goldsmith and Johnson, and have stood the test of nearly a century.” His praise,“says Dr. Johnson,” must be derived from the easy sweetness of his diction,; in his verses there is more happiness than pains: he is sprightly without effort, and always delights, though he never ravishes: every thing is proper, yet every thing seems casual."

, an English divine, was the son of Richard Parr, likewise a divine, and was born at Fermoy, in the county of Cork, where, we presume, his father was beneficed, in 1617; and this singularity is recorded of his birth, that his mother was then fifty-five years of age. He was educated in grammar at a country school, under the care of some popish priests, who were at that time the only schoolmasters for the Latin-tongue. In 1635, he was sent to England, and entered as a servitor of Exeter college, Oxford, where his merit procured him the patronage of Dr. Piideaux, the rector, by whose interest, as soon as he had taken his bachelor’s degree in arts, in 1641, he was chosen chaplain-fellow of the college. He found here another liberal patron and instructor in the celebrated archbishop Usher, who, in 1643, retired to this college from the tumult then prevailing through the nation and observing the talents of Mr. Parr as a preacher, made him his chaplain; and, about the end of that year, took him with him to Glamorganshire. On his return with this prelate, he obtained the vicarage of Ryegate in Surrey, on the presentation of Mr. Roger James, gent, son of sir Roger James, knight, whose sister he married, a widow lady of considerable property. In doctrinal points he appears to have concurred with the assembly of divines, who were mostly Calvinists; but it seems doubtful whether he ever took the Covenant. In 1649, he resigned his fellowship of Exeter college, and continued chaplain to archbishop Usher, while that prelate lived. In 1653, he was instituted to the living of Camberweli in Surrey, and appears to have been some time rector of Bermondsey, where his signature occurs in the register of 1676, and he is thought to have resigned it in 1682. At the Restoration he was created D. D. and had the deanery of Armagh, and an Irish bishopric, offered to him, both which he refused; but accepted a canonry of Armagh. He remained vicar of Camberweli almost thirty-eight years, and was greatly beloved and followed. Wood, in his quaint way says, “He was so constant and ready a preacher at Camberweli, that his preaching being generally approved, he broke two conventicles thereby in his neighbourhood that is to say, that by his out- vying the Presbyterians and Independents in his extemporarian preaching, their auditors would leave them, and flock to Mr. Parr.” All who speak of him indeed concur in what is inscribed on his monument, that <c he was in preaching, constant in life, exemplary in piety and charity, most eminent a lover of peace and hospitality and, in fine, a true disciple of Jesus Christ.“He died at Camberweli Novembers, 1691, and was buried in the church-yard, where the above monument was erected to his memory. His wife died before him. Dr. Parr wrote” Christian Reformation: being an earnest persuasion to the speedy practice of it: proposed to all, but especially designed for the serious consideration of his dear kindred and countrymen of the county of Cork in Ireland, and the people of Ryegate and Camberweli in Surrey,“Lond. 1660, 8vo. He published also three occasional sermons; but the most valuable present he made to the publick was his” Life of Archbishop Usher," prefixed to that prelate’s Letters, printed in folio, 1686. It is the most ample account we have of Usher; and few men could have enjoyed better opportunities of knowing his real character. Wood mentions Dr. Thomas Marshall’s intention of enlarging this, as noticed in oiir account or' him.

, an English divine, and miscellaneous writer, was born at Dedham, in Essex, in 1729. His family was ancient, and settled at Hadleigh, in Suffolk, as early as the reign of HenryV1I. where some of their descendants still reside. He lost his father when veryyoung, and owed the care of his education to his maternal uncle, the rev. Thomas Smythies, master of the grammar school at Lavenham, in Suffolk, with whom he continued till he went to Cambridge, where he was entered of Sidney Sussex college, and took his degrees there of B. A. in 1752, and M. A. in 1776. After he had taken orders he was appointed to the free school of Oakham in Rutlandshire, and remained there till 1761, when he was presented to the school and curacy of Wye by Daniel earl of Winchelsea and Nottingham. In the sedulous discharge of the twofold duties of this preferment he was engaged upwards of half a century, and was distinguished by his urbanity, diligence, and classical talents, nor was he less esteemed in his clerical character. He was also presented to the rectory of Eastwell, in 1767, by the same patron, and to the small rectory of Snave in 1776, by archbishop Cornwallis, who enhanced the value of this preferment by a very kind letter, in which his grace testified his high respect for the character and talents of the new incumbent. Mr. Parsons was the author of several publications, among which were, The nine first papers in the second volume of the “Student,” published in 1750; “On advertising for Curates;” a paper in The World; “The inefficacy of Satire, a poem,” 176G, 4to; “Newmarket, or an Essay on the Turf,” 1774, 2 vols.; “Astronomic Doubts, a pamphlet,” 1774; “A volume of Essays,” 1775; “Dialogues of the Dead with the Living,” 1782; “Simplicity,” a poem, 1784; and “Monuments and Painted Glass in upwards of 100 churches, chiefly in the eastern part of Kent,” 1794, 4to. This work, which is interspersed with judicious remarks and interesting anecdotes by the compiler, is become scarce, owing to the fire in Mr. Nichols’s premises, but is highly valuable to the antiquary and lover of such researches. Mr. Parsons also established a Sunday school at Wye; and recommended and contributed much to their establishment in the county of Kent by a sermon and some letters which he published on this occasion. The last years of his life were passed in great retirement; alternately engaged in the discharge of his ministerial functions, and in literary pursuits and correspondence, which, however, were interrupted by the loss of his sight about a year before his death, and at the same time by a very painful disorder. He bore these trials with exemplary patience and resignation. It was his frequent practice, when on his bed, and free from the more excruciating pains of his disorder, to compose moral, lively, and religious pieces, which he afterwards dictated to a faithful amanuensis, who wrote them down. He died at Wye, June 12, 1812, in the eighty-third year of his age.

After a few weeks stay at this university, he arrived in England; and, bringing proper testimonials with him to Oxford, was incorporated M. A. there, in June 1624. Here he began to teach Hebrew and the mathematics privately, but at the end of the year took a tour into France with some gentlemen of Germany; and spending the winter at Paris, attended the lectures of Gabriel Sionita, regius professor of Syriac and Arabic: who, having left off reading in public some years for want of auditors, was prevailed upon by Pasor to resume those exercises in his own house. Having much improved himself under this excellent master, he returned to Oxford in 1625, and had chambers in Exeter college, in which he preferred residing, notwithstanding the plague had dispersed the students, rather than go to Ireland with archbishop Usher, who offered him his table and a handsome pension. As soon as the infection ceased, he had some pupils, either in divinity or the oriental tongues; and in the latter he was tutor to the celebrated Pococke. Afterwards, upon his petition, he was appointed to read public lectures in Arabic, Chaldee, and Syriac, twice a week in term time, in the divinity-school; for which he was handsomely rewarded. He held this temporary professorship for about three years from Oct. 1626, during which time he also delivered a Hebrew lecture in Now college. In 1629 he accepted an invitation to be professor of moral philosophy at Groningen; and, upon the death of Muller, the mathematical professor, six years after, Pasor succeeded to that chair; but when, in 1645, he was raised to that of divinity, of which faculty he was then created doctor, he resigned his mathematical professorship, retaining that of moral philosophy. All these favours induced him to remain at Groningen, where he died Jan. 28, 1658.

, an Italian cardinal, famous rather as a patron of letters, than as a writer, and employed by the see of Rome in many important negociations, was born at Fossombrone in the dutchy of Urbino, in 1682. He studied in the Clementine college at Rome, where he afterwards formed that vast library and curious collection of manuscripts, from which the learned world has derived so much advantage. In 1706 he attended the nuncio Gualterio, his relation, to Paris, where he formed an intimacy with the most learned men of the time, and examined every thing that deserved attention. He was particularly intimate with Mabillon, and Montfaucon. In 1708 ha went into Holland, at first for the sake of literary inquiries, but afterwards as a kind of secret agent for the pope at the Hague, where he resided four years, and attended the congress at Utrecht in 1712. On his return to Rome., he passed through Paris, where he was most graciously and honourably received by Louis XIV. who gave him his portrait set with diamonds. He then proceeded to Turin to accommodate some differences between the pope and the duke of Savoy; and upon his return to Rome was declared president of the apostolic chamber. In the two congresses at Bale in 1714, and at Soleure in 1715, he was again employed, and strongly evinced his zeal, talents, activity, prudence, and other qualities of a great negotiator. His account of this embassy was published in 1738, in folio, under the title of “Acta Legationis Helvetica,” which may be considered as a model of conduct for persons employed in such services. Upon the accession of Clement XII. he was sent as nuncio to the court of Vienna, where he pronounced the funeral oration of prince Eugene. In the pontificate of Innocent XIII. which lasted from 1721 to 1724, Passionei had been made archbishop of Ephesus; ie continued in favour with the successors of that pope, Benedict XIII. and Clement XII. the latter of whom, in 1738, raised him to the dignity of cardinal, having at the same time made him secretary of the briefs. Benedict XIV. in 1755 made him librarian of the Vatican, which he enriched by many important accessions; and in the same year he was admitted into the French academy, under the peculiar title of associ6 etranger. He died on the 15th of July, 1761, at the age of seventy-nine.

Such is the account given of this debate by Kennet in his “Complete History of England:” bishop Burnet’s account is somewhat different. He says, “That the king desired of the earl, he would suffer himself to be instructed in religion. He answered, he was fully satisfied about his religion; but, upon the king’s pressing it that he would hear his priests, he said he desired then to have some of the English clergy present, to which the king consented; only he excepted to Tillotson and Stillingfleet. Lord Rochester said he would take those who should happen to be in waiting; for the forms of the chapel were still kept up. And Drs. Patrick and Jane were the men.” “Patrick,” adds Burnet, “told me, that at the conference there was no occasion for them to say much. The priests began the attack. And when they had done, the earl said, if they had nothing stronger to urge, he would not trouble those learned gentlemen to say any thing; for he was sure he could answer all that he had heard. And so answered all with much heat and spirit, not without some scorn, saying, Were these grounds to persuade men to change their religion? This he urged over and over again with great vehemence. The king, seeing in what temper he was, broke off the conference, charging all that were present to say nothing of it.” The king had often taken pains to gain over Patrick, sent for him, treated him kindly, desired him to abate his zeal against his church, and quietly enjoy his own religion: but the dean replied, with proper courage, “That he could not give up a religion so well proved as that of the Protestants.” Conformably to this principle, he opposed the reading of his majesty’s declaration for liberty of conscience; and assisted Dr. Tenison in setting up a school at St. Martin’s, in opposition to the popish one, opened at the Savoy, in order to seduce the youth of the town into popery; and this was the origin of the ward and parish schools of London. He had also a great share in the comprehension projected by archbishop SanCroft, in order to bring over the dissenters, which, it is well known, was unsuccessful.

, bishop of St. Asaph, and Chichester, in the reign of Henry Vj. is supposed to have been born in Wales about 1390. He was educated in Oriel college, Oxford, of which he was chosen fellow in October 1417, in the room of Richard Garsdale, S. T. P. who was then elected provost of the college. Having studied with a view to the church, he was ordained deacon and priest in 1420 by Fleming, bishop of Lincoln. In 1425 he took his degree of bachelor of divinity, and about this time is supposed to have left the university. Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, was now protector of the kingdom, and being a great patron of learned men, invited Mr. Peacock to court, where he was enabled to make a very considerable figure by his talents. In 1431, he was elected master of the college of St. Spirit and St. Mary, founded by sir Richard Whittington; and with it was appointed to the rectory of St. Michael in Riola, now St. Michael Royal, situated in the street called Tower Royal in Viutry ward. This situation he resigned in 1444, on being promoted to the bishopric of St. Asaph. To whom he owed this preferment seems uncertain, as his patron the duke of Gloucester was now declining in court interest, but perhaps the estimation he was held in at court may account for it. He now was honoured with the degree of D. D. at Oxford, in his absence, and without performing any exercises, an omission for which he was reproached afterwards by his enemies, although it was not then uncommon. In 1447 he preached a sermon at Paul’s cross, in which he maintained that bishops were not under obligation to preach or to take the cure of souls, and that their duties consist entirely in the various acts of church government. This doctrine was not very palatable even then, and he was under the necessity of explaining himself to the archbishop of Canterbury; but it showed, what appeared more clearly afterwards, that he was accustomed to think for himself, and to pay little deference to authority or custom.

In 1449, he was translated to the see of Chichester, and now began to give opinions which were ill suited to the times in which he lived. Although he had taken great pains both in his preaching and writings to defend the established church against the disciples of Wickliffe, now called Lollards, he gave it as his opinion, that the most probable means of reclaiming them was by allowing them the use of their reason, and not insisting on the infallibility of the church. The clergy, we may suppose, were not satisfied with such doctrine; and many of the learned men of the universities were so highly offended with it, and with his writing in the English language on subjects which ought to be concealed from the laity, that they at last prevailed with the archbishop of Canterbury to cite him. The archbishop accordingly issued his mandate, in Oct. 1457, ordering all persons to appear who had any thing to allege against the bishop of Chichester; and his books being found to contain various heretical opinions, he read a recantation, first in the archbishop’s court at Lambeth, and afterwards at St. Paul’s cross, where his books were burnt, as they also were at Oxford. He was likewise deprived of his bishopric, and confined in Thorney abbey, in Cambridgeshire, where it is supposed he died about 1460. His biographer has given an ample account of his writings, all of which remain in ms. except his “Treatise of Faith,” published by Wharton in 1688, 4to. He appears to have been a man of learning, and an acute reasoner. The opinions for which he suffered were not perhaps so decided as to procure him admittance to the list of reformers; but it is evident that he was one of the first who contended against the infallibility of the Romish church, and in favour of the holy scriptures being the principal guide. In 1744 the rev. John Lewis, of Margate, published “The Li/e” of this prelate, which, as he justly styles it, forms a “sequel to the Life” of Wickliff, and is an useful introduction to the history of the English reformation.

Not long after this, Mr. Pearce was appointed chaplain to his majesty; and in 1723 was presented by the chancellor to the vicarage of St. Martin’s in the Fields, on which he resigned St. Bartholomew’s. The parish, of which he was now vicar, being large, and honoured with the residence of the royal family in it, the chancellor represented to Mr. Pearce the propriety of taking the degree of doctor in divinity and as he was not of sufficient standing in the university, that honour was obtained for him by application to the archbishop of Canterbury. In 1724 he increased his reputation, as a critic, both at home and abroad, by his edition of Longinus “De Sublimitate,” with a new Latin version and learned notes. This appeared first in an elegant 4to, but has since been reprinted in 8vo, and remained the best edition, until the publication of that of Toup.

In 1739, in consequence of the late queen Caroline’s having recommended him to sir Robert Walpole, Dr. Pearce was appointed dean of Winchester. He informs us in his memoirs of what led to this promotion. When vicar of St. Martin’s, lord Sundon was one of his parishioners, and one of the members of parliament for Westminster. These two circumstances brought them acquainted together, and Dr. Pearce was sometimes invited to dinner, where he became acquainted with lady Sundon, queen Caroline’s farourite, and by her means was introduced to her majesty, who frequently honoured him with her conversation at the drawing-room, The subjects which her majesty started were not what are often introduced in that circle. One day she asked him if he had read the pamphlets published by Dr. Stebbing, and Mr. Foster, upon the sort of heretics meant by St. Paul, whom in Titus iii. 10, 11, he represents as self-condemned. “Yes, madam,” replied the doctor, “I have read all the pamphlets written by them on both sides of the question.” “Well,” said the queen, “which of the two do you think to be in the right” The doctor answered, “I cannot say, madam, which of the two is in the right, but I think that both of them are in the wrong.” She smiled, and said, “Then what is your opinion of the text?” “Madam,” said the doctor, “it would take up more time than your majesty can spare at this drawing-room, for me to give my opinion and the reasons of it; but if your majesty should be pleased to lay your commands upon me, you shall know my sentiments of the matter in the next sermon which I shall have the honour to preach before his majesty.” “Pray do then,” said the queen, and he accordingly prepared a sermon on that text, but the queen died a month before his term of preaching came about, and before he was promoted to the deanry of Winchester. In 1744 the dean was elected prolocutor of the lower house of convocation for the province of Canterbury, the archbishop having signified to some of the members, that the choice of him would be agreeable to his grace.

In 1748 dean Pearce was promoted to the see of Bangor, but the history of this and of his subsequent translation to Rochester, will be best related in his own words: “In the year 1746,” says he, " archbishop Potter being alone with dean Pearce one day at Lambeth, said to him, ‘ Why do you not try to engage your friend lord Bath * to get you made a bishop?’ * My lord,‘ said the dean, ’ I am extremely obliged to your grace for your good opinion of me, and for your kind intentions in my favour; but I have never spoken to him on that subject, nor ever thought of doing so, though I believe he would do what lies in his power; but I will tell your grace very frankly, that I have no thoughts of any bishopric. All that I have in view in this: I am now dean of Winchester; and that deanry is worth upwards of 600l. a year; my vicarage of S,t. Martin’s is about 500l. a year, and this last I should be glad of an opportunity of resigning, on account of the great trouble and little leisure which so large a parish gives me; but if I should out-live my father, who is upwards of eighty years

S‘. Martin’s church, and gradually in the heuie of lords as carl of Ba’.h, ld, I shall come to his estate, being his eldest son, which will enable me to resign my vicarage; and the profits of the deanry alone, with my father’s estate, will make me quite contented.' The archbishop smiled, and said, " Well, if you will not help yourself, your friends must do it for you.' Accordingly he spoke to the earl of Bath, and they two agreed to try what they could do to make the dean of Winchester a bishop.

"In 1748 the bishopric of Bangor became vacant. The dean was then at Winchester, and received there a letter from Mr. Clark (afterwards sir Thomas, and master of the rolls) informing him, that lord chancellor Hardwicke wished to see dean Pearce thought of on that occasion, and that he hoped the dean would answer Mr. Clarke’s letter in such a way, as when seen, might be approved of by the ministry. Dean Pearce answered the letter with acknowledgment of the favour thought of for him; but assuring Mr. Clark, who, as he perceived, was to communicate the answer to lord Hardwicke, that he had long had no thoughts of desiring a bishopric, and that he was fully satisfied with his situation in the church and that as to the ministry, he was always used to think as favourably of them as they could wish him to do, having never opposed any of the public measures, nor designing so to do. In truth, the dean had then fixed upon a resolution to act no otherwise than as he had told the archbishop he should do, upon his father’s death. The dean received no answer to this letter written to Mr. Clark, and he thought that there was an end of that matter.

"In the year 1755, the bishop of Bangor being with archbishop Herring at Croydon, and walking with him in his garden, he said, ‘ My Lord, you know that the bishop of Rochester, Dr. Wilcocks, is very ill, and probably will not live long; will you accept of his bishopric and the deanry of Westminster, in exchange for yours of Bangor?’ The bishop excused himself, and told him plainly, that his father being dead, and his estate come to him, he had now nothing in view, but to beg his majesty’s leave to resign the see of Bangor, and to retire to a private life in the year 1757; that so long, he was contented to continue in the possession of the bishopric of Bangor; but that then he designed to try if he could obtain leave to resign, and live upon his private fortune. The archbishop replied, ‘ I doubt whether the king will grant it, or that it can be done.’ A second time, at another visit there, he mentioned the same thing, and a second time the bishop gave him the same answer. But in a short time after, upon another visit, when the archbishop mentioned it a third time, he added, ‘ My lord, if you will give me leave to try what I can do to procure you this exchange, I promise you not to take it amiss of you, if you refuse it, though I should obtain the offer for you.’ c This is very generous in your grace,‘ said the bishop, c and 1 cannot refuse to consent to what you propose to do.’

The first work discovered of his writing is “Το ὕϕος ἄγιον; or an Exercise on the Creation, and an Hymn to the Creator of the World; written in the express words of the Sacred Text; as an attempt to shew the Beauty and Sublimity of Holy Scripture,” 1716, 8vo. This was followed by a poem, entitled “Sighs on the Death of Queen Anne,” published in 1719; subjoined to which are three poems, viz, 1. “Paraphrase on part of the cxxxixth Psalm.” 2. “The Choice.” 3. “Verses to Lady Elizabeth Cecil, on her Birth-day, Nov. 23, 1717.” At the end of this work he mentions, as preparing for the press, “The History of the two last Months of King Charles I.” and solicits assistance; but this never was published. He also mentions a poem on Saul and Jonathan, not then published. During his residence at the university, and perhaps in the early part of it, he wrote a comedy called the “Humours of the University; or the Merry Wives of Cambridge.” The ms. of this comedy is now in the possession of Octavius Gilchrist, esq. of Stamford, who has obliged the editor with a transcript of the preface . In August 1719, he occurs curate of King’s Cliff, in Northamptonshire, and in 1721 he offered to the world proposals for printing the history and antiquities of his native town. In 1723, he obtained the rectory of Godeby Maureward, by purchase, from Samuel Lowe, esq. who at that time was lord of the manor, and patron of the advowson. In 1727, he drew up a poetical description of Belvoir and its neighbourhood, which is printed in Mr. Nichols’s History of Leicestershire; and in that year his first considerable work appeared, under the title of “Academia Tertia Anglicana; or, The Antiquarian Annals of Stanford, in Lincoln, Rutland, and Northampton Shires; containing the History of the University, Monasteries, Gilds, Churches, Chapels, Hospitals, and Schools there,” &c. ornamented with XLI plates; and inscribed to John duke of Rutland, in an elaborate dedication, which contains a tolerably complete history of the principal events of that illustrious family, from the founder of it at the Conquest. This publication was evidently hastened by “An Essay on the ancient and present State of Stamford, 1726,” 4to, by Francis Hargrave, who, in the preface to his pamphlet, mentions a difference which had arisen between him and Mr. Peck, because his publication forestalled that intended by the latter. Mr. Peck is also rather roughly treated, on account of a small work he had formerly printed, entitled “The History of the Stamford Bull-running.” In 1729, Jie printed a single sheet, containing, “Queries concerning the Natural History and Antiquities of Leicestershire and Rutland,” which were afterwards reprinted in 174O. He was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, March 9, 1732, and in that year he published the first volume of “Desiderata Curiosa; or, A Collection of divers scarce and curious Pieces, relating chiefly to matters of English History 5 consisting of choice Tracts, Memoirs, Letters, Wills, Epitaphs, &c. Transcribed, many of them, from the originals themselves, and the rest from divers ancient ms Copies, or the ms Collations of sundry famous Antiquaries, and other eminent Persons, both of the last and present age: the whole, as nearly as possible, digested into order of time, and illustrated with ample Notes, Contents, additional Discourses, and a complete Index.” This volume was dedicated to lord William Manners; and was followed, in 1735, by a second volume, dedicated to Dr. Reynolds, bishop of Lincoln. There being only 250 copies of these volumes printed, they soon became scarce and high-priced, and were reprinted in one volume, 4to, by subscription, by the late Mr. Thomas Evans, in 1779, without, however, any improvements, or any attempt, which might perhaps have been dangerous by an unskilful hand, at a better arrangement. In 1735, Mr. Peck printed, in a quarto pamphlet, “A complete Catalogue of all the Discourses written both for and against Popery, in the time of King James the Second; containing in the whole an account of four hundred and fifty-seven Books and Pamphlets, a great number of them not mentioned in the three former Catalogues; with references after each title, for the more speedy finding a further Account of the said Discourses and their Authors in sundry Writers, and an Alphabetical List of the Writers on each side.” In 1736, he obtained, by the favour of bishop Reynolds, the prebendal stall of Marston St. Lawrence, in the cathedral church of Lincoln. In 1739, he was the editor of “Nineteen Letters of the truly reverend and learned Henry Hammond, D. D. (author of the Annotations on the New Testament, &c.) written to Mi*. Peter Stainnough and Dr. Nathaniel Angelo, many of them on curious subjects,” &c. These were printed from the originals, communicated by Mr. Robert Marsden, archdeacon of Nottingham, and Mr. John Worthington. The next year, 1740, produced two volumes in quarto; one of them entitled “Memoirs of the life and actions of Oliver Cromwell, as delivered in three Panegyrics of him written in Latin; the first, as said, by Don Juan Roderiguez de Saa Meneses, Conde de Penguiao, the Portugal Ambassador; the second, as affirmed by a certain Jesuit, the lord ambassador’s Chaplain; yet both, it is thought, composed by Mr. John Milton (Latin Secretary to Oliver Cromwell), as was the third with an English version of each. The whole illustrated with a large Historical Preface many similar passages from the Paradise Lost, and other works of Mr. John Milton, and Notes from the best historians. To all which is added, a Collection of divers curious Historical Pieces relating to Cromwell, and a great number of other remarkable persons (after the manner of Desiderata Curiosa, vol. I. and II.)” The other, “New Memoirs of the Life and Poetical Works of Mr. John Milton; with, first, an Examination of Milton’s Style; and, secondly, Explanatory and Critical Notes on divers passages in Milton and Shakspeare, by the Editor. Thirdly, Baptistes; a sacred Dramatic Poem in Defence of Liberty, as written in Latin by Mr. George Buchanan, translated into English by Mr. John Milton, and first published in 1641, by order of the House of Commons. Fourthly, The Parallel) or archbishop Laud and cardinal Wolsey compared, a vision, by Milton. Fifthly, The Legend of sir Nicholas Throckmorton, knt. Chief Butler of England, who died of poison, anno 1570, an Historical Poem, by his nephew sir Thomas Throckmorton, knt. Sixth, Herod the Great, by the Editor. Seventh, The Resurrection, a Poem, in imitation of Milton, by a Friend. And eighth, a Discourse on the Harmony of the Spheres, by Milton; with Prefaces and Notes.” Of these his “Explanatory and Critical Notes on divers passages of Shakspeare” seem to prove that the mode of illustrating Shakspeare by extracts from contemporary writers, was not entirely reserved for the modern commentators on our illustrious bard, but had occurred to Mr. Peck. The worst circumstance respecting this volume is the portrait of Milton, engraved from a painting which Peck got from sir John Meres of KirkbyBeler in Leicestershire. He was not a little proud to possess this painting, which is certainly not genuine and what is worse, he appears to have known that it was not genuine. Having asked Vertue whether he thought it a picture of Milton, and Vertue peremptorily answering in the negative, Peck replied, “I'll have a scraping from it, however: and let posterity settle the difference.”

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Edward 1. was born in the county of Sussex, about 1240, and educated in the monastery at Lewes, whence he was sent to Oxford, and became a minorite friar. Hid name occurs in the registers of Merlon-college, which was founded in his time, but not with sufficient precision to enable us to say that he was educated there. He was, however, created D. D. at this university, and read public lectures. Pits says he was professor of divinity, and afterwards provincial of his order in England. He appears to have been twice at Paris, where he also read lectures with great applause. He went from Paris, after his second visit, to Lyons, where he obtained a canonry in the cathedral, which Godwin and Cave inform us was held with the archbishopric of Canterbury for two centuries after. Fuller says it was a convenient half-way house between Canterbury and Rome. He then went to Rome, where the pope appointed him auditor or chief judge of his palace, but Leland calls the office which the pope bestowed upon him that of Palatine lecturer or reader, “lector, ut vocant, Palatinus.” In 1278, this pope consecrated him archbishop of Canterbury, on Peckham’s agreeing to pay his holiness the sum of 4000 marks, which there is some reason to think he did not pay; at least it is certain he was so slow in remitting it, that the pope threatened to excommunicate him.

Being now possessed of a living, and of some independent personal property inherited from his mother, he married, in April 1732, miss Anne Clarke, the only daughter of Benjamin Clarke, esq. of Stanley, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire. While he resided in Kent, which was for the space of twenty years, he made himself universally acceptable by his general knowledge, his agreeable conversation, and his vivacity. Having an early propensity to the study of antiquities as well as of the classics, he here laid the foundation of what in time became a considerable collection of books, and his cabinet of coins grew in proportion; by which two assemblages, so scarce among country gentlemen in general, he was qualified to pursue those collateral studies, without neglecting his parochial duties, to which he was always assiduously attentive. Here, however, the placid course of his life was interrupted by the death of Mrs. Pegge, whom he lamented with unfeigned sorrow; and now meditated on some mode of removing himself, without disadvantage, to his native country, either by obtaining a preferment tenable with his present vicarage, or by exchanging this for an equivalent. Having been induced to reside for some time at Surrenden, to superintend the education of Sir Edward Dering’s son, that baronef obtained for him the perpetual curacy of Brampton, near Chesterfield, in the gift of the dean of Lincoln; but the parishioners insisting that they had a right to the presentation, law proceedings took place, before the termination of which in favour of the dean of Lincoln, Mr. Pegge was presented by the new dean of Lincoln, Dr. George, to the rectory of Whittington, near Chesterfield. He was accordingly inducted Nov. 11, 1751, and resided here upwards of forty-four years without interruption. About a fortnight after, by the interest of his friend sir Edward Dering with the duke of Devonshire, he was inducted into the rectory of Brinhill, or Brindle, in Lancashire, on which he resigned Godmersham. Sir Edward also obtained for him in the same year a scarf from the marquis of Hartington (afterwards the fourth duke of Devonshire) who was then called up to the house of peers by the title of baron Cavendish of Hard wick. In 1758 Mr. Pegge was enabled, by the acquiescence of the duke of Devonshire, to exchange Brinhill for Heath, alias Lown, which lies within seven miles of Whittington; a very commodious measure, as it brought his parochial preferments within a smaller distance of each other. The vicarage of Heath he held till his death. His other preferments were, in 1765, the perpetual curacy ofWingerworth; the prebend of Bobenhull, in the church of Lichfield, in 1757; the living of Whittington in Staffordshire, in 1763; and the prebend of Louth, in Lincoln church, in 1772. Towards the close of his life he declined accepting a residentiaryship in the church of Lichfield, being too old to endure, with tolerable convenience, a removal from time to time. His chief patron was archbishop Cornwallis, but he had an admirer, if not a patron, in every dignitary of the church who knew him; and his protracted life, and his frequent and almost uninterrupted literary labours, made him very generally known. In 1791, when on a visit to his grandson, sir Christopher Pegge, of Oxford, he was created LL. D. by that university. He died, after a fortnight’s illness, Feb. 14, 1796, in the ninety-second year of his age, and was buried, according to his own desire, in the chancel of the church of Whittington, near Chesterfield, where his son placed a mural tablet of black marble, over the east window, with a short inscription.

Soon after this, he made a purchase of the barony of Rians, which he completed in 1607; and in the same year, at the solicitation of his uncle, having approved himself before that assembly, he was received a senator on the 1st' of July. In the following year his uncle died. In 1616, he attended Du Vair to Paris; where, in 1618, he procured a faithful copy, and published a second edition of “The -Acts of the Monastery of Maren in Switzerland.” This was in defence of the royal line of France against the title of the Austrian family to the French crown by right of succession; and, upon this, he was nominated the same year, by Louis XIII. abbot of Guistres in Guienne. He remained in France till 1623, when, upon a message from his father, now grown old and sickly, he left Paris, and arrived at Aix in October. Not long after he presented to the court a patent from the king, permitting him to continue in the function of his ancient dignity, and to exercise the office of a secular or lay person, notwithstanding that, being an abbot, he had assumed the person of a churchman. The court of parliament, not assenting to this, decreed unanimously, that, being already admitted into the first rank, he should abide perpetually in it; not returning, as the custom of the court was, to the inferior auditory, in which trials are usually had of criminal cases. He obtained also, a rescript from the pope, to license him to be present at the judgment of capital causes, as even in the higher auditory some select cases of that nature wers customarily heard: but he never made use of this licence, always departing when they came to vote, without voting himself. In 1627, he prevailed with the archbishop of Aix, to establish a post thence to Lyons, and so to Paris and all Europe; by which the correspondence that ho constantly held with the literati every where, was much facilitated. Jn 1629, he began to be much tormented with complaints incident to a sedentary life; and, in 1631, having completed the marriage of his nephew Claude with Margaret D'Alries, a noble lady of the county of Avignon, he bestowed upon him the barony of Rians, together with a grant of his senatorial dignity, only reserving the function to himself for three years. The parliament not agreeing to this, he procured, in 1635, letters-patent from the king, to be restored, and to exercise the office for five years longer, which he did not outlive, for, being seized June 1637, with a fever, he died, on the 24th of that month, in his fifty-seventh year.

, a celebrated archbishop of Paris, and master of the Sorbonne, was son of a steward of the household to cardinal Richelieu, who took care of his education. He distinguished himself as a student, was admitted doctor of the house and society of the Sorbonne, preached with great applause, and was appointed preceptor to Louis XIV. and afterwards bishop of Rhodes, but resigned this bishopric because he could not reside in his diocese. In 1664, M, de Perefixe was made archbishop of Paris; and, soon after, by the advice of father Annat, a Jesuit, published a mandate for the pure and simple signature of the formularyof Alexander VII. His distinction between divine faith and human faith, made much noise, and was attacked by the celebrated Nicole. His attempt also to make the nuns of Port-Royal sign the formulary, met with great resistance,which occasioned many publications against him but his natural disposition was extremely mild, and it was with the utmost reluctance that he forced himself to proceed against these celebrated nuns. He died December 31, 1670, at Paris. He had been admitted a member of the French academy in 1654. His works are, an excellent “Hist, of K. Henry IV.” Amst. 1661, 12mo. This and the edition of 1664 are scarce and in much request, but that of 1749 is more common. Some writers pretend that Mezerai was the real author of this history, and that M. de Perefixe only adopted it; but they bring no proofs of their assertion. He published also a book, entitled “Institutio Principis,” 1647, 16to, containing a collection of maxims relative to the duties of a king in his minority.

While here, he was not only esteemed the first preacher of his time, but one of the most laborious students, as indeed his works demonstrate. During the disputes between the church and the puritans, he sided with the latter in principle, but was averse to the extremes to which the conduct of many of his brethren led. Yet he appears to have been summoned more than once to give an account of his conduct, although in general dealt with as his piety, learning, and peaceable disposition merited. Granger says that he was deprived by archbishop Whitgift, Jbut we find no authority for this. He had been a great part of his life much afflicted with the stone, which at last shortened his days. He was only forty-four years of age when he died in 1602. His remains were interred in St. Andrew’s church with great solemnity, at the sole expence of Christ’s college, and his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Montague (who was also one of his executors) afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells, and of Winchester, who spoke highly of his learning, piety, labours, and usefulness. His works were collected and published in 1606, in 3 vols. fol. and are written in a better style than was usual in his time. They have been, however, far more admired abroad than at home. We know not of any of them reprinted in this country since their first appearance, but several of them have been translated into French, Dutch, and Spa-, nish. Bishop Hall said “he excelled in a distinct judgment, a rare dexterity in clearing the obscure subtleties of the schools, and in an easy explication of the most perplexed subjects.”

, a learned prelate of the fifteenth century, was born at Sasso Ferrato, of an illustrious but reduced family. Being obliged to maintain, himself by teaching Latin, he brought the rudiments of that language into better order, and a shorter compass for the use of his scholars; and going afterwards to Rome, was much esteemed by cardinal Bessarion, who chose him for his conclavist or attendant in the conclave, on the death of Paul II. It was at this juncture that he is said to have deprived Bessarion of the papacy by his imprudence; for the cardinals being agreed in their choice, three of them went to disclose it, and to salute him pope; but Perot would not suffer them to enter, alledging that they might interrupt him in his studies. When the cardinal was informed of this blunder, he gave himself no farther trouble, and only said to his conclavist in a mild, tranquil tone, “Your ill-timed care has deprived me of the tiara, and you. of the hat.” Perot was esteemed by several popes, appointed governor of Perugia, and afterwards of Ombria, and was made archbishop of Siponto, 1458. He died 1480, at Fugicura, a country house so called, which he had built near Sasso Ferrato. He translated the first five books of “Polybius,” from Greek into Latin, wrote a treatise “De generibus metrorum,” 1497, 4to also “Rudimenta Grammatices,” Rome, 1473, fol. a very rare and valuable edition, as indeed all the subsequent ones are; but his most celebrated work is a long commentary on Martial, entitled “Cornucopia, seu Latinae Linguae Commentarius,” the best edition of which is that of 1513, fol. This last is a very learned work, and has been of great use to Calepin in his Dictionary.

, better known by the name of cardinal de Granvelle, was born 1517, at Besançon, and was son of Nicholas Perrenot, seigneur de Granvelle, chancellor to the emperor Charles V. Born with an ambitious, intriguing, and firm temper, joined to great abilities, he speedily raised himself, was made canon and archdeacon of Besançon, then bishop of Arras, in which character he spoke very forcibly at the council of Trent when but twenty-four years of age, and afterwards served the emperor Charles V. in several embassies to France, England, and elsewhere. This prince had so particular an esteem for Granvelle, and such confidence in him, that on abdicating the empire, he recommended him to his son Philip II. who scarce ever took any step relative either to private or public affairs, without his advice and assistance. Granvelle was afterwards appointed the first archbishop of Malines, was made cardinal in 1561, by Pius IV. and at length counsellor to Margaret of Parma, governess of the Netherlands, where, according to Strada’s account, his ambition and cruelty occasioned part of the outrages which were committed. Philip II. recalled him a second time to court, and entrusted him with all the affairs of the Spanish monarchy. Cardinal de Granvelle died at Madrid September 21, 1586, aged seventy, after having been nominated to the archbishopric of Besançon. His Life, written by D. Prosper Levêque, a Benedictine, was printed at Paris, 1753, 2 vols. 12mo. It is interesting, but the author is unpardonably partial, and conceals the cruelty, ambition, and other faults of this celebrated cardinal.

, an eminent prelate of the fifth century, and called Chrysologus from his eloquence, was descended of a noble family, and born at Imola, then called Forum Cornelii. After a suitable education, he was elected archbishop of Ravenna, about the year 433, and was much celebrated for his virtue and his eloquence. He died about the year 451. There are 126 sermons or homilies of his in the library of the fathers, in which he unites perspicuity with brevity; their style is concise and elegant, but not unmixed with quaintnesses. Father d'Acheri has published in his “Spicilegium,” five other sermons written by him; and in St. Peter’s works, is his answer to Eutyches, who had written to him in the year 449, complaining of St. Flavianus of Constantinople, in which he defends the orthodox faith, and refers Eutyches to the excellent letter sent by St. Leo to Flavianus, which teaches what is to be believed concerning the mystery of the incarnation. The best edition of St. Peter Chrysologus is that printed at Augsburg, 1758, folio.

, or Petrus Blesensis, one of the most learned and celebrated writers of the twelfth century, studied at Paris and Bologna, and was appointed preceptor and secretary to William II. king of Sicily, and afterwards was invited into England by Henry II. who made him archdeacon of Bath, but permitted him to reside near Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, whose chancellor he was. Peter de Blois lost this archdeaconry towards the end of his life, and had that of London, where it is said he laboured much for little profit. He died in 1200, in England. There are some letters, sermons, and other works of his, in the library of the fathers, in which he strongly condemns the abuses and disorders which then reigned in the church. He is said to have been the first who used the word transubstantiation, to express the doctrine of the Romish church on the subject of the eucharist. The best edition of this author is by Peter de Gussanville, 1667, folio.

, or the Eater, a celebrated writer in the twelfth century, was born at Troyes, of which city he was canon and dean, afterwards chancellor of the church of Paris. These benefices he resigned to enter as a regular canon of St. Victor at Paris, where he died in October 1198, leaving a work entitled “Scholastica historia super Nov. Test.” which contains an abridgment of the sacred history, from Genesis to the Acts, first printed at Utrecht in 1473, small folio, and reprinted at Vienna in the same year, and several times since. He dedicated this work to cardinal William de Champagne, archbishop of Sens. He is the author likewise of “Sermons,” published by Buse'e, under the name of Peter de Blois, 1600, 4to; and a “Catena temporum,” or universal history, is attributed to him, which was printed at Lubec, 1475, 2 vols, folio, and translated in French under the title of “Mer des Histoires,” Paris, 1488, 2 vols. folio.

From Rome Petrarch went to Parma, where he passed some time with his protectors, the lords of Corregio, and employed himself in finishing his “Africa.” It was probably from that family that he obtained the dignity of archdeacon in the church of Parma; and in 1342, when he wai sent to compliment Clement VI. on his accession, in the name of the senate and people of Rome, a priory in the diocese of Pisa was given him by this pope. In the following year he composed his curious “Dialogue with St. Augustine,” in which he confesses the passion for Laura, which still held dominion over his soul. In 1348 he had the misfortune to lose this object of his affections, who died of the universal pestilence which ravaged all Europe. The same pestilence deprived him of his great friend and patron, cardinal Colonna. From Padua, where he appears to have been when these misfortunes befell him, he travelled, for a year or two, to Parma, Carpi, and Mantua; and in 1350 he again visited Padua, where he obtained a canonry, and wrote a very eloquent letter to the emperor Charles IV. exhorting him to come into Italy for the purpose of remedying the many evils with which that country was oppressed. After various other removals, he went to Milan, where the kindness and pressing solicitation of John Visconti, its archbishop and sovereign, induced him to settle for some time. Here he vvas admitted into the council of state; and in 1354 was sent to Wnice, to make another effort for pacifying the two hostile republics, but his eloquence proved fruitless. In the same year he went to Mantua to meet the emperor, who having at length come to Italy, gave him a most gracious reception; and although no advantages resulted to his country from this interview, the emperor afterwards sent him a diploma, conferring the title of count palatine. In 1360 Petrarch was sent to Paris, to congratulate king John on his liberation from English captivity; and his reception in that capital was answerable to the celebrity of his name.

, a learned and ingenious Frenchman, was born at Hennebon in Bretagne, in 1639 and admitted of the order of Cistercians in 1660. He made the scriptures the principal object of his study: aware of the assistance to be derived from profane history, he read with attention the ancient Greek and Latin historians. His judgment, however, did not improve with his erudition, as appeared by a new system, which he communicated to the public, in a work printed at Paris in 1687, 4to, and called “L‘Antiquite’ des temps retablie,” &c. that is, “The Antiquity of Time restored, and defended, against the Jews and modem Chronologers.” His design here is to prove, upon the authorities of the septuagint and profane history, that the world is more ancient than modern chronologers have supposed; and that, instead of 4000 years between the creation of the world and the birth of Christ, there were almost 6000. The great principle on which this supposition is built is, that the Hebrew text has been corrupted, since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Jews, who otherwise must have been forced to acknowledge, upon their own principles, that the Messiah was actually come. Pezron’s book was extremely admired for the ingenuity and learning of it; yet created, as was natural, no small alarm among the religious. Martianay, a Benedictine, and Le Quien, a Dominican, wrote against tnis new system, and undertook the defence of the Hebrew text Martianay with great zeal and heat, Le Quien with more judgment and knowledge. Pezron published, “Defense de l'Antiquite des temps,” in 1691, 4to; which, like the work itself, abounded with curious and learned researches. Le Quien replied, but Martianay brought the affair into another court; and, in 1693, laid the books and principles of Pezron before M. de Harlai, archbishop of Paris. Harlai communicated the representation of this adversary to Pezron; who defended himself with so much ingenuity as to render the accusation of no effect.

Steele was also an admirer of Philips’s “Pastorals,” which had then obtained a great number of readers; and was about to form a critical comparison of Pope’s Pastorals with those of Philips, with a view of giving the preference to the latter. Pope, apprized of Steele’s design, and always jealous of his own reputation, contrived the most artful method to defeat it; vvhiqh was, by writing a paper for the Guardian, No. 40, after several others had been employed there on pastoral poetry, upon the merits. of Philips and himself; and so ordering it, as that himself was found the better versifier, while Philips was preferred as the best Arcadian. Upon the publication of this paper, the enemies of Pope exulted to see him placed below Philips in a species of poetry upon which he was supposed to value himself; but were extremely mortified soon after to find that Pope himself was the real author of the paper, and that the whole criticism was an irony. The next work Philips published, according to the common account, was “The Life of John Williams, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Bishop of Lincoln, and Archbishop of York, in the reigns of James and Charles I.” He is supposed to have undertaken this, for the sake of making known his political principles, which were those of the Whigs. But we doubt whether this, which was published in 1700, was not prior to the publication of his pastorals.

Besides Pope, there were some other writers who have written in burlesque of Philips’s poetry, which was singular in its manner, and not difficult to imitate; particularly Mr. Henry Carey, who by some lines in Philips’s style, and which were once thought to be dean Swift’s, fixed on that author the name of Namby Pamby. Isaac Hawkins Browne also imitated him in his Pipe of Tobacco. This, however, is written with great good humour, and though intended to burlesque, is by no means designed to ridicule Philips, he having made the same trial of skill on Swift, Pope, Thomson, Young, and Gibber. As a dramatic writer, Philips has certainly considerable merit, and one of his plays long retained its popularity. This was “The Distressed Mother,” from the French of Racine, acted in 1711. The others were, “The Briton,” a tragedy, acted in 1721; and “Humfrey Duke of Gloucester,” acted also in 1721. The “Distrest Mother” was concluded with the most successful Epilogue, written by Budgell, that was spoken in tin: English theatre. It was also highly praised in the “Spectator.” Philips’s circumstances were in general, through his life, not only easy, but rather affluent, in consequence of his being connected, by his political principles, with persons of great rank and consequence. He was concerned with Dr. Hugh Boulter, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, the right honourable Richard West, lord chancellor of Ireland, the rev. Mr. Gilbert Burnet, and the rev. Mr. Henry Stevens, in writing a series of Papers, many of them very excellent, called “The Free Thinker,” which were all published together by Philips, in 3 vols. 8vo. In the latter part of queen Anne’s reign, he was secretary to the Hanover club, a set of noblemen and gentlemen who had formed an association in honour of that succession, and for the support of its interests; and who used particularly to distinguish in their toasts such of the fair sex as were most zealously attached to the illustrious house of Brunswick. Mr. Philips’s station in this club, together with the zeal shewn in his writings, recommending him to the notice and favour of the new government, he was, soon after the accession of king George I. put into the commission of the peace, and in 1717, appointed one of the commissioners of the lottery. On his friend Dr. Boulter’s being made primate of Ireland, he accompanied that prelate, and in Sept. 1734, was appointed registrar of the prerogative court at Dublin, had other considerable preferments bestowed on him, and was elected a member of the house of commons there, as representative for the county of Armagh. At length, having purchased an annuity for life, of 400l. per annum, became over to England sorne time in 1748, but did not long enjoy his fortune, being struck with a palsy, of which he died June 18, 1749, in his seventy -eighth year, at his house in Hanover-street; and was buried in Audley chapel. “Of his personal character,” says Dr. Johnson, “all I have heard is, that he was eminent for bravery and skill in the sword, and that in conversation he was somewhat solemn and pompous.” He is somewhere called Qunker Philips, for what does not appear. Paul Whitehead relates, that when Mr. Addison was secretary of state, Philips applied to him for some preferment, but was coolly answered, “that it was thought that he was already provided for, by being made a justice for Westminster.” To this observar tion our author with some indignation replied, “Though poetry was a trade he could not live by, yet he scorned to owe subsistence to another which he ought not to live by.” “Among his poems,” says Dr. Johnson, the * Letter from Denmark,‘ may be justly praised; the Pastorals,’ which by the writer of the Guardian were ranked as one of the four genuine productions of the rustic muse, cannot surely he despicable. That they exhibit a mode of life which did not exist, nor ever existed, is not to be objected; the supposition of such a state is allowed to Pastoral. In his other poems he cannot be denied the praise of lines sometimes elegant; but he has seldom much force, or much comprehension. The pieces that please best are those which, from Pope and Pope’s adherents, procured him the name of Namby Pamby, the poems of short lines, by which he paid his court to all ages and characters, from Walpole, the “steerer of the realm,” to Miss Pulteney in the nursery. The numbers are smooth and sprightly, and the diction is seldom faulty. They are not loaded with much thought, yet, if they had been written by Addison, they would have had admirers: little things are not valued but when they are done by those who can do greater. In his translations from Pindar he found the art of reaching all the obscurity of the Theban bard, however he may fall below his sublimity; he will be allowed, if he has less fire, to have more smoke. He has added nothing to English poetry, yet at least half his book deserves to be read: perhaps he valued most himself that part which the critick would reject."

The preceding account is extracted from our author’s pamphlet, printed in 1761, and entitled “Philemon,” of which a few copies only were given to friends. The other circumstances collected by his biographer relate chiefly to his publications. In 1756, he published “The Study of Sacred Literature, fully stated and considered in a Discourse to a student in divinity (the rev. John Jenison, who died at Liege, Dec. 27, 1790),” a second edition of which appeared in 1758, and a third in 1765. This work is entitled to considerable praise; but his principal performance was “The History of the Life of Reginald Pole,” 1764, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1767, 2 vols. 8vo. It cannot be denied that this work, though penned with no small degree of spirit and elegance, contains much matter of an exceptionable nature, many of the facts distorted, and many of the characters introduced in it virulently abused. It excited, therefore, on the protestant side a general alarm, and met, as might be expected, with a firm opposition; many answers soon made their appearance, from several eminent hands, and the mistakes and improprieties of our author’s performance were pointed out and exposed. The following, we believe, is an exact list of his answerers: 1. “A Letter to Mr. Phillips, containing some observations on his History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Rich. Tillard, M. A. 1765, 8vo. 2. “A Review of Mr. Phillips’s History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Glocester Ridley, LL. B. 1766, 8vo. 3. “Animadversions upon Mr. Phillips’ s History of the Life of Cardinal Pole.” By Timothy Neve, D.D. Rector of Middleton Stoney, Oxfordshire, 1766, 8vo. To this are added some remarks by Dr. Jortin. 4. “Remarks upon the History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Edw. Stone, Clerk, A. M. and late fellow of Wadham college, Oxford, 1766, 8vo. These remarks were first printed in the Public Ledger. 5. “The Life of Cardinal Reginald Pole, written originally in Italian, by Lodovico Beccatelli, archbishop of Ragusa, and now first translated into English, with notes critical and historical. To which is added an Appendix, setting forth the plagiarisms, false translations, and false grammar in Thomas Phillips’ s History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By theRev. Benjamin Pye, LL. B. 1766, 8vo. 6. “Catholick Faith and Practice, addressed to the ingenious author of the Life of Cardinal Pole,” anonymous, 1765; the author of which was Mr. John Jones, of Welwyn. (See before, vol. XIX.)

, archbishop of Patras, and coadjutor of Sienna, his native place, was born in 1503. His family was illustrious, and originally Roman, but settled afterwards at Sienna. He was a successful writer of the drama; but, though involved in that seducing pursuit, preserved the credit of exemplary morals, as well as genius. His general charity was extreme, but he was particularly considerate of the wants of literary men, His works are numerous, all written in Italian, which language he was the first author who applied to philosophical subjects. He died at Sienna on the 12th of March, 1578. The most distinguished of his works are these: 1. Several dramatic compositions, which formed the chief basis of his reputation. 2. “The Morality of Nobles,” Venice, 1552, 8vo. 3. “A Treatise on the Sphere.” 4. “A Theory of the Planets.” 5. “A Translation of the Rhetoric and Poetic of Aristotle,” 4to. 6. “The Institution of Morality,” Venice, 1575, 4to. Many of his works evince a profound knowledge of natural philosophy, mathematics, and divinity. One work attributed to him, “Delia bella Creanza della Donne,” “On the Education of Ladies,” printed in 1541, 1558, and 1574, has been valued because scarce, but is disgraced by many dangerous maxims, and must have been a production of his youth; during which, we are told, he was a correspondent of the infamous Peter Aretin.

, whose name was Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, was born in 1405, at Corsignano in Sienna, where his father lived in exile. He was educated at the grammar-school of that place; but his parents being in low circumstances, he was obliged, in his early years, to submit to many servile employments. In 1423, by the assistance of his friends, he was enabled to go to the university of Sienna, where he applied himself to his studies with great success, and in a short time published several pieces in the Latin and Tuscan languages. In 1431 he attended cardinal Dominic Capranica to the council of Basil as his secretary. He was likewise in the same capacity with cardinal Albergoti, who sent him to Scotland to mediate a peace betwixt the English and Scots; and he was in that country when king James I. was murdered. Upon his return from Scotland, he was made secretary to the council of Basil, which he defended against the authority of the popes, both by his speeches and writings, particularly in a dialogue and epistles which he wrote to the rector and university of Cologn. He was likewise made by that council clerk of the ceremonies, abbreviator, and one of the duodecemviri, or twelve men, an office of great importance. He was employed in several embassies; once to Trent, another time to Frankfort, twice to Constance, and as often to Savoy, and thrice to Strasburg, where he had an intrigue with a lady, by whom he had a son: he has given an account of this affair in a letter to his father, in which he endeavours to vindicate himself with much indecent buffoonery. In 1439 he was employed in the service of pope Felix; and being soon after sent ambassador to the emperor Frederic, he was crowned by him with the poetic laurel, and ranked amongst his friends. In 1442 he was sent for from Basil by the emperor, who appointed him secretary to the empire, and raised him to the senatorial order. He could not at first be prevailed on to condemn the council of Basil, nor to go over absolutely to Eugenius’s party, but remained neuter. However, when the emperor Frederic began to favour Eugenius, Æneas likewise changed his opinion gradually. He afterwards represented the emperor in the diet of Nuremberg, when they were consulting about methods to put an end to the schism, and was sent ambassador to Eugenius: at the persuasion of Thomas Sarzanus, the apostolical legate in Germany, he submitted to Eugenius entirely, and made the following speech to his holiness, as related by John Gobelin, in his Commentaries of the life of Pius II. “Most holy father (said he), before I declare the emperor’s commission, give me leave to say one word concerning myself. I do not question but you have heard a great many things which are not to my advantage. They ought not to have been mentioned to you; but I must confess, that my accusers have reported nothing but what is true. I own I have said, and done, and written, at Basil, many things against your interests; it is impossible to deny it: yet all this has been done not with a design to injure you, but to serve the church. I have been in an error, without question; but I have been in just the same circumstances with many great men, as particularly with Julian cardinal of St. Angelo, with Nicholas archbishop of Palermo, with Lewis du Pont (Pontanus) the secretary of the holy see; men who are esteemed the greatest luminaries in the law, and doctors of the truth; to omit mentioning the universities and colleges which are generally against you. Who would not have erred with persons of their character and merit? It is true, that when I discovered the error of those at Basil, I did not at first go over to you, as the greatest part did; but being afraid of falling from one error to another, and by avoiding Charybdis, as the proverb expresses it, to run upon Scylla, I joined myself, after a long deliberation and conflict within myself, to those who thought proper to continue in a state of neutrality. I lived three years in the emperor’s court in this situation of mind, where having an opportunity of hearing constantly the disputes between those of Basil and your legates, I was convinced that the truth was on your side: it was upon this motive that, when the emperor thought fit to send me to your clemency, I accepted the opportunity with the utmost satisfaction, in hopes that I should be so happy as to gain your favour again: I throw myself therefore at your feet; and since I sinned out of ignorance, I entreat you to grant me your pardon. After which I shall open to you the emperor’s intentions.” This was the prelude to the famous retraction which Æneas Sylvius made afterwards. The pope pardoned every thing that was past; and in a short time made him his secretary, without obliging him to quit the post which he had with the emperor.

Upon the decease of pope Eugenius, Æneas was chosen by the cardinals to preside in the conclave till another pope should be elected. He was made bishop of Trieste by pope Nicholas, and went again into Germany, where he was appointed counsellor to the emperor, and had the direction of all the important affairs of the empire. Four years after he was made archbishop of Sienna; and in 1452 he attended Frederic to Rome, when he went to receive the imperial crown. Æneas, upon his return, was named legate of Bohemia and Austria. About 1456, being sent by the emperor into Italy, to treat with pope Callixtus III. about a war with the Turks, he was made a cardinal. Upon the decease of Callixtus, in 1458 he was elected pope by the name of Pius II. After his promotion to the papal chair he published a bull, retracting all he had written in defence of the council of Basil, with an apology which shows how little he was influenced by principle: “We are men (says he), and we have erred as men; we do not deny, but that many things which we have said or written, may justly be condemned: we have been seduced, like Paul, and have persecuted the church of God through ignorance; we now follow St. Austin’s example, who, having suffered several erroneous sentiments to escape him in his writings, retracted them; we do just the same thing: we ingenuously confess our ignorance, being apprehensive lest what we have written in our youth should occasion some error, which may prejudice the holy see. For if it is suitable to any person’s character to maintain the eminence and glory of the first throne of the church, it is certainly so to ours, whom the merciful God, out of pure goodness, has raised to the dignity of vicegerent of Christ, without any merit on our part. For all these reasons, we exhort you and advise you in the Lord, not to pay any regard to those writings, which injure in any manner the authority of the apostolic see, and assert opinions which the holy Roman church does not receive. If you find any thing contrary to this in our dialogues and letters, or in any other of our works, despise such notions, reject them, follow what we maintain now; believe what I assert now I am in years, rather than what I said when I was young: regard a pope rather than a private man; in short, reject Æneas Sylvius, and receive Pius II.”

His etchings, particularly of landscapes and birds, from Griffier, are admirable. The free style in which he treated the foliage of his trees, proves his judgment and good taste; and his portraits in mezzotinto are excellent. Among the latter, Strutt mentions bishop Crew, archbishop Sterne, Dr. Comber, dean of Durham, Henry Gyles, the artist, and general Lambert. In Thoresby’s Topography of Leeds are some churches drawn by Place; the plates for Godartius’s book of Insects are by him; and he also executed many views in Yorkshire.

Another object he had very much at heart while here, was the purchase of Arabic Mss. in which he had considerable success. This appears at first to have been done at his private expence and for his private use but in a letter from Laud, then bishop of London, dated Oct. 30, 1631, he received a commission from that munificent prelate, which must have been highly gratifying to him, especially as he had no previous acquaintance with his lordship. The bishop’s commission extended generally to the purchase of ancient Greek coins, and such Mss. either in the Greek or Eastern languages, as he thought would form a valuable addition to the university library. Whether any the Mss. afterwards given by Laud to the Bodleian were procured at this time seems doubtful. In a letter from Laud, then archbishop, dated May 1634, we find him thanking Pocock for some Gr-eek coins, but no mention of manuscripts. In this letter, however, is the first intimation of the archbishop’s design with respect to the foundation of an Arabic professorship at Oxford, and a hope that Pocock, before his return, would so far make himself master of that language as to be able to teach it. And having carried his design into execution about two years afterwards, he invited Mr. Pocock to fill the new chair, with these encouraging words, that “he could do him no greater honour, than to name him to the university for his first professor.” His departure from Aleppo seems to have been much regretted by his Mahometan friends, to whom he had endeared himself by his amiable manners; and it appears also that he had established such a correspondence as might still enable him to procure valuable manuscripts.

On his return he was admitted, July 8, 1636, to the degree of bachelor of divinity. On the 8th of August foU lowing Dr. Baillie, president of St. John’s, and vice-chancellor, informed the convocation that archbishop Laud, then chancellor of the university, in addition to his benefaction of Arabic books to the Bodleian, had founded a professorship, and had settled 40l. a-year, during his life, on a person who should read a lecture on that language fle then mentioned Mr. Pocock of Corpus Christi as the person nominated by the archbishop for the approbation of the convocation, a man, as they very well knew, “eminent for his probity, his learning, and skill in languages.” Being accordingly unanimously elected, he entered on his office two days after, Aug. 10, with an inaugural speech, part of which was afterwards printed, “ad finem notarum in Carmen Tograi,” edit. Oxon. 1661. After this introduction, the book, which he first undertook to read on, was the “Proverbs of Ali,” the fourth emperor of the Saracens, and cousin-german and son-in-law of Mahomet; a man of such account with that impostor, not only for his valour, but knowledge too, that he used to declare, that if all the learning of the Arabians were destroyed, it might be found again in Ali, as a living library. Upon this book, observing the directions of the archbishop in the statutes he had provided, he spent an hour every Wednesday in vacation-time, and in Lent, explaining the sense of the author, and the things relating to the grammar and propriety of the language, and also shewing its agreement with the Hebrew and Syriac, as often as there was occasion. The lecture being ended, he usually remained for some time in the public school, to resolve the questions of his hearers, and satisfy them in their doubts; and always that afternoon gave admittance in his chamber from one o'clock till four, to all who would come to him for farther conference and direction.

He does not appear, however, to have given more than one course of those lectures before he took a second journey to the East, along with Mr. John Greaves, and this by the archbishop’s encouragement, who was still bent on procuring manuscripts, and would not lose the advantage of such agents. The archbishop also allowed him the profits of his professorship to defray his expences, besides which Mr. Pocock enjoyed his fellowship of Corpus, and had a small estate by the death of his father. The whole annual produce of these he is supposed to have expended in this expedition. During his absence Mr. Thomas Greaves, with the archbishop’s consent, supplied the Arabic lecture. On, Mr. Pocock’s arrival at Constantinople, the English ambassador, sir Peter Wyche, entertained him in his house as his chaplain, and assisted him, by his interest, in the great object of his journey. In pursuit of this he made several valuable acquaintances among some learned Jews, particularly Jacob Romano, author of an addition to Buxtorf’s “Bibliotheca Rabbinica,” a man of great learning and candour but his ablest assistant was the learned and unfortunate Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople (see Lucar), to whom we owe that valuable ms. the “Codex Alexandrinus” and Nath. Canopius, who to avoid the fate of his master Lucar, came to England, and lived for some time under the patronage of archbishop Laud, who gave him preferment in Christ church, from which he was ejected in 1648. He derived some assistance also from his fellow-labourer in the collection of books and Mss. Christian Ravius, but especially from John Greaves, whose zeal in this research we have already noticed.

At length about the beginning of 1640, Mr. Pocock' s friends began to solicit his return; the archbishop in a letter dated March 4 of that year says, “I am now going to settle my Arabic lecture for ever upon the university, and I would have your name to 'the deed, which is the best honour I can do for the service.” Accordingly he embarked in August, but did not return home entirely by sea, but through part of France and Italy. At Paris he was introduced to many of the learned men of the time, particularly to Gabriel Sionita, the celebrated Maronite, and to Grotius, to whom he communicated a design he had of translating his treatise “De Veritate” into Arabic, for the benefit of the Mahometans, many of whom he believed were prepared for more light and knowledge than had yet been afforded them. Pocock at the same time candidly told Grotius, who very much approved the design, that there were some things towards the end of his book, which he could not approve, viz. certain opinions, which, though they are commonly in Europe charged on the followers of Mahomet, have yet no foundation in any of their authentic writings, and are such as they are ready on all occasions to disclaim. With this freedom Grotius was so far from being displeased, that he heartily thanked Mr. Pocock for it, and gave him authority, in the version he intended, to expunge and alter whatsoever he should think fit.

His journey home was attended with many melancholy circumstances. While at Paris, and on the road, he heard of the commotions in England, and on his arrival, he found his liberal patron, Laud, a prisoner in the Tower. Here he immediately visited the archbishop, and their interview was affecting on both sides. The archbishop thanked him for the care he had taken in executing his commissions, and for his interesting correspondence while abroad, adding that it was no small aggravation of his present misfortunes that he no longer had it in his power tp reward such important services to the cause of literature. Mr. Pocock then went to Oxford, to dissipate his grief, and in hopes of enjoying some tranquillity in a place which had not yet become the scene of confusion and there he found that the archbishop had settled the Arabic professorship in perpetuity by a grant of lands. He now resumed his lecture, and his private studies. In 1641 he became acquainted with the celebrated John Selden, who was at this time preparing for the press, with no very liberal design, some part of Eutychius’s annals, in Latin and Arabic, which he published the year following, under the title of “Origines Alexandrine,” and Mr. Pocock assisted him in collating and extracting from the Arabic books in Oxford. Selden’s friendship was afterwards of great importance to him, as he had considerable influence with the republican party. In 1642 Oxford became the seat of war, and was that of learning only in a secondary degree. Mr. Pocock was however removed from a constant residence for some time, by the society of Corpus Christi, who bestowed on him the vacant living of Childrey in Berkshire, about twelve miles from Oxford, which of course he could easily visit during term time, when he was to read his lecture. As a parish priest, his biographer informs us, that “he set himself with his utinost diligence to a conscientious performance of all the duties of his cure, preaching twice every Sunday; and his Sermons were so contrived by him, as to be most useful to the persons who were to hear him. For though such as he preached in the university were very elaborate, and full of critical and other learning, the discourses he delivered in his parish were plain and easy, having nothing in them which he conceived to be above the capacities even of the meanest of his auditors. And as he carefully avoided all ostentation of learning , so he would not indulge himself in the practice of those arts, which at that time were very common, and much admired by ordinary people such as distortions of the countenance, and strange gestures, a violent and unnatural way of speaking, and affected words and phrases, which being out of the ordinary way were therefore supposed to express somewhat very mysterious, and in an high degree spiritual. His conversation too was one continued sermon, powerfully recommending to all, who were acquainted with him, the several duties of Christianity.”

But all this found no protection against the violence of the times. Immediately after the execution of archbishop Laud, the profits of his professorship were seized by the sequestrators, as part of that prelate’s estate, although Mr. Pocock, in a letter to these sequestrators, endeavoured to shew the utility of this foundation to the interests of learning, and his own right to the settlement of the founder, which was made with all the forms of law. This for some time had no effect, but at last men were found even in those days who were ashamed of such a proceeding, and had the courage to expose its cruelty and absurdity and in 1647 the salary of the lecture was restored by the interposition of Selden, who had considerable interest with the usurpers. Dr. Gerard Langbaine also, the provost of Queen’s college, drew up a long instrument in Latin, stating the legal course taken by the archbishop in the foundation of the Arabic lecture, and the grant the university had made to Mr. Pocock of its profits. This he and some others proposed in congregation, and the seal of the university was affixed to it with unanimous consent. About the same time, Mr. Pocock obtained a protection from the hand and seal of general Fairfax, against the outrage of the soldiery, who would else have plundered his house without mercy.

, D. D. who was distantly related to the preceding, but added the e to his name, was the son of Mr. Richard Pococke, sequestrator of the. church of All-saints in Southampton, and head master of the freeschool there, by the only daughter of the rev. Mr. Isaac Milles, minister of Highcleer in Hampshire, and was born at Southampton in 1704. He received his scbool-learning there, and his academical education at Corpns-Christi college, Oxford, where he took his degree of LL. B. May 5, 1731 and that of LL. D. (being then precentor of Lismore) June 28, 1733 together with Dr. Seeker, then rector of St. James’s, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. He began his travels into the East in 1737, and returned in 1742, and was made precentor of Waterford in 1744. In 1743, he published the first part of those travels, under the title of “A Description of the East, and of some other Countries, vol. I. Observations on Egypt.” In 1744 he was made precentor of Waterford, and in 1745 he printed the second volume under the same title, “Observations on Palestine, or the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, and Candia,” which he dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield, then made lord-lieutenant of Ireland attended his lordship thither as one of his domestic chaplains, and was soon after appointed by his lordship archdeacon of Dublin. In March 1756, he was promoted by the duke of Devonshire (then lord-lieutenant) to the bishopric of Ossory, vacant by the death of Dr. Edward Maurice. He was translated by the king’s letter from Ossory to Elphin, in June 1765, bishop Gore of Elphin bc'ing then promoted to Meath; but bishop Gore finding a great sum was to be paid to his predecessor’s executors for the house at Ardbracean, declined taking out his patent; and therefore bishop Pococke, in July, was translated by the duke of Northumberland directly to the see of Meath, and died in the month of September the same year, suddenly, of an apoplectic stroke, while he was in the course of his visitation. An eulogium of his Description of Egypt is given in a work entitled “Pauli Ernestt Jablonski Pantheon Ægyptiorum, Praetat. ad part, iii.” He penetrated no further up the Nile than to Philse, now Gieuret Ell Hiereff; whereas Mr. Norden, in 1737, went as far as Derri, between the two cataracts. The two travellers are supposed to have met on the Nile, in the neighbourhood of Esnay, in Jan. 1738. But the fact, as Dr. Pococke told some of his friends, was, that being on his return, not knowing that Mr. Norden was gone up, he passed by him in the night, without having the pleasure of seeing him. There was an admirable whole length of the bishop, in a Turkish dress, painted by Liotard, in the possession of the late Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter, his first cousin. He was a great traveller, and visited other places besides the East His description of a rock on the westside of Dunbar harbour in Scotland, resembling the GiantsCauseway, is in the Philos. Trans, vol. LII. art. 17; and in Archaeologia,vol. II. p. 32, his account of some antiquities found in Ireland. When travelling through Scotland (where he preached several times to crowded congregations), he stopped at Dingwal, and said he was much struck and pleased with its appearance for the situation of it brought Jerusalem to his remembrance, and he pointed out the hill which resembled Calvary. The same similitude was observed by him in regard to Dartmouth but a 4to volume of his letters, containing his travels ia England and Scotland, was lost. He preached a sermon in 1761 for the benefit of the Magdalen charity in London, and one in 1762 before the incorporated Society in Dublin.

, an eminent cardinal, and archbishop of Canterbury, was descended from the bloodroyal of England, being a younger son of sir Richard Pole, K.G. and cousin-german to Henry VII. by Margaret, daughter of George duke of Clarence, younger brother to king Edward IV. He was born at Stoverton, or Stourton castle, in Staffordshire, in 1500, and educated at first in the Carthusian monastery at Sheen, near Richmond, in Surrey, whence, at the early age of twelve, he was removed to Magdalen-college, Oxford, and there assisted in his studies by Linacre and William Latimer. In June 1515, he took the degree of B. A. and soon after entered into deacon’s orders. Without doubting his proficiency in his studies, it may be supposed that this rapid progress in academical honours was owing to his family interest and pretensions. Among the popish states abroad it was not uncommon to admit boys of noble families to a rank in the universities or the church, long before the statutable or canonical periods. One object for such hasty preferment was, that they might be entitled to hold lucrative benefices, and the rank of their family thus supported and accordingly, in March 1517, we find that Pole was made prebendary of Roscombe, in the church of Salisbury, to which were added, before he had reached his nineteenth year, the deaneries of Winbourne Minster, and Exeter, For all these he was doubtless indebted to his relation Henry VIII. who intended him for the highest dignities of the church.

In March 1555, pope Julius III. died, and in less than a month, his successor Marcel Jus II. on which vacancy, the queen employed her interest in favour of cardinal Pole, but without effect; nor was he more successful when he went to Flanders this year, to negociate a peace between France and the emperor. To add to his disappointments, the new pope, Paul IV. had a predilection for Gardiner, and favoured the views of the latter upon the see of Canterbury, vacant by the deposition of Cranmer; nor although the queen nominated Pole to be archbishop, would the pope confirm it, till after the death of Gardiner. The day after Cranmer was burnt, March 22, 1556, Pole, who now for the first time took priest’s orders, was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury. Having still a turn for retirement, and being always conscientious in what he thought his duties, he would now have fixed his abode at Canterbury, and kept that constant residence which became a good pastor, but the queen would never suffer him to leave the court, insisting that it was more for the interest of the catholic faith that he should reside near her person. Many able divines were consulted on this point, who assured the cardinal that he could not with a safe conscience abandon her majesty, “when there was so much business to be done, to crush the heretics, and give new life to the catholic cause.”

Cardinal Pole was, in person, of a middle stature, and thin habit; his complexion fair, with an open countenance and cheerful aspect. His constitution was healthful, although not strong. He was learned and eloquent, and naturally of a benevolent and mild disposition, but his bigoted attachment to the see of Rome occasioned his being concerned in transactions which probably would not have originated with him yet we have no reason to think that he dissuaded the court of queen Mary from its abominable cruelties and it is certain that many of them were carried on in his name. Mr. Phillips, who wrote an elaborate biographical vindication of cardinal Pole, but who would not openly vindicate the cruelties of Mary’s reign, has unfortunately asserted, that not one person was put to death in the diocese of Canterbury, after the cardinal was promoted to that see but Mr. Ridley has clearly proved that no less than twenty-four were burnt in one year in that diocese, while Pole was archbishop. Gilpin, however, seems to be of opinion that he “would certainly have prevented those reproaches on his religion which this reign occasioned, had his resolution been equal to his judgment.” Of both we have a remarkable example, alluded to already, but more fully quoted by the same author in his life of Latimer, which seems to be conclusive as to the cardinal’s real character. When, in a council of bishops, it was agitated how to proceed with heretics, the cardinal said, “For my part, I think we should be content with the public restoration of religion; and instead of irritating our adversaries by a rigorous execution of the revived statutes, I could wish that every bishop in his diocese would try the more winning expedients of gentleness and persuasion.” He then urged the example of the emperor Charles V. who, by a severe persecution of the Lutherans, involved himself in many difficulties, and purchased nothing but dishonour. Notwithstanding the liberality and humanity of these sentiments, when Gardiner, Bonner, and others equally violent, were heard in favour of severe measures, Pole had not the courage to dissent; and the result was a commission issued by himself, impowering the bishops to try and examine heretics, agreeably to the laws which were now revived.

a celebrated French cardinal, was born Oct. 11, 1661, at Puy, in Velay, and was the son of Louis Armand, viscount de Polignac, descended from one of the most ancient families in Languedoc. He was.sent early to Paris, where he distinguished himself as a student, and was soon noticed as a young man of elegant manners and accomplishments. In 1689, cardinal de Bouillon carried him to Rome, and employed him in several important negociations. It was at one of his interviews with pope Alexander VIII. that this pontiff said to him, “You seem always, sir, to be of my opinion, and yet it is your own which prevails at last.” We are likewise told that when, on his return to Paris, Louis XIV. granted him along audience, he said as he went out, <4 I have been conversing with a man, and a young man, who has contradicted me in every thing, yet pleased me in every thing.*' In 1693, he was sent as ambassador into Poland, where he procured the prince of Conti to be elected and proclaimed king in 1696; but, this election not having been supported, he was obliged to retire, and return to France, where he arrived in 1698, after losing all his equipage and furniture, which was seized by the Dantzickers. The king then banished him to his abbey at Bonport, but recalled him to court with great expressions of regard in 1702, and in 1706 appointed him auditor of the Rota. M. Polignac then set out again for Rome and cardinal de la Tremouille, who conducted the French affairs there, having the same opinion of him as cardinal de Bouillon had, employed him in several negociations. Going back to France three years after, his majesty sent him as plenipotentiary into Holland in 1710, with marechal d'Uxelles. He was also plenipotentiary at the conferences and peace of Utrecht, in 1712 and 1713. The king, satisfied with his services, obtained a cardinal’s hat for him the same year, and appointed him master of his chapel. During the regency, cardinal de Polignac was banished to his abbey of Anchin in 1718, and not recalled till 172L. In 1724, he went to Rome for the election of pope Benedict XIII. and remained there eight years, being entrusted with the affairs of France. In 1726, he was made archbishop of Auch, returned to his native country in 1732, and died at Paris, November 10, 1741, aged 80. He was a member of the French academy, the academy of sciences, and that of belles lettres. He is now chiefly remembered for his elegant Latin poem, entitled “Anti-Lucretius,” in which he refutes the system and doctrine of Epicurus, according to the principles of Descartes’ philosophy. This he left to a friend, Charles de Rothelin, who published it in 1747, 2 vols. 8vo. It has since been often reprinted, and elegantly translated by M. de Bougainville, secretary to the academy of belles lettres. His Life was published at Paris, 1777, 2 vols. 12mo, by F. Ghrysostom Faucher. The reviewer of this life very justly says, that the man who compiled the “Anti-Lucretius,” and proposed a plan for forming a new bed for the Tiber, in order to recover the statues, medals, basso-relievos, and other ancient monuments, which were buried there during the rage of civil factions, and the incursions of the barbarians, deserves an eminent place in literary biography. Few works have been more favourably received throughout Europe than the cardinal’s celebrated poem, although he was so much of a Cartesian. The first copy that appeared in England was one in the possession of the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, and such was its reputation abroad at that time, that this copy was conveyed by a trumpet from marshal Saxe to the Duke of Cumberland, directed for the earl of Chesterfield, It was sent to him both as a judge of the work, and a friend of the writer.

, an apostolic father of the Christian church, was born in the reign of Nero, probably at Smyrna, a city of Ionia in Asia Minor, where he was educated at the expence of Calisto, a noble matron of great piety and charity. In his younger years he is said to be instructed in the Christian faith by Bucolus, bishop of that place but others consider it as certain that he was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and familiarly conversed with others of the apostles. At a proper age, Bucolus ordained him a deacon and catechist of his church; and, upon the death of that prelate, he succeeded him in the bishopric. To this he was consecrated by St. John who also, according to archbishop Usher, directed his “Apocalyptical Epistle,” among six others, to him, under the title of the “Angel of the Church of Smyrna,” where, many years after the apostle’s death, he was also visited by St. Ignatius. Ignatius recommended his own see of Antioch to the care and si>perintendance of Polycarp, and afterwards sent an epistle to the church of Smyrna from Troas, A. C. 107 when Polycarp is supposed to have written his “Epistle to the Philippians,” a translation of which is preserved by Dr. Cave.

Thus died this apostolical man, as supposed, in May 167. The amphitheatre whereon he suffered was remaining in a great measure not many years ago, and his tomb is in a little chapel in the side of a mountain, on the southeast part of the city, solemnly visited by the Greeks on his festival day and for the maintenance and repairing of it, travellers were wont to throw a few aspers into an earthen pot that stands there for the purpose. He wrote some homilies and epistles, which are all lost, except that to the “Philippians,” which is a pious and truly Christian piece, containing short and useful precepts and rules of life, and which, St. Jerome tells us, was even in his time read in the public assemblies of the Asian churches. It is among archbishop Wake’s “Genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers,” and the original was published by archbishop Usher in 1648, and has been reprinted since in various collections, [Wake has also given a translation of the account of Polycarp’s death, written in the name of the church of Smyrna.] It is of singular use in proving the authenticity of the books of the New Testament; inasmuch as he has several passages and expressions from Matthew, Luke, the Acts, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Philippians, Ephesians, Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Colossians, 1st Timothy, 1st Epistle of St. John, and 1st of Peter; and makes particular mention of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. Indeed his whole “Epistle” consists of phrases and sentiments taken from the New Testament.

“Thus on the borders of the Nile, the black inhabitant* insult by their savage cries the star of day. Vain cries, and capricious fury! But while these barbarous monsters send up their insolent clamours, the God, pursuing his career, pours floods of light upon his dusky blasphemers.” “I have hardly ever seen,” says M. la Harpe, “a grander idea, expressed by a more noble image, nor with a more impressive harmony of language. I recited the passage one day to Voltaire, who acknowledged that it united all the qualities of the sublime; and, when I named the author, still praised it more.” The marquis’s brother, John George Le Franc, a prelate of great merit, was archbishop of Vienne, and like him combated the principles of the pbilosophists. He wrote various controversial and devotional works, and some of another description, as, “A Critical Essay on the present State of the Republic of Letters,” 1743 “Pastoral Instructions for the Benefit of the new Converts within his Diocese” Devotion not at enmity with Wit and Genius“”Mandates prohibiting the Reading of the Works of Rousseau and the Abbe Raynal." He died, in 1790, soon after the revolution had begun its destructive work, which he in vain endeavoured to resist.

So much talent was not doomed long to remain unnoticed. In 1762 he became chaplain to archbishop Seeker, and in 1765 married miss Hodgson, the eldest daughter of Brian Hodgson, esq. of Ashbourne in Derbyshire. His first church preferments were two small livings in Kent, which he soon exchanged for Hunton, in the same county, and a prebend in the cathedral church of Peterborough, an optjon of the archbishop and not long afterwards he was promoted to the rectory of Lambeth. In the same year, 1767, he took his doctor’s degree at Cambridge, and on this occasion preached the commencement sermon. From this period he became more and more an object of public esteem and attention. He divided his time between Hunton, which place he always visited with delight and left with regret, and Lambeth; and in 1769 he was made chaplain to his majesty, and master of the hospital of St. Cross, near Winchester.

In 1773 a circumstance occurred, which then excited considerable interest, and in which the part that Dr. Porteus took has been much misinterpreted and misunderstood. The following statement in his own words, will place the fact in its true point of view. < At the close of the year 1772, and the beginning of the next, an attempt was made by myself and a few other clergymen, among whom were Mr. Francis Wollaston, Dr. Percy, now bishop of Dromore, and Dr. Yorke, now bishop of Ely, to induce the bishops to promote a review of the liturgy and articles, in order to amend in both, but particularly in the latter, those parts which all reasonable persons agreed stood in need of amendment This plan was not in the smallest degree connected with the petitioners at the Feathers tavern, but, on the contrary, was meant to counteract that and all similar extravagant projects; to strengthen and confirm our ecclesiastical establishment to repel the attacks which were at that time continually made upon it by its avowed enemies; to render the 17th article on predestination and election more clear and perspicuous, and less liable to be wrested by our adversaries to a Calvinistic sense,.which has been so unjustly affixed to it; to improve true Christian piety amongst these of our own communion, and to diminish schism and separation by bringing over to the national church all the moderate and well-disposed of other persuasions. On these grounds, we applied in a private and respectful manner to archbishop CornWallis, requesting him to signify our wishes (which we conceived to be the wishes of a very large proportion both of the clergy and the laity) to the rest of the bishops, that every thing might be done, which could be prudently and safely done, to promote these important and salutary purposes.

“The answer given by the archbishop, February 11, 1773, was in these words I have consulted severally my brethren the bishops, and it is the opinion of the bench in general, that nothing can in prudence be done in the matter that has been submitted to our consideration.'”

, archbishop of Canterbury, was the son of Thomas Potter, a linen draper at Wakefield in Yorkshire, where he was born about the year 1674. He was educated at a school at Wakefield, and it is said, made an uncommon progress, in a short time, especially in the Greek languague. That this, however, was a private school seems to be taken for granted by Dr. Parr, who, after mentioning that our author’s Latin productions are not free from faults, says that he would have been taught to avoid these “in our best public seminaries.” At the age of fourteen, Mr. Potter was sent to Oxford, and entered a battler of University college in the beginning of 1688. There is every reason to think that his diligence here was exemplary and successful; for, after taking his bachelor’s degree, he was employed by the master of his college, the learned Dr. Charlett, to compile a work for the use of his fellow students, entitled, “Variantes lectiones et notae ad Plutarchi librum de audiendis poetis, item Variantes lectiones, &c. ad Basilii Magni orationem ad juvenes, quomodo cum fructu legere possint Graecorum libros,” 8vo. This was printed at the University press, then in the Theatre, in 1693, at the expence of Dr. Charlett, who used to present copies of it, as a new-year’s-gift, to the young students of University college, and to others of his friends.

In July 1704 he commenced bachelor of divinity, and being about the same time appointed chaplain to archbishop Tenison, he removed from Oxford to reside at Lambeth palace. He proceeded D.D. in April 1706, and soon after became chaplain in ordinary to queen Anne. In 1707 appeared his first publication connected with his profession, entitled a “Discourse of Church Government,” 8vo. In this he asserts the constitution, rights, and government, of the Christian church, chiefly as described by the fathers of the first three centuries against Erastian principles; his design being to vindicate the church of England from the charge of those principles. In this view, among other ecclesiastical powers distinct from the state, he maintains the doctrine of our church, concerning the distinction of the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, particularly with regard to the superiority of the episcopal order above that of presbyters, which he endeavours to prove was settled by divine institution: that this distinction was in fact constantly kept up to the time of Constantine: and in the next age after that, the same distinction, he observes, was constantly reckoned to be of divine institution, and derived from the apostles down to these times.

He left behind him the character of a prelate of distinguished piety and learning, strictly orthodox in respect to the established doctrines of the church of England, and a zealous and vigilant guardian of her interests. He was a great advocate for regularity, order, and oeconomy, but he supported the dignity of his high office of archbishop, in a manner which was by some attributed to a haughtiness of temper. Whiston is his principal accuser, in this respect, but allowances must be made for that writer’s prejudices, especially when we find that among the heaviest charges he brings against the archbishop is his having the Athanasian Creed read in his chapel. He had a numerous family of children, of whom three daughters and two sons survived him. One of his daughters, Mrs. Sayer, died in 1771.

His eldest son, John Potter, born in 1713, after a private education, was entered a member of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1727, and took his master’s degree in 1734. After he went into orders, he obtained from his father the vicarage of Blackburne, in the county of Lancaster, and in 1739, the valuable sinecure of Elme cum Emneth, in the isle of Ely, In 1741 his father presented him to the archdeaconry of Oxford. His other promotions were the v y icarage of Lydde in Kent, the twelfth prebend of Canterbury, and the rich benefice of Wrotham in Kent, with which he retained the vicarage of Lydde. In 1766 he was advanced to the deanery of Canterbury, on which he resigned the archdeaconry of Oxford. He died at Wrotham Sept. 20, 1770. He offended his father very much by marrying one of his servants, in consequence of which, although the archbishop, as we have seen, gave him many preferments, he left his personal fortune, which has been estimated at 70,000l. some say 90,000l. to his second son, Thomas Potter, esq. who followed the profession of the law, became recorder of Bath, joint vice-treasurer of Ireland, and member of parliament for Aylesbury and Oakhampton. He died June 17, 1759.

The archbishop’s works were published in 1753, 3 vols. 3vo, under the title of “TheTheological Works of Dr. John Potter, &c. containing his Sermons, Charges, Discourse of Church-government, and Divinity Lectures.” He had himself prepared these for the press; his divinity lectures form a continued treatise on the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures. Some letters of his, relative to St. Luke’s Gospel, &c. are printed in “Atterbury’s Correspondence.”

At what time he imbibed the principles of the Reformation is uncertain; but it appears that he was accounted a champion for that great change in the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. when he was made bishop of Rochester, although only in his 33d year. He was then D.D. and chaplain to archbishop Cranmer. When Gardiner was deprived, he was the following year, 1551, translated to Winchester, and was one of the bishops appointed to make a new code of ecclesiastical laws. He had frequently preached be fore king Edward who, on account of his zealous efforts for the reformation, desired that he might have the above dignities. He had before this, however, some lesser preferment. By Newcourt we find, that Cranmer gave him the rectory of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, Nov. 15, 1543, which he held, in commendam, until May 15, 1551, when he was translated to Winchester. He was a frequent preacher, and wrote several treatises in defence of the Reformation but his most remarkable performance was what is commonly called “King Edward’s Catechism,” which appeared in 1553, in two editions, the one Latin, the other English, with the royal privilege. That it was not hastily adopted, however, appears by king Edward’s letter prefixed to it, in which he says “When there was presented unto us, to be perused, a short and playne order of Catechisme, written by a certayne godlye and learned man: we committed the debatinge and diligent examination thereof to certain byshoppes and other learned men, whose judgment we have in greate estimation.” This catechism has been attributed to Nowell; but the late excellent biographer of that eminent divine considers it as unquestionably Poynet’s, although Nowell took much from it into his own catechism.

, in Latin Pricæus, a learned writer, originally of a Welsh family, was born in 1600 at London. He was brought up at Westminster-school, whence in, 1617 he was elected to Christ-church, Oxford. He made >grcat proficiency in learning, and was esteemed one of the ablest critics of his day, but espoused the Roman catholic religion which for some time he appears to have concealed. On leaving college he was entertained in the earl of Arundel’s family, with which he travelled into Italy, and there was made doctor of law?. On his return to England, he became acquainted with the earl of Strafford, who 'being pleased with his talents and learning, took him with him to Ireland, where he likewise became acquainted with archbishop Usher, and was one of his correspondents, their biblical studies forming a bond of union. When his noble patron was prosecuted, Dr. Price shared in his misfortunes, and returned to England in 1640. During the rebellion he endeavoured to support the royal cause by his pen, and wrote several pamphlets, for which he was imprisoned for a considerable time. After his release he went abroad, and took up his residence in Florence, where the grand duke made him superintendant of his museum, which was then One of the finest in Europe. By the interest of this prince, he was appointed Greek professor at Pisa, and filled that office with great reputation. Resigning it, however, probably owing to bad health, he went to Venice, with a view to publish Hesychius’s Lexicon, but not succeeding in the design, he went to Rome, and was entertained by cardinal Francis Barberini. When advanced in years, he retired to St. Augustine’s convent at Rome, where he died in 1676, aged seventy-six. His works are 1. “Notoe et observationes in apologiam L. Apuleii Madaurensis, philosophi Platonici,” Paris, 1635, 4to. These are to be found in the Gouda edition of Apuleius, 1650, 8vo, but the original is very scarce. 2. “Matthaeus, ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus, &c. illustratus,” Paris, 1646, 8vo. 3. “Annotationes in epist. Jacobi,” Paris, 1646, 8vo. 4. “Acta Apostolorum, ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus, &c. illustrata,” Paris, 1647, 8vo. 5. “Index Scriptorum, qui in Hesychii Graeco vocabulario laudantur, confectus et alphabetico ordine dispositus,” 1668. See Schrevelius’s Lexicon at the end. 6. “Comment, in varios Novi Test. Hbros,” inserted in the 5th vol. of the “Critici Sacri.” Dr. Price is praised by Sarravius, in his letters by archbishop Usher on St. Ignatius’s epistles by Heinsius, in an epistle to Carlo Dati by Selden more than once, in the second book “de Synedriis Ebraeorum” by Vossius, in his “Harmonia Evangelica” by Morus, in his notes on the New Testament by Redi, in his treatise on the Generation of Insects but especially by Axenius on Phaedrus.

, in Latin Priolus, author of an History of France from the death of Louis XIII. in 1643 to 1664, was born in 1602. He was descended from the Prioli, an illustrious family, some of whom had been doges of Venice. He underwent some difficulties from losing his father and mother, when young; but these did not abate his passion for learning, which he indulged day and night. He studied first at Orthez, next at Montauban, and afterwards at Leyden in which last city he profited by the lectures of Heinsius and Vossius. He went to Paris, for the sake of seeing and consulting Grotius and afterwards to Padua, where he learned the opinions of Aristotle and other ancient philosophers, under Cremoninus and Licetus. After returning to France, he went again into Italy, in order to be recognized by the house of Prioli, as one of their relations. He devoted himself to the duke of Rohan, then in the Venetian service, and became one of his most intimate confidents; but, uncertain what his fate would be after this duke’s death, he retired to Geneva, having married, three months before, a lady of a very noble family. The duke de Longueville drew him from this retirement, upon his being appointed plenipotentiary from the court of France for the treaty of Munster, as a person whose talents might be of service to him and Priolo resided with him a year at Munster, where he contracted a very intimate friendship with Chigi the nuncio, % who was afterwards pope Alexander VII. From Munster he returned to Geneva; whence he went to France, in order to settle at Paris. He stayed six months in Lyons, and there had frequent conferences with cardinal Francis Barberini the effect of which was, that himself and his whole family abjured the Protestant religion, and immediately received the communion from the hands of the cardinal. He was not, however, long easy at Paris for, the civil war breaking out soon after, he joined with the malecontents, which proved the ruin of his fortune. He was obliged to retire to Flanders, his estate was confiscated, and his family banished. Being afterwards restored to the favour of his sovereign, he resolved to lead a private life, and to devote himself to study. It was at this time, and to divert his melancholy, that he wrote, without the least flattery or partiality, his “History of France,” in Latin. It has gone through several impressions but the best edition is that of Leipsic, 1686, 8vo. He was again employed in negociations; and set out, in 1667, upon a secret affair to Venice; but did not arrive at the end of his journey, being seized with an apoplectic fit, of which he died in the archbishop’s palace at Lyons. He left seven children; who, by virtue of his name, and their own accomplishments and merit, rose to very flourishing circumstances.

, an English lawyer, who was much distinguished by the number rather than excellence of his publications, during the reign of Charles I. was born in 1600, at Swanswick in Somersetshire, and educated at a grammar-school in the city of Bath. He became a commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, in 1616; and, after taking a bachelor of arts’ degree, in 1620, removed to Lincoln’s-­inn, where he studied the law, and was made successively barrister, bencher, and reader. At his first coming to that inn, he was a great admirer and follower of Dr. Preston, preacher to the inn (see Preston), and published several books against what he thought the enormities of the age, and the doctrine and discipline of the church. His “Histriornastix,” which came out in 1632, giving great offence to the court, he was committed prisoner to the Tower of London and, in 1633, sentenced by the Starchamber, to be fined 5000l. to the king, expelled the university of Oxford and Lincoln’s-inn, degraded and disenabled from his profession of the law, to stand in the pillory and lose his ears, to have his book publicly burnt before his face, and to remain prisoner during lite. Prynne was certainly here treated with very unjust severity; for Whitelocke observes, that the book was licensed by archbishop Abbot’s chaplain, and was merely an invective against plays and players; but there being “a reference in the table of this book to this effect, women-actors notorious whores, relating to some women-actors mentioned in his book, as he affirmeth, it happened, that about six weeks after this the queen acted a part in a pastoral at Somerset-house; and then archbishop Laud and other prelates, whom Prynne had angered by some books of his against Arminianism, and against the jurisdiction of bishops, and by some prohibitions which he had moved, and got to the high commission-court these prelates, and their instruments, the next day after the queen had acted her pastoral, shewed Prynne’s book against plays to the king, and that place in it, women-actors notorious whores; and they informed the king and queen, that Prynne had purposely written this book against the queen and her pastoral whereas it was published six weeks before that pastoral was acted.”

After the sentence upon Prynne was executed, as it was rigorously enough in May 1634, he was remitted to prison. In June following, as soon as he could procure pen, ink, and paper, he wrote a severe letter to archbishop Laud concerning his sentence in the Star-chamber, and what the archbishop in particular had declared against him; who acquainted the king with this letter, on which his majesty commanded the archbishop to refer it to Noy the attorneygeneral. Noy sent for Prynne, and demanded whether the letter was of his hand-writing or not; who desiring to see it, tore it to pieces, and threw the pieces out of the window; which prevented a farther prosecution of him. In 1635, 1636, and 1637, he published several books: particularly one entitled “News from Ipswich,” in which he reflected with great coarseness of language on the archbishop and other prelates. The mildest of his epithets were “Luciferian lord bishops, execrable traitors, devouring wolves,” &c. For this he was sentenced in the Starchamber, in June 1637, to be fined 5000l. to the king, to lose the remainder of his ears in the pillory, to be branded on both cheeks with the letters S. L. for schismatical libeller, and to be perpetually imprisoned in Caernarvoncastle. This sentence was executed in July, in Palaceyard, Westminster; but, in January following, he was removed to Mount Orgueil castle in the isle of Jersey, where he exercised his pen in writing several books. On Nov. 7, 1640, an order was issued by the House of Commons for his releasement from prison and the same month he entered with great triumph into London. In December following, he presented a petition representing what he had suffered from Laud, for which Wood tells us he had a recompense allowed him; but Prynne positively denies that he ever received a farthing. He was soon after elected a member of parliament for Newport in Cornwall, and opposed the bishops, especially the archbishop, with great vigour, both by his speeches and writings; and was the chief manager of that prelate’s trial. In 1647, he was one of the parliamentary visitors of the university of Oxford. During his sitting in the Long Parliament, he was very zealous for the presbyterian cause; but when the independents began to gain the ascendant, shewed himself a warm opposer of them, and promoted the king’s interest. He made a long speech in the House of Commons, concerning the satisfactoriness of the king’s answers to the propositions of peace; and for that cause was, two days after, refused entrance into the House by the army. This remarkable speech he published in a quarto pamphlet, with an appendix, in which he informs us, that “being uttered with much pathetique seriousnesse, and heard with great attention, it gave such generall satisfaction to the House, that many members, formerly of a contrary opinion, professed, they were both convinced and converted; others, who were dubious in the point of satisfaction, that they were now fully confirmed most of different opinion put to a stand; and the majority of the House declared, both by their chearefull countenances and speeches (the Speaker going into the withdrawing-roome to refresh himselfe, so soon as the speech was ended) that they were abundantly satisfied by what had been thus spoken. After which the Speaker resuming the chair, this speech was seconded by many able gentlemen; and the debate continuing Saturday, and all Monday and Monday night, till about nine of the clock on Tuesday morning, and 244 Members staying quite out to the end, though the House doores were not shut up (a thing never scene nor knowne before in parliament) the question was at last put: and notwithstanding the generall’s and whole armie’s march to Westminster, and menaces against the members, in case they voted for the treaty, and did not utterly reject it as unsatisfactory, carried it in the affirmative by 140 voices (with the foure tellers) against 104, that the question should be put; and then, without any division of the House, it was resolved on the question, That the answers of the king to the propositions of both Houses are a ground for the House to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the kingdom.” In the course of the speech, he alludes to his services and sufferings, adding that “he had never yet received one farthing recompense from the king, or any other, ‘though I have waited,’ says he, ‘above eight years atyour doors for justice and reparations, and neglecting my owne private calling and affaires, imployed most of my time, studyes, and expended many hundred pounds out of my purse, since my inlargement, to maintain your cause against the king, his popish and prelatical party. For all which cost and labour, I never yet demanded, nor received one farthing from the Houses, nor the least office or preferment whatsoever, though they have bestowed divers places of honour upon persons of lesse or no desert. Nor did I ever yet receive so much as your publike thanks for any publike service done you, (which every preacher usually receives for every sermon preached before you, and most others have received for the meanest services) though I have brought you off with honour in the cases of Canterbury and Macguire, when you were at a losse in both; and cleared the justnesse of your cause, when I was at the lowest ebb, to most reformed churches abroad (who received such satisfaction from my books, that they translated them into several languages), and engaged many thousands for you at home by my writings, who were formerly dubious and unsatisfied.’”

Other works of Ptolenty, though less considerable than these two, are still extant. As, “Libri quatuor de Judiciis Astrorum,” upon the first two books of which Cardan wrote a commentary. “Fructus Librorum suorum” a kind of supplement to the former work. “Recensio Chronologica Regum” this, with another work of Ptolemy, “De Hypothesibus Planetarum,” was published in 1620, 4to, by John Bainbridge, the Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford and Scaliger, Petavius, Dodwell, and the other chronological writers, have made great use of it. <e ApparenticE Stellarum Inerrantium“this was published at Paris by Petavius, with a Latin version, 1630, folio but from a mutilated copy, the defects of which have since been supplied from a perfect one, which sir Henry Saville had communicated to archbishop Usher, by Fabricius, in the 3d volume of his” Bibliotheca Grseca.“” Elementorum Harmonicorum libri tres" published in Greek and Latin, with a commentary by Porphyry the philosopher, by Dr. Wallis at Oxforcl, in 1682, 4to and afterwards reprinted there, and inserted in the 3d volume of Wallis’s works, in 1699, folio. Of this work Dr. Burney has such an opinion as to say, that Ptolemy ranks as high amongst the great writers of antiquity for his Harmonics, or theory of sound, as for his Almagest and Geography.

, a learned English divine, and compiler of a valuable collection of voyages, was born at Thaxstead in Essex in 1577, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1600, and afterwards that of bachelor of divinity. Ill 1604 he was instituted to the vicarage of Eastwood in Essex; but, leaving the cure of it to his brother, went and lived in London, the better to carry on the great work he had undertaken. He published the first volume in 1613, and the fifth in 1625, under this title, “Purchas his Pil^ grimage, or Relations of the World, and the Religions observed in all ages and places discovered from the Creation unto this present.” In 1615, he was incorporated at Oxford, as he stood at Cambridge, bachelor of divinity; and a little before, had been collated to the rectory of St. Martin’s Ltidgate, in London. He was chaplain to Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and had also the promise of a deanery from Charles I. which he did not live to enjoy. His pilgrimages, and the learned Hackluyt’s Voyages, led the way to all other collections of that kind; and have been, justly valued and esteemed. Boissard, a learned foreigner, has given a great character of Purchas; he styles him “a man exquisitely skilled in languages, and all arts divine and human; a very great philosopher, historian, and divine; a faithful presbyter of the church of England; very famous for many excellent writings, and especially for his vast volumes of the East and West Indies, written in his native tongue.” His other works are, “Purchas his Pilgrim or Microcosmos, or The Historie of Man,” 1627, 8vo, a series of meditations upon man at all ages and in all stations, founded on Psalm xxxix. 5. In the address to the reader are a few particulars of himself and family, which we have extracted. He published also “The King’s Tower and Triumphal Arch of London,” 1623, 8vo; and “A Funeral Sermon on Psalm xxx. 5.” is attributed to him, if.it be not mistaken for the Microcosmos. His son, Samuel, published “A Theatre to Political flying Insects,” 1657, 4to. His Voyages now sell at a vast price.

, perpetual secretary of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, was born at Bugey, Nov. 23, 1709, of an ancient family that had lost its titles and property during the wars of the league. Although the eldest of twelve children, his father destined him for the church, and he studied with great approbation and success at the college of Lyons, and had so much distinguished himself that when the tim'e came that he should study theology, two seminaries disputed which should have him. His own. determination was in favour of that of the Jesuits, in consequence of the superior having promised to remit a part of his expences in order that he might be able to purchase books. At the age of twenty-six he went to Paris to the seminary of Trente-Trois, where he became successively master of the conferences, librarian, and second superior. When he had finished his studies, he wanted the necessary supplies to enable him to travel from one diocese to another; and the archbishop of Lyons having t refused this, from a wish to keep him in his own diocese, Du Puy resolved to give up all thoughts of the church, and devote himself to the sciences and belles-lettres. He now sought the acquaintance of men of polite literature, and particularly obtained a steady friend in the academician Fourmont, whose house was the rendezvous of men of learning and learned foreigners. It was Fourmont who procured him the editorship of the “Journal cles Savans,” which he accordingly conducted for thirty years, and contributed many valuable papers and criticisms of his own. His knowledge was very various; he knew Hebrew, Greek, and mathematics, so as to have been able to make a figure in either, had he devoted himself wholly to one pursuit; but his reading and study were desultory, and it was said of him in mathematical language, that he was the mean proportional between the academy of sciences and that of inscriptions. In 1768 the prince de Soubise made him his librarian, a situation of course much to his liking, and which he filled for twenty years, until the derangement of the prince’s affairs made him inform a bookseller that he intended to part with his library. This came like a clap of thunder to poor Du Puy, and brought on a strangury, of which, after seven years of suffering, he died April 10, 1795.

His sentiments will further appear by his publishing his “Paraphrase on the Acts, and all the Epistles,” in the manner of Dr. Clarke. This was followed by his “Paraphrase on the Revelation of St. John,” and on the “Historical books of the Old Testament;” all which, comprising what was thought necessary for illustration, within a small compass, and in a plain and perspicuous manner, were much recommended and much read. His writings are generally characterised by perspicuity and manly sense, rather than by any elevation of style yet in the delivery of his sermons, so impressive was his elocution that, both in the metropolis and in the country, he was one of the most admi /ed preachers of his time. His sole aim was to amend or improve his auditors. For this purpose he addressed himself, not to their passions, but to their understandings and consciences. He judiciously preferred a plainness, united with a force of expression, to all affectation of elegance or rhetorical sublimity, and delivered hi* discourses with so just and animated a torie of voice, as never failed to gain universal attention. Although he lived in friendship and familiar correspondence with many eminent churchmen, as bishop Hoadly, Dr. Clarke, Dr. Sykes, &c. yet he remained long in a situation of comparative obscurity. This, according to a passage in one of archbishop Herring’s letters to Mr. Duncomb, was, “in some measure, owing to himself; for that very impetuosity of spirit which, under proper government, renders him the agreeable creature he is, has, in some circumstances of life, got the better of him, and hurt his views.” This probably alludes to his being heterodox with respect to the Trinity, which was common with most of the divines with whom he associated. He continued to be preacher at St. Nicholas, King’s Lynn, till 1732, when he succeeded to the vicarage of St. Margaret, which he held till 1755. Being then no Jonger capable of discharging the duties annexed to it, he gave in his resignation, both to the dean and chapter of Norwich, and also to the mayor and corporation of Lynn, early in the summer of that year. He then retired to SwafFham, where he died, Dec. 31, 1756, aged eighty-two > and was buried in the church of Lynn All Saints.

, an English poet, was born in the year 1592, at Stewards, near Romford in Essex, and baptized on May 8 of that year. His family was of some consideration in the county of Essex, and possessed of several estates in Romford, Hornchurch, Dagenham, &c. In Romford church are registered the deaths of his grandfather, sir Robert Quarles, and his two wives and daughters, and James Quarles, his father, who died Nov. 16, 1642. He was clerk of the green cloth, and purveyor of the navy, to queen Elizabeth. Our poet was educated at Christ’s cbllege, Cambridge, and Lincoln’s-inn, London. His destination seems to have been to public life, for we are told he was preferred to the place of cup-bearer to Elizabeth, daughter of James 1. electress palatine and queen of Bohemia; but quitted her service, very probably upon the ruin of the elector’s affairs, and went over to Ireland, where he became secretary to archbishop Usher. Upon the breaking out of the rebellion in that kingdom, in 1641, he suffered greatly in his fortune, and was obliged to fly for safety to England. But here he did not meet with the quiet he expected; for a piece of his, styled “The Royal Convert,” having given offence to the prevailing powers, they took occasion from that, and from his repairing to Charles I. at Oxford, to hurt him as much as possible in his estates. But we are told, that what he took most to heart was, being plundered of his books, and some manuscripts which he had prepared for the press. The loss of these is supposed to have hastened his death, which happened Sept. 8, 1644, when he was buried in the church of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, London. Quarles was also chronologer to the city of London. What the duties of this place were, which is now abolished, we know not but his wife Ursula, who prefixed a short life of him to one of his pieces, says that “he held this place till his death, and would have given that city (and the world) a testimony that he was their faithful servant therein, if it had pleased God to blesse him with life to perfect what he had begun.” Mr. Headley observes, that Mr. Walpole and Mr. Granger have asserted, that he had a pension from Charles I. though they produce no authority and he thinks this not improbable, as the king had taste to discover merit, and generosity to reward it. Pope, however, asserted the same thing, and probably had authority for it, although he did not think it necessary to quote it:

, a celebrated French ecclesiastic, was born July 14, 1634, at Paris. He entered the congregation of the Oratory, Nov. 17, 1657, and devoted himself wholly to the study of Scripture, and the Fathers, and the composition of works of piety. When scarcely twenty-eight, he was appointed first director of the Institution of his order, at Paris, under father Jourdain; and began, in that house, his famous book of “Moral Reflections” on each verse of the New Testament, for the use of young pupils of the Oratory. This work originallyconsisted only of some devout meditations on our Saviour’s words; but M. de Lomenie, who, from being minister and secretary of state, had entered the Oratory, the marquis de Laigue, and other pious persons, being pleased with this beginning, requested father Quesnel to make similar reflections on every part of the four Gospels. Having complied, M. de Laigue mentioned the book to Felix de Vialart, bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne and that prelate, who was. much celebrated for his piety, adopted the work in his diocese, and recommended the reading- of it by a mandate of November 9, 1671, after having had it printed at Paris by Pralard the same year, with consent of the archbishop Harlai, the royal privilege, and the approbation of the doctors. Father Quesnel afterwards assisted in a new edition of St. Leo’s works. When De Harlai banished father De Sainte Marthe, general of the Oratory, he obliged father Quesnel, who was much attached to him, to retire to Orleans 1681. The general assembly of the Oratory having ordered, in 1684, the signature of a form of doctrine, drawn up in 1678, respecting various points of philosophy and theology, father Quesnel refused to sign it, and withdrew into the Spanish Netherlands, in February 1685. He took advantage of the absurd mixture of philosophy and theology introduced into this form. After this he went to M. Arnauld at Brussels, residing with him till his death, and there finished the “Moral Reflections” on the whole New Testament; which, thus completed, was first published in 1693 and 1694, and approved in 1695, by cardinal de Noailles, then bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne, who recommended it by a mandate to his clergy and people. When the same prelate became archbishop of Paris, he employed some divines to examine these “Reflections” carefully and it was after this revisal that they were published at Paris, 1699. This edition is more ample than any other. The celebrated archbishop of Meaux was also engaged on the subject; and “The Justification of the Moral Reflections, against the Problem,” appeared under his name 1710. The famous Case of Conscience gave occasion for renewing the disputes about the signature of the Formulary, and the subject of Grace. Father Quesnel was arrested at Brussels, May 30, 1703, by order of the archbishop of Malines, and committed to prison but Don Livio, a young Spaniard, employed by the marquis d'Aremberg, released him September 13th following, and he remained concealed at Brussels till October 2; then quitted that place for Holland, where, arriving in April 1704, he published several pieces against the archbishop of Malines, who condemned him by a sentence dated November 10, 1704. This sentence father Quesnel attacked, and wrote in 1705 two tracts to prove it null one entitled, “Idee generale du Libelle, public en Latin,” &c. the other, “Anatomic de la Sentence de M. l'Archeveque de Malines.” Several pieces appeared, soon after, against the book of “Moral Reflections” two had been published before one entitled, “Le Pere Quesnel heretique” the other, “Le Pere Quesnel Seditieux.” These publications induced pope Clement XI. to condemn it altogether, by a decree of July 15, 1708; but this decree did not appease the contest, and father Quesnel refuted it with great warmth, 1709, in a work entitled “Entretiens sur le Décret de Rome, contre le Nouveau Testament de Chalons, accompagne de reflexions morales.” In the mean time, the bishops of Lucon, la Rochelle, and Gap, condemned his book by mandates, which were to be followed and supported by a letter addressed to the king, and signed by the greatest part of the French bishops. This was sent to them, ready drawn p but the plan was partly defeated for a packet intended by the abbe Bochart de Saron for the bishop of Clement, his uncle, and which contained a copy of the letter to the king, fell into the hands of cardinal de Noailles, and much contusion ensued. At length, the disputes on this subject still continuing, pope Clement XL at the solicitation of Louis XIV. published, September 8, 1713, the celebrated bull beginning with the words, “Unigenitus Dei Filius,” by which he condemned father Quesnel’s book, with 101 propositions extracted from it, and every thing that had been written, or that should be written, in its defence. This bull was received by the assembly of the French clergy, and registered in parliament, in 17 14, with modifications. Cardinal de Noailles, however, and seven other prelates refused, and lettres de cachet were issued by Louis XIV. against them but after his decease, the cardinal and several other bishops appealed from the bull to a general council, all which proceedings produced disputes in the French church that lasted nearly to the time of the revolution.

, a celebrated archbishop of Mentz, and one of the most learned divines in the ninth century, was born in the year 785 at Mentz, or rather at Fulda, and descended from one of the most noble families in that country. Mackenzie, however, has inserted him among his Scotch writers, but without much apparent authority. The parents of Rabanus sent him, at ten years old, to the monastery of Fulda, where he was instructed in learning and virtue, and afterwards studied underthe famous Alcuinus, at Tours. In this situation he made so rapid a progress, as to acquire great reputation from his writings at the age of thirty. On his return to Fulda he was chosen abbot there, and reconciled the emperor Louis le Débonnaire to his children. Rabanus wrote a letter of consolation to this prince when unjustly deposed, and published a tract on the respect due from children to their parents, and from subjects to their princes, which may be found in “Marca de Concordiâ,” published by Baluze. He succeeded Orgar, archbishop o Mentz, in the year 847, but was so much a bigot, as to procure the condemnation of Godeschalc. He died at his estate of Winsel, in the year 856, aged sixty-eight, after having bequeathed his library to the abbeys of Fulda and St. Alban’s, leaving a great number of works printed at Cologn, 1627, 6 vols. in 3 folio. The principal are, 1. “Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures,” the greatest part of which are mere extracts from the fathers, as was the usual method among commentators in his time. 2. A poem in honour of the holy cross, of which there is a neat edition printed at Augsburg, 1605, in folio; but the most rare is that printed at Phorcheim, in ædibus Thomæ Anselim, 1503, curiously ornamented. Of the frontispiece the first figure is that of Albinus, abbot of Fulda, who presents Rabanus to the pope, with a poetical piece entitled “Intercessio Albini;” Rabanus appears next, presenting his book to the pope, with a poetical piece, entitled “Commendatio Papæ,” Then follows a kind of dedication to the emperor Louis le Débonnaire, who is delineated on this dedication holding a shield in one hand, and a cross in the other, his head surrounded with glory all the letters comprised in these ornamented lines, form a discourse foreign to the dedication. The poem is in the same style on each of the 28 pages of which it consists, are figures of the cross, stars, cherubim, seraphim, &c. The last represents a cross, with the author adoring it; the letters comprised in this cross form various pious exclamations. 3. A treatise on “the Instruction of the Clergy.” 4. A treatise on “the Ecclesiastical Calendar,” in which he points out the method of distinguishing the leap years, and marking the inductions. 5. A book “on the sight of God, purity of Jieart, and the manner of doing penance.” 6. A large work, entitled “De Universe, sive Etymologiarum Opus.” 7. “Homilies.” 8. “A Martyrology,” &c. But a treatise on “Vices and Virtues,” which is attributed to Rabanus Maurus, was written by Halitgarius bishop of Orleans. His treatise “against the Jews,” may be found in Martenne’s “Thesaurus;” and some other small tracts in the “Miscellanea” of Baluze, and Father Sirmond’s works. Rabanus was unquestionably one of the most learned men of his age, and his character in this respect has been highly extolled both by Dupin and Mosheim.

, a French ecclesiastical historian, was born November 25, 1708, at Chauny. He completed his studies at the Mazarine college at Paris, where he acquired great skill in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and ecclesiastical history, and was sent for by M. de la Croix-Castries, archbishop of Albi, in 1729, to re-establish the college at Rabastens. Here he remained two years, and under his care the college became flourishing but, being afterwards banished by the intrigues of the Jesuits, for his attachment to the anti-constitutionists, retired to M. Colbert at Montpellier, who employed him in superintending the college of Lunel. This situation he privately quitted in a short time, to avoid some rigorous orders and, going to Paris, undertook the education of some young men at the college of Harcourt but this place too he was obliged to quit in 1734, by cardinal Fleury’s order; from which time he lived sequestered from the world, wholly occupied in his retreat in study and devotion. M. de Caylus, bishop of Auxerre, being determined to attach M.Racine to himself, gave him a canonryat Auxerre, and admitted him to sacred orders, all which, however, occasioned no change in. his way of life. He died at Paris, worn out by application, May 15, 1755, aged 47, and was buried at St. Severin. His principal works are, four tracts relative to the dispute which had arisen concerning “Fear and Confidence,” written with so much moderation, that they pleased all parties; and an “Abridgment of Ecclesiastical History,” 13 vols. 12mo and 4to. This work has been extremely admired, particularly by the opponents of the bull Unigenitus, and of the Jesuits, who are treated in it with great severity, as they had been the cause of all his troubles. He intended to have continued his Abridgment down to the year 1750 at least, had he lived longer; and a history of the first 33 years of the eighteenth century has been published by one of his friends, 2 vols. 12mo; and some Reflections, by M. Racine, on Ecclesiastical History, have also appeared, 2 vols. 12mo, which are a summary of his Abridgment.

, a pious and exemplary bishop of Carlisle, was born April 20, 1608, at Bliton, a village in Lincolnshire near Gainsborough. His father, Thomas, was at this time rector of Bliton, and afterwards of Wintringham in the same county; both which preferments he owed to the Wrays of Glentworth. He married Rebecca Allen, daughter of the rev. David Allen, rector of Ludbrough, a very learned lady, who had been successfully taught Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, by her father. Under such parents he had the advantage of a religious as well as learned education. For the latter purpose he was sent first to Fillingham, and next, in 16 19, to the public school of Gainsborough, whence, in April 1620, he was removed to Peterborough in Northamptonshire, and put under the tuition of Dr. John Williams, afterwards archbishop of York, but then a prebendary of Peterborough, and a good friend of old Mr. Rainbow. In order to have the farther advantage of this gentleman’s protection, he was sent, in June 1621, to Westminster school, Dr. Williams being then dean of Westminster. In all these places his progress was marked by great diligence and proficiency in his studies, and a conduct which did credit to the instructions of his parents.

In 1603, when the Hampton-court conference took place, we find him ranged on the puritan side; on this occasion, he was their spokesman, and it may therefore be necessary to give some account of what he proposed, as this will enable the reader in some measure to determine how far the puritans of the following reign can claim him as their ancestor. At this conference, he proposed, 1. “That the Doctrine of the Church might be preserved in purity, according to God’s word.” 2. “That good Pastors might be planted in all churches to preach the same.” 3. “That the Church*government might be sincerely ministred according to God’s word.” 4. “That the book of Common Prayer might be fitted to the more increase of Piety.” With regard to the first he moved his majesty, that the book of “Articles of Religion” concluded in 1562, might be explained in places obscure, and enlarged where some things were defective. For example, whereas Art. 16, the words are these, “After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from Grace;” notwithstanding the meaning may be sound, yet he desired, that because they may seem to be contrary to the doctrine of God’s Predestination and Election in the 17th Article, both these words might be explained with this or the like addition, “yet neither totally nor finally v and also that the nine assertions orthodoxall, as he termed them, i. e. the Lambeth articles, might be inserted into that book of articles. Secondly, where it is said in the 23d Article, that it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of preaching or administering the Sacraments” in the. congregation,“before he be. lawfully called, Dr. Rainolds took exception to these words,” in the congregation,“as implying a lawfulness for any whatsoever, * 4 out of the congregation,” to preach and administer the Sacraments, though he had no lawful calling thereunto. Thirdly, in the 25th Article, these words touching “Confirmation, grown partly of the corrupt following the Apostles,” being opposite to those in the collect of Confirmation in the Communion-book, “upon whom after the example of the Apostles,” argue, said he, a contrariety each to other; the first confessing confirmation to be a depraved imitation of the Apostles; the second grounding it upon their example, Acts viii. 19, as if the bishop by confirming of children, did by imposing of hands, as the Apostles in those places, give the visible Graces of the Holy Ghost. And therefore he desired, that both the contradiction might be considered, and this ground of Confirmation examined. Dr. Rainolds afterwards objected to a defect in the 37th Article, wherein, he said, these words, “The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this land,” were not sufficient, unless it were added, “nor ought to have.” He next moved, that this proposition, “the intention of the minister is not of the essence of the Sacrament,” might be added to the book of Articles, the rather because some in England had preached it to be essential. And here again he repeated his request concerning the nine “orthodoxall assertions” concluded at Lambeth. He then complained, that the Catechism in the Common-Prayer-book was too brief; for which/reason one by Nowel, late dean of St. Paul’s, was added, and that too long for young novices to learn by heart. He requested, therefore, that one uniform Catechism might be made, which, and none other, might be generally received. He next took notice of the profanation of the Sabbath, and the contempt of his majesty’s proclamation for reforming that abuse; and desired some stronger remedy might be applied. His next request was for a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. were corrupt and not answerable to the original of which he gave three instances. He then desired his majesty, that unlawful and seditious books might be suppressed, at least restrained, and imparted to a few. He proceeded now to the second point, and desired that learned ministers might be planted in every parish. He next went on to the fourth point relating to the Common -Prayer, and jcomplained of the imposing Subscription, since it was a great impediment to a learned ministry; and in treated, that “it might not be exacted as formerly, for which many good men were kept ont, others removed, and many disquieted. To subscribe according to the statutes of the realm, namely, to the articles of religion, and the king’s supremacy, they were not unwilling. Their reason of their backwardness to subscribe otherwise was, first, the books Apocryphal, which the Common-Prayer enjoined to be read in the church, albeit there are, in some of those chapters appointed, manifest errors, directly repugnant to tjie scriptures. . The next scruple against subscription was, that in the Common-Prayer it is twice set down, ‘Jesus said to his Disciples,’ when as by the text original it is plain, that he spake to the Pharisees. The third objection against subscription were ‘ Interrogatories in Baptism,’ propounded to infants.” Dr. Rainolds owned “the use of the Cross to have been ever since the Apostles time; but this was the difficulty, to prove it of that ancient use in Baptism.” He afterwards took exceptions at those words in the Office of Matrimony, “With my body I thee worship” and objected against the churching of women by the name of Purification. Under the third general head touching Discipline he took exception to the committing of ecclesiastical censures to lay-chancellors. “His reason was, that the statute made in king Henry’s time for their authority that way was abrogated in queen Mary’s time, and not revived in the late queen’s days, and abridged by the bishops themselves, 1571, ordering that the said lay-chancellors should not excommunicate in matters of correction, and anno 1584 and 1589, not in matters of instance, but to be done only by them, who had the power of the keys.” He then desired, that according to certain provincial constitutions, they of the clergy might have meetings once every three weeks first, in rural deaneries, and therein to have the liberty of prophesying, according as archbishop Grindal and other bishops desired of her late majesty. Secondly, that such things, as could not be resolved upon there, might be referred from thence to the episcopal synods, where the bishop with his Presbyteri should determine all such points as before could not be decided. Notwithstanding our author’s conduct at this conference, Dr. Simon Patrick observes, that he professed himself a conformist to the church of England, and died so. He remarks, that Dr. Richard Crakanthorp tells the archbishop of Spalato, that the doctor was no Puritan (as the archbishop called him). “For, first, be professed, that he appeared unwillingly in the cause at Hampton-court, and merely in obedience to the king’s command. And then he spoke not one word there against the hierarchy. Nay, he acknowledged it to be consonant to the word of God in his conference with Hart. And in an answer to Sanders’ s book of the ‘ Schism of England 7 (which is in the archbishop’s library) he professes, that he approves of the book of * consecrating and ordering bishops, priests, and deacons.’ He was also a strict observer of all the orders of the church and university both in public and his own college; wearing tbte square cap and surplice, kneeling at the Sacrament, and he himself commemorating their benefactors at the times their statutes appointed, and reading that chapter of Ecclesiasticus, which is on such occasions used. In a letter also of his to archbishop Bancroft (then in Dr. Crakanthorp’s hands), he professes himself conformable to the church of England, ‘ willingly and from his heart,’ his conscience admonishing him so to be. And thus he remained persuaded to his last breath, desiring to receive absolution according to the manner prescribed in our liturgy, when he lay on his death-bed which he did from Dr. Holland, the king’s professor in Oxford, kissing his hand in token of his love and joy, and within a few hours after resigned up his soul to God.”

, frequently styled the Chevalier Ramsay, a title by which he frequently signed his letters, was a Scotsman of an ancient family, and was born at Ayr in that kingdom, June 9, 1636. He received the first part of his education at Ayr, and was then removed to Edinburgh; where, distinguishing himself by good parts and uncommon proficiency, he was sent for to St. Andrew’s, in order to attend a son of the earl of Wemyss in that university. After this, he travelled to Holland, and went to Leyden; where, becoming acquainted with Poiret, the mystic divine, he became tinctured with his doctrines; and resolved, for farther satisfaction, to consult the celebrated Fenelon, archbishop of Camhray, who had long imbibed the fundamental principles of that theology. Before he left Scotland, he had conceived a disgust to all the forms of religion in his native country, and had settled in a species of deism, which became confirmed during his abode in Holland, yet not without leaving him sometimes in a considerable state of perplexity. On his arrival at Cambray in 1710, he was received with great kindness by the archbishop, who took him into his family, heard with patience and attention the history of his religious principles, entered heartily with him into a discussion of them, and, in six months’ time, is said to have ^made him as good a catholic as himself.

, the celebrated abbe and reformer of the monastery of La Trappe, was born January 9, 1626, at Paris. He was nephew of Claudius le Bouthillier de Chavigny, secretary of state, and superintendant of the finances. In classical learning he made so rapid a progress that, with some direction from his tutor, he published, at the age of twelve or thirteen years, a new edition of “Anacreon,” in Greek, with notes, 1639, 8vo. This curious volume, which was dedicated to his godfather Cardinal Richelieu, was reprinted in 1647, and both editions are now scarce. At ten years old, according to the absurd custom then prevalent, he was appointed canon of Notre Dame in Paris, and became possessed of several benefices in a short time. He afterwards took a doctor of divinity’s degree in the Sorbonne, February 10, 1654, and appearing then in a public character, soon became distinguished not only for taste and politeness, but for those amiable qualifications which are of use in society. He was not however without his frailties, and it is said that he refused the bishopric of Leon from a motive of vanity. He was then appointed almoner to the duke of Orleans, and made a shining figure in the assembly of the clergy in 1655, as deputy from the second order. At length becoming conscious how little splendour and preeminence avail to happiness, he bad adieu to all, and devoted his days to religious exercises. It has been said, that this resolution was the consequence of a visit he paid to a favourite lady, from whom he had been absent for some time, and whom on entering her apartment he found dead in her coffin, and frightfully disfigured with the smallpox. This anecdote is taken from “Les veritables Motifs de la Conversion de l'abbé de la Trappe,” published by Daniel de la Roque, Cologn, 1685, 12mo; but some of his biographers treat it as fabulous. One of them, Marsollier, with greater appearance of probability, attributes his conversion to his having narrowly escaped being killed by the ball of a firelock, which struck his gibeciere, or pouch, on which he immediately exclaimed, “Alas! where should I have been, had not my God had compassion on me.” Whichever of these incidents was the cause, it is certain that he retired from the world, and refused even to be assistant to his uncle, who was archbishop of Tours. He then founded a monastery, the fraternity belonging to which practise the utmost self-denial. Their diet is merely vegetable. They allow not themselves wine, flesh, fish, nor eggs; they enter into no conversation with strangers, and for some days are wholly silent. They have each a separate cell, and used to pass some part of every day in digging their own graves in the garden of the convent. De Ranee placed this new establishment of the monks of La Trappe in the hands of the fathers of the strict Cistertian observance. He also sold his estate at Veret for 100,000 crowns, which sum he gave to the H6tel Dieu at Paris, and took the monastic habit in the abbey of Notre Dame de Perseigne, where he made profession, June 6,1664. He afterwards took possession of the abbey de la Trappe, and introduced those regulations above mentioned, which long made it the admiration of all travellers. In this retreat he lived devoted to his austere observances, until 1695, when he died on his straw pallet, in presence of the bishop of Seez, and the whole community, October 26, 1700, aged 74, leaving many pious works; among which the principal are, a book “de la Saintété des Devoirs de l'Etat monastique,” 1683, 2 vols. 4to “Eclaircissemens sur ce Livre,” 1685, 4to; “Explication sur la Regie de S. BenoSt,” 12mo; “lieflexions morales sur les quatre Evangiies,” 4 vols. 12mo; “Conferences sur les Evangiies,” 4 vols. 12mo “Instructions et Maximes,” 12mo; “Concluite Chretienue,” written for Mad. de Guise, 12mo; a greafnumber of “Spiritual Letters,” 2 vols. 12 mo; “Accounts of the Lives and Deaths of some Monks of la Trappe,” 4 vols. 12tno, continued to 6 vols.; lastly, “The Constitutions and Rules of the Abbe of la Trappe,” 1701, 2 vols. 12mo. His life has been written by several Romish authors, particularly by M. de Maupeou, M, Marsollier, and Le Nain, brother of M. de Tillemont, 2 vols. 12mo.

About this time several bold and artful attacks were made upon the Christian religion, which drew forth many able answers from the divines of the church of England. Amongst other works published in favour of deism and infidelity, was that entitled “Christianity not founded on Argument;” which, from the singularity of its positions, attracted much notice. Dr. Randolph was encouraged by his patron, archbishop Potter, to try his strength ill controversy in answer to this plausible writer; nor was the archbishop disappointed in the hopes he might form: Dr. Randolph’s answer, entitled “The Christian’s Faith a rational assent,” 1744, was considered as a truly valuable acquisition, and met with a most favourable reception.

The archbishop, still continuing his patronage to Dr. Randolph, collated him, in 1746, to the rectory of Saltwood, with the chapel of Hythe annexed; his residence, however, still continued at Perham, until he was elected, without his knowledge, or any communication with th e electors, to be president of Corpus Christ! college. This election, which took place April 23, 1748, enabled him to devote the remainder of his life to the place of his education, and the scene of his growing reputation. Oxford became now the principal place of his residence; and the government of his college, and a share in that of the university, his chief employment and concern. Yet having naturally an active mind, and being ever vigilant and attentive to all the duties of his station, much of his time was still devoted to religious studies, which he considered as included in the proper duties of his station, and as their highest aim. Many of his sermons preached before the university were printed by request, and his larger work upon “The Doctrine of the Trinity,” in answer to “The Essay on Spirit,” was published in 1753, and 1754. From 1756 to 1759 he held the office of vice-chancellor, in which he was allowed on all hands to have conducted himself with temper and ability, at a time when disputes ran high, and the business of the university was more than common; the Vinerian statutes having been settled, and the delegacy of the press reformed, during that period. These several labours were so well received by the university, that in 1768 he was unanimously elected to the Margaret professorship of divinity on the death of Dr. Jenner. In the preceding year he had been promoted to the archdeaconry of Oxford on the resignation of Dr. Potter: which promotion took place by the recommendation of archbishop Seeker, accepted and confirmed by bishop Lowth, then bishop of Oxford; and may be 'considered as a testimony borne by those eminent prelates to his merit and character. From this time to that of his death he was again frequently engaged in controversy. The questions now agitated were chiefly, that of subscription to articles of faith, and that of the doctrine of the Trinity revived by Mr. Lindsey, and his followers. On these he published several tracts, and also occasionally gave his assistance to others engaged in the same cause. Bodily infirmities he was subject to for many years before his death, but the faculties of his mind were sound and unimpaired to the very last. Within the last year of his life he finished and published a work, which he had prepared some time before, on the “Citations from the Old Testament in the New.” Repeated attacks at length brought him to a state of weakness, under which he laboured for three months, and died March 24, 17 S3. He was buried in Corpus Christi cloister, where a monument is erected to his memory.

, a learned orientalist, was born at Berlin, in 1613, and alter studying for eight years at Rostock and other foreign schools, he came to Oxford in 1638, about which time he addressed a letter to archbishop Usher, who, conceiving a high opinion of him, gave him an invitation to Dublin, with offers of preferment. In the mean time becoming likewise known to Grotius, the latter, unknown to archbishop Usher, introduced him to cardinal Richelieu, who offered to employ him as his agent in the east. Ravins, however, pleaded his pre-engagement to the English nation, and especially to Usher; and the cardinal, with great liberality, admitted his motive, and dismissed him with a handsome present. He then, under the patronage of Usher, began his travels in the East, but fortunately for himself, arrived at Constantinople with a strong recommendation from archbishop Laud; for, according to Dr. Pocock’s account, who was then in that city, Ravius “came thither, without either cloaths befitting him (of which he said he had been robbed in France) or money, or letters of credit to any merchant. He had letters of recommendation from some of the states to the Dutch ambassador, who was departed before his arrival. Sir Sackville Crow, the English ambassador, finding that he brought the archbishop’s recommendation, generously took him into his house and protection, and gave him all due furtherance; requiring of him that, if occasion so present itself, England may enjoy the benefit of what time he shall here employ in the study of the eastern tongues. His desire,” Dr. Pocock adds, “seems to be, to be employed in setting forth books in the Arabic language, and to be overseer of the press in that kind, for which he would be very fitting.”

In 1639, archbishop Usher wrote a Latin letter to him, with a promise of <24. a-year towards his support and on his return with a large treasure of Mss. to the number of three hundred, Usher rewarded and supported him with great liberality. Ravius now settled in England, and in 1642 resided at Gresham college, and afterwards at London house, Aldersgate-street, and in both places taught the Eastern languages. During the following year he went to Holland, and was appointed professor of the oriental languages at Utrecht, which has procured him a place among the learned men of Utrecht in Burman’s “Trajectum Eruditum.” In 1648, we find him again in England, where, in compliance with the ruling powers, he took the covenant, and even became a rival to Dr. Pocock in the Arabic professorship, but failed in this design. He then went to Sweden, and became professor of oriental literature at Upsal; but a large family and the scanty salary of his professorship obliged him to go to Kiel in Germany, where he lived comfortably until his death in 1677.

, an eminent antiquary, and great benefactor to the university of Oxford, was the fourth son of sir Thomas; and was educated at St. John’s college, Oxford, where he was admitted gentleman commoner, and proceeded M. A. and grand cornpounder in 1713, and was admitted to the degree of doctor of civil law by diploma in 1719. He was F. R. S. and became F. S. A. May 10, 1727. He was greatly accessary to the bringing to light many descriptions of counties; and, intending one of Oxfordshire, had collected materials from Wood’s papers, &c. had many plates engraved, and circulated printed queries, but received accounts only of two parishes, which in some degree answered the design, and encouraged him to pursue it. In this work were to be included the antiquities of the city of Oxford, which Wood promised when the English copy of his “Historia & Antiquitates Oxon.” was t.o be published, and which have since been faithfully transcribed from his papers, by Mr. Gutch, and much enlarged and corrected from ancient original authorities. All Dr. Rawlinson’s collections for the county, chiefly culled from Wood, or picked up from information, and disposed b,y hundreds in separate books, in each of which several parishes are omitted, would make but one 8vo volume. But he made large collections for the continuation of Wood’s “Athena Oxonienses” and “History of Oxfor.d,” and for an account of “Non-compilers” at the Revolution which, together with some collections of Hearne’s, and note-books of his own travels, he bequeathed by his will to the university of Oxford. The Life of Mr. Anthony Wood, historiographer of the most famous university of Oxford, with an account of his nativity, education, works, &c. collected and composed from Mss. by Richard Rawlinson, gent, commoner of St. John’s college, Oxon. was printed at London in 1711. A copy of this life, with ms additions by the author, is in the Bodleian library. He published proposals for an “History of Eton College,” 1717; and, in 1728, “Petri Abselardi Abbatis Ruyensis & Heloissae Abbatissae Paracletensis Epistolae,” 8vo, dedicated to Dr, Mead. The books, the publication of which he promoted, are supposed to be the “History and Antiquities of Winchester,” 1715, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Hereford,” 1717, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Rochester,” 1717, 1723, 8vp. “Inscriptions on tombs in Bunhill-fields,” 1717, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of the Churches of Salisbury and Bath,” 1719, 1723, 8vo. “Aubrey’s History of Surrey,” 1719, 5 vols. 8vo. “Norden’s Delineation of Northamptonshire,” 1720, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Glastonbury,” Oxford, 1722, 8vo. In 1728, he translated and printed Fresnoy’s “New Method of studying History, with a Catalogue of the chief Historians,” 2 vols. 8vo. But his principal work was “The English Topographer, or, an Historical Account of all the Pieces that have been written relating to the antient Natural History or Topographical Description of any Part of England,” 1720, 8vo, the plan of which has been so much augmented and improved in Mr. Cough’s two editions of the “British Topography.” In 1750, he gave, by indenture, the yearly sum of 87l. 165. Sd. being the rents and profits of various estates which he inherited under the will of his grandfather Daniel Rawlinson to the university of Oxford, for the maintenance and support of an Anglo-Saxon lecture or professorship for ever. To the Society of Antiquaries, he gave, by will, a small freehold and copyhold estate at FulEam, on condition that they did not, upon any terms, or by any stratagem, art, means, or contrivance howsoever, increase or add to their (then) number of 150 members, honorary members only excepted. He also made them a considerable bequest of dies and matrices of English seals and medals, all his collection of seals , charters, drawings by Vertue and other artists, and other antiquities ten walnut-tree book-cases, which had been given to his late brother Thomas by the then earl of Pembroke, and four mahogany presses, all marked P, all his English prints of which they had not duplicates, and a quit-rent of 5L per annum, in Norfolk, for a good medal for the best description on any English, Saxon, Roman, or Greek, coin, or other antiquity not before treated of or in print; but, resenting some supposed want of deference to his singularities and dictatorial spirit, and some reflections on his own and his friend’s honour, in an imputation of libelling the Society in the public papers, he, by a codicil made and signed at their house in Chancery lane, revoked the whole, and excluded all fellows of this or the Royal Society from any benefit from his benefactions at Oxford, which, besides his Anglo-Saxon endowment, were extremely considerable; including, besides a number of books with and without ms notes, all his seals, English and foreign, his antique marbles, and other curiosities; his copper-plates relative to several counties, his ancient Greek and Roman coins and medals, part of his collection of English medals, his series of medals of Louis XIV. and XV. a series of medals of the popes, which Dr. Rawlinson supposed to be one of the most complete collections in Europe; and a great number of valuable Mss. which he ordered to be safely locked up, and not to be opened till seven years after his decease . His music, ms. and printed, he gave to the music-school at Oxford. He died at Islington, April 6, 1755 and in the same year was printed “The Deed of Trust and Will of Richard Rawlinson, of St. John the Baptist college, Oxford, doctor of laws concerning his endowment of an Anglo-Saxon lecture, and other benefactions to the college and university.” He left to Hertford college the estate in F-ulham before mentioned, and to the college of St. John the Baptist the bulk of his estate, amounting to near 700l. a year, a plate of archbishop Laud, thirty-one volumes of parliamentary journals and debates; a set of the “Fo?dera,” all his Greek, Roman, and English, coins not given to the BocU leian library, all his plates engraved at the expence of the Society of Antiquaries, with the annuity for the prizemedal, and another to the best orator. The produce of certain rents bequeathed to St. John’s college was, after 40 years’ accumulation, to be laid out in purchase of an estate, whose profits were to be a salary to a keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, being a master of arts, or bachelor Ib civil law; and all legacies refused by the university or others, to center in this college. To the hospitals of Bridewell and Bethlehem, for the use of the incurables of the latter he left 200l. and ten guineas as an equivalent for the monthly coffee which he had received in Bethlehem common room: but, if they did not give up the picture of his father hanging in their hall, in order to its being put up in the Mansion-house, they were to forfeit the larger sum, and receive only the smaller. This picture, after it had hung up at the Mansion-house for some years, without any companion, in a forlorn, neglected state, and received considerable damage, the late sir Walter Rawlinson obtained leave of the court of aldermen (being then himself & member of that body, and president of those hospitals) to restore to Bridewell. It is one of sir Godfrey Kneller’s best performances, and well engraved by Vertue. Constanxine, another brother, is mentioned by Richard RawJinson’s will, as then residing at Venice, where he died in 1779. To him he gave the copper-plate of his father’s portrait, and all family-pictures, except his father’s portrait by Kneller, which was given to the Vintners’ company, of which his father was a member. He left him also his rents in Paul’s-head court, Fenchurch-street, jointly with his sisters, Mary Rawlinson, and Anne Andrews, for life. In the same will is mentioned another brother, John, to whom he left estates in Devonshire-street, London; and a nephew Thomas. To St. John’s college he bequeathed also his diploma, and his heart, which is placed in a beaur tiful marble urn against the chapel- wall, inscribed

, an English divine, was a native of Buckinghamshire, where he was born in 1588. He was admitted a student of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, in 1604. He took his degree of M. A. in 1610, and then entered himself a commoner of Alban-hall. In 1612 he was ordained deacon, and in 1614 priest, by the bishop of Oxford. About this time he became chaplain to Edward lord Zouch of Haringworth, warden of the cinque ports, and governor of Dover-castle. Having accompanied this nobleman to Dover, his preaching was so much admired, that at the request of the parishioners he was made minister of St. Mary’s, in December 1616. He was afterwards appointed chaplain in ordinary to Charles I. He was one of those doctrinal puritans, who opposed, as much as any churchman of opposite religious sentiments, the violent proceedings of the authors of the rebellion, and had exposed them so frequently in his sermons, that he was soon marked out for vengeance. In April 1612, his library at Dover was plundered, and in November following he was dragged from his house by the soldiers, and imprisoned for a year and seven months. In January of the above mentioned year, archbishop Laud, then a prisoner in the Tower, had, at his majesty’s request, bestowed on him the living of Chartham in Kent; but from that the usurping party took care he should receive no advantage. He was also with as little effect made a prebendary of Canterbury. In 1644, however, sir William Brockman gave him the living of Cheriton in Kent, which he was not only allowed to keep, but was likewise appointed by the assembly of divines, to be one of the nine divines who were to write annotations on the New Testament for the work afterwards published, and known by the title of the “Assembly’s Annotations.”

, a learned Benedictine, abbot of Prum towards the end of the ninth century, has left a good “Chronicle,” in the collection of German historians by Pistorius, 1583, 3 vols. folio, and a collection of canons and ecclesiastical rules, entitled, “De Disciplinis ecclesiasticis, et de Religione Christiana.” This last he compiled at the solicitation of Rathbode, archbishop of Treves, to which city he had retired, after being obliged to quit his abbey, in the year 899. M. Baluze has published an excellent edition of this collection, with notes, in 1671, 8vo. Regino died at Treves, in the year 915.

, a French philosopher, and great propagator of Cartesianism, was born in Agenois, in 1632. He cultivated the languages and philosophy under the Jesuits at Cahors, and afterwards divinity in the university of that town, being designed for the church. He made so uncommon a progress, that at the end of four years he was offered a doctor’s degree without the usual charges; but he did not think it became him to accept of it till he had studied also in the Sorbonne at Paris. He went thither, but was soon disgusted with theology; and, as the philosophy of Des Cartes was at that time drawing public attention, through the lectures of Rohault, he became attached to it, and went to Toulouse in 1665, where he read lectures on the subject. Having a clear and fluent manner, and a facility in making himself understood, he was honoured, as his auditors, by the magistrates, the learned, the ecclesiastics, and even the ladies, who all affected to abjure the ancient philosophy. In 1680, he returned to Paris; where the concourse about him was such, that the Aristotelians applied to the archbishop of Paris, who thought it expedient, in the name of the king, to put a stop to the lectures; and they were accordingly discontinued for several months. The whole life of Regis, however, was spent in propagating the new philosophy. In 1690, he published a formal system of it, containing logic, metaphysics, physics, and morals, in 3 vols. 4to, and written in French. It was reprinted, the year after, at Amsterdam, with the addition of a discourse upon ancient and modern philosophy. He wrote afterwards several pieces in defence of his system in which he had disputes with M. Huet, Du Hamel, Malebranche, and others. His works, though abounding with ingenuity and learning, have been disregarded in consequence of the great discoveries and advancement in philosophic knowledge that have been since made. He died in 1707. He had been chosen member of the academy of sciences in 1699.

, a celebrated archbishop of Lyons in the ninth century, and grand almoner to the emperor Lotharius, succeeded Amolo, in the above see, about the year 853 or 854. There being other prelates of this name, we find some confusion as to their actions and writings; but it is supposed to be this St. Remigius, who, in the name of the church of Lyons, wrote an answer to the three letters of Hincmar of Rheims, and others, in which he defends St. Augustine’s doctrine on grace and predestination, which he apprehended to have been at“tacked by the condemnation of Godescalc. This answer may be found in the” Vindiciae Predestinationis et Gratis,“1650, 2 vols. 4to, and in the Library of the Fathers; as also a translation by the same author,” On the condemnation of all men in Adam, and the deliverance of some by Jesus Christ.“He presided at the council of Valence in the year 855, and others of the same kind; and, after founding some pious institutions died Oct. 28, in the year 875. Others of his works are in the” Library of the Fathers."

, a very celebrated archbishop of Rheims, was born of an illustrious family, and heir to great wealth. He was raised to the see of Rheims about the year 460; distinguished himself by his learning and virtue, converted and baptised king Clovis, and died about January 23, in the year 533. Some Letters, and a Testament, in the library of the Fathers, and in Marlot’s History of Rheims, are attributed to him.

, ar celebrated cardinal, was born in 1613. He was a doctor of the Sorbonne, and afterwards coadjutor to his uncle the archbishop of Paris; and at length, after many intrigues, in which his restless and unbounded ambition engaged him, became a cardinal. This extraordinary man has drawn his own character in his Memoirs,- which are written in a very unequal manner, but are generally bold, free, animating, and pleasing, and give us a very lively representation of his conduct. He was a man who, from the greatest degree of debauchery, and still languishing under its consequences, preached to the people, and made himself adored by them. He breathed nothing but the spirit of faction and sedition. At the age of twenty-three, he had been at the head of a conspiracy against the life of cardinal Richelieu, It has been said that he was the first bishop who carried on a war without the mask of religion; but his schemes were so unsuccessful, that he was obliged to quit France. He then went into Spain and Italy, and assisted at the conclave at Rome, which raised Alexander VII. to the pontificate; but this pontiff not making good his promises to the cardinal, he left Italy, and went into Germany, Holland, and England. After having spent the life of an exile for five or six years, he obtained leave upon certain terms to return to his own country; which was the more safe, as his friend cardinal Mazarine died in 1661. He was afterwards at Rome, and assisted in the conclave which chose Clement IX.; but, upon his return to France, gave up all thoughts of public affairs, and died at Paris, Aug. 24, 1679. The latter part of his life is said to have been tranquil and exemplary. At this period he wrote his Memoirs, in which there is a considerable air of impartiality. In order to judge of this, however, the reader is advised to compare them with those of Claude Joli, his private secretary. Both works have been published in English, the former in 1774, 4 vols. the latter in 1775, 3 vols., 12fno. Some friends, nith whom the cardinal entrusted the original ms. fixed a mark on those passages, where they thought he had dishonoured himself, in order to have them omitted, as they were in the first edition; but they have since been restored. The best French editions of these Memoirs are those of Amsterdam, 1719, 7 vols. 12mo, and 1731, 4 vols. small 8vo. This cardinal was the author of other pieces; but these, being of a temporary kind, written as party pamphlets to serve particular purposes, are forgotten.

His works are, l. a very valuable edition of “Tertulliani Opera,” Basil, 1521, fol. from original Mss. Dupin speaks highly of the notes and prefaces, as well as of the author of them. 2. “Auctores historic Ecclesiasticae,” viz. Eusebius, Pamphilus, Nicephorus, Theodoret, &c. Basil, 1523, 1535, and Paris, 1541, 2 vols. fol. 3. “S. Basil. Sermo de differentia Usiaa et Hypostasis,” Paris, 1513, fol. 4. “Synopsis de laudibus Calvitii cum scholiis,” Basil, 1519, 4to, 1521 and 1551, 8vo, added also at the end of Erasmus’s “Moriae Encomium.” 5. “S. Gregorii Nanzianzeni oratio et Epistolae duae ad Themistium,” Paris, 1513,. fol. 6. “A Latin translation of the works of Origen,” which Erasmus left unfinished, and was completed by our author, at Basil, 1536, fol. with a preface addressed to Herman, archbishop of Cologne, containing a life of Erasmus. This last he also incorporated in the dedication to Charles V. of the edition of Erasmus’s works, printed at Basil in 1540. 7. “Maximus Tyrius,” Basil, 1519, fol. with Paccius’s translation, and a preface and corrections by Rhenanus. 8. “Baptista Guarinus de modo et ordine docendi ac discendi,” Strasburgh, 1514, 8vo. 9. “Marcelli Virgilii de militias laudibus,” &c. Basil, 1518, 4to. 10. “Luu. Bigi opusculorum metricorum libri, et Pontii Paulini carmen lambicum,” Strasburgh, 15C9, 4to. 11. “Thorns Mori epigrammata Latina, pleraque e Graecis versa, ad emendatum ipsius exemplar excusa,” Basil, 1520.

, archbishop of Armagh in the fourteenth century, called sometimes Armaciianus, and sometimes Fitz Ralph, which was his family name, is supposed to have been born in Devonshire, or, according to Harris, at Dunda'k, in the county of Louth. He was educated partly at University, and partly at Balliol, college, Oxford, under the tuition of John Baconthorp, whom we have already noticed as an eminent scholar of that age. He made great progress in philosophy, divinity, and civil law, and became so great a philosopher and logician, “and in both sorts of theology so famed, that the whole university ran to his lectures as bees to their hive.” He commenced doctor of divinity at Oxford, and in 1333 was commissary-general of that university, whence some authors have called him chancellor; but, according to Collier, the office he held was only somewhat superior to that of vice-chancellor. His first church promotion was to the chancellorship of the church of Lincoln, in July 1334; he was next made archdeacon of Chester in 1336, and dean of Lichfield in April 1337. These, or some f them, he owed to the favour of Edward III. to whom he was recommended as well deserving his patronage.

He died Nov. 16, 1360, at Avignon, not without suspicion of poison. Fox says that a certain cardinal, hearing of his death, declared openly, that a mighty pillar of Christ’s church was fallen. He was unquestionably a man. of great talents and sound judgment. Perhaps his best panegyric is his being ranked, by some catholic writers, among heretics. Archbishop Bramhall had so great an opinion of him, that in returning from a visitation by Dundalk, he made inquiry where he was buried, and determined to erect a monument to his memory, which it is supposed his death, which happened soon after, prevented. Richard’s body was brought over by Stephen de Valle, bishop of Meath, about 1370, and interred at Dundalk, where sir Thomas Ryves says there was a monument visible, although much defaced, in 1624.

His printed works are 1. “Sermonesquatuor, ad crucem Londinensem,” &c. Paris, 1612. 2. “Defensio curatorum adversus fratres mendicantes,” Paris, 1496. This was the substance of the defence of his principles at Avignon. Bale mentions the New Testament translated into Irish by Armachanus, which was found in the wall of his cathedral in 1530; but Fox, in his Martyrology, asserts that the whole Bible was translated into Irish by him, and preserved in the sixteenth century; and archbishop Usher says that there were several fragments of this translation in Ireland, in his time. Bale, &c. mention several Mss. left by him.

, John, a learned Irish prelate, was a native of Chester, but a doctor of divinity of the university of Dublin. Of his early life we have no particulars, except that he was appointed preacher to the state in 1601. He succeeded to the see of Ardagh, on the resignation of bishop Bedell, and was consecrated in 1633 by archbishop Usher. He held the archdeaconry of Derry, the rectory of Ardstra, and the vicarage of Granard in commendam for about a year after his promotion to Ardagh. In 1641, being in dread of the rebellion which broke out in October of that year, he removed to England, and died in London. August 11, 1654. He had the character of a man of profound learning, well versed in the scriptures, and skilled in sacred chronology. His works are, a “Sermon of the doctrine of Justification,” preached at Dublin Jan. 23, 1624, Dublin, 1625, 4to; and “Choice Observations and Explanations upon the Old Testament,” 1655, folio. These observations, which extend to all the books of the Old Testament, seem intended as a supplement to the “Assembly’s Annotations,” in which he wrote the annotations on Ezekiel; and they were prepared for publication by him some time before his death, at the express desire of archbishop Usher, with whom he appears to have long lived in intimacy.

In 1730 he published “The Usefulness and Necessity of Revelation; in four Sermons preached at St. Olave’s Southwark,” 8vo; and, in 1733, “Relative Holiness, a Sermon preached at the consecration of the parish church of St. John’s Southwark.” He next undertook, at the request of the bishops Gibson and Potter, to publish a new edition of “Godwin de Prassulibus.” On this he returned to Cambridge in 1734, for the convenience of the libraries and more easy communication with his learned contemporaries; and in 1735 proceeded D. D. After the death of Dr. Savage, he was chosen unanimously, and without his knowledge, master of Emanuel college, Aug. 10, 1736; a rare and almost unprecedented compliment to a man of letters, for he had never been fellow of the college. He served the office of vice-chancellor in 1738, and again in 1769. In 1746 he was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains, which he resigned in 1768. In 1743 he published at Cambridge his new edition of Godwin, in a splendid folio volume, with a continuation of the lives of the bishops to the time of publication; a work of unquestionable utility and accuracy. He was named in the will of archbishop Potter for an option, on condition that he cancelled a leaf of this work, relating to archbishop Tenison’s lukewarmness in the matter of the Prussian liturgy and bishops. Accordingly a new leaf was printed and sent to all the subscribers; “but,” in Mr. Cole’s opinion, “rather confirming the fact than disproving it.” Both the original and the substitute may be seen in the supplement to the old edition of the “Biographia Britannica,” art. Grabe, note, p. 78. The option, however, was not so easily obtained. It was the precentorship of Lincoln, and was contested by archbishop Potter’s chaplain, Dr. Chapman. The lord- keeper Henley gave it in favour of Chapman, but Dr. Richardson appealing to the House of Lords, the decree was unanimously reversed, and Dr. Richardson admitted into the precentorship in 1760. This affair appears to have been considered of importance. Warburton writes on it to his correspondent Hurd in approving terms. “I would not omit to give you the early news (in two words) that Dr. Richardson is come off victorious in the appeal. The precentorship of Lincoln is decreed for him; the keeper’s decree reversed with costs of suit. Lord Mansfield spoke admirably. It has been three days in trying.” Burn has inserted a full account of this cause in his “Ecclesiastical Law.”

, a learned French divine, was born September 30, 1560, at Chaource, in the diocese of Langres. He had been at first drawn into the party and sentiments of the Leaguers, and even ventured to defend James Clement, but soon hastened to acknowledge his legitimate sovereign, after having taken his doctor’s degree, 1590. Richer became grand master of the college of Le Moine, then syndic of the faculty of divinity at Paris, January 2, 1603, in which office he strenuously defended the ancient maxims of the doctors of this faculty, and opposed the thesis of a Dominican in 1611, who maintained the pope’s infallibility, and his superiority over the council. He published a small tract the same year, “On the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power,” 8vo, to establish the principles on which he asserted that the doctrine of the French church, and the Sorhonne, respecting papal authority, and the authority of the general council, were founded. This little book made much noise, and raised its author enemies in the Nuncio, and some doctors undertook to have him deposed from the syndicate, and his work condemned by the faculty of theology; but the parliament prohibited the faculty from interfering in that affair. In the mean time cardinal du Perron, archbishop of Sens, assembled eight bishops of his province at Paris, and made them censure Richer’s book, March 9, 1612. Richer entered an appeal (Comme tfabus) from this censure, to the parliament, and was admitted as an appellant; but the matter rested there. His book was also censured by the archbishop of Aix, and three bishops of his province, May 24, the same year, and he was proscribed and condemned at Rome. A profusion or pamphlets now appeared to refute him, and he received an express order from court, not to write in his defence. The animosity against Richer rose at length to such a height that his enemies obtained from the king and the queen regent letters, ordering the faculty to elect another syndic. Richer made his protestations, read a paper in his defence, and retired. A new syndic was chosen in 1612, and they have ever since been elected once in two years, although before that time their office was perpetual. Richer afterwards ceased to attend the meetings of the faculty, and confined himself to solitude, being wholly employed in study; but his enemies having involved him in several fresh troubles, he was seized, sent to the prisons of St. Victor, and would even have been delivered up to the pope, had no,t the parliament and chancellor of France prevented it, on complaints made by the university. He refused to attend the censure passed on the books of Anthony de Dominis in 1617, and published a declaration in 1620, at the solicitation of the court of Rome, protesting that he was ready to give an account of the propositions in his book “on the Ecclesiatical and Civil Power,” and explain them in an orthodox sense; and farther, that he submitted his work to the judgment of the Holy See, and of the Catholic church. He even published a second declaration; but all being insufficient to satisfy his adversaries, he was obliged to reprint his book in 1629, with the proofs of the propositions advanced in it, and the two declarations, to which cardinal Richelieu is said to have forced him to add a third. He died Nov. 28, 1631, in his seventy-second year. He was buried at the Sorbonne, where a mass used to be said annually for the repose of his soul. Besides his treatise on “Ecclesiastical Power,” reprinted with additions at Cologii in 1701, 2 vols. 4to, he was the author of a “History of general Councils,” 4 vols. 4to a “History of his Syndicate,” 8vo, and some other works, in which learning and great powers of reasoning are obvious. Baillet published a life of him in 12mo.

, an eminent English prelate, and martyr to the cause of the reformed religion, descended from an ancient family in Northumberland, was born early in the sixteenth century, in Tynedale, at a place called Wilmomswick in the above county. As he exhibited early proofs of good natural abilities, he was placed in a grammar-school at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in which he made such progress, that he was taken from thence and entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, about 15 18, when Luther was preaching against indulgences in Germany. His disposition was open and ingenuous, and his application to his studies unremitting both at school and university. He was taught Greek by Robert Crook, who had begun a course of that language at Cambridge. His religious sentiments were those of the Romish church in which he had been brought up, and in which he would probably be encouraged by his uncle, Dr. Robert Ridley, then fellow of Queen’s college. In 1522 he took the degree of B. A.; and to his knowledge of the learned languages, now added that of the philosophy and theology then in vogue. In 1524 his abilities were so generally acknowledged, that the master and fellows of University college, Oxford, invited him to accept of an exhibition there; but this he declined, and the same year was chosen fellow of his own college in Cambridge. Next year he took the degree of M. A. and in 1526 was appointed by the college their general agent in all causes belonging to the churches of Tilney, Soham, and Saxthorpe, belonging to Pembroke-hall. But as his studies were now directed to divinity, his uncle, at hjs own charge, sent him for farther improvement to the Sorbonne at Paris; and from thence to Louvain; continuing on the continent till 1529. In 1530, he was chosen junior treasurer of his college, and about this time appears to have been more than ordinarily intent on the study of the scriptures. For this purpose he used to walk in the orchard at Pembroke-hall, and there commit to memory almost all the epistles in Greek; which walk is still called Ridley’swaik. He also distinguished himself by his skill in disputation, but frequently upon frivolous questions, as was the custom of the time. In 1533 he was chosen senior proctor of the university, and while in that office, the important point of the pope’s supremacy came to be examined upon the authority of scripture. The decision of the university was, that “the bishop of Rome had no more authority and jurisdiction derived to him from God, in this kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop;” which was signed by the vicechancellor, and by Nicholas Ridley, and Richard Wilkes, proctors. In 1534, on the expiration of his proctorship, he took the degree of B. D. and was chosen chaplain of the university, and public reader, which archbishop Tenison calls pradicater publicus, and in the Pembroke ms. he is also called Magister Glonieriaf, which office is supposed to be that of university orator. In the year 1537 his great reputation as an excellent preacher, and his intimate acquaintance with the scriptures and fathers, occasioned Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, to invite him to his house, where he appointed him one of his chaplains, and admitted him into his confidence. As a farther mark of his esteem, he collated him, in April 1538, to the vicarage of Herne in Kent. Here he was diligent to instruct his charge in the pure doctrines of the gospel, as far as they were discovered to him, except in the point of transubstantiation, on which he had as yet received no light; and to enliven the devotion of his parishioners, he used to have the Te Deum sung in his parish church in English, which was afterwards urged in accusation against him.

At Canterbury he preached with so much zeal against the abuses of popery, as to provoke the other prebendaries, and preachers of what was called the old learning, to exhibit articles against him at the archbishop’s visitation in 1541, for preaching contrary to the statute of the six articles. The attempt, however, completely failed. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, next endeavoured to entrap him; and articles were exhibited against him before the justices of the peace in Kent, and afterwards before the king and council, which charged him with preaching against auricular confession, and with directing the Te Deum to be sung in English; but the accusation being referred to Craumer, by the king, that prelate immediately crushed it, much to the mortification of Dr. Ridley’s enemies.

In 1548, bishop Ridley appears to have been employed in compiling the common prayer, in conjunction with archbishop Cranmer, and others; and in 1549, he was put into commission, together with Cranmer and several pthers, to search after all anabaptists, heretics, and contemners of the common prayer. This produced the execution of Joan Bocher and another, of which we have already spoken in our account of Cranmer, vol. X. p. 473. In May of this year, he was one of a commission to visit Cambridge, and abolish the statutes and ordinances which maintained popery and superstition; but, finding that another more concealed object was the suppression of Clare-hall, and the incorporation of it with Trinity-hall, as a new college of civilians, he opposed it, and by his firmness prevented this act of injustice. Another part of the business of the commissioners was more agreeable to him: this was to preside at a public disputation relating to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, similar to one that had been held at Oxford a short time before. The decision on this occasion was against transubstantiation; and although Langdale, one of the disputants on the side of that doctrine, composed a pretended refutation of bishop Ridley’s determination, he did not venture to print it until 1558, when he was secure that Ridley could make no reply.

Soon after his promotion to the see of London, he was the person thought the fittest to reconcile Dr. Hooper, the bishop elect of Gloucester, to the vestments, against which the latter had conceived very strong prejudices. In June 1550 bishop Ridley visited his diocese, and directed that the altars should be taken down in the churches, and tables substituted in their room, for the celebration of the Lord’s supper; hi order to take away the false persuasion which the people had, of sacrifices to be offered upon altars. In 1551 the sweating sickness prevailed in London, and in the space of a few days carried off eight or nine hundred persons; but in the midst of the alarm which this necessarily occasioned, Ridley administered in the duties of his office, trusting himself entirely to the good providence of God for safety, in the danger to which he was every moment exposed; and he endeavoured, with all the zeal of an exemplary spiritual pastor, to improve the public calamity to the reformation of the manners of the people. To promote more generally a reformation in the doctrine of the church, the council, this year, appointed Cranmer and Ridley to prepare a book of articles of faith. With this view they drew up forty-two articles, and sent copies of them to the other bishops and learned divines, for their corrections and amendments; after which the archbishop reviewed them a second time, and then presented them to the council, where they received the royal sanction, and were published by the king’s authority.

, a learned divine, descended collaterally from the preceding bishop Ridley, was born at sea, in 1702, on-board the Gloucester East Indiaman, to which circumstance he was indebted for his Christian name. He received his education at Winchester-school, and thence was elected to a fellowship at New college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. C. L. April 29, 1729. In those two seminaries he cultivated an early acquaintance with the Muses, and laid the foundation of those elegant and solid acquirements for which he was afterwards so eminently distinguished as a poet, an historian, and a divine. During a vacancy in 1728, he joined with four friends, viz. Mr. Thomas Fletcher (afterwards bishop of Kildare), Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Eyre, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Jennens, in writing a tragedy, called “The Fruitless Redress,” each Undertaking an act, on a plan previously concerted. When they delivered in their several proportions, at their meeting in the winter, few readers, it is said, would have known that the whole was not the production of a single hand. This tragedy, which was offered to Mr. Wilks, but never acted, is still in ms. with another called “Jugurtha.” - Dr. Ridley in his youth was much addicted to theatrical performances. Midhurst, in Sussex, was the place where they were exhibited; and the company of gentlemen actors to which he belonged, consisted chiefly of his coadjutors in the tragedy already mentioned. He is said to have performed the characters of Marc Antony, Jaffier, Horatio, and Moneses, with distinguished applause. Young Gibber, being likewise a Wykehamist, called on Dr. Ridley soon after he had been appointed chaplain to the East India Company at Poplar, and would have persuaded him to quit the church for the stage, observing that “it usually paid the larger salaries of the two,” an advice which he had too much sense to follow. For great part of his life, he had no other preferment than the small college living of Weston, in Norfolk, and the donative of Poplar, in Middlesex, where he resided. To these his college added, some years after, the donative of Romfbrd, in Essex. “Between these two places the curricle of his life had,” as he expressed it, “rolled for some time almost perpetually upon post-chaise wheels, and left him not time for even the proper studies of ceconomy, or the necessary ones of his profession.” Yet in this obscure situation he remained in possession of, and content with, domestic happiness; and was honoured with the intimate friendship of some who were not less distinguished for learning than for worth: among these, it maybe sufficient to mention Dr. Lowth, Mr. Christopher Pitt, Mr. Spence, and Dr. Berriman. To the last of these he was curate and executor, and preached his funeral sermon. In 1740 and 1741, he preached “Eight Sermons at Lady Moyer’s lecture,” which were published in 1742, 8vo, and at different times, several occasional sermons. In 1756, he declined an offer of going to Ireland as first chaplain to the duke of Bedford; in return for which he was to have had the choice of promotion, either at Christ-church, Canterbury, Westminster, or Windsor. His modesty inducing him to leave the choice of these to hispatron, the consequence was, that he obtained none of them. In 1761 he published, in 4to, “De Syriacarum novi fcederis versionum indole atque usu, dissertatio,” occasioned by a Syriac version, which, with two others, were sent to him nearly thirty years before, by one Mr. Samuel Palmer from Amida, in Mesopotamia. His age and growing infirmities, the great expence of printing, and the want of a patron, prevented him from availing himself of these Mss.; yet at intervals he employed himself on a transcript, which being put into the hands of professor White, was published a few years ago, with a literal Latin translation, in 2 vols. 4to, at the expence of the delegates of the Clarendon press. In 1763 he published the “Life of bishop Ridley,” in quarto, by subscription, and cleared by it as much as brought him 800l. in the public funds. In this, which is the most useful of all his works, he proved himself worthy of the name he bore, a thorough master of the popish controversy, and an able advocate for the reformation. In 1765 he published his “Review of Philips’ s Life of Cardinal Pole” (see Philips); and in 17 6S, in reward for his labours in this controversy, and in another which “The Confessional” produced, he was presented by archbishop Seeker to a golden prebend in the cathedral church of Salisbury (an option), but it is probably a mistake that Seeker honoured him with the degree of D. D. that honour having been conferred upon him by the university of Oxford in 1767, by diploma, the highest mark of distinction they can confer. At length, worn out with infirmities, he departed this life in Nov. 1774, leaving a widow and four daughters. An elegant epitaph, written by Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, is inscribed upon his monument. Two poems by Dr. Ridley, one styled “Jovi Eleutherio, or an Offering to Liberty,” the other called “Psyche,” are in the third volume of Dodsley’s Collection. The sequel of the latter poem, entitled, “Melampus,” with “Psyche,” its natural introduction, was printed in 1782, by subscription, for the benefit of his widow. Many others are in the 8th volume of Nichols’s “Collection.” The Mss. Codex Heraclensis, Codex Barsalibaei, &c. (of which a particular account may be seen in his Dissertation “De Syriacarum Novi Fcederis versionum indole atque usu, 1761,”) were bequeathed by Dr. Ridley to the library of New college, Oxford. Of these ancient Mss. a fac-simile specimen was published in his Dissertation above mentioned. A copy of “The Confessional,” with ms notes by Dr. Ridley," was in the library of the- late Dr. Winchester.

, an eminent civilian, descended of a family of that name in Northumberland, was born in the city of Ely, and became master of Eton school, afterwards one of the masters in chancery, chancellor to the bishop of Winchester, and vicar-general to archbishop Abbot. He also received the honour of knighthood. He died Jan. 22 or 23, 1629, and was buried in the parish church of St. Bennet, Paul’s Wharf, London. He was a general schoJar, and published “A view of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law,” which was much admired by king James, and was afterwards reprinted by the learned, but unfortunate Gregory, chaplain to bishop Duppa. This work, says Dr. Coote, while it established the reputation of the author, contributed to revive the declining credit of that jurisdiction.

Lord Hay had introduced Mn Robertson to bishop Hoadly, who mentioned him to archbishop Wake, and he was entertained with much civility by those great prelates. As he was then too young to be admitted into orders, he employed his time in London in visiting the public libraries, attending lectures, and improving himself as opportunities offered. He had the honour to be introduced to lord-chancellor King, by a very kind letter from Dr. Hort, bishop of Kilmore, and was often with his lordship. In 1727 Dr. John Hoadly, brother to the bishop of Salisbury, was nominated to the united bishoprics of Ferns and Leighlin in Ireland. Mr. Robertson was introduced to him by his brother; and, from a love of the natale solum, was desirous to go thither with him. Mr. Robertson then informed the archbishop of Canterbury of his design; and his Grace gave him a letter of recommendation to Dr. Goodwin, archbishop of Cashel, who received him in a most friendly manner, but died soon after. The first person whom Dr. Hoadly ordained, after he was consecrated bishop of Ferns, was Mr. Robertson, whose letters of deacon’s orders bear date January 14, 1727; and in February the bishop nominated him to the cure of Tullow in the county of Carlow: and here he continued till he was of age sufficient to be ordained a priest, which was done November 10, 1729; and the next day he was presented by lord Carteret, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to the rectory of Ravilly in the county of Carlow, and to the rectory of Kilravelo in the county of Widow; and soon after was collated to the vicarages of the said parishes by the bishop of Ferns. These were the only preferments he had till 1738, when Dr. Synge, bishop of Ferns, collated him to the vicarages of Rathmore and Straboe, and the perpetual cure of Rahil, all in the county of Carlow. These together produced art income of about 200l. a-year. But, as almost the whole lands of these parishes were employed in pasture, the tithes would have amounted to more than twice that sum if the herbage had been paid for black cattle, which was certainly due by law. Several of the clergy of Ireland had,, before him, sued for this herbage in the Court of Exchequer, and obtained decrees in their favour. Mr. Robertson, encouraged by the exhortations and examples of his brethren, commenced some suits in the Exchequer for this herbage, and succeeded in every one of them. But when he had, by this means, doubled the value of his benefices, the House of Commons in Ireland passed several severe resolutions against the clergy who had sued, or would sue, for this “nexv demand,” as they called it, which encouraged the graziers to oppose it so obstinately as to put a period to that demand. This proceeding of the Commons provoked Dean Swift to write “The Legion- Club.” Mr. Robertson soon after published a pamphlet, entitled “A Scheme for utterly abolishing the present heavy and vexatious Tax of Tithe;” the purport of which was, to pay the clergy and impropriators a tax upon the land in lieu of all tithes. This went through several editions: but nothing farther was done in it.

, a distinguished English prelate and statesman, was born at Cleasby, in Yorkshire, Nov. 7, 1650, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford, to which he was afterwards a liberal benefactor. After he had completed his master’s degree, and taken orders, he went about 1683 to Sweden, as domestic chaplain to the British ambassador at that court; and in his absence was appointed first resident, then envoy extraordinary, and lastly ambassador. He remained in this rank until 1708. During this time he published his “Account of Sweden, as it was in 1688,” which is generally printed with lord Molesvvorth’s account of Denmark. On his return to England, her majesty, queen Anne, was so sensible of the value of his services, that she made him dean of Windsor, registrar of the order of the garter, and prebendary of Canterbury. He was also in 1710 preferred to the bishopric of Bristol. His political knowledge recommended him to the confidence of the earl of Oxford, then at the head of administration, who resolved to have him of the privy council. For this purpose, he was first made lord privy seal, and afterwards was admitted to a seat at the council board, where he so distinguished himself that queen Anne made choice of him as one of her plenipotentiaries at the memorable treaty of Utrecht. With what spirit he behaved on this occasion, appears from the common histories of the treaty, and Swift’s “Four last years of the Queen.” He was also appointed one of the commissioners for finishing St. Paul’s cathedral, and for building fifty new churches in London; was a governor of the Charter-house, and dean of the chapel royal. On the death of Dr. Compton in 1714, he was translated to the see of London, and the qneen, indeed, had such regard for him, that had she outlived the archbishop of Canterbury, she would have made Dr. Robinson primate.

, archbishop of Armagh, a-nd lord Rokeby, was the immediate descendant of the Robinsons of Rokeby, in the north riding of the county of York, and was born in 1709. He was educated at Westminsterschool, whence he was elected to Christ church, Oxford, in 1726. After continuing his studies there for some years, and taking his master’s degree in 1733, Dr. Blackburn, archbishop of York, appointed him his chaplain, and collated him first to the rectory of Elton, in the east riding of Yorkshire, and next to the prebend of Grindal, in the cathedral of York. In 1751 he attended the duke of Dorset, lord lieutenant of Ireland, to that kingdom, as his first chaplain, and the same year was promoted to the bishopric of Kiilala. A family connexion with the earl of Holdernesse, who was secretary of state that year, with the earl of Sandwich and other noblemen related to him, opened the f.iirest prospects of attaining to the first dignity in the Irish church. Accordingly, in 1759, he was translated to the united sees of Leighlin and Ferns, and in 1761 to Kildare. The duke of Northumberland being appointed to the lieutenancy of Ireland in 1765, Dr. Robinson was advanced to the primacy of Armagh, and made lord almoner and vicechancellor of the university of Dublin. When lord Harcourt was- lord-lieutenant of Ireland in 1777, the king was pleased, by privy- seal at St. James’s, Feb. 6, and by patent at Dublin the 26th of the same month, to create him baron Rokeby of Armagh, with remainder to Matthew Robinson of West Lay ton, esq. and in 1783 he was appointed prelate to the order of St. Patrick. On the death of the duke of Rutland, lord-lieutenant of Ireland, in 1787, he was nominated one of the lords justices of that kingdom. Sir William Robiuson, his brother, dying in 1785, the primate succeeded to the title of baronet, and was the survivor in the direct male line of the Robinsons of Rokeby, being the eighth in descent from William of Kendal. His grace died at 1 Clifton, near Bristol, in the end of October, 1794.

, a celebrated general of the Dominicans, and one of the most zealous defenders of papal authority, was born at Peselada on the frontiers of Roussillon and Catalonia, about 1624. He was the son of Francis viscount de Rocaberti, of an ancient family. Having entered the Dominican order early in life, he became provincial of Arragon in 1666, general of his order in 1670, archbishop of Valencia in 1676, and grand inquisitor of the faith in 1695. His catholic majesty, whose favour he acquired, made him twice viceroy of Valencia. He died June 13, 1699, leaving a long treatise “De Romani Pontilicis Automate,” 3 vols. folio, esteemed in Spain and Italy, but prohibited in France; and “Bibliotheca Pontificia;” a large collection of all the treatises which have been written by different authors in favour of the pope’s authority and infallibility, Rome, 1700, &c. 21 vols, folio. The parliament of Paris also prohibited the sale of this immense collection.

, the first principal of the college of Edinburgh, was the son of David Rollock, of Poohouse, or, as it is now written, Powis, in the neighbourhood of Sterling, in Scotland. He was born in 1555, and learned the rudiments of the Latin language from Mr. Thomas Buchanan, who kept, says archbishop Spotswood, a famous school at that time, at Sterling, as we learn from Melchior Adam, who appears to have copied from the Latin life of Rollock. From school he was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s, and admitted a student in St. Salvator’s college. His progress in the sciences, which were then taught, was so great and so rapid, that he had no sooner taken his master’s degree than he was chosen a professor of philosophy, and immediately began to read lectures in St. Salvator’s college. This must have been at a very early period of life, for he quitted St. Andrew’s in 1583, when, according to Mackenzie, he had taught philosophy for some time. Not long before this period, the magistrates of Edinburgh having petitioned the king to erect a university in that city, he granted them a charter under the great seal, allowing them all the privileges of a university and the college being built in 1582, they made choice of Mr. Rollock to be their principal and professor of divinity.

, Ruzelin, or Rucelin, a canon of Compeigne, who flourished about the end of the eleventh century, was born in Bretagne. He was a man well versed in the learning of the times, a profound dialectician, and the most eminent doctor of the sect called Nominalists, and by applying some of their tenets to the subject of the Trinity excited a warm controversy in France about 1089. He held it inconceivable and impossible that the son of God should assume the human nature alone, i. e. without the Father and the Holy Ghost becoming incarnate also, unless by the three persons in the Godhead were meant three distinct objects, or natures existing separately (such as three angels or three distinct spirits), though endued with one will and acting by one power. When it was insinuated to Roscellinus, that this manner of reasoning led directly to Tritheism, or the doctrine of three Gods, he answered boldly, that the existence of three Gods might be asserted with truth, were not the expression harsh, and contrary to the phraseology generally received. He was, however, obliged to retract this error in a council held at Soissons, in 1092; but he resumed it when the council was dismissed and the danger apparently over. He was, however, assaulted on account of his doctrine, and therefore took refuge in England, where he excited a controversy of another kind, by maintaining, among other things, that persons born out of lawful wedlock ought to be deemed incapable of admission to holy orders. Some even of the prelates being in this condition, Roscellinus made very powerful enemies, and among others Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, and was finally obliged to quit England. He then returned to France, and by propagating his doctrine concerning the Trinity, occasioned such contests as made him glad to retire to Aquitaine, where he passed the rest of his days unmolested. He is supposed to have died about 1106, Such is the account given of his doctrines by John, his accuser, in a letter to Anselm, published by Baluzius in his “Miscellanea,” and by others who, however, as the annotator on Mosheim remarks, were the inveterate enemies of Roscellinus, and perhaps comprehended his meaning imperfectly, or perverted it wilfully. But as none of the writings of this metaphysical ecclesiastic are extant, we cannot form any other notion of the controversy than appears from the testimony of his enemies.

It becomes necessary now to recur to some particulars of Rousseau’s more public and literary life, which was in many respects as censurable as his private. The commencement of his literary career was in 1750. The academy of Dijon had proposed the question, “Whether the revival of the arts and sciences has contributed to the refinement of manners.” Rousseau, it is said, at first inclined to the affirmative side of the question; but Diderot told him it was a kind of pons asinorum, and advised him to support the negative, and he would answer for his success. Nor was he disappointed, for this paradoxical discourse was allowed to be admirably written, and replete with the deepest reasoning, and was publicly crowned with the approbation of the academicians. Several answers appeared Against it, one of which was written by Stanislaus, king of Poland, who was, however, so much an admirer of Rousseau, that when the latter was ridiculed on the stage of Nancy, by Palissot, in his “Comedie des Philosophes,” the king, then duke of Lorraine, deprived Palissot of his place at the academy of Nancy. On this occasion Rousseau, with far more sense, interceded for him, and obtained his restoration. In 1752 Rousseau wrote a comedy entitled “Narcisse, ou PAmant de lui-meme.” He also composed a musical entertainment of “Le Devin du Village,” which was represented with the greatest success at Paris. His next piece was “Lettre sur la Musique Franchise,” which was to prove that the French had no such thing as vocal music, and that, from the defects in their language, they could not have it. This able work so excited the resentment of the French, that he is said to have been burnt in effigy. In 1754- he returned to Geneva, where he abjured the catholic faith, and was restored to the rights of citizenship. He now wrote his e< Discours sur les Causes de l'inegalite parmi les Hommes, et sur TOrigine des Societes.“This endeavour to prove that all mankind are equal has (in the opinion of a modern critic, by no means partial to Rousseau’s character) been much misunderstood by critics, and misrepresented by wits. Even by the author’s confession, it is rather ajeu d'esprit than a philosophical inquiry; for he owns that the natural state, such as he represents it, did probably never take place, and probably never will; and if it had taken place, he seems to think it impossible that mankind should ever have emerged from it without some very extraordinary alteration in the course of nature. He also says that this natural state is not the most advantageous for man; for that the most delightful sentiments of the human mind could not exert themselves till man had relinquished his brutal and solitary nature, and become a domestic animal. At this period, and previous to the establishment of property, he places the age most favourable to human happiness; which is precisely what the poets have done before him, in their descriptions of the golden age. After publishing this rhapsody, Rousseau did not remain long at Geneva, but returned to France, and lived some time at Paris, after which he retired to Montuiorency, and published, in 1758, his” Lettre“to M. D‘Alembert on the design of establishing a theatre at Geneva, which he proved could not be necessary in a place circumstanced as Geneva was. D’Alembert and Marmontel, however, replied, and Voltaire appears from this time to have begun his hatred for Rousseau, with whom he and the rest of the philosophers had hitherto cordially co-operated against the Christian religion. Rousseau wanted that uniform hatred to revealed religion which the others called consistency, and his fancy was apt to ramble bevond the limits they had set. In 1760 he published his 'celebrated novel entitled” Lettres de clt ux A mans,“c. bui generally known by the title of” Julie, ou la Nnuvelie Heloise.“This epistolary romance, of which the plofc is ill-managed, and the arrangement bad, like all other works of genius, has its beauties as well as its defects. Some of the letters are, indeed, admirable, both for style and sentiment, but none of the personages are reaily interesting. The character of St. Preux is weak, and often forced. Julia is an assemblage of tenderness and pity, of elevation af soul, and of coquetry, of natural parts and pedancry. Wolmar is a violent man, and almost beyond the limits of nature. In fine, when he wishes to change his style, and adopt that of the speaker, he does not long support it, and every attempt embarrasses the author and cools the reader. In this novel, however, Rousseau’s talent of rendering every thing problematical, appears very conspicuous, as, in his arguments in favour of, and against, duelling, which afford an apology for suicide, and a just condemnation of it; of his facility in palliating the crime of adultery, aud his strong reasons to make it abhorred; on the one hand, in declamations against social happiness, on the other in transports in favour of humanity; here in violent rhapsodies against philosophers; there by a rage for adopting their opinions; the existence of God is attacked by sophistry, and atheists confuted by the most irrefragable arguments; the Christian religion combated by the most specious objections, and celebrated by the most sublime eulogies. Yet in the preface to this work the author attempts to justify his consistency; he says public spectacles are necessary for great cities, and romances for a corrupted people.” I have,“he adds,” viewed the manners of my age, and have published these letters. Why did I not live at a time when I ought to have thrown them into the fire?“He affects also to say that they were not intended for an extensive circulation, and that they will suit but few readers. With regard to their effects on the female sex, he pretends to satisfy his conscience with saying” No chaste young woman ever reads romance^; and I have given this book a decisive title, that on opening it a reader may know what to expect. She who, notwithstanding, shall dare to read a single page, is undone; but let her not impute her ruin to me the mischief was done before.“Such is the impudence of this man, who had made his work as seductive as possible, and would have been greatly mortified if it had not produced its effect. Whoever, indeed, reads his” Confessions“will see that sensuality was, first and last, his predominant vice, and that moral corruption became early familiar to him. The only wonder is, that he should ever have been considered as a moral teacher, because, in order to introduce his depraved sophistry with more effect, he mixed with it some moral lessons. Yet there was a time when this was a favourite work even in our country, and it is to be feared, has been the pattern of many others, which, although written with less ability, have been encouraged in the same circles which once gave a fashion to Rousseau. His next attempt was to recommend republicanism in a work entitled” Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du Droit Politiqtie,“in which he bore his part, along with the Encyclopaedists, in exciting those awful delusions which produced the French revolution and all its disastrous consequences. It was, however, less cautious than some of his former productions, and was immediately prohibited in France and Switzerland; and hence his lasting enmity to all existing establishments, civil and religious, which brought on what he and his friends were pleased to consider as persecution. This appeared particularly in his” Emilie, ou de l'Education,“which was published in 1762. In this work, with many remarks that may be useful, there are others so mischievous and impious, that whenever it produces an effect, it must be of the worst kind. It was not, however, his dogmas on education only, which excited the public hostility to this work, so much as his insolent declamation against all which the world had agreed to hold sacred, mixed, as in his former novel, with an affected admiration of the morals of the gospel, and the character of its founder; and it is remarkable that, in this last condescension, he so much displeased his former colleagues, Voltaire, D'Alembert, &c. that they joined the public voice, although from different and concealed motives. In truth, they thought, like others, that there was too much of an insane inconsistency about Rousseau, and that no party could rank him among its supporters. In the mean time, as soon as published, the French parliament condemned this book, and entered into a criminal prosecution against the author, which forced him to a precipitate retreat. He directed his steps to his native country, but Geneva shut her gates against him, and both at Paris and Geneva, the” Emile“was burnt by the common hangman. At length he was for a time allowed to take shelter in Switzerland, where he published a letter to the archbishop of Paris, in answer to his tnandement for the burning of the” Emile;“and also his” JLettres de la Montagne,“in which occurs the following almost blasphemous paragraph:” How,“says he,” can I enter into a justification of this work? I, who think that I have effaced by it the faults of my whole life; I, who place the evils it has drawn upon me as a balance to those which I have committed; I who, filled with confidence, hope one day to say to the supreme Arbiter, ‘ Deign in thy clemency to judge a weak mortal:’ I have, it is true, done much ill upon earth, but I have published this writing.“In these letters too, he continued his hostility to revealed religion, in a manner that excited against him great indignation among the clergy of Neufchatel; and in September 1765, the populace attacked his house and his person, and with much difficulty he reached Strasburg in a very destitute condition, where he waited till the weather permitted, and then set out for Paris, and appeared in the habit of an Armenian. The celebrated Hume at this time resided in Paris, and being applied to in favour of Rousseau, undertook to find him an asylum in England, to which he accordingly conducted him in the beginning of the year 1766, and provided him with an agreeable situation. But Rousseau, whose vanity and perverse temper were ungovernable, and who thought he was not received in this country with the respect due to the first personage in Europe, which he conceived himself to be, took it in his head that Hume was in league with the French philosophers to injure his lame, and after abusing his benefactor in a letter, in the most gross manner, and even refusing a pension from the crown, left England in 1767, and went to France. At this period he published his” Dictionnaire de Musique.“Of this work Dr. Burney, after pointing out some defects, says, that” more good taste, intelligence, and extensive views are to be found in his original articles, not only than in any former musical dictionary, but in all the books on the subject of music which the literature of France can boast. And his ` Lettre sur la Musique Frangois,' may be safely pronounced the best piece of musical criticism that has ever been produced in any modern language. It must, however, be confessed, that his treatment of French music is very sarcastic, not to say contemptuous; but the music, the national character avantageux, and exclusive admiration of their own music, required strong Ian* guage. It had been proved long since, that they were not to be laughed out of their bad taste in any one of the fine arts: the national architecture, painting, and sculpture, were, in general, bad, and not what a traveller returning from Italy could bear to look at: though there have been now and then individual French artists of every kind, who have travelled and studied antiquity as well as the great masters of the Italian school; and it is now said, that at the Institute they are trying seriously to correct their errors, and to establish a classical taste throughout the empire."

, archbishop of Rheims in the fourteenth century, was the son of Matthew le Roye, the fourth of that name, grand master of the French archery, descended from an ancient and illustrious family, originally of Picardy. He was first canon of Noyon, then dean of St. Quintin, and lived at the papal court while the popes resided at Avignon; but followed Gregory XI. to Rome, and afterwards attached himself to the party of Clement VII. and of Peter de Luna, afterwards Benedict XIII. Guy le Roye was successively bishop of Verdun, Castres, and Dol, archbishop of Tours, then of Sens, and lastly, archbishop of Rheims in 1391. He held a provincial council in 1407, and set out to attend the council of Pisa two years after; but on his arrival at Voutre, a town situated five leagues from Genoa, one of his suite happened to quarrel with one of the inhabitants, and killed him. This naturally excited a violent tumult among the populace, who in their fury surrounded the prelate’s hous*e and whiie he was endeavouring to appease them, one of the mob wounded him from a cross-bow, of which he died June 8, 1409. He founded the college of Rheims at Paris, in 1399. He left a book, entitled “Doctrinale Sapientiae,” written in 1388, and translated into French the year following, by a monk of Chigni, under the title of “Doctrinal de Sapience,” printed in 4to, black letter, with the addition of examples and short stories, some of which have a species of simple and rather coarse humour; but not ill adapted to the taste of the times. The good archbishop is said to have written it “for the health of his soul, and of the souls of all his people,” and had such an opinion of its efficacy, that he gave it the authority of homilies, commanding that every parish in his diocese should be provided with a copy, and that the curates and chaplains of the said parishes, should read to the people two or three chapters, with promises of pardon for certain readings. Caxton, who seems to have entertained almost as high an opinion of this work, translated and printed it in 1489, in a folio size. According to Mr. Dibdin, who has given a minute description, with specimens, of this “Doctrinal of Sapyence,” there are not more than four perfect copies extant.

In 1720 Rudbeck, in conjunction with Benzelius, after* wards archbishop of Upsal, founded the Swedish academy of sciences, as it was then called, though subsequently, when other similar establishments arose at Stockholm, Lund, &c. the original one was entitled the Royal Academy of Upsal. This institution still flourishes, and ha* produced several volumes of Transactions in Latin. In the first, printed in 1720, is a catalogue of plants, observed by lludbeck in Lapland. He published several curious dissertations from time to time, which evince his deep erudition, though he betrays, like his father, somewhat of a paradoxical turn. He was particularly skilled in oriental literature, and was hence led to undertake the explanation of some of the most obscure subjects of natural history hi the sacred scriptures. He contends that Borith, mentioned by some of the prophets, is neither an herb, nor any kind of soap, but a purple dye. He also undertook to demonstrate that the Dudaim were raspberries. The two dissertations which contain these opinions appeared in 1733, in 4to, but the author had previously given to the world three others, the inaugural essays of some of his pupils, on Hedera, in 1707, 4to on Mandragora, in 1702; and on the Rubus arcticus of Linnæus, in 1716, both in 8vo, with good cuts. His most elaborate and eccentric performance of all, perhaps, is a dissertation on the bird Sclav, which our translation of the Bible renders a quail. Some have thought it a locust, but Rudbeck will have it a flying-fish. He intended to publish a great philological work entitled “Lexicon Harmonicum,” when death arrested his career, March 23, 1740. In his latter days, finding himself unable to leave home and lecture as usual, he fixed his choice, as an assistant, on Linnæus, then in his twenty-third year, who first supplied Rudbeck' s place in 1730, with much approbation.

Soon after Mr. Rundle’s acquaintance with bishop Talbot became an intimacy, he was ordained by him in 1718, and published a discourse on Acts x. 34, 35. In 1720 he was promoted by that prelate, on his removal to Salisbury, to the archdeaconry of Wilts; and upon the demise of Mr. Edward Talbot, in the same year, was constituted treasurer of the church of Sarum. These were the first bounties of his munificent patron, who retained him from this time-as his domestic chaplain, and particularly delighted in his elegant manners and brilliant conversation. When bishop Talbot was translated to Durham, he continued Mr. Rundle of his household, and on Jan. 23, 1721, collated him to the first stall in that cathedral but on Nov. 12, in the following year, he was removed to the twelfth prebend He bad likewise the valuable mastership of Sherborne hospital, an appointment incompatible with the cure of souls, but which, it will appear from the foregoing list of preferments, he had never undertaken. If any period of his life afforded him more than ordinary satisfaction, it was this. He was esteemed, in a degree far beyond what is usually to be attained in friendships between persons of unequal rank, by the great and good family who patronised him. He had opportunities of gratifying his literary propensities, by frequent conversations with the first in almost every branch of science, and by the most select epistolary correspondences. He became particularly known at this time to the republic of letters by the liberal support he gave to Thomson, upon his publishing his “Winter,” whose acquaintance he instantly sought; and whom, having recommended to lord chancellor Talbot as a proper person to superintend his son’s education during the grand tour, Thomson found himself on his return rewarded by a lucrative appointment. On July 5, 1723, he had proceeded LL. D. as necessary to the dignities he enjoyed, and was associated with Dr. Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, as resident chaplain at the palace at Durham.

, a polite and learned Italian, was born at Modena in 1477, and was the son of an eminent civilian, who, afterwards becoming a professor at Ferrara, took him along with him, and educated him with great care. He acquired a masterly knowledge in the Latin and Greek early, and then applied himself to philosophy and eloquence; taking Aristotle and Cicero for his guides, whom he considered as the first masters in these branches. He also cultivated Latin poetry, in which he displayed a very high degree of classical purity. Going to Rome under the pontificate of Alexander VI. when he was about twentytwo, he was taken into the family of cardinal Caraffa, who loved men of letters; and, upon the death of this cardinal in 1511, passed into that of Frederic Fregosa, archbishop of Salerno, where he found Peter Bembus, and contracted an intimacy with him. When Leo X. ascended the papal throne in 1513, he chose Bembus and Sadolet for his secretaries men extremely qualified for the office, as both of them wrote with great elegance and facility and soon after made Sadolet bishop of Carpentras, near Avignon. Upon the death of Leo, in 1521, he went to his diocese, and resided there during the pontificate of Adrian VI.; but Clement VII. was no sooner seated in the chair, in 1523, than he recalled him to Rome. Sadolet submitted to his boliness, but oh condition that he should return to his diocese at the end of three years. Paul III. who succeeded Clement VII. in 1534, called him to Rome again; made him a cardinal in 1536, and employed him in many important embassies and negotiations. Sadolet, at length, grown too old to perform the duties of his bishopric, went no more from Rome; but spent the remainder of his days there in repose and study. He died in 1547, not without poison, as some have imagined; because he corresponded too familiarly with the Protestants, and testified much regard for some of their doctors. It is true, he had written in 1539 a Latin letter to the senate and people of Geneva, with a view of reducing them to an obedience to the pope; and had addressed himself to the Calvinists, with the affectionate appellation of “Charissimi in Christo Fratres;” but this proceeded entirely from his moderate and peaceable temper and courteous disposition. He was a sincere adherent to the Romish church, but without bigotry. The liberality of sentiment he displayed in his commentary on the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans incurred the censure of the Roman court.

, a bishop of the old episcopal church of Scotland, a man of great learning and worth, and an able controversial writer in defence of the church to which he belonged, was born in 1652. He was the son of captain Sage, a gentleman of Fifeshire in Scotland, and an officer of merit in lord Duffus’s regiment, who fought on the side of the royalists when Monk stormed Dundee in 1651. Although, like many other royalists, he was scantily rewarded for his services, he was able to give his son a liberal education at school, and at the university of St. Andrew’s, where he took his degree of master of arts in 1672. He passed some years afterwards as schoolmaster of the parishes of Bingry in Fifeshire, and of Tippermoor in Perthshire, and as private tutor to the sons of a gentleman of fortune, whom he attended at school, and accompanied to the university of St. Andrew’s. In 1684, when his pupils left him, he removed from St. Andrew’s, and when uncertain what course to pursue, was recommended to archbishop Rose, who gave him priest’s orders, and advised him to officiate at Glasgow. Here he continued to display his talents till the revolution in 1688, when the presbyterian form of church government was established, and then went to Edinburgh. He preached in this city a while, but refusing to take the oaths of allegiance, was obliged to desist, and found an asylum in the house of sir William Bruce, the sheriff of Kinross, who approved his principles, and admired his virtues. Returning to Edinburgh in 1695, where he appears to have written some defences of the church to which he belonged, he was observed, and obliged again to retire. At length he found a safe retreat with the countess of Callendar, who employed him as chaplain, and tutor to her sons, and afterwards he lived with sir John Steuart of Garntully as chaplain, until Jan. 25, 1705, when he was consecrated a bishop. In the following year his health began to decay, and after trying the waters of Bath, in 1709, and change of air in other places, without much benefit, he died at Edinburgh June 7, 1711.

, in Latin Sanctesius, was born in 1525, at Perche. He entered as a regular canon in the abbey de St. Cheron, near Chartres; at the age of fifteen was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne, 1555, and resided afterwards in the house of cardinal de Lorraine, who employed him at the conference of Poissy, in 1561, and persuaded king Charles IX. to send him to the council of Trent, with eleven other doctors. In 1566 De Sainctes, with Simon Vigor, afterwards archbishop of Narbonne, disputed against two protestant ministers, at the house of the duke de Nevers, and published the records of this conference two years after, and had also a controversy with Sadeel, as we have recently noticed in his article. He became so celebrated for his writings, sermons, and zeal against the protestants, as to be promoted to the bishopric of Evreux in 1575. The following year he attended the states of Blois, and in 1581, the council of Rouen; but having afterwards joined the most violent among the Leaguers, was seized at Louviers by Henry IVth’s party, who found a writing among his papers, in which he pretended to justify the assassination of Henry III. and declared that the present king deserved the same treatment. Being carried as a prisoner to Caen, he would there have received the punishment due to his attempt, had not cardinal de Bourbon, and some other prelates, interceded that his punishment should be perpetual imprisonment. He was accordingly confined in the castle de Crev^cceur, in the diocese of Lisieux, where he died in 1591, De Sainctes left many learned works, the largest and most scarce among which is a “Treatise on the Eucharist,” in Latin, folio, an edition of St. James’s, St. Basil’s, and St. Chrysostom’s “Liturgies,” Antwerp, 1560, 8vo, afterwards reprinted, but this is the only edition that is valued.

At his return into England, after his first visit to Paris, he studied the civil law under Vacarius, who taught with, great applause at Oxford in 1149. Embracing the monastic life at Canterbury, he became the chief confidant of two successive archbishops of that see, Theobald and Thomas a Becket. To the last of these he dedicated his celebrated work “Polycraticon, or De nugis curialium, et vestigiis philosophorum,” a very curious and valuable monument of the literature of his times. Although he did not approve some part of the conduct of Becket, he submitted to Henry the Second’s sentence of banishment, and remained in exile for seven years, rather than give up the party of the archbishop, which was the condition on which he might have been permitted to return. In negotiating Becket' s affairs, he performed no less than ten journeys into Italy. In one of these journeys, he obtained familiar intercourse with pope Adrian IV. his countryman, who having asked him what the world said of him and of the Roman church, John returned such an answer as might have been expected from the boldest of the reformers in the sixteenth century, telling his holiness, among other things, that the world said, “the pope himself was a burthen to Christendom which is scarcely to be borne.” The whole of this curious dialogue may be seen in the work above mentioned.

, an eminent puritan divine, was, according to Strype, born at Playford in Suffolk, and was a fellow of Pembroke hall, Cambridge. Wood says he was born in 1517, without specifying where; but adds, that he was educated ac Oxford, which seems most probable, as that university was the scene of much of his future life; He appears to have imbibed the principles of the reformation at a very early period, and became such an acute reasoner that Wood informs us he was the means of converting John Bradford, the famous martyr. He began likewise very early to entertain those prejudices against the hahits which occasioned so much mischief in the church, and which were confirmed in him, and many others, by. associating with the Geneva reformers during their exile in the time of queen Mary. He was ordained by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, who, at his request, dispensed with the habits, to which now, and ever after, he attached the idea of idolatry. He was chaplain in the army of lord Russel in his expedition against the Scots. In 1551, he was preferred to the rectory of Allhallows, Bread-street, London, which he resigned in 1553, and the year following to the deanery of Chichester. During the reign of Edward VI. he was accounted one of the* ablrst and most useful preachers in confirming the people in the doctrines of the reformation. On the accession of queen Mary he concealed himself for some time; but having been active in collecting money for the support of poor scholars in the two universities, narrowly escaped beingapprehended, and was obliged to go abroad, where he resided chiefly at Strasburgh, with the other English exiles, and had some hand in the Geneva translation of the Bible.

, an eminent English prelate, was born at Fresingfield, in Suffolk, Jan. 30, 1616, and educated in grammar-learning at St. Edmund’s Bury, where he was equally remarkable for diligent application to his studies, and a pious disposition . In July 1634, he was sent to Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he became very accomplished in all branches of literature, took his degree of B. A. in 1637, and that of M. A. in 1641, and was in 1642 chosen fellow of his college. His favourite studies were theology, criticism, history, and poetry , but in all his acquirements he was humble and unostentatious. In 1648 he took the degree of B. D. It is supposed he never subscribed the covenant^ and that this was connived at, because he continued unmolested in his fellowship till 1649; at which time, refusing the engagement, he was ejected. Upon this he went abroad, and became acquainted with the most considerable of the loyal English exiles; and, it is said, he was at Rome when Charles II. was restored. He immediately returned to England, and was made chaplain to Cosin, bishop of Durham, who collated him to the rectory of Houghton-le-Spring, and to the ninth prebend of Durham in March 1661. In the same year he assisted in reviewing the Liturgy, particularly in rectifying the Kalendar and Rubric. In 1662 he was created, by mandamus, D. D. at Cambridge, and elected master of Emanuel college, which he governed with great prudence. In 1664 he was promoted to the deanery of York, which although he held but a few months, he expended on the buildings about 200l. more than he had received. Upon the death of Dr. John Barwick he was removed to the deanery of St. Paul’s; soon after which, he resigned the mastership of Emanuel college, and the rectory of Houghton. On his coming to St. Paul’s he set himself most diligently to repair that cathedral, which had suffered greatly from the savage zeal of the republican fanatics in the civil wars, till the dreadful fire in 1666 suggested the more noble undertaking of rebuilding it. Towards this he gave 1400l. besides what he procured by his interest and solicitations among his private friends, and in parliament, where he obtained the act for laying a duty on coals for the rebuilding of the cathedral. He also rebuilt the deanery, and improved the revenues of it. In Oct. 1668, he was admitted archdeacon of Canterbury, on the king’s presentation, which he resigned in 1670. He was also prolocutor of the lower house of convocation; and was in that station when Charles II. in 1677, advanced him, contrary to his knowledge or inclination, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. In 1678 he published some useful directions concerning letters testimonial to candidates for holy orders. He was himself very conscientious in the admission to orders or the disposal of livings, always preferring men of approved abilities, great learning, and exemplary life. He attended king Charles upon his death-bed, and made a very weighty exhortation to him, in which he is said to have used a good deal of freedom. In 1686 he was named the first in James I I.'s commission for ecclesiastical affairs; but be refused to act in it. About the same time he suspended Wood, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, for residing out of and neglecting his diocese. As one of the governors of the Charter-house, he refused to admit as pensioner in that hospital Andrew Popham, a papist, although he came with a nomination from the court. In June 1688, he joined with six of his brethren the bishops in the famous petition to king James, in which they gave their reasons why they could not cause his declaration for liberty of conscience to be read in churches. For this petition, which the court called a libel, they were committed to the Tower; and, being tried for a misdemeanor on the 29th, were acquitted, to the great joy of the nation. This year the archbishop projected the vain expedient of a comprehension with the protestant dissenters. We have the following account of this in the speech of Dr. W. Wake, bishop of Lincoln, in the house of lords, March 17, 1710, at the opening of the second article of the impeachment against Dr. Sacheverell. “The person,” says he, “who 6rst concerted this design was the late most reverend Dr. Sancroft, then archbishop of Canterbury. The time was towards the end of that unhappy reign of king James II. Then, when we were in the height of our labours, defending the Church of England against the assaults of popery, and thought of nothing else, that wise prelate foreseeing some such revolution as soon after was happily brought about, began to consider how utterly unprepared they had been at the restoration of king Charles II. to settle many things to the advantage of the Church, and what happy opportunity had been lost for want of such a previous care, as he was therefore desirous should now be taken, for the better and more perfect establishment of it. It was visible to all the nation, that the more moderate dissenters were generally so well satisfied with that stand which our divines had made agaiust popery, and the many unanswerable treatises they had published in confutation of it, as to express an unusual readiness to come in to us. And it was therefore thought worth the while, when they were deliberating about those other matters, to consider at the same time what might be done to gain them without doing any prejudice to ourselves. The scheme was laid out, and the several parts of it were committed, not only with the approbation, but by the direction of that great prelate, to such of our divines, as were thought the most proper to he intrusted with it. His grace took one part to himself; another was committed to a then pious and reverend dean (Dr. Patrick), afterwards a bishop of our church. The reviewing of the daily service of our Liturgy, and the Communion Book, was referred to a select number of excellent persons, two of which (archbishop Sharp, and Dr. Moore) are at this time upon our bench and I am sure will bear witness to the truth of my relation. The design was in short this: to improve, and, if possible, to inforce our discipline to review and enlarge our Liturgy, by correcting of some things, by adding of others and if it should be thought adviseable by authority, when this matter should come to be legally considered, first in convocation, then in parliament, by leaving some few ceremonies, confessed to be indifferent in their natures as indifferent in their usage, so as not to be necessarily observed by those who made a scruple of them, till they should be able to overcome either their weaknesses or prejudices, and be willing to comply with them.” In October, accompanied with eight of his- brethren the bishops, Sancroft waited upon the king, who had desired the assistance of their counsels; and advised him, among other things, to annul the ecclesiastical commission, to desist from the exercise of a dispensing power, and to call a free and regular parliament. A few days after, though earnestly pressed by his majesty, he refused to sign a declaration of abhorrence of the prince of Orange’s invasion. In December, on king James’s withdrawing himself, he is said to have signed, and concurred with the lords spiritual and temporal, in a declaration to the prince of Orange, for a free parliament, security of our laws, liberties, properties, and of the church of England in particular, with a due indulgence to protestant dissenters. But in a declaration signed by him Nov. 3, 1688, he says that “he never gave the prince any invitation by word, writing, or otherwise;” it must therefore have been in consequence of the abdication that he joined with the lords in the above declaration. Yet when the prince came to St. James’s, the archbishop neither went to wait on him, though he had once agreed to it, nor did he even send any message. He absented himself likewise from the convention, for which he is severely censured by Burnet, who calls him “a poor-spirited and fearful man, that acted a very mean part in all this great transaction. He resolved,” says he, “neither to act for, nor against, the king’s interest; which, considering his higli post, was thought very unbecoming. For, if he thought, as by his behaviour afterwards it seems he did, that the nation was running into treason, rebellion, and perjury, it was a strange thing to see one who was at the head of the church to sit silent all the while that this was in debate, and not once so much as declare his opinion, by speaking, voting, or protesting, not to mention the other ecclesiastical methods that certainly be.came his character.”

After William and Mary were settled on the throne, he and seven other bishops refused to own the established government, from a conscientious regard to the allegiance they had sworn to king James. Refusing likewise to take the oaths appointed by act of parliament, he and they were suspended Aug. 1, 1689, and deprived the 1st of Feb. following. On the nomination of Dr. Tillotson to this see, April 23, 1691, our archbishop received an order, from the then queen Mary, May 20, to leave Lambethhouse within ten days. But he, resolving not to stir till ejected by law, was cited to appear before the barons of the exchequer on the first day of Trinity-term, June 12, 1691, to answer a writ of intrusion; when he appeared by his attorney; but, avoiding to put in any plea, as the case stood, judgment passed against him, in the form of law, June 23, and the same evening he took boat in Lambethbridge, and went to a private house in Palsgrave-headcourt, near the Temple. Thence, on Aug. 5, 1691, he retired to Fresingfield (the place of his birth, and the estate [50l. a year] and residence of his ancestors above three hundred years), where he lived in a very private manner, till, being seized with an intermitting fever, Aug. 26, 1693, he died on Friday morning, Nov. 24, and was buried very privately, as he himself had ordered, in Fresingfield churchyard. Soon after, a tomb was erected over his grave, with an inscription composed by himself; on the right side of which there is an account of his age and dying-day in Latin; on the left, the following English: “William Sancroft, born in this parish, afterwards by the providence of God archbishop of Canterbury, at last deprived of all, which he could not keep with a good conscience, returned hither to end his life, and professeth here at the foot of his tomb, that, as naked he came forth, so naked he must return: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away (as the Lord pleases, so things come to pass), blessed be the name of the Lord.” The character Burnet has given of him is not an amiable one, nor in some respects a true one , yet he allows, what none could deny, that archbishop Sancroft was a good man. He bestowed great sums of money in charity and endowments, and was particularly bountiful to Emanuel college in Cambridge: and he certainly gave the strongest instance possible of sincerity, in sacrificing the highest dignity to what he thought truth and honesty; and although his opposition both to James II. and William III. may appear rather irreconcileable, we have the testimony of those who knew him best, that he did every thing in the integrity of his heart .

Though of considerable abilities and uncommon learning, he published but very little. The first thing was a Latin dialogue, composed jointly by himself and some of his friends, between a preacher and a thief condemned to the gallows; and is entitled, 1. “Fur Prædestinatus sive, dialogismus inter quendam Ordinis proedicantium Calvinistam etFurem ad laqueum damnatum habitus,” &c. 1651, 12mo. It was levelled at the then-prevailing doctrine of predestination. An edition was published in 18 13; and a translation in the following year, by the rev. Robert Boucher Nickolls, dean of Middleham, with an application to the case of R. Kendall executed at Northampton Aug. 13, 1813. 2. “Modern Politics, taken from Machiavel, Borgia, and other modern authors, by an eye-witness,” 3652, 12mo. 3. “Three Sermons,” afterwards re-printed together in 1694, 8vo. 4. He published bishop Andrews’s “Defence of the vulgar Translation of the Bible,” with a preface of his own. 5. He drew up some offices for Jan. 3O, and May 29. 6. “Nineteen familiar Letters of his to Mr. (afterwards sir Henry) North, of Mildenhall, bart. both before, but principally after, his deprivation, for refusing to take the oaths to king William III. and his retirement to the place of his nativity in Suffolk, found among the papers of the said sir Henry North, never before published,” were printed in 1757, 8vo. In this small collection of the archbishop’s “Familiar Letters,” none of which were probably ever designed to be made public, his talents for epistolary writing appear to great advantage. He left behind him a multitude of' papers and coUections in ms. which upon his decease came into his nephew’s hands; after whose death they were purchased by bishop Tanner for eighty guineas, who gave them, with the rest of his manuscripts, to the Bodleian library. From these the Rev. John Gutch, of Oxford, published in 1781, 2 vols. 8vo, various “Miscellaneous Tracts relating to the History and Antiquities of England and Ireland,” &c.

Dr. Sandys was now somewhat less than forty years old, in the vigour of his mental faculties and with recruited bodily strength. The first public scene on which he appeared was the great disputation between the leading divines of the protestant and popish side, in which, if his talent for debate bore any proportion to his faculty of preaching, he must have borne a very conspicuous part. On the 21st of December, 1559, he was consecrated by archbishop Parker to the see of Worcester. Browne Willis has most unjustly accused our prelate of having enriched his family out of the lands of this see; on the contrary, he transmitted it to his successor, exactly as he found it, that is, saddled with the conditions of an exchange which the crown had by statute a right to make. He accepted it onthese conditions, and what he was never seized of, it was impossible for him to alienate. After all, this was scarcely a matter sufficient to excite Browne Willis’s superstitious reverence,- for the rental of the manors taken away was no more than 193l. 125. 8f^. per ann. and that of the spiritualities given in exchange 194l.

Years were now coming upon him, and a numerous family demanded a provision; but as it was a new and unpopular thing to see the prelates of the church abandoning their cathedrals and palaces, and retiring to obscure manor-houses on their estates, in order to accumulate fortunes for their children, an abundant portion of obloquy fell upon Sandys, who seldom lived at York, and not very magnificently at Southwell. Yet he visited his diocese regularly, and preached occasionally in his cathedral with great energy and effect. In 1577, during a metropolitical visitation, he came in his progress to Durham, the bishopric of which was then vacant, but was refused admittance by Whittingham, the puritan dean. The archbishop, however, with his wonted firmness proceeded to excommunication. The issue of this contest will come to be noticed in our account of Whittingham. In the month of May 1582, being once more in a progress through his dipcese, a diar bolical attempt was made to blast his character. He happened to lie at an inn in Doncaster; whertf, through the contrivance of sir Robert Stapleton, and other enemies, the inn-keeper’s wife was put to bed to him at midnight when he was asleep. On this, according to agreement, the inn-keeper rushed into the room, waked the archbishop with his noise, and offered a drawn dagger to his breast, pretending to avenge the injury. Immediately sir Robert Stapleton came in, as if called from his chamber by the inn-keeper; and putting on the appearance of a friend, as indeed he had formerly been, and as the archbishop then thought him, advised his grace to make the matter up, laying before him many perils and dangers to his name and the credit of religion that might ensue, if, being one against so many, he should offer to stir in such a cause; and persuading him, that, notwithstanding his innocency, which the archbishop earnestly protested, and Stapleton then acknowledged, it were better to stop the mouths of needy persons than to bring his name into doubtful question. With this advice, Sandys unwarily complied; but, afterwards discovering sir Robert’s malice and treacherous dissimulation, he ventured, in confidence of his own innocency, to be the means himself of bringing the whole cause to examination before the council in the star-chamber. The result of this was, that he was declared entirely innocent of the wicked slanders and imputations raised against him; and that sir Robert Stapleton and his accomplices were first imprisoned, and then fined in a most severe manner. This affair is related at large by sir John Harrington, a contemporary writer; and by Le Neve, who gives a fuller account of it, from an exemplification of the decree, made in the star-chamber, 8 May, 25 Eliz. preserved in the Harieian library.

The last act of the archbishop’s life seems to have been the resistance he made against the earl of Leicester, who wanted to wrest from the see a valuable estate. It is to be regretted that after having made this noble stand, our prelate should have granted a long lease of the manor of Scroby to his own family.

Of the decline of archbishop Sandys’ s age, and of the particular disorder which brought him to his grave, no circumstances are recorded. He died at Southwell, July 10, 1588, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, and was buried in the collegiate church of that place. He was the first English bishop who, by his prudence or parsimony, laid the foundation of a fortune in his family, which has justified their subsequent advancement to a peerage. With his father’s savings, the manor of Ombersley, in Worcestershire, was purchased by sir Samuel Sandys, the eldest son, whose descendants, since ennobled by the family name, still remain in possession of that fair and ample domain. There also the archbishop’s portrait, together with that of Cicely his second wife, is still preserved. She survived to 1610, and has a monument at Woodham Ferrers, in Essex, where she died.

Dr. Whitaker, whose late life of archbishop Sandys we have irs general followed, as the result of much research and reflection, observes that after all the deductions which truth and impartiality require, it will still remain incontestable, that Sandys was a man of a clear and vigorous understanding, of a taste, in comparison, above that of the former age or the next, and, what is more, of his own: that he was a sincere Christian, a patient sufferer, an indefatigable preacher, an intrepid and active ecclesiastical magistrate. W r hat was his deportment in private life, we are no where told. On the other hand, it cannot be denied, that the man who after his advancement to the episcopal order, in three successive stations, either, kindled the flames of discord, or never extinguished them, who quarrelled alike with protestants and papists, with his successor in one see (Aylmer) and with his dean in another, who in his first two dioceses treated the clergy with a harshness which called for the interposition of the metropolitan, and who drew upon himself from two gentlemen of the country, the extremity of violence and outrage, must have been lamentably defective in Christian meekness and forbearance *. In every instance, indeed, he had met with great provocation, and in the last the treatment he received was atrocious; but such wounds are never gratuitously in-, flicted, and rarely till after a series of irritations on both sides. In doctrinal points his biographer attempts, by various extracts from his sermons, to prove archbishop Sandys less inclined to Calvinism than some of his contem­* We know not if Mr. Lodge has be. easy elegance of a courtier trith as

duct of archbishop Sandys, but his in- as ever ornamented the clerical chafereuce is somewhai different. “This racter.” Lodge’s IHqstrations, vol. Ji.

prelate’s conduct happily united the p. 222. poraries. On the other hand Dr. Whitaker asserts the clear, systematic, and purely evangelical thread of doctrine which runs through the whole of his sermons, namely, salvation through Christ alone, justification by faith in him, eanctification through his holy Spirit, and lastly, the fruits of faith, produced through the agency of the same Spirit, and exemplified in every branch cf duty to God, our neighbour and ourselves. These “Sermons” were first printed almost immediately after the archbishop’s decease, and again in 1613, in a quarto volume, containing twenty- two, but have lately become so scarce that Dr. Whitaker undertook a new edition, with a life prefixed, which was published in 1812, 8vo. The archbishop was also concerned in the translation of the Bible begun in 1565, and the portion which fell to his lot was the books of Kings and Chronicles. Several of his letters and other papers are inserted in Strype’s Anna*ls and Lives of Parker and Whitgift, and in Burnet’s History of the Reformation, Fox'Jj Acts, &c.

, brother of the preceding, was the seventh and youngest son of the archbishop of York, and was born at the archiepiscopal pala.ce of Bishopthorp in 1577. In 1588 he was sent to Oxford, and matriculated of St. Mary Hall. Wood is of opinion, that he afterwards removed to Corpus-Christi-coilege. How iang he resided in the university, or whether he took a degree, does not appear. In August 16 10, remarkable for the murder of king Henry IV“. of France, Mr. Sandys set out on his travels, and, in the course of. two years, made an extensive tour, having visited several parts of Europe, and many cities and countries of the East, as Constantinople, Greece, Egypt, and the Holy Land; after which, taking a view of the remote parts of Italy, he went to Rome and Venice, and, on his return, after properly digesting the observations he had made, published, in 1615, his well-known folio, the title of the 7th edition of which, in 1673, is,” Sandys* Travels, containing an history of the original and present state of the Turkish empire; their laws, government, policy, military force, courts of justice, and commerce. The Ma-^ hometan religion and ceremonies. A description of Constantinople, the grand signior’s seraglio, and his manner of living: also of Greece, with the religion and customs of the Grecians. Of Egypt; the antiquity, hieroglyphics, rites, customs, discipline, and religion, of the Egyptians, A voyage on the river Nilus. Of Armenia, Grand Cairo, Rhodes, the Pyramides, Colossus: the former flourishing and present state of Alexandria. A description of the Holy Land, of the Jews, and several sects of Christians Jiving there; of Jerusalem, Sepulchre of Christ, Temple of Solomon, and what else, either of antiquity orworth observation. Lastly, Italy described, and the islands adjoining; as Cyprus, Crete, Malta, Sicilia, the Eolian islands; of Rome, Venice, Naples, Syracusa, Mesena, jEtna, Scylla, and Charybdis; and other places of note. Illustrated with fifty maps and figures.“Most of the plates, especially those relating to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, are copied from the” Devotissimo Viaggio di Zualiardo, Roma,“1587, 4to. Of these travels there have been eight or ten editions published, and it still bears its reputation, his accounts having been verified by subsequent travellers. Mr. Markland has a copy of this work, edit. 1637, with a ms copy of verses by the author, which may be seen in the *' Censura Literaria,” but was first published at the end of his “Psalms,” 1640, 8vo.

, of Spanish extraction, but to be classed among English divines, was a native of Artois, where he was born in 1531. Of his early years we have no account. In 1582 he was invited to Leyden to be professor of divinity, and was preacher in the French church there. Having studied the controversy respecting church government, he inclined to that of episcopacy, and in 1587 came to England where he was well received hy some of thie prelates and divines of that day, particularly Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury. He first settled at Jersey, where he taught a school, and preached to his countrymen, who were exiles there. He was appointed master of the tree grammar-school at Southampton, where Nicholas Fuller, the most renowned critic of his age, received his education principally under him, and he also educated sir Thomas Lake, secretary of state to James I. He was successively promoted to a prebend in the churches of Gloucester, Canterbury, and Westminster. He displayed great learning in defence of episcopacy against Beza, when that divine recommended the abolition of it in Scotland. He died in 1613, at the age of eighty-two, and was interred in Canterbury cathedral, where there is a monument to his memory. All his works were published in 1611, one v.oL folio. He must have acquired a very considerable knowledge of the English language, as we find his name in the first class of those whom king James I. employed in the new translation of the Bible. He lived in great intimacy with his fellow labourer in the cause of episcopacy, the celebrated Hooker. “These two persons,” says Walton, “began a holy friendship, increasing daily to so high and mutual affections, that their two wills seemed to be but one and the same.”

How scandalous soever this design against his life was, it was attempted again more than once, even by monks of his own order: but the senate took all imaginable precautions for his security, and he himself determined to live more privately. In his recess, he applied himself to write his “History of the Council of Trent,” for which he had begun to collect materials long before. Walton tells us, that the contests between the court of Rome and the senate of Venice “were the occasion of father Paul’s knowledge and interest with king James, for whose sake principally he compiled that eminent history of the remarkable council of Trent; which history was, as fast as it was written, sent in several sheets in letters by sir Henry Wotton, Mr. Bedell, and others, unto king James, and the then bishop of Canterbury, into England.” Wotton relates, that James himself “had a hand in it; for the benefit,” he adds, “of the Christian world.” This history was first published by sir Nath. Brent (See Brent), at London, in 1619, in folio, under the feigned name of Pietro Soave Polano, which is an anagram of Paolo Sarpi Venetiano, and dedicated to James I. by Antony de Dominis, archbishop of Spalatro. It was afterwards translated into Latin, English, French, and other languages; and a new translation of it into French by Dr. le Courayer, with notes critical, historical, and theological, was published at London, 1736, 2 rols. folio. Burnet’s account of this work may serve to shew the opinion which Protestants of all communities have ever entertained of it: “The style and way of writing,” says he, “is so natural and masculine, the intrigues were so fully opened, with so many judicious reflections in all the parts of it, that as it was read with great pleasure, so it was generally looked on as the rarest piece of history which the world ever saw. The author was soon guessed, and that raised the esteem of the work: for as he was accounted one of the wisest men in the world, so he had great opportunities to gather exact informations. He had free access to all the archives of the republic of Venice, which lias been now looked on for several ages as very exact, both in getting good intelligence, and in a most careful way of preserving it: so that among their records he must have found the dispatches of the ambassadors and prelates of that republic, who were at Trent; which being so near them, and the council being of such high consequence, it is not to be doubted, but there were frequent and particular informations, both of more public and secreter transactions transmitted thither. He had also contracted a close friendship with Camillus Oliva, that was secretary to one of the legates, from whom he had many discoveries of the practices of the legates, and of their correspondence with Rome: besides many other materials and notes of some prelates who were at Trent, which he had gathered together. His work came out within fifty years of the conclusion of the council, when several, who had been present there, were still alive; and the thing was so recent in men’s memories, that few thought a man of so great prudence as he was would have exposed his reputation, by writing in such a nice manner things which he could not justify. Never was there a man more hated by the court of Rome than he was; and now he was at their mercy, if he had abused the world by such falsehoods in matter of fact, as have been since charged on his work; but none appeared against him for fifty years.”

, in Latin Sarravius, a learned French lawyer, was born towards the close of the sixteenth century, of a noble family, and educated by his father, who was a man of letters, with the greatest care. To the study of the law, he joined a taste for polite literature, philosophy, and criticism, wrote elegantly in Latin, and was an excellent Greek scholar. He had perused the classics with great attention; and some Latin and French verses which he wrote, show that he had formed his taste on the best models. He practised at the bar at Rouen, but was an enemy to litigious suits, and always endeavoured to prevent his clients from corning into court, while reconciliation was possible. He lived in intimacy and correspondence with the most learned men of his time, particularly Salmasius, Grotius, and our archbishop Usher. It is not much praise to add after this, that he had Christina queen of Sweden for a correspondent. He was of the protestant religion, and appears to have been displeased with some symptoms of what he thought lukewarm ness in his friend Grotius, and wished him to be more decided. Sarrau died May 30, 1651, advanced in years, and was lamented in poems and eloges by many learned contemporaries. He published the collection of Grotius’s correspondence entitled “Grotii epistolsc ad Gallos,” and his own Latin letters were published in 1654, 8vo, and reprinted at Utrecht with the letters of Marquard Gudius, in 1697, 4to, and again at Leyden by Peter Burman in 1711, who has inserted some of them in his valuable “Sylloge.” They contain many particulars of the literary history of the times. He appears to have been an exceeding admirer of Salmasius.

Absalon, bishop of Roschild, first instigated Saxo to undertake the history of Denmark, and assisted him with his advice and with books. Saxo employed twenty years in accomplishing his undertaking, and at last rendered it worthy the expectations of Absalon who, however, died be* fore the history was completed, which Saxo inscribed to Andrew Suno, who was the successor to the see. After remaining in ms. for three hundred years, Christianus Petra3us undertook the publication, having received the manuscript accurately written from Bergeius the archbishop of Lundens. It was delivered to be printed to Jodocus Radius Ascensius, and was published at Paris in 1514, and re-published at Basil, in 1534, by Oporinus. A third edition appeared at Francfort on the Maine, in 1576. At last, Stephanus Johannes Stephanius, historian to the king, and professor of eloquence and history in the university of Sora, with the aid of some Danish nobles, and the liberal contribution of the king, was enabled to publish an edition of Saxo, in folio, printed at Sora, 1644. A second part of the volume appeared in the following year, containing the “Prolegomena,” and copious notes. There is a later edition by Christ. Adolphus Klotz, printed at Leipsic in 1771, 4to, and there are several Danish translations. The credibility of Saxo is somewhat doubtful, but his style is good, and much praised by critics of authority.

, a dissenting minister of considerable talents, was born in 1675, and was the second son of the Rev. Giles Say, who had been ejected from the vicarage of St. Michael’s in Southampton by the Bartholomew-act in 1662; and, after king James the second’s liberty of conscience, was chosen pastor of a dissenting congregation at Guestwick in Norfolk, where he continued till his death, April 7, 1692. Some years after, the subject of this article being at Southwark, where he had been at school, and conversing with some of the dissenters of that place, met with a woman of great reputation for piety, who told him, with joy, that a sermon on Ps. cxix. 130, preached by his father thirty years before, was the means of her conversion. Being strongly inclined to the ministry, Mr. Say entered as a pupil in the academy of the Rev. Mr. Thomas Rowe at London about 1G92, where he had for his fellow-students Mr (afterwards Dr.) Isaac Watts, Hughes the poet, and Mr. Josiah Hort, afterwards archbishop of Tuam. When he had finished his studies, he became chaplain to Thomas Scott, esq. of Lyrninge in Kent, in whose family he continued three years. Thence he removed to Andover in Hampshire, then to Yarmouth in Norfolk, and soon after to Lowestoffin Suffolk, where he continued labouring in word and doctrine eighteen years. He was afterwards copastor with the Rev. Mr. Samuel Baxter at Ipswich nine years; and lastly was called, in 1734, to succeed Dr. Edmund Caiamy in Westminster, where he died at his house in James-street, April 12, 1743, of a mortification in his bowels, in the sixty-eighth year of his age.

Mr. Say had collected all the forms of prayer on public occasions from the time of archbishop Laud, which after his death were offered to the then archbishop of York (Dr. Herring), but were declined by him as “never likely to be employed in compositions of that sort for the public, that work being in the province of Canterbury.” Yet, unlikely as it seemed, this event soon happened.

, a learned English divine, was son of Mr. Thomas Scott, a substantial grazier, and was born in the parish of Chippingham, in Wiltshire, in 1638. Not being intended for a literary profession, he served an apprenticeship in London, much against his will,- for about three years but, having an inclination as well as talents for learning, he quitted his trade and went to Oxford. “He was admitted a commoner of New Inn in 1657, and made a great progress in logic and philosophy; but left the university without taking a degree, and being ordained., came to London, where he officiated in the perpetual curacy of Trinity in the Minories, and as minister of St. Thomas’s in Southwark. In 1677 he was presented to the rectory of St. Peter Le Poor; and was collated to a prebend in St. Paul’s cathedral in 1684. In 1685 he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor in divinity, having before taken no degree in any other faculty. In 1691 he succeeded Sharp, afterwards archbishop of York, in the rectory of St. Giles in the Fields; and the same year was made canon of Windsor. Wood says that*; he might soon have been a bishop, had not some scruples hindered him;‘.’ and Hickes lias told us that he refused the bishopric of Chester, because he could not take the oath of homage; and afterwards another bishopric, the deanery of Worcester, and a prebend of the church of Windsor, because they were all places of deprived men. This, however, Dr. Isham attributes entirely to his growing infirmities. He died in 1694, and was buried in St. Giles’s church: his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Isham, and afterwards printed in 1695. In this sermon we are told that” he had many virtues in him of no ordinary growth piety towards God kindness, friendship, affability, sincerity, towards men zeal and constancy in the discharge of the pastoral office and, in a word, all those graces and virtues which make the good Christian and the good man.“When popery was encroaching under Charles II. and James II. he was one of those champions who opposed it with great warmth and courage, particularly in the dedication of a sermon 'preached at Guildhall chapel, Nov. 5, 1683, to sir William Hooker, lord-mayor of London, where he declares that” Domitian and Dioclesian were but puny persecutors and bunglers in cruelty, compared with the infallible cut-throats of the apostolical chair."

, alias Rotheram (Thomas), a munificent benefactor to Lincoln college, Oxford, was born at Rotheram, in Yorkshire, from whence he took his name, but that of his family appears to have been Scot. He rose by his talents and learning to the highest ranks in church and state, having been successively fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, master of Pembroke Hall, chancellor of that university, prebendary of Sarum, chaplain to king Edward IV. provost of Beverley, keeper of the Privy Seal, secretary to four kings, bishop of Rochester and Lincoln, archbishop of York, and lord chancellor. His buildings at Cambridge, Whitehall, Southwell, and Thorp, are eminent proofs of his magnificent taste and spirit.

His conduct as a prelate was in the strictest sense of the word, exemplary. In his charges, he enjoined no duty, &nd imposed no burthen, on those under his jurisdiction, which he had not formerly undergone, or was not still ready, as far as became him, to undergo. He preached constantly in his church at Cuddesden every Sunday morning, and read a lecture on the catechism in the evening; (both which he continued to do in Lambeth chapel after he became archbishop) and in every other respect, within his own proper department, was himself that devout, discreet, disinterested, laborious, conscientious pastor, which he wished and exhorted every clergyman in his diocese to become. At length such distinguished merit prevailed over all the political obstacles to his advancement; and on the death of archbishop Hutton, he was appointed by the king to succeed him in the diocese of Canterbury, and was accordingly confirmed at Bow-church on April 21, 1758. The use he made of this dignity very clearly shewed that rank, and wealth, and power, had in no other light any charms for him, than as they enlarged the sphere of his active and industrious benevolence.

In little more than two years after his grace’s promotion to the see of Canterbury, died the late George II. Of what passed on that occasion, and of the form observed in proclaiming our present sovereign (in which the archbishop of course took the lead), his grace has left an account in writing. He did the same with regard to the subsequent ceremonials of marrying and crowning their present majesties, which in consequence of his station he had the honour to solemnize, and in which he found a great want of proper precedents and directions. He had before, when rector of St. James’s, baptized the new king (who was born in Norfolk-house, in that parish) and he was afterwards called upon to perform the same office for the greatest part of his majesty’s children a remarkable, and perhaps unexampled concurrence of such incidents in the life of one man.

As archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Seeker considered himself as the natural guardian, not only of that church over which he presided, but of learning, virtue, and religion at large; and, from the eminence on which he was placed, looked round with a watchful eye on every thing that concerned them, embracing readily all opportunities to promote their interests, and opposing, as far as he was able, all attempts to injure them. Men of real genius or extensive knowledge, he sought out and encouraged. Even tho^e- of humbler talents, provided their industry was great, and their intentions good, he treated with kindness and condescension. Both sorts he would frequently employ in undertakings suited to their respective abilities, and rewarded them in ways suited to their respective wants. He assisted them with books, promoted subscriptions to their 5 works, contributed largely to them himself, talked with them on their private concerns, entered warmly into their interests, used his credit for them with the great, and gave them preferments of his own. He expended upwards o 300l. in arranging and improving the ms library at Lambeth. Arid having observed with concern, that the library of printed books in that palace had received no accessions since the time of archbishop Tenison, he made it his business to collect books in all languages from most parts of Europe, at a very great expence, with a view of supplying that chasm; which he accordingly did, by leaving them to the library at his death.

It appeared evidently in the course of this controversy that Dr. Mayhew, and probably many other worthy men amongst the Dissenters, both at home and abroad, had conceived very unreasonable and groundless jealousies of the church of England, and its governors; and had, in particular, greatly misunderstood the proposal for appointing bishops in some of the colonies. The nature of that plan is fully explained in bishop Porteus’s life of our archbishop, to which we refer. The question is now of less importance, for notwithstanding the violent opposition to the measure, when Dr. Seeker espoused it, no sooner did the American provinces become independent states, than application was made to the English bishops by some of those states to consecrate bishops for them according to the rites of the church of England, and three bishops were actually consecrated in London some years ago: one for Pennsylvania, another for New York, and a third for Virginia.

Whenever any publications came to the archbishop’s knowledge that were manifestly calculated to corrupt good morals, or subvert the foundations of Christianity, he did his utmost to stop the circulation of them yet the wretched authors themselves he was so far from wishing to treat withany undue rigour, that he has more than once extended his bounty to them in distress. And when their writing* could not properly be suppressed (as was too often the case) by lawful authority, he engaged men of abilities to answer them, and rewarded them for their trouble. His attention was everywhere. Even the falsehoods and misrepresentations of writers in the newspapers, on religious or ecclesiastical subjects, he generally took care to have contradicted: and when they seemed likely to injure, in any material degree, the cause of virtue and religion, or the reputation of eminent and worthy men, he would sometimes take the trouble of answering them himselfOne instance of this kind, which does him honour, and deserves mention, was his defence of Bishop Butler, who, in a pamphlet, published in 1767, was accused of having died a papist.

* The biographers of eminent dis- drulge’s Letters,“in his zeal, has* presenters, with all tlx-ir prejudices against duced two letters from archbishop Seckthe hierarchy, setm never to exult er to that dirine, forgetting; that he was more than when they can produce uot archbishop until several year after the correspondence of a distinguished Duddridge’s death, prelate. But the editor of” Dr. Dod intercourse of friendship or civility. By the most candid and considerate part of them he was highly reverenced and esteemed: and to such among them as needed help he shewed no less kindness and liberality than to those of his own communion.

By his will, he appointed Dr. Daniel Burton, and Mrs. Catherine Talbot (daughter of the Rev. Mr. Edward Talhot), his executors; and left thirteen thousand pounds in the three per cent, annuities to Dr. Porteus and Dr. Stinton his chaplains, in trust, to pay the interest thereof to Mrs. Talbot and her daughter during their joint lives, or the life of the survivor; and, after the decease of both those ladies, eleven thousand to be transferred to the following charitable purposes: To the society for propagation of the gospel in foreign parts, for the general uses of the society, lOOOl.; to the same society, towards the establishment of a bishop or bishops in the king’s dominions in America, 1000; to the society for promoting Christian knowledge, 600l. to the Irish protestant working schools, 500l. to the corporation of the widows and children of the poor clergy, 500L to the society of the stewards of the said charity, 200l. to Bromley college in Kent, 500l. to the hospitals of the archbishop of Canterbury, at Croydon, St. John at Canterbury, and St. Nicholas Harbledown, 500l. each to St, George’s and London hospitals, and the Jying-in-hospital in Brownlow-s-treet, 500l. each; to the Asylum in the parish of Lambeth, 400l. to the Magdalen-hospital, the Lock-hospital, the Small- pox and Inoculation-h ispital, to each of which his grace was a subscriber, '6001. each to the incurables at St. Luke’s hospital, 500l. towards the repairing or rebuilding of houses belonging to ppor livings in the diocese of Canterbury, 2.00Q/.

Besides these donations, he left 100G/. to be distributed amongst his servants 200l. to such poor persons as he assisted in his life-time 5000l. to the two daughters of his nephew Mr. Frost 500l. to Mrs. Seeker, the widow of his nephew Dr. George Seeker, and 200l. to Dr. Daniel Burton. After the payment of those and some other smaller legacies, he left his real and the residue of his personal estate to Mr. Thomas Frost of Nottingham. The greatest part of his very noble collection of books he bequeathed to the Archiepiscopal library at Lambeth, the rest betwixt his two chaplains and two other friends. To the manuscript library in the same palace, he left a large number of very learned and valuable Mss. writtenby himself on a great variety of subjects, critical and theological. His well-known catechetical lectures, and his ms sermons he left to be revised by his two chaplains, Dr. Stinton and Dr. Porteus, by whom they were published in 1770. His options he gave to the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, and the bishop of Winchester for the time being, in trust, to be disposed of by them (as they became vacant) to such persons as they should in their consciences think it would have been most reasonable for him to have given them, had he been living.

The life prefixed to his works was written by Dr. Porteus, the late very amiable and much admired bishop of London, and reprinted separately by his lordship in 1797, in consequence of bishop Kurd’s having, in his life of Warburton, “judged it expedient to introduce into his life of bishop Warburton, such observations on the talents, learning, and writings of archbishop Seeker, as appeared, both to Dr. Porteus and to many other of his grace’s friends extremely injurious to his literary character, and the credit of his numerous and useful publications; and therefore highly deserving of some notice from those who loved him in life, and revered him after death.” These observations are indeed fully refuted in this excellent piece of biography, as well as the other slanders which the steady and upright conduct of archbishop Seeker drew upon him from persons notoriously disaffected to religion and the church; and time, which never fails to do ample justice to such characters as his, has almost effaced the remembrance of them. Yet, as some have lately attempted to revive the calumny, and suppress the refutation, we have given some references in the note on this subject, not without confidence that archbishop Seeker’s character will suffer little while he has a Porteus for his defender, and a Hollis, a Walpole, a Blackburn, and a Wakefield for his accusers.

In the next session of parliament he continued his activity against the measures of the court, to which he had made himself so obnoxious, that after that parliament was dissolved, he was committed to the Tower by an order of the Privy-council, where he remained about eight months, and as he then refused to give security for his good behaviour, he was removed to the King’s Bench prison, but was allowed the rules. It was about this time that he wrote his piece “De successionibns in bona defuncti, secundum leges Hebraeorum,” Lond. 1634, 4to; and another, “De successione in pontificatum Hebracorum libri duo,” reprinted at Leyden, 1638, 8vo, and Francfort, by Beckman, 1673, 4to, with some additions by the author. In May 1630 he was removed to the Gate-house at Westminster; and in conseqaence of this removal, he found means to obtain so much indulgence, as to pass the long vacation in Bedfordshire; but when his habeas corpus was brought, as usual, in Michaelmas term ensuing, it was refused by the court, and the judges complaining of the illegality of his removal to the Gate-house, he was remanded to the King’sbench, where he continued till May 1631, when he was admitted to bail, and bailed from term to term, until he. petitioned the king, in July 1634, and was finally released Iby the favour of archbishop Laud and the lord treasurer. During his confinement, having been always much attached totli study of Jewish antiquities, he wrote his treatises, “De Jure naturali et gentium, juxta disciplinam Hebneorum,”

During king James’s reign, Selden had been ordered by his majesty to make such collections as might shew the right of the crown of England to the dominion of the sea, and he had undertaken the work, but, in resentment for being imprisoned by James, declined the publication. An occasion offered now in which it might appear to advantage. In 1634, a dispute having arisen between the English and Dutch concerning the herring -fishery upon the British coast, to which the Dutch laid claim, and had their claims supported by Grotius, who, in his “Mare liberum” contended that fishing on the seas was a matter of common right, Selden now published his celebrated treatise of “Mare Clausum,” Lond. 1635, foL In this he effectually demonstrated, from the law of nature and nations, that a dominion over the sea may be acquired: and from the most authentic histories, that such a dominion has been claimed and enjoyed by several nations, and submitted to by others, for their common benefit; that this in fact was the case of the inhabitants of this island, who, at all times, and under every kind of government, had claimed, exercised, and constantly enjoyed such a dominion, which had been confessed by their neighbours frequently, and in the most solemn manner. This treatise, in the publication of which Selden is said to have been encouraged by archbishop Laud, greatly recommended him to the court, and was considered as so decisive on the question, that a copy of it was placed among the records of the crown, in the exchequer, and in the court of admiralty. This work was reprinted in 1636, 8vo. An edition also appeared in Holland, 12mo, with the title of London, but was prohibited by the king, because of some additions, and a preface by Boxhornius. It was jtranslated into English, by the noted Marchamont Needham, 1652, foL with some additional evidence and discourses, by special command, and a dedication of eighteen pages, addressed to “The supreme authoritie of the nation and parliament of the Commonwealth of England,” which is of course not prefixed to the translation by J. H. Gent published after the restoration in 1663. Nicolson observes, that when Selden wrote this book, he was not such an inveterate enemy to the prerogative doctrine of ship-money, as afterwards: for he professedly asserts, that in the defence of their sovereignty at sea, our kings constantly practised the levying great sums on their subjects without the concurrence of their parliaments. The work having been attacked by Peter Baptista Burgus, Selden published in 1653, 4to, a treatise in its defence, with rather a harsh title, “Vindicise secundum integritatem existimationis suae per eonvitium de scriptione Maris Clausi petulantissimum et mendacissimum Maris Liberi, &c.”

In this same year, 1640, Selden was chosen member for the university of Oxford, and that year and the following continued Jo oppose the measures of the court, but his. coneliiet may to some appear unsteady. In truth, he attempted what in those days was impossible, to steer a middle course. He supported the republican party in the measures preparatory to the sacrifice of the earl of Strafford, but was not one of their Committee for managing the impeachment, and his name was even inserted in a list of members, posted up in Old Palace Yard by some party zealots, and branded with the appellation of " enemies of justice.*' On the subject of church-government, although he seems to have entertained some predilection for the establishment, yet he made no effort to prevent its fall, at all commensurate to his knowledge and credit. In the debates on the question whether bishops sat in parliament as barons and peers of the realm, or as prelates, he gave it as his opinion that they sat as neither, but as representatives of the clergy; and this led to the expulsion of them from parliament. Afterwards we find him concurring with other members of the House of Commons in a protestation that they would maintain the protestant religion according to the doctrine of the church of England, and would defend the person and authority of the king, the privileges of parliament, and the rights of the subject. In the prosecution of archbishop Laud, Selden was among those who were appointed to draw up articles of impeachment against him, an office which must have produced a severe contest between his private feelings and his public duties.

Selden continued to sit in Parliament after the murder of the king, and was the means of doing some good to learning, by his own reputation and influence in that reipect. He preserved archbishop Usher’s library from being sold, and rendered considerable services to the university of Oxford, taking all occasions, as in the cases of Pocock and Greaves, to moderate the tyranny of the parliamentary visitors, and often affording a generous protection to other eminent men who were about to be ejected for their adherence to the king. He also was instrumental in preserving the books and medals at St. James’s, by persuading his friend Whitelocke to accept the charge of them. Of his conduct while the death of the king was pending, we have no account at that critical period, he retired, it is said, as far as he could and it is certain that he refused to gratify Cromwell by writing an answer to the Eikoti Basilike. In 1650, he published his first book, “De Synedriis et prcefecturis Hebraeorum,” 4to; the second appeared in 1653, and the third after his death, in 1655. Many passages in this work have been animadverted upon by several eminent writers, especially what relates to excommunication. Dr. Hammond, in particular, has examined Selden’s notion concerning the power of binding and loosing, in his treatise concerning “The power of the Keys.” In 1652, he contributed a preface to the “Decem Scriptores Historic Anglicanae,” printed at London that year, in folio.

Several other works of his were printed after his death, or left in manuscript. I. “God made man, A Tract proving the nativity of our Saviour to be on the 25th of December,” Lond. 1661, 8vo, with his portrait. This was answered in the first postscript to a treatise entitled tc A brief (but true) account of the certain Year, Month, Day, and Minute of the birth of Jesus Christ,“Lond. 1671, 8vo, by John Butler, B. D. chaplain to James duke of Ormonde, and rector of Litchborow, in the diocese of Peterboroup-h. 2.” Discourse of the office of Lord Chancellor of England,“London, 1671, in fol. printed with Dugdale’s catalogue of lord chancellors and lord keepers of England from the Norman conquest. 3, Several treatises, viz.” England’s Epinomis;“already mentioned, published 1683, in fol. by Redman Westcot, alias Littleton, with the English translation of Selden’s” Jani Anglorum Facies altera.“4.” Ta. ble talk: being the discourses or his sense of various maU ters of weight and high consequence, relating especially to Religion and State,“London, 1689, 4to, published by Richard Mil ward, amanuensis to our author. Dr. Wilkins observes, that there are many things in this book inconsistent with Seiden’s great learning, principles, aud character. It has, however, acquired popularity, and still continues to be printed, as an amusing and edifying manual. 5.” Letters to learned men;“among which several to archbishop Usher are printed in the collection of letters at the end of Parr’s life of that prelate; and two letters of his to Mr. Thomas Greaves were first published from the originals by Thomas Birch, M. A. and F. R. 8. in the life prefixed to Birch’s edition of the” Miscellaneous works of Mr. John Greaves,“Lond. 1737, in two volumes, 8vo. 6.” Speeches, Arguments, Debates, &c. in Par! lament.“7. He had a considerable hand in, and gave directions and advice towards, the edition of” Plutarch’s Lives,“printed in 1657, with an addition of the year of the world, and the year of our Lord, together with many chronological notes and explications. His works were collected by Dr. David Wiljvins, and printed at London in three volumes fol. 1726. The two first volumes contain his Latin works, and the third his English. The editor has prefixed a long life of the author, and added several pieces never published before, particularly letters, poems, &c. In 1675 there was printed at London in 4to,” Joannis Seldeni Angli Liber de Nummis, &c. Huic accedit Bibliotheca Nummaria.“But this superficial tract was not written by our author, but by Alexander Sardo of Ferrara, and written before Selden was born, being published at Mentz, 1575, in 4to. The” Bibliotheca Nummaria" subjoined to it was written by father Labbe the Jesuit.

It may easily be imagined how much these successes raised his reputation in England, especially when it was remembered what great services he had done formerly against France so that the nation in general had vast expectations from his government but the breach between him and his brother, the lord high admiral of England, lost him the present advantages. The death of the admiral also, in March 1548, drew much censure on the protector; though others were of opinion that it was scarce possible for him to do more for the gaining his brother than he had done. In September 1549, a strong faction appeared against him, under the influence and direction of Wriothesly earl of Southampton, who hated him on account of losing the office of lord chancellor, and Dudley earl of Warwick, who expected to have the principal administration of affairs upon his removal; and other circumstances concurred to raise him enemies. His partiality to the commons provoked the gentry; his consenting to the execution of his brother, and his palace in the Strand, erected on the ruins of several churches and other religious buildings, in a time both of war and pestilence, disgusted the people, The clergy hated him, not only for promoting the changes in religion, but likewise for his enjoying so many of the best manors of the bishops; and his entertaining foreign troops, both German and Italian, though done by the consent of the council, gave general disgust. The privy counsellors complained of his being arbitrary in his proceedings, and of many other offences, which exasperated the whole body of them against him, except archbishop Cranmer, sir William Paget, and sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state. The first discovery of their designs induced him to remove the king to Hampton Ctuirt, and then to Windsor; but finding the party against him too formidable to oppose, he submitted to the council, and on the 14th of October was committed to the Tower, and in January following was fined in the sum of two thousand pounds a year, with thg loss of all his offices and goods. However, on the 16th of February, 1549-50, he obtained a full pardon, and so managed his interest with the king, that he was brought both to the court and council in April following: and to confirm the reconciliation between him and the earl of Warwick, the duke’s daughter was married, on the 3d of June, 1550, to the lord viscount Lisle, the earl’s son. But this friendship did not continue long; for in October 1551, the earl, now created duke of Northumberland, caused the duke of Somerset to be sent to the Tower, alledging^ that the latter had formed a design of raising the people; and that when himself, and the marquis of Northampton^ and the earl of Pembroke, had been invited to dine at the lord Paget’s, Somerset determined to have set upon them by the way, or to have killed them at dinner; with other particulars of that kind, which were related to the king in so aggravated a manner, that he was entirely alienated from his uncle. On the first of December the duke was brought to his trial, and though acquitted of treason, was found guilty of felony in intending to imprison the duke of Northumberland. He was beheaded on Tower-hill on the 22d of January, 1551-2, and died with great serenity. It was generally believed, that the conspiracy, for which he suffered, was a mere forgery; and indeed the not bringing the witnesses into the court, but only the depositions, and the parties themselves sitting as judges, gave great occasion to condemn the proceedings against him. Besides, his four friends, who were executed for the same cause, ended their lives with the most solemn protestations of their innocence.

Mr. Sharp was very irregular as to his meals, and remarkably sparing in his diet, which he frequently took in the following manner: A little square hole, something like a window, made a communication between the room where he was usually employed in calculations, and another chamber or room in the house where a servant could enter; and before this hole he had contrived a sliding board: the servant always placed his victuals in this hole, without speaking or making any the least noise; and when he had a little leisure he visited his cupboard to see what it afforded to satisfy his hunger or thirst. But it often happened, that the breakfast, dinner, and supper, have remained untouched by him, when the servant has gone to remove what was left so deeply engaged had he been in calculations. Cavities might easily be perceived in an old English oak table where he sat to write, by the frequent rubbing and wearing of his elbows. By his epitaph it appears that he was related to archbishop Sharp, but in what degree is not mentioned. It is certain he was born in the same place. One of his nephews was the father of Mr. Ramsden the celebrated instrument-maker, who said that this his granduncle was for some time in his younger days an exciseman, but quitted that occupation on coming to a patrimonial estate of about 200l. a year. Mr. Thoresby, who often mentions him, had a declining dial for his library window, made by Sharp.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, and the third prelate of that see who suffered from popular or private revenge, was born of a good family in Banffshire in 1618. In his youth he displayed such a capacity as determined his father to dedicate him to the church, and to send him to the university of Aberdeen, whence, on account of the Scottish covenant, made in 1638, he retired into England, and was in a fair way of obtaining promotion from his acquaintance with doctors Sanderson, Hammond, Taylor, and other of our most eminent divines, when he was obliged to return to his native country on account of the rebellion, and a bad state of health. Happening by the way to fall into company with lord Oxenford, that nobleman was pleased with his conversation, and carried him to his own house in the country. Here he became known to several of the nobility, particularly to John Lesley, earl of Rothes, who patronized him on account of his merit, and procured him a professorship in St. Andrew’s. After some stay here with growing reputation, through the friendship of the earl of Cranford, he was appointed minister of Crail. In this town he acquitted himself of his ministry in an exemplary and acceptable manner; only some of the more rigid sort would sometimes intimate their fears that he was not sound; and it is very certain that he was not sincere.

The earl of Lauderdale and he had a meeting with ten of the chief presbyterian ministers in London, who all agreed upon the necessity of bringing in the king upon covenant terms. At the earnest desire of Monk and the leading presbyterians of Scotland, Sharp was sent over to king Charles to Breda, to solicit him to own the cause of presbytery. He returned to London, and acquainted his friends, “that he found the king very affectionate to Scotland, and resolved not to wrong the settled government of their church:” at last he came to Scotland, and delivered to some of the ministers of Edinburgh a letter from the king, in which his majesty promised to protect and preserve the government of the church of Scotland, “as it is settled by law.” The clergy, understanding this declaration in its obvious meaning, felt all the satisfaction which such a communication could not fail to impart; but Sharp, who had composed the letter, took this very step to hasten the subversion of the presbyterian church government, and nothing could appear more flagitious than the manner in which he had contrived it should operate. When the earl of Middleton, who was appointed to open the parliament in Scotland as his majesty’s commissioner, first read this extraordinary letter, he was amazed, and reproached Sharp for having abandoned the cause of episcopacy, to which he had previously agreed. But Sharp pleaded that, while this letter would serve to keep the presbyterians quiet, it laid his majesty under no obligation, because, as he bound himself to support the ecclesiastical government “settled by law,” parliament had only thus to settle episcopacy, to transfer to it the pledge of the monarch. Even Middleton, a man of loose morals, was shocked with such disingenuity, and honestly answered, that the thing might be done, but that for his share, he did not love the way, which made his majesty’s first appearance in Scotland to be in a cheat. The presbyterian government being overturned by the parliament, and the bishops restored, Sharp was appointed archbishop of St. Andrew’s; and still, in consistence with his treacherous character, endeavoured to persuade his old friends, that he had accepted this high office, to prevent its being filled with one who might act with violence against the presbyterians.

All this conduct rendered him very odious in Scotland, and he was accused of treachery and perfidy, and reproached by his old friends as a traitor and a renegado. The absurd and wanton cruelties which were afterwards committed, and which were imputed in a great measure to the archbishop, rendered him still more detested. Nor were these accusations without foundation, for when after the defeat of the presbyterians at Pentland-hills, he received an order from the king to stop the executions, he kept it for some time before he produced it in council.

Sharp had a servant, one Carmichael, who by his cruelties had rendered himself particularly odious to the presbyterians. Nine men formed the resolution, in 1679, of waylaying him in Magus-moor, about three miles from St. Andrew’s. While they were waiting for this man, the primate himself appeared in a coach with his daughter, and the assassins immediately considered this as a fit opportunity to rid the world of such a monster of perfidy and cruelty, and accordingly dispatched him with their swords, with every aggravation of barbarity, regardless of the tears and intreaties of his daughter. Such is the account given by all historians of the murder of Sharp; and that he fell by the hands of fanatics whom he persecuted, is certain. A tradition, however, has been preserved in different families descended from him, which may here be mentioned. The primate had, in the plenitude of his archiepiscopal authority, taken notice of a criminal amour carried on between a nobleman high in office and a lady of some fashion who lived within his diocese. This interference was in that licentious age deemed very impertinent; and the archbishop’s descendants believe that the proud peer instigated the deluded rabble to murder their ancestor. Such a tradition, however, is contrary to all historical testimony, and all historians have been particularly desirous to prove that the meeting with the assassins was purely accidental.

In 1667, he took the degree of M. A. and was ordained both deacon and priest. In the same year, he was recommended by the celebrated Dr. Henry More, as domestic chaplain to sir Heneage Finch, then attorney-general to four of whose sons he was tutor two of whom, having afterwards entered into orders, he successively collated, when archbishop of York, to the rich prebend of Wetwang in his cathedral. At the opening of the Sheldonian theatre in July 1669, he was incorporated M. A. with several other Cambridge gentlemen, whom the fame of that intended solemnity had brought to Oxford. In 1672, sir Heneage Finch obtained for him from the king, the archdeaconry of Berkshire, vacant by the promotion of Dr. Mews to the see of Bath and Wells. In the same year, sir Heneage was appointed lord keeper of the great seal, when he gave an eminent proof of the confidence which he placed in the judgment and integrity of his chaplain. Attached to the interests of the church of England, he had considered the necessity of inquiring into the characters of those who might be candidates for benefices in the disposal of the seal. But the many avocations of his high office prevented his personal attention to this point: he therefore addressed his chaplain to this effect: “The greatest difficulty I apprehend in the execution of my office, is the patronage of ecclesiastical preferments. God is my witness, that I would not knowingly prefer an unworthy person; but as my course of life and studies has lain another way, I cannot think myself so good a judge of the merits of such suitors as you are. I therefore charge it upon your conscience, as you will answer it to Almighty God, that upon every such occasion, you make the best inquiry, and give me the best advice you can, that I may never bestow any favour upon an undeserving man; which, if you neglect to do, the guilt will be entirely yours, and I shall deliver my soul.” This trust, so solemnly committed to his care, Dr. Sharp faithfully discharged and his advice was no less faithfully followed by his patron, so long as he continued in office and never was a conscientious disposal of church preferment of more importance than in the dissolute reign of Charles II.

The merit of dean Sharp was now in the highest estimation, and upon the deprivation of those bishops who refused the oaths to William and Mary, he was considered as a proper person to succeed to one of the vacant sees. But neither the favour of his majesty, nor the persuasion of his friends, could prevail on him Ho accept the offer. He declined the promotion, not from any scruple of conscience, but from a delicacy of feeling; for he entertained a particular esteem for the prelates who were deprived. This refusal, however, which reflects equal honour on his disinterestedness and on his sensibility, displeased the king. But his friend, Dr. Tillotson, the day after his nomination to the see of Canterbury, waited on him, and proposed an expedient, by which he might accede, without violating his resolution, to the kind intention of his majesty. This was, that he should promise to accept the see of York, when it should become vacant, and that he should ground his present refusal on his wish to be preferred to his native county. To this he agreed, and Dr. Tillotson acquainted the king with what had passed; when his majesty signified his approbation of Dr. Sharp’s intention. In a few days afterwards, Lamplugh, the archbishop of York, died, and Sharp was consecrated in his room, July 5, 1691. His elevation to this dignity, says Thoresby, the historian of Leeds, was not only to the comfort and honour of his native county and family, but to the universal satisfaction and joy of the whole nation.

In 1693, he visited his diocese, when he found the collegiate church of Southwell in the greatest confusion, its government neglected, and its members in distraction and animosity. By the wisdom and moderation of his excellent “Injunctions,” he restored it to its former decency, order, and hospitality. In 1697, as metropolitan he represented to the king, that the see of Sodor and Man had continued vacant four years, with which his majesty perhaps might not be acquainted; that, of necessity, it ought to be filled; and that the patron of the bishopric should be reminded, that any further delay would preclude his nomination. The isle of Man was greatly indebted to the archbishop for this remonstrance, as it occasioned the earl of Derby, the patron of the see, to insist on the primitive Wilson’s acceptance of it: whose modesty had before declined the honour, and who could not even now receive it, without saying, “he was forced into the bishopric.”

On the accession of queen Anne, the archbishop was sworn one of her privy council, and was appointed lord almoner. In 1705, he Concurred with those who apprehended the church to be in danger; but their opinions, however zealously defended, when they became the subject of parliamentary debate, were discountenanced by a great majority; and the church was declared to be “in a most safe and flourishing condition.” In 1706, he was nominated one of the commissioners for treating of the union between England and Scotland. He is said to have been appointed merely out of respect to his dignity; but would not be present, even once, at the treaty. In the affair of Sacheverell, on which the opinions of men were so much divided, in 1709, he joined with those peers, who expressed the most contemptuous opinion of the sermon, bat did not > think the preacher guilty of a misdemeanour and who entered their protest against the sentence of the majority. He afterwards opposed the intended promotion of Swift to an English mitre, in this remarkable caution to the queen, "that her majesty should be sure that the man whom she

(was going to make a bishop, was at least a Christian." To this, it is said, he was induced by the solicitation of Swift’s implacable enemy, the duchess of Somerset: to whose earnest intreaties, rather than to the interposition of Sharp, Swift owed his disappointment. The archbishop, we are told, was more reconciled to Swift afterwards, and even asked his forgiveness; yet, although his grace might be led to an unjust insinuation of Swift’s not being a Christian, and might, as all do, respect his uncommon talents, it does not appear, from a review of the whole of his character, that he would have done much honour to the episcopal bench.

In 1712, archbishop Sharp perceived his health to decline, and was recommended to try the benefit of the Bath waters, but his recovery soon appeared hopeless. Not long before his death, he procured sir William Dawes to be appointed his successor, merely from his good opinion of him, “that he would be diligent in executing the duties of his office.” In the reign of queen Anne, the greatest attention was always paid to his recommendation, and in that of William, also, he had been joined with several other disinterested prelates, in a commission from his majesty, “to recommend deserving clergymen for the crown-preferments.” Among the many distinguished divines who, on rarious occasions, had been indebted to his interest, were his particular friend Tillotson, the bishops Bull, Beveridge, Wilson, Potter, and Gibson; Dr. Prideaux, though he himself thought otherwise, and Dr. Mills.

He died at Bath, Feb. 2, 1713-14, in the sixty-ninth year of his age. His remains were removed to York, and interred privately in the cathedral on the 16th following, where a marble monument of the Corinthian order, was afterwards placed to his memory, with an elegant Latin inscription by bishop Smalridge, one of his intimate friends. Archbishop Sharp had married, in 1676, Elizabeth, the youngest daughter of William Palmer, of Winthorp, in the county of Lincoln, esq. by whom he had issue. His eldest son, John Sharp, esq. a learned and ingenious gentleman, is said to have been member of parliament for Rippon, in the county of York, but this must have been before the union, as we find no such name in the list of members for Rippon since that event. His son Thomas we shall soon have occasion to notice.

, a younger son of the preceding, was born about 1693. He was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1708, and took his degrees of B. A. in 1712, and M. A. 1716. He was also a fellow of his college, and took the degree of D. D. in 1729. He was chaplain to archbishop Dawes; and in July 1720, was collated to the rectory of Rothbury, in the county of Northumberland. He held the prebend of Southwell, and afterwards that of Wistow, in York cathedral. In 1722, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Northumberland; and in 1755, succeeded Dr. Mangey in the officially of the dean and chapter. He died March 6, 175S, and was interred in Durham cathedral, of which also he had held the tenth prebend from the year 1732. He published a “Concio ad Clerum,” when he took his doctor’s decree; and in 1753, “The Rubric in the book of Common Prayer, and the Canons of the church of England, so far as they relate to the Parochial Clergy, considered in a course of visitation sermons,” 8vo. A volume of his “Sermons on several occasions” was published in 1763, 8vo. Dr. Sharp also engaged, but, as Mr. Jones says, much against his will, in the Hutchinsonian controversy, and published two dissertations concerning the etymology of the Hebrew words Elohim and Berith, and “Discourses on the antiquity of the Hebrew tongue and character.”

, eminent as a Christian, a scholar, and a gentleman, one of the sons of Dr. Thomas Sharp, and grandson to the archbishop, was born in 1734. He was educated for the bar, but did not practise at it. When he quitted the legal profession, he obtained a place in the ordnance office, which he resigned at the commencement of the American war; of the principles of which he did not approve. He now took chambers in the Temple, and devoted himself to a life of study; at the same time, laying himself out for public utility. He first became known to the public in the case of a poor and friendless negro, of the name of Somerset. This person had been brought from the West Indies to England, and falling into bad health, was abandoned by his master, and turned into the streets, either to die, or to gain a miserable support by precarious charity. In this destitute state, almost, it is said, on the point of expiring on the pavement of one of the public streets of London, Mr. Sharp chanced to see him. He instantly had him removed to St. Bartholomew’s hospital, attended personally to his wants, and in a short time had the happiness to see him restored to health. Mr. Sharp now clothed him, and procured him comfortable employment in the service of a lady. Two years had elapsed, and the circumstance almost, and the name of the poor negro, had escaped the memory of his benefactor, when Mr. Sharp received a letter from a person, signing himself Somerset, confined in the Poultry Compter, stating no cause for his commitment, but intreating his interference to save him from a greater calamity even than the death from which he had before rescued him. Mr. Sharp instantly went to the prison, and found the negro, who in sickness and misery had been discarded by his master, sent to prison as a runaway slave. Mr. Siiarp went immediately to the lord major, William Nash, esq. who caused the parties to be brought before him; when, after a long hearing, the upright magistrate decided that the master had no property in the person of the negro, in this country, and gave the negro his liberty. The master instantly collared him, in the presence of Mr. Sharp and the lord mayor, and insisted on his right to keep him as his property. Mr. Sharp now claimed the protection of the English law, caused the master to be taken into custody, and exhibited articles of peace against him for an assault and battery. After various legal proceedings, supported by him with most undaunted spirit, the twelve judges unanimously concurred in an opinion that the master had acted criminally. Thus did Mr. Sharp emancipate for ever the race of blacks from a state of slavery, while on British ground, and in fact banished slavery from Great Britain. Such an incident could not fail deeply to impress a benevolent mind; and slavery, in every shape and country, became the object of his unceasing hostility. In 17G9, he published a work, entitled “A Representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of toleratinaSlavery, or of admitting the least claim of private property in the persons of men in England. 7 ' Having succeeded in the case of an individual negro, he interested himself in the condition of the many others who were seen wandering about the streets of London, and at his own expence collected a number of them, whom he sent back to Africa, where they termed a colony on the river Sierra Leone. He performed a still more essential service to humanity, by becoming the institutor of the” Society for the abolition of the Slave trade;“which, after contending against a vast mass of opposition, at length succeeded, as far as this country was concerned, and it is hoped will soon be universal. Similar principles led Mr. Sharp to use his endeavours to restrain the practice of marine impressment; and a citizen of London having been carried off by a press-warrant, Mr. Sharp obtained a habeas corpus from the court of king’s bench, to bring him back from a vessel at the Nore; and by his arguments obliged the court to liberate him. His political principles led him to become the warm advocate of” parliamentary reform,“and he published” A Declaration of the people’s natural right to a share in the legislature, which is the fundamental principle of the British constitution of state." In this he proposed to restore the ancient tithing$, hundreds, &c. and the whole body of the people were to form a national militia, each thousand to constitute a regiment, the alderman or magistrate to be the colonel; and each hundred to constitute a company, the constable of each fo.r the time being to be their captain. So many of the thousands to be summoned once in every year, by their magistrate, as would have a right to vote in their respective hundreds, before the constable, in the choice of their part of the representative legislature. After stating that the division of this kingdom into tithings and hundreds was instituted by the immortal Alfred, he endeavours to prove that such a division is consistent with the most perfect state of liberty that man is capable of enioying, and yet fully competent to answer all the purposes of mutual defence, to secure the due execution of the laws, and maintain public peace. Mr. Sharp was educated in the principles of the established church, and through life shewed a warm attachment to them. This led him to recommend an episcopal church in America; and he introduced the first bishops from that country to the archbishop of Canterbury for consecration.

His works were, 1. “A Review of the Controversy about the meaning of Demoniacs in the New Testament,” 1738. 2. ' A Defence of the late Dr. Clarke, against the reply of Sieur L. P. Thummig,“1744. 3.” Two Dissertations, the first upon the origin of languages, the second upon the original powers of letters, with a Hebrew Lexicon,“1751. 4.” A Dissertation on the Latin Tongue,“1751. 5.” An Argument in defence of Christianity, taken from the concessions of the most ancient adversaries,“1755. 6.” An Introduction to Universal History, translated from the Latin of Baron Holberg,“1758. 7.” A second argument in defence of Christianity, taken from the ancient prophecies,“1762. 8.” The rise and fall of the holy city and temple of Jerusalem,“1764. 9.” The want of universality no objection to the Christian religion,“1765. 10.” Syntagma Dissertationum quas olim auctor doctissirnus Thomas Hyde, S. T. P. separatim edidit,“1767. Some of the prints in this were etched by Dr. Sharpe, who had a good talent in that branch of art, and sometimes, for his amusement, took likenesses of singular persons, and engraved them. Cole speaks of” an admirable etching“by him, of a country farmer asleep in a chair. He was a tenant of the Temple estate, and so very lethargic as to fall asleep in the chair when he was waiting for Dr. Sharpe’s receipt for his rent. 11.” The origin and structure of the Greek tongue,“1768. 12.” A Letter to the Right Rev. the Bishop of Oxford, containing remarks upon some strictures made by Archbishop Seeker on Merrick’s Annotations on the Psalms,“1769. 13.” The advantages of a Religious Education, a sermon preached at the Asylum,“1770. These publications are incontestable evidences of the abilities and application of the learned author, who also carried on an extensive literary correspondence with many eminent scholars both of his own and other countries, particularly Dr. Sykes and Dr. Hunt. Two volumes of his original letters are now before us, the one entitled * c From the time I went abroad,” which appears to have been in 1752; the other “Concerning the Latin and Hebrew Dissertations.” There are few particulars of a biographical kind in them, but abundant proof of the facility with which he could enter upon learned discussions without apparent preparation. After his death a volume of his “Sermons” was published by the Rev. Joseph Robertson in 1772.

From Whatton he removed to Cotes, a small village near Loughborough, and during his stay there both himself and his family were afflicted with the plague, being infected by some relations from London, who came from thence to avoid it. He buried two friends, two children, and a servant, of that distemper, during the progress of which he and his wife attended each other, and he himself was forced to bury the dead in his own garden. Towards the latter end of the year 1666, he removed to Asliby de la Zouch, and was chosen in 1668 to be sole school-master of the free-school there, the revenue of which he procured to be increased for himself and his successors, and by his interest with the gentlemen in the neighbourhood, was enabled to re-build the school and school-house: he also obtained a licence from archbishop Sheldon to teach school in any part of his province; and Dr. Fuller, bishop of Lincoln, in whose diocese the school was situated, granted him the same upon such terms as to subscription as Mr. Shaw chose. This school, his piety, learning, and temper, soon raised into such reputation, that the number of his scholars increased in so great a degree, that he had often 160 boys or more under his care. Many of these afterwards became distinguished characters in the three professions of law, physic, and divinity.

In January 1766, he took the degree of A. B.; and in 1767 was elected fellow of 1 his college, on the foundation of Mr. Platt. In 1767, he took the degree of A. M. In part of the years 1771 and 1772, he served the office of moderator for the university with distinguished applause. During this period he numbered among his pupils several whom he lived to see advanced to high stations in their respective professions, particularly the present bishop of Lincoln and the chief justice of the King’s Bench. In 1773> he accepted from the University the rectory of Ovington in Norfolk; and, having married an highly respectable person, the object of his early attachment, settled at the village of Grassington, where he received into his house a limited number of pupils, among whom, in the years 1774 and 1775, was Dr. Thomas Dunham Whitaker, the learned author of the “History of Craven.” In 1777, he removed to Leeds; and in the same year, by the active friendship of Dr. John Law, then one of the prebendaries of Carlisle, he was presented by that chapter to the living of Sebergham in Cumberland. In 1783 he was appointed to the valuable cure of St. John’s church in Leeds; and in 1792 he was collated, by his former pupil Dr. Pretyman, bishop of Lincoln, to a prebend in his cathedral, which, by the favour of the present archbishop of York, he was enabled to exchange, in 1794 or 1795, for a much more valuable stall at Carlisle, vacated by the promotion of Dr. Paley to the subel eanery of Lincoln. This was the last of his preferments, and probably the height of his wishes; for he was in his own nature very disinterested. After having been afflicted for several years with calcukms complaints, the scourges of indolent and literary men, he died at Leeds, July 26, 1810, and was interred in his own church.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was youngest son of Roger Sheldon of Stanton in Staffordshire, and was born there July 19, 1593. His Christian name was given him at his baptism by Gilbert earl of Shrewsbury, to whom his father was a menial servant, although descended from the ancient family of the Sheldons of Staffordshire. In the latter end of 1613 he was admitted a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, and took the degree of bachelor of arts Nov. 27, 1617, and that of master, May 20, 1620. In 1622 he was elected fellow of All Souls’ college, and about the same time entered into holy orders, and afterwards became domestic chaplain to the lord keeper Coventry, who gave him a prebend of Gloucester. The lord keeper had a high esteem for him, and employed him^ in various affairs relating both to church and state. Lord Clarendon, who mentions this, adds, that Sheldon was very early looked upon as equal to any preferment the church could yield; and sir Francis Wen man would often say, when Sheldon visited at lord Falkland’s house, that “he was born and bred to be archbishop of Canterbury.” Lord Coventry therefore recommended him to Charles I, as a person well versed in political affairs. He was some time rector of Ickford in Bucks, and presented to the rectory of Newington by archbishop Laud. November 11, 1628, he proceeded bachelor of divinity; and, May 2, 1632, he was presented by the king to the vicarage of Hackney in Middlesex, then void by the promotion of David Dolben to the bishopric of Bangor. On June 25, 1634, he compounded for his degree of doctor of divinity; and in the middle of March 1635, was elected warden of All Souls* college. About the same time he wrote some letters to Mr. Chilling-worth concerning subscription to the thirtynine articles, who had some scruples on that obligation (see Chillingworth). Dr. Sheldon became chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, and was afterwards clerk of the closet, and was intended for master of the Savoy; but the commotions which ensued prevented those promotions. During the rebellion he adhered to the royal cause, and in Feb. 1644- was one of the, king’s chaplains sent by his majesty to attend his commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, vvUere he argued so earnestly in favour of the church, as to incur the resentment of the parliamentary commissioners, which they afterwards made him feel. In April 1646 he attended the king at Oxford, and was witness to a remarkable vow which his majesty made there, the purport of which was, that when it should please God to re-establish his throne, he would restore to the church all impropriations, lands, &c. which were taken from any episcopal see, cathedral, collegiate church, &c. This vow, which is in the appendix to Echard’s history, was preserved thirteen years under ground by Dr. Sheldon. In August 1647 there passed some letters between Dr. Sheldon and several gentlemen, then prisoners in the Tower of London for the royal cause, who had scruples about applying for their liberty to the usurping powers, if in the king’s opinion such application should seem prejudicial to his majesty’s interest. On submitting this matter to the king, he gave them permission to act as they should think fit.

During his majesty’s being at Newmarket that year, and afterwards in the Isle of Wight, Dr. Sheldon attended on him as one of his chaplains. On March 30, 1647-8, he was ejected from his wardenship by the parliament-visitors, and imprisoned with Dr. Hammond, in Oxlord, and other places, that they might not only be no hindrance to the changes going on in the university, but be prevented from attending the king at the Isle of Wight. Dr. Sheldon remained confined above six months, and then the reforming committee set him at liberty, Oct. 24, 1648, on condition that he should never come within five miles of Oxford; that he should not go to the king in the Isle of Wight, and that he should give security to appear before them at fourteen days’ warning, whenever cited. Upon his release he retired to Snelston in Derbyshire, where, at his own expence, and by contributions from his friends, he sent money constantly to the exiled king, and followed his studies until the approach of the restoration. On March 4, 1659-60, Dr. John Palmer, who iiad ^been placed in the wardenship in his room, dying, and there being an immediate prospect of his majesty’s return, there was no election made of a successor, but Dr. Sheldon was restored, though he never took re-possession. On the king’s return he met his majesty at Canterbury, and was soon after made dean of the royal chapel; and upon bishop Juxon’s translation to the see of Canterbury, was made bishop of London, to which he was elected October 9, 1660, and consecrated the 28th of that month. He held the mastership of the Savoy with that bishopric; and the famous conference between the episcopal and presbyterian clergy concerning alterations to be made in the liturgy, in 1661, was held at his loggings in the Savoy, in the course of which he exerted himself much against the presbyterians. Upon archbishop Juxon’s death he was elected to the see of Canterbury Aug. 11, 1663. In 1665, during the time of the plague, he continued at Lambeth, and exerted the utmost benevolence to those who would otherwise have perished in their necessities; and by his letters to all the bishops, procured considerable sums to be returned out of all parts of his province. On December 20, 1667, he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, but on the 31st of July, 1669, resigned that office. He died at Lambeth, November 9, 1677, in the eightieth year of his age, and was interred in Croydon church in Surrey, where a monument was erected to his memory by his heir, sir Joseph Sheldon, then lately lord mayor of London, son of his elder brother Ralph Sheldon of Stanton in Staffordshire.

Parker, in his “Comrnentarii de rebus sui temporis,” tells us, that archbishop Sheldon (t was a man of undoubted piety; but though he was very assiduous at prayers, yet he did not set so great a value on them as others did, nor regarded so much worship as the use of worship, placing the chief point of religion in the practice of a good life. In his daily discourse he cautioned those about him not to deceive themselves with an half religion, nor to think that divine worship was confined within the walls of the church, the principal part of it being without doors, and consisting in being conversant with mankind. If men led an upright, sober, chaste life, then and not till then they might look upon themselves as religious; otherwise it would signify nothing what form of religion bad men followed, or to what church they belonged. Therefore having spoken to this effect, he added with a kind of exultation and joy, ‘Da well, and rejoice/ His advice to young noblemen and gentlemen, who by their parents’ commands resorted daily to him, was always this; ’ Let it be your principal care to become honest men, and afterwards be as devout and religious as you will. No piety will be of any advantage to yourselves or any body else, unless you are honest and moral men/ He had a great aversion to all pretences to extraordinary piety, which covered real dishonesty; but had a sincere affection for those, whose religion was attended with integrity of manners. His worthy notions of religion meeting with an excellent temper in him, gave him that even tranquillity of mind, by which he was still himself, and always the same, in adversity as well as in prosperity; and neither over rated nor despised life, nor feared nor wished for death, but lived agreeably to himself and others."

It is as a prelate of great munificence that Sheldon will be handed down to posterity with the highest honours. On the accession of Charles II. when the members of the university who bad been ejected by the usurping powers, be* gan to restore the ancient establishments, a design was formed of erecting some building for the acts, exercises, &c. which had formerly been performed in St. Mary’s church, with some inconvenience to the university, and some injury to the church. Certain houses were accordingly purchased, which stood on the site of the present theatre; and in 1664, Sheldon, then archbishop of Canterbury, having contributed [QOOl. the foundation-stone was laid July 26, with great solemnity before the vice chancellor, heads of houses, &c. And when no other benefactors appeared to promote the work, archbishop Sheldon munificently took upon himself the whole expence, which amounted to 12,470l. 1 \s. \\d. and gave also 2000l. to be laid out in estates for repairs, or the surplus to be applied to the establishment of a printing-house. The architect employed was the celebrated sir Christopher Wren, and the building was completed in about five years. It was one of sir Christopher’s first works, and a happy presage of the talents which he afterwards displayed in the metropolis. Nor did the archbishop’s liberality stop here. Mr. Henry Wharton has enumerated the following sums he bestowed on other public purposes: To lord Petre for the purchase of London House, the residence of the bishops of London, 5200l. He abated in his fines for the augmentation of vicarages 1680l. He gave towards the repair of St. Paul’s before the fire 2169l. 17s. lOd. and the repairs of his houses at Fulham, Lambeth, and Croydon, 4500l. To All Souls’ chapel, Trinity college chapel, Christ church, Oxford, and Lichfield cathedral, 450l. When first made bishop, the leases being all expired, he abated in his fines 17,733l. including probably the article of 1680l. above mentioned.

From the notice of this controversy we must now return to the succession of those preferments to which Dr. Sherlock was thought entitled for his able services as a divine. In 1728 he was promoted to the bishopric of Bangor, in which he succeeded Dr. Hoadly, as he did also in the see of Salisbury, in 1734; in both which stations his abilities were so conspicuous, that on the death of archbishop Potter in 1747, the see of Canterbury was offered to him, but he declined it on account of bad health. The following year, however, he was so much recovered, as to accept a translation to the see of London, in room of the deceased bishop Gibson.

On tins pro.notion, he had the misfortune to differ with Dr. Herring, then archbishop of Canterbury, who had made his option for the rectory of St. George’s Hanoversquare, which being one of the most valuable livings in his diocese, the bishop was very unwilling to relinquish it, and drew up a pamphlet respecting the nature of the archbishop’s options, and resolved to oppose the present claim. The matter, however, was accommodated by his giving up the living of St. Anne’s, Solio, which the archbishop accepted. Dr. Sherlock printed fifty copies of his thoughts on the subject, in 1757, for private distribution, in a folio pamphlet, entitled “The Option; or an Inquiry into the grounds of the claim made by the archbishop, on all consecrated or translated bishops, of the disposal of any preferment belonging to their respective sees that he shall make choice of.” The chief argument of the author, deduced from the registers, &c. of the archbishops, is that the archbishop of Canterbury never had, nor at this tune has a right to an option from a translated bishop; but he allows that the claim on consecrated bishops is well founded, for it is properly a consecration fee, and becomes due ratione consecrationis. Archbishop Herring, to whom he had sent a ms copy, in 1749, reprinted the whole afterwards in 4to, with a short answer in onu page, and distributed it among his friends. Dr Sherlock, however, we see, virtually gave up the point, by giving up the living of St. Anne’s.

, a man of great talents and influence in the tenth century, was born in Aquitaine, of mean parentage, and was educated in a neighbouring convent. His original name was Gerbert. From his convent he passed into the family of a count of Barcelona, in which he prosecuted his studies under the care of a Spanish bishop, whom he accompanied from Spain to Rome. Here he was introduced to Otho the great, attached himself to Adalbaron, the archbishop of Rheims, whom he attended to his see, and returned with him about the year 972 into Italy. His progress in learning, which comprized geometry, astronomy, the mathematics, mechanics, and every branch of subordinate science, is said to have been prodigious; and his residence in Spain, during which he visited Cordova and Seville, had enabled him to profit by the instruction of the Arabian doctors. With such acquirements, he was promoted by Otho to be abbot of the monastery of Bobbio in Lombardy, but, finding no satisfaction in this place, he again joined his friend the archbishop of Rheims. Here he had leisure to prosecute his favourite studies, while, as his letters shew, his abilities were usefully engaged in different political transactions: in addition to the superintendance of the public schools, he was intrusted with the education of Robert, son and successor of Hugh Capet. He also employed himself in collecting books from every quarter, in studying them, and in introducing a taste for them among his countrymen. It is said that the effects of this enlightened zeal were soon visible in Germany, Gaul, and Italy; and by his writings, as well as by his example and his exhortations, many were animated to emulate their master’s fame, and caught by the love of science, to abandon the barbarous prejudices of the age. In his epistles, Gerbert cites the names of various classical authors, whose works he possessed, though often incomplete: and it is plain, from the style of these epistles, that he expended his wealth in employing copyists, and exploring the repositories of ancient learning.

His infirmities increasing, after fifty years labour in the ministry with unexampled diligence, he now found himself incapable any longer of the discharge of his public duties, and in 1780 took his final leave of Fintona, and removed to Dublin, to end his days. Here he received great respect from many of the higher dignitaries of the church, and in 1781 the university offered him the degree of doctor of divinity, which he declined. In 1784 he published by subscription a sixth volume of his works, containing “An Appeal to common sense on the subject of Christianity,” &c. or a historical proof of the truth of Christianity, superior in style and arrangement to any of his former productions, and which shewed that his faculties were in full force at the age of seventy-six. In the same volume, are “Some Thoughts on Common Sense,” some hymns, and a Latin poem. In 1786 he published his seventh volume, entitled *' Senilia, or an Old Man’s Miscellany," In the same year he published a short answer to a catechism, written by an English clergyman, and used at Sunday schools, which he supposed to contain an erroneous doctrine with respect to the state of men after death, and sent a copy to all the bishops of England and Ireland. The archbishop of Dublin was so convinced by it, that he stopped the use of the catechism in his diocese.

, an excellent German historian, was born in 1506, at Sleiden, a small town upon the confines of the duchy of Juliers, whence he derived his name. His origin, according to Varillas, was so obscure, that not knowing the name of his father, he adopted that of his birth-place; but this is the report of an enemy, as his father’s name was Philip, and his family not of the lower order. He went through his first studies in his own country, together with the learned John Sturmius, who was born in the same town with himself; and afterwards removed, first to Paris, and then to Orleans, where he studied the law for three years. He took the degree of licentiate in this faculty, but, having always an aversion to the bar, he continued his pursuits chiefly in polite literature. Uporf his return to Paris, he was recommended by his friend Sturmius, in 1535, to John Du Bellay, archbishop and cardinal; who conceived such an affection for him, that he settled on him a pension, and communicated to him affairs of the greatest importance; for Sleidan had a turn for business, as well as letters. He accompanied the ambassador of France to the diet of Haguenan, but returned to Paris, and remained there till it was not safe for him to stay any longer, as he was inclined to the sentiments of the reformers. In 1542 he retired to Strasburg, where he acquired the esteem and friendship of the most considerable persons, and especially of James Sturmius; by whose counsel he undertook, and by whose assistance he was enabled, to write the history of his own time. He was employed in some uegociations both to France and England; and, in one of these journeys, he met with a lady whom he married in 1546. About the same time the princes of the league of Smalcald honoured him with the title of their historiographer, and granted him a pension, and when he lost this by the dissolution of the league in 1547, the republic of Strasburgh gave him another. In 1551, he went, on the part of the republic, to the council of Trent; but, the troops of Maurice, elector of Saxony, obliging that council to break up, he returned to Strasburgh without having transacted any business. He was employed in other affairs of state, when the death of his wife, in 1555, plunged him into a deep melancholy, with such a total loss of memory, as that he did not know his own children. Some imputed this to poison; and others to natural causes. It ended, however, in his death, at Strasburg, Oct. 31, 1556, in the fiftieth year of his age.

, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, was born at Birmingham, were a street bears the name of his family, in 1672, and studied at Magdalen-college, Oxford. Here he took his degrees of M. A. 1694, B. D. 1706, and D. D. in 1708. He was chaplain to archbishop Tenison, and appointed in 1712 treasurer of Landaff, and afterwards prebendary of Hereford. On Feb. 2, 1723, he was consecrated bishop of St. David’s, whence he was translated and confirmed bishop of Lichfield and Coventry Feb. 20, 1730. He entered with spirit into the controversies of his times, particularly against Dodwell and Whiston, the latter in “Reflections on Mr. Whiston’s conduct,” and “Animadversions on the New Arian reproved.” But his great work was “A Vindication of our Saviour’s miracles; in which Mr. Woolston’s Discourses on them are particularly examined; his pretended authority of the fathers against the truth of the literal sense are set in a just light; and his objections, in point of reason, answered,” Lond. 1729, 8vo. This involved him in a controversy with some anonymous writers, and in one or two respects he laid himself open to ridicule by an arithmetical calculation of the precise number of the devils which entered into the swine. Dr. Smalbroke also published eleven single Sermons between 1706 and 1732, and one or two “Charges,” and small controversial pieces to the amount of twenty-two. He died Dec. 22, 1749, in the seventyseventh year of his age, leaving three sons and four daughters. His sons, and other relations, he provided for in the church of Lichfield. His son Richard, the last representative of the family, died in 1805. He had been chancellor of the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry sixty-four years, and was at his death senior member of the college of civilians.

During this time, Smalridge did not neglect classical literature, in which he excelled, and afforded an excellent specimen of his talent for Latin poetry in his “Auctio Davisiana,” first printed in 1689, 4to, ancNifterwards added to the “Musae Anglicange.” In July of the same year (1689) he proceeded master of arts, entered into holy orders, and about 1692 was appointed by the dean and chapter of Westminster to be minister of Tothill-fields chapel. In 1693 he was collated to a prebend in the church of Lichfield. In 1700 he took his degree of D. D. and frequently supplied the place of Dr. Jane, then regius professor of divinity, with great approbation, in which office it being his duty to present persons of eminence for their degrees in that faculty, we find him, in 1706, presenting the celebrated Dr. Grabe (whose Mss. he afterwards possessed) in a very elegant speech. On Jane’s death he was strongly recommended by the university to the queen, as a proper person to succeed to the professorship; but his tory principles being particularly obnoxious to the Marlborough party, Dr. Potter, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was preferred. The duchess of Marlborough, however, tells us, that this favour was not so easily obtained from her majesty as some others had been, and that it was not till after much solicitation that Dr. Potter was fixed in the professorship.

In the following year, 1711, he resigned the lectureship of St. Dunstan’s, having been made one of the canons of Christ-church, on the same day that Atterbury was made dean; and the latter having resigned the deanery of Carlisle, Dr. Smalridge succeeded him in that preferment, as he did likewise in the deanery of Christ-church, in 17 Is, when Atterbury was made bishop of Rochester. In 1714 Dr. Smalridge was consecrated bishop of Bristol, and the queen soon after appointed him her lord almoner, in which capacity he for some time served her successor George I.; but refusing to sign the declaration which the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops in and about London had drawn up against the rebellion in 1715, he was removed from that place. In this measure he probably was influenced by Atterbury; but he soon regained his favour with the princess of Wales at least, afterwards queen Caroline, who was his steady patron till his death.

, a poet of some, though not the highest celebrity, was born at Shipbourne, in Kent, April 11, 1722. His father was possessed of about three hundred pounds a year in that neighbourhood, and was originally intended for holy orders. Why he did not enter into holy orders, or what occupation he pursued, we are not told, except that at one time he had acted as steward of the Kentish estates of lord Barnard, afterwards earl of Darlington. His mother was a Miss Gilpin, of the family of the celebrated reformer, Bernard Gilpin; an ancestor, by the father’s side. Mr. Peter Smart had been a prebendary of Durham in the reign of Charles the First, and was accounted by the puritan party as the proto-martyr in their cause, having been degraded and deprived of all his ecclesiastical preferments, fined five hundred pounds, and imprisoned eleven years. When restored to liberty by the parliament, he appeared as a witness against archbishop Laud. The particular libel for which he suffered is written in Latin verse, and was published in 1643. This is probably what the author of the life prefixed to Smart’s poems (edit. 1791) calls “an interesting narrative in a pamphlet.” When our poet was at school his father died, and so much in debt, that his widow was obliged to sell the family estate at a considerable loss. As he had, however, received a liberal education, he is said to have communicated to his son a taste for literature, and probably that turn for pious reflection, which appears in many of hispoetical pieces, and was not interrupted with impunity by the irregularities of his life.

, a learned Scotch divine, and principal of the college of Glasgow, was born at Cask, near Perth, in 1536. He was educated at the university of St. Andrew’s, and afterwards studied for some time at Paris. He then went to Rome, and during a residence of three years there, entered into the society of the Jesuits. After returning to Scotland, on account of some private business, he again visited Paris, where he remained until 1571. At this time Mr. Thomas Maitland, a younger brother of Lrtoington’s, prevailed on Mr. Smeton to accompany him to Italy, where Maitland died. After his death, Smeton went to Geneva, and by conversing with the reformers, was confirmed in an intention he had before meditated, of quitting the church of R<me. From Geneva he travelled to Paris, where he narrowly escaped the massacre, and came home with the English ambassador, sir Thomas Walsingham. Immediately on his arrival, he publicly renounced popery, and settled at Colchester in Essex, as a school-master. In 1578, he returned to Scotland, joined Knox and the other reformers, was appointed minister of Paisley, and member of the general assembly which met at Edinburgh in the same year, and was chosen moderator in the assembly of 1579. He was soon after made principal of the college of Glasgow, and died in 1583, Archbishop Spotswood says, he was a man “learned in the languages, and well seen in the ancient fathers.” His only publication is entitled “Responsio ad Hamiltonii dialogum,” Edinb. 1579, 8vo, a defence of the presbyterians; to which is added, his “Eximii viri Joannis Knoxii, Scoticanae ecclesiae instauratoris, vera extremse vitac et obitus historia.”

, a traveller and ambassador, was the son of sir Clement Smith, of Little Baddow in Essex, by a sister of Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset, and consequently sister to Jane Seymour, the third queen of Henry VIII. He was educated at Oxford, but in what college is not known. Wood informs us that he travelled into foreign countries, and became very accomplished both as a soldier and a gentleman. He was in France in the reign of his cousin Edward VI. and from the introduction to his book of “Instructions,” it appears that he had been in the service of several foreign princes. In 1576, when the states of the Netherlands took up arms in defence of their liberty against the encroachments of the Spanish government, they solicited queen Elizabeth for a loan; but, this being inconvenient, she sent Smith to intercede with the Spanish monarch in their behalf. For this purpose she conferred the honour of knighthood upon him. Wood imputes his mission to his “being a person of a Spanish port and demeanour, and well known to the Spaniards, who held him, as their king did, in high value, and especially for this reason that he was first cousin to king Edward VI.” Carnden, in his “History of Elizabeth,” says that he was graciously received by the king of Spain, and that “he retorted with such discretion the disgraceful injuries of Caspar Quiroga, archbishop of Toledo, against the queen, in hatred of her religion, and of the inquisitors of Sevil, who would not allow the attribute of Defender of the Faith in the queen’s title, that the king gave him thanks for it, and was displeased with the archbishop, desiring the ambassador to conceal the matter from the queen, and expressly commanded the said attribute to be allowed her.” We have no further account of his history, except that he was living in 1595, irv great esteem by learned and military men. He wrote, 1. A “Discourse concerning the forms and effects of divers Weapons, and other very important matters military; greatly mistaken by divers men of war in their days, and chiefly of the rnusquet, calyver, and long-bow, &c.” Lond. 1589, reprinted 1590, 4to. 2. “Certain instructions, observations, and orders military, requisite for all chieftains, captains, higher and lower officers,” ibid. 1594, 1595, 4to. To this are added “Instructions for enrolling and mustering.” There are two Mss. relative to his transactions in Spain in the Cotton library, and one in the Lambeth library.

Our author was born at Lowther, Nov. 10, 1659, and was at first educated by his father with a care which his extraordinary capacity amply repaid, for we are told that he learned the Latin grammar in the fifth year of his age, and the Greek grammar in his ninth. After this he was sent to Bradford in Yorkshire, and placed under Mr. Christopher Nesse, a nonconformist (see Nessje) of considerable learning; but here it is said he forgot almost all his grammar rules. He then appears to have been taught by Mr. William Lancaster, afterwards provost of Queen’s college, Oxford, and next by Mr. Thomas Lawson, a quaker schoolmaster, under whom he continued his progress in the learned languages. He was also for some time at the school of Appleby, whence he was sent to Cambridge, and admitted of St. John’s college June 11, 1674, about a year before his father’s death. From his first entrance at college, he was much noticed for his exemplary conduct, afcd close application to study, which enabled him to take his degrees in arts with great reputation; that of A. B. in 1677, and of A. M. in 1681. Being intended for the church, he was ordained both deacon and priest, by Dr. Richard Stearn or Stern, archbishop of York; and in 1681 was invited to Durham by Dr. Dennis Granville, who had a great regard for his family, and esteemed him highly for his attainments. In July 1682 he was admitted a minor canon of Durham, and about the same time he was collated to the curacy of Croxdale, and, in July 1684, to the living of Witton-Gilbert. In 1686 he went to Madrid, as chaplain to lord Lansdowne, the English ambassador, and returned soon after the revolution. In 1694 Crew, bishop of Durham, appointed him his domestic chaplain, and had such an opinion of his judgment, that he generally consulted him in all ecclesiastical matters of importance. His lordship also collated him to the rectory and hospital of Gateshead in June 1695, and to a prebend of Durham in September following. In 1696 he was created D. D. at Cambridge, and was made treasurer of Durham in 1699, to which bishop Crew, in July 1704, added the rectory of Bishop-Wearmouth.

On the accession of queen Mary, he returned to England, was restored to his professorship, made canon of Christ-church, and chaplain to her majesty. One of his principal appearances on record was at Oxford, where, when the bishops Ridley and Latimer were brought to the stake, he preached a sermon on the text, “If I give my body to be burnt, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” This discourse, which lasted only about a quarter of an hour, was replete with invectives against the two martyrs, and gross assertions, which they offered to refute on the spot, but were not permitted. He was also one of the witnesses against archbishop Cranmer, who had done him many acts of friendship in the preceding reign. For this conduct he was deprived of all his preferments when queen Elizabeth came to the throne in 1559, and was committed to the custody of archbishop Parker, by whose persuasion he recanted part of what he had written in defence of the celibacy of the clergy. He then contrived to make his escape, and went to Doway in Flanders, where he obtained the deanery of St. Peter’s church, and a professorship. He died in 1563. He wrote about sixteen tracts in favour of popery, some of which were answered by Peter Martyr. A list of them may be seen in Dodd or Wood. They are partly in Latin and partly in English, the latter printed in London, and the former at Lovaine.

In 1548, he received the honour of knighthood, and was appointed secretary of state; and in July the same year he was sent to Brussels, in the character of ambassador to the emperor. He also continued to be active in promoting the reformation, and likewise in the redress of base coin, on which last subject he wrote a letter to the duke of Somerset. But in 1549, that nobleman being involved in those troubles which brought him to the scaffold, sir Thomas, who was his faithful adherent, incurred some degree of suspicion, and was for a short time deprived of his office of secretary of state. When the duke fell into disgrace, there were only three who adhered to him, viz. Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, sir William Paget, and our sir Thomas Smith; between whom and the lords at London there passed letters on this affair, carried by sir Philip Hoby. In this they ran no small risk; for the lords wrote to them, that it seemed strange that they should assist, or suffer the king’s person to remain in the guard of the duke’s men; and that strangers should be armed with the king’s own armour, and be nearest about his person; and those, to whom the ordinary charge was committed, to be sequestered away. And the lords sent them word likewise, that if any evil came, they must expect it would be imputed to them; and as the archbishop, Paget, and Smith, in their letter to the lords told them, that they knew more than they (the lords) knew, the lords took advantage of these words, and answered, that “if the matters, which came to their knowledge, and were hidden from them, were of such weight as they pretended, or if they touched or might touch his majesty or his state, they thought that they did not as they ought to do in not disclosing the same to them.” At last Smith, together with the archbishop and Paget, sent another letter from Windsor, where the king and ibey were, that they would not fail to endeavour themselves according to the contents of the lords’ letters, and that they would meet when and where their lordships should think proper. “This,” says Strype, “was a notable instance of Smith’s fidelity to the duke his old master, who stuck thus to him as long as he durst, and was then glad to comply as fairly as he could.”

His works, are, 1. “Diatriba de Chaldaicis Paraphrastis,” Oxon. 1662, 8vo. 2. “Syntagma de Druidum moribus ac institutis.” 3. “Remarks upon the Manners, Religion, and Government of the Turks; together with a Survey of the seven Churches of Asia, as they now lie in their Ruins; and a brief Description of Constantinople,” 1678, 8vo, originally published in Latin. 4. “De Grsecse Ecclesix hodierno statu Epistola;” which, with additions, he translated into English, and published with the following title: “An Account of the Greek Church, as to its Doctrines and Rites of Worship, with several Historical Remarks interspersed, relating thereto. To which is added, an Account of the State of the Greek Church under Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople, with a Relation of his Sufferings and Death,” 1680, 8vo. 5. “De causis et rernediis dissidiorum,” &c. Ox. 1675, 4to, printed afterwards among his “Miscellanea,” and published by him in English, under the title of “A pacific Discourse or, the causes and remedies of the differences about religion, which distract the peace of Christendom,” Lond. 1688, 4to. 6. Two volumes of “Miscellanea” in Latin, on subjects chiefly of ecclesiastical history and biblical criticism, Lond. 1686, 8vo, and 1692, 4to. 7. A translation of the “Life of St. Mary Magdalen of Pazzi,” with a preface, ibid. 1687, 4to. 8. A Latin life of Camden, which was prefixed to his edition of Camden’s “Epistolse,” in 1691, 4to. 9. “Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum Bibl, Cottonianse,” Oxon. 1696, fol. with a life of sir Robert Cotton. 10. “Inscriptiones Grgecse. Palmyrenorum, cum scholiis Ed. Bernardi et Thotnse Smithi,” Utrecht, 1698, 8vo. 11. The lives of Dr. Robert Huntington, bishop of Raphoe, and of Dr. Edward Bernard, in Latin. 12. An edition of “Ignatii Epistolae,” Oxon. 1709, 4to. 13. A preface to sir Philip Warwick’s “Memoirs of the reign of Charles I.” prefixed to the edition of 1702, and of which there has lately been a republication (1813); and lastly, that very useful volume entitled “Vitae quorundam eruditissimorum & illustrium virorum,” 1707, 4to. In this collection are the lives of archbishop Usher, bishop Cosins, Mr. Henry Briggs, Mr. John Bainbridge, Mr. John Greaves, sir Patrick Young, preceptor to James I. Patrick Young, library-keeper to the same, and Dr. John Dee. Three papers by him are inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions:” 1. “Historical Observations relating to Constantinople, No. 152, for Oct. 20, 1683.” 2. “An Account of the City of Prusia in Bithynia, No. 155, for Jan. 1633.” 3. “A Conjecture about an Under-current at the Streights-mouth, No. 158, for April 1684.” He left his Mss. to Hearne, with whom he was a frequent correspondent.

His next promotion was of the civil kind, that of president of the prince’s council within the marches of Wales. The unsettled state of Wales had engaged the attention of Henry VII as soon as he came to the throne; and the wisest policy, in order to civilize and conciliate the inhabitants of that part of the kingdom, appeared to consist in delegating such a part of the executive power as might give dignity and stability to the laws, and ensure subjection to the sovereign. With this view various grants and commissions were issued in the first year of his reign; and about 1492, Arthur, prince of Wales and earl of Chester, was included in a commission of the peace for the county of Warwick, with archbishop Morton, Smyth, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and others. There was a renewal of this commission in the 17th Henry VII. of which our prelate, who had then been translated to the see of Lincoln, was again lord president. The prince’s court was held chiefly at Ludlow-castle, long the seat of the muses, honoured at this time with a train of learned men from the universities, and afterwards immortalized by Milton and Butler. Here bishop Smyth, although placed in an office that seemed likely to divert him from the business of his diocese, took special care that his absence should be compensated by a deputation of his power to vicars-general, and a suffragan bishop, in whom he could confide: and here he conceived some of fhose generous and liberal plans which have conferred honour on his name. The first instance of his becoming a public benefactor was in rebuilding and re-endowing the hospital of St. John in Lichfield, which had been suffered to go to ruin by the negligence of the friars who occupied it. Accordingly, in the third year of his episcopate, 1495, he rebuilt this hospital, and gave a new body of statutes for the use of the society. Of tiiis foundation it is only necessary to add here, that the school attached to it, and afterwards joined to the adjacent seminary of Edward VI. has produced bishops Smalridge and Newton, the chief justices Willes and Parker, and those illustrious scholars, Joseph Addison and Samuel Johnson.

In the last-mentioned year, Smyth was requested by the university of Oxford to accept the office of chancellor, then vacant by the death of archbishop Morton. How long he continued chancellor is not exactly known, but his resignation must have taken place abont 150'i, when we find Dr. Mayew held that office. In 1507-8, he concerted the plan of Brasen-nose college, along with iiis friend sir Richard Sutton, and lived to see it completed. Of his death we have few particulars, nor can his age be ascertained. After making a will in due form, characterized by the liberality which had distinguished his whole life, he expired at Buckden, Jan. 2, 1513-14, and was interred on the south side of the nave of Lincoln cathedral, under a marble grave stone, richly adorned with brass, which sir William Dugdale had leisure to describe just before it was destroyed by the republican soldiers or mob. A mural monument was recently put up, with a suitable inscription, by the rev. Ralph Cawley, D. D. and principal of Brasennose from 1770 to 1777.

, an eminent English antiquary, was born at Canterbury, March 30, 1606, according to the account given by his wife and son; but, according to the register of the parish of St. Margaret’s, much earlier, for it represents him to have been baptized Nov. 5, 1598. It was a proper birth-place for an antiquary, being one of the most ancient cities in England; and Somner was so well pleased with it, that, like Claudian’s good old citizen of Verona, within the walls, or in the sight of them, he grew up, lived, and died. He was of a reputable family; and his father was registrar of the court of Canterbury under sir Nathaniel Brent, commissary. At a proper age he was sent to the free-school of that city, where he seems to have acquired a competent knowledge of the Latin language at least. Thence he was removed, and placed as clerk to his father in the ecclesiastical courts of that diocese; and was afterwards preferred to a creditable office in those courts by archbishop Laud. His natural bent in the mean time lay to the study of antiquities; and he took all opportunities of indulging it. He was led early, in his walks through the suburbs and the fields of that city, to survey the British bricks, the Roman ways, the Danish hills and works, the Saxon monasteries, and the Norman churches. This was his amusement abroad; at home he delighted in old manuscripts, leger-books, rolls-and records; his knowledge of which was such, that upon questions concerning descent of families, tenure of estates, dedication of churches, right of tithes, and the history of use and custom, he was consulted by all his neighbours.

Somner' s reputation was now so well established that no monuments of antiquity could be further published without his advice and helping hand. In 1652, when a collection of historians came forth under this title “Histories Anglicanze Scriptores X. ex vet. Mss. mine primuin in lucem editi,” the Appendix, or Glossarium, (SeeyEu-Ric,) was the labour of Mr. Somner: whom sir Roger Twisden, who, with the assistance of archbishop Usher and Mr. Selden, published these historians, represents in the preface as “a man of primitive probity and candour, a most sagacious searcher into the antiquities of his country, and most expert in the Saxon tongue.” Hickes afterwards calls this glossary of Sotnner’s “incomparable, a truly golden work without which the ten historians luid been imperfect and little useful.” Somner’s friends had still more work for him: they observed it was impossible to cultivate any language, or recommend it to learners, without the help of a dictionary; and this was yet wanting to the Saxon. On him, therefore, they laid the mighty task of compiling one: but, as this work required much time and great expence, it became an object to contrive some competent reward and support, besides affording him their countenance and assistance. Sir Henry Spelman had founded at Cambridge a lecture for “promoting the Saxon tongue, either by reading it publicly, or by the edition of Saxon manuscripts, and other books:” and, this lecture being vacant in 1657, archbishop Usher recommended Somner to the patron, Roger Spelman, esq. srrandson of the founder, that “he would confer on him the pecuniary stipend, to enable him to prosecute a Saxon dictionary, which would more improve that tongue, than bare academic lectures.” Accordingly, Somner had the salary, and now pursued the work, in which he had already made considerable progress; for it was published at Oxford in April 1659, with an inscription to all students in the Saxon tongue, a dedication to his patron Roger Speiman, esq. and a preface.

, professor of divinity at Leyden, was born at Amberg in the Upper Palatinate, Jan. 1, 1600, of a good family. His father Wigand Spanheim, doctor of divinity, was a very learned man, and ecclesiastical counsellor to the elector-palatine; he died in 1620, holding in his hand a letter from his son, which had made him weep for joy. Frederic was educated with great care under the inspection of this affectionate parent; and, having studied in the college of Amberg till 1613, was sent the next year to the university of Heidelberg, which was then in a very flourishing condition. He there made such progress both in languages and philosophy, as to justify the most sanguine hopes of his future success. After paying a visit to his father in 1619, he went to Geneva to study divinity. In 1621, after his father’s death, he went into Dauphine, and lived three years with the governor of Ambrun, as tutor in his family. He then returned to Geneva, and went afterwards to Paris, where he met with a kind relation, Samuel Durant, who was minister of Charenton, and dissuaded Spanheim from accepting the professorship of philosophy at Lausanne, which the magistrates of Berne then offered him. In April 1625, he paid a visit of four months to England, and was at Oxford; but the plague having broke out there, he returned to Paris, and was present at the death of his relation Durant, who, having a great kindness for him, left him his whole library. He had learned Latin and Greek in his own country, French at Geneva, English at Oxford; and the time which he now spent at Paris, was employed in acquiring the oriental tongues. In 1627, he disputed at Geneva for a professorship of philosophy, and was successful; and about the same time married a lady, originally of Poitou, who reckoned among her ancestors the f;unous Budtrus. He was admitted a minister some time after; and, in 1631, succeeded to the chair of divinity, which Turretin had left vacant. He acquitted himself of liis functions with such ability, as to receive the most liberal offers from several universities: but that of Leyden prevailed, after the utmost endeavours had been used to keep him at Geneva. He left Geneva in 1642; and taking a doctor of divinity’s degree at Basil, that he might conform to the custom of the country to which he was going, he arrived at Leyden in October that year. He not only supported, but even increased the reputation he had brought with him but he lived to enjoy it only a short time, dying April 30, 1649. His great labours shortened his days. His academical lectures and disputations, his preaching (for he was minister of the Walloon church at Leyden), the books he wrote, and many domestic cares, did not hinder him from keeping up a great literary correspondence. Besides this, he was obliged to pay many visits he visited the queen of Bohemia, and the prince of Orange and was in great esteem at those two courts. Queen Christina did him the honour to write to him, assuring him of her esteem, and of the pleasure she took in reading his works. It was at her request that he wrote some memoirs of Louisa Juliana, electress palatine. He was also the author of some other historical as well as theological works the principal of which are his “Dubia evangelica discussa et vindicata,” Genev. 1634, 4to, but afterwards thrice printed in 2 vols. 4to, with large additions; “Exercitationes de Grafla universali,” Leyden, 1646, 8vo. This involved him in a controversy with Amyraut; and “Epistolae ad Davidem Bu chananum super controversies quibusdam, quse in ecclesiis Anglicanis agitantur,” ibid. 1645, 8vo. Some other of his works were published with those of his son, and his funeral oration on Henry prince of Orange, pronounced at Leyden in 1647 may be seen in Bates’s “Vitas selectorupi aliquot virorum.” He was a correspondent of, and highly esteemed by archbishop Usher.

His son John Speed was born at London in 1595, and educated at Merchant-taylors’ school, whence he was elected a scholar of St. John’s-college in Oxford, in 1612, of which he afterwards became a fellow, and took the degree of master of arts, and bachelor and doctor of physic. He wrote “Sjwaetoj utriusque sexus Toxtwsvrof,” a manuscript in Latin, dedicated to archbishop Laud, and preserved in the library of St. John-college. This piece relates to two skeletons, one of a man, another of a woman, made by Dr. Speed, and given by him to that library. He wrote likewise “Stonehenge, a Pastoral,” acted before Dr. Rich. Baylie, and the president and fellows of St. John’s-college in 1635. It is extant in manuscript. He died in May 1640, and was buried in the chapel of that college. He married a daughter of Bartholomew Warner, M. D. and had by her two sons. One of them, Samuel, was a student of Christ-church in Oxford, and was installed canon of that church May the 6th, 1674, and died at Godalmin in Surrey, of which he was vicar, January the 22d, 1681. The other, John, was born at Oxford, and elected scholar of St. John’s-coliege there about 1643, but ejected thence by the parliament-visitors in 1648, he being then bachelor of arts and fellow. At the restoration he was restored to his fellowship, and in 1666 took the degree of physic, and afterwards quitting his fellowship, he practised that faculty at Southampton, where he was living in 1694. He wrote “Batt upon Batt; a Poem upon the parts, patience, and pains of Bartholomew Kempster, clerk, poet, and cutler of Holy-rood parish in Southampton;” and also “The Vision, wherein is described Batt’s person and ingenuity, with an account of the ancient and present state and glory of Southampton.” Both these pieces were printed at London in two sheets in fol. and afterwards in 4to. The countess de Viri, wife of a late Sardinian ambassador, was lineally descended from our historian. Such was the friendship between lord Cobham and colonel Speed, her father, that upon his decease, he esteemed her as his own child, brought her up in his family, and treated her with paternal care and tenderness. Her extraordinary merit recommended her to the viscountess Cobham, who left her the bulk of her fortune. This lady, who was eminent for her wit and accomplishments, is celebrated by Gray in his “Long Story,” which indeed was written in consequence of a visit from her.