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

, born at Aberdeen in Scotland, bore some rank among the learned men of the seventeenth century. He had been in the retinue and service of David Cuningham, bishop of Aberdeen, and Peter Junius, great almoner of Scotland, when they went on an embassy from king James to the court of Denmark, and to the princes of Germany. After his return home, he went to Heidelberg, where the famous Dionysius Gothofredus taught the civil law. Donaldson, having there dictated to some young students a short course of moral philosophy, a young man of Riga in Livonia put the manuscript to the press without his consent, but he seemed not displeased, and informs us of the several editions which were made of that work in Germany, and in Great Britain, under the title “Synopsis moralis philosophise.” He was afterwards professor of natural and moral philosophy, and of the Greek tongue, in the university of Sedan, and was principal of the college sixteen years after which he was invited to open a college at Charenton but that establishment was immediately opposed by law. Mot to remain idle while the law-suit was depending, he set himself to collect from among his papers the several parts of his “Synopsis Oeconomica,” wnich he got printed at Paris in 1620, in 8vo, and dedicated it to the prince of Wales. It was reprinted at Rostoch, 1624, in 8vo. That wherein he reduced into common places, and under certain general heads, all that lies scattered in Diogenes Laertius concerning the same thing, was printed in Greek and Latin, at Francfort, in 1612, under the title of “Synopsis Locorum communium, in qua sapientiae human imago repraesentatur,” &c.

, bishop of Casae Nigrae in Numidia, is regarded by some as the author of the sect of the Donatists, which took its rise in the year 311, from the following circumstance. Cecilianus having been chosen to succeed Mensurius in the episcopal chair of Carthage, the election was contested by a powerful party, headed by a lady named Lucilla, and two priests, Brotus and Celestius, who had themselves been candidates for the disputed see. They caused Majorinus to be elected, under pretence that the ordination of Cecilianus was null, as having, according to them, been performed by Felix, bishop of Aptonga, whom they accused of being a traditor; that is, of having delivered to the pagans the sacred books and vessels during the persecution, and was therefore unfit to bestow consecration. The African bishops were divided, and Donatus headed the partisans of Majorinus. In the mean time, the affair being brought before the emperor, he referred the judgment to three bishops of Gaul, Maternus of Cologne, Reticius of Autun, and Marinus of Arles, r conjointly with the pope Miltiades. These prelates, in a council held at Rome in 313, composed of fifteen Italian bishops, in which Cecilianus and Donatus appeared, each with ten bishops of their party, decided in favour of Cecilianus; but the division soon being renewed, the Donatists were again condemned by the council of Aries in 3)4; and lastly by an edict of Constantine, of the month of November 316. Donatus, who was returned to Africa, there received the sentence of deposition and of excommunication pronounced against him by pope Miltiades.

, bishop of Carthage, has likewise the credit of having given the name to the sect of Donatists, founded it is said, by the former, but which took its name from this Donatus, as being the more considerable man of the two. He maintained, that though the three persons in the trinity were of the same substance, yet the son was inferior to the father, and the holy ghost to the son. He began to be known about the year 329, and greatly confirmed his faction by his character and writings. He was a man of great parts and learning; but of greater pride. He did not spare even the emperors themselves; for when Paulus and Macarius were sent by Constans with presents to the churches of Africa, and with alms to relieve the poor, he received them in the most reproachful manner, rejected their presents with scorn, and asked in a kind of fury, “What had the emperor to do with the church?” He was banished from Carthage about the year 356, according to Jerom, and died in exile: though authors are not agreed as to the precise time either of his banishment or of his death. The emperors were obliged to issue many severe edicts to restrain the fury and intemperance of this very factious sect. The Donatists had a great number of bishops and laity of their party; some of whom distinguished themselves by committing outrages upon those who differed from them. They had a maxim which they firmly maintained upon all occasions, “That the church was every where sunk and extinguished, excepting in the small remainder amongst themselves in Africa.” They also affirmed baptism in other churches to be null, and of no effect; while other churches allowed it to be valid in theirs; from which they inferred, that it was the safer to join that community where baptism was acknowledged by both parties to be valid, than that where it was allowed to be so only by one.

It has already been noticed that in his early years he had examined the state of the controversy between the popish and protestant churches, the result of which was his firm attachment to the latter. But this was not the only consequence of a course of reading in which the principles of religion were necessarily to be traced to their purer sources. He appears to have contracted a pious turn of mind, which although occasionally interrupted by the intrusions of gay life, and an intercourse with foreign nations and foreign pleasures, became habitual, and was probably increased by the distresses brought on his family in consequence of his imprudent marriage. That this was the case appears from an interesting part of his history, during- his residence with sir Francis Wooley, when he was solicited to take orders. Among the friends whom his talents procured him, was the learned Dr. Morton, afterwards bishop of Durham, who first made this proposal, but with a reserve which does him much honour, and proves the truest regard for the interests of the church. The circumstance is so remarkable that no apology can be necessary for giving it in the words of his biographer:

At this period of our history, it was deemed expedient to select such men for high offices in the church, as promised by their abilities and zeal to vindicate the reformed religion. King James, who was no incompetent judge of such merit, though perhaps too apt to measure the talents of others by his own standard, conceived from a perusal of the “Pseudo-Martyr,” that Donne would prove an ornament and bulwark to the church, and therefore not only endeavoured to persuade him to take orders, but resisted every application to exert the royal favour towards him in any other direction. When the favourite earl of Somerset requested that Mr. Donne might have the place of one of the clerks of the council, then vacant, the king replied, *' I know Mr. Donne is a learned man, has the abilities of a learned divine, and will prove a powerful preacher, and my desire is to prefer him that way, and in that way I will deny you nothing for him." Such an intimation must have made a powerful impression, yet there is no reascn to conclude from any part of Mr. Donne’s character, that he won I'd have been induced to enter the church merely by the persuasion of his sovereign, however flattering. To him, however, at this time, the transition was not difficult. He had relinquished the follies of youth, and had nearly outlived the remembrance of them. His studies had long inclined to theology, and his frame of mind was adapted to support the character expected from him. His oldfriend Dr, Morton probably embraced this opportunity to second the king’s wishes, and remove Mr. Donne’s personal scruples; and Dr. King, bishop of London, who had been chaplain to the chancellor when Donne was his secretary, and consequently knew his character, heard of his intention with much satisfaction. By this prelate he was ordained deacon and afterwards priest; and the king, although not uniformly punctual in his promises of patronage, immediately made him his chaplain in ordinary, and gave him hopes of higher preferment.

, a French Jesuit, a native of Vernon, who died at Orleans Sept. 21, 1716, filled several high offices belonging to his order, and was said to have been the author of the famous problem levelled at the cardinal de Noailles, “Whom are we to believe? M. de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, condemning the exposition of faith, or M. de Noailles, bishop of Chalons, approving the moral reflections?” alluding to an apparent change in Noailles* opinions of the disputes between the Jansenists and Jesuits. Doucin was a member of the club or cabal which the Jansenists called the Norman cabal, and which was composed of the Jesuits Tellier, Lallemand, and Daniel; and his zeal and activity were of great service to them. During the dispute on the famous bull Unigenitus, he was sent to Rome, and was a powerful advocate for that measure. He wrote a very curious piece of ecclesiastical history, entitled “Histoire de Nestorianisme,” Paris, 1698, 4to another, entitled “Histoire de I'Origenisme,” 4to, and “Memorial abrege touchant l'etat et les progres de Jansenistne en Hollande,” written in 1697, when he accompanied the count de Creci to the congress at Ryswick. He was also the author of many pamphlets of the controversial kind, strongly imbued with the spirit of party.

, an English divine, was born about 1598 at Martley near Worcester, and educated at Worcester, whence at the age of sixteen he became a student at Oxford. After he had taken his bachelor’s degree, he was one of those excellent scholars who were candidates for a fellowship in Merton college, and after a severe examination by the then warden, sir Henry Savile, Mr. Doughty gained the election. He there completed his degree of M. A. and entering into orders, became a very popular and edifying preacher. In 1631 he served the office of proctor only for four months, the proctors being removed by the king; but about that time he became chaplain to the earl of Northumberland, and his college bestowed on him the rectory of Lapworth in Warwickshire. On the commencement of the rebellion, he left Lapworth, to avoid sequestration and imprisonment, and joined the king at Oxford. Soon after Dr. Duppa, bishop of Salisbury, gave him the lectureship of St. Edmund’s in that city, where he continued about two years; but, on the defeat of the royal army in the West, he went to London, and found an asylum in the house of sir Nathaniel Brent, in Little Britain. After the restoration, his loyalty and public services were rewarded with a prebend in Westminster, and the rectory of Cheam in Surrey, and about the same time he was created doctor of divinity. He died at Westminster, after he had lived, says Wood, “to be twice a child,” December 25, 1672, and was buried in the abbey.

, bishop of Dunkeld, eminent for his poetical talents, was descended from a noble family, being the third son of Archibald, earl of Angus, and was born in Scotland at the close of the year 1474, or the Beginning of 1475. His father was very careful of his education, and caused him to be early instructed in literature and the sciences. He was intended by him for the church; and after having passed through a course of liberal education in Scotland, is supposed to have travelled into foreign countries, for his farther improvement in literature, particularly to Paris, where he finished his education. Alter his return to Scotland, he obtained the office of provost of the collegiate church of St. Giles in Edinburgh, a post of considerable dignity and revenue; and was also made rector of Heriot church. He was likewise appointed abbot of the opulent convent of Aberbrothick; and the queenmother, who was then regent of Scotland, and about this time married his nephew the earl of Angus, nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. But he was prevented from obtaining this dignity by a violent opposition made to him at home, and by the refusal of the pope to confirm his appointment. The queen-mother afterwards promoted him to the bishopric of Dunkeld; and for this preferment obtained a bull in his favour from pope Leo X. by the interest of her brother, Henry VIII. king of England. But so strong an opposition was again made to him, that he could not, for a considerable time, obtain peaceable possession of this new preferment; and was even imprisoned for more than a year, under pretence of having acted illegally, in procuring a bull from the pope. He was afterwards set at liberty, and consecrated bishop of Dunkeld, by James Beaton, chancellor of Scotland, and archbishop of Glasgow. After his consecration he went to St. Andrew’s, and thence to his own church at Dunkeld; where the first day, we are told, “he was most kindly received by his clergy and people, all of them blessing God for so worthy and learned a bishop.” He still, however, met with many obstructions; and, for some time, was forcibly kept out of the palace belonging to his diocese; but he at length obtained peaceable possession. He soon after accompanied the duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, to Paris, when that nobleman was sent to renew the ancient league between Scotland and France. After his return to Scotland, he made a short stay at Edinburgh, and then repaired to his diocese, where he applied himself diligently to the duties of his episcopal office. He was also a promoter of public-spirited works, and particularly finished the stone bridge over the river Tay, opposite to his own palace, which had been begun by his predecessor. We meet with no farther particulars concerning him till some years after, when he was at Edinburgh, during the disputes between the earls of Arran and Angus. On that occasion bishop Douglas reproved archbishop Beaton for wearing armour, as inconsistent with the clerical character, but was afterwards instrumental in saving his life. During all these disorders in Scotland, it is said, that bishop Douglas behaved “with that moderation and peaceableness, which became a wise man and a religious prelate;” but the violence and animosity which then prevailed among the different parties in Scotland, induced him to retire to England. After his departure, a prosecution was commenced against him in Scotland; but he was well received in England, where he was treated with particular respect, on account of the excellency of his character, and his great abilities and learning. King Henry VII I. allowed him a liberal pension; and he became particularly intimate with Polydore Vergil. He died of the plague, at London, in 1521, or 1522, and was interred in the Savoy church, on the left side of the tomb-stone of Thomas Halsay, bishop of Laghlin, in Ireland; on whose tomb-stone a short epitaph for bishop Douglas is inscribed. Hume, of Godscroft, in his “History of the Douglases,” says, “Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld, left behind him great approbation of his virtues and love of his person in the hearts of all good men; for besides the nobility of his birth, the dignity and comeliness of his personage, he was learned, temperate, and of singular moderation of mind; and in these turbulent times had always carried himself among the factions of the nobility equally, and with a mind to make peace, and not to stir up parties; which qualities were very rare in a clergyman of those days.”

Bishop Douglas is styled by Mr. Warton, one “of the distinguished luminaries that marked the restoration of letters in Scotland, at the commencement of the sixteenth century, not only by a general eminence in elegant erudition, but by a cultivation of the vernacular poetry of his country.” He translated the Æneid of Virgil into Scottish heroics, with the additional thirteenth book by Mapheus Vegius, at the request of Henry, earl of Sinclair, to whom he was related. It was printed at London, in 1553, 4to, under the following title: “The XIII Bukes of Eneados of the fainose poete Virgill, translatet out of Latyne verses into Scottish metir, bi the reverend father in God, Mayster Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkel, and unkil to the erle of Angus every Buke having his perticular prologe.” “This translation,” says Mr. Warton, “is executed with equal spirit and fidelity and is a proof that the lowland Scotch and English languages were now nearly the same. I mean the style of composition; more especially in the glaring affectation of anglicising Latin words.” It certainly has great merit, though it was executed in the space of about sixteen months. It appears, that he had projected this translation so early as the year 1501, but did not complete it till about eleven years after. Besides this work, bishop Douglas also wrote an original poem, called *' The Palice of Honour,“which was printed at London, 1553, 4to, and Edinburgh, 1579, 4to. Mr. Warton observes of this poem, that” it is a moral vision written in 1501, planned on the design of the Tablet of Cebes, and imitated in the elegant Latin dialogue * De Tranquillitate Anitni' of his countryman Florence Wilson, or Florentius Volusenus. The object of this allegory is to show the instability and insufficiency of worldly pomp; and to prove, that a constant and undeviating habit of virtue is the only way to true honour and happiness. The allegory is illustrated by a variety of examples of illustrious personages; not only of those who by a regular perseverance in honourable deeds gained admittance into this splendid habitation, but of those who were excluded from it, by debasing the dignity of their eminent stations with a vicious and unmanly behaviour. It is addressed, as an apologue for the conduct of a king, to James the Fourth, is adorned with many pleasing incidents and adventures, and abounds with genius and learning." Both the editions which have been printed of this poem are extremely scarce.

He also wrote an allegorical poem, called “King Hart,” which was first published from an original manuscript by Mr. Pinkerton, in 1786, in his “Ancient Scotish Poems.” A new edition of bishop Douglas’s translation of Virgil was printed at Edinburgh, in 1710, in small folio, to which a large and valuable glossary was added by the celebrated printer Ruddiman, and a life of the author by the rev. John Sage, who acknowledges the assistance he had from bishop Nicolson, sir Robert Sibbald, Dr. Pitcairne, and Mr. Urry.

, the late learned bishop of Salisbury, was born in Scotland, in 1721, the son of Mr. Archibald Douglas, a merchant of Fittenween, in Fifeshire. His grandfather (who was a younger brother of the family of Douglas of Tulliquilly, one of the oldest branches of the house of Douglas now in existence), was an eminent clergyman of the episcopal church of Scotland, and the immediate successor of bishop Burnet in the living of Salten, in East Lothian, from which preferment he was ejected at the revolution, when presbyterianism was established in Scotland. The subject of this memoir was educated for some years at the school of Dunbar, but in 1736 was entered a commoner of St. Mary hall, Oxford, where he remained till 1738, and then removed to Baliolcollege, on being elected an exhibitioner on bishop Warner’s foundation. In 1741 he took his bachelor’s degree; and in 1742, in order to acquire a facility of speaking French, he went abroad, and remained for some time at Montreal, in Picardy, and afterwards at Ghent, in Flanders. On his return to college, in 1743, he took his master’s degree, and having been ordained deacon, in 1744, he was appointed to officiate as chaplain to the third regiment of foot-guards, which he joined when serving with the combined army in Flanders. During the time he tilled this situation, he employed himself chiefly in the study of modern languages. He was not an inactive spectator of the battle of Fontenoy, April 29, 1745, on which occasion he was employed in carrying orders from general Campbell to the English who guarded the village in which he and the other generals were stationed.

In 1755, he wrote a pamphlet entitled “An Apology for the Clergy,” against the Hutchinsonians; and shortly after, another pamphlet, entitled “The Destruction of the French foretold by Ezekiel,” against the same, being an ironical defence of them aq;ainst the attack made on them in the former pamphlet, which, however, was not greatly wanted, as the Hutchinsonians had at that time the more serious aid of Mr. (afterwards Dr.) George Home, bishop of Norwich, who could himself, had he thought it necessary, wield the weapon of irony with good effect. In 1756, Mr. Douglas published his first pamphlet against Archibald Bower, the purpose of which, as well as of what followed against the same doubtful character (see Bower), was to shew that his History of the popes could not be depended upon, and that the author had shewn himself capable of much misrepresentation and falsehood, which he had indulged to secure the patronage of the protestants in this country. In the autumn of the same year, Mr. Douglas published “A serious Defence of the Administration,” being an ironical justification of their introducing foreign troops to defend this country. In 1757 he published “Bower and Tillemont compared;” shortly afterwards, “A full Confutation of Bower’s Three Defences;” and in the spring of 1758, “The complete and final Detection of Bower.”

In 1786 he was elected one of the vice-presidents of the Society of Antiquaries, and framed their address on the king’s recovery, 1789, both to his majesty and the queen. In March 1787 he was elected one of the trustees of the British Museum, and in September of the same year, was appointed bishop of Carlisle. In 1788 he succeeded to the deanery of Windsor, for which he vacated his residentiaryship of St. Paul’s. In 1789 he preached before the house of lords, and of course published, the sermon on the anniversary of king Charles’s martyrdom. In June 1791, he was translated to the see of Salisbury. In 1793 he preached, which is also published, the anniversary sermon before the society for propagating the Gospel. Having been often and very urgently requested, by many of his literary friends, to publish a new edition of the “Criterion,” which had been many years out of print, he undertook to revise that excellent work. He had a long time before collected materials for a new and enlarged edition; but unfortunately they had been either mislaid or lost; or, more probably, destroyed, by mistake, with some other manuscripts. This circumstance, and his very advanced ago, sufficiently accounts for his not having attempted to alter materially the original work. In this statement, all the avowed publications of the bishop are enumerated, but he was concerned in many others, in which he was never supposed to have had any part, and in some of no trifling celebrity, whose nominal and reputed authors he permitted to retain and enjoy exclusively all that credit of which he could have justly laid claim to no inconsiderable share. During a great part of his life, he was in correspondence with some of the most eminent literary and political characters of the age. Few could have read more, if indeed any one so much as, with such habits of incessant application as those in which he persevered, almost to the last hour of his long protracted life, he must necessarily have read. In the strictest sense of the expression, he never let one minute pass unimproved; for he never deemed any space of time too short to be employed in reading; nor was he ever seen by any of his family, when not in company with strangers, without having a book or a pen in his hand. He retained his faculties to the last, and without any specific complaint, died on Monday, May 18, 1807, without a struggle,in the arms of his son, to whom, the public are indebted for the principal part of the preceding memoir. Bishop Douglas was interred on Monday the 25th in a vault in St. George’s chapel, Windsor.

, bishop of Derry in Ireland, the son of William Downham, bishop of Chester, was born there. He was educated at Cambridge, was elected a fellow of Christ college in 1585, and was afterwards professor of logic. Fuller says that no man was better skilled in Aristotle and Ramus, and terms him “the top-twig of that branch.” He was esteemed a man of learning, and was chaplain to James I. by whom he was advanced to the see of Derry, by letters dated Sept. 6, 1616, and was consecrated Oct. 6, of the same year. During the government of the lord chancellor Loftus, and the earl of Cork, he obtained a commission, by an immediate warrant from himself to arrest, apprehend, and attach the bodies of all people within his jurisdiction, who should decline the same, or should refuse to appear upon lawful citation, or appearing should refuse to obey the sentence given against them, and authority to bind them in recognizances, with sureties or without, to appear at the council-table to answer such contempts. The like commission was renewed to him by the lord deputy Wentworth, Oct. 3, 1633. Both were obtained upon his information, that his diocese abounded with all manner of delinquents, who refused obedience to all spiritual processes. He died at Londonderry April 17, 1634, and was buried there in the cathedral. He had a brother named John, who was an eminent divine and a writer. His own works are very numerous, and evince his theological abilities and piety. 1. “A treatise concerning Antichrist, in two books,” Lond. 1603, 4to. 2. “The Christian’s Sanctuary,” ibid. 1604, 4to. 3. “Lectures upon the Fifteenth Psalm,” ibid. 1604, -4to. 4. “Sermon at the consecration of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, upon Apocalypse i. 20,” ibid. 160S, 4to. 5. “Defence of the same Sermon against a nameless author,” ibid. 1611,4to. 6. “Two Sermons, the one commending the ministry in general, the other, the office of bishops in particular,” ibid. 1608. The latter of these, but enlarged, is the consecration sermon above mentioned. 7. “Papa Antichristus, sen Diatriba de Antichristo,” ibid. 1620, a different treatise from the former against Antichrist. 8. “The Covenant of Grace, or an Exposition upon Luke i. 73, 74, 75,” Dublin, 1631, 8vo. 9. “A treatise on Justification,” Lond. 1633, folio. 10. “The Christian’s Freedom, or the doctrine of Christian Liberty,” Oxford, 1635, 8vo. 11. “An Abstract of the Duties commanded, and sins forbidden in the Law of God,” Lond. 1635, 8vo. 12. “A godly and learned Treatise of Prayer,” Lond. 1640, 4to. These three last were posthumous. His brother John, above mentioned, was likewise educated at Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. D. He exercised his ministry in different parts of London, and was the first who preached the Tuesday’s lecture in St. Bartholomew Exchange, which he did with great reputation. His principal work is entitled “The Christian Warfare.” He died in 1644.

, an ingenious physician and poet, the son of a country gentleman of both his names, was born at Newton House, in the village of Newton St. Cyrus, near Exeter, in 1740, and educated at the grammar-school of Exeter. About 1758 he was entered of Baliol college, Oxford, where he remained until he took his bachelor’s degree, and in 1762 was ordained by bishop Lavington in the cathedral of Exeter, but he had little attachment to the church, nor were his prospects very alluring. In 1765 he repaired to Edinburgh, with a view to study medicine, and took up his abode in the house of Dr. Blacklock, who, having read his first poetical production, “The Land of the Muses,” bestowed encouraging praise. This poem was published at Edinburgh in 1768, but has never since been reprinted. To it were added “Poems on several occasions,” of various merit, but all indicating a considerable share of poetical taste. In 1769, Mr. Downman came to London, where he attended the hospitals and lectures for one winter. He then received his master’s degree at Cambridge, and soon after settled as a practitioner at Exeter, and married the daughter of Dr. Andrew, an eminent physician in that city. Here his practice was rapidly increasing, when, in 1778, the severity of a chronic complaint, contracted in his earlier years, obliged him to consult his health by change of air, and retirement, during- which he amused himself by literary efforts. The first was his tragedy of “Lucius’unius Brutus,” published in 1779, in which there are some poetical beauties, but not enough of the dramatic form to suit the stage. “Belisarius,” his second dramatic attempt, was performed at the Exeter theatre, but with little success; but his third, “Editha,” brought out at that theatre in 1781, was performed for seventeen nights. This, however, must be imputed to its being founded on a local event peculiarly interesting to an Exeter audience; in other respects all his tragedies must be allowed to be better adapted to the closet than the stage.

, minister of the Calvinist church of Paris, was born July 1595, at Sedan; where his father had a considerable post. He passed through the study of polite literature and divinity at Sedan, but was sent to Saumur, to go through a course of philosophy there under professor Duncan. He was admitted minister in 1618, and discharged his function near Langres, till he was called by the church of Paris in 1620. He had all the qualifications requisite to a great minister. His sermons were very edifying; he was assiduous and successful in comforting the sick; and he managed the atTairs of the church with such skill, that he never failed of being consulted upon every important occasion. His first essay was a “Treatise of Preparation for the Lord’s Supper.” This, and his “Catechism,” the “Short View of Controversies,” and “Consolations against the fears of Death,” have, of all his works, been the most frequently reprinted. Some of them, his book upon death in particular, have passed through above forty editions; and have been translated into several languages, as German, Dutch, Italian, and English. His “Charitable Visits,” in 5 volumes, have served for a continual consolation to private persons, and for a source of materials and models to ministers. He published three volumes of sermons, in which, as in all the forementioned pieces, there is a vein of piety very affecting to religious minds. His controversial works are 1. “The Jubilee” 2. “The Roman Combat” 3. “The Jesuit’s Owl” 4. “An Answer to father Coussin” 5. “Disputes with the bishop of Bellai, concerning the honour due to the Holy Virgin” 6. “An answer to La Milletierre” 7. “Dialogues, against the Missionaries,” in several volumes 8. “The False Pastor Convicted,” 9. ; 'The False Face of Antiquity;“10.” The Pretended Nullities of the Reformation;“11.” An Answer to prince Ernest of Hesse;“12.” An Answer to the speech of the clergy spoken by the archbishop of Sens;“13.” A Defence of Calvin." He wrote some letters, which have been printed; one to the duchess of Tremouille, upon her husband’s departure from the protestant religion; one of consolation, addressed to Madam de la Tabariere; one upon the restoration of Charles II. king of Great Britain; some upon the English episcopacy, &c. He published also certain prayers, some of which were made for the king, others for the queen, and others for the dauphin. Bayle tells us, that what he wrote against the church of Rome, confirmed the protestants more than can be expressed; for with the arms with which he furnished them, such as wanted the advantage of learning, were enabled to oppose the monks and parish priests, and to contend with the missionaries. His writings made him considered as the scourge of the papists; yet, like mons. Claude, he was much esteemed, and even beloved by them. For it was well known that he had an easy access to the secretaries of state, the first president, the king’s advocate, and the civil lieutenant; though he never made any other use of his interest with them than to assist the afflicted churches. He was highly esteemed by the great persons of his own religion; by the duke de la Force, the marshals Chatillon, Gascon, Turenne, and by the duchess of Tremouille. They sent for him to their palaces, and honoured him from time to time with their visits. Foreign princes and noblemen, the ambassadors of England and France, did the same; and he was particularly esteemed by the house of Hesse, as appears from the books he dedicated to the princes and princesses of that name. He died Nov. 3, 1669.

In 1753 when a severe attack was made on the political character of his two intimate friends Mr. Stone and Mr. Murray, afterwards the great earl of Mansfield, the bishop vindicated his old school-fellows before a committee of the privy council, directed to inquire into the charge, with that persuasive energy of truth, which made the king exclaim on reading the examination, “That is indeed a man to make a friend of.” In May 1761 he was translated to the see of Salisbury, and when archbishop of York elect, in which dignity he was enthroned in the November following, he preached the coronation sermon of their present majesties, and soon after became lord high almoner, and a member of the privy council. In the former office he rectified many abuses, and rendered it more extensively beneficial, by preventing the royal bounty from being considered as a fund to which persons of high n;nk and opulence could transfer any just claims on their own private generosity. On one occasion, when applied to by a very rich peer in behalf of two of his cousins, he replied, “that he was sorry to say that the very reason which would induce himself to assist them, prevented his considering them as objects of his majesty’s charity their near relationship to his lordship.” His conduct in the metropolitan see of York is described with great spirit and truth by Mr. llastal, the topographer of Southwell, who styles him “peculiarly virtuous as a statesman, attentive to his duties as a churchman, magnificent as an archbishop, and amiable as a man.” This character appears to be confirmed by all who knew him. As a statesman he acted upon manly and independent principles, retiring from parliament in 1762, when new men and measures were promoted, averse, in his opinion, to that system of government under which the country had so long flourished. When, however, any question was introduced, in which the interference of a churchman was proper, he was sedulous in his attendance, and prompt in delivering his sentiments. His munificence in his see deserves to be recorded. When he was translated to York, he found the archiepiscopal palace, small, mean, and incommodious; and the parish church in a state of absolute decay. To the former he made many splendid additions, particularly in the private chapel. The latter he rebuilt from its foundation, with the assistance of a small contribution from the clergyman of the parish, and two or three neighbouring gentlemen. He died at his palace at Bishopsthorpe, Dec. 10, 1776, in the 66th year of his age, and was buried by his own desire, in a very private manner, under the altar of the church. Although his literary attainments were very considerable, he published only six occasional sermons, which were much admired, and of which his son, rev. George Hay Drummond, M. A. prebendary of York, published a correct edition in 1803: to this edition are prefixed “Memoirs of the Archbishop’s Life,” and it also contains “A Letter on Theological Study,” addressed to the son of an intimate friend, then a candidate for holy orders, which evinces an intimate acquaintance with many of the best writers on theological subjects. His own principles appear to have been rather more remote from those contained in the articles and homilies than could have been wished, because they are thereby not so consistent with some of the writers whom he recommends; and he speaks with unusual freedom of certain doctrines which have been held sacred by some of the wisest and best divines of the established church. Of the “Memoirs” prefixed to this new edition of his Sermons, we have availed ourselves in this brief record of a prelate whose memory certainly deserves to be rescued from oblivion. His Sermons are composed in an elegant and classical style, and contain many admirable passages, and much excellent advice on points of moral and religious practice.

There is one poem added to the edition of his works in the “English Poets” of a very different kind. It is entitled “Polemo-Middinia,” or the battle of the dunghill, a rare example of burlesque, and the first macaronic poem by a native of Great Britain. A copy of it was published by bishop Gibson, when a young man, at Oxford in 1691, 4to, with Latin notes, but the text, probably from Mr. Gibson’s being unacquainted with the Scotch language, is less correct than that of any copy that has fallen in the way of his late editor, who has therefore preferred the elegant edition printed by Messrs. Foulis of Glasgow in 1768. The humour of this piece is so remote from the characteristics of his polished mind and serious muse, that it may be regarded as a very singular curiosity. It appears to be the fragment of a larger poem which the author wrote for the amusement of his friends, but was not anxious to preserve. Mr. Gilchrist conjectures that it was written when Drummond was on a visit to his brother-in-law at Scotstarvet, and that it alludes to some rustic flispute well known at the time.

In 16S1 he published his Absalom and Achitophel. This celebrated poem, which was at first printed without the author’s name, is a severe satire on the contrivers and abettors of the rebellion against Charles II. under the duke of Monmouth; and, under the characters of Absalom, Achitophel, David and Zimri, are represented the duke of Monmouth, the earl of Shaftesbury, king Charles, and the duke of Buckingham. There are two translations of this poem into Latin; one by Dr. Coward, a physician of Merton college in Oxford; another by Mr. Atterbury, afterwards bishop of Rochester, both published in 1682, 4to. Dryden left the story unfinished; and the reason he gives for so doing was, because he could not prevail with himself to shew Absalom unfortunate. “Were I the inventor,” says he, “who am only the historian, I should certainly conclude the piece with the reconcilement of Absalom to David. And who knows, but this may come to pass? Things were not brought to extremity, where I left the story: there seems yet to be room left for a composure: hereafter, there may be only for pity. I have not so much as an uncharitable wish against Achitophel; but am content to be accused of a good-natured error, and to hope with Origen, that the devil himself may at last be saved. For which reason, in this poem, he is neither brought to set his house in order, nor to dispose of his person afterwards.” A second part of Absalom and Achitophel was undertaken and written by Tate, at the request and under the direction of Dryden, who wrote near 200 lines of it himself.

He married the lady Elizabeth Howard, daughter of the earl of Berkshire, who died in June or July 1714, after having been for some years insane. By her he had three sons, Charles, John, and Erasmus—Henry, of all whom we shall take some notice hereafter. There are some circumstances, relating to Dryden’s funeral, recorded in Wilson’s memoirs of the life of Mr. Congreve, which have been generally credited. It is said that the day after his death. Sprat, bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster, sent word to lady Elizabeth Howard, his widow, that he would make a present of the ground, and all the other abbey fees. Lord Halifax likewise sent to lady Elizabeth, and to Mr. Charles Dryden her son, offering to defray the expences of our poet’s funeral, and afterwards to bestow 500l. on a monument in the abbey; which generous offer from both was accepted. Accordingly, on the Sunday following, the company being assembled, the corpse was put into a velvet hearse, attended by 18 mourning coaches, When they were just ready to move, lord Jefferu-s, son of the chancellor Jefferies, with some of his rakish companions, coining by, asked whose funeral it was; and, being told it was Mr. Dry den’s, he protested, that ho should not be buried in that private manner; that he would himself, with lady Elizabeth’s leave, have the honour of his interment, and would bestow 1000l. on a monument in the abbey for him. This put a stop to the procession; and Jefferies, with several of the gentlemen who had alighted from the coaches, went up stairs to the lady Elizabeth, who was sick in bed. Jefferies repeated the purport of what he had said below; but lady Elizabeth absolutely refusing her consent, he fell on his knees, vowii.g never to rise till his request was granted. The lady, under a sudden surprise, fainted away and lord Jefferies, pretending to have gained her consent, ordered the body to be carried to Mr. RussePs, an undertaker in Cheapside, and to be left there till further orders. In the mean time, the abbey was lighted up, the ground opened, the choir attending, and the bishop waiting some hours to no purpose for the corpse. The next day, Mr. Charles Dryden waited upon lord Halifax and the bishop, and endeavoured to excuse his mother, by relating the truth; but they would not hear of any excuse. Three days after, the undertaker, receiving no orders, waited on lord Jetieries, who turned it off in a jest, pretending, that those who paid any regard to a drunken frolic deserved no better; that he remembered nothing at all of the matter; and that they might do what they pleased with the corpse. Upon this, the undertaker waited on the lady Elizabeth, who desired a day to consider what must be done. Mr. Charles Dryden immediately wrote to lord Jefferies, who returned for answer, that he knew nothing of the matter, and would be troubled no more about it. Mr. Dryden applied again to lord Halifax and the bishop of Rochester, who absolutely refused to do any thing in the affair. In this distress, Dr. Garth sent for the corpse to the college of physicians, and proposed a funeral by subscription which succeeding, about three weeks after Dryden’s decease, Garth pronounced a Latin oration over his body, which was conveyed from the college, attended by a numerous train of coaches, to Westminster-abbey. After the funeral, Mr. Charles Dryden sent lord Jefteries a challenge, which was not accepted; and, Mr. Dryden publicly declaring he would watch every opportunity to fight him, his lordship thought fit to leave the town upon it, and Mr. Dryden never could meet him after. Mr. Malone, however, has very clearly proved that the greater part of all this was a fiction by Mrs. Thomas. The fact is, that, on May 1, a magnificent funeral was projected by several persons of quality, and the body was in consequence conveyed to the College of Physicians, whence, after Dr. Garth had pronounced a Latin oration in his praise, it was, on the 13th of May, conveyed to Westminster-abbey, attended by above one hundred coaches.

It is said, that he had once a design of taking orders, but was refused*; and that he solicited for the provost­* The malignity which Dryden often not have admitted, and such as may expressed against the clergy is ira- vitiate light and unprincipled minds, puted by Langhaiue to a repulse which But there is no reason for supposing he suffered when he solicited ordina- that he disbelieved the religion which tion but he “denied that he ever de- he disobeyed. He forgot his duty rasigned to enter into the church and ther than disowned it. His tendency such a denial,” observes Dr. Johnson, to profaneness is the effect of levity, “he would not have hazarded, if he negligence, and loose conversation, could have been convicted of falsehood, with a desire of accommodating himMalevolence to the Clergy,” adds the self to the corruption of the times, bydoctor, “is seldom at a great distance venturing to be wicked as far as he from irreverence of religion, and Dry- durst. When he professed himself a den affords no exception to this ob- convert to Popery, he did not pretend f^rvatiou. His writings exhibit many to have received any new conviction passages, which, with all the allow- of the fundamental doctrines of Curisance that can be made for characters tianity.” and occasions, are such as piety would ship of Eton-college, but failed also in this. This we have upon the authority of Thomas Brown, who, in “The late Converts exposed, or the reason of Mr. Bayes’s changing his religion,” of which he was supposed to be the author, has the following passage in the preface: “But, prythee, why so severe always upon the priesthood, Mr. Bayes? You, I find, still continue your old humour, which we are to date from the year of Hegira, the loss of Eton, or since orders were refused you.” Langbaine likewise, speaking of our author’s Spanish Friar, tells us, that “ever since a certain worthy bishop refused orders to a certain poet, Mr. Dryden has declared open defiance against the whole clergy; and since the church began the war, he has thought it but justice to make reprisals on the church.”

, a French ecclesiastic of considerable fame, was born Sept. 1661, at the chateau Dubos, near the town of Blesle, in Auvergne, descended from a family allied to many considerable personages in that province. After having studied with much reputation and rapid progress in the classics, philosophy, and divinity, he took his degrees at the college of Sorbonne, and was appointed by the bishop of Lucon, principal archdeacon, and confidential grand vicar of that see. After the death of this patron, he was elected dean, which office he filled with great credit until his death, Oct. 3, 1724, which was much lamented by his friends and by the poor. His chief publications form the continuation of the “Conferences de Luon” of which the abbe Louis had published 5 vols. 12mo, in 1685. To those Dubois added seventeen more, on baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, &c, and left materials for still farther additions. He also wrote the life of his patron, Barillon, bishop of Lugonj which was published in 1700, 12mo.

, one of the martyrs to the cause of the protestant religion in France, in the sixteenth century, was a native of Auvergne, sou to Stephen du Bourg, comptroller general of the customs in Languedoc, and brother to Anthony du Bourg, president of the parliament of Paris, and afterwards chancellor of France. He was born in 1521, designed for the church, and ordained priest; but embracing the protestant religion, was honoured with the crown of martyrdom. He was a man of great learning, especially in the law, which he taught at Orleans with much reputation, and was appointed counsellor-clerk to the parliament of Paris in October 1557. In this high station, he declared himself the protector of the protestants, and endeavoured either to prevent or soften the punishments inflicted upon them. This alarmed some of Henry II.'s counsellors, who advised that monarch to get rid of the protestants, and told him that he should begin by punishing those judges who secretly favoured them, or others who employed their credit and recommendations to screen them from punishment. They likewise suggested that the king should make his appearance unexpectedly in the parliament which was to be assembled on the subject of the Mercurials, or Checks, a kind of board of censure against the magistrates instituted by Charles VIII. and called Mercurials from the day on which they were to be held (Wednesday). The king accordingly came to parliament in June 1559, when Du Bourg spoke with great freedom in his defence, and went so far as to attack the licentious manners of the court; on which the king ordered him to be arrested. On the 19th he was tried, and declared a heretic by the bishop of Paris, ordered to be degraded from the character of priest, and to be delivered into the hand of the secular power; but the king’s death, in July, delayed the execution until December, *vhen he was again condemned by the bishop of Paris, and the archbishop of Lyons, his appeals being rejected by the parliament. Frederick, elector Palatine, and other protestant princes of Germany, solicited his pardon, and probably might have succeeded, had it not been for the assassination, at this time, of the president M in art, whom Du Bourg had challenged on his trial; and it was not therefore difficult, however unjust, to persuade his persecutors that he had a hand in this assassination. He was accordingly hanged, and his body burnt Dec. 2O, 1559; leaving behind him the character of a pious and learned man, an upright magistrate, and a steady friend. At his execution he avowed his principles with great spirit; and the popish biographers are forced to allow that the firmness and constancy shown by him and others, about the same time, tended only to “make new heretics, instead of intimidating the old.”

, bishop of Olmutz in Moravia, in the sixteenth century, was bora at Piltzen in Bohemia, and died Sept. 6, 1553, with the reputation of a pious and enlightened prelate. The funclions of the episcopate did not prevent him from being ambassador in Silesia, afterwards in Bohemia, and president of the chamber instituted for trying the insurgents who had been concerned in the troubles of Smalkalde. Dubraw is the author of several works: the principal of which is a History of Bohemia in 33 books; executed with fidelity and accuracy. The best editions are those of 1575, with chronological tables; and that of 1688, at Francfort, augmented with the history of Bohemia by Æneas Sylvius. The first edition of 1552 is uncommonly rare, as a small number only were printed for distribution among the author’s friends.

The doctor’s first publication, though without his name, was “A Tour through Normandy, described in a letter to a friend,” 1754, 4to. This tour through part of his native country was undertaken, in company with Dr. Bever, in the summer of 1752; and his account of it, considerably enlarged, was re-published under the title of “Anglo-Norman Antiquities considered, in a Tour through part of Normandy, by Dr. Ducarel, illustrated with 27 copperplates, 1767,” fol. inscribed to Dr. Lyttelton, bishop of Carlisle, then president of the Society of Antiquaries. His lordship had first remarked, 1742, the difference between the mode of architecture used by the Normans in their buildings, and that practised by the contemporary Saxons in England; and the doctor’s observations, actually made on the spot ten years afterward, confirmed the rules then laid down. This ancient dependance of the English crown, with the many memorials in it by the English, was a favourite object of his contemplation. Its coinage was his next research; and he published “A series of above 200 Anglo-Gallic or Norman and Aquitaine Coins of the ancient kings of England, exhibited in sixteen copper-plates, and illustrated in twelve letters, addressed to the Society of Antiquaries of London, and several of its members; to which is added, a map of the ancient dominions of the Icings of England and France, with some adjacent countries, 1757,” 4to. His portrait, engraved by Perry, from a painting by A. Soldi, 1746, was first prefixed to this work, which was the result of his acquaintance with i\l. de Boze, keeper of the French king’s medals, and secretary of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. (See Boze). In this undertaking- the doctor found himself seconded by sir Charles Frederick, who engraved all the Aquitaine coins in his possession, in 36 quarto plates, but without any description or letter-press, and intended only for private use, being little known before their circulation on his decease.

A question being started by the hon. Daines Barrington, concerning trees indigenous to Great Britain, in the “Philosophical Transactions,” and the chesnut, elm, Him 1 and sycamore, box, abele, and yew, accounted non-indigenous; the doctor undertook the defence of the first of these trees, and to prove it a native here in which he was supported by his antiquarian friends Thorpe and Hasted, who, as Kentishinen, seern to have thought themselves more particularly interested in the dispute. His and their letters on the subject were printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” vol. LXI.; and Mr. Harrington, in the next article, gave up the controversy, and Dr. Ducarel received great congratulations on his victory. His account of the early cultivation of botany in England, and more particularly of John Tradescant, a great promoter of that science, and of his monument and garden at Lambeth, appeared originally in the “Philosophical Transactions;” whence it is copied, in the “History of Lambeth,” with several improvements, communicated by the doctor to Mr. Nichols. Dr. DucarePs letter to Gerard Meerman, grand pensioner at the Hague, on the dispute concerning Corsellis, as the first printer in England, read at the Society of Antiquaries, 1760, and translated into Latin by Dr. Musgrave, with Mr. Meerman’s answer, were published in the second volume of Meerman’s “Origines Typographies, 1765,” and, with a second letter from Mr. Meerman, were given to the public by Mr. Nichols in a Supplement to his learned partner’s “Two Essays on the Origin of Printing, 1776.” Upon printing the new edition of bishop Gibson’s “Codex,” at the Clarendon press, 1761, the doctor collated the ms collections of precedents annexed to it with the originals at Lambeth, and elsewhere; in return for which, at his own desire, the delegates of the press presented him with two copies of the new edition handsomely bound. From the time of Dr. Ducarel’s appointment to be keeper of the library at Lambeth, his pursuits took a different turn to the ecclesiastical antiquities of this kingdom, and more particularly to those of the province of Canterbury, for which he was so well supplied with materials from that library. In 1761 he circulated printed proposals for publishing a general repertory of the endowments of vicarages, for the service both of vicars and their parishioners, as nothing conduces so much to ascertain their mutual rights as ancient original endowments, which are to be found in the registries of the bishop or dean and chapter of the diocese, or in the chartularies and register books of religious houses. He had proceeded so far as to set down, in alphabetical order, the name and date of every endowment in the registers of the see of Canterbury; and all such as he could discover in the public libraries, or in printed books. He therefore next solicited the like communications from the other diocesans, or from possessors of ancient records; and subjoined a specimen of his method, and a list of the endowments already discovered, in this inquiry the assistance he received was very considerable, and it was at one time in contemplation to print an account of all these several registers, in a volume of his epistolary correspondence with some of the first characters in literature, accompanied with several valuable antiquarian tracts collected by Dr. Ducarei. The proposal for publishing the general repertory of endowments of vicarages, originally circulated, with a specimen annexed, in a single sheet, 4to, dated Dec. 3, 1761, was prefixed (with a new date, Dec. 23, 1762) to “A Repertory of the Endowments of Vicarages in the Diocese of Canterbury, 1763,” 4to, printed for the benefit of the charity-school at Canterbury; of which Mr. Gough had the doctor’s copy, with considerable additions in ms. by him, which were all incorporated into a second edition in 8vo, 1782; to which were added, endowments of vicarages in the diocese of Rochester. In a letter to the rev, Mr. Cole, of Milton, 1757, he says, “I hope, within this year, to have about twelve dioceses ready for the press;” and in another, to the rev. Dr. Cox Macro, 1763, he tells him he had eleven other dioceses then ready. In 1768 he appears to have entertained thoughts of going to press with these collections. In 1763 he drew up an account of the Mss. in the Norfolk library belonging to the royal society, amounting to 563, including 45 then first catalogued. On this occasion he was of a committee with lord Charles Cavendish and the late Dr. Birch. Jn the same year he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the Treasury, at the head of whom Mr. Grenville then was, in conjunction with sir Joseph Ayloffe, bart. and Mr. Astle, to digest and methodize the records of the state paper office at Whitehall; and afterwards those in the augmentationofh'ce. A calendar of the records of the latter, in two volumes, folio, was purchased at his sale for the Bodleian library. In 1766, he communicated to the society of antiquaries a paper on Bezants; which bishop Lyttleton, in a letter to him, styled “curious and elaborate.”

The share he took in the Rowleian discovery and controversy, of which he entertained what is now the general opinion, may be seen in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. LVI. pp. 361, 362, 461 464, 544—547, 530, 859 where is printed, his correspondence with Mr. Chapman, rector of Weston near Bath, bishop Percy, Mr. Barrett, the historian of Bristol, whose credulity in these matters was notorious, and Mr. Whitaker. In 1776 was printed, for private use, “A list of various editions of the Bible and parts thereof, in English, from 1526 to 1776,” in a single sheet, 8vo; and an improved edition, 1778, at the expence of archbishop Cornwallis. This little tract owed its rise to a list of English Bibles copied from one compiled Ly Mr. Ames, from 1526 to 1757, presented by Dr. Gifford to the Lambeth library. It was completed by Dr. Ducarel from his own observations, and the later discoveries of his learned friends, Dr. Percy, bishop of Droniore, and Mr. Tutet. Mr. Nichols also, and Mr. Herbert, editor of the new edition of Ames’s “Typographical Antiquities,” contributed not a few articles from their own collections. The account of Dr. Stukeley and his writings prefixed to the second volume of his Itinerary, published 1776, was drawn up by Dr. Ducarel, who also prepared an epitaph for him.

His memoirs of archbishop Hutton and his family, fairly written, were purchased at his sale, by the rev. Dr. Lort, for the Hutton family. In May 1757 he was appointed to the place of librarian at Lambeth (to which a salary of 30l. per annum is annexed) under archbishop Hutton; and the catalogues of that valuable collection are not a little benefited by his diligence and abilities. The catalogue begun by bishop Gibson, while librarian here, and continued by Dr. Wilkins with the greatest minuteness, was perfected by him to his own time; a distinct catalogue made of the books of archbishop Seeker, who expended above 300l. in arranging and improving the ms library and printed books here; and another, in three volumes folio, of the pamphlets and tracts bound up by the direction of archbishop CornwaLlis; and of the library of Mss. the catalogue begun by Dr. Wilkins, 720, and continued by succeeding librarians to No. 888, he extended to No. 1147, in two volumes. In 1757, he addressed to archbishop Seeker a letter concerning the first edition of archbishop Parker’s valuable book, “De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae,” now in the ms library at Lambeth, No. 959, giving an account of a great many ancient deeds, ms notes, &c. &c. contained therein. This letter is printed at large in the appendix to his “History of Lambeth Palace.”

, an eminent prelate, was born Feb. 6, 1533, at Buda, and educated by his uncle, who was bishop of Vaccia, or Veitzen, and out of respect to him he took the name of Shardellet. In 1560 the emperor Ferdinand II. admitted Dudith into his council, and appointed him bishop of Tina. He was sent soon after to the council of Trent, in the name of the emperor, and all the Hungarian clergy; and there made a very eloquent speech, April 9, 1568, which was heard with great pleasure. But this was not the case with another speech which he delivered in that place on July 6; for, though he shewed great zeal for the pope, and exclaimed strongly against Luther, yet he expressed himself so freely, both there and in his common conversation, on the necessity of episcopal residence, and in favour of marriage among the clergy, and administering the cup in the sacrament, that the legates, apprehensive of his drawing many prelates to his opinion, wrote to the pope, informing him, that Dudith was a dangerous man, and that it was necessary he should leave Trent. Upon tnis the pope solicited the emperor to recall him, which he accordingly did: but Ferdinand, far from blaming his conduct, rewarded it with the bishopric of Chonat, and soon after gave him that of five churches. This prince dying 1564, Dudith was sent by Maximilian II. into Poland, whither he nad been sent before by Ferdinand, and privately married lleyna Strazzi, maid of honour to the queen, resigning his bishopric. Rome cited him, excommunicated him, and even condemned him to the flames as an heretic, yet he despised her threats, and remained in security. After the death of his first wife, by whomhehadthreechildren, he married in 1579, a lady descended from an illustrious Polish family, widow of count John Zarnow, and sister of the famous Sborowits, by whom also he had children. Dudith, at length, openly professed the reformed religion, and even became a Socinian, according to most authors, particularly of the modern school^ who seem proud of their convert; but the fact is denied by the writer of his life, who, on the contrary, asserts, he disputed strongly against Socinus. He then settled at Breslaw in Silesia, where he died February 23, 1589, aged 56. Dudith, according to the representations both of his friends and enemies, was a handsome well-made man, of a peaceable disposition; civil, affable, regular in his conduct, very charitable to the poor, and benevolent towards all mankind. He had a taste for the classics, and so great a veneration for Cicero, that he wrote all that orator’s works, three times over, with his own hand. He likewise understood several languages, and was well acquainted with history, philosophy, mathematics, physic, law, and divinity. He left a great number of works: the principal are, “Dissertationes de Cometis,” Utrecht, 1665, 4to; two discourses, delivered at the council of Trent; an apology for the emperor Maximilian II. &c. published with other tracts, and his Life by Reuter, 1610, 4to. He published also, the Life of cardinal Pole, translated from the Italian of Beccatelli. Several of Dudith’s letters and poems occur in the collections.

, was a divine and a poet, the effusions of whose muse have been honoured with a place in Dr. Johnson’s collection, but of whose early history little is known, nor do we know who his parents were, or where he was born. His grammatical education he received under the famous Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, into wnich he was admitted in 1670, and from which he was elected in 1675, to Trinity- college, Cambridge. In 1673 he took the degree of B. A. and that of M. A. in 1682. He became likewise a fellow of the college, and it is related that he was for some time tutor to the duke of Richmond. Having entered into holy orders, he was presented to the rectory of Blaby, in Leicestershire, in 1687-8, made a prebendary of Gloucester, and in 1688 chosen a procior in convocation for that church, and was chaplain to queen Anne. In 1710 he was presented by sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester, to the wealthy living of Witney, in Oxfordshire, which, however, he enjoyed but a few months; for, on the 10th of February, 1710-11, having returned from an entertainment, he was found dead the next morning. When Mr. Duke left the university, being conscious of his powers, he enlisted himself among the wits of the age. He was in particular the familiar friend of Otway, and was engaged, among other popular names, in the translations of Ovid and Juvenal. From his writings he appears not to have been ill-qualified for poetical composition. “In his Review,” says Dr. Johnson, “though unfinished, are some vigorous lines. His poems are not below mediocrity; nor have I found in them much to be praised.” With the wit, Mr. Duke seems to have shared the dissoluteness of the times for some of his compositions are such as he must have reviewed with detestation in his later days. This was especially the case with regard to two of his poems; the translation of one of the elegies of Ovid, and the first of the three songs. “Perhaps,” observes Dr. Johnson, “like >ome other foolish young men, he rather talked than lived viciously, in an age when he that would be thought a wit was afraid to say his prayers; and whatever might have been bad in the first part of his life was surely condemned and reformed by his better judgment;” and this, it is hoped, was the case.

, was born 1730, and when a child, was of an amiable disposition, had an uncommon capacity for learning, and discovered, very early, a genius for poetry. After some years passed at a school at Romford, in Essex, under the care of his relation, the rev. Philip Fletcher, afterwards dean of Kildare, and younger brother to the bishop of that see, he was removed to a more eminent one at Felsted, in the same county. At this school he was stimulated by emulation to an exertion of his talents; and, by a close application, he became the first scholar, as well as captain of the school, and gained the highest reputation; and by the sweetness of his temper and manners, and by a disposition to friendship, he acquired and preserved the love of all his companions, and the esteem of his master and family. He has, on some particular occasions, been heard modestly to declare, that he was never punished, during hib whole residence at either school, for negligence in his lessons or exercise, or for any other misdemeanor. He was very early qualified for the university, and constantly improved himself, when at home, by his private studies, and the assistance or his father, happy in the companionship of such a son, who was always dutiful and affectionate to him; and the first literary characters of that time associated with a father and son, whose polished taste and amiable manners rendered them universally acceptable. He was entered, at the age of sixteen, at Bene‘t-college, Cambridge, where Mr. Castle, afterwards dean of Hereford, was then master: and he was recommended to that college by archbishop Herring, whom we have mentioned as his father’s particular friend. The archbishop baptised his son, and promised to patronize him, if educated for the church, and therefore sent him to the college where he had completed his own education. At the university he continued to rise in reputation as a scholar and a poet, and was always irreproachable in his moral character: he had the happiness of forming some connections there with men of genius an ’< virtue, which lasted through life; but the first and strongest attachment, in which he most delighted, end which reflected honour on his own merit, was the uninterrupted friendship, and constant correspondence, which com.uued to the last, with Mr. Greene, a very respectable clergyman of the diocese of Norwich, a man whose character for learning and abilities, goodness and virtue, justly gained him the esteem and love of all who had the happiness of his acquaintance, whose testimony is real praise, who acknowledged the worth of his valuable friend, “and loved his amiable and benevolent spirit.”

He was, in 1750, with full reputation, chosen fellow of Bene't-college; was, in 1753, ordained at Kew chapel, by Dr. Thomas, bishop of Peterborough, and appointed, by the recommendation of archbishop Herring, to the curacy of Sundridge in Kent; after which he became assistant preacher at St. Anne’s, Soho, where his father resided, and Dr. Squire, afterwards bishop of St. David’s, was rector, with whom he lived in particular intimacy, and who gave him a chaplainship, and intended to patronize him; but in that instance, and several others, he experienced the loss of friends and patrons before they had been able to gratify their own intention, or bestow on him any thing considerable. His elegant discourses acquired him, as a preacher, great reputation; his language was always correct, his expression forcible, and his doctrine so pathetically delivered, as to impress his hearers with reverence and awaken their attention. His voice was harmonious; and rather by the distinct articulation, than from strength, he was better heard, in many large churches, and particularly in the choir of Canterbury cathedral, than some louder tones, having cultivated the art of speaking in the pulpit; and his sermons always recommended that moderation, truly Christian temper, and universal charity and philanthropy, which formed the distinguished mark of his character in every part of life; and he was totally free from all affectation, as well in the pulpit as in common conversation. He was a popular and admired preacher; but he had no vanity on that account, and was equally satisfied to fulfil his duty in a country parish, and an obscure village, as in a crowded cathedral, or populous church in the metropolis. But his merit was not much regarded by the attention of the great. He was, however, esteemed, honoured, and beloved, in the very respectable neighbourhood where he constantly resided; and the dignities and affluence he might reasonably have expected from his family connections, and early patronage, could only have displayed, in a wider sphere, that benevolence, and those viriues, which are equally beneficial to the possessor, in whatever station he may be placed, when exercised to the utmost of his ability.

After the death of bishop Squire, he was nominated chaplain to lord Corke, with whom he and his father had the honour of a particular friendship, as appears by that nobleman’s “Letters from Italy.” He was presented, in 1757, by archbishop Herring, to the united livings of St. Andrew and St. Mary Bredman, in Canterbury. This benefice was bestowed in the most friendly manner by his patron, who called it only something to begin with: but the archbishop lived not above two months afterwards; and with his life the prospect of future advancement seemed to disappear. However, no complaint against the slow preferment from his respected friend and patron, no murmur against the daily dispositions of benefices, to which he must be conscious his merit often gave him equal claim, ever was suffered to escape in conversation.

This living enabled him to fulfil a long engagement, or rather to obey the impulse of a long attachment, to miss Highmore, daughter of Mr. Highmore, who was known to the world, not only by his pencil, but by his other extensive knowledge, and literary pursuits. He was married at St. Anne’s church, 20th April 1763, by Dr. Squire, bishop of St. David’s. A similarity of taste and love of literature had early endeared their companionship; and a mutual affection was the natural consequence, which ensured to them twenty years happiness, rather increased than diminished by the hand of time! He settled at Canterbury; and, in 1766, archbishop Seeker appointed him one of the six preachers in that cathedral. In 1773, archbishop Cornwall is gave him the living of Herne, about six miles from Canterbury, which afforded him a pleasant recess in the summer months. His grace also granted him a chaplainship; and he had, previous to the last living, been entrusted with the mastership of Harbledown and St. John’s hospitals, places of trust only, not emolument: so that he had, in fact, three favours, though not any of them considerable, in succession, from three archbishops.

As he had many leisure hours, he passed much time in literary employments, though many were very cheeriully given to society. Among his published productions maybe mentioned, the “Feminead,” 1754, which passed through two editions, and has been reprinted both in tlu Poetical Calendar, and in Pearch’s Collection. Four Odes appeared in 1753, viz. “The Prophecy of Neptune;” “On the Death of the Prince of Wales;” “*Ode presented to the Duke of Newcastle” and one “*To the hon. James Yorke,” first bishop of St. David’s, and afterwards bishop of Ely. Between 1753 and 1756 came out separatelv, “*An Evening Contemplation in a College,” being a parody on Gray’s Elegy“reprinted in” The Repository.“Other detached poems of Mr. Duncombe’s are,” *Verses to the Author of Clarissa,“published in that work;” *Verses on the Campaign, 1759,“(addressed to Sylvanus Urban, and originally printed in the volume for that year);” *To Colonel Clive, on his arrival in England;“” *On the Loss of the Ramilies, Captain Taylor, 1760;“” Surrey Triumphant, or the Kentish Men’s Defeat, 1773,“4to; a parody on Chevy ­Chace; which, for its genuine strokes of humour, elegant poetry, and happy imitation, acquired the author much applause. This has been translated into” Nichols’s Select Collection of Poems, 1782,“where may be found, also, a poem of his on Stocks House; a translation of an elegant epitaph, by bishop Lowth; and an elegiac *' Epitaph at the Grave of Mr. Highmore.” Those pieces marked with a starare in the Poetical Calendar, vol. VII. together with a Prologue spoken at the Charter-house, 1752 a Poem on Mr. Garrick and translations from Voltaire. And in vol. X. “The Middlesex Garden” “Kensington Gardens” “Farevvel to Hope” “On a Lady’s sending the Author a Ribbon for his Watch” “On Captain Cornwallis’s Monument” “Prologue to Amalasont” “Epigrams.” He published three Sermons; one “On the Thanksgiving, Nov. 29, 1759,” preached at St. Anne’s, Westminster, and published at the request of the pa- 4 rishioners another, “preached at the Consecration of the parish-church of St. Andrew, Canterbury,” July 4, 1774; and one, “On a General Fast, Feb. 27, 1778,” also preached at St. Andrew’s, Canterbury; and so well approved, that by the particular desire of the parish, it appeared in print under the title of “The Civil War between the Israelites and Benjamites illustrated and applied.” He published with his father, in 1766, a translation of Horace, in 8vo; and in 1767, another edition, with many enlargements and corrections, in 4 vols. 12mo. He trans* lated the “Huetiana,” in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1771. In 1774, he translated Batteley’s “Antiquitates Rutupinte.” He wrote “The Historical Account of Dr. Dodd’s Life,” 1777*, 8vo; and was the translator of“Sherlock’s Letters of an English Traveller,” 1st edition, 4to. The 2d edition, 8vo, was translated by Mr. Sherlock himself. In 1778 he published *' An Elegy written in Canterbury Cathedral;“and in 1784,” Select Works of the Emperor Julian,“2 vols. 8vo. In 1784 he was principally the author of” The History and Antiquities of Keculver and Heme,“which forms the eighteenth number of the Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica to which work he also contributed in 1785, the thirtieth number, containing,” The History and Antiquities of the Three Archiepiscopal Hospitals in and near Canterbury,“which he dedicated to archbishop Moore. He was the editor of several other works; all of which were elucidated by his critical knowledge and explanatory notes; viz. 1.” Letters from several eminent persons, deceased, including the correspondence of John Hughes, esq. and several of his friends; published from the originals, with notes. Of these there have been two editions; the last in 3 vols. 2. “Letters from Italy; by the late right-hon. John earl of Corke and Orrery, with notes,” 1773. These have gone through two editions. 3. “Letters from the late archbishop Herring, to William Buncombe, esq. deceased; from 1728 to 1757, with notes, and an appendix,” 1777. He was also the author of a Letter signed “Rusncus,” in “The World,” vol. I. No. 36 of several Letters in “The Connoisseur,” being the “Gentleman of Cambridge, A. B.” mentioned in the last number. And in the Gentleman’s Magazine, his communications in biography, poetry, and criticism, during the last twenty years of his life, were frequent and valuable. Many of them are without a name; but his miscellaneous contributions were usually distinguished by the signature of Crito.

, a writer of the ninth century, better known by his works than his personal history, is supposed to have been a native of Ireland, who emigrated to France, and there probably died. Cave and Dupin call him deacon, but Dungal himself assumes no other title than that of subject to the French kings, and their orator. In his youth he studied sacred and profane literature with success, and taught the former, and had many scholars, but at last determined to retire from the world. The influence which Valclon or Valton, the abbot of St. Denis near Paris, had over him, with some other circumstances, afford reason to think that if he was not a monk of that abbey, he had retired somewhere in its neighbourhood, or perhaps resided in the house itself. During this seclusion he did not forsake his studies, but cultivated the knowledge of philosophy, and particularly of astronomy, which was much the taste of that age. The fame he acquired as an astronomer induced Charlemagne to consult him in the year 811, on the subject of two eclipses of the sun, which took place the year before, and Dungal answered his queries in a long letter which is printed in D'Acheri’s Spicilegium, vol. III. of the folio, and vol. X. of the 4to edition, with the opinion of Ismael Bouillaud upon it. Sixteen years after, in the year 827, Dungal took up his pen in defence of images against Claude, bishop of Turin, and composed a treatise which had merit enough to be printed, first separately, in 1608, 8vo, and was afterwards inserted in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” It would appear also that he wrote some poetical pieces, one of which is in a collection published in 1729 by Martene and Durand. The time of his death is unknown, but it is supposed he was living in the year 834.

In 1712, when Theophrastus’s Characters were published by Needham, there were printed along with them some lectures of professor Duport upon the first sixteen characters, excepting the fifth. These lectures had lain in the celebrated library of Moore bishop of Ely for many years, and were at first supposed to have been written by Stanley, who wrote the lives of the Greek philosophers; but, upon their being communicated, they were recognized as part of what professor Duport* had read to his pupils at Cambridge during the rebellion.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Lewisham in Kent, of which place his father was then vicar. He was baptized there March 18, 1588-9, was educated at Westminster school, and thence elected student of Christ church, Oxford, in 1605. In 1612 he was chosen fellow of All Souls’ college; then went into orders, and travelled abroad; particularly into France and Spain. In July 1625 he took the degree of doctor in divinity; and by the interest and recommendation of the earl of Dorset, to whom he afterwards became chaplain, was appointed dean of Christ church, Oxford, in June 1629. In 1634 he was constituted chancellor of the church of Sarum, and soon after made chaplain to Charles I. He was appointed, in 1638, tutor to Charles prince of Wales, and afterwards to his brother the duke of York; and about the same time nominated to the bishopric of Chichester. In 1641 he was translated to the see of Salisbury, but received no benefit from it, on account of the suppression of episcopacy. On this event he repaired to the king at Oxford; and, after that city was surrendered, attended him in other places, particularly during his imprisonment in the Isle of Wight. He was a great favourite with his majesty; and is said by some to have assisted him in composing the “Eikon Basilike.”

After the king’s death, he retired to Richmond in Surrey, where he lived a solitary life till the restoration, when he was translated to the bishopric of Winchester, and also made lord almoner. About 1661 he began an alms-house at Richmond, which he endowed with a farm at Shepperton, for which he gave 1540l. which now produces 115l. per annum and though he did not live to finish it, yet it was finished by his appointment, and at his expence. This house is of brick, and stands on the hill above Richmond, and took its rise from a vow made by him in the time of the king’s exile. On the gate is this inscription; “I will pay my vows which I made to God in my trouble.” The bishop had a more than ordinary affection for Richmond, not only because he had resided there several years during the absence of the royal family, but also because he had educated the prince in that place. He had designed some other works of piety and charity, but was prevented by death; for he enjoyed his new dignity little more than a year and a half, dying at Richmond in 1662, aged seventythree. A few hours before he expired, Charles II. honoured him with a visit; and, kneeling down by the bedside, begged his blessing; which. the bishop, with one hand on his majesty’s head> and the other lifted up to heaven, gave with great zeal. He was buried in Westminster-abbey, on the north side of the Confessor’s chapel; vfhere a large marble stone was laid over his grave, with only these Latin words engraved upon it: “Hie jacet Brianus Winton.”

By his will he bequeathed several sums of money to charitable uses; particularly lands in Pembridge, in Herefordshire, which cost 250l. settled upon an alms-house there begun by his father; 500l. to be paid to the bishop of Sarum, to be bestowed upon an organ in that church, or such other use as the bishop shall think fittest; 500l. to the dean and chapter of Christ-church, in Oxford, towards the new buildings; 200l. to be bestowed on the cathedral church of Chichester, as the bishop and dean and chapter shall think fit; 200l. to the cathedral church at Winchester; 40l. to the poor of Lewisham, in Kent, where he was born; 40l. to the poor of Greenwich; 20l. to the poor of Westham, in Sussex, and 20l. more to provide communion-plate in that parish, if they want it, otherwise that 20l. also to the poor; 20l. to the poor of Witham, in Sussex; 10l. per annum for ten years to William Watts, to encourage him to continue in his studies; 50l. a-piece to ten widows of clergyman; 50l. a-piece to ten loyal officers not yet provided for; 200l. to All-souls’ college, in Oxford; 300l. to the repair of St. Paul’s cathedral; and above 3000l. in several sums to private friends and servants! so that the character given of him by Burnet, who represents him as not having made that use of his wealth that was expected, is not just. He wrote and published a few pieces: as, 1. “The soul’s soliloquies, and conference with conscience;” a sermon before Charles I. at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, on Oct. 25, being the monthly fast, 1648, 4to. 2. “Angels rejoicing for Sinners repenting;” a sermon on Luke xv. 10, 1648, 4to. 3. “A guide for the penitent, or, a model drawn up for the help of a devout soul wounded with sin,” 1660, 8vo. 4. “Holy rules and helps to devotion, both in prayer and practice, in two parts,” 1674, 12mo, with the author’s picture in the beginning. This was published by Benjamin Parry, of Corpus Christi college, in Oxford. The life of archbishop Spotsvvood is likewise said by some to have been written by bishop Duppa but, as Wood justly observes, that could not be, because it was written by a native of Scotland.

, one of the most learned lawyers of the thirteenth century, was born at Puimoisson in Provence; and was Henry of Suza’s pupil, and taught canon law at Modena. He afterwards was made chaplain and auditor of the sacred palace, legate to Gregory X. at the council of Lyons, and bishop of Mende, 1286. He died at Rome, November J, 1296. His works are, “Speculum Juris,” Rome, 1474, fol. a work which gained him the jiame of Speculator. “Rationale divinorum officiorum;” the first edition is Mentz, 1459, fol. very scarce. “Repertorium Juris,” Venice, 1496, fol. &c. He is to be distinguished from his nephew, William Durand, who succeeded him as bishop of Mende, and died 1328. There is an excellent treatise by this last; “De la maniere de celebrer le Concile general,” Paris, 154-5, 8vo. He wrote it on occasion of the council of Vienne, to which he was summoned by Clement V. 1310. This treatise may also be found in a collection of several works of the same kind, published by M. Fourte, doctor of the Sorbonne.

, so called from a town in Auvergne, a learned French divine of the fourteenth century, entered the Dominican order, took a doctor’s degree at Paris, was master of the sacred palace, bishop of Puy in Velay, and afterwards bishop of Meaux, where he died in 1333. Durand was one of the most eminent divines of his age he left Commentaries on the four books of Sentence, Paris, 1550, 2 vols. fol. and “Trait de TOrigine des Jurisdictions,” 4to. He frequently combats the opinions of St. Thomas, being an adherent of Scotus, and displayed so much ingenuity in his disputes, as to be called the Most resolute Doctor. Although the Thomists could not conquer him in his life, one of the number contrived to dispose of him after death, in these lines:

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, who wrote several pieces in vindication of the Church of England, was born at St. Helier’s in the Isle of Jersey, in 1625. About the end of 1640, he was entered of Merton-college in Oxford; but when that city came to be garrisoned for king Charles I. he retired into France: and, having studied for some time at Caen in Normandy, took the degree of master of arts, in the Sylvanian college of that place, on the 8th of July 1664. Then he applied himself to the study of divinity, for above two years, at Saumur, under the celebrated Amyrault, divinity reader in that Protestant university. In 1647 he returned to Jersey, and continued for some time until the reduction of that island by the parliament-forces in 1651, when on account of his being in the defence of it for the king, he was forced to withdraw, or rather was expelled thence. He then went to Paris, and received episcopal ordination in the chapel of sir Richard Browne, knt. his majesty’s resident in France, from the hands of Thomas, bishop of Galloway. From Paris, he removed to St. Malo’s, whence the reformed church of Caen invited him to be one of their ministers, in the absence of the learned Samuel Bochart, who was going into Sweden. Not long after, the landgrave of Hesse having written to the ministers of Paris, to send him a minister to preach in French at his highness’s court, he was by them recommended to that prince, but preferred being chaplain to the duke de la Force, father to the princess of Turenne; in which station he continued above eight years. Upon the restoration he came over to England, and was very instrumental in setting up the new episcopal French church at the Savoy in London, in which he officiated first on Sunday, 14 July, 1661, and continued there for some years after, much to the satisfaction of his hearers. In April 1663, he was made prebendary of North Auiton, in the cathedral of Salisbury, being then chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; and, the llth of February following, succeeded to a canonry of Windsor. On the 1st of July, 1668, he was installed into the fourth prebend of Durham, and had a rich donative conferred on him. The 28th of February, 1669-70, he was actually created doctor of divinity, by virtue of the chancellor’s letters. In 1677, king Charles II. gave him the deanery of Windsor, vacant by the death of Dr. Bruno Ryves, into which he was installed July 27. He had also the great living of Witney in Oxfordshire conferred on him, all which preferments he obtained, partly through his own qualifications, being not only a good scholar, but also “a perfect courtier, skilful in the arts of getting into the favour of great men;” and partly through his great interest with king Charles II., to whom he was personally known both in Jersey and France. Mr. Wood thinks, that, had he lived some years longer, he would undoubtedly have been promoted to a bishopric. He published several things; and, among the rest, 1. “The Liturgy of the Church of England asserted, in a Sermon, preached [in French] at the chapel of the Savov, before the French Congregation, which usually assembles in that place, upon the first day that divine service was there celebrated according to the Liturgy of the Church of England.” Translated into English by G. B. doctor in physic, Lond. 1662, 4to. 2. “A View of the Government and public Worship of God in the reformed churches of England, as it is established by the act of uniformity,” Lond. 1662, 4to. Exceptions having been made to this book by the nonconformists, partly m a book called “Apologia pro ministris trt Anglia (vulgo) noneonformistis,” by an anonymous author, supposed to be Henry Hickman, he published, 3. “Sanctae Ecclesise Anglicanao ad versus iniquas atque inverecundas Schismaticorum Criminationes, Vindiciae.” The presbyterians, taking great offence at it, published these answers: 1. “Bonasus Vapulans or some castigations given to Mr. John Durel for fouling himself and others in his English and Latin book,” Loud. 1672, 8vo, reprinted in 1676 under this title, “The Nonconformists vindicated from the Abuses put upon them by Mr. Durel and Mr. Scrivner.” 2. Dr. Lewis Du Moulin published also this answer thereto: “Patronus bonre fidei, in causa Puritanorum,” &c Lond. 1672, 8vo. Besides these, Dr. Durel published his “Theoremata philosophise,” consisting of some theses maintained at the university of Caen; a French and Latin edition of the Common Prayer Book; and a French translation of the Whole Duty of Man, partly written by his wife.

, in Latin Duroeus, was a divine of Scotland, in the seventeenth century, who laboured with great zeal to unite the Lutherans and Calvinists. He was bora educated for the ministry in Scotland. In 1624 he came to Oxford for the sake of the public library. Hovr long he remained there is uncertain; for his strong inclination for his great work, and his sanguine hopes of success in it, induced him to let his superiors know, that he could employ his talents better by travelling through the world, than if he was confined to the care of one flock. They agreed to his proposals, and permitted him to go from place to place, to negociate an accommodation between the protestant churches. He obtained likewise the approbation and recommendation of Laud archbishop of Canterbury; and was assisted by Bedell bishop of Kilmore, and also by Dr. Joseph Hall, bishop of Exeter, as he acknowledges in the preface to his “Prodromus.” He began by publishing his plan of union in 1634; and the same year appeared at a famous assembly of the evangelical churches in Germany at Francfort. The same year also the churches of Transylvania sent him their advice and counsel. Afterwards he negociated with the divines of Sweden and Denmark: he turned himself every way: he consulted the universities; he communicated their answers, and was not deterred by the ill success of his pains, even in 1661 . He appeared at that time as much possessed as ever with hopes of succeeding in this wild and impracticable scheme; and, going for Germany, desired of the divines of Utrecht an authentic testimony of their good intentions, after having informed them of the state in which he had left the affair with the king of Great Britain and the elector of Brandenburgh; and of what had passed at the court of Hesse, and the measures which were actually taken at Geneva, Heidelberg, and Metz. He desired to have this testimonial of the divines of Utrecht, in order to shew it to the Germans; and having obtained it, he annexed it to the end of a Latin work, which he published this year at Amsterdam, under the following title: “Johannis Dursei irenicorum tractatuum prodromus, &c.” The preface of this book is dated at Amsterdam, October 1, 1661.

, an English poet, was born in 1700, the second son of Robert Dyer, of Aberglasney, in Caermarthenshire, a solicitor of great capacity and note. He passed through Westminster-school under the care of Dr. Freind, and was then called home to be instructed in his father’s profession. His genius, however, led him a different way; for, besides his early taste for poetry, having a passion no less strong for the arts of design, he determined to make painting his profession. With this view, having studied awhile under his master, he became, as he tells his friend, an itinerant painter, and wandered about South Wales and the parts adjacent; and about 1727 printed “Grongar Hill,” a poem which Dr. Johnson says, “is not very accurately written but the scenes which it displays are so pleasing, the images which they raise so welcome to the mind, and the reflections of the writer so consonant to the general sense or experience of mankind, that when it is once read, it will be read again.” Being probably unsatisfied with his own proficiency, he made the tour of Italy; where, besides the usual study of the remains of antiquity, and the works of the great masters, he frequently spent whole days in the country about Rome and Florence, sketching those picturesque prospects with facility and spirit. Images from hence naturally transferred themselves into his poetical compositions; the principal beauties of the “Ruins of Rome,” are perhaps of this kind, and the various landscapes in the “Fleece” have been particularly admired. On his return to England, he published the “Ruins of Rome,” 1740; but soon found that he could not relish a town life, nor submit to the assiduity required in his profession; his talent indeed, was rather for sketching than finishing; so he contentedly sat down in the country with his little fortune, painting now and then a portrait or a landscape, as his fancy led him. As his turn of mind was rather serious, and his conduct and behaviour always irreproachable, he was advised by his friends to enter into orders; and it is presumed, though his education had not been regular, that he found no difficulty in obtaining them. He was ordained by the bishop of Lincoln, and had a law degree conferred on him.

, or Edmer, the faithful friend and historian of archbishop Anselm, was an Englishman, who flourished in the twelfth century, but we have no information respecting his parents, or the particular time and place of his nativity. He received a learned education, and very early discovered a taste for history, by recording every remarkable event that came to his knowledge. Being a monk in the cathedral of Canterbury, he had the happiness to become the bosom friend and inseparable companion of the two archbishops of that see, St. Anselm, and his successor Ralph. To the former of these he was appointed spiritual director by the pope; and that prelate would do nothing without his permission. In 1120 he was elected bishop of St. Andrew’s, by the particular desire of Alexander I. king of Scotland; but on the very day after his election, an unhappy dispute arose between the king and him respecting his consecration. Eadmer would be consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he regarded as primate of all Britain, while Alexander contended that the see of Canterbury had no pre-eminence over that of St. Andrew’s. After many conferences, their dispute becoming more warm, Eadmer abandoned his bishopric, and returned to England, where he was kindly received by the archbishop and clergy of Canterbury, who yet thought him too precipitate in leaving his bishopric. Eadmer at last appears to have been of the same opinion, and wrote a long and submissive letter to the king of Scotland, but without producing the desired effect. Whartort fixes his death in 1124, which was not long after this affair, and the very year in which the bishopric of St. Andrew’s was tilled up. Eadmer is now best known for his history of the affairs of England in his own time, from 1066 to 1122, in which he has inserted many original papers, and preserved many important facts that are nowhere else to be found. This work has been highly commended, both by ancient and modern writers, for its authenticity, as well as for regularity of composition and purity of style. It is indeed more free from legendary tales than any other work of this period, and affords many proofs of the learning, good sense, sincerity and candour of its author. The best edition is that by Selden, under the title of “Eadmeri monachi Cantuarensis Historiac Novorum, give sui Saeculi, Libri Sex,” Lond. 1623, fol. His other works are, 1. A Life of St. Auselm, from 1093 to 1109, often printed with the works of that archbishop, and by Wharton in the “Anglia Sacra.” 2. The Lives of St. Wilfrid, St. Oswald, St. Dunstan, &c. &c. and others inserted in the “Anglia Sacra,” or enumerated by his biographers, as in print or manuscript.

, successively bishop of Worcester and Salisbury, was born at York in the year 1601, and entered of Merton-college, Oxford, in 1620, where hebecame M. A. in 1624, was senior proctor in 1631, and about that time was created chaplain to Philip earl of Pembroke, who presented him with the living of Bishopston, in Wiltshire. He was afterwards appointed chaplain and tutor to prince Charles, and chancellor of the cathedral of Salisbury. For his steady adherence to the royal cause, he was deprived of every thing he possessed, and at length was compelled to fly into exile with Charles II. who made him his chaplain, and clerk of the closet. He was intimate with Dr. Morley, afterwards bishop of Winchester, and lived with him a year at Antwerp, in sir Charles Cotterel’s house, who was master of the ceremonies; thence he went into France, and attended James, duke of York. On the restoration he was made dean of Westminster, and on Nov. 30, 1662, was consecrated bishop of Worcester, and in Sept of the following year, was removed to the see of Salisbury, on the translation of Dr. Henchman to London. In 1665 he attended the king and queen to Oxford, who had left London on account of the plague. Here he lodged in University-college, and died Nov. 17, of the same year. He was buried in Mertoncollege chapel, near the high altar, where, on a monument of black and white marble, is a Latin inscription to his memory. Walton sums up his character by saying that since the death of the celebrated Hooker, none have lived “whom God hath blest with more innocent wisdom, more sanctified learning, or a more pious, peaceable, primitive temper.” When the nonconformist clergy stepped forward to administer to the relief of the dying in the great plague, what is called the Five-mile Act was passed, forbidding them, unless they took an oath against taking up arms on any pretence whatever, &c. to come within five miles of any city or town. Our prelate before his death declared himself much against this act. Burnet, who informs us of this, adds, that “he was the man of all the clergy for whom the king had the greatest esteem.”

Bishop Earle wrote an “Elegy upon Mr. Francis Beaumont,” afterwards printed at the end of Beaumont’s Poems, London, 1640, 4to. He translated also from the English into Latin, the “Eikon Basilike,” which he entitled “Imago regis Caroli, in illis suis Ærumnis et Solitudine,” Hague, 1649, and Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, which was destroyed by the carelessness of his servants. But his principal work, of which a very neat and accurate edition was lately superintended by Mr. Philip Bliss, fellow of St. John’s college, Oxford, and published in 1811, is his “Microcosmographie, or a Peece of the World discovered, in essays and characters,” a work of great humour and knowledge of the world, and which throws much light on the manners of the times. It appears to have been in his life-time uncommonly popular, as a sixth edition was published in 1630. As his name was not to it, Langbaine attributed it to Edward Blount, a bookseller in St. Paul’s Church-yard, who was only the publisher.

, a very munificent benefactor, was born at Shaftesbury, July 7, 1740. He was possessed of literary endowments of the highest order well versed in the whole circle of the belles lettres and had an exquisite taste for music yet while his time and talents seemed devoted to these engaging pursuits, amidst them he forgot not the humble and lowly, but was ever relieving their necessities, and lessening their wants. The following bequests afford striking proofs of his extensive liberality. To the matrons of Bishop Seth Ward’s college in the Close, he bequeathed the sum of two thousand guineas. To St. George’s hospital, Hyde-park-corner, to Hetheringham’s charity for the relief of the blind, to the Philanthropic society, and to the fund for the relief of decayed Musicians, a contingent legacy of one thousand guineas each. To the three hospitals established in Winchester, Salisbury, and Bristol, one hundred guineas each. To the respective parishes of the Close, St. Edmund, St. Thomas, and St. Martin in Salisbury, fifty guineas each. For different charitable purposes in the parish of Grately, Hants, the sum of four hundred guineas and to the poor cottagers in Grately, his tenants, the fee simple of their cottages and to the parish of North Stoke, in Somersetshire, thirty guineas. As a man of literature, and a friend to the arts, he also bequeathed to the royal society, two hundred guineas; to the society of antiquaries, two hundred guineas; and to the president of the society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, &c. two hundred guineas, all for the purchase of hooks for the public libraries of those three respectable societies. To the Bath agricultural society he gave one hundred guineas. Wishing to add a beauty to the many which now adorn one of the finest Gothic structures in the world, he also bequeathed the sum of four hundred guineas for erecting a window of painted glass in the great west nave of Salisbury cathedral. To encourage the art he loved, and give a grateful testimony of his partiality to the Salisbury concert, he left an annual subscription of five guineas for ten years, towards its support; and a further sum of one hundred and fifty guineas for the three next triennial musical festivals at Salisbury, after his decease. Besides the above public legacies, he amply remembered his friends, and bequeathed many others, with a view to the encouragement of merit, and the reward of industry and goodness. He died the 21st of March, 1796, at his house in the Close, Salisbury; and on the 30th his remains were privately interred in the parish-church of Newton Toney, near those of his ancestors, his own positive injunctions having prevented those public marks of respect to his memory, which would otherwise have been paid on the melancholy occasion by his numerous friends.

, a German historian and antiquary, was born at Duingen in the duchy of Brunswick, Sept. 7, 1674. Alter studying for some time at Brunswick and Helmstadt, where he made very distinguished progress in the belles lettres and history, he became secretary to the count de Flemming in Poland; and there became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, by whose interest he was appointed professor of history at Helmstadt. After Leibnitz’s death, he was appointed professor at Hanover, where he published some of his works. Although this place was lucrative, he here contracted debts, and his creditors having laid hold of a part of his salary to liquidate some of these, he privately quitted Hanover in 1723, where he left his family, and the following year embraced the religion of popery at Cologne. He then passed some time in the monastery of Corvey in Westphalia; and the Jesuits being very proud of their convert, sent him advantageous offers to settle at Vienna, Passau, or Wurtzbourg. He chose the latter, and was appointed the bishop’s counsel, historiographer, and keeper of the archives and library, and the emperor afterwards granted him letters of nobility. Pope Innocent XIII. seems also to have been delighted with his conversion, although his embarrassed circumstances appear to have been the chief cause of it. He died in the month of February 1730; and whatever may be thought of his religious principles, no doubt can be entertained of his extensive learning and knowledge of history. He wrote, 1. “Historia studii etymologici linguae Germanicas,” Hanover, 1711, 8vo. 2. “De usu et pr&stantia studii etymologici linguae Gerjnanicse.” 3. “Corpus historicum medii aevi,” Leipsic, 1723, 2 vols. fol. a work on which the abbé Lenglet bestows high praise, as very curious and well -digested. 4. “Origines Habsburgo-Austriacae,” Leipsic, 1721, folio. 5. “Leges Francorum et Hipuariorum,” &c. ibid. 1730, fol. 6. “Historia genealogica principumSaxonite superioris, necnon origines Aulialtiiue et Sabaudicae,” ibid. 1722, fol. 7. “Caihechesis theotisca monachi Weissenburgensis, interpretatione illustrate.” 8. “Leibnitzii collectanea etymologica.” 9. “Brevis ad historian! Germanise introductio.” 10. “Programma de antiquissimo Helmstadiistatu,” Helmstadt, 1709. 11. “De diplomate Caroh magui pro scholis Osnaburgensibus Grsecis et Latinis.” 12. “Animadversiones historical et criticae in Joannis Frederic! Schannati dicecesim et hierarchiam Fuldeusem.” 13. “Annales Franciae orientalis et episcopatus Wurceburgensis,” 2 vols. 1731. 14. “De origine Germanorum,” Gottingen, 1750, 4to. He wrote also some numUtnatical tracts, &c.

, a clergyman, and author of several historical and other works, was nearly related to Dr. John Eachard, although they chose to spell the name differently. He was born at Cassam, near Beccles, in Suffolk, about 1671, and was the son of a clergyman, who, by the death of an elder brother, became possessed of a good estate in that county. Having passed through a course of grammar-learning, he was sent to Christ’s college, Cambridge, and, in 1691, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and that of master in 1695. He afterwards entered into holy orders, and was ordained by More, bishop of Norwich, being presented for ordination by Whiston, then the bishop’s chaplain, who says that his character was unexceptionable. Echard then was promoted to the livings of Welton and Elkinton, in Lincolnshire, where he spent above twenty years of his life; and, during that time, he published a variety of works. One of his first publications was, “The Roman History, from the building of the City to the perfect Settlement of the Empire by Augustus Caesar.” This was so well received, that the fourth edition, in one volume 8vo, was published in 1699. He also published “The History, from the Settlement of the Empire, by Augustus Caesar, to the removal of the Imperial Seat of Constantine the Great,” said to be “for the use of his highness the duke of Gloucester,” to whom it was dedicated; and the second edition, in 8vo, was printed in 1699. Two continuations of this work, one of which was revised by Mr. Echard, were afterwards published in 3 vols. 8vo. In 1702, our author published, in folio, with a dedication to queen Anne, “A General Ecclesiastical History, from the Nativity of our blessed Saviour to the first establishment of Christianity by Human Laws, under the emperor Constantine the Great. Containing the space of about 313 years. With so much of the Jewish and Roman History as is necessary and convenient to illustrate the work. To which is added, a large chronological table of all the Roman and Ecclesiastical affairs, included in the same period of time.” This work was so well received, that the sixth edition of it was published in 1722, in 2 vols. 8vo. Dean Prideaux says, that it is the best of its kind in the English tongue.

In 1707, when he was become prebendary of Lincoln, and chaplain to the bishop of that diocese, he published, in one volume folio, “The History of England: from the first entrance of Julius Csesar and the Romans to the end of the reign of king James the First,” dedicated to the duke of Ormond; by whom, he informs us in the dedication, he was excited to engage in the undertaking. In his preface, he gives some account of the materials and authors from which his work was collected. He particularly enumerates the Roman, Saxon, English, and monkish historians together with Hall, Grafton, Polydore Vergil, Holinshed, Stow, Speed, Baker, Brady, and Tyrrell and, among the writers of particular lives and reigns, he mentions Barnes, Howard, Goodwin, Camden, Bacon, Herbert, and Habington. “From all these several writers,” says be, “and many others, I have collected and formed this present history; always taking the liberty either to copy or to imitate any parts of them, if I found them really conducing to the usefulness or the ornament of my work. And, from all these, I have compiled an history as full, comprehensive, and complete, as I could bring into the compass of the proposed size and bigness. And, that nothing might be wanting, I have all the way enriched it with the best and wisest sayings of great men, that I could find in larger volumes, and likewise with such short moral reflections, and such proper characters of men, as might give life as well as add instruction tothe history.”

, residentiary and chancellor of Wells, was born at Holt-castle, on the borders of Wales. He went to Oxford about 1503, took a degree in arts in 1507, and the year after was elected fellow of Oriel-college, on the foundation of bishop Smyth, being the first elected to that fellowship, and was himself a benefactor to this college at the time of his death. Afterwards he took orders, and was reputed a noted preacher in the university and elsewhere. In 1519 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and was promoted afterwards to be canofi of Salisbury, Wells, and Bristol, and residentiary, and in 1554 chancellor of Wells. He was also vicar of St. Cuthbert’s church, in Wells, to which he was admitted Oct. 3, 1543. During the commencement of the reformation in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. he behaved with singular moderation; but when queen Mary succeeded, he threw off the mask, and appeared what he really was, a violent Roman catholic. He died in the beginning of 1560, and was buried in the cathedral of Wells. He published a volume of “Sermons fruitful, godly, and learned,” Loud. 1557, 4to, or according to Herbert, 8vo. He wrote also, which may be seen among the records to Burnet’s History of the Reformation, “Resolutions concerning the Sacraments,” and “Resolutions of some questions relating to bishops and priests, and of other matters tending to the reformation of the church made by king Henry VIII.”

Bishop Burnet adds to this high character the following pleasing anecdote. King Edward VI. gave very early indications of a good disposition to learning, and of a most wonderful probity of mind, and above all, of great respect to religion, and every thing relating to it; so that when he was once in one of his childish diversions, somewhat beingto be reached at, that he and his companions were too low for, one of them laid on the floor a great Bible that was in the room, to step on, which he beholding with great indignation, took up the Bible himself, and gave over his play for that time. The same historian has printed a new service, which was translated by the young monarch from English into Latin, with a view to abolish certain superstitious ceremonies used at the installation of the knights of the garter. Burnet has also published, what does Edward most credit of all, his “Diary or Journal.” In this we have a clear proof of his sense, knowledge, and goodness, far beyond what could have been expected at his years. It gives, says lord Orford, hopes of his proving a good king, as in so green an age he seemed resolved to be acquainted with his subjects and his kingdom. The original of this is in the Cottonian library, with the paper already mentioned, in the king’s hand-writing, which contains hints and directions delivered to the privy council, Jan. 19, 1551. Mr. Park has reprinted this curious paper in his edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors,” to which this article is considerably indebted.

, an eminent English divine and voluminous writer, the son of the preceding Thomas Edwards, was born at Hertford, February 26, 1637. His father, as we have already noticed, died in 1647, and by his wife, who was an heiress of a very considerable fortune, he left one daughter and four sons, the second of whom was John, the subject of the present narrative. After having received his grammatical education at Merchanttaylors’ school, in London, he was removed in 1653 to the university of Cambridge, and was admitted of St. John’s college, then under the government of Dr. Anthony Tuckney, a presbyterian divine of acknowledged character and learning, and particularly distinguished for the wise and exact discipline of his college. Mr. Edwards, soon after his admission, was chosen scholar of the house, and was quickly taken notice of for his exercises, both in his tutor’s chamber, and in his college-hall. Towards the close of his undergraduateship, the senior proctor being then of the college, he was appointed one of the moderators for the year. Whe: he was middle bachelor, he was elected a fellow of his college, for which he was principally indebted to the exertions of Dr. Tuckney in his behalf. During the time of his senior bachelorship he was again chosen moderator in the schools, and his performances were long remembered with esteem and praise. In 1661 he was admitted to the degree of M. A.; and soon after sir Robert Carr presented him to Dr. Sanderson, bishop cf Lincoln, who conferred upon him the order of deacon. That learned prelate engaged him, at the same time, to preach a sermon at the next ordination, when with the other candidates, he was ordained priest. In 1664, he undertook the duty of Trinity-church, in Cambridge, and went through the whole both parts of the day. In his preaching, without affecting eloquence, he studied to be plain, intelligible, and practical; and his church was much frequented by the gown, and by persons of considerable standing in the university. Dr. Sparrow, master of Queen’s, Dr. Beaumont, master of Peterhouse, and Dr. Pearson, master of Trinity-college, were often heard to applaud his pulpit performances. In 1665, during the time of the plague, he quitted his residence in the college, and dwelt all that year, and part of the next, in the town, that he might devote himself entirely to the edification and comfort of the parishioners of Trinity church, in that season of calamity. A little after this, sir Edward Atkins offered him a good living near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire, but he chose to continue in his station at Cambridge. In 1668 he was admitted to the degree of B. D. About the same time, through the interest of sir Robert Carr with sir Thomas Harvey, Mr. Edwards was unanimously chosen lecturer at St. Edmund’s Bury, with a salary of loo/, a year. This office he discharged with great reputation and acceptance, notwithstanding which, after a period of twelve months, he resigned it, and returned to his college, where, however, his situation was uneasy to him. He had not been upon the best terms with Dr. Peter Gunning, the former master of St. John’s, and being still more dissatisfied with Dr. Francis Turner, Gunning’s successor, who had somehow offended him, he determined to resign his fellowship. On quitting his college, he was presented by the fellows with a testimonial of his worthy and laudable behaviour among them. From St. John’s he removed to Trinity-hall, where he entered himself as a fellow-commoner, and performed the regular exercises in the civil Jaw. Being willing to be employed in the offices of jits clerical function, he accepted of the invitation of the parishioners of St. Sepulchre, in Cambridge, to be their minister; and his sermons there were as much attended by persons of consequence in the university as they had formerly been at Trinity church. In 1676 Mr. Edwards married Mrs. Lane, the widow of Mr. Lane, who had been ati alderman, a justice of peace, and an eminent attomey in the town. “This gentlewoman,” says his biographer, “was an extraordinary person, of unusual accomplishments and singular graces but had the unhappiness (as some others of that sex) to be misrepresented to the world. She being naturally of a high and generous spirit, and not framed to low observances and vulgar compliances, incurred thereby the imputation of pride and superciliousness among vulgar minds. But those who were no strangers to good breeding, and knew how to make distinction of persons, admired the agreeableness of her conversation, and saw those excellent and worthy things in her deportment which they could find but in very few of her sex. She understood herself and her duty, and all the rules of civil and religious behaviour.”

, a learned divine of the church of England, was born at Coventry, August 10, O.S. 1729, and was the son of the Rev. Thomas Edwards, M. A. vicar of St. Michael’s in that city, and of Katharine his wife. His grammatical education he received partly under the tuition of Edward Jackson, D. D. master of the free grammar-school in Coventry, but principally under the care of his own father; and such was his eagerness for the acquisition of knowledge, that he seldom engaged in the diversions common to boys. In 1747, at the age of eighteen, he was matriculated at the university of Cambridge, and entered of Clare hall, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1750, and of M. A. in 1754. He was likewise a fellow of his college. In the younger part of his life he was a self-taught musician, and became no mean performer on the spinnet and the bass-viol: but, finding that this amusement encroached too much upon his studies, he entirely relinquished it. On the 22d of September, 1751, he was ordained deacon, and on the 23d of September, 1753, he was ordained priest, both which orders he received from the hands of Dr. Frederick Cornwallis, at that time bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. In the spring of 1755, when Mr. Edwards was not yet twenty-six years of age, he gave a striking proof of the diligence with which he applied himself to the study of the learned languages, and the acquisition of sacred literature. This was his publication of “A new English Translation of the Psalms from the original Hebrew, reduced to metre by the late bishop Hare with notes, critical and explanatory, illustrations of many passages, drawn from the classics, and a preliminary dissertation, in which the truth and certainty of that learned prelate’s happy discovery is stated, and proved at large,” 8vo. It was Mr. Edwards’s design to make Dr. Hare’s system of Hebrew metre better known, and to prove, that, by a judicious application of it, great light might be thrown upon the poetical parts of the Hebrew scriptures. He was of opinion that Dr. Hare’s hypothesis was rejected by many persons, partly from an over-hasty determination, and partly from too scrupulous a veneration for the Hebrew text. The notes, which comprehend more than one third of this book, chiefly contain emendations of the Hebrew text, pointed out by the metre, and illustrations of some passages, drawn from the classics, together with an explanation of the most difficult places. Considerable use is made by our author of Hare and Mudge, but with no servile adherence to their authority. Mr. Edwards’s next publication was only a single sermon, which he had preached at St. Michael’s in Coventry, on the 6th of February, 1756. On the 2d of May, 1758, he was nominated, by the corporation of Coventry, master of the free grammar-school, and presented to the rectory of St. John, the Baptist in that city. This promotion was- followed by his marriage, November 27th, in the same year, to Anne Parrott, daughter of Stony er Parrott, esq. of Hawkesbury, in the parish of Foleshill, in the county of Warwick, by whom he had one son, Dr. Edwards of Cambridge. Early in 1759, Mr. Edwards published one of his principal works, “The doctrine of irresistible Grace proved to have no foundation in the writings of the New Testament.” This was levelled at the opinions of the Calvinists on that subject. Our author’s next publication, which appeared in 1762, was entitled “Prolegomena in Libros Veteris Testamenti Poeticos; sive dissertatio, in qua viri eruditissimi Francisci Harii nuper Episcopi Cicestriensis de antiqua Hebraeorum poesi hypothesin ratione et veritate niti, fuse ostenditur, atque ad objecta quaedam respond etur. Subjicitur Metricae Lowthianae Confutatio, cum indicibus necessariis,” 8vo. This attack upon Dr. Lowth’s “Metricae Harianaj brevis Confutatio,” which had been annexed to the first edition of his admirable “Praelectiones de sacra Poesi Hebraeorum,” did not pass unnoticed by that gentleman. In the second edition of his “Praelectiones” he added a note, in which he strenuously maintained his own opinion, in opposition to that of Mr, Edwards. In reply to this note our author published, in 1765 t “Epistola ad doctissimimi Robertum Lowthium, S. T. P., In qua nonnulla, quae ad nuperae siur de sacra Hebraeorum Poesi Prielectionum editionis calcem habet, expenduntur.” In this he indulged himself in some severity of language, which the subject did not merit, and which ought not to have been used towards such an antagonist as Dr. Loath. The doctor thought the “Epistola” of consequence enough to deserve a reply; and therefore he printed, in 1766, “A larger Confutation of bishop Hare’s System of Hebrew Metre in a letter to the reverend Dr. Edwards in answer to his Latin cpisile,” 8vo. Here the controversy ended and the general opinion of the learned world gave the preference to Dr. Lowth’s arguments.

In his temper, Dr. Edwards- was sometimes subject to starts of anger; but otherwise he was remarkably mild, benevolent, and humane. His generosity was great and extensive; and his dealings with others were conducted on the principles of the most rigid honesty and integrity. Such were his assiduity and ability in the instruction of youth, and so conscientious his discharge of his parochial duties, that no praise can exceed his merits. He was fond of retirement, and went Bfjklom from his place of abode; on which account, though he occasionally corresponded with many of the literati, he was not in the habits of much intimacy with any. The person with whom he had most conversed was the late excellent and learned bishop of Carlisle, Dr. Edmund Law. Their sentiments were congenial, and their pursuits similar; being principally deToted to the prosecution and promotion of sacred literature.

At the death of Dr. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, who was chancellor of the university of Oxford, on the 2d of Nov. 1610, lord Ellesmere was the next day unanimously elected into that honourable office; and on the 10th, installed in the bishop of Durham’s house in London. At this period, that university was in a very flourishing tate in point of the number of its members, which amounted to more than 2420 but many of> them, and those of the senior part, were tainted with factious principles, both of a civil and religious nature. Convinced how destructive these ideas and principles, inculcated on the minds of the youth of the university, who were to be called forth to fill the several departments of church and state, would be of the future health and prosperity of the constitution, he bent his earliest attention to eradicate and correct them.

His lordship’s illness increasing, the king, as a farther testimony of his affection and good- will, sent the earl of Buckingham and sir Francis Bacon on the 15th of March to signify his intention of honouring him with an earldom, accompanied with an annual pension. These honours he did not live to receive, but the king conferred the former upon his son, John Egerton, afterwards created earl of Bridgewater. The age in which he lived was a particular aera of the British annals, distinguished by many great and extraordinary public characters: but, whilst the misconduct or misfortune of a Devereux, a Raleigh, a Bacon, and a Coke, exposed them to public disgrace, or to an ignominious death; the prudence, discretion, and integrity of lord Ellesmere, secured him a safe and honourable retreat from this life; for, he died at York-house, in the Strand, on the 15th of March, 1617, in his seventy-seventh year, “in a good old age, and full of virtuous fame,” and in the words of Camden, “Forte quanto propius reipublicse mala viderat, ut integer honestum finem voluit.” To sum up his character, says bishop Hacket, the biographer of archbishop Williams, he was one “Qui nihil in vita nisi laudandum aut fecit, aut dixit, aut sensit.” He was buried at Doddleston, in Cheshire, on the 6th of April.

, late bishop of Durham, a descendant of the preceding, was the son of Henry Egerton, bishop of Hereford (fifth son of John third earl of Bridgewater, by lady Jane Powlett, first daughter of Charles duke of Bolton), who marrying lady Elizabeth Ariana Bentinck, daughter of William earl of Portland, had by her one daughter and five sons, of whom John was the eldest. He was born in London, on the 30th of November, 1721, was educated at Eton school, and admitted a gentleman commoner in Oriel college, Oxford, upon the 20th of May 1740, under the tuition of the rev. Dr. Bentham, afterwards regius professor of divinity in that university, where he prosecuted his studies extensively and successfully for six or seven years. He was ordained deacon privately by Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Worcester, in Grosvenor chapel, Westminster, on the 21st of Dec. 1745, and the following day he was ordained priest, at a general ordination holden by the same bishop in the same place. On the 23d he was collated by his father to the living of Ross in Herefordshire, and on the 28th was inducted by Robert Breton archdeacon of Hereford. On the 3d of January 1746 (a short time before his father’s death, which happened on the 1st of April following), he was collated to the canonry or prebend of Cublington, in the church of Hereford. Upon the 30th of May 1746, he took the degree of bachelor of civil law, for which he went out grand compounder. On the 21st of November 1748 he married Indy Anne Sophia, daughter of Henry de Grey, duke of Kent, by Sophia, daughter of William Bentinck, earl of Portland. He was appointed chaplain in ordinary to the king upon the lyth of March 1749; and was promoted to the deanery of Hereford on the 24th of July 1750. He was consecrated bishop of Bangor on the 4th of July 1756, at Lambeth; and had the temporalities restored to him upon the 22d, previously to which, on the 21st of May, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. by diploma, and he was empowered to hold the living of Ross, and the prebend of Cublington, with that bishopric, in commendam, dated the 1st of July. On the 12th of November 1768, he was translated to the see of Lichfield and Coventry, with which he held the prebend of Weldland, and residentiary ship of St. Paul’s, and also the two preferments before mentioned. He was inducted, installed, and enthroned at Lichfield by proxy, upon the 22d of November, and had the temporalities restored upon, the 26th. On the death of Dr. Richard Trevor, he was elected to the see of Durham, upon the 8th of July 1771, and was confirmed on the 20th in St. James’s church, Westminster. Upon the 2d of August following he was enthroned and installed at Durham by proxy. The temporalities of the see were restored to his lordship on the 15th of August, and on the 3d of September he made his public entry into his palatinate. On his taking possession of the bishopric, he found the county divided by former contested elections, which had destroyed the general peace: no endeavours were wanting on his part to promote and secure a thorough reconciliation of contending interests, on terms honourable and advantageous to all; and when the affability, politeness, and condescension, for which he was distinguished, uniting in a person of his high character and station, had won the affections of ll parties to himself, he found less difficulty in reconciling them to each other, and had soon the high satisfaction to see men of the first distinction in the county conciliated by his means, and meeting in good neighbourhood at his princely table. The harmony he had so happily restored, he was equally studious to preserve, which he effectually did, by treating the nobility and gentry of the county at all times with a proper regard, by paying an entire and impartial attention to their native interests, by forbearing to improve any opportunities of influencing their parliamentary choice in favour of his own family or particular friends, and by consulting on all occasions the honour of the palatinate. The same conciliating interposition he had used in the county, he employed in the city of Durham with the same success. At the approach of the general election in 1780 he postponed granting the Mew charter, which would considerably enlarge the number of voters, till some months after the election, that he might maintain the strictest neutrality between the candidates, and avoid even the imputation of partiality; and when he confirmed it, and freely restored to the city all its ancient rights, privileges, and immunities, in the most ample and advantageous form, he selected the members of the new corporation, with great care, out of the most moderate and respectable of the citizens, regardless of every consideration but its peace and due regulation; objects which he steadily held in view, and in the attainment of which he succeeded to his utmost wish, and far beyond his expectation. A conduct equally calculated to promote order and good government, he displayed, if possible, still more conspicuously in the spiritual than in the temporal department of his double office. Towards the chapter, and towards the body of the clergy at large, he exercised every good office, making them all look up to him as their common friend and father: and to those who had enjoyed the special favour of his predecessor, he was particularly kind and attentive, both from a sense of their merit, and that he might mitigate in some degree their loss of so excellent a friend and patron. In the discharge of all his episcopal functions, he was diligent and conscientious. He was extremely scrupulous whom he admitted into orders, in respect of their learning, character, and religious tenets. In his visitations, he urged and enforced the regularity, the decorum, and the well-being of the church, by a particular inquiry into the conduct of its ministers, encouraging them to reside upon their several henetices, and manifesting upon all opportunities, a sincere and active concern for the interests and accommodation of the inferior clergy. His charges were the exact transcripts of his mind. Objections have been made to some compositions of this kind, that they bear the resemblance of being as specious as sincere, and are calculated sometimes, perhaps, rather a little more to raise the reputation of their author as a fine writer, than to edify the ministry and advance religion. Of the charges his lordship delivered, it may truly be said, that, upon such occasions, he recommended nothing to his clergy which he did not practise in his life, and approve of in his closet.

Some years before his death, his health not permitting him to go into the more distant parts of his diocese, he gave a commission to Dr. Law, then bishop of Cioufert and KilmaccUiagh, assisted by the archdeacon, to visit and confirm in Northumberland, confining his personal attendance to the county of Durham. The preferments in his disposal he gave with a truly pastoral care: with many of them he rewarded the provincial clergy, on account of their learning and other merits. In a remarkable instance, in which he wished to prefer a particular friend, he declined indulging his inclination, from a conviction, that the person he was desirous to promote, was not entirely orthodox in his tenets; making a covenant with himself that his affection should not press upon his duty. Such was the wise ceconomy preserved by his lordship, that the expence attending his hospitality and munificence was no obstruction to his well-directed benefactions. Besides many gifts and charities bestowed on indigent clergymen and their families, and other deserving characters in distress, with a delicacy that gave them a double value, and which, during his life, were industriously concealed, he continued to his death all the bounties he had annually given in his two former dioceses of Bangor, and of Lichfield and Coventry, as well as all the numerous benefactions of his predecessors at Durham, increasing those to the sons of the clergy, whom he was particularly solicitous to support, and those to the infirmary at Newcastle. To St. Anne’s chapel in. Auckland, to the schools of Wolsingham, Norton, and many other places, he gave particular benefactions; and, whenever it was practicable, he made it a condition of his consent, upon the inclosure of waste lands, that twenty or thirty acres should be given to the living, where it was small, over and above the allotment to which it was entitled. To the county in general, he was a great benefactor, as well as to the copyholders in particular. He promoted the inclosure of Walling Fen in Howdenshire, which could never have been accomplished without his interposition, on account of the many opposite interests concerned in it, by which six thousand acres were drained and cultivated, and now present the agreeable and useful prospect of numerous farms and cottages, a new town, and a navigation from Market Weighton to the Humber.

He applied to parliament to exonerate the copyholders of Lanchester-fell, and Hamsteel’s-fell, of the lord’s right to the timber, a measure highly useful and liberal; in consequence of which, many trees are planted on a surface of nearly thirty thousand acres, and are become already ornamental to the country, and will in time be useful to the nation. He cpnsemed to an act of parliament for infranchising certain copyholds in the manor of Howdenshire, for the accommodation and convenience of the tenants, by enabling them to convey their lands with more ease and safety, and at the same time without prejudice to the lord. In the great flood of November 1771 the whole of the bridge over the Tyne, between Newcastle and Gateshead, was either swept away, or so much damaged as to render the taking it down necessary. Of the expence of rebuilding it, the see of Durham was subject to onethird, and the corporation of Newcastle to the remainder. Parliament enabled the bishop to raise, by life annuities chargeable upon the see, a sum sufficient for rebuilding his proportion. The surveyors for the bishop and corporation disagreeing, the bridge is not rebuilt upon a regular plan; which was so contrary to his lordship’s wishes, that he offered to advance to the corporation the amount of his one-third, that they mi^ht undertake the management of the whole, and finish it uniformly; which proposal was not accepted. In the progress of this business, he not only consented that his expence should be enlarged, but likewise that his income should be diminished; for he agreed to the widening of the new bridge, by which the expences of rebuilding were increased; and then, to alleviate the losses of his tenants who had houses on the old bridge, he gave them full leases for building upon the new, without taking any tine: but as building upon the new bridge would impair the beauty of it, and be an inconvenience to the public, he gave up his own interests in the sites of the houses, on condition that his tenants should have an equivalent on another spot, upon agreeing not to build upon the new bridge; and he then procured it to be enacted by parliament, that no houses should, in future, be built upon the new bridge, though the renewal of the leases of the buildings that otherwise might have been erected thereon, would have produced him a considerable income. The important rights of property, which had been long in dispute between the see and the respectable family of C layering, were brought by his means to an amicable conclusion and the rights of boundary, which his predecessors had long been litigating, were fully ascertained and when, by authority of parliament, he granted a lease of the estates in question, for Un.<. lues, he gave the fine he received for the lease to his lessee of the mines, in consideration of the expences which were formerly incurred by him in defending the right It may truly be considered as no small proof of his moderation, that notwithstanding for nearly seventeen years he held the bishopric of Durham, in which the rights of property are so various and extensive, the persons with whom he had to transact business so numerous, and in their expectations, perhaps, not always reasonable, he had during that whole period but one Jaw-suit: and though there are in these times certainly no improper prejudices in favour of the claims of the church, that law-suit was, by a jury of the county, determined in his favour. It was instituted to prevent the onus of repairing the road between Auckland park and the river Wear from being fixed upon his successors, to whose interests he was always properly attentive. He adjusted the quota of the land tax of the estates in London belonging to the see, procuring to himself and his successors an abatement of 13-20ths of what had been before unduly paid; and he greatly increased the rents of the episcopal demesnes at Stockton. His additions and improvements at the episcopal palaces, offices, and grounds, did equal credit to his taste and liberality. Exclusively of such as he made in the castle and offices at Durham, by fitting up the great breakfast-room, now used as a drawing-room, and by enlarging and repairing the stables and their dependencies; at Auckland-castle, where he chiefly resided, his improvements were equally well judged, and much more various and expensive. At the north-east entrance of Auckland demesne, which, in the approach from Durham, opens the extensive and magnificent scene of the park and castle, he built a porter’s lodge and a gateway, and ornamented these with large plantations: and the new apartments at the south of the castle, which were begun by his predecessors, he completed, and made into a magnificent suite of rooms. The great room he fitted up, and new furnished the chapel. The steward’s house, as well as the offices and stables, he enlarged, repaired, and altered into regular buildings; and he lowered the walls of the court and bowling-green, to the great beauty of the scenery from the house. With the monies arising from the sale of the rents and fines in Howdenshire, he bought the Park closes, the Haver closes, and other grounds adjoining to the park, with some houses and tenements in Auckland; he considerably extended the park wall, intending to continue it round the whole the kitchen garden he greatly enlarged, and secured it by a stone pier from the river Gaunless he built another stone pier and wall, to cover part of the park from the ravages of the river Wear; he embanked against the Gaunless in its whole course through the park, and formed in it many beautiful falls. He ornamented the park and demesne lands with various plantations, draining and improving the whole with much judgment, and especially the park farm, which he inclosed. Ail the grounds he kept in the very neatest order, employing the oldest and most indigent persons in the neighbourhood. In Belbourne wood, he cut several walks and ridings, and totally rebuilt the lodge-house and farm, which presents a beautiful object to the castle. Notwithstanding all these expences, he was liberal and indulgent to his tenants, remitting many fines, and taking no more than one year’s rent for a renewal of seven years, or one life; attempts, however, were sometimes made to abuse his lenity and indulgence.

It is not always that men distinguished in public appear to advantage in their private characters. We shall consider the life of our prelate in both these views, and each will throw a lustre upon the other. In the following sketch we mean to delineate such select traits only as are not common to all other men, but were more peculiar in him. His person was tall and well formed, it had both elegance and strength; his countenance was ingenuous, animated, and engaging. By nature he was endowed with strong and lively parts, a good temper, “and an active disposition. Descended from noble ancestors, and initiated from his birth in the most honourable connections, his manners and sentiments were cast from an early age in the happiest mould, and gave all the advantages of that ease and propriety of behaviour, which were so very observable even in the most indifferent actions of his life. In his address there was a peculiar mixture of dignity and affability, by which he had the remarkable art both of encouraging those who were diffident, and checking those who were presumptuous. The vivacity of his spirits and conversation, and the peculiar propriety of his manners, made him universally admired and caressed. His memory was accurate and extensive. In describing the characters, and in relating the anecdotes and transactions with which he had been acquainted, he took particular delight; and this, when his health permitted, he did with much spirit, and often with the utmost pleasantry and humour; but scrupulously taking care that the desire of ornamenting any narrative should never in the smallest degree induce him to depart from the truth of it. With so rare and happy a talent for description, with a mind stored with much information, and a memory very retentive, he was one of the most instructive and entertaining of companions; his conversation was enriched with pertinent and useful observations, and enlivened by genuine wit and humorous anecdote. He had a very peculiar art of extricating himself with much immediate address from those little embarrassments which perplex and confound many, and which often occur in society from thf awkwardness of others, or from a concurrence of singular and unexpected circumstances. When pressed by improper questions, instead of being offended with them himself, or giving offence by his replies, be had a talent of returning very ready and very dextrous answers. In every sort of emergency, as well in personal danger as in difficulties of an inferior nature, he shewed an uncommon presence of mind. He possessed a great reach of understanding, and was singularly gifted with a quick and ready judgment, deciding rightly upon the instant when it was necessary. No man was better qualified, or at the same time more averse to give his opinion; which, upon many occasions, he found a difficulty in avoiding, its value being so well known, that it was often solicited by his friends; and, when he was prevailed upon, he delivered it rather with the humility of one who asked, than with the authority of one who gave advice. In forming his friendships, he was as cautious as he was steady and uniform in adhering to them. He was extremely partial to the friendships of his youth, and made a particular point of being useful to those with whom he had been thus early connected. In all the domestic relations of life he was exemplary, as a husband, a master, and a parent. Instead of holding over his children an authority founded upon interest, during his life he put them into possession of a great part of such fortunes as they would have inherited from him upon his death, willing to have their obedience proceed not merely from a sense of duty, but from gratitude, and from pure disinterested affection. Though he was ever disinclined to write for the public, yet his merit as a scholar was, however, well known, and properly estimated, by such of his private friends as were them” selves distinguished by their erudition, particularly by archbishop Seeker, Benson bishop of Gloucester, Butler bishop of Durham, the late lord Lyttelton, the late lord Egremont, the late Mr. George Grenville, Mr. William Gerard Hamilton, Mr. Ansty, Mr. Richard Owen Cambridge, Mr. Garrick, Mr. Stillingfleet, Mr. J. Nourse, author of several pieces of poetry in Dodsley’s collection, Dr. Croxall, sir William Draper, &c. &c. His only publications were three sermons one preached before the lords, the llth of February, 1757, being a general fast another before the lords, the 30th of January, 1761 and a third before the society for the propagation of the gospel, on the 18th of February, 1763. In the early part of his life he was fond of those manly exercises which give strength and vigour both to the body and mind, without suffering them to interrupt his studies; a practice, which thus regulated, instead of being injurious, is serviceable to learning, and which men eminent for their judgment have lamented was not more cultivated and improved. His usual relaxations were such as exercised the understanding; chess was his favourite amusement, and he played well at that game. The Greek and Latin tongues were familiar to him. He spoke the French and Italian languages; and wrote, and spoke his own with purity and precision. Of books he had a competent knowledge, and collected a good library. In every thing he had a pure taste. In history, anecdotes, and memoirs, in the belles-lettres, in the arts and sciences, and in whatever else may be supposed to fall within the circle of polite education, he was by no means uninstructed.

His health had been declining for many years, and though he was neither so old nor so infirm as to look upon death as a release, he lived as it he hourly expected it. He died at his house in Grosvenor-square, London, on the 18th of January, 1787, and by his own express desire was privately interred in St. James’s church, under the communion-table, near his father. By his wife, lady Sophia, he had a daughter (the lady of sir Abraham Hume, bart.) and two sons, John-William, who on the death of Francis, third duke of Bridgwater, succeeded to the earldom, and is now seventh earl of Bridgewater; and the hon. and rev. Francis Egerton, prebendary of Durham, and rector of Whitchurch, in Shropshire, to whom the last and present articles are much indebted for his work entitled “A compilation of various authentic evidences and historical authorities, tending to illustrate the life and character of Thomas Egerton, lord Ellesmere, viscount Brackley, lord chancellor of England, Jfcc. and the nature of the times in wjiich he was lord keeper and lord chancellor; also a sketch of the lives of John Egerton, bishop of Durham, and of Francis Egerton, third duke of Bridgewater,” fol.

, bishop of Rome, was a native of Nicopolis, and flourished in the second century. He was first a deacon of the church, and about the year 177 was elected bishop of Rome. Soon after his elevation, letters were addressed to him by the martyrs of Lyons, then shut up in prison, on the subject of the peculiar tenets of Montanus and his followers; the object of which was to recommend healing and temperate measures in the treatment of that sect. During the episcopate of Eleutherius, the church is said to have enjoyed much peace, notwithstanding the parties which rose up, and which zealously contended for the truth. Among these were persons headed by Florinus and filastus, both presbyters, who maintained that God was the author of evil as well as good, for which they were degraded and excommunicated. Eleutherius died in the year 192, and deserves credit for some liberal additions which be made to the pontifical code; of these, one enacted that a man should not abstain from any sort of meat that was commonly eaten; and the other, that sentence should not be pronounced against any one accused of crimes, unless he were present to make his defence. According to Bede, but the circumstance appears doubtful, it was at this period that an embassy was sent by Lucius, king of Britain, to Rome, to request the pope to send over proper persons to explain to him and his people the nature of the Christian faith.

, daughter of Peter the great, by the revolution of 1741, renewed in her person the line of that monarch on the throne of Russia. Elizabeth was born in 1709, and when arrived at years of maturity, was extremely admired for her great personal attractions. Her beauty, as well as her exalted rank, and large dowry, occasioned her several offers, none of which, however, took effect; and she died in celibacy. During the life of her father Peter I. a negotiation had commenced for her marriage with Lewis XV. but although not seriously adopted by the court of France, it was never relinquished until the daughter of Stanislaus, titular king of Poland, was publicly affianced to the young monarch. By the will of Catharine, Elizabeth was betrothed to Charles Augustus, bishop of Lubec, duke of Sleswick and Holstein, and brother to the king of Sweden; but he died before the completion of the ceremony. In the reign of Peter II. she was demanded by Charles margrave of Anspach in 1741, by the Persian tyrant Kouli Kan; and at the time of the revolution, the regent Ann endeavoured to force her to espouse prince Louis of Brunswick, for whom she entertained a settled aversion. From the period of her accession she renounced all' thoughts of the connubial state, and adopted her nephew Peter. Her dislike to marriage, however, certainly did not proceed from any rooted aversion to the other sex; for she would freely and frequently own to her confidants, that she was never happy but when she was in love; if we may dignify by that name a capricious passion ever changing its object. The same characteristic warmth of temper hurried her no less to the extremes of devotion: she was scrupulously exact in her annual confessions at Easter of the wanderings of her heart; in expressing the utmost contrition for her frequent transgressions; and in punctually adhering both in public and private to the minutest ceremonies and ordinances of the church. With respect to her disposition and turn of mind, she is generally styled the humane Elizabeth, as she made a vow upon her accession to inflict no capital punishments during her reign; and is reported to have shed tears upon the news of every victory gained by her troops, from the reflection that it could not have been obtained without great bloodshed. But although no criminal was formally executed in public, yet the state prisons were filled with wretched sufferers, many of whom, unheard of and unknown, perished in clamp and unwholesome dungeons: the state inquisition, or secret committee appointed to judge persons suspected of high treason, had constant occupation during her reign many upon the slightest surmises were tortured in secret many underwent the knoot, and expired under the infliction. But the transaction which reflects the deepest disgrace upon her reign, was the public punishment of two ladies of fashion; the countesses Bestuchef and Lapookin: each received fifty strokes of the knoot in the open square of Petersburg: their tongues were cut out; and they were banished into Siberia. One of these ladies, Madame Lapookin, esteemed the handsomest woman in Russia, was accused of carrying on a secret correspondence with the French ambassador; but her real crime was, her having commented too freely on the amours of the empress. Even the bare recital of such an affecting scene, as that of a woman of great beauty and high rank publicly exposed and scourged by the common executioner, must excite the strongest emotions of horror; and forbid us to venerate the memory of a princess, who, with such little regard to her own sex, could issue those barbarous commands. But let us at the same time lament the inconsistency of human nature; and, in considering the character of Elizabeth, let us not deny that her heart, perhaps naturally benevolent, was eventually corrupted by power, and steeled with suspicion; and that although mercy might predominate whenever it did not interfere with her passions and prejudices; yet she by no means deserves the appellation of humane, the most noble attribute of a sovereign when it interposes to temper and mitigate the severity of justice. Elizabeth died in 1761, in the twenty-first year of her reign, and in the fifty-third year of her age; she expired in December (the 25th), the same month in which she was born, and in which she acceded to the throne. It is asserted on unquestionable authority, that it was impossible to obtain this tzarina’s consent for the execution of a felon who had even committed the most horrid species of premeditated murder, and that the master of the police used secretly to order the executioner to knoot to death those delinquents who were found guilty of the most atrocious crimes. It is a pity that she did not reserve her humanity, which in this instance was cruelty to her people, for more respectable objects. By way of conclusion to the present article, it will not be unapt to add the following anecdote, especially as it must at the same time give pleasure to the reader. Although the sovereign of this empire is absolute in the most unlimited sense of the word; yet the prejudice of the Russians in regard to the necessity of torture (and a wise legislator will always respect popular prejudices, be they ever so absurd and unreasonable) was so deeply rooted by immemorial usage, that it required great circumspection in the present tzarina not to raise discontents by an immediate abolition of that inhuman practice. Accordingly, the cautious manner in which it was gradually suppressed, discovered no less judgment than benevolence. In 17C2, Catherine II. soon after her accession, took away the power of inflicting torture from the vayvodes, or inferior justices, by whom it had been shamefully abused. In 1767, a secret order was issued to the judges in the several provinces, that whenever they should think torture requisite to force a criminal to confession, they should draw up the general articles of the charge, and lay the case before the governor of the province for his consideration: and all the governors had received previous directions to determine the case according to the principles laid down in the third question of the tenth chapter of her majesty’s instructions for a code of laws; wherein torture is proved to be no less useless than cruel. This, therefore, was a tacit abolition of torture, which has been since formally and publicly annulled. The prohibition of this horrid species of judicature, throughout the vast dominions of the Russian empire, forms a memorable aera in the annals of humanity.

, an English divine, whose writings, in the opinion of a recent biographer, deserve to be more extensively known than, it is apprehended, they now are, or ever have been, was the son of Mr. Ellis, steward to Dr. Barnaby Potter, bishop of Carlisle, and wasjborn in 1630, near Penrith in Cumberland. He became a servitor of Queen’s college, Oxford, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Tully, in 1649, and was afterwards a tabarder; and when master of arts, became a fellow of the college.

The few publications of our author, which appeared in his life-time, were a sufficient evidence of his general learning and abilities; but the great proof of his talents was not displayed till after his death. In 1763, was published, in quarto, the first part of “Tracts on the Liberty, spiritual and temporal, of Protestants in England. Addressed to J. N. esq. at Aix-la-Chapelle.” The second part was given to the world in 1765, under the title of “Tracts on r the Liberty, spiritual and temporal, of Subjects in England.” These two parts together form one great and elaborate work, which had been the principal object of the bishop’s life. The greatest part of the papers which were left by him, as we are informed by the editors, had been transcribed and fitted for the press; but the diffidence that often attends men of the most extensive understanding, prevented him from coining to a resolution of publishing them, though often solicited by his friends who had seen them, and by others of his acquaintance, who were so fully satisfied of his rare abilities, and knowledge of our civil and ecclesiastical constitution, as to believe no man of his time had better considered that subject, or was more capable of shewing it in a good light. The first volume, besides the plea for the sacramental test, consists of seven tracts, the titles of which are as follow: “I. Of the right of private judgment in all matters of religion. II. Of the liberty of publicly worshipping God, III. On the liberty, as to matters ecclesiastical, when a religion is publicly established. IV. On the liberty recovered to the people of England, by suppressing the authority formerly exercised over this realm by the Bishop of Rome. V. An answer to the objections to the ill use which, it is alleged, has been made of the liberty we have gained, by having broken with the see of Rome. VI. The nature of Supremacy, in matters ecclesiastical, vested in the crown. VII. The claim of some English Protestants to greater liberty than they now enjoy.” Though Dr. Ellys, in these tracts, vindicates the establishment of the church from the objections of the protestant dissenters, his principal concern, is with the Church of Rome, the tenets of which he very particularly examines and confutes. The subject was deemed highly important at the time in which he wrote. There was then an apprehension of danger from popery; and this sentiment he has expressed in his introduction to J. N. esq. “The increase,” says he, “of the Romish interest in Europe has been so great for these last hundred years, and is so likely to go farther, that it certainly is very necessary that the people of this nation should be acquainted at least with the chief arguments against that religion. Of these, therefore, you will here find some account; not a large one indeed, because none but things of the greatest moment have been selected; yet such a one as will, I hope, clearly shew that our ancestors were indispensably obliged to leave the communion of the church of Rome, and that we are as strictly bound to continue that separation as long as the terms of her communion remain what they are.” His biographer adds, that, should the controversy between, the Roman catholics and the church of England be revived, excellent materials for conducting it may be found in bishop Ellys’s performance. Besides, there can be no period in which a protestant should be a stranger to the grounds of his profession, and in which it will not be extremely proper that literary men in general, and divines in. particular, should have a good acquaintance with the subject.

The second part of our prelate’s work comprehends six tracts, under the following titles: “I. Of the Liberty of the Subjects in Judicial proceedings, as to matcers both criminal and civil. II. Of the right and manner of imposing Taxes; and of the other privileges of the Parliament. III. Of the means whereby the free Constitutions of other nations have been impaired, while that of England has been preserved and improved. IV. Of the Antiquities of the Commons in Parliament. V. Of the Royal Prerogative, and the hereditary right to the Crown of Britain. VI. Of the dangers that may be incident to the present Establishment, and the prospect there is of its continuance.” The second, third, fifth, and sixth, of these tracts are divided into sections, containing various important and learned discussions. The specific character of bishop Kllys’s work is, that it is a copious defence of moderate whiggistn, joined with a zealous attachment to our ecclesiastical establishment; and that it contains a large fund of historical, constitutional, and legal knowledge. The editors of the tracts say of him that “he was not only eminent for his fine parts, extensive knowledge, and sound judgment, jewels truly valuable in themselves, but they were set in him to the highest advantage, by a heart so overflowing with benevolence and candour as never even to conceive terms of acrimony or reproach towards the opinions or persons of those who differed from him. This Christian temper of his is discoverable in all the parts of these tracts that are taken up in controversy; for he always thought a person, though on the right side of the question, with principles of persecution, to be a worse man than he that was on the wrong. These dispositions engaged him in defence of toleration, and all those indulgences that he thought ought to be allowed to tender consciences. But when that liberty was once granted (as it was by law to our dissenters), he saw no necessity it should be attended with civil power, which might endanger the ecclesiastical establishment; and if he has shewed, beyond all doubt, the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and a liberty of publicly worshipping God in consequence of that judgment, he has also as undeniably proved the necessity of a test, as a just security to the established church, and a proper guard to the welfare of the state: for he was persuaded, that human laws cannot bind conscience, but they may exclude those from civil power who profess a private conscience repugnant to the public conscience of the state: all which he has managed with such gentle, charitable, and Christian liberty, as meant only to answer the arguments, not inflame the resentment of the opponents.”

His history of th'e Saracens has been translated from Arabic into Latin by Erpenius, and printed in those two languages at Leyden, 1625, in folio. Erpcnius died hetore the publication; and Golius took care of it, writing also a preface. Elmacinus began his work at the creation of the world; and Holtinger had in manuscript that part which reaches from thence to the flight of Mohammed. The translation of Erpenius is full of mistakes, especially as to geography and proper names; on which accdunt, however, he deserves some excuse, il we consider the difficulty of reading the Arabic manuscripts, and that he was the first who made any tolerable progress in this kind of learning. The French translation made by Peter Vat tier, and printed at Paris in 1657, is equally incorrect. The Arabic text was printed apart in 12mo, at the same time with the folio edition and dedicated by Erpeniuct’s widow to Andrews, bishop of Winchester.

, an eminent Scotch prelate, descended from a noble family in Germany, the counts of Helphinstein, was the son of John, or as some say, William Elphinston and Margaret Douglas, daughter of Douglas of Drumlanrig, and was horn at Glasgow in 1431, or, according to another account, in 1437. He was educated in the newly-erected university of Glasgow, and in the twentieth year of his age became M. A. He then applied himself to the study of divinity, and was made rector of Kirkmichael. After continuing four years in this situation, he went to Paris, where he acquired such reputation in the study of the civil and canon law, as to attract the attention of the university; and he was advanced to the professorship of civil and canon law, first at Park, and afterwards at Orleans, where his lectures were attended by a great concourse of students. The improvement of his own mind, however, being the particular object of his solicitude, he canvassed the most abstruse and difficult parts of his profession with the most eminent and learned doctors of the age. After nine years’ intense study in France, he returned home at the earnest solicitations of his friends, particularly bishop Muirhead, who made him parson of Glasgow, and official of his diocese; and as a mark of respect he was chosen rector of that university in which he had been educated. After the death of his friend and patron, Ivluirbead, he was made official of Lolhian, by archbishop Schevez, of St. Andrew’s; and at the same time was called to parliament, and to a seat in the privycouncil. As his talents were of the most acute and discerning kind, he embraced subjects remote from his religious studies, and became conspicuous as an able politician and skilful negociator. In this capacity he was employed by James III. on an embassy to France, in conjunction with Livingstone, bishop of Dunkeld, and the earl of fiuchan. It is said that he managed so dextrously, that the old league and amity were renewed, and all cause of discord between the two kingdoms removed. The French monarch was so charmed with his conduct and conversation, that he loaded him with valuable presents. When he returned home, he was made archdeacon of Argyle, in 1479, and soon after bishop of Ross; and in 1484, he was translated to the see of Aberdeen. His address in negociation induced the king to send him as one of the commissioners from Scotland to treat of a truce with England, and a marriage between his son and the lady Anne, the niece of Richard III.

When the earl of Richmond came to the crown of England as Henry VII. bishop Elphinston was sent to his court, with other ambassadors, to arrange the terms of a truce, which was accordingly settled for three years on July 3, 1486. The discontent of the nobles threatening to involve the country in a civil war, Elphinston mediated between them and the king; but, finding it impossible to reconcile their jarring interests, he went to England about the latter end of 1487, to solicit the friendly interposition of Henry, as the ally of the Scotish king; and although he did not succeed as he wished and expected, king James was so sensible of the value of his services, that he advanced him in February 1488, to the office of lord high chancellor of Scotland, which he enjoyed until the king’s death, when he retired to his diocese. During the time he remained at Aberdeen, he was occupied in correcting the abuses that had prevailed in the diocese, and in composing a book of canon law. But he was not long permitted to enjoy the calm of retirement, and was again called to the parliament that assembled at Edinburgh, Oct. 6, 1488, to assist at the coronation of James IV. The earl of Bothwell, who then ruled as prime minister, suspecting that bishop Elphinston would not concur in an act of indemnity in favour of those who were concerned in the rebellion of the last reign, contrived to send him on an embassy to the court of Maximilian of Germany, with a proposal for a marriage between the king, and Margaret, the emperor’s daughter; but the mission was ineffectual, as that lady had been previously promised to the prince of Spain, and was married accordingly, before Elphinston arrived at Vienna. Yet although the bishop did not succeed in this embassy, he performed a lasting service to the country in his way home, by settling a treaty of peace and amity between the states of Holland and the Scotch. In 1492, when the bishop returned, he was made lord privy-seal, and the same year appointed one of the commissioners on the part of Scotland, for the prolongation of the truce with England. But the truce was not strictly observed by the Scotch, and a new commission was found to be necessary for the more effectual settlement of all differences. Bishop Elphinston was included in this commission, and the Scotch deputies meeting with the English at Edinburgh, June 2l, they agreed to prolong the truce till fhe last day of April, 1501.

The distractions of the state being appeased, and tranquillity restored both at home and abroad, the bishop found leisure to attend to an object that he had long meditated, and which engrossed much of his thoughts. Religion and learning had been the chief pursuits of his life, and he wished to diffuse the happy influence of both over the north of Scotland. For this purpose he applied to the king to solicit the papal authority for the foundation of the university of Aberdeen, which was granted by a, bull from ope Alexander VI. dated Feb. 10, 1494. From this time the bishop bent all his attention to the completion of his design; and having requested the king to permit the college to be founded in his royal name, letters patent under the great seal were passed accordingly; and the college called King’s-college, in Old Aberdeen, was erected in 1506, in a very magnificent manner. It was endowed with great privileges, similar to those granted to the universities of Paris and Bononia. A doctor in theology was constituted principal of the college; doctors of the canon law, civil jurisprudence, and of medicine, were appointed for the cultivation of those sciences; a professor of humanity, orlitei‘t? humam’ores, to instruct the students in grammar and languages, and a sub-principal to institute them in philosophy. The plan of endowment made provision also, for the maintenance of twenty-seven students, a chanter, organist, &c. As this college k the only one that has ever been erected in this university, it possesses within itself the whole rights and privileges of an university, and the whole corporation is denominated the “University and King’s College of Aberdeen.”

Besides the erection and endowment of the college, bishop Klphinston left ample funds to build and to support a bridge over the river Dee, and the sum he bequeathed for these two objects was 10,000l. It is mentioned to his credit, that he never held any benefice in commendam, as was the case with most of the prelates of that time, but, from the revenne of the see alone, made such savings as enabled him to execute these great works-, which are so honourable to his memory. When not employed in the duties of his office, he devoted his leisure hours to writing the lives of the Scotish saints, which were occasionally read to the clergy of the diocese for their instruction in religion and practical improvement in life. It is not, however, perhaps much to be regretted that these compositions no longer exist. He also wrote the history of Scotland, from the rise of the nation to his own time, which is now preserved among Fairfax’s Mss in the Bodleian library.

, a divine and antiquary, descended from a very ancient family in the bishopric of Durham, was born at Newcastle upon Tyne, Jan. 1, 1673, and was the son of Mr. Ralph Elstob, a merchant of that place. Being intended for the church, he received his grammatical education, first at Newcastle, and afterwards at Eton after which he was admitted of Catharine-hall, in Cambridge but the air of the country not agreeing with him, he removed to Queen’s college, Oxford. Here his studious turn acquired him so much reputation, that in 1696 he was chosen fellow of University college, and was appointed joint tutor with Dr. C layering, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. At this college Mr. Elstob took the degree of master of arts, June 8, 1697. In 1701, he translated into Latin the Saxon homily of Lupus, with notes, for Dr. Jiickes. About the same time he translated into English sir John Cheke’s Latin version of Plutarch, “De Superstitione,” which is printed at the end of Strype’s Life of Cheke. The copy made use of by Mr. Elstob was a manuscript in University college, out of which Obadiah Walker, when master of that college, had cut several leaves, containing Cheke’s remarks against popery. In 1702, Mr. Elstob was appointed rector of the united parishes of St. Swithin and St. Mary Bothaw, London, where be continued to his death, and which appears to be the only eqclesiastical preferment he ever obtained. In 1703, he published, at Oxford, an edition of Ascham’s Latin Letters. He was the author, likewise, of an “Essay on the great affinity and mutual agreement between the two professions of Law and Divinity,” printed at London, with a preface, by Dr. Hickes. This book, in process of time, became so little known, that Mr. Philip Carteret Webbe insisted upon it that there was no such work, until convinced, by an abstract or view of it, which was sent to Mr. Pegge, from a copy in the library of St. John’s college, Cambridge. It is a thin octavo, and not very scarce. In 1704, Mr Elstob published two sermons; one, a thanksgiving sermon, from Psalm ciii. 10, for the victory at Hochstet; and, the other, from 1 Timothy i. 1, 2, on the anniversary of the queen’s accession. Besides the works already mentioned, our author, who was a great proficient in the Latin tongue, compiled an essay on its history and use collected materials for an account of Newcastle and, also, the various proper names formerly used in the north but what is become of these manuscripts is not known. In 1709, he published, in the Saxon language, with a Latin translation, the homily on St. Gregory’s day. Mr. Elstob bad formed several literary designs, the execution of which was prevented by his death, in 1714, when he was only forty-one years of age. The most considerable of his designs was an edition of the Saxon laws, with great additions, and a new Latin version by Somner, together with notes of various learned men, and a prefatory history of the origin and progress of the English laws, down to the conqueror, and to Magna Charta. This great plan was completed in 1721, by Dr. David Wilkins, who, in his preface, thus speaks concerning our author “Hoc Gulielmus Elstob, in literis Anglo-Saxonicis versatissimus præstare instituerat. Hinc Wheloci vestigia premens, Leges quas editio ejus exhibet, cum Mss. Cantabrigiensibus, Bodleiano, Roffensi, et Cottonianis contulerat, versioneque nova adornare proposuerat, ut sic Leges, antea jam publici juris factae, ejus opera et studio emendatiores prodiissent. Veruin morte immatura præreptus, propositum exequi non potuit.” Whilst Mr. Elstob was engaged in this design, Dr. Hickes recommended him to Mr. Harley, as a man whose modesty had made him an obscure person, and which would ever make him so, unless some kind patron of good learning should bring him into light. The doctor added his testimony to Mr. Elstob’s literature, his great diligence and application, and his capacity for the work he had undertaken. Mr. Harley so far attended to Dr. Hickes’s recommendation as to grant to Mr. Elstob the use of the books and manuscripts in his library, which our author acknowledged in a very humble letter. A specimen of Mr. Elstob’s design was actually printed at Oxford, in 1699, under the title of “Hormesta Pauli Orosii, &c. ad exemplar Junianum, &c.” He intended, also, a translation with notes, of Alfred’s Paraphrastic Version of Orosins; his transcript of which, with collations, was in Dr. Pegge’s hands. Another transcript, by Mr. Ballard, with a large preface on the use of Anglo-Saxon literature, was left by Dr. Charles Lyltelton, bishop of Carlisle, to the library of the Society of Antiquaries. Alfred’s Version of Orosius has since been given to the public, with an English translation, by the honourable Daines Barrington. In his publication, Mr. Barrington observes, that he has made use of Mr. Elstob’s transcript, and that he has adopted from it the whimsical title of Hormesta. When it is considered that Mr. Elstob died in early life, it will be regretted, by the lovers of antiquarian learning, that he was prevented from acquiring that name and value in the literary world, to which he would otherwise probably have arisen.

Had sir Thomas Elyot written only his book called “The Governor,” it would have entitled him to the respect of posterity as one of the best writers of his time, a man of acute observation, and of manly and liberal sentiments. The days of Henry VIII. were not very favourable to such, as the capricious will of Henry VI It. interfered so frequently with the progress of right thinking; but sir Thomas on some occasions was not afrai<$ to avour feis sentiments. In 1535, a proclamation was issued for calling in seditious hooks; under which description were reckoned, and chiefly intended, such writings as favoured the hishop of Rome. Upon this occasion sir Thomag Cromwell directed letters to several persons, ordering them to send in all publications of the nature designed to be condemned. Among others, he wrote to sir Thomas Elyot, whom, though an old friend of his own, he suspected, from his having been intimate with sir Thomas More, to be attached to the Romish religion. In answer, Elyot declared his judgment of the need of a reformation of the clergy, and disclaimed all undue connection with papists. As to any of the prohibited books he might chance to have by him, and which were very few, he was ready to deliver them up. Part of the language which he uses is as foilows: “Sir, As ye know, I have been ever desirous to read many books, especially concerning humanity and moral philosophy. And, therefore, of such studies I have a competent number. But, concerning the Scripture I have very few. For in Questionists I never delighted. Unsavory glosses and comments I ever abhorred. The boasters and advancers of the pompous authority of the bishop of Rome I never esteemed. But, after that, by a judgment, or estimation of things, I did anon smell out their corrupt affection, and beheld with scornful eyes the sundry abusions of their authorities, adorned with a licentious and dissolute form of living. Of the which, as well in them as in the universal state of the clergy, I have oftentimes wished a necessary reformation.”

, or Emili, a famous historian, was a native of Verona, and acquired so much reputation in Italy, that Stephen Poncher, bishop of Paris, advised king Lewis XII. to engage him to write in Latin a history of the kings of France. He was accordingly invited to Paris, and a canonry in the cathedral church was given him. He retired to the college of Navarre, to compose this work; yet after about thirty years of application to this his only employment, it was not completed at his death. The tenth book, which contained the beginning of the reign of Charles VIII. was left unfinished. But the history was continued by Arnoldus Feronius, who added nine books, which include the supplement to the former reign, and end at the death of Francis I. This continuation was published at Paris in 1650; but the best edition of the whole is that entitled “Emilii Pauli,'de Gestis Francorum, libri decem, cum Arnoldi Feroni libris novem.” Paris, 2 vols. fol.

, a learned English divine, a great champion of Arianism, and memorable for his sufferings on that account, was descended of a substantial and reputable family, and born at Stamford, in Lincolnshire, May 27, 1663. His parents were frequenters of the established church, and particularly acquainted with Cumberland, then a minister at Stamford, afterwards bishop of Peterborough; but being inclined to the sentiments of the nonconformists, they chose to bring up their son to the ministry among them. For this purpose, after he had been at a private school four years, he was sent in 1678 to an, academy in Northamptonshire, where he continued four years more. He went in 1679 to Cambridge, and was admitted of Emanuel college; but soon returned to the academy. In August 1682, he removed to Mr. Doolittle’s school near London; and in December following made his first essay as a preacher at Mr. Doolittle’s meeting-house, near Cripplegate. In 1683, Mr. Emlyn became chaplain to the countess of Donegal, a lady of great quality and estate in the north of Ireland, but then living in Lincoln’sinn-fields. In 1684, Mr. Emlyn went over with the countess and the rest of her family to Belfast, in Ireland, where she was soon after married to sir William Kranklin, and lived in great state and splendour. Here our chaplain had a very liberal and handsome allowance, usually wore the habit of a clergyman, and was treated by sir VV illiam and the countess with every mark of civility. Sir William, who had a good estate in the ivest of England, offered him a considerable living there; but this offer he declined, not being satisfied with the terms of ministerial conformity, though at that time he had no scruples on the subject of the trinity constantly attended the service of the church both parts of the day and when in the evening he preached in the countess’s hall, he had the minister of the parish, Mr. Claude Gilbert, for a hearer, with whom he lived in great intimacy, and for whom he often officiated in the parish church. Indeed, without any subscription, he had from the bishop of the diocese a licence to preach facultatis exercende gratiá; insomuch that it was reported that he had entirely left the dissenters, and was gone over to the establishment. While Mr. Emlyn was in this station, he made a journey fo Dublin, where he preached once to the congregation of which Mr. Daniel Williams and Mr. Joseph Boyse were then pastors; and so acceptable were his services to the audience, that the people were afterwards induced to invite him thither. Towards the latter end of king James’s reign, the north of Ireland was thrown into such confusion and disorder, that the family of sir William Franklin and the countess of Donegal broke up; an event which was accelerated by some domestic differences. Mr. Emlyn, therefore, returned to London, where he arrived in December 1688. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Daniel Williams had some time before retreated to the same place, having quitted the pastoral care of the congregation at Dublin, which he could never be persuaded to resume. When this determination was known, and Mr. Emlyn had not yet left Ireland, Mr. Boyse sounded him by letter, to know whether he was disposed to become Mr. Williams’s successor, and wished him to take Dublin in his way to England, but this he declined. In Mr. Emlyn’s journeyings between Ireland and London, he several times accepted of invitations to preach in the parish-churches of some towns through which he passed. At Liverpbol in particular, as he was standing at the door of his inn one Saturday evening, the minister of the place, concluding by his garb that he was a clergyman, requested him to give his parishioners a sermon the next day, which he accordingly did. What was very remarkable, when he passed that way again some time afterwards, the minister being dead, several of the people, who had heard him before, desired him to preach for them the next Sunday, which service he performed so much to their satisfaction, that they offered to use their interest with their patron to procure him the living; an offer with which his views of things did not permit him to comply. After Mr. Emlyn had returned to London, being out of employment, he was invited by sir Robert Rich, one of the lords of the admiralty, in May 1689, to his house near Beccles, in Suffolk, and was by him prevailed upon to officiate as minister to a dissenting congregation at Lowestoff in that county. This place he supplied for about a year and a half, but refused the invitation of becoming their pastor, having determined not to accept the pastoral care, where he was not likely to settle for life, or at least for a long continuance. Here also Vie cultivated a friendly correspondence with the parish-minister, frequently taking several of his people along with him to church, and accompanying the minister in collecting public charities; by which means a perfect harmony subsisted between the members of the establishment and the dissenters. During Mr. Emlyn’s residence at LowestofT, ho contractcJ a closu and intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Manning, a nonconformist minister at Peasenhall in that neighbourhood. Being both of them of an inquisitive temper, they frequently conferred together, and jointly examined into the principal points of religion, mutually communicating to each other their respective sentiments. This correspondence, notwithstanding the great distance to which they were afterwards separated, was carried on by letters as long as Mr. Manning lived. Dr. Sherlock’s “Vindication of the Trinity” having been published about this time, their thoughts were much turned to the consideration of that subject, the result of which was, that they began to differ from the received doctrine in that article. Mr. Manning embraced the Socinian opinion, and strove hard to bring Mr. Emlyn into the same way of thinking; but he could not be brought to doubt either of the pre-existence of Jesus as the Logos, or that by him God had created the material world. The interpretations which the Socinians gave of the scriptures appeared to our divine so forced and unnatural, that he could by no means accede to them; nor did he ever, in the succeeding part of his life, change his sentiments upon the subject. Nevertheless, upon occasion of his carrying a letter from Mr. Whiston to the prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, in 1711, he was reflected on as a Socinian preacher.

After about ten weeks’ absence, though Mr. Emlyn received discouraging accounts of the rage that prevailed against him in Dublin, he thought it necessary to return, to his family. Finding that both his opinions and his person lay under a great odium among many who knew little of the subject in dispute, he wrote his “Humble Inquiry into the Scripture account of Jesus Christ: or, a short argument concerning his Deity and Glory, according to the Gospel.” A few days after this work was prinjted, our author intended to return to England; but some zealous dissenters, getting notice of his design, resolved to have him prosecuted. Two of them, one of whom was a presbyterian, and the other a baptist-church officer, were for presenting Mr. Emlyn; but, upon reflection, this method was judged to be too slow, and too uncertain in its operation. Mr. Caleb Thomas, therefore, the latter of the two dissenters, immediately obtained a special warrant from the lord chief justice (sir Richard Pyne) to seize our author and his books. Our author, with part of the impression of his work, being thus seized, was carried before the lord chief justice, who at first refused bail, but afterwards said that it might be allowed with the attorney-general’s consent; which being obtained, two sufficient persons were bound in a recognizance of eight hundred pounds for Mr. Emlyn’s appearance. This was in Hilary term, February 1703, at the end of which he was bound over to Easter term, when the grand jury found the bill, wherein he was indicted of blasphemy. To such a charge he chose to traverse. The indictment was altered three times before it was finally settled, which occasioned the trial to be deferred till June 14, 1703. On that day, Mr. Emlyn was informed, by an eminent gentleman of the long robe, sir Richard Levins, afterwards lord chief justice of the common pleas, that he would not be permitted to speak freely, but that it was designed to run him down like a wolf, without law or game; and he was soon convinced that this was not a groundless assertion. The indictment was for writing and publishing a book, wherein he had blasphemously and maliciously asserted, that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the father, to whom he was subject; and this with a seditious intention. As Mr. Emlyn knew that it would be difficult to convict him of being the author of the work, he did not think himself bound to be his own accuser, and the prosecutor not being able to produce sufficient evidence of the fact, at length sent for Mr. Boyse. This gentleman, being examined as to what Mr. K.mlyn had preached of the matters contained in the book, acknowledged that he had said nothing of tlu-tn in the pulpit directly, but only some things that gave ground of suspicion. Mr. Boyse being farther asked, what our author had said in private conference with the ministers, answered, “that what he had declared there was judged by his brethren to be near to Arianism.” Though this only proved the agreement of the book with Mr. Emlyn’s sentiment, it yet had a great effect upon the minds of the jury, and tended more than any other consideration to produce a verdict against him. The queen’s counsel, having thus only presumption to allege, contended,that strong presumption was as good as evidence; which doctrine was seconded by the lord chief justice, who repeated it to the jury, who brought him in guilty, without considering the contents of the book whether blasphemy or not, confining themselves, as it would appear, to the fact of publishing: for which some of them afterwards expressed their concern. The verdict being pronounced, the passing of the sentence was deferred to June 16, being the last day of the term. In the mean time Mr. Emlyn was committed to the common jail. During this interval, Mr. Boyse shewed great concern for our author, and used all his interest to prevent the rigorous sentence for which the attorney-general (Robert Kochford, esq.) had moved, viz. the pillory. It being thought proper that Mr. Emlyn should write to the lord chief justice, he accordingly did so; but with what effect we are not told. When he appeared to have judgment given against him, it was moved by one of the queen’s counsel (Mr. Brodrick) that he should retract: but to this our author could not consent. The lord chief justice, therefore, proceeded to pass sentence on him; which was, that he should suffer a year’s imprisonment, pay a thousand pounds fine to the queen, and lie in prison till paid; and that he should find security for good behaviour during life. The pillory, he was told, was the punishment due; but, on account of his being a man of letters, it was not inflicted. Then, with a paper on his breast, he was led round the four courts to l>e exposed. After judgment had been passed, Mr. Emlyn was committed to the sheriffs of Dublin, and was a close prisoner, for something more than a quarter of a year, in the house of the under-sheriff. On the 6th of October he was hastily hurried away to the common jail, where he lay among the prisoners in a close room filled with six beds, for about five or six weeks; and then, by an habeas corpus, he was upon his petition removed into the Marshalsea for his health. Having here greater conveniences, he wrote, in 1704, a tract, entitled “General Remarks on Mr. Boyse’s Vindication of the true Deity of our blessed Saviour.” In the Marshalsea our author remained till July 21, 1705, during the whole of which time his former acquaintances were estranged from him, and all offices of friendship or.civility in a manner ceased; especially among persons of a superior rank. A few, indeed, of the plainer tradesmen belonging to his late congregation were more compassionate; but not one of the dissenting ministers of Dublin, Mr. Boyse excepted, paid him any visit or attention. At length, through the zealous and repeated solicitations of Mr. Boyse, the generous interference of Thomas Medlicote, esq. the humane interposition of the duke of Ormond, and the favourable report of the lord chancellor (sir Richard Cox, to whom a petition of Mr. Emlyn had been preferred), and whose report was, that such exorbitant fines were against law, the fine was reduced to seventy pounds, and it was accordingly paid into her majesty’s exchequer. Twenty pounds more were paid, by way of composition, to Dr. Narcissus March, archbishop of Armagh, who, as queen’s almoner, had a claim of one shilling a pound upon the whole fine. During Mr. Emlyn’s confinement in the Marshalsea, he regularly preached there. He had hired a pretty large room to himself; whither, on the Sundays, some of the imprisoned debtors resorted; and from without doors there came several of the lower sort of his former people and usual hearers. Soon after his release Mr. Emlyn returned to London, where a small congregation was found for him, consisting of a few friends, to whom he preached once every Sunday. This he did without salary or stipend; although, in consequence of his wife’s jointure having devolved to her children, his fortune was reduced to a narrow income. The liberty of preaching which our author enjoyed, gave great offence to several persons, and especially to Mr. Charles Leslie, the famous nonjuror, and Mr. Francis Higgins, the rector of Balruddery, in the county of Dublin. Complaint was made upon the subject to Dr. Teniaon, archbishop of Canterbury, who was not inclined to molest him. Nevertheless, in the representation of the lower house of convocation to the queen in 1711, it was asserted, that weekly sermons were preached in defence of the Unitarian principles, an assertion which Mr. Emlyn thought proper to deny in a paper containing some observations upon it. After a few years, his congregation was dissolved by the death of the principal persons who had attended upon his ministry, and he retired into silent obscurity, but not into idleness; for the greater part of his life was diligently spent in endeavouring to support, by various works, the principles he had embraced, and the cause for which he had suffered. The first performance published by him, after his release from prison, was “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Willis, 'dean of Lincoln; being some friendly remarks on his sermon before the honourable house of commons, Nov. 5, 1705.” The intention of this letter was to shew that the punishment even of papists for religion was not warranted by the Jewish laws; and that Christians had been more cruel persecutors than Jews. In 1706 Mr. Emlyn published what his party considered as one of his most elaborate productions, “A Vindication of the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, on Unitarian principles. In anMver to what is said, on that head, by Mr. Joseph Boyse, in his Vindication of” the Deity of Jesus Christ. To which is annexed, an answer to Dr. Walerland on the same head.“Two publications came from our author in 1707, the first of which was entitled” The supreme Deity of God the Father demonstrated. In answer to Dr. Sherlock’s arguments fur the supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ, or whatever can be urged against the supremacy of the first person of the Holy Trinity.“The other was” A brief Vindication of the Bishop of Gloucester’s (Dr. Fowler) Discourses concerning the descent of the man Christ Jesus from Heaven, from Dr. Sherlock the dean of St. Paul’s charge of heresy. With a confutation of his new notion in his late book of The Scripture proofs of our Saviour’s divinity.“In 1708 Mr. Emlyn printed three tracts, all of them directed against Mr. Leslie. The titles of them are as follow: 1. Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 2. A Vindication of the Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 3. An Examination of Mr. Leslie’s last Dialogue relating to the satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Together with some remarks on Dr. Stillingfleet’s True reasons of Christ’s Sufferings. In the year 1710 he published” The previous question to the several questions about valid and invalid Baptism, Lay-baptism, &c. considered viz. whether there be any necessity (upon the principles of Mr. Wall’s History of infant baptism) for the continual use of baptism among the posterity of baptised Christians.“But this hypothesis, though supported with ingenuity and learning, has not obtained many converts. Our author did not again appear from the press till 1715, when he published” A full Inquiry into the original authority of that text, 1 John v. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven, &c. containing an account of Dr. Mill’s evidence, from antiquity, for and against its being genuine; with an examination of his judgment thereupon.“This piece was addressed to Dr. William Wake, lord archbishop of Canterbury, president, to the bishops of the same province, his grace’s suffragans, and to the clergy of the lower house of convocation, then assembled. The disputed text found an advocate in Mr. Martin, pastor of the French church at the Hague, who published a critical dissertation on the subject, in opposition to Mr. Emlyn’s Inquiry. In 1718 our author again considered the question, in” An Answer to Mr. Martin’s critical dissertation on 1 John v. 7; shewing the insufficiency of his proofs, and the errors of his suppositions, by which he attempts to establish the authority of that text from supposed manuscripts." Mr. Martin having published an examination of this answer, Mr. Emlyn printed a reply to it in 1720, which produced a third tract upon the subject by Mr. Martin, and there the controversy ended; nor, we believe, was it revived in a separate form, until within these few years by Mr. archdeacon Travis and professor Person.

All we know of this curious artist is, that she lived single to the age of about forty, and then married Mr. Bartholomew Kello, a North Briton; that she had a son who was educated at Oxford, and was minister of Speckshall. in Suffolk. His son was sword-bearer of Norwich, and died in 1709. Joseph Hall, bishop of Norwich, when dean of Worcester, 1617, is styled by her, “My very singulaf friend,” in a manuscript dedicated to him, now in the Bodleian library.

, bishop of Pavia in Italy, and an eminent writer, was descended from an illustrious family in Gaul, and horn in Italy about the year 473. Losing an aunt, who had brought him up, at sixteen years of age, he was reduced to very necessitous circumstances, but retrieved his affairs by marrying a young lady of great fortune and quality. He enjoyed for some time all the pleasures and advantages which his wealth could procure him; but afterwards resolved upon a more strict course of life. He entered into orders, with the consent of his lady, who likewise betook herself to a religious life. He was ordained deacon by Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, with whom he lived in the most inviolable friendship. His application to divinity did not divert him from prosecuting, at his leisure hours, poetry and oratory, in which he had distinguished himself from his youth; and his writings gained him very great reputation. Upon the death of Epiphanius, he appears to have been elected one of the deacons of the Roman church; and in the year 603, having presented to the synod of Rome an apology for the council there, which had absolved pope Symmachus the year before, it was ordered to be inserted among the acts of the synod. He was advanced to the bishopric of Pavia about the year 511, and appointed to negociate an union between the eastern and western churches; for which purpose he took two journeys into the east, the former in the year 515, with Fortunatus, bishop of Catanaea; the latter in the year 517, with Peregrinus, bishop of Misenum. Though he did not succeed in these negotiations, he shewed his prudence and resolution in the management of them. For the emperor Anastasius, having in vain used his utmost efforts to deceive or corrupt him, after other instances of ill treatment, ordered him to be put on board an old ship; and, forbidding him to land in any part of Greece, exposed him to manifest danger, yet he arrived safe in Italy; and, returning to Padua, died there, not long after, in the year 521. His works consist of, 1. “Epistolarum ad diversos libri IX.” 2. “Panegyricus Theodorico regi Ostrogothorum dictus.” 3. “Libellus apologeticus pro Synodo Palmari.” 4. “Vita B. Epiphanii episcopi Ticinensis.” 5. “Vita B. Antonii monachi Lirinensis” 6. “Eucharisticon de Vita sua ad Elpidium.” 7. “Parasnesis didascalica ad Ambrosium & Beatum.” 8. “Proeceptum de Cellulanis Episcoporum.” 9. “Petitorium, quo absolutus est Gerontius.” 10. “Benedictio Cerei Paschalis I.” 11. “Benedictio Cerei Paschalis II.” 12. “Dietiones sacrae VI.” 13. “Dictiones scholastics VII.” 14. “Controversioe X.” 15. “Dictiones Ethicae V.” 16. “Poeinata, seu Carminum Liber I.” 17. “Epigrammata, seu Carminum Liber II.” They" were all published by Andrew Scottus at Tournay, 1610, 8vo; and by James Sirrnond at Paris, 1611, 8vo, with notes, explaining the names and titles of the persons mentioned by Ennodius, and containing a great many observations very useful tot illustrating the history of that age. Ennodius’s works are likewise printed with emendations and illustrations, at the end of the first volume of father Sirmond’s works, published at Paris in 1626[?]; and, from that edition, at Venice, 1729, folio. Dupiu observes, that there is a considerable warmth and liveliness of imagination in the writings of Ennodius but that his style is obscure, and his manner of reasoning far from exact.

, a very ingenious and benevolent French abbé, and the extensive promoter, if not the inventor, of a method of relieving the deaf and dumb, and rendering them useful members of society, was the son of an architect, who educated him for the church. Having obtained a canonry of Troyes, by the presentation of the bishop of that diocese, he soon became intimate with the prelate Soanen, famous for his attachment to Quesnel, and his opposition to the bull Unigenitus, and coinciding in his religious opinions, shared in the persecution of which Soanen was the object, and was laid under an interdict. He was first induced to turn his thoughts towards the unhappy case of the deaf and dumb, from observing two young girls in that situation, and although some not altogether unsuccessful attempts had been made before his time, in individual cases, the abbé L'Epee soon outdid the most skilful of his predecessors, by reducing his means to a sort of system. Under his care numerous pupils acquired useful knowledge, and were enabled to hold a communication with their friends. Some of them were enabled to learn several languages; others became profound mathematicians, and others obtained academical prizes by poetical and literary works. Without other means than a moderate personal fortune, for he held no place or preferment, he defrayed the whole expences of his establishment, and always deprived himself of luxuries, and often of necessaries, that his poor pupils might not want. When the emperor Joseph II. came to Paris, he admired the institution and its founder, and asked permission to place under his care an intelligent man, who might diffuse through Germany the blessings of his labours; and he sent him a magnificent gold box with his picture. In 1780 the Russian ambassador came to offer him the compliments of his sovereign, and a considerable present. “Tell Catherine,” said L'Epee, “that I never receive gold; but that if my labours have any claim to her esteem, all I ask of her is to send me from her vast dominions one born deaf and dumb to educate.” This amiable man died in February 1790, justly regretted by his country, and was succeeded in his school by the abbé Sicard. L'Epee wrote, 1. “An Account of the Complaint and Cure of Marianne Pigalle,” 1759, 12mo. 2. “Institution des Sourds et Muets, par la voie des signes methodiques,” 1776, 12mo, reprinted in 1784, under the title “La veritable maniere d'instruire les Sourds et Muets, confirmee par une longue experience.” A translation of this was published in London, 1801, 8vo. We cannot conclude this article without adverting to the success of the methods of teaching the deaf and dumb as now practised in this country, and eminently promoted by the “Society for the Deaf and Dumb,” in their Asylum, Kent Road: few charitable foundations have been more wisely laid, more judiciously conducted, or more liberally supported.

, an ancient Christian writer of the fourth century, was a native of Edessa, according to some; or, as others say, of Nisibe in Syria; and was born under the emperor Constantine. He embraced a monastic life from his earliest years, and in a short time was chosen superior to a considerable number of monks. He is also said to have been ordained deacon at Edessa, and priest at Caesarea in Cappadocia by St. Basil, who taught him Greek; but these two last circumstances are questionable, and it is more generally asserted that he did nat understand Greek, and that he died a deacon. He might have been a bishop, which promotion he averted in a very singular manner, that reminds us of the conduct of Ambrose on a similar occasion: Sozomen relates, that when the people had chosen him, and sought him in order to have him ordained to that function, he ran into the market-place and pretended to be mad, and they desisting from their purpose, he escaped into some retired place, where he continued till another was chosen. He wrote a great number of books, all in the Syriac language; a great part of which is said to have been translated in his lifetime. Photius tells us that he wrote above a thousand orations, and that himself had seen forty-nine of his sermons: and Sozomen observes, that he composed three hundred thousand verses, and that his works were so highly esteemed that they were publicly read in the churches after the scriptures. The same writer adds, that his works were so remarkable for beauty and dignity of style, as well as for sublimity of sentiments, that these excellences did not disappear even in their translations: and St. Jerom assures us, that in reading the truiislatiun of St. Ephrem’s treatise of the Holy Ghost, he recognized all the excellence of the original. Gregory Nyssen, in his panegyric on this father, is very copious with regard to the merit of his writings, and his attachments to the orthodox faith. St. Ephrem had an extreme aversion to the heresies of Sabellius, Arius, and Apollinarius; the last of whom, as Gregory relates, he treated in a manner which partakes too much of the modern trick to deserve much credit. It is thus related: Apollinarius having written two books, in which he had collected all the arguments in defence of his own opinion, and having entrusted them with a lady, St. Ephrem borrowed these books, under the pretence of being an Apollinarian; but before he returned them he glewed all their leaves together. The lady seeing the outside of the books to be the same as before, and not discovering that any thing had been done to them, returned them to Apollinarius to be used in a public conference he was going to have with a catholic: but he, not being able to open his books, was obliged to retire in disgrace. St. Ephrem was a man of the greatest severity of morals, and so strict an observer of chastity, that he avoided the sight of women. Sozomen tells us, that a certain woman of dissolute character, either on purpose to tempt him, or else being hired to it by others, met him on purpose in a narrow passage, and stared him full and earnestly in the face. St. Ephrem rebuked her sharply for this, and bade her look down on the ground. But the woman said, “Why should 1 do so, since I am not made out of the earth, but of thee It is more reasonable that thou shouldst look upon the ground, from which thou hadst thy original, but that I should look upon thee, from whom I was procreated.” St. Ephrem, wondering at the woman, wrote a book upon this conversation, which the most learned of the Syrians esteemed one of the best of his performances. He was also a man of exemplary charity, and as a late historian remarks, has furnished us with the first outlines of a general infirmary. Edessa having been long afflicted with a famine, he quitted his 'cell; and applying himself to the rich men, expostulated severely with them for suffering the poor to starve, while they covetously kept their riches hoarded up. He read them a religious lecture upon the subject, which affected them so deeply, that they became regardless of their riches: “but we do not know,” said they, “whom to trust with the distribution of them, since almost every man is greedy of gain, and makes a merchandise and advantage to himself upon such occasions.” St. Ephrern asked them, “what they thought of him” They replied, that they esteemed him a man of great integrity, as he was universally thought to be. “For your sakes, therefore,” said he, “I will undertake this work;” and so, receiving their money, he caused three hundred beds to be provided and laid in the public porticoes, and took care of those who were sick through the famine. And thus he continued to do, till, the famine ceasing, he returned to his cell, where he applied himself again to his studies, and died notlongafter, in the year 378, under the emperor Valens. Upon his death-bed he exhorted the monks who were about him, to remember him in their prayers forbade them to preserve his clothes as relics and ordered his body to be interred without the least funeral pomp, or any monument erected to him. St. Ephrem was a man of the severest piety, but confused in his ideas, and more acquainted with the moral law than the gospel.

, an ancient Christian writer, was born, about the year 320, at Besanduce, a village of Palestine, His parents are said by Cave to have been Jews; but others. are of opinion that there is no ground for this suspicion, since Sozomen affirms, that “from his earliest youth he was educated under the most excellent monks, upon which, account he continued a very considerable time in Ægypt.” It is certain, that, while he was a youth, he went into Ægypt, where he fell into the conversation of the Gnostics, who had almost engaged him in their party; but he soon withdrew himself from them, and, returning to his country, put himself for some time under the discipline of Hilarion, the father of the monks of Palestine. He afterwards founded a monastery near the village where he was born, and presided over it. About the year 367 he was elected bishop of Salamis, afterwards called Constantia, the metropolis of the isle of Cyprus, where he acquired great reputation by his writings and his piety. In the year 382, he was sent lor to Rome by the imperial letters, in order to determine the cause of Paulinus concerning the see of Antioch. In the year 3yi a contest arose between him and John, bishop of Jerusalem. Epipbanius accused John of holding the errors of Origen; and, going to Palestine, ordained Paulinian, brother of St. Jerom, deacon and priest, ill a monastery which did not belong to his jurisdiction. John immediately complained of this action of Epiphanius, as contrary to the canons and discipline of the church, and Epiphanius defended what he had done, in a letter to John. This dispute irritated their minds still more, which were already incensed upon the subject of Origen; and both of them endeavoured to engage Theophilus of Alexandria in their party. That prelate, who seemed at first to favour the bishop of Jerusalem, declared at last against Origen condemned his books in a council held in the year 399 and persecuted all the monks who were suspected of regarding his memory. These monks, retiring to Constantinople, were kindly received there by John Chrysostom; which highly exasperated Theophilus, who, from that time, conceived a violent hatred to Chrysostom. In the mean time Theophilus informed Epiphanius of what he had done against Origen, and exhorted him to do the same; upon which Epiphanius, in the year 401, called a council in the isle of Cyprus, procured the reading of Origen’s writings to be prohibited, and wrote to Chrysostom to do the same. Chrysostom, not approving this proposal, Epiphanius went to Constantinople, at the persuasion of Theophilus, in order to get the decree of the council of Cyprus executed. When he arrived there, he would not have any conversation with Cbrysostom, but used his utmost efforts to engage the bishops, who were then in that city, to approve of the judgment of the council of Cyprus against Origen. Not succeeding in this, he resolved to go the next day to the church of the apostles, and there condemn publicly all the books of Origen, and those who defended them; but as he was in the church, Cbrysostom informed him, by his deacon Serapion, that he was going to do a thing contrary to the laws of the church, and which might expose him to danger, as it would probably raise some sedition. This consideration stopped Epiphanius, who yet was so inflamed against Origen, that when the empress Eudoxia recommended to his prayers the young Theodosius, who was dangerously ill, he answered, that “the prince her son should not die, if she would but avoid the conversation of Dioscorides, and other defenders of Origen.” The empress, surprised at this presumptuous answer, sent him word, that “if God should think proper to take away her son, she would submit to his will that he might take him away as he had given him but that it was not in the power of Epiphanius to raise him from the dead, since he had lately suffered his own archdeacon to die.” Epiphanius’s heat was a little abated, when he had discoursed with Ammourns and his companions, whomTheophilus had banished for adhering to Origen’s opinions; for these monks gave him to understand that they did hot maintain an heretical doctrine, and that he had condemned them in too precipitate a manner. At last he resolved to return to Cyprus, and in his farewell to Chrysostom, he said, “I hope you will not die a bishop;” to which the latter replied, “I hope you will never return to your own country,” and both their hopes were realized, as Chrysostom was deposed from his bishopric, and Epiphanius died at sea about the year 403. His works were printed in Greek at Basil, 1544, in folio, and had afterwards a Latin translation made to them, which has frequently been reprinted. At last Petavius undertook an edition of them, together with a new Latin translation, which he published at Paris, 1622, with the Greek text revised and corrected by two manuscripts. This, which is the best edition, is in two volumes folio, at the end of which are the animadversions of Petavius, which however, are rather dissertations upon points of criticism and chronology, than notes to explain the text of his author. This edition was reprinted at Cologne, 1682, in 2 vols. folio.

It would be endless to collect the extraordinary eulogiums which great and learned men have bestowed upon Episcopius; one of which may be quoted as coming from an unexpected quarter, from Mabillon, an eminent member and ornament of the church of Rome: “I cannot forbear observing in this place,” says he, in his treatise of studies proper for them that live in monasteries, “that, if some passages had been left out of Episcopius’s theological institutions, which Grotius esteemed so much that he carried them with him wherever he went, they might have been very useful in the study of divinity. This work is divided into four books; the method of which is quite difr ferent from that which is generally followed. His style is beautiful, and his manner of treating his subjects answers his style perfectly well; nor would the time spent in reading of it be lost, if it was corrected with regard to some passages, in which the author speaks against the Roman catholics, and in favour of his own sect.” The Arminians have had very naturally the highest regard for Episcopius, and been careful to preserve his reputation from the attacks that have been made upon it: so careful, that, in 1690, they engaged Le Clerc, one of their professors, publicly to accuse Jurieu of calumny, because he had spoken evil of Episcopius. Le Cle.rc published a letter directed to Jurieu; in which he observes, that “they who have dipped into Episcopius’s works, and are acquainted, with the society of the remonstrants, have no occasion to see them vindicated. And as for those who have not read that author, and never conversed with any of the remonstrants, if they were so unjust as to judge only by Mr. Jurieu’s accusations, they would not deserve the least trouble to undeceive them; for it would show that they had no notion of common equity, and were too stupid to hearken to any vindication. But then we are persuaded,” adds he, “that there is not one person in the United Provinces, or any where else, that is disposed to believe this accuser upon his bare word.” After this preamble, Le Clerc says, “You charge Episcopius with two crimes: the first is, his being a Socinian; the second, his being an enemy to the Christian religion.” Le Clerc confutes the first of these accusations, by referring to several parts of Episcopius’s works, where he explodes the doctrine of the Socinians; and afterwards finds it no difficult task to answer the second, because Episcopius’s life and writings evidently shew, that he was a virtuous and conscientious man, and very zealous for the Christian religion. Le Clerc refers to a-passage in Episcopius’s Institutions, in which the truth of the Christian religion “is proved,” says he, “in so clear and strong a manner, that we might hope there would not remain any infidels in the world, if they would all duly weigh and consider his arguments. And yet you style him, sir, an enemy of Christianity; though it does not in the least appear, that you have either read his works, or examined his life. There is indeed nothing but the disorder of your mind, occasioned by your blind zeal, for which you have been long noted, that can make me say, O Lord, Forgive Him; for, in reality, you Know Not What You Do. You could not choose a better method to pass in the world for a man little acquainted with the duties of Christianity, and even of civil society, than by writing as you have done,” &c. With respect to his opinions on this subject, Episcopius acknowledges that Jesus Christ is called in Scripture the Son of God, not merely on account either of his miraculous conception, or of his mediation, or of his resurrection, or of his ascension, but on a fifth account, which, in his opinion, clearly implies his pre-existence; yet he contends, that it is not necessary to salvation, either to know or believe this fifth mode of filiation because it is not any wherfc said in Scripture to be necessary because we may have faith in Christ without it and because for the three first centuries the Christian church did not esteem a profession of belief in this mode to be necessary to salvation. Bishop Bull attacked with great learning this third reason of Episcopius, which has likewise been attacked with equal force of reasoning by more recent defenders of the Trinitarian doctrine. Of our English divines, Hammond is said to have borrowed largely of Episcopius, and Tillotson has been accounted one of his disciples.

Erasmus, however, had no disposition for this way of life. “Convents,” he says, “were places of impiety rather than of religion, where every thing was done to which a depraved inclination could lead, under the sanction and mask of piety; and where it was hardly possible for any one to keep himself pure and unspotted.” This account he gives of them in a piece “De contemptu inundi,” which he drew up at Stein, when he was about twenty years of age; and which was the first thing he ever wrote. At length, the happy moment arrived when he was to quit the monastery of Stein. Henry a Bergis, bishop of Cambray, who was preparing at that time for Rome, with a view of obtaining a cardinal’s hat, wanted some person to accompany him who could speak and write Latin with accuracy and ease. Erasmus’s fame not being confined to the cloister, he applied to the bishop of Utrecht, as well as the prior of the convent, and they having given their consent, Erasmus went to Cambray, but soon found to his mortification that for certain reasons the bishop dropped his design. Still, as he was now loose from the convent, he went, with the leave and under the protection of the bishop, to study at the university of Paris. He was in orders when He went to Cambray; but was not made a priest till 1492, when he was ordained upon the 25th of February, by the bishop of Utrecht.

How he spent his time with the bishop of Cambray, with whom he continued some years, we have no account. bishop, however, was, now his patron, and apparently very fond of him; and he promised him a pension to maintain him at Paris. But the pension, as Erasmus himself relates, was never paid him; so that he was obliged to have recourse to taking pupils, though a thing highly disagreeable to him, purely for support. Many noble English became his pupils, and, among the rest, William Blunt, lord Montjoy, who was afterwards his very good friend and patron. Erasmus tells us, that he lived rather than studied, “vixit verius qnam studuit,” at Paris; for, his patron forgetting the promised pension, he had not only no books to carry on his studies, but even wanted the necessary comforts and conveniences of life. He was forced to take up with bad lodgings and bad diet, which brought on him a fit of illness, and changed his constitution so much for the worse, that, from a very strong one, it continued ever after weak and tender. The plague too was in that city, anl had been for many years; so that he was obliged, after a short stay, to leave it, almost without any of that benefit he might naturally have expected, as the university at that time was famous for theology. Leaving Paris, therefore, in the beginning of 1497 he returned to Cambray, where he was received kindly by the bishop. He spent some days at Bergis with his friend James Battus, by whom he was introduced to the knowledge of Anne Borsala, marchioness of Vere. This noble lady proved a great benefactress to him; and he afterwards, in gratitude, wrote her panegyric. This year he went over to England for the first time, to fulfill a promise which he had made to his noble disciple Montjoy. This noble lord, a man of learning, and patron of learned men, was never easy, it is said, while Erasmus was in England, but when he was in his company. Even after he was married, as Knight relates, he left his family, and went to Oxford, purely to proceed in his studies under the direction of Erasmus. He also gave him the liberty of his house in London, when he was absent; but a surly steward, whom Erasmus, in a letter to Colet, calls Cerberus, prevented his using that privilege often. Making but a short stay in London, he went to Oxford; where he studied in St. Mary’s college, which stood nearly opposite New-Inn hall, and of which there are some few remains still visible. Here he became very intimate with all who had any name for literature: with Colet, Grocyn, Linacer, William Latimer, sir Thomas More, and many others. Under the guidance of these he made a considerable progress in his studies; Colet engaging him in the study of divinity, and Grocyn, Linacer, and Latimer teaching him Greek. Greek literature was then reviving at Oxford; although much opposed by a set of the students, who called themselves Trojans, and, like the elder Cato at Rome, opposed it as a dangerous novelty.

He left England the latter end of 1497, and went to Paris; whence, on account of the plague, he immediately passed on to Orleans, where he spent three months. He was very ill, while there, of a fever, which he had had every Lent for five years together; but he tells us, that St. Genevieve interceded for his recovery, and obtained it, though not without the assistance of a good physician. About April 1498 he had finished his “Adagia.” He applied himself all the while intensely to the study of the Greek tongue; and he says that, as soon as he could get any money, he would first buy Greek books, and then clothes: “Statimque ut pecuniam accepero, Graecos primum auctores, delude vestes, emam.” At this time he began to experience some of the vicissitudes of patronage, and both the marchioness of Vere and the bishop of Cambray seem to have relaxed from their liberality. The marchioness, though she entertained him very politely, yet gave him little more than civil words, and squandered her money upon the monks: and the bishop soon after quarrelled with him, upon pretence that he had spoken slightly of his kindnesses.

He had now spent three years in close application to the Greek tongue, which -he looked upon as so necessary, that he could not fancy himself a tolerable divine without it. Having rather neglected it when he was young, he after wards studied it at Oxford, under Grocyn and Linacer, but did not stay long enough there to reap any considerable benefit from their assistance; so that, though he attained a perfect knowledge of it, it was in a great measure owing to his own application; and he might truly be called, in respect to Greek, what indeed he calls himself, “prorsus autodidactus;” altogether self-taught. His way of acquiring this language was by translating; and hence it is that we come to have in his works such a number of pieces translated from Lucian, Plutarch, and others. These translations likewise furnished him with opportunities of writing dedications to his patrons. Thus he dedicated to our king Henry VIII. a piece of Plutarch, entitled “How to distinguish a friend from a flatterer;” a dialogue of Lucian, called “Somnium, sive Gallus,” to Dr. Christopher Ursewick, an eminent scholar and statesman; the Hecuba of Euripides, to Warham, archhishop of Canterbury, which he presented to him at Lambeth, after he had been introduced by his friend Grocyn; another dialogue of Lucian, called “Toxaris, sive de arnicitia,” to Dr. Richard Fox, bishop of Winchester; and a great number of other pieces from different authors to as many different patrons, both in England and upon the continent. The example which Erasmus had set in studying the Greek tongue was eagerly and successfully followed; and he had the pleasure of seeing in a very short time Grecian learning cultivated by the greater part of Europe.

As Erasmus had no where more friends and patrons than in England, be made frequent visits to this island. Of these the principal were, Warham, archbishop of Canterbury; Tonstall, bishop of Durham; Fox, bishop of Winchester; Colet, dean of St. Paul’s; lord Montjoy, sir Thomas More, Grocyn, andLinacer; and he often speaks of the favours he had received from them with 'pleasure and gratitude. They were very pressing with him to settle in England; and “it was with the greatest uneasiness that he left it, since,” as he tells Culet, in a letter dated Paris, June 19th, 1506, “there was no country which had furnished him with so many learned and generous benefactors as even the single city of London.” He had left it just before, and was then at Paris in his road to Italy, where he made but a short stay, lest he should be disappointed, as had been the case more than once already. He took a doctor of divinity’s degree at Turin; from whence he pro-, ceeded to Bologna, where he arrived at the very time it was besieged by Julius II. He passed on for the present to Florence, but returned to Bologna upon the surrender of the town, and was time enough to be witness to the triumphant entry of that pope. This entry was made Nov. 10, 1506, and was so very pompous and magnificent, that Erasmus, viewing Julius under his assumed title of Christ’s vicegerent, and comparing his entry into Bologna with Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, could not behold it without the utmost indignation. An adventure, however, befel him in this city which had nearly proved fatal. The town not being quite clear of the plague, the surgeons, who had the care of it, wore something like the scapulars of friars, that people fearful of the infection might know and avoid them. Erasmus, wearing the habit of his order, went out one morning; and, being met by some wild young fellows with his white scapular on, was mistaken for one of the surgeons. They made signs to him to get out of the way; but he, knowing nothing of the custom, and making no haste to obey their signal, would have been stoned, if some citizens, perceiving his ignorance, had not immediately run up to him, and pulled off his scapular. To prevent such an accident for the future, he got a dispensation from. Julius II. which vvas afterwards confirmed by Leo X. to change his regular habit of friar into that of a secular priest. Erasmus now prosecuted his studies at Bologna, and contracted an acquaintance with the learned of the place;, with Paul Bombasius particularly, a celebrated Greek.pro-> fessor, with whom he long held a correspondence by letters. He was strongly invited at Bologna to read lectures; but, considering that the Italian pronunciation of Latin was different from the German, he declined it lest his mode of speaking might appear ridiculous. He drew up, however, some new works here, and revised some old ones. He augmented his “Adagia” considerably; and, desirous of having it printed by the celebrated Aldus Manutius at Venice, proposed it to him. Aldus accepted the offer with pleasure; and Erasmus went immediately to Venice, after having staid at Bologna little more than a year. Besides his “Adagia,” Aldus printed a new edition of his translation of the Hecuba and Iphigenia of Euripides; and also of Terence and Plautus, after Erasmus had revised and corrected them. At Venice he became acquainted with several learned men; among the rest, with Jerome Aleander, who for his skill in the tongues was afterwards promoted to the dignity of a cardinal. He was furnished with all necessary accommodations by Aldus, and also with several Greek manuscripts, which he read over and corrected at his better leisure at Padua, whither he was obliged to hasten, to superintend and direct the studies of Alexander, natural son of James IV. king of Scotland, although Alexander was at that time nominated to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. Erasmus studied Pausanias, Eustathius, Theocritus, and other Greek authors, undor the inspection and with the assistance of Musurus, who was one of those Greeks that had brought learning into the West, and was professor of that science at Padua.

He was invited down to Cambridge by Fisher, bishop of Rochester, chancellor of the university, and head of Queen’s college, accommodated by him in his own lodge, and promoted by his means to the lady Margaret’s professorship in divinity, and afterwards to the Greek professor’s chair but how long he held these places we know not and his necessities were still very scantily supplied. In a letter to Colet, dean of St. Paul’s, he earnestly importunes him for fifteen angels, which he had promised him long ago, on condition that he would dedicate to him his book “De copia verborum;” which, however, was not published till the following year, 1512. It has indeed been alleged, in excuse for this apparent neglect of a man of so much merit, that Erasmus was of a very rambling disposition, and hardly staid long enough in a place to rise regularly to preferment; and that though he received frequent and considerable presents from his friends and patrons, yet he was forced to live expensively because of his bad health. Thus he had a horse to maintain, and probably a servant to take care of him: he was obliged to drink wine because malt liquor gave him fits of the gravel. Add to this, that, though a very able and learned man, yet, like many others of his order, he was by no means versed in ceconomics.

In the beginning of 1514 Erasmus was in Flanders. His friend Montjoy was then governor of Ham, in Picardy, where he passed some days, and then went to Germany. While he was here, he seems to have written “The Abridgment of his Life,” in which he says, that he would have spent the rest of his days in England if the promises made to him had been performed; but, being invited to come to Brabant, to the tourt of Charles archduke of Austria, he accepted the offer, and was made counsellor to that prince. Afterwards he went to Basil, where he carried his New Testament, his Epistles of St. Jerome, with notes, and some other works, to print them in that city. At this time he contracted an acquaintance with several learned men, as Beatus Rhenanus, Gerbelius, CEcolampadius, Amberbach, and also with the celebrated printer John Frobenius, for whom he ever after professed the utmost esteem. He returned to the Low Countries, and there was nominated by Charles of Austria to a vacant bishopric- in Sicily; but the right of patronage happened to belong to the pope. Erasmus laughed when he heard of this preferment, and certainly was very unfit for such a station; though the Sicilians, being, as he says, merry fellows, might possibly have liked such a bishop. He would not settle at Louvain for many reasons,' particularly because of the divines there, for whom he had much contempt.

He soon returned to the Low Countries, where we find him in 1516. He received letters from the celebrated Budeus, to inform him that Francis I. was desirous of inviting learned men to France, and had approved of Erasmus among others, offering him a benefice of a thousand livres. Stephanus Poncherius, or Etienne de Ponchery, bishop of Paris, and the king’s ambassador at Brussels, was the person who made these offers, but Erasmus excused himself, alleging that the catholic king detained him in the Low Countries, having made him his counsellor, and given him a prebend, though as yet he had received none of the revenues of it. Here, probably, commenced the correspondence and 'friendship between Erasmus and Budeus, which, however, does not seem to have been very sincere. Their letters are indeed not deficient in compliments, but they likewise abound in petty contests, which shew that some portion of jealousy existed between them, especially on the side of Budeus, who yet in other respects was an excellent man; (See Budeus). This year was printed at Basil, Erasmus’s edition of the New Testament, a work of infinite labour, and which helped, as he tells us, to destroy his health and spoil his constitution. It drew upon him the censures of some ignorant and envious divines; who, not being capable themselves of performing such a task, were vexed, as it commonly happens, to see it undertaken and accomplished by another. We collect from his letters, that there was one college in Cambridge which would not suffer this work to enter within its walls; however, his friends congratulated him upon it, and the call for it was so great, that it was thrice reprinted in less than a dozen years, namely, in 1519, 1522, and 1527. This was the first time the New Testament was printed in Greek. The works of St. Jerome began now to be published by Erasmus, and were printed in 6 vols. folio, at Basil, from 1516 to 1526. He mentions the great labour it had cost him to put this father into good condition, which yet he thought very well bestowed, for he was excessively fond of him, and upon all occasions his panegyrist. Luther blamed Erasmus for leaning so much to Jerome, and for thinking, as he supposed, too meanly of Augustine. “As much,” says he, “as Erasmus prefers Jerome to Augustine, so much do I prefer Augustine to Jerome.” But in this respect, Jortin is of opinion that Luther’s taste was extremely bad.

About 1520, a clamour was raised against Erasmus in England, although he had many friends there; and, among them, even persons of the first quality, and the king himself. He gives a remarkable instance of this in the behaviour of one Standish, who had been a monk, and was bishop of St. Asaph; and whom Erasmus sometimes calls, by way of derision, “Episcopum a sancto asino.” Standish had censured Erasmus, in a sermon preached at St. Paul’s, for translating the beginning of St. John’s gospel, “In principle erat sermo,” and not “verbum.” He also accused Erasmus of heresy before the king and queen but this charge was repelled by two learned friends, who are supposed to have been Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, and sir Thomas More. This year, Jerome Aleander, the pope’s nuncio, solicited the emperor, and Frederic elector of Saxony, to punish Luther. Frederic was then at Cologn, and Erasmus came there, and was consulted by him upon this occasion. Erasmus replied, ludicrously at first, saying, “Luther has committed two unpardonable crimes: he touched the pope upon the crown, and the monks upon the belly.” He then told the elector seriously, that “Luther had justly censured many abuses and errors, and that the welfare of the church required a reformation of them; that Luther’s doctrine was right in the main, but that it had not been delivered by him with a proper temper, and with due moderation.” The pope’s agents, finding Erasmus thus obstinately bent to favour, at least not to condemn and write against Luther, as they often solicited him to do, endeavoured to win him over by the offer of bishoprics or abbeys. “I know,” says he, “that a bishopric is at my service, if I would but write against Luther: but Luther is a man of too great abilities for me to encounter; and, to say the truth, I learn more from one page of his, than from all the volumes of Thomas Aquinas.”

Still we find Erasmus taking all opportunies of declaring his firm resolution to adhere to the see of Rome. “What connections,” says he, “have I with Luther, or what recompense to expect from him, that I should join with him to oppose the church of Rome, which 1 take to be a true part of the catholic church J, who should be loth to resist the bishop of my diocese” As for the monks, they would have been glad to have seen him a deserter, and lodged in the enemy’s quarters, because he would have much less incommoded them as a Lutheran than as a catholic; but he was determined not to stir. His wish was to seek a middle way, with a view of putting an end to these contests; but, above all, to keep himself from being looked upon as a party on either side. Thus, there is a remarkable letter of his, written to Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, in 1521, wherein he complains equally of the violence of Luther, and of the rage of the Dominicans; as also of the malice of Aieander, who ascribed to him some writings of Luther, of which he had not even heard. Some affirmed, that Erasmus had written a treatise called “The Captivity of Babylon,” although Luther openly acknowledged it for his own: others said, that Luther had taken many of his sentiments from Erasmus. “I see now,” says he, “that the Germans are resolved at all adventures to engage me in the cause of Luther, whether I will or not. In this they have acted foolishly, and have taken the most effectual method to alienate me from them and their party. Wherein could I have assisted Luther, if I had declared myself for him, and shared the danger along with him Only thus far, that, instead of one man, two would have perished. I cannot conceive what he means by writing with such a spirit: one thing I know too well, that he has brought a great odium upon the lovers of literature. It is true, that he hath given us many wholesome doctrines, and many good counsels; and I wish he had not defeated the effect of them by his intolerable faults. But, if he had written, every thing in the most unexceptionable manner, I had no inclination to die for the sake of truth. Every man has not the courage requisite to make a martyr; and I am afraid that, if I were put to the trial, I should imitate St. Peter.” In this Erasmus betrays his genuine character, and it is plain that it was not truth, nor the desire of propagating it, but self-preservation only, which influenced his conduct throughout this affair. He certainly approved of Luther’s principal doctrines, and inwardly wished he might carry his point; but, as he could not imagine that probable, he chose to adhere outwardly to the stronger party. “I follow,” says he, “the decisions of the pope and the emperor, when they are right, which is acting religiously: I submit to them, when they are wrong, which is acting prudently: and I think it is lawful for good men to behave themselves thus, when there is no hope of obtaining any more.” From this principle of policy, he extolled the book of Henry VIII. against Luther, even before he had seen it; and he began now to throw out hints, that he would one day enter the lists with the great reformer, yet, when his friend and patron Montjoy exhorted him, the same year, to write against Luther, he replied, “Nothing is more easy than to call Luther a blockhead nothing is less easy than to prove him one at least, so it seems to me.” Upon the whole, he was exceedingly perplexed how to behave to Luther; and frequently appears inconsistent, because he thought himself obliged to disclaim before men what in his heart he approved and even revered.

, an eminent scholar of the middle age, was born in an early part of the ninth century. The most common account of him is, that he was a native of Ayr, in Scotland, though some writers have said that the place of his birth was Ergene, on the borders of Wales, and others have contended that he was an Irishman. It is, we apprehend, most probable that he was a Scotchman. However this may have been, he was animated, in a very dark period, with a most uncommon desire of literature. Seeing his country involved in great confusion and ignorance, and that it afforded no means of acquiring the knowledge after which he thirsted, he travelled into foreign, parts; and it is even asserted, by several authors, that he went to Athens, and spent some years in studying the Greek, Chaldaic, and Arabic languages. In whatever place he obtained his learning, it is certain that in philosophy he had no superior, and in languages no equal, in. the age during which he flourished. These extraordinary accomplishments, together with his wit and pleasantry, which rendered his conversation as agreeable as it was instructive, procured him an invitation from Charles the Bald, king of France, the greatest patron of literature in that period, to reside with him. Of this invitation Erigena accepted, and Jived a number of years in the court of that prince, on a footing of the most intimate acquaintance and familiarity. He slept often in the royal apartments, and dined daily at the royal table. From the following repartee, which is preserved by one of our ancient historians, we may judge of the freedom which Scotus used with the monarch. As they were sitting one day at table opposite to each other, after dinner, the philosopher having said something that was not quite agreeable to the rules of politeness, the king, in a merry humour, asked him, “Pray what is between a Scot and a sot” To which he answered, “Nothing but the table.” Charles, says the historian, laughed heartily, and was not in the least offended, as he made it- a rule never to be angry with his master, as he always called Erigena; yet, in order to assist our belief in the above joke, it has been observed, that we ought to know in what language Charles and Scotus conversed. Charles, however, valued this great man for his wisdom and learning, still more than for his wit, and retained him about his person, not merely as an agreeable companion, but as his preceptor in the sciences, and his best counsellor in the most arduous affairs of governnfenf. While Scotus resided in the court of France, he composed, at the desire of his royal patron, a number of works, which procured him many admirers on the one hand, and many adversaries on the other. The clergy, in particular, were dissatisfied with some of his notions, as not being perfectly orthodox. One of the subjects which employed his pen was the doctrine of predestination. In his treatise on this subject, which was addressed to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and Pardulus, bishop of Laon, the position he begins with is, that every question may be resolved by four general rules of philosophy, viz. division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. By these rules he endeavours to prove, that there cannot be a double predestination, of one to glory, and another to damnation; and that predestination does not impose any necessity, but that man is absolutely free; and that, although he cannot do good without the grace of Jesus Christ, yet he does it, without being constrained or forced to do it by the will of God, by his own free choice. Sin, and the consequences of it, and the punishments with which it is attended, are, says Erigena, mere privations, that are neither foreseen nor predestinated by God; and predestination hath no place but in those things which God hath pre-ordained in order to eternal happiness; for our predestination arises from the foresight of the good use of our free-will. Sentiments so bold, and delivered in such an age, could not fail of exciting great indignation. Wemlo, or Ganelo, archbishop of Sens, having read the work, collected out of it several propositions, which he arranged under nineteen heads, according to the number and order of the chapters of Scotus’s treatise, and sent them to Prudentius, bishop of Troyes. This prelate, having examined them, found in them, as he thought, not only the errors of Pelagius, but the impiety of the Collyridians. He employed himself, therefore, in answering Erigena and another answer to him was written by Florus, a deacon of the church of Lyons. It does not appear that Scotus engaged any farther in the controversy.

, king of Kent, and the first Christian king among the Anglo-Saxons, succeeded to the throne about the year 560. He began his reign, in order to revive the reputation of his family, by making war upon the king of Wessex, by whom he was twice defeated, though he was afterwards triumphant, and acquired the complete ascendancy over Wessex and the other states, except Northumberland, and reduced them to the condition of his tributaries or dependants. In the reign of Ethelbert, Christianity was introduced into England. The king had married Bertha, daughter of the king of Paris, who, being a Christian, had stipulated for the free exercise of her religion, and had carried over in her train a French bishop. So exemplary in every respect were her life and conduct, that she inspired the king and his court with a high respect for her person, and for the religion by which she appeared to be influenced. The pope, taking advantage of this circumstance, sent a mission of forty monks, at the head of whom was Augustin, to preach the gospel in the island. They landed in Kent, in the year 597, and were well and hospitably received by Ethelbert, who assigned them habitations in the isle of Thanet. A conference was held, and the king took time to consider of the new doctrines propounded to him; and in the mean while gave them full liberty to preach to his subjects. Numbers were converted, and at length the king submitted to a public baptism. (See Augustine). Christianity proved the means of promoting knowledge and civilization in this -island; and the king, with the consent of his states, enacted a body of laws, which was the first written code promulgated by the northern conquerors. Ethelbert died in the year 616, and left his crown, after a reign of fifty years, to his son Edbald.

, catholic bishop of Carthage, was elected to that see in the year 480 or 481, in the reign of Hunneric, and at the request of the emperor Zeno, and for some time presided over that diocese without disturbance. In the year 483, however, Hunneric issued a proclamation, ordering all the bishops who believed in the trinitarian doctrine, to appear at Carthage, and hold a conference with the Arian bishops. The catholics at first remonstrated against obeying this order without the approbation of the transmarine bishops. The meeting, however, having taken place, the first debates were respecting the title of Catholics, by which Eugenius and his party were distinguished, and the title of Patriarch assumed by Cyrita, the head of the Arian bishops. Eugenics then presented a confession of faith, or statement of his principles, and offered to defend them in argument with the Arians; but Hunneric, who was himself an Arian, not only refused to hear him, but banished all the catholic bishops, and among them Eugenius, who was sentenced to the desarts in the province of Tripoly, where he remained until the death of Hunneric in the year 484. During the reign of Gondebald, he continued on his diocese in peace; but Thrasamund, the next king, banished him again, into that part of Gaul where Alaricus, king of the Visigoths, then reigned. Eugenius retired to Albi, where he was unmolested during the remainder of his life. He died at Viance in that territory, Sept. 6, in the year 505. There are some small discourses of his extant, in defence of the catholic faith, as, “Expositio fidei Catholici;” “Apologeticus pro fide;” “Altercatio cum Arianis,” &c.

, an Arian heretic of the fourth century, was born at Dacora, a town of Cappadocia and was the son of a peasant but not relishing a country life, he went to Constantinople, and afterwards to Alexandria, where he became the disciple and secretary of Ætius, but was abundantly more subtle than his master, as well as more bold in propagating the doctrines of his sect, who have since been called Eunomians. He then returned to Antioch, where he was ordained a deacon by Eudoxius, bishop of that place; but being sent to defend Eudoxius against Basil of Ancyra, before the emperor Constantius, he was seized upon the road by the partisans of Basil, and banished to Mida, a town, of Phrygia. He returned to Constantinople, and in the year 360 was made bishop of Cyzicum, by his protector Eudoxius, who advised him to conceal his doctrines: but Eunomius was incapable of following this advice, and gave so much disturbance to the church by the intemperance of his zeal, that Eudoxius himself, by the order of Constantius, was obliged to depose him from his bishopric, and he was that year banished again. He retired to a house "which he had in Chalcedonia, where he concealed the tyrant Procopius in the year 365, and being accused by the emperor Valens of having afforded shelter to his enemy, was by him banished a third time to Mauritania. Valens, bishop of Mursa, got him recalled; and he was next banished to the isle of Naxos, for disturbing the peace of the church. He again returned to Chalcedonia; but Theodosius the elder obliged him to quit that place, and sent him first to Halmyris, a desert of Mossia, near the Danube, and afterwards to Caesarea of Cappadocia; where, however, the inhabitants would not suffer him to continue, because he had formerly written against Basil, their bishop. Tired, at length, with being thus tossed about, he petitioned to retreat to the place of his birth; where he died very old, about the year 394, after having experienced great variety of sufferings.

, an eminent ecclesiastical historian, surnamed Pamphilus, from his friendship with Pamphilus the Martyr, was born in Palestine, about A. D. 267. Cave thinks it probable, that he was born at Coesarea; but we have no account of his parents, or his masters. He tells us himself, that he was educated in Palestine, and saw Constantine there, while he travelled through that country in the retinue of Diocletian. He was ordained priest by Agapius, bishop of Caesarea, where he contracted an intimacy with Pamphilus, an eminent presbyter of that church. During the persecution under Diocletian, he exhorted the Christians to suffer resolutely for the faith of Christ; and particularly assisted his friend Pamphilus, who suffered martyrdom in the year 309, after two years imprisonment. In the time of the same persecution he went to Tyre, where he was ah eye-witness of the glorious combats of the five Egyptian martyrs. He was likewise in Egypt and at Thebais, where he saw the admirable constancy of many martyrs of both sexes, and was himself imprisoned. He has been reproached with having offered incense to idols in this persecution, in order to free himself from prison. This imputation was fixed upon him by Potomon, bishop of Heraclea, at the council of Tyre. Epiphanius informs us that Potomon, seeing Eusebius sitting in the council, cried out, “Is it fit, Eusebius, that you should sit, and that the innocent Athanasius should stand to be judged by you Who can bear such things as these Tell me, were not you in prison with me during the time of the persecution I lost an eye in defence of the truth but you are maimed in no part of your body, nor did you suffer martyrdom, but are whole and alive. By what means did you escape out of prison, unless you promised our persecutors that you would do the detestable thing, and perhaps have done it” Epiphanius adds, that Eusebius, hearing this, rose and broke the assembly, saying, “If, when you are out of your own country, you say such things against us, it is certain that your accusers must be in the right: for, if you exercise your tyranny here, you will do it with much more assurance in your own country.” Valesius observes, from the above-cited passage of Epiphanius, that those persons are mistaken, who relate that Eusebius had sacrificed to idols, and that it was openly objected to him in the council of Tyre; since Potomon did not charge him with it, but only grounded a suspicion on his being dismissed safe and whole. Besides, as Cave very properly remarks, had he really sacrificed, the discipline of the church was then so rigid, that he would have been degraded from his orders; at least, would never have been advanced to the episcopal dignity. Dr. Lardner has also brought various authorities to prove this accusation unfounded.

When the persecution was over, and peace restored to the church, Eusebius was elected bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, in the room of Agapius, who was dead; and this was about the year 3 13 or 315. He had afterwards a considerable share in the contest relating to Arius, priest of Alexandria; whose cause he, as well as other bishops of Palestine, defended at first, upon a persuasion that Arius had been unjustly persecuted by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. He not only wrote to that bishop in favour of Arius, but likewise, not being able to procure his restoration, permitted him and his followers to preserve their rank, and to hold in their churches the ordinary assemblies of the faithful, on condition that they should submit to their bishop, and intreat him to restore them to communion. He assisted at the council of Nice, held in the year 325, and made a speech to the emperor Constantine, at whose right hand he was placed, when he came to the council. He at first refused to admit of the term Consubstantial; and the long and formal opposition which he made to it occasioned a suspicion for which there seems to be very good ground, that he was not altogether sincere, when he subscribed, as he did at length, to the Nicene creed. About the year 330 he was present at the council of Antioch, in which Eustathius. bishop of that city, was deposed, but though he consented to his deposition, and was elected to the see of Antioch in his room, he absolutely refused it; and when the bishops wrote to Constantine to desire him to oblige Eusebius to consent to the election, he wrote also to the emperor, to request him that he would not urge him to accept of it; which Constantine readily granted, and at the same time commended his moderation. Eusebius assisted at the council of Tyre held in the year 335 against Athanasius; and at the assembly of bishops at Jerusalem, when the church was dedicated there. He was sent by those bishops to Constantine, to defend what they had done against Athanasius; and it was then that he pronounced his panegyric upon that emperor, during the pubHe rejoicings in the 30th year of his reign, which was the last of his life. He was honoured with very particular marks of Constantine’s esteem: he frequently received letters from him, several of which are inserted in his books; and he was often invited to the emperor’s table, and admitted into private discourse with him. When Constantine wanted copies of the scriptures for the use of those churches which he had built at Constantinople, he conn mitted the care of transcribing them to Eusebius, whom he knew to be well skilled in those affairs; and when Eusebius dedicated to him his book “concerning Easter,” he ordered it immediately to be translated into Latin, and desired our author to communicate as soon as possible the other works of that nature which he had then in hand.

Eusebius did not long survive Constantine, for he. died about the year 33 o, according to Dupin; or the year 340, according to Valesius. He wrote several great and important works, of which among those that are extant we have, 1. “Chronicon” divided into two parts, and carried down to A. D. 325 in which, not long before the council of Nice, Cave supposes this work to have been finished. The first part, which is at present extremely mutilated, contains an history of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Jews, Egyptians, &c. from the creation of the world. In the second part, which is called “Canon Chronicus,” he digests the history of the several nations according to the order of time. St. Jerom translated both parts into Latin: but we have remaining of the version of the first part, only some extracts, containing the names of the kings, printed with the translation of the second part. It was printed at Basil, and afterwards published more accurately by Arnauld de Pontac, bishop of Baras, at Bourdeaux in 1604. But no person ever undertook to collect the Greek fragments of the original, till Joseph Scaliger published them at Leyden, 1606, in folio, under the following title: “Thesaurus temporum, complectens Eusebii Pamphili chronicon Latine, S. Hieronymo interprete, cum ipsius chronici fragmentis Graecis antehac non editis, et auctores omnes derelicta ab Eusebio continuantes. Edente Josepho Justo Scaligero, qui notas et castigationes in Eusebium, nee non Isagogicorum Chronologix canonum libros tres adjecit.” There, was another edition, much enlarged, printed at Amsterdam in 1658, in 2 vols. fol. under the care of Alexander Morus. Dupin says, that “this work of Eusebius displays a prodigious extent of reading, and consummate erudition. It is necessary to have read an infinite number of books and ancient monuments, in order to compile an universal history; and to have been master of a very clear understanding at the same time, in order to collect such a multitude of facts, and dispose them in their proper order. This is an immense labour, which is a strong proof of the vast reading and prodigious memory of Eusebius. It must be owned, indeed, that Africanus’s Chronicle was of great service to him, and that he has copied that author throughout his work. However, he has corrected several of Africanus’s mistakes, though he has fallen into others himself. But it is almost impossible not to err in a work of such vast extent and difficulty as an universal chronicle. Mistakes are excusable in a performance of this kind; nor can they hinder it from being deservedly considered as one of the molt useful works of antiquity.” His next work is, 2. “Prseparationis Evangelicae, Hbri XV.” Valesius tells us that this book, as well as his treatise “De Demonstratione Evangelica,” was written before the Nicene council, since they are expressly cited in his “Ecclesiastical History,” which Valesius affirms to have been written also before it; but Cave is of opinion that the book “De Prseparatione Evangelica” was written after that council, undoubtedly after his “Chrdnicon,” since his “Canones Chronici” are expressly cited in it. 3. “De Demonstratione Evangelical” We have of this work only ten books extant, though Eusebius wrote twenty. A beautiful edition of this and the former book was printed in Greek by Robert Stephens in 1544 and 1545, in 2 vols. fol. They were reprinted at Paris, 1628, in 2 vols. fol. with a new version of the book “De Praeparatione,” by the Jesuit Francis Vigerus, and with Donatus’s translation! of the book “De Demonstratione.” 4. “Historic Ecclesiasticae, libri V.” containing the history of the church from the beginning to the death of Licinius the elder, which includes a period of 324 years. Valesius observes, that he wrote this after almost all his other works; and Cave says, that it was written after the Nicene council, since he mentions in it not only his “Chronicon,” but likewise his treatise “De Demonstratione.” At the end of the eighth book we find a small treatise “Of the Martyrs of Palestine;” in which he describes the martyrdom of those who suffered for the faith of Christ iri that province. This has been erroneously confounded with the 8th book of the history; whereas it is a separate tract, which serves for a supplement to that book. The Ecclesiastical History has been often translated and printed: but the best edition is that of Henry Valesius^ who, having remarked the defects of all the former translations, undertook a new one, which he has joined to the Greek text revised by four manuscripts, and has added notes full of erudition. Valesius’s edition was printed at Paris in 1659 and 1671, and at Francfort in 1672, with the rest of the ecclesiastical historians. It was printed again at Cambridge in 1720, in three vols. folio, by William Reading, who has joined to the notes of Valesius such observations of modern authors as he could collect; but, in Le Clerc’s opinion, somewhat too harsh, “they might as well have been placed at the end of the book, since they are much interior to those of Valesius, both for style and matter; and appear with the same disadvantage as an ordinary painting placed by the work of an eminent master.”

Eusebius wrote, 5. “Contra Hieroclem liber.” Hierocles had written a book under the name of Philalethes, against the Christian religion; in which, to> render it ridiculous, he had compared Apollonius Tyanseus with Christ, affirming that the former had worked miracles as well as the latter, and was ascended to heaven as well as he. Against this work of Hierocles, Ewsebius’s book was written; and it is printed at the eml of the “De Demonstratione Evangelica,” and at the end of Philostratus “De vita Apollonii.” 6. “Contra Marcellum, libri II.” and “De Ecclcsiastica Tbeologia, libri III.” This work was designed to confute Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, who was condemned for Sabellianism in the synod at Constantinople in the year 336; and was written at the desire of that synod. It is subjoined also to the book “De Demonstratione.” 7. “Epistola ad Cicsarienses de fide Nicajna.” Socrates and Theodoret have preserved this in their ecclesiastical histories. 8. “De locis Hebraicis,” containing a geographical description of all the countries, cities, and places, mentioned in the Old Testament. It was translated into Latin, and at the same time enlarged and corrected by St. Jerom. The original, with that translation, and a new version, with learned notes, was published by James Bonfrerius at Paris in 1631 and 1659. 9. “Oratio de laudibus Constantini,” mentioned above, which is printed at the end of the Ecclesiastical History. 10. “De vita Constantini, libri IV.” This is rather a panegyric than a life, being written in a florid and oratorical style. Some have denied this to be Eusebius’ s; but Cave thinks their arguments so inconsiderable, as not to deserve a particular answer. It is subjoined to the Ecclesiastical History. 11. “Expositio in Canticum Canticorum.” This was not written entirely by Eusebius, but compiled partly out of his writings, and partly out of those of Athanasius, Didymus, St. Gregory of Nyssen, and others. It was published in Greek with Polychronius and Psellus by Meursius at Leyden, 1617, 4to. 12. “Vitae prophetarum,” ascribed to Eusebius in an ancient manuscript, and published with the Commentaries of Procopius on Isaiah, in Greek and Latin, by Curterius, at Paris, 1580, in folio. 13. “Cajioues sacrorum evangeliorum X.” The translation of these by St. Jerom js published among that father’s works, and in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” 14. “Apologise pro Origene liber primus,” translated by Ruffinus, is published in St. Jerom’s works. St. Jerom tells us that Eusebius was the sole author of the “Six Books of the Apology for Origen,” ascribed to his friend Pamphilus: but it is evident from the testimony of Eusebius himself and from that of Photius, that he wrote the first five books in conjunction with Pamphilus, and added the sixth after the death of that martyr. The Latin translation of the first book of this work is all that we have remaining of it. 15. “Sermo in illud, Sero sabbatorum. Item, De Angelis ad monumentum visis.” These two sermons were published in Greek and Latin by Combefisius. Besides these works of Eusebius, there are several extant in ms. which have not yet been published; and the titles of several, which are not extant. Of the latter kind, the thirty books “against Porphyry,” (though Cave makes but twenty-five) “are,” says Le Clerc, “in all probability the greatest loss which we have sustained with respect to the writings of Eusebius; for we might have learned from' them the objections of the most learned philosopher of his time, and the answers of the most learned bishop also of his time.”

Photius has said of Eusebius, that he was a man of extensive learning, but that his style is neither agreeable nor polite. Dupin observes, that he was one of the most learned men of antiquity, as his friends and enemies have equally acknowledged and that there was none among the Greek writers who had read so much but remarks, that he never applied himself to the polishing his works, and is very negligent in his style. Dr. Jortin styles Eusebius “the most learned bishop of his age, and the father of ecclesiastical history. Like the illustrious Origen,” says he, “of whom he was very fond, he hath had warm friends and inveterate enemies; and the world hath ever been divided in judging of his theological sentiments. The Arians and Unitarians have always laid claim to him and in truth any party might be glad to have him. He scrupled at first to admit the word Consubstantial, because it was nnscriptural; but afterwards, for the sake of peace and quiet, he complied with it in a sense which he gave to it. He seems to have been neither an Arian nor an Athanasian, but one who endeavoured to steer a middle course, yet inclining more to the Arians than the Athanasians.” Le Clerc had a dispute with Cave about the orthodoxy of Eusebius; who, as Cave said, was a Consubstantialist, but, according to Le Clerc, an Arian, which last opinion appears to us most probable, as he associated with Arius, and joined in the condemnation of the Athanasians. Brucker, speaking of his “Preparatio et Demonstrate Evangelica,” says, that had this celebrated work been more free from prejudice; had he taken more care not to be imposed upon by spurious authorities; had he more clearly understood, from the leading principles of each sect, its peculiar language; had he distinguished the pure doctrine of Plato from that of the later Platonists; had he more accurately marked the points of difference between the tenets of the sectarian philosophers and the doctrine of Christ, his works would have been much more valuable.

. Of the bishops of this name who lived in the fourth or fifth centuries, the following only seem deterving of brief notice. They were in general polemics, and their lives were spent in contrdversy, for or against the Arian doctrines. Of these, Eusebius, bishop of Berytus and Nicometftfl in the fourth century, adopted the errors of Arius, persecuted St. Athanasius, was assiduous about the emperor Constantino till his death, and gained Constantius and all the imperial family to his party. Eusebius usurped the see of Constantinople, after procuring the banishment of Paul, the legal bishop, and died in the year 342.

, so called from his being bishop of Emessa, was among the disciples of Eusebius of Cesarea, and died about the year 359. Several works are ascribed to him, which appear to belong to more modern authors i they are in the library of the fathers.

, bishop of Verceli, in the fourth century, was a warm defender of 8t. Athanasius, whose firmness on that occasion offending the emperor Constantius, he was sent into exile. At his return he opposed Auxentius, the Arian bishop of Milan. He died about the year 370. A Latin version of the four Evangelists is attributed to him, which was published at Milan by John Andrew Trici, 1748, 4to; and whether this version was really by St. Eusebius or not, it is said to be very valuable. Two of his letters are in the library of the fathers.

, bishop of Samosata, in the fourth century, at first joined the Arian party. The see of Antioch being vacant, they agreed with the orthodox to choose Meletus bishop, and entrusted Eusebiiis with the decree of this election; but St. Meletus declaring immediately for the catholic faith, the Ariana, supported by the emperor Valens, resolved to depose him. Eusebius, informed of their mischievous design, retired to his dioeese, with the writings which had been entrusted to him. On this messengers were dispatched after him, and the emperor’s en-> voy threatened to cut off his right hand, if he did not deliver up the act of election; but Eusebius presenting his two handi, said he would suffer them both to be cut pff, rather than part with this act, unless in presence of all those who had entrusted him with it. In the year 353 hp subscribed to the Nicene faith in the council of AntiocU, and went to Caesarea in Cappadocia in the year 371, at the request of St. Gregory the elder, of Nazianzen, to elect St. Basil bishop of that city. His zeal for the faith caused him to be banished by Valeus in the year 373, during which exile he went disguised as a soldier, to comfort the orthodox under their persecutions. After the death of Valens, St. Eusebius assisted at the council of Antioch in, the year 378, and was employed by the members, of it, tq visit some eastern churches, which he did with good success in Mesopotamia, and part of Syria; but baying pr-t dained Maris, bishop of the little city of Doliche in Syria, on his entering the city to put him in possession of his church, a woman of the Arian party threw a tile upon his head, which wounded him mortally. In his last moments he sought and obtained a promise from those who attended him, that the woman should not be prosecuted; which, was done nevertheless, but the catholics procured her pardon. St. Gregory of Nazianzen, and St. Basil, wroe sen veral letters to St. Eusebius.

, a pious and learned bishop of Berea, was born at Sida in Pamphilia, and translated to the see of Antioch in the year 323. He assisted at the council of Nice in the year 325, and zealously defended the orthodox faith against the Arians, who accused him of infamous crimes, deposed him, and procured his banishment, by Constantine, to Trajanopolis in Thrace, where he died, about the year 337. He wrote several works, of which we have none remaining but his “Treatise on the Pythoness;” which Leo Allatius published in 1689, 4to, with another treatise on the “Exaemeron,” which is also attributed to St. Eustathius, but probably written by a more modern author. It is in the library of the fathers, and was published separately at Lyons, 1624, 4to.

, a learned critic of the twelfth century, was born at Constantinople. He was at first master of the rhetoricians (rhetorum magister), and afterwards deacon of the great church, under the patriarchate of Lucas Chrysobergus, who arrived at that dignity in 1155, and appears to have conferred many favours on Eustatius. Having been, elected bishop of Myra in Lycia, he had accepted the office, and was about to be consecrated, when the emperor Emanuel Comnenus sent a cong6 d'eLre to the synod, enjoining them to choose him archbishop of Thessalonica. In this he displayed great prudence, knowledge of business, and extensive learning, as appears by his works. In 1180 he was one of the prelates who remonstrated against the order of Emanuel Comnenus to erase from the Greek catechism, a censure of what is said of God by Mahomet in the Alcoran. Five years after, we find Eusebius displaying his spirit and regard for his flock in a remarkable manner. Andronicus Comnenus, cousin-german of the emperor Emanuel, had usurped the throne, fey causing Alexis, the son and successor of Emanuel, to be strangled in 1183. This act of barbarity procured Andronicus many enemies, and among the rest Alexis Comnenus, the nephew of Emanuel, to whom he had been cup-bearer, and who was afterwards banished to Scythia by him. Alexis went then to Sicily, to the court of William II. surnamed the Good, and excited him to declare war against the empire of Constantinople. The king of Sicily, who appears to have wanted little persuasion on this occasion, raised an army, passed the straights, and took the city of Duras. He then went by sea to Thessalonica, which he besieged both by sea and land. Eustatkius would not for a moment quit his flock amidst so many dangers, but shut himself up in the city, endured the hardships ofthe siege, with the greatest fortitude, and exhorted his people to bear with Christian patience the chastisements of the Almighty. The city was at last taken by the cowardice of the governor, and was pillaged, the churches themselves not being spared, and the inhabitants were treated with the utmost cruelty by the conquerors. Eustathius, not fearing their power, addressed himself with so much spirit and eloquence to the Sicilian commanders, as to obtain a considerable alleviation of the sufferings of the inhabitants, from which they were entirely delivered the following year. Nicetas attributes this in a great measure to the prayers of their archbishop. The time of his death is unknown, but he appears to have been alive in 1194.

, bishop of Nice, flourished in the beginning of the twelfth century, and was celebrated for his polemic writings in divinity, and his philosophical works. Anna Comnena says of him, that “he was a man wise in divine knowledge; and, in the profane disputations of the schools, superior to the best ornaments of the academy, and the porch.” His Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s latter analytics, and on his ethics, are still extant; the former published at Venice in 1534, the latter at the same place in 1536, and at Paris in 1543. A work against Chrysolanus on the Holy Ghost is said also to be extant in manuscript.

Absurd as this man appears to be, the strong-minded Warburton wrote “An account of the Prophecies of Arise Evans,” 1751. Dr. Jortin having mentioned Evans’s name in his “Remarks on Ecclesiastical History,” Warburton, who happened to have some of Evans’s prophecies, published under the title of an “Echo from Heaven,” sent Jortin an extract, with a large commentary upon it, which the doctor inserted in the Appendix to the first book of his “Remarks.” Warburton speaks here of Evans as a prophet, and mentions one of his visions as a prediction, which, he says, “astonishes all who carefully consider it.” This exposed the bishop to some ridicule, particularly in a pamphlet entitled “Confusion worse confounded Rout on Rout or the bishop of Gloucester’s Commentary upon Rice or Arise Evans’s Echo from Heaven, examined and exposed. By Indignatio,” 1772, 8vo. Indignatio, who employs learning, wit, and argument, in this pamphlet, was the rev. Henry Taylor, rector of Crawley, and vicar of Portsmouth, and one of the writers against Gibbon.

, a bookseller of London, and deserving notice not only for spirit and integrity in business, but for considerable literary taste and talents, was born in. 1742, and served his apprenticeship with Mr. Charles Marsh, a bookseller of reputation in Round-court, Strand, and at Charing-cross. Mr. Evans soon after his apprenticeship had terminated, set up in business, and by his acquaintance with English literature, which he had assiduously cultivated, was enabled to strike out many of those schemes of publication which do credit to the discernment of the trade, and as far as his own fortune permitted to embark alone in many republications which shewed the correctness of his judgment and his regard for the literary character of his country. Among these we may enumerate new editions of, 1. “Shakspeare’s Poems,” 1774. 2. “Buckingham’s Works,” 1775. 3. “Nicolson’s Historical Library,” 1776. 4. “Four volumes of Old Ballads, with notes,” l?7l 1784. Of this his son has lately published an improved edition. 5. “Cardinal de Retz’s Memoirs.” 6. “Savage’s Works,” 1777. 7. “Goldsmith’s Works,” 1777. 8. “Prior’s Works,” 1779. 9. “Rabelais’s Works.” 10. “History of Wales.” 11. “Peck’s Desiderata Curiosa,” 1779, in an advertisement to which he announced an intention of re-printing the “Notitia Monastica” of bishop Tanner, which has since been accomplished by Dr. Nasmith. To all these works Mr. Evans prefixed Dedications written with neatness and elegance, addressed to his literary patrons, Garrick, sir Joshua Reynolds, Mr. Sheridan, &c. He died in the prime of life, April 30, 1784, leaving a widow and son, the latter now a bookseller in Pall-mall, and the well-known and successful vendor of the most curious and valuable library ever sold in this, or perhaps, in some respects, in any other country, that of the late duke of Roxburgh.

His next publication was “A Letter to Dr. Hurd, bishop of Worcester, wherein the importance of the prophecies of the New Testament, and the nature of the grand apostacy predicted in them, are particularly and impartially considered,” 1777. The object of this pamphlet was to prove that either the Christian revelation is not true, or the religion of every orthodox church in Europe is fabulous and false, and as the church of England was in his opinion one of those false and fabulous orthodox churches, this pamphlet was followed by the author’s resignation of his livings, in obedience, as he says, to the “heavenly admonition” in Rev. xviii. 4. “Come out of her my people, &c.”

Mr. Evanson’s work, in its superstructure, after having been effectually attacked by opponents in agreement with him upon other points, has been undermined in its foundation principles very recently, and with more consistency, by the rev. Thomas Falconer, A. M. of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, in his course of Bampton lectures preached in 1810, and published in 1811. Mr. Evanson’s other publications are, “Reflections upon the State of Religion in Christendom, &c. at the commencement of the nineteenth century of the Christian sera,” 1802; and “Second Thoughts on the Trinity,” in a letter addressed to the bishop of Gloucester, 1805. Soon after this he was afflicted with a serious complaint, which was partly relieved by a surgical operation, but a paralytic attack following, proved fatal Sept. 25, 1805. His personal character is thus given by his biographer “Those who have watched his conduct through every period of his existence, bear witness to the strictest integrity, honour, and benevolence of his character. The relative duties of a son, a husband, and a brother, he performed with the greatest attention. From his neighbours, wherever he resided, he received the sincerest testimony of respect and esteem. His manners were highly conciliating and engaging, and by his particular friends no man was more beloved. In his death the needy have lost a friend that will not easily be replaced.”

Mr. Evelyn was born at his father’s seat at Wotton, a few miles from Dorking, on Oct. 31, 1620, and was educated at the school of Lewes, under the care of his grandmother Stansfield, where he acknowledges in his own memoirs, that he was too much indulged, and did not make so good use of his time as he ought to have done but for this he made ample amends by his future diligence, and perhaps his neglect here appeared in a more unfavourable light to him in his advanced years than it deserved, for he was only ten when sent to this school. In April 1673 he was entered of the Middle Temple, though then at school; but in the following month, May 9, was admitted fellow commoner of Baliol college, Oxford, where his tutor was a Mr. Bradshaw (which he calls nomen invisum, alluding to serjeant Bradshaw, who presided on the trial of Charles I.) This Bradshaw was a relation of the regicide, and sou of the rector of Ockham. While at college, Mr. Evelyn informs us, that Nathaniel Canopius came thither out of Greece, being sent by the celebrated patriarch Cyrill, and had a pension from archbishop Laud. On the rebellion breaking out, Canopius returned to Constantinople, was made bishop of Smyrna, and, as Mr. Evelyn thinks, patriarch of Alexandria. Having already a turn, for objects of that kind, Mr. Evelyn records in this part of his diary, that Canopius was the first he ever saw or heard of, that drank coffee. Mr. Evelyn’s brother Richard was also -of Baliol college, but his brother George was of Trinity, where he is mentioned by Wood among the benefactors to that house.

During his latter days there was no relaxation of his endeavours to be useful. As his collections were very great, so he was ever ready to communicate them for the benefit of others. He furnished Dr. Gibson, bishop of London, with those additional remarks on the county of Surrey, which are published in his English edition of the "Britannia. 11 He contributed largely to Mr. Houghton’s valuable work on husbandry and trade, and to Burnet’s History of the Reformation; and Mr. Aubrey has testified how often he was indebted to him for his friendly assistance in many of his undertakings. In respect to the royal society, he was equally assiduous in his attendance, and careful in his intelligence. Whatever fell within the compass of his own extensive inquiries, he never failed to transmit to that body, nor was he less active in procuring them proper correspondents both at home and abroad, of which copious testimonies are to be met with in their registers, and in their printed Transactions. He might, therefore, justly style himself, as he did, a pioneer in their service; an expression which marked at once how humble and how indefatigatible he was in whatever might contribute to the advancement of that noble design, which was the basis of their institution. He was a true lover of freedom of thought in philosophical inquiries, which he practised upon all occasions himself, and very readily indulged to others; and though nobody was freer from prejudices, or spoke more discreetly than he did, of books that it was impossible for him to commend, yet he never resented any attack made upon his own, but bore the contradiction of his opinion with all imaginable temper, being persuaded that truth and reason would always triumph in the end, and that it was better to leave things to the decision of the public than to embark in endless controversies, though in the defence of sentiments ever so well founded. When we consider the number of the books he published, and the variety of the subjects upon which he employed his time, our admiration of his industry and application is greatly heightened when we reflect how careful he was in reviewing, correcting, and augmenting, all his original works. Whatever subject appeared weighty enough to attract his attention, never lost its place in his thoughts, but was often revolved, and reaped the continual benefit of the new lights he received.

, a very eminent lawyer, and upright magistrate, was born at Gripskerque, in the island of Walcheren, in 1462, and studied law at Louvain under Arnold de Bek, and Peter de Themis, whose praises for profound knowledge he has celebrated in his “Topica juris.” In 1493 he took his doctor’s degree, and acquired so much reputation that Erasmus, in a letter to Bernard Buchon, pronounces him a man born for the good and service of his country. Everard’s first public situation was at Brussels, where he was appointed judge in ecclesiastical causes under Henry de Berg, bishop and prince of Cambray: he was then, although not in any of the ecclesiastical orders, presented to the deanry of the collegiate church of St. Peter of Anderlechten, in that city. In 1505 being invited to Mechlin, he was first appointed assessor of the grand Belgic council, and afterwards left that place to become president of the supreme council of Holland and Zealand. During the eighteen years that he executed this important trust, his whole conduct was so marked by profound knowledge, and upright decision, that in 1528, the emperor Charles V. recalled him to Mechlin to exercise the same functions. All who speak of him represent him as a man totally uninfluenced by any interest, or motives of favour, who admitted no solicitations from power or friendship, and administered strict justice without ever giving the laws an inclination that they did not fairly bear, whether the party concerned was poor or rich. He died at Mechlin, Aug. 9, 1532, in his seventieth year. His works were, 1. “Topica juris, sive loci argumentorum legales,” of which he printed the first part or century, at Louvain, in 1516, fol. This he afterwards reviewed and enlarged, and it was published by his sons in 1552, at Louvain, and reprinted in 1568 and 1579, at Lyons, and in 1591 at Francfort. It was afterwards abridged by Abraham Marconet, and published in that form at Magdeburgh, 1655, 12mo. 2. “Consilia, sive responsa juris,” Louvain, 1554, fol. and at Antwerp, 1577, enlarged and corrected by Molengrave. There are also other editions of 1643, &c. By his wife Elissa Bladelle of Mechlin, he left three daughters, one of whom, Isabella, whq became a nun, was celebrated for her learning and knowledge of the Latin language, and five sons, all of considerable eminence in the literary world; Peter Jerome, a religious of the order of the Premonstratenses, a doctor of the civil and canon law at Louvain, and afterwards abbot of St. Mary of Middlebourgh; Nicolas, first, president of the supreme council of Friesland, and afterwards successor to his father in the office of president of the grand council of Mechlin Nicolas Grudius Adrian Marius, and John Secundus. Of these last three, some notice will be taken here, as more suitable to the family connection than under the articles Grudius and Secundus, where they have hitherto been placed.

In 1535 he accompanied the emperor Charles V. to the siege of Tunis, but gained no laurels as a soldier. The hardships which were endured at that memorable siege were but little suited to the soft disposition of a votary of Venus and the Muses; and upon an enterprise which might have furnished ample matter for an epic poem, it is remarkable that Secundus wrote nothing which has been deemed worthy of preservation. Having returned from his martial expedition, he was sent by the cardinal to Rome to congratulate the pope upon the success of the emperor’s arms; but was taken so ill on the road, that he was not able to complete his journey. But being advised to seek without a moment’s delay, the benefit of his native air, he soon recovered. Having now quitted the service of the archbishop of Toledo, he was employed in the same office of secretary to the bishop of Utrecht; and so much had he jhitherto distinguished himself by the classical elegance of his compositions, that he was soon called upon to fill the important post of private Latin secretary to the emperor, who was then in Italy. This was the most honourable office to which our author was ever appointed; but before he could enter upon it, death put a stop to his labours. Having arrived at St. Arnaud, in the district of Tournay, in order to meet, upon business, with the bishop of Utrecht, he was on Oct. 8, 1536, cut off by a violent fever, in the very flower of his age, not having quite completed his twenty-fifth year. He was interred in the church of the Benedictines, and his relations erected to his memory a marble monument, with a plain Latin inscription.

, president of the parliament of Grenoble, was born Dec. 22, 1561, at Voiron in Dauphiny. His father Claude Expilli had acquired great reputation in the army. This his son studied first at Turin, and in 1581 and 1582 went through a course of law studies at Padua, where he became acquainted with many of the most learned men of his time, particularly Speroni, Torniel, Decianus, I'ancirollus, Pinelli, Zabarella, Picolomini, &c. On his return to France, he took his doctor’s degree at Bourges, where the celebrated James Cujas bestowed high praise on. him. He then settled at Grenoble, and acquired such distinction among the advocates of the parliament, that the king Henry IV. considered him as fit for the highest offices in law. Expilli was accordingly promoted to that of king’s procurator in the chamber of finances, king’s advocate in parliament, and lastly that of president. The same monarch, as well as Louis XIII. employed him in many important affairs in thecomte Venaissin, Piedmont, and Savoy, where he was first president of the parliament of Chamberi, after that city was taken in 1C 30. Three years after, the king made use of his services at Piguerol; but on his return to Grenoble, he died July 22 or 23, 1636, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. James Philip Thomasini, bishop of Citta Nova, wrote his eloge, and his life was written by Antony Boniel de Catilhon, his nephew, and advocate general of the chamber of accounts in Dauphiny. It was printed at Grenoble in 1660, 4to. Cherier, in his History of that province, says of him, that his works are an incontestable proof of his learning, which was by no means confined. He. was an orator, lawyer, historian, and poet, a man of excellent private character, and a liberal patron of merit, which alone was a sure introduction to his favour. His works are both in prose and verse. His “Pleadings” were printed at Paris, 1612, 4to. His French poems, after the greater part of them had been printed separately, were collected in a large volume, 4to, printed at Grenoble in 1624; and among them are some prose essays on the fountains of Vals and Vivarez, and on the use of medicinal waters; a supplement to the history of the chevalier Bayard, &c. He wrote also a treatise on “French orthography,” Lyons, 1618, folio, in which, however, he has not shewn much judgment, having proposed to spell according to pronunciation; and upon the whole, it appears that, although a man of learning as well as probity, he was a better magistrate than a writer.

, a celebrated rhetorician, of the fourth century, who has frequently been confounded with a bishop of Toulouse, and with another bishop of Cahors of the same name, was a native of Bourdeaux, and taught eloquence at Toulouse and Narbonne. In this last mentioned city he was entrusted with the education of the two princes Dalmatius and Hannibal, nephews of the reigning emperor Constantine. Before this Exuperius had been obliged to leave Toulouse, where the inhabitants set little value on his talents, but at Narbonne he was received with the respect due to him; and when the two princes, his pupils, were advanced to the throne, the one as emperor in the year 335, and the other as king of Pontus and Armenia, they conferred upon him the government of a province in Spain. Here he is said to have amassed great riches, and after holding the situation for many years, returned to his native country, and settled at Cahors, where he died, but at what time is not known. Ausonius bestows high praises on his general character and eloquence.

, bishop of Toulouse, in the latter end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, who died in exile for the orthodox faith, is recorded as a model of true Christian charity. During a great famine, after selling the whole of his own property, he disposed of all the rich gold and silver plate belonging to the church, in order to feed the poor; he exerted his charity likewise towards the religious of Palestine and Egypt. St. Jerome speaks much of his bountiful disposition, and compares him to the widovr of Sarepta, whose oil failed not. St. Jerome also dedicated to him his book on the prophet Zecharias. Exuperius changed the temple of Minerva at Toulouse into a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary, now the Dorade, and was the means of freeing the people of that city from their fears of the Vandals. We have no farther account of his history, except that he is supposed to have died in the year 417. He certainly was at Home in the year 409, when it was taken by the Goths.

, sirnamed from one of his works, the Hammer of Heretics, “Malleus Hereticorum,” was born in Suabia in 1479, and distinguished himself in the universities of Germany in the sixteenth century. In 1519 he was appointed vicar-general to the bishop of Constance; in 1526, Ferdinand king of the Romans, afterwards emperor, named him as his confessor, and in 1531, advanced him to the see of Vienna. He died in 1542, at the age of sixty-three. His works are comprised in three volumes folio, printed at Cologne in 1537—1541; but that for which he was most celebrated was entitled “Malleus Haereticorum,” in which he discusses many controversial points with considerable warmth, and was considered by those of his persuasion as a formidable enemy to the reformers. Luther having been one of his opponents, Erasmus said, when he was advanced to the episcopacy, “that Luther, poor as he was, found means to enrich his enemies.” He was impetuous in argument, and his enemies attributed to him many indiscreet expressions, the consequence of the anger he felt in being conquered in debate. There was another divine of the same names, and who lived about the same time, and distinguished himself by many controversial writings against the reformed religion, which are no longer remembered.

, a man eminent for wit and learning, and for the civil employments with which he was honoured, was born at Hamburgh in 1613. He was a good poet, an able physician, a great orator, and a learned civilian. He gained the esteem of all the learned in Holland while he studied at Leyden; and they liked his Latin poems so well, that they advised him to print them. He was for some time counsellor to the bishop of Lubec, and afterwards syndic of the city of Dantzic. This city also honoured him with the dignity of burgomaster^ and sent him thirteen times deputy in Poland. He died at Warsaw, during the diet of the kingdom, in 1667. The first edition of his poems, in 1632, was printed upon the encouragement of Daniel Heinsius, at whose house he lodged. He published a second in 1638, with corrections and additions: to which he added a satire in prose, entitled “Pransus Paratus,” which he dedicated to Salmasius; and in which he keenly ridiculed the poets who spend their time in making anagrams, or licentious verses, as also those who affect to despise poets. The most complete edition of his poems is that of Leipsic, 1685, published under the direction of his son. It contains also Orations of our author, made to the kings of Poland; an Oration spoken at Leyden in 1632, concerning the siege and deliverance of that city and the Medical Theses, which were the subject of his public disputations at Leyden in 1634, &c.

, an English historian, was an alderman of London, and presents us with the rare instance of a citizen and merchant, in the fifteenth century, devoting himself to the pleasures of learning: but we know little of his personal history. There was nothing remarkable in his descent, and he made no great figure in public life. From his will it appears that his father’s name was John Fabyan; and there is reason to believe that, although he was apprenticed to a trade, his family were people of substance in Essex. Bishop Tanner says he was born in London. At what period he became a member of the Drapers’ company cannot now be ascertained. Their registers would probably have furnished a clue to guess at the exact time of his birth, but the hall of that ancient company was twice destroyed by fire, and they have no muniments which reach beyond 1602. From records, however, in the city archives, it appears that he was alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without; in 1493 he served the office of sheriff; and in the registers which go by the name of the “Repertory,” a few scattered memoranda are preserved of the part which he occasionally took, at a period somewhat later, in public transactions.

, a man of considerable learning, but unfortunately connected with the French prophets, was a native of Switzerland, whither his family, originally Italians, were obliged to take refuge, for religion’s sake, in the beginning of the reformation. He was born Feb. 16, 1664. His father intending him for the study of divinity, he was regularly instructed in Greek and Latin, philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy; learned a little of the Hebrew tongue, and began to attend the lectures of the divinity professors of Geneva: but his mother being averse to this, he was left to pursue his own course, and appears to have produced the first fruits of his studies in some letters on subjects of astronomy sent to Cassini, the French king’s astronomer. In 1682 he went to Paris, where Cassini received him very kindly. In the following year he returned to Geneva, where he became particularly acquainted with a count Fenil, who formed the design of seizing, if not assassinating the prince of Orange, afterwards William III. This design Faccio having learned from him communicated it to bishop Burnet about 1686, who of course imparted it to the prince. Bishop Burnet, in the first letter of his Travels, dated September 1685, speaks of him as an incomparable mathematician and philosopher, who, though only twenty-one years old, was already become one of the greatest men of his age, and seemed born to carry learning some sizes beyond what it had hitherto attained. Whilst Dr. Calamy studied at the university of Utrecht, Faccio resided in that city as tutor to two young gentlemen, Mr. Ellys and Mr. Thornton, and conversed freely with the English. At this time he was generally esteemed to be a Spinozist; and his discourse, says Dr. Calamy, very much looked that way. Afterwards, it is probable, that he was professor of mathematics at Geneva. In 1687 he came into England, and was honoured with the friendship of the most eminent mathematicians of that age. Sir Isaac Newton, in particular, was intimately acquainted with him. Dr. Johnstone of Kidderminster had in his possession a manuscript, written by Faccio, containing commentaries and illustrations of different parts of sir Isaac’s Principia. About 1704 he taught mathematics in Spitafnelds, and obtained about that time a patent fora species of jewel-watches. When he unfortunately attached himself to the new prophets, he became their chief secretary, and committed their warnings to writing, many of which were published. The connexion of such a man with these enthusiasts, and their being supported, likewise, by another person of reputed abilities, Maximilian Misson, a French refugee, occasioned a suspicion, though without reason, that there was some deep contrivance and design in the affair. On the second of December, 1707, Faccio stood in the pillory at Charing-cross, with the following words affixed to his hat: “Nicolas Fatio, convicted for abetting and favouring Elias Marion, in his wicked and counterfeit prophecies, and causing them to be printed and published, to terrify the queen’s people.” Nearly at the same time, alike sentence was executed upon Elias Marion, one of the pretended prophets, and John d'Ande, another of their abettors. This mode of treatment did not convince Faccio of his error; and, indeed, the delusion of a man of such abilities, and simplicity of manners, was rather an object of compassion than of public infamy and punishment. Oppressed with the derision and contempt thrown upon himself and his party, he retired at last into the country, and spent the remainder of a long life in silence and obscurity. He died at Worcester in 1753, about eightynine years old. When he became the dupe of fanaticism, he seems to have given up his philosophical studies and connections. Faccio, besides being deeply versed in all branches of mathematical literature, was a great proficient in the learned and oriental languages. He had read much, also, in books of alchymy. To the last, he continued a firm believer in the reality of the inspiration of the French prophets. Dr. Wall of Worcester, who was well acquainted with him, communicated many of the above particulars to Dr. Johnstone, in whose hands were several of Faccio’s fanatical manuscripts and journals; and one of his letters giving an account of count Fenil’s conspiracy, and some particulars of the author’s family was communicated to the late Mr. Seward, and published in the second volume of his Anecdotes. In the Republic of Letters, vol. I. we find a Latin poem by Faccio, in honour of sir Isaac Newton; and in vol. XVIII. a communication on the rules of the ancient Hebrew poesy, on which subject he appears to have corresponded with Whiston. There are also many of his original papers and letters in the British Museum; and among them a Latin poem, entitled “N. Facii Duellerii Auriacus Throno-Servatus,” in which he claims to himself the merit of having saved king William from the above-mentioned conspiracy.

, bishop of Hermianum in Asia, is noticed by ecclesiastic writers as having been present at the council of Constantinople, held by pope Vigilius in the year 547, where he was a strenuous defender of the writings called The Three Chapters,“which the council of Chalcedon had pronounced orthodox. The works so named were, 1. The writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 2. The books which Theodoret of Cyrus wrote, against the twelve anathemas published by Cyril against the Nestorians. 3. The letter which Ibas of Edessa had written to Maris, a Persian, concerning the council of Ephesus, and the condemnation of Nestorius. The question of condemning these writings, had been raised by Theodore bishop of Csesarea, for the sake of weakening the authority of the council of Chalcedon, and crushing the Nestorians. The emperor Justinian listened to this prelate, published an edict against The Three Chapters in the year 544, and in the council of Constantinople above-mentioned, forced the pope Vigilius to accede to the same sentence. Vigilius, agitated between the contending parties, changed his opinion and conduct four times; but Facundus remained firm, and was banished for his perseverance. He wrote twelve books on the subject, addressed to Justinian, which are still extant, and one against Mutianus, but^in fatft^ against Vigilius; both published with notes, by P. Sirmond, in 1629. There is also an” Epistola Catholics fidei pro defensione trium capitulorum," added to the edition of 1675. His style is animated, but he is frequently deficient in moderation.

, an eminent French physician in the reign of Louis XIV. was born at Paris, May 11, 1638. He was the son of Henry Fagon, commissioner in ordinary of war, and of Louisa de la Brosse, niece of Guy de la Brosse, physician in ordinary to Louis XIII. and grandson of a physician in ordinary to Henry IV. He studied first in the Sorbonne, under M. Gillot, an eminent doctor, with whom he resided as student, and who persuaded him to chuse the medical profession. M. Fagon never forgot M. Gillot in his highest prosperity; but, if he met him in the street, alighted from his coach, and conducted him to the house where he was going. This young physician had scarcely begun to dispute, when he ventured to maintain, in a thesis, the circulation of the blood, which was at that time held as a paradox among the old doctors; and also another on the use of tobacco, published long afterwards; “An frequens Nicotian ye usus vitam abbreviet,” Paris, 1699, 4to. He took his doctor’s degree 1664, M. Vallot wishing to repair and replenish the royal garden, M. Fagon offered his services; and going, at his own expence, to Auvergne, Languedoc, Provence, the Alps, and the Pyrenees, returned with an ample collection of curious and useful plants. He had the principal share in the catalogue of the plants in that garden, puhlished 1665, entitled “Hortus Regius,” to which he prefixed a little Latin poem of his own. M. Fagon was made professor of botany and chemistry at the royal garden, and began to have the plants engraved; but there are only forty -five plates finished, which are very scarce. The king appointed bim first physician to the dauphiness in 1680, and to the queen some months after. In 1693 he was made first physician to the king, and superintendant of the royal garden in 1698, to which he retired after the king’s death, and, for the improvement of which, he persuaded Louis XIV. to send M. de Tournfort into Greece, Asia, and Egypt, which produced the scientific voyage so well known to the learned world. Fagon died March 11, 1718, aged near eighty. The academy of sciences had chosen him an honorary member in 1699. He left “Les Qualités du Quinquina,” Paris, 1703, 12mo. He married Mary Nozereau, by whom he had two sons Anthony, the eldest, bishop of Lombez, then of Vannes, died February.16, 1742 the second, Lewis, counsellor of state in ordinary, and to the royal council, and intendant of the finances, died at Paris May 8, 1741, unmarried. The Fagonia, in botany, was so called by Tournfort in honour of him.

Mr. Fairfax’s poetical exertions did not end with his translation of Tasso. He wrote the history of Edward the black prince, and a number of eclogues. No part of the history of Edward the black prince has, we believe, ever been laid before the public; which is the rather to be regretted as it might hence have more distinctly been discerned what were our poet’s powers of original invention. The eclogues were composed in the first year of the reiga of king James, and, after their being finished, lay neglected ten years in the author’s study, until Lodowic, duke of Richmond and Lenox, desired a sight of them, which occasioned Mr. Fairfax to transcribe them for his grace’s use. That copy was seen and approved by many learned men; and Dr. Field, afterwards bishop of Hereford, wrote verses upon it. But the book itself, and Dr. Field’s encomium, perished in the fire, when the banqueiing-house at Whitehall was burnt, and with it part of the duke of Richmond’s lodgings. Mr. William Fairfax, however, our author’s son, recovered the eclogues out of his father’s loose papers. These eclogues were twelve in number, and were composed on important subjects, relating to the manners, characters, and incidents of the times. They were pointed with many fine strokes of satire; dignified with wholesome lessons of morality and policy to those of the highest ranks; and some modest hints were given even to majesty itself. With respect to poetry, they were entitled to high commendation; and the learning they contained was so various and extensive, that, according to the evidence of his son, who wrote large annotations on each, no man’s reading beside the author’s own was sufficient to explain his references effectually. The fourth eclogue was printed, by Mrs. Cooper, in “The Muses Library,” published in 1737. It is somewhat extraordinary that the whole of them should never have appeared in print. If they are still in being, it might not, perhaps, be an unacceptable service to give them to the public.

, a voluminous compiler of historical documents, was born in Franconia in 1682, and died in 1760. In 1724 he was appointed director of the university of Erlangen, but turning catholic, he entered into the service of the bishop of Eichstadt, and after the death of that prelate, obtained the patronage of the margrave of Anspach. Among other compilations of a similar kind, without taste or arrangement, but which may be useful to future historians, are his “Antiquities of Nordgau in the bishopric of Eichstadt,” 3 vols. fol.

, a learned man, was born in the isle of Jersey in 1655, and in 1669 became a commoner of Exeter college in Oxford; from whence he removed to St. Alban’s hall, and took both his degrees in arts, that of master in July 1676. Afterwards he went into orders, retired to his native country, where he was made rector of St. Saviour’s, and was afterwards chosen deputy from the states of that island to king William and queen Mary. He was also rector of Shenley, in Hertfordshire, where he built an elegant house at the expense of 1000l. King William recommended him to a prebend in Durham. The golden prebend was then vacant, but the bishop removed Dr. Pickering to it, and gave Dr. Falle the fourth stall, of which he afterwards complained. The repairing of the prebendal house cost him 200l. He died at Shenley, in 1742, and left his excellent library (excepting a collection of sacred music, which he gave to the library at Durham), to the island of Jersey. He published three sermons; one preached at St. Hilary’s in Jersey, in 1692; another at Whitehall in 1694; and another before the mayor of London in 1695. He was the author also of “An account of the isle of Jersey, the greatest of those islands that are now the only remainder of the English dominions in France: with a new and accurate map of that island,” 1694, 8vo. This is much quoted by bishop Gibson.

, a learned minister of the church, and most intrepid reformer, was the son of a gentleman of Dauphine in France, and born at Gap in 1489. He studied philosophy, and Greek and Hebrew, at Paris with great success, and was for some time a teacher in the college of cardinal le Moine. Briyonnet, bishop of Meaux, hem.; inclined to the reformed religion, invited him to preach in his diocese in 1521; but the persecution raised there against the early protestants who were styled heretics, in 1523, obliged him to provide for his security out of France. He then retired to Strasburgh, where Bucer and Capito admitted him as a. brother; and he was afterwards received as such by Zwinglius at Zurich, by Haller at Berne, and by Oecolampadius at Basil. As he was thought well qualified by zeal and knowledge for such a task, he was advised to undertake the reformation of religion at Montbeliard, in which design he was supported by the duke of Wittenberg, who was lord of that place; and he succeeded in it most happily. He was a man on some occasions of too much warmth and enthusiasm against popery, which, however, he tempered a little, by the advice of Oecolampadius. Once on a procession-day, he pulled out of the priest’s hand the image of St. Antony, and threw it from a bridge into the river, a boldness and imprudence which was unnecessary, and might have cost him his life. Erasmus by no means liked Farel’s temper, as appears from what he wrote of him to the official of Besancon. “You, have,” says he, “in your neighbourhood the new evangelist, Farel; than whom I never saw a man more false, more virulent, more seditious.” Erasmus has also given a very unfavourable character of him elsewhere: but he thought Farel had censured him in some of his writings, and therefore is not to be altogether believed in every thing he says of him; nor indeed was a man of decision and intrepidity likely to be a favourite with the timid and time-serving Erasmus.

, one of the most celebrated historians and poets of his nation in the seventeenth century, was born March 18, 1590, at Sonto near Caravilla in Portugal, of a noble family, both by his father’s and mother’s side. His father’s name was Arnador Perez d'Eiro, and his mother’s Louisa Faria, but authors are not agreed in their conjectures why he did not take his father’s name, but preferred Faria, that of his mother, and Sousa, which is thought to have been his grandmother’s name. In his infancy he was very infirm, yet made considerable progress, even when a puny child, in writing, drawing, and painting. At the age of ten, his father sent him to school to learn Latin, in which his proficiency by no means answered his expectations, owing to the boy’s giving the preference to the Portuguese and Spanish poets. These he read incessantly, and composed several pieces in verse and prose in both languages, but he had afterwards the good sense to destroy his premature effusions, as well as to perceive that the Greek and Roman classics are the foundation of a true style, and accordingly he endeavoured to repair his error by a careful study of them. In 1604, when only in his fourteenth year, he was received in the Tank of gentleman into the household of don Gonzalez de Moraes, bishop of Porto, who was his relation, and afterwards made him his secretary; and during his residence with this prelate, which lasted ten years, he applied himself indefatigably to his studies, and composed some works, the best of which was an abridgment of the historians of Portugal, “Epitome de las historias Portuguesas, desde il diluyio hasta el anno 1628,” Madrid, 1628, 4to. In this he has been thought to give rather too much scope to his imagination, and to write more like an orator than a historian. In 1612 he fell in love with a lady of Porto, whom he calls Albania, and who was the subject of some of his poems; but it is doubtful whether this was the lady he married in 1614, some time after he left the bishop’s house, on account of his urging him to go into the church, for which he had no inclination. -He remained at Porto until 1618, when he paid his father a visit at Pombeiro. The year following he went to Madrid, and into the service of Peter Alvarez Pereira, secretary of state, and counsellor to Philip the III. and IV. but Pereira did not live long enough to give him any other proof of his regard than by procuring to be made a knight of the order of Christ in Portugal. In 1628 he returned to Lisbon with his family, but quitted Portugal in 1631, owing to his views of promotion being disappointed. Returning to Madrid, he was chosen secretary to the marquis de Castel Rodrigo, who was about to set out for Rome as ambassador at the papal court. At Rome Faria was received with great respect, and his merit acknowledged; but having an eager passion for study, he visited very few. The pope, Urban VIII. received him very graciously, and conversed familiarly with him on the subject of poetry. One of his courtiers requested Faria to write a poem on the coronation of that pontiff, which we find in the second volume of his poems. In 1634, having some reason to be dissatisfied with his master, the ambassador, he quitted his service, and went to Genoa with a view to return to Spain. The ambassador, piqued at his departure, which probably was not very ceremonious, wrote a partial account of it to the king of Spain, who caused Faria to be arrested at Barcelona. So strict was his confinement, that for more than three months no person had access to him; until Jerome de Villa Nova, the prothonotary of Arragon, inquired into the affair, and made his innocence known to the king. This, however, had no other effect than to procure an order that he should be a prisoner at large in Madrid; although the king at the same time assured him that he was persuaded of his innocence, and would allow him sixty ducats per month for his subsistence. Faria afterwards renewed his solicitations to be allowed to remove to Portugal, but in vain; and his confinement in Madrid, with his studious and sedentary life, brought on, in 1647, a retention of urine, the torture of which he bore with great patience. It occasioned his death, however, on June 3, 1640. He appears to have merited an excellent character, but was too little of a man of the world to make his way in it. A spirit of independence probably produced those obstacles which he met with in his progress; and even his dress and manner, we are told, were rather those of a philosopher than of a courtier. Besides his History of Portugal, already mentioned, and of which the best edition was published in 1730, folio, he Wote, 1. “Noches claras,” a collection of moral and political discourses, Madrid, 1623 and 1626, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Fuente de Aganipr, o Rimes varias,” a collection of his poems, in 7 vols. Madrid, 1644, &c. 3. “Commentarios sobra las Lusiadas de Luis de Camoens,” an immense commentary on the Lusiad, ibid. 1639, in 2 vols. folio. He is said to have began it in 1614, and to have bestowed twentyfive years upon it. Some sentiments expressed here had alarmed the Inquisition, and the work was prohibited. He was permitted, however, to defend it, which he did in, 4. * Defensa o Information por'los Commentaries, &c.“Madrid, 1640 or 1645, folio. 5.” Imperio de la China, &e.“and an account of the propagation of religion by the Jeuits, written by Semedo: Faria was only editor of this work, Madrid, 1643, 4to. 6.” Nobiliario del Concle D. Petro de Barcelos,“&c. a translation from the Portuguese, with notes, ibid. 1646, folio. 7.” A Life of Don Martin Bapt. de Lanuza,“grand justiciary of Arragon,” ibid. 1650, 4to. 8. “Asia Portuguesa,” Lisbon, 1666, &c. 3 vols. folio. 9. “Europa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1678, 2 vols. folio. 10. “Africa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1681, folio. Of this we have an English Edition by John Stevens, Lond. 1695, 3 vols. 8vo. 11. “America Portuguesa.” All these" historical and geographical works have been considered as correct and valuable. Faria appears to have published some other pieces of less importance, noticed by Antonio.

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

In April 1780, Dr. Farmer was collated by bishop Kurd, then bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, to the prebend of Aldrewas, and the chancellorship annexed, founded in the cathedral church of Lichfield. In February 1782 he was made prebendary of Canterbury, as it is supposed, through the recommendation of the then first minister, lord North, which he resigned in 1788, on being preferred by the late Mr. Pitt to a residentiaryship of St. Paul’s. A few hours after this appointment, he jocosely said to his friend Mr. Nichols, ' I could now, if I thought proper, cheat the minister, for I have in my pocket an appointment to the residentiaryship of St. Paul’s, without having resigned the prebend of Canterbury."

Dr. Farmer had now attained the utmost of his wishes; and although both an English and an Irish bishoprick were offered to him, he declined them, for which various reasons have been assigned. One is certainly erroneous. It has been said “that in early life he had felt the power of love, and had suffered such a disappointment as had sunk deep in his mind, and for a time threatened his understanding. From that period, though he retained his faculties entire, he acquired some peculiarities of manner, of which he was so far conscious, as to be sensible that they would hardly become the character of a bishop; being likewise strongly attached to dramatic entertainments (which, if we mistake net, the English bishops never witness), and delighting in clubs where he could have rational conversation without state or ceremony of any kind, he very wisely preferred his residentiaryship to the highest dignity in the church.” What is here said as to his habits being incompatible with the character of a bishop, cannot be denied; but these habits were partly natural, from indolence and a love of ease, and partly acquired by a seclusion from polished society. The lady to whom Dr. Farmer is said to have been attached, was the eldest daughter of sir Thomas’ Hatton, with whom he became acquainted while curate of Swavesey. Cole says, sir Thomas refused his consent, and this refusal appears to have been given in 1782, when Dr. Farmer was in his forty-seventh year, and if, as Cole affirms, the lady was then only twenty-seven or twenty-eight years of age, she must have been an infant when Dr. Farmer became acquainted with her father. The whole, however, may be only one of Cole’s gossiping stories; and whether so or not, Dr. Farmer, neither at this or any previous time, exhibited any symptoms of-“disappointed love.” It is more rational to suppose, with his last biographer (Mr. Nichols), that when he arrived at that situation, as to fortune, which gave him a claim to the object of his affections, he found, on mature reflection, that his habits of life were then too deeply rooted to be changed into those of domestic arrangements with any probable chance of perfect happiness to either party. As to his promotion to a bishopric, it may yet be added, that although few men have been more beloved by an extensive circle of friends than Dr. Farmer, there was not, perhaps, one of them who did not applaud his declining that station, or who did not think, with all their respect for him, that he would not have appeared to advantage in it. It is not as a Divine that Dr. Farmer was admired by his contemporaries, or can be known to posterity.

After a course of years, on account of some differences with his landlords, and the frequent sicknesses which occurred in the city, Mr. Farnabie determined, in 1636, to quit London, and reside at Sevenoaks in Kent, in the neighbourhood of which town (at Otford) he had purchased an estate. Here he renewed his former occupation, and, from the number of noblemen’s and gentlemen’s sons who boarded with him, grew o rich as to add considerably to his landed property. One of the estates purchased by him was near Horsham in Sussex. His works, which have transmitted his name with honour to posterity, were not only well received at home, but abroad, and have been applauded by several eminent foreign scholars. When the civil commotions broke out, in 1641, our author was esteemed to be ill-affected to the parliament, because, on occasion of the protestation’s being urged that year, he had said, that “it was better to have one king than five hundred.” Being afterwards suspected of having favoured the rising of the county for the king about Tunbridge, in 1643, he was imprisoned in Newgate, and thence carried on shipboard. It was even debated in the house of commons whether he should be sent to America; but this motion being rejected, he was removed to Ely-house in Holborn, where he remained for a considerable time. It is insinuated by Anthony Wood, that some of the members of both houses, who had been his scholars, were amongst those who urged his being treated with severity. Mr. Farnabie departed this life on the twelfth of June, 1647, aged seventy-two, and was interred in the chancel of the church ut Sevenoaks. He was twice married. His first wife was Susanna, daughter of John Pierce, of Launcells, in Cornwall, gent. By her he had a son named John, who becaoie a captain in king Charles’s army, and inherited his father’s estate in Sussex, where he lived in good esteem, and died about the beginning of 1673. Mr. Farnabie’s second wife was Anne, the daughter of Dr. John Howson, bishop of Durham, by whom he had several children. One of them, Francis", succeeded to his father’s estate at Kippington, in the parish of Sevenoaks. From this gentleman Anthony Wood derived his information concerning the particulars of our famous school-master’s life, and asserts that he was the chief grammarian, rhetorician, poet, Latinist, and Grecian, of his time. Wood adds, that his school was so much frequented, that more churchmen and statesmen issued from it, than from any school taught by one man in England.1

Sir John Fastolff had by his will appointed John Paston, esq. eldest son and heir of sir William Paston, the judge, one of his executors; and had given to them all his manors, lands, &c. in trust, to found the college of the seven priests, and seven poor men, in the manor-house at Castre, c. “For the singular trust and love,” says sir John, “that I have to my cousin John Paston before all others, being in every belief that he will execute this my last will.” Edward IV. 1464, for 300 marks, 100 in hand, and the remainder when the foundation takes place, granted John Paston, sen. esq. licence to found the college before mentioned, and his favour and protection against Yelverton, Jenney, and others; but it appears that this John Paston, esq. had entered on this manor of Castre, and was imprisoned in the Fleet of London by Nevill, bishop of Exeter, (on Nov. 3, 1464 ) then chancellor. On his death, in 1466, he left it to his eldest son sir John Paston. July 6, the king granted him a warrant under his hand and privy seal, to take possession of all the lands and inheritance of his late father, or of Agnes his grandmother, or of Margaret his mother, or of William Paston, and Clement Paston, his uncles; also the manor and place of Castre, or of any other estate which his father had, by way of gift, or purchase, of the late sir John Fastolff; which lands had been seized by the king, on evil surmises made to him, against his deceased father, himself and uncles, of all which they were sufficiently, openly, and worshipfully cleared before the king. “So that all yee now being in the said place of Caster, or in any liBihode, late the sir John Paston' s, by way of gift or purchase, of the late sir John Fastolff, that was seized into our hands, avoid the possession of the same, and suffer our truly and well beloved knight, sir John Paston, to enjoy the profits thereof, with all the goods and chattels there, and pay all the issues and profits thereof, as yee did unto his father, at any time in his life.”

As sir John Falstoff’s valour made him a terror in war, his humanity made him a blessing in peace: all we can find in his retirement, being elegant, hospitable, and generous, either as to the places of his abode, or those persons and foundations on which he showered his bounty. At his death he possessed lands and estates in Norfolk, Suffolk, Yorkshire, and Wiltshire. He was a benefactor to both the universities; bequeathing a considerable legacy to Cambridge, for building the schools of philosophy and Jaw, for which the first order under their chancellor Laurence, bishop of Durham, is dated in June 1458; and, at Oxford, he was so bountiful to Magdalen college, through the affection he had for his friend William Wainfleet, the founder thereof two years before, that his name is commemorated in an anniversary speech; and though the particulars of his bounty are not now remembered, because he enfeoffed the said founder in his life-time, yet it is known, that the boar’s head in Southwark, now divided into tenements, yielding one hundred and fifty pounds yearly, together with Caldecot manor in Suffolk, were part of the lands he bestowed thereon; and Lovingland in that county is conceived also to have been another part of his donation. There had been an ancient free chapel of St. John the Baptist in the manor house at Castre, the ancient seat of his family, as early as the reign of Edward I. Sir John intended to have erected a college for seven monks or secular priests (one of whom to be head), and seven poo? men; and to endow it with 120 marks rent charge, out of several manors which he gave or sold to his cousin John Paston, senior, esq. charged with this charity. Mr. Paston laboured to establish this pious foundation till his death, 6 Ed. IV. as did his son sir John Paston, knight, but whether it was ever incorporated and fully settled, bishop Tanner doubts, as there is no farther mention of it in the rolls or the bishop of Norwich’s registry. Only in the valuation, 26 Hen. VIII. there is said to have been in Castrehall a chantry of the foundation of sir John Fastolff, knight, worth tl. 135. 4d. per annum. 6 Ed. IV. from receipts it appears that the priests had in money, besides their diet, 40l. per annum, and the poor men 40$. per annum each. The foundation was certainly not completed till after his decease; for William Worcester, in a letter to Margaret Paston in 1466, tells her he had communed with her son whether it should not be at Cambridge in case it shall not be at Castre, neither at St. Benet’s (in the Holme), and that the bishop of Winchester (Wainflete) was disposed to found a college in Oxford for his sayd mayster to be prayed for, yet with much less cost he might make some other memorial in Cambridge.

, a worthy printer of no mean celebrity, is rather recorded in this work for the goodness of his heart, than from his excellence as an author. It is, however, no small degree of praise to say of him, that he was the first man who carried his profession to a high degree of credit in Ireland. He was the confidential printer of dean Swift; and enjoyed the friendship and patronage of the earl of Chesterfield, whose ironical letters to Faulkner, comparing him to Atticus, are perhaps the finest parts of his writings. He settled at Dublin as a printer and bookseller, soon after 1726 (in which year we find him in London under the tuition of the celebrated Bowyer), &nd raised there a very comfortable fortune by his well-known 44 Journal,“and other laudable undertakings. In 1735, he was ordered into custody by the house of commons in Ireland, for having published” A proposal for the better regulation and improvement of quadrille;“an ingenious treatise by bishop Hort; which produced from Swift” The 4egion club.“Having had the misfortune to break his leg, he was satirically introduced by Foote, who spared nobody, in the character of” Peter Paragraph,“in” The Orators, 1762.“He commenced a suit against the mimic; and had the honour of lord Townshend’s interference to arbitrate the difference. He died an alderman of Dublin, Aug. 28, 1775. His style and manner were finely ridiculed in” An Epistle to Gorges Edmund Howard, esq. with notes, explanatory, critical, and historical, by George Faulkner, esq. and alderman,“reprinted in Dilly’s” Reppsitory,“vol. IV. p. 175. But a fairer specimen of his real talents at epistle-writing may be seen in the” Anecdotes of Mr. Bowyer,“or in the second volume of the” Supplement to Swift;" whence it appears that, if vanity was a prominent feature in his character, his gratitude was no less conspicuous.

, an English monk of the fifth century, was created abbot of a monastery in the Lerin islands about the year 433, and afterwards bishop of Riez in Provence, about the year 466. The time of his death is uncertain. He wrote a homily on the life of his predecessor in the see, Maximus; which is extant among those attributed to Eusebius Emisenus. He governed his diocese unblamcably, led a holy life, and died regretted and esteemed by the church. In the grand controversy of the fifth century, he rather favoured the Semi-Pelagians, which a recent historian attributes to his fear of the abuses of predestination, and a misunderstanding of the consequences of Augustine’s doctrine. It is certain that in a treatise which he wrote on saving grace, he shewed that grace always allures, precedes, and resists the human will, and that all the reward of our lahour is the gift of God. In a disputation, likewise, with Lucidus, a priest, who was very tenacious of the sentiments of Augustine, Faustus endeavoured to correct his ideas by suggesting, that we must not separate grace and human industry; that we must abhor Pelagius, and yet detest those who believe, that a man may be of the number of the elect, without labouring for salvation.

In 1610, and the two following years, we find him in attendance upon sir Thomas Edmondes, the king’s minister at the court of France. Several of the sermons he preached, during this time, in the ambassador’s chapel, are collected in his “Clavis Mystica,” and those which were levelled at the errors of popery are said to have been very successful both in converting some catholics, and in confirming the opinions of those who had before embraced. the doctrines of the reformation. He had also very frequent conferences in the Cleremont with the Jesuits, and with the members of the Sorboane, but especially with fathers Sirmund and Petau, who, although they at first ridiculed his figure, for he was low of stature, yet afterwards were impressed with a regard for his controversial talents, and treated his memory with respect. His three disputations at Paris are confessed by Holden, an eminent English catholic writer, to have done more harm to the popish cause than thirtythree he had read of before. By most of the foreign universities he was held in such honour as a disputant, that in the tables of the celebrated schoolmen, whom they honoured with the epithets of resolute, subtle, angelic, &c. he was called acutissimus et acerrimus. According to Wood, he commenced B. D. in 1613, and was the preacher at the act of that year. His sermon on this occasion is said to have been No. 37. in the “Clavis Mystica;” but, according to the evidence of his nephew John Featley, he did not take that degree until 1615, and the sermon he delivered was a Latin concio ad clerum, dated March 25. In 1610 he had preached the rehearsal sermon at Oxford, and by the bishop of London’s appointment he discharged the same duty at St. Paul’s cross in 1613. By invitation from Mr. Ezekiel Ascot, who had been his pupil, he accepted the rectory of Northill in Cornwall, which he vacated on his institution to the rectory of Lambeth in 1618. a change which, if not more profitable, was certainly highly agrees ahle to him, as he became now, by the recommendation of the university, domestic chaplain to Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury.

, so called, because he was born of poor parents in a cottage, near the forest of Feckenham in Worcestershire, his right name being Howmau, was the last abbot of Westminster. Discovering in his youth very good parts, and a strong propensity to learning, the priest of the parish took him under his care, instructed him some years, and then procured him admission into Evesham monastery. At eighteen, he was sent by his abbot to Gloucester-hall, Oxford; from whence, when he had sufficiently improved himself in academical learning, he was recalled to his abbey; which being dissolved Nov. 17, 1536, he had a yearly pension of an hundred florins allowed him for his life. Upon this he returned to Gloucester-hall, where he pursued his studies some years; and in 1539, took the degree of bachelor of divinity, being then chaplain to Bell bishop of Worcester. That prelate resigning his see in 1543, he became chaplain to Bonner bishop of London but Bonner being deprived of his bishopric, in 1549, by the reformers, Feckenham was committed to the Tower of London, because, as some say, he refused to administer the sacraments after the protestant manner. Soon after, he was taken from thence, to dispute on the chief points controverted between the protestants and papists, and disputed several times in public before and with some great personages.

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

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

It may easily be imagined, that so active and zealous a man as Fell had not much time to write books: yet we find him the author and editor of the following works: 1. “The Life of the most reverend, learned, and pious Dr. Henry Hammond, who died April 25, 1660,” 1660, reprinted afterwards with additions at the head of Hammond’s works. 2. “Alcinoi in Platonicam Philosophiam Introductio, 1667.” 3. “In lauclem Musices Carmen Sapphicum.” Designed probably for some of the public exercises in the university, as it was set to music. 4. “Historia et -Antiquitates Universitatis Oxoniensis,” &c. 1674, 2 vols. fol. This history and antiquities of the university of Oxford was written in English by Antony Wood, and translated into Latin, at the charge of Fell, by Mr. Christopher Wase and Mr. Richard Peers, except what he did himself. He was also at the expence of printing it, with a good character, on a good paper; but “taking to himself,” says Wood, “the liberty of putting in and out several things according to his own judgment, and those that he employed being not careful enough to carry the whole design in their head, it is desired that the author may not be accountable for any thing which was inserted by him, or be censured for any useless repetitions or omissions of his agents under him.” At the end of it, there is a Latin advertisement to the reader, containing an answer to a letter of Hobbes; in which that author had complained of Fell’s having caused several things to be omitted or altered, which Wood had written in that book in his praise. More of this, however, will occur to be noticed in our life of Wood. 5. “The Vanity of Scoffing: in a letter to a gentleman,” 1674, 4to. 6. “St. Clement’s two epistles to the Corinthians in Greek and Latin, with notes at the end,” 1677. 7. “Account of Dr. Richard Allestree’s life:” being the preface to the doctor’s sermons, published by our author. 8. “Of the Unity of the Church:” translated from the original of St. Cyprian, 1681. 9. “A beautiful edition of St. Cyprian’s Works, revised and illustrated with notes,” 1682. 10. “Several Sermons,” on public occasions, 11. The following pieces written by the author of the “Whole Duty of Man,” with prefaces, contents, and marginal abbreviations, by him, viz. “The Lady’s Calling; the Government of the Tongue; the Art of Contentment; the Lively Oracles,” &c. He also wrote the general preface before the folio edition of that unknown author’s works. 12. “Artis. Logicae Compendium.” 13. “The Paraphrase of St. Paul’s Epistles.” There is another piece, which was ascribed to him, with this title; *“The Interest of England stated or, a faithful and just account of the aims of all parties nowprevailing; distinctly treating of the designments of the Roman Catholic, Royalist, Presbyterian, Anabaptist,” &c. 1659, 4to, but it not being certainly known whether he was the author or not, we do not place it among his works. One thing in the mean time Wood mentions, relating to his literary character, which must not be omitted that “from 1661, to the time of his death, viz. while he was dean of Christ-church, he published or reprinted every year a bookjf commonly a classical author, against newyear’s tide, to distribute among the students of his house; to which books he either put an epistle, or running notes, or corrections. These,” says Wood, “I have endeavoured to recover, that the titles might be known and set down, but in vain.” But one of Dr. Fell’s publications, unaccountably omitted in former editions of this work, still remains to be noticed; his edition of the Greek Testament, of which Michaelis has given a particular account. Dr. Fell was the next after Walton, who published a critical edition of the New Testament, which, although eclipsed since by that of Mill, has at least the merit of giving birth to Mill’s edition. It was published in small octavo, at the Sheldon theatre, 1675. It appears from the preface, that the great number of various readings which are printed in the sixth volume of the London Polyglot, apart from the text, had given alarm to many persons, who were ignorant of criticism, and had induced them to suspect, that the New Testament was attended with so much uncertainty, as to be a very imperfect standard of faith. In order to convince such persons of their error, and to shew how little the sense of the New Testament was altered by them, Fell printed them under the text, that the reader might the more easily compare them. This edition was twice reprinted at Leipsic, in 1697 and 1702, and at Oxford in a splendid folio, by John Gregory, in 1703, but without any additions, which might have easily been procured from t'he bishop’s papers; nor are even those which Fell had been obliged to print in an appendix, transferred to their proper places, an instance of very gross neglect. We learn also from Fabricius in his Bibl. Graeca that the excellent edition of Aratus, Oxford, 1672, 8vo, was published by Dr. Fell.

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

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

, an English prelate, was born at Yarmouth in Norfolk, and admitted of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, of which college he was chosen fellow Nov. 27, 15H3 Archbishop Whitgift collated him to the rectory of St. Mary le Bow, Jan. 17, 1595-6, being then B. D. and he was some time also rector of St. Antholin’s, London. He was elected master of Pembroke-hall, June 29, 1616; admitted rector of Easton-Magna in Essex, Oct. 23, the same year; and collated to a prebend in St. Paul’s, being then D. D. March 4 following. In 1617, he was promoted to the see of Bristol, to which he was consecrated, Dec. 14. The next year he resigned his mastership, and was nominated to the bishopric of Coventry and Lichfield, but was translated to Ely, March 11, 1618-19. He died Oct. 5, 1626, in the sixty-third year of his age, and was buried under the communion-table in St. Antholin’s church, London; but without any memorial or inscription. He was a very pious, learned, and judicious man, and deserves some notice in this work, as one of those who was employed by king James I. in the new translation of the Bible. There is an excellent picture of him in the gallery of the palace at Ely, which was presented for that purpose to the late bishop Gooch, by Mr. Cole of Milton.

Having finished his mission, he returned to Paris, and was presented to the king: but lived two years afterwards without going to court, being again entirely occupied in the instruction of the new female converts. That he might forward this good work by writings as well as lectures, he published, in 1688, a little treatise, entitled “Education de Filles;” which the author of the Bibliotheque Universelle, calls the best and most useful book written upon the subject, in the French language. In 1688, he published a work “Concerning the functions of the Pastors of the Church;” writtenchiefly against the protestants, with a view of shewing, that the first promoters of the reformation had no lawful call, and therefore were not true pastors. In 1689, he was made tutor to the dukes of Burgundy, Anjou, and Berri; and in 1693, was chosen member of the French academy, in the room of Pelisson deceased. In this situation, he was in favour with all. His pupils, particularly the duke of Burgundy, improved rapidly under his care. The divines admired the sublimity of his talents; the courtiers the brilliancy of his wit. The duke, to the end of his life, felt the warmest regard for his illustrious preceptor. At the same time, Fenelon preserved the disinterestedness of an hermit, and never received or asked any thing either for himself or friends. At last the king gave him the abbey of St. Valery, and, some months after, the archbishopric of Cambray, to which he was consecrated by Bossuet bishop of Meaux, in 1695.

But a storm now arose against him, which obliged him to leave the court for ever; and was occasioned by his book, entitled “An Explication of the Maxims of the Saints concerning the interior life.” This book was published in 1697, and was occasioned by the writings of madam Guyon, who pretended to a very high and exalted devotion. She explained this devotion in some books which she published, and wrote particularly a mystical exposition of Solomon’s Song. Fenelon, whose gentle disposition is said to have been strongly actuated by the lov of God, became a friend of madam Guyon, in whom he fancied he saw only a pure soul animated with feelings similar to his own. This occasioned several conferences between the bishop of Meaux, the bishop of Chalons, afterwards cardinal de Noailles, and Mr. Tronon, superior-general to the congregation of St. Sulpicius. Into these conferences, in which madam Guyon’s books were examined, Fenelon was admitted; but in the mean time began to write very secretly upon the subject under examination, and his writings tended to maintain or excuse madam Guyon’s books without naming her. This examination lasted seven or eight months, during which he wrote several letters to the examiners, which abounded with so many testimonies of submission, that they said they could not think God would deliver him over to a spirit of error. While the conferences lasted, the secret was inviolably kept with regard to Fenelon; the two bishops being as tender of his reputation, as they were zealous to reclaim him. He was soon after named archbishop of Cam bray, and yet continued with the same humility to press the two prelates to give a final sentence. They drew up thirty-four articles at Issi, and presented them to the new archbishop, who offered to sign them immediately; but they thought it more proper to leave them with him for a time, that he might examine them leisurely. He did so, and added to every one of the articles such limitations as enervated them entirely: however, he yielded at last, and signed the articles March 10, 1695. Bossuet wrote soon after an instruction designed to explain the articles of Issi, and desired Fenelon to approve it; but he refused, and let Bossuet know by a friend, that he could not approve a book which condemned madam Guyon, because he himself did not condemn her. It was in order to explain the system of the mystics that he wrote his book already mentioned. There was a sudden and general outcry against it, and the clamours coming to the king’s ear, his majesty expostulated with the prelates for having kept secret from him what they alone knew. The controversy was for some time carried on between the archbishop of Cambray and the bishop of Meaux. But as the latter insisted upon a positive recantation, Fenelon applied to the king, and represented to his majesty, that there were no other means to remove the offence which this controversy occasioned, than by appealing to the pope, Innocent XII. and therefore he begged leave to go himself to Rome. But the king sent him word, that it was sufficient to carry his cause thither, without going himself, and sent him to his diocese in August, 1697. When the question was brought before the consultators of the inquisition to be examined, they were divided in their opinions: but at last the pope condemned the book, with twenty-three propositions extracted from it, by a brief dated March 12, 1699. Yet, notwithstanding this censure, Innocent seems to have disapproved the violent proceedings against the author. He wrote thus to the prelates who distinguished themselves as adversaries to Fenelon: “Peccavit excessu amoris divini, sed vos peceastis defectu amoris proximi.” Some of Fenelon’s friends have pretended, that there was in this affair more courtpolicy than zeal for religion. They have observed, that this storm was raised against him at a time when the king thought of choosing an almoner for the duchess of Burgundy; and that there was no way of preventing him, who had been tutor to the duke her husband, and who had acquitted himself perfectly well in the functions of that post, from being made her almoner, but by raising suspicions of heresy against him. They think themselves sufficiently justified in this opinion, by Bossuet’s being made almoner after Fenelon was disgraced and removed. Be this as it will, he submitted patiently to the pope’s determination, and read his sentence, with his own recantation, publicly in his diocese of Cambray, where he led a most exemplary life, acquitting himself punctually in all the duties of his station. Yet he was not so much taken up with them, nor so deeply engaged in his contemplative devotion, but he found time to enter into the controversy with the Jansenists. He laboured not only to confute them by his writings, but also to oppress them, by procuring a bull from Rome against a book which the cardinal de Noailles, their chief support, had approved: namely, father Quesnel’s “Reflections upon the New Testament.” The Jesuits, who were resolved to humble that prelate, had formed a great party against him, and prevailed with the archbishop of Cambray to assist them in the affair. He accordingly engaged himself: wrote many pieces against the Jansenists, the chief of which is the “Four Pastoral Letters,” printed in 1704, at Valenciennes; and spared no pains to get the cardinal disgraced, and the book condemned, both which were at length effected.

He was a man of great learning, great genius, fine taste, and exemplary manners: yet many have suspected that he was not entirely sincere in his recantation of his “Maxims of the Saints;” a work composed by him with great care, and consisting, in great part, of extracts from the fathers. Yet, if we consider the profound veneration of a pious catholic bishop for the decisions of the church, the modesty and candour of his character, and even his precepts to the mystics, we shall be inclined to acquit him of the charge. He had said to these persons in that very book, “that those who had erred in fundamental doctrines, should not be contented to condemn their error, but should confess it, and give glory to Gocl; that they should have no shame at having erred, which is the common lot of humanity, but should humbly acknowledge their errors, which would be no longer such when they had been humbly confessed.” He has also been accused of ambition for his conduct in. the controversy, with the Jansenists, but the charge rests only on presumptive evidence, and is equally refuted by his general character. In his theology, he seems to give greater scope to feeling than to reason; but if he inclined to mysticism, and thus seemed to deviate from the established system of his church, he does not appear to have made the least approach to protestantism. On the contrary, no one has more forcibly inculcated the danger of putting the scriptures into the hands of the people (a fundamental tenet of popery), than Fenelon has done in his “Letter to the archbishop of Arras.” Submission to the decisions of the holy see is likewise exemplified in his whole conduct as well as in his writings. Indeed, Fenelon seems to have been one of those, who, either from early prepossessions, or from false reasonings upon human nature, or from an observation of the powerful impressions made by authority on the credulity, and a pompous ritual on the senses of the multitude, imagine, that Christianity, in its native form, is too pure and elevated for vulgar souls, and, therefore, countenance and maintain the absurdities of popery, from a notion of their utility.

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

His next engagement was with Pope himself, who after the great success of his translation of the Iliad, undertook that of the Odyssey, and determined to engage auxiliaries. Twelve books he took to himself, and twelve he distributed between Broome and Fenton. According to Johnson and Warton, Fenton translated the first, fourth, nineteenth and twentieth. But John, earl of Orrery, in a letter to Mr. Duncombe, asserts that Fenton translated double the number of books in the Odyssey that Pope has owned. “His reward,” adds the noble writer, “was a trifle, an arrant trifle. He has even told me, that he thought Pope feared him more than he loved him. He had no opinion of Pope’s heart, and declared him, in the words of bishop Atterbury, Mens curia in corpore curvo.” It is, however, no small praise to both Fen tun and Broome, that the readers of poetry have never been able to distinguish their books from those of Pope. In 1723, Fenton’s tragedy of “Mariamne” was brought on the stage in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, and was performed with such success, that the profits of the author are said to have amounted to nearly a thousand pounds, with which he very honourably discharged the debts contracted by his fruitless attendance on Mr. St. John. The poetical merit of this tragedy is confessedly great, but the diction is too figurative and ornamental. Colley Cibber has been termed insolent for advising Fenton to relinquish poetry, by which we presume he meant dramatic poetry; but Cibber, if insolent, was not injudicious, for Mariamne has not held its place on the stage, In 1 1727, Fenton revised a new edition of Milton’s Poems, and prefixed to it a short but elegant and impartial life of the author. In 1729 he published a very splendid edition of Waller, with notes, which is still a book of considerable value.

, an English antiquary, was the son of William Feme, of Temple Belwood, in the isle of Axholme, in Lincolnshire, esq. by Anne his wife, daughter and heir of John Sheffield, of Beltoft; and was sent to Oxford when about seventeen years of age. Here he was placed, as Wood conceives, either in St. Mary’s-hall, or University college: but leaving the university without a degree, he went to the Inner Temple, and studied for some time the municipal law. In the beginning of the reign of James I. he received the honour of knighthood, being about that time secretary, and keeper of the king’s signet of the council established at York for the north parts of England. He probably died about 1610, leaving several sons behind him, of whom Henry, the youngest, was afterwards bishop of Chester, the subject of our next article. In 1586 sir John published “The Blazon of Gentry, divided into two parts, &c.” 4to. This is written in dialogues, and, though in a language uncommonly quaint and tedious, contains critical accounts of arms, principles of precedence, remarks upon the times, &c. which are altogether curious. The nobility of the Lacys, earls of Lincoln, which forms a part of it, was written in consequence of Albert a Lasco, a noble German, coming to England in 1583, and claiming affinity to this family of Lacy, and from this, Feme says, he was induced to open their descents, their arms, marriages, and lives. The discourse is curious, and during the century that elapsed after its publication, before the appearance of Dugdaie’s Baronage, must have been peculiarly valuable.

, D. D. bishop of Chester, the youngest son of the preceding sir John Feme, was born at York in 1603, and educated at the free-school of Uppingham in Rutlandshire, to which he was sent by sir Thomas Nevill of Holt in Lancashire, who had married his mother. He was afterwards, in 1618, admitted commoner of St. Maryhall, Oxford, but after two years 1 residence there, was removed to Trinity college, Cambridge, of which he became fellow; apd when he had taken his degree of bachelor of divinity, was domestic chaplain to Dr. Morton, bishop of Durham. The year after he was presented to the college living of Masham in Yorkshire, and his brother-in-law Mr. Nevill gave him that of Medborn in Leicestershire. The?­bishop of Lincoln afterwards preferred him to the archdeaconry of Leicester. In 1642 he took his doctor’s degree, and kept the act at the commencement. Thence he went into Leicestershire, where he had an opportunity of waiting on the king, and preaching before him as ho was going to Nottingham to setup his standard. The king made him his chaplain extraordinary, and he preached before his majesty again at Nottingham. In 1642 he published his “Case of Conscience touching rebellion,” and is said to have been the first that wrote openly in his majesty’s cause, but this probably obliged him to leave Medborn, and take shelter in Oxford, where he preached, without any emolument, at St. Aldate’s church. Here he was incorporated doctor in divinity, and was made chaplain in ordinary to the king, who at the same time sent him a message, that he was sorry he could confer nothing else with it. He was afterwards appointed chaplain to one of the lords commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, where at the request of some of them, he stated the case between piscopary and presbytery, and was not answered by the parliamentary commissioners, although one of them, the earl of London, lord chancellor of Scotland, declared that he should. Dr. Feme attended the king at Oxford until he had taken Leicester, and was present at the unfortunate battle of Naseby, after which he went to Newark, and continued preaching until the king ordered the garrison to surrender. His next retreat was to Yorkshire, where he remained with his relations, until his majesty sent for him to the treaty of the Isle of Wight. His majesty had so much respect for him, as to desire a copy of the last sermon he preached there.

During the usurpation, Dr. Feme appears to have lived in privacy, but, as the only privilege now left to him, as a clergyman, he carried on disputes with the Roman catholics, which occasioned some of his publications. On the restoration, Charles II. as his royal father had promised Dr. Feme the reversion of the mastership of Trinity college, Cambridge, now conferred that office upon him, which he kept a year and a half, and was twice chosen vicechancellor. He was also promoted to the deanery of Ely; and upon Dr. Walton’s death, he was made bishop of Chester, and consecrated at Ely house chapel, Feb. 9, 1661, but held it only ahout five weeks, dying March 16, 1661, at his relation Mr. Nevill’s house, in St. Paul’s churchyard, London, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. He was a man of great learning, piety, and loyalty, and of singular candour and modesty. The character given of him by one who knew him from his youth, was, that if he had any fault, it was that he could not be angry.

Of Nicholas, the subject of this article, we are told that he was a beautiful child, of a fair complexion, and lightcoloured hair. At four years of age he was sent to school, and at five he could read perfectly, or repeat with propriety and grace, a chapter in the Bible, which the parents made the daily exercise of their children. By the brightness of his parts, and the uncommon strength of his memory, he attained with great ease and quickness whatever he set himself to learn; yet was he also remarkably studious. From the early possession of his mind with ideas of piety and virtue, and a love for historical information, the Bible in his very early years became to him the book above all others most dear and estimable; and next to this in his esteem was Fox’s Book of Martyrs, from which he could repeat perfectly the history of his near kinsman, bishop Ferrar. And, when in his riper years he undertook the instruction of the family, he constantly exercised them also in the reading and in the study of these two books. He was particularly fond of all historical relations; and, when engaged in this sort of reading, the day did not satisfy him, but he would borrow from the night; insomuch that his mother would frequently seek him out, and force him to partake of some proper recreation. Hence, even in his childhood, his mind was so furnished with historical anecdotes, that he could at any time draw off his schoolfellows from their play, who would eagerly surround him, and with the utmost attention listen to his little tales, always calculated to inspire them with a love of piety and goodness, and excite in them a virtuous imitation.

His transactions while connected with the Virginia company, occupy a very large portion of his life published by Dr. Peckarcl, but will not now be thought the most interesting part of it. The reputation, however, which he had acquired, as a man of business, was such, that after the Virginia company had been dissolved, he was in 1624, chosen member of parliament. He must, however, have sat a very short time, as he began soon to put in execution his scheme of retiring from the world, and leading a monastic life in the heart of a protestant country. For this purpose in the last mentioned year, he purchased the lordship of Little-Gidding, in the county of Huntingdon,^ where his mother, his sister Mrs. Collet, with all her family, and other relations to the amount of forty persons, came to reside as soon as it could be prepared for their reception. The better to carry on this plan, by his personal assistance, Mr. Ferrar applied to Dr. Laud, then bishop of St. David’s, and was ordained deacon. On this, some of his noble friends, not knowing his intention, offered him preferments in the church, but these he declined, as being unworthy to receive them, and informed his friends that he had taken deacon’s orders only that he might be legally authorised to give spiritual assistance to those with whom he might be concerned.

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

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

His character, as we have already intimated, has been differently represented, bishop Godwin asserting that his ruin was owing to his own rigid, rough behaviour; but Fox seems clearly of opinion that the first prosecution against him was unnecessary and malicious, and that the second was commenced because he was a protestant. It is certain that many of the fifty-six articles which he was put to answer in the reign of Edward VI. were to the last degree frivolous, and showed themselves to be the offspring of a revengeful mind; such as riding a Scotch pad, with a bridle with white studs and snaffle, white Scotch stirrups, and white spurs wearing a hat instead of a cap whistling to his child laying the blame of the scarcity of herrings to the covetousness of fishers, who in time of plenty, took so many that they destroyed the breeders; and lastly wishing, that at the alteration of the coin, whatever metal it was made of, the penny should be in weight worth a penny of the same metal. It is also to be noticed that the fall of the duke of Somerset, then lord protector, to whom he was chaplain, seems to have exposed him to the resentment of his enemies.

According to Burnet, bishop Ferrar was one of the committee nominated to compile the English liturgy, but his name does not occur among those who compiled the new liturgy in 1547, and therefore Burnet probably means that he was one of those appointed to correct the liturgy in the time of Henry VIII. in 1540. It is more certain that he acquiesced in the brief confession of faith, in conjunction with other protestant bishops and martyrs imprisoned in London, which was signed May 8, 1554, by Ferrar, Taylor, Philpot, Bradford, Hooper, &c. &c. Mr. Butler, in his excellent life of bishop Hildesley, enumerates our prelate among the bishops of Sodor and Mann, to which, according to that account, he must have been preferred in 1545, and resigned it some time before Jan. 1546.

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

He published, 1. “Luciani de morte Peregrini libellus, cum notis,” 1653, 4to. He thought this the best of Luclan’s pieces; and had a design to give an edition of all his works, which, however, he never executed, 2. “Diatribe, Flavii Josephi de Jesu Christo testimonium suppositurn esse,” 1655, 8vo. 3. “Luciani Timon,” with a Latin version and notes. 4. “Epistolarum pars prima,” 1659, 4to. “Pars secunda: cui accedunt Aristophanis Concionatrices, Graece & Latine, cum notis,” 1665, 4to. 5. “Journal du Journal, ou, Censure de la Censure;” and afterwards, 6. “Seconde Journaline;” both in 1666, 4to. 7. “Abrege* des Vies des Poetes Grecs,” &c. with “the marriage of Belphegor, and the life of Theseus, from Plutarch,” 1665, in 12mo. 8. “Convivium Xenophontis.” 9. “Platonis Alcibiades primus.” 10. “Plutarchus de Superstitione” all in French translations, 1666; as was the year after, 11. “Aristippi Vita a D. Laertio.” This last was inserted by De Sallengre, in his “Memoirs de Literature,” torn. ii. p. 2. In the same volume of the same work was published, 12. “Methode pour commencer les humanites Grecques et Latines:” translated in English, and published by Phillips, in a book entitled “A compendious way of teaching ancient and modern languages, formerly practised by the learned Tanaquil Faber, in the education of one of his sons, and of his daughter the celebrated madam Dacier. To which are added, some tracts and observations on the same subject by several eminent men, namely, Roger Ascham, Richard Carew, Milton, Locke, &c. With an account of the education of the dauphin, by Bossuet bishop of Meaux,” 1723, 8vo. 13. “Fabulse ex Locmanis Arabico-Latinis versibus redditae,” 1673, 12n; and subjoined, the year after, to the first volume of the second edition of his “Epistolse.” 14. He published notes upon several Greek and Latin authors of antiquity namely, Apollodorus, Longinus, Anacreon, Aristophanes, Ælian, Lucretius, Phyedrus, Virgil, Horace, Terence, Eutropius, Justin, Dionysius Periegetes, aad others.

Huet, bishop of Avranches, assures us that our author was well skilled in the Greek and Roman, and all the ancient learning. Niceron observes, that “his Latin style is fine and delicate, without any points or affectation; every thing is expressed very happily in it. He had likewise a good genius for Greek and Latin poetry; and his verses are worthy of the better ages. His French style has not the graces of his Latin. He knew well enough the rules of our language, but he did not truly understand the true genius and natural propriety of it. As he lived in the Province, that is, almost out of the world, he wrote by study than custom, and he has not always observed the French turn and idiom. Besides, he spoiled his style by a vicious affectation, endeavouring to mix the serious of Balzac with the hutnour and pleasantry of Voiture. Notwithstanding these defects, what he has written in our language will still please; and if his translations have not all the elegance possible, they support themselves by their accuracy, and the learned remarks which accompany them.” Mr. William Baxter, in the dedication of his edition of Anacreon, styles him “futilis Callus,” and affirms that our author in his notes upon that poet every where trifles, and with all his self-conceit and vanity has shewn himself absolutely unfit for that task. In another place he writes thus: ' Nugatur etiam Tanaquillus Faber, ut solet;“and at last he styles him,” Criticaster Callus." Some modern critics have not been much more favourable to his critical talents.

, a French clergyman of the Jansenist party, was born at Paris in 1616, and studied in the college of the Sorbonne, where he obtained the esteem of persons of all ranks. In 164,5, he was engaged by M. de Bellegarde, archbishop of Sens, to deliver a course of instructions to the candidates for holy orders in his diocese. He obtained some preferment in the church, and composed several useful books, among which was one entitled “A Catechism on Grace 3” which was afterwards reprinted with the title of “Illustrations of certain difficulties respecting Grace.” This work was condemned by a decree of the inquisition at Home, which M. Fouquet, attorneygeneral of the parliament at Paris, would not permit to be promulgated in that city. In 1656, M. Feydeau was one of the seventy-two doctors who were expelled by the faculty of the Sorbonne for refusing to subscribe to the condemnation of M. Arnauld; and on this account he was obliged to relinquish his preferments. After this, for several years, he lived chiefly in retirement, and produced his “Reflections on the History and Harmony of the Gospels,” in 2 vols. 12mo; a work which has gone through several editions. In 1665, he was presented by the bishop of Aleth with a prebend in his diocese, which he resigned in 1668, in order to undertake the cure of Vitri le Francois, in Champagne, which after seven years he was obliged to give up, in consequence of the persecutions with which his party was harassed. He was banished to Bourges, in 1677; and afterwards was sent to Annonai in the Virares, where he died July 24, 1694. He published many works besides those above-mentioned, and left behind him many others that have not yet appeared, particularly memoirs of himself, as far as 1678, and many letters. A long Latin epitaph, engraved on his tomb, which is preserved by Moreri, was written by a religious of the Celestine order.

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

His first publication appears to have been, 1. “A prefatory Epistle concerning some Remarks to be published on Homer’s Iliad: occasioned by the proposals of Mr. Pope towards a new English version of that poem, 17 14,” 12mo. It is addressed to Dr. Swift. It would seem to have been his intention to write a kind of moral commentary upon Homer; but, probably for want of encouragement, this never appeared. The first work by which he distinguished himself in any considerable degree, was, 2. “Theologia Speculativa: or the first part of a body of divinity under that title, wherein are explained, the principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, 1718,” folio. This met with a favourable reception from the public: yet when Stackhouse, a man certainly not of much higher talents, afterwards executed a work of a similar nature, he endeavoured to depreciate the labours of his predecessor. Dr. Fiddes’s second part is entitled “Theologia Practica, wherein are explained the duties of Natural and Revealed Religion;” and was published in 1720, folio. The same year also he published in folio, 3. “Fifty-two practical Discourses on several subjects, six of which were never before printed.” These, as well as his Body of Divinity, were published by a subscription, which was liberally encouraged at Oxford. But the work which gained him the most friends, and most enemies, was, 4. “The Life of Cardinal Wolsey, 1724,” in folio, dedicated to the chancellors, vice-chancellors, doctors, and other members of the two universities; and encouraged by a large subscription. This work was attacked with great severity in “The London Journal,” and the author charged him with being a papist; who repelled this accusation in, 5. “An Answer to Britannicus, compiler of the London Journal, 1725,” in two letters; in the first of which he endeavours to obviate the charge of popery; in the second, to show his impartiality in the life of this cardinal. Dr. Knight, in the “Life of Erasmus,” published a little after our author’s death, attacked him in the severest terms, accusing him of speaking irreverently of Erasmus, “probably,” says he, “because he had by his writings favoured the reformation.” Dr. Fiddes, he says, vilifies the reformation, depreciates the instruments of it, and palliates the absurdities of the Romish church. He declares also that the life was written at the solicitation of bishop Atterbury, on the occasion of the dispute in which he was then engaged with archbishop Wake: and that Atterbury supplied him with materials, suggested matter and method, entertained him at his deanery, procured him subscribers, and “laid the whole plan for forming such a life as might blacken the reformation, cast lighter colours upon popery, and even make way for a popish pretender.” Fiddes, indeed, had given occasion for part of this surmise, by saying that “a very learned prelate generously offered to let me compile the life of cardinal Wolsey in his house.” Suspicion was likewise heightened by the eulogium he made on Atterbury, a little before his deprivation. Though it may be difficult to determine how far this author was at the bottom an enemy to the reformation, yet in his Life of Wolsey, his prejudices in favour of the ancient religion are unquestionably strong, and in these he shared with some contemporaries of no inconsiderable fame. Asa collection of facts, however, the work is highly valuable, and he has the merit (whatever that may be esteemed) of placing the life and character of Wolsey in a more just light than any preceding writer. As the munificent founder of Christ church, he could not avoid a certain reverence for Wolsey, nor, if Atterbury assisted him, can we wonder at that prelate’s disposition to think well of so great a benefactor to learning, who would have proved a still greater benefactor, had he not been sacrificed to the avarice and caprice of his royal master.

The great encouragement which the life of Wolsey obtained, prompted Fiddes to undertake the lives of sir Thomas More and bishop Fisher: but when he had gone through a great part of this work, he lost his manuscript. He published, 6. “A general treatise of Morality, formed upon the principles of Natural Reason only; with a preface in answer to two essays lately published in the Fable of the Bees, and some incidental remarks upon an Inquiry concerning Virtue, by the right honourable Anthony earl of Shaftesbury,” 1724, 8vo. In his preface, he defends some, opinions of Shaftesbury against the author of the “Search into the Nature of Society;” and afterwards vindicates Dr. Kadcliffe from the aspersions of the same author, on account of his benefactions to the university of Oxford. 7. “A Preparative to the Lord’s Supper.” 8. “A Letter in answer to one from a Freethinker, occasioned by the late duke of Buckingham’s epitaph: wherein certain passages in it that have been thought exceptionable are vindicated, and the doctrine of the soul’s immortality asserted. To which is prefixed, a version of the epitaph, agreeably to the explication given of it in the Answer;” in 1721, 8vo. The epitaph and version, which are here subjoined, will satisfy the reader that Fiddes misunderstood it, without being at the trouble to read his pamphlet:

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

About 1610 the king bestowed on him the deanery of Gloucester, where he never resided long, but in order to preach four or 6ve times a year to a full auditory who respected and loved him. The greatest part of his time he spent at his parsonage, and the winter at Windsor, where his house in the cloister was the resort of all who were eminent for learning, to enjoy his conversation, and profit by his sentiments on ecclesiastical affairs, and on the parties and sects which divided the Christian world. Dr. Barlow, dean of Wells, and Dr. Crakenthorp were among his correspondents. He rejoiced when any man noted for learning was made prebendary of Windsor; and often visited sir Henry Savile at Eton college, and other eminent persons in that neighbourhood. He often preached before the king, who, the first time he heard him, said, “Is his name Field This is a field for God to dwell in” and Fuller, in the same punning age, calls him “that learned divine,whose memory swelleth like a field which the Lord hath blessed.” In the king’s progress through Hampshire, in 1609, the bishop of Winchester appointed him among those who were to preach before him; and in 1611, the king having a mind to hear the prebendaries of Winchester in their order, the dean wrote to him first, and he preached oftener than any of them, and to crowded audiences. The king, who delighted to discourse with him on points of divinity, proposed to send him into Germany to compose the differences between the Lutherans and Calvinists, but, for whatever reason, this appointment did not take place; and not long before his death, the king would have made him bishop of Salisbury, and gave him a promise of the see of Oxford on a vacancy. Bishop Hall tells us, that about the same time he was to have been made dean of Worcester. On Oct. 27, 1614, he lost his wife, who left him six sons and a daughter. After continuing a widower about two years, he married the only daughter of Dr. John King, prebendary of Windsor and Westminster, widow of Dr. John Spenser, some time president of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, but with her he lived not much above a month. She however bred up his only daughter, and married her to her eldest son, of which match there were three sons and five daughters. Dr. Field had reached the beginning of his fifty-sixth year, when, on Nov. 15, 1616, he died of an apoplexy, or some imposthume breaking inwardly, which suddenly deprived him of all sense and motion. He was buried in the outer chapel of St. George at Windsor, below the choir. Over his grave was laid a black marble slab, with his figure in brass, and under it an inscription on a plate of the same metal, recording the deaths of him and his first wife. His whole life was spent in the instruction of others, both by precept and example. He was a good and faithful pastor, an affectionate husband and parent, a good master and neighbour; charitable to the poor, moderate in his pursuits, never aiming at greatness for himself or his posterity; he left to his eldest son very little more than what descended to him from his ancestors. He had such a memory that he used to retain the substance of every book he read; but his judgment was still greater. Although he was able to penetrate into the most subtle and intricate disputes, he was more intent on composing than increasing controversies. He did not like disputes about the high points of predestination and reprobation, yet appears rather to have inclined to the Calvinistic views of these matters. When he first set about writing his books “Of the Church,” his old acquaintance Dr. Kettle dissuaded him, telling him that when once he was engaged in controversy, he would never live quietly, but be continually troubled with answers and replies. To this he said, “I will so write that they shall have no great mind to answer me;” which proved to be nearly the case, as his main arguments were never refuted. This work was published at London in 1606, folio, in four books, to which he added a fifth in 1610, folio, with an appendix containing a defence of each passage of the former books that were excepted against, or wrested to the maintenance of Romish errors. All these were reprinted at Oxford in 1628, folio. This second edition is charged hy the Scots in their “Canterburian’s Self-conviction,” 1641, folio, with additions made by bishop Laud. The purport and merit of this work has reminded some of the judicious Hooker, between whom and Dr. Field there was a great friendship. Dr. Field published also a sermon on St. Jude, v. 3, 1604, 4to, preached before the king at Windsor; and, a little before his death, had composed great part of a work entitled “A view of the Controversies in Religion, which in these last times have caused the lamentable divisions in the Christian world” but it was never completed, though the preface was written by the author, and is printed at large in the Life of him by his Son, together with some propositions laid down by him on election and reprobation. This Life was published from the original by John Le Neve, author of the “Monumenta Anglicana,” in 1617, 8vo, and from a copy of it interleaved with ms notes by the author, and by bishop Kennet, Mr. Gough, in whose possession it was, drew up a life for the new edition of the Biographia Britannica, which, with a very few omissions, we have here copied. It only remains to be mentioned that Dr. Field was nominated one of the fellows of Chelsea college in 1610, by king James, who, when he heard of his death, expressed his regret, and added, “I should have done more for that man” His son, who wrote his life, was the Rev. Nathaniel Field, rector of Stourton in the county of Wilts. Another son, Giles, lies buried, under a monumental inscription, against the east wall of New college Ante-chapel. He died in 1629, aged twenty-one.

On the decease of his father in 1682, he succeeded him in his titles and estate; and on the death of Charles II. was one of the privy-council who signed the order, dated at Whitehall, Feb. 6, 1684-5, for proclaiming the duke of York king of England. In that reign he was one of the chief opposers of the abrogation of the test act, which he considered as the strongest fence of the protestant religion. Upon the trial of the seven bishops, he was present in court with several other noblemen; and his brother Heneage, afterwards earl of Aylesford, was of the counsel for those prelates. He was likewise one of the patriots, who, from a true zeal for their religion and their country, often met to concert such advices and advertisements as might be fit for the prince of Orange to know, that he might govern himself by them. When, however, it was secretly proposed to him to invite that prince into England, he felt a conscientious hesitation on the subject, and informed the friends of that measure that he could not personally adopt it, yet would preserve the secret with which they had intrusted him. Upon the prince’s landing in the West, he was one of those lords who made a last attempt on the obstinacy of the king, by presenting a petition to his majesty, advising him to call a parliament regular and free in all respects, to which he was even for adding, “that the peers who had joined the prince might sit in that free parliament;” but this by the other lords was thought unnecessary. He was afterwards one of the commissioners sent by^ his majesty to treat with the prince. When afterwards the convention was opened, he was the principal manager of the debates in favour of a regent, against those who were for setting up another king; supporting his opinion by many arguments drawn from the English history, and adding a recent instance in Portugal, "where Don Pedro had only the title of regent conferred upon him, while his deposed brother lived. However, he owned it to be a principle grounded on the law and history of England, that obedience and allegiance were due to the king for the time being, even in opposition to one, with whom the right was thought still to remain. He likewise told bishop Burnet, that though he could not argue nor vote, but according to the notions which he had formed concerning our laws and constitution, he should not be sorry to see his own side out-voted; and that though he could not agree to the making of a king, as things stood, yet if he found one made, he would be more faithful to him than those who made him could be, according to their principles.

, a celebrated bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in the third century, was one of the friends of Origen, who took St. Cyprian’s part against pope Stephen; maintaining the necessity of re-baptizing those who had been baptized by heretics; and wrote a long letter on this subject in the year 256, to St. Cyprian, by whom it was translated into Latin, and may be seen in his works. St. Firmilian presided at the first council of Antioch held in the year 264, against Paul of Samosata, who promised a change of doctrine; but, continuing to propagate his errors, was condemned at the second council of Antioch, in the year 269. St. Firmilian died at Tarsus, as he was going to this council.

, a man who deserves some notice on account of his zeal for the reformation, was born in Kent, and, after an education at Oxford, went about 1525 to Gray’s Inn, to study the law. A play was then written by one Roo, or Roe, in which cardinal Wolsey was severely reflected on; and Fish undertook to act the part in which he was ridiculed, after every body else had refused to venture upon it. The cardinal issued his orders against him the same night, but he escaped, and went into Germany, where he found out, and associated himself with, William Tyndale. The year following he wrote a little piece, called, “The Supplication of Beggars;” a satire upon bishops, abbots, priors, monks, friars, and indeed the popish clergy in gejieral. About 1527 or 1528, after it had been printed, a copy was sent to Anne Boleyne, and by her given to the king, who was not displeased with it, and Wolsey being now disgraced, Fish was recalled home, and graciously countenanced by the king for what he had done. Sir Thomas More, who, when chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had answered Fish’s pamphlet, in another, entitled “The Supplication of Souls in Purgatory,” being advanced to the rank of chancellor in the room of Wolsey, the king ordered sir Thomas not to meddle with Fish, and sent a message to this purpose, with his signet, by the Jiands of Fish. On his delivering the message, sir Thomas told him, all this was sufficient for himself, but not for his wife, against whom it was complained that she had refused to let the friars say their gospels in Latin at her house. The chancellor appears to have made some attempt to prosecute the wife, but how far he succeeded is not known. Fish himself died about half a year after this of the plague, about 1531, and was buried in the church of St. Dunstan in the West. In one of the lives of sir Thomas More, it is reported that he turned papist before his death, but this circumstance is not mentioned by Fox. The “Supplication” was one of the publications afterwards prohibited by Cuthbert Tonstall, when bishop of London. Tanner ascribes to Fish two works called “The Boke of merchants rightly necessary to all folkes, newly made by the lord Pantapole” and “The Spiritual Nosegay.” He also published about 1530, “The Summ of the Scriptures,” translated from the Dutch. His widow married James Bainham, afterwards one of the martyrs.

,or Fizacre (Richard), a learned scholar in the thirteenth century, was, if not of the city of Exeter, at least a Devonshire man, and a Dominican friar. He studied at Oxford, first in the college of the great hall of the university, but afterwards taking the cowl, he removed to the Dominican convent, and was the first of the order that was honoured with the theological doctorate. His learning is reported to have been general and extensive, and he made so great a proficiency in every branch, that he was esteemed one of the most learned. Aristotle was his principal favourite, whom he read and admired, and carried about with him. But from these philosophical exercises he passed on to the study of divinity, and became as eminent in this as before he had been in arts, which so endeared him to Robert Bacon (see his article), that the two friends were scarce ever asunder. And for this reason Leland thinks he studied at Paris along with Bacon, and there considerably improved his knowledge; but this may be doubted. Leland observes, that writers generally mention the two Dominican friends together, both in respect of their friendship and learning; and indeed the two Matthews, Paris and Westminster, have joined them, and, therefore, it is probable that Fishacre, as well as Bacon, enjoyed the friendship of bishop Grosseteste. They both died in one year, 1248, and were interred among the Dominicans at Oxford. Bale is severe on the memory of. Fishacre for no reason that can be discovered; but Leland speaks very highly of him in point of personal worth as well as learning. Both Leland and Bale have given a list of his works, consisting of theological questions, postils, and commentaries, some of which may yet be found in the public libraries.

, bishop of Rochester, and a great benefactor to learning, was born at Beverley, in Yorkshire, 1459, His father, a merchant, left him an orphan very young; but, by the care of his mother, he was taught classical learning at Beverley, and afterwards admitted in Cambridge, of Michael-house, since incorporated into Trinity-college. He took the degrees in arts in 1488, and 1491; and, being elected fellow of his house, was a proctor of the university in 1495. The same year, he was elected master of Michael-house; and having for some time applied himself to divinity, he took holy orders, and became eminent. The fame of his learning and virtues reaching the ears of Margaret countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII. she chose him her chaplain and confessor; in which high station he behaved himself with so much wisdom and goodness, that she committed herself entirely to his government and direction. It was by his counsel, that she undertook those magnificent foundations of St. John’s and Christ’s colleges at Cambridge; established the divinity professorships in both universities; and did many other acts of generosity for the propagation of learning and piety.

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

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

In the parliament which met Nov. 1529, a motion being made for suppressing the lesser monasteries, Fisher opposed it in a very warm speech, at which some lords were pleased, others displeased. The duke of Norfolk, addressing himself to him, said, “My lord of Rochester, many of these words might have been well spared; but it is often seen that the greatest clerks are not always the wisest men.-” To which the bishop replied, “My lord, I do not remember any fools in my time, that ever proved great clerks.” Complaint was made by the commons of this speech to the king, who contented himself with gently rebuking Fisher, and bidding him “use his words more temperately.” In 1530 he escaped two very great clangers, first that of being poisoned, and then of being shot in his house at Lambeth-marsh; upon which he retired to Rochester. One Rouse, coming into his kitchen, took occasion, in the cook’s absence, to throw poison into gruel which was prepared for his dinner. He could eat nothing that day, and so escaped; but of seventeen persons who eat of it, two died, and the rest never perfectly recovered their health. Upon this occasion, an act was made declaring poisoning to be high treason, and adjudging the offender to be boiled to death; which punishment was soon after inflicted upon Rouse in Smithfield. The other danger proceeded from a cannon bullet, which, being shot from the other side of the Thames, pierced through his house, and came very near his study, where he used to spend most of his time.

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

Respect to his great reputation for learning and piety, occasioned very earnest endeavours to bring him to a compliance. Some bishops waited on him for that purpose, as did afterwards the lord chancellor Audeley, and others of the privy-council; but they found him immoveable. Secretary Cromwell was also with him in vain, and afterwards Lee, bishop of Lichfield. The issue was, a declaration from Fisher, that he would “swear to the succession never dispute more about the marriage and promise allegiance to the king but his conscience could not be convinced, that the marriage was not against the law of God.” These concessions did not satisfy the king; who was resolved to let all his subjects see that there was no mercy to be expected by any one who opposed his will. Therefore, in the parliament which met Nov. 3, he was attainted for refusing the oath of “succession; and his bishopric declared void Jan. 2. During his confinement, the poor old bishop was most barbarously used, was left without decent clothing, and scarce allowed necessaries. He continued above a year in the Tower, and might have remained there till released by a natural death, if an unseasonable honour, paid him by pope Paul III. had not hastened his destruction; which was, the creating of him, in May 1535, cardinal, by the title of Cardinal Priest of St. Vitalis. When the king heard of it, he gave strict orders that none should bring the hat into his dominions: he sent also lord Cromwell to examine the bishop about that affair, who, after some conference, said,” My lord of Rochester, what would you say, if the pope should send you a cardinal’s hat would you accept of it“The bishop replied,” Sir, I know myself to be so far unworthy any such dignity, that I think of nothing less; but if any such thing should happen, assure yourself that I should improve that favour to the best advantage that I could, in assisting the holy catholic church of Christ; and in that respect I would receive it upon my knees.“When this answer was brought, the king said in a great passion,” Yea, is he yet so lusty Well, let the pope send him a hat when he will, Mother of God, he shall wear it on his shoulders then; for I will leave him never a head to set it on."

From this time his ruin was absolutely determined; but as no legal advantage could be taken against him, Richard Rich, esq. solicitor-general, a busy officious man, went to him; and in a fawning treacherous manner, under pretence of consulting him, as from the king, about a case of conscience, gradually drew him into a discourse about the supremacy, which he declared to be “unlawful, and what his majesty could not take upon him, without endangering his soul.” Thus caught in the snare purposely laid for him, a special commission was drawn up for trying him, dated June 1, 1535; and on the 17th, upon a short trial, he was found guilty of high treason, and condemned to suffer death. He objected greatly against Rich’s evidence, on which he was chiefly convicted and told him, that “he could not but marvel to hear him bear witness against him on these words, knowing in what secret manner he came to him.” Then addressing himself to his judges, and relating the particulars of Rich’s coming, he thus went on: “He told me, that the king, for better satisfaction of his own conscience, had sent unto me in this secret manner, to know my full opinion in the matter of the supremacy, for the great affiance he had in me more than any other; and farther, that the king willed him to assure me on his honour, and on the word of a king, that whatever I should say unto him by this his secret messenger, I should abide no danger nor peril for it, nor that any advantage should be taken against me for the same. Now, therefore, my lords,” concludes he, “seeing it pleased the king’s majesty, to send to me thus secretly under the pretence of plain and true meaning, to know my poor advice and opinion in these his weighty and great affairs, which I most gladly was, and ever will be, willing to send him; inethinks, it is very hard and unjust to hear the messenger’s accusation, and to allow the same as a sufficient testimony against me in case of treason” Hard and unjust it unquestionably was, but suitable enough to the temper of the king, who was not subject to scruples; and his will, unfortunately, was a law. June 22, early in the morning, he received the news of his execution that day; and when he was getting up, he caused himself to be dressed in a neater and finer manner than usual; at which his man expressing much wonder, seeing he must put it all off again within two hours, and lose it “What of that,” said the bishop “does thou not mark, that this is our marriageday, and that it behoves us therefore to use more cleanliness for solemnity of the marriage sake” He was beheaded about ten o'clock, aged almost 77 and his head was fixed over London-bridge the next day.

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

, an English Jesuit of the seventeenth century, whose true name was Piercy, was born in Yorkshire, and admitted in the English college at Rome, whence he removed to Louvaine, and became a Jesuit in 1594. Afterwards he was sent on a mission to England, and laboured several years in endeavouring to make proselytes, until he was imprisoned and banished. Those of his order then made him professor of divinity at Louvaine, and vice-provincial of the English Jesuits. Returning thence to England, he made a considerable figure in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. in various controversies and conferences with some noted divines of the church of England. His most remarkable conference was with Dr. Francis White, dean of Carlisle, and afterwards bishop of Norwich, which was held in the king’s presence in 1622, at three different times, at the request of the duke of Buckingham, on account of his duchess being a Roman catholic. At the conclusion of these conferences, king James desired Fisher to return an answer to nine points, proposed by his majesty, which Fisher did in writing, except an article concerning the supremacy, about which he desired to he excused. He had conferences also with Laud, Featley, and othrrs. He was alive in 1641, but how long afterwards we do not find. He published 1. “A Treatise of Faith,” Lond. 1600, and St. Omers, 1614. 2. “A Defence of the preceding against Wooton and White,” St. Omers, 1612. 3. “A Challenge to Protestants; to shew the succession of their pastors, from Christ down,” ibid. 1612. 4. “An Answer to nine points of Controversy proposed by king James I. with the censure of Mr. White’s reply,” 1625, 4to. In answer to him were published, 1. “The Romish Fisher caught in his own net,” by Dr. Featley, Lond. 1624, 4to. 2. Two other pamphlets by the same. 3. “A Conference between bishop Laud and Fisher,” ibid. 1639, by Laud. 4. “Reply to the relation, of the conference between Laud and Fisher,” by an anonymous author, 1640, 4to. 5. “Reply to Fisher’s answer to some questions propounded by king James,” 1624, by Francis White. 6. “Orthodox faith and the way to the church explained,” by the same, 1617. 7. “Fisher’s folly unfolded,” &c. by George Walker, 1624. 8. “Catalogus protestantium before Luther,” by George Webb, 1624, 4to. 9. “An answer to Mr. Fisher the Jesuit, &c. in a dialogue,” by Henry Rogers, 1623. 10. “The Protestant church existent, and by whom their faith professed in all ages,” by the same, 1638, 4to. 11. “A Dialogue about this question, Where was your church before Luther?” by C. W. 1623.

, bishop of Rochester, Chichester, and London, and a distinguished benefactor to Merton college, Oxford, was a native of a good family in Somersetshire. About 1459 he went to Oxford, and in 1465 was elected probationer fellow of Merton college, and when M. A. entered into holy orders, and in 1473 served the office of proctor. In March 1474 he became prebend of Taunton in the church of Wells, and when appointed chaplain to Edward IV. took his degrees in divinity. In March 1482 he was elected warden of Merton college, which office he retained for twenty-five years, during which he greatly advanced the credit and prosperity of the college, built the whole of what is now the ancient part of it, and made considerable additions to the fine chapel. In March 1484-5 he was made vicar of Minehead, and about the same time rector of Aller in Somersetshire. In June 1495 he was admitted almoner to Henry VII, and in May 1469 consecrated bishop of Rochester, from which, in Jan. 1503, he was translated to Chichester, and in March 1505 was again translated to the see of London. On this last preferment he resigned his wardenship of Merton, which he had hitherto held in commendam with Rochester and Chichester. While bishop of London, he was a munificent contributor to the cathedral church, and is also on record as a great benefactor to the completion of St. Mary’s church, Oxford. Along with his brother, sir John Fitzjames, lord chief justice of England, he founded the school at Bruton, in Somersetshire. He died in 1522, very aged, and was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral.

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

, patriarch of Constantinople in the fifth cen tury, succeeded Proclus in that dignity, in the year 447; and although Chrysaphius, favourite of the younger Theodosius, wished to drive him from his see, Flavian despised his menaces. In his time arose the Eutychian heresy, which he condemned in a synod held ut Constantinople. But the partizans of Eutyches condemned and deposed Flavian in the year 449, in the council called “Latrocinium Ephesinnm,” or “Conventus Latronum,” the “Assembly of Robbers.” Dioscurus bishop ol Alexandria, was placed at the head of this council by Tlicodosius, who carried matters with such violence, that Flavian was personally mal-treated, publicly scourged, and banished to Hypacpa, in Lydia, where he died soon after, in consequence of this scandalous usage. Before his death he appealed to Leo, and this appeal produced another council, in which Eutyches was condemned, and the savage Dioscorus deposed. Flavian was the author of “Two Letters” to pope Leo, which are printed in the fourth volume of the “Collectio Conciliorum,” and of a “Declaration of Faith delivered to the emperor Theodosius.”

, the celebrated bishop of Nismes, distinguished equally for elegant learning, abilities, and exemplary piety, was born June 10, 1632, at Perne, near Avignon, in Provence, and educated in the study of literature and virtue under his uncle Hercules AudifiTret. After the death of this relation, who was principal of the congregation styled De la Doctrine Chretienne, he appeared at Paris, about 1659, where he was soon distinguished as a man of genius, and an able preacher. A description of a carousal, in Latin verse, which, notwithstanding the difficulty of a subject unknown to the ancients, was pure and classical, first attracted the public admiration. It was published in 1669, in folio, and entitled “Cursus Regius,” and has since been included in his miscellaneous works. His funeral orations completed the fame which his sermons had begun. He had pronounced one at Narbonne, in 1659, when professor of rhetoric there, on the bishop of that city, but this is not extant. The first of those that are published, was delivered in 1672, at the funeral of madam de Montausier, whose husband had become his patron and friend. He soon rose to be the rival of Bossuet in this species of eloquence. His oration on mareschal Turenne, pronounced in 1676, is esteemed the most perfect of these productions; it excited at once the liveliest regret for the deceased hero, and the highest admiration of the orator. The last oration in the collection must have agitated his feelings as well as exercised his talents, for it was in honour of his well-tried friend the duke of Montausier, who died in 1690. In 1679 he published his history of the emperor Theodosius the Great, the ouly part that was ever executed, of a plan to instruct the dauphin, by writing for him the lives of the greatest Christian princes. The king, after having testified his regard for him by giving him the abbey of S. iSeverin, and the office of almoner in ordinary to the dauphin, promoted him in 1685 to the see of Lavaur, saying to him at the same time, < Be not surprised that I so Jong delayed to reward your merit; I was afraid of losing the pleasure of hearing your discourses.“Two years after, he was made bishop of Nismes. In his diocese he was no less remarkable for the mildness and indulgence by which he drew hack several protestants to his church, than for his general charity, and attention to the necessities of the unfortunate of all descriptions. At the time of a famine, in 1709, his charity was unbounded, and was extended to persons of all persuasions; and his modesty was at all times equal to his benevolence. Numbers were relieved by him, without knowing the source of their good fortune. His father had been a tallowchandler; but Flechier had too much real greatness of mind to conceal the humbleness of his origin: and, being once insolently reproached on that subject, he had the spirit to reply,” I fancy, sir, from your sentiments, if you had been so born, you would, have made candles still.“It is said that he had a presentiment of his death by means of a dream; in consequence of which, he employed an artist to design a monument for him, wishing to have one that was modest and plain, not such as vanity or gratitude might think it necessary to erect. He urged the artist to execute this design before his death, which happened Feb. 16, 1710.” He died,“says d'Alembert,” lamented by the catholics, regretted by the protestants, having always exhibited to his brethren an excellent model of zeal and charity, simplicity and eloquence."

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

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

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

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

We have already mentioned ten publications of this author, besides occasional sermons, of which he published many that were very excellent. There remain yet to be mentioned some pieces of a smaller kind; as, II. “The Counsellor’s Plea for the Divorce of sir G. D. (Downing) and Mrs. F.” 1715. This relates to an affair which was brought before -the house of lords. 12. “Papists not excluded from the Throne upon the account of Religion. Being a vindication of the right reverend lord bishop of Ban go r' a Preservative, &c. in that particular. In a short Dialogue,” 1717. 13. “A Letter from Mr. T. Burdett, who was executed at Tyburn for the murder of capt. Falkner, to some attorneys’ clerks of his acquaintance; written six days before his execution,” 1717. 14. “A Letter td an Inhabitant of the Parish of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, about new ceremonies in the church,” 1717. 15. “A Defence of Praying before Sermon, as directed 'by the 55th canon.” All these were published without his name. The indefatigable labours of this prelate brought him at length into a bad state of health, which made life troublesome to him a good while before his death. He died at Tottenham, in Middlesex, whither he had retired for the benefit of the air, Aug. 4, 1723 and was interred in the cathedral church of Ely, where a monument was erected to him by his lady, who did not long survive him. He left behind him an only son, Dr. Charles Fleetwood, who inherited his paternal estate in Lancashire; and had been presented a few years before by his father, as bishop of Ely, to the great rectory of Cottenham, in Cambridgeshire, which he did not long enjoy.

Bishop Fleetwood’s character was great in every respect. His virtue was not of the fanatical kind, nor was his piety the least tinctured with superstition; yet he cultivated and practised both to perfection. As for his accomplishments, he was inconteslibly the best preacher of his time; and for occasional sermons, may be considered as a model. He was also very learned, but chiefly distinguished as an antiquary. Dr. Hickes acknowledges him as an encourager of his great work entitled “Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus,” and Mr. Hearne often confesses himself much obliged by many singular instances of his friendship. In the “Richardsoniana,” are two anecdotes of bishop Fleetwood, which we shall not copy, because we doubt their authenticity. If true, they would prove that the religious opinions of our prelate were extremely lax."

, a dissenting minister, and zealous Socinian, was born at Nottingham in 1698, where he was educated and brought up to trade, after which he studied at Warrington, with a view to enter into the ministry among the dissenters. His proficiency and talents being known to Dr. Thomas, bishop of Winchester, he offered him a living to enter into the church, but this he declined, as inconsistent with the opinions he had formed, and was chosen preacher of a congregation in Bartholomew-close, London, where he continued until 1752. He then became assistant to Dr. James Foster, at Pinners’ -hall, whom he succeeded, and remained sole pastor of that congregation as long as he was able to execute the duties of his office. He died in 1779. Few people, says Dr. Kippis, have written a greater number of pamphlets, some of which being published without his name, were but little noticed by the world; and none of them, we may add, a're now in request. There are, says the same author, instances in which he was singular, not to say whimsical, in his positions. His writings might have been more generally acceptable and useful, if they had been free from a certain quaintness and obscurity of style. Aiming at originality and strength of expression, he often lost perspicuity, and never attained to elegance. The doctor adds, that he was a determined enemy to civil and ecclesiastical tyranny, and a very zealous Socinian.

Whatever disappointment he might feel in not succeeding to the archbishopric of York, it does not appear to have interfered with his generous design of founding a college; but his full intentions were frustrated by his death, which took place at Sleford, Jan. 25, 1430-31. He was interred in Lincoln cathedral, where a tomb was erected with a long epitaph in monkish rhime, some part of which was written by himself. The only information it conveys is, that the pr>pe consecrated him bishop of Lincoln with his own hand. In 1427 he obtained the royal licence to found a college or society of one warden or rector, seven, scholars, and two chaplains, in the church of All Saints in Oxford, which was then under his own patronage as bishop of Lincoln; and to unite, annex, and incorporate that church with the churches of St. Mildred and St. Michael, at the north-gate, which were likewise in his gift, and these churches, so united, were to be named the church of All Saints, and erected into a collegiate church or college. A certain chantry in the chapel of St. Anne, within the said church, was to be annexed, under thje patronage of the mayors of Oxford, provided that daily mass, &c. was duly performed in the chapel for the souls of the founder and others. There were also to be two chaplains, elected and removeable at the pleasure of the rector, who were to officiate in the said church with the cure of souls. The college was to be called, the College of the Blessed Virgin Mary and All Saints Lincoln, in the university of Oxford. The rector and scholars were also to be perpetual parsons of the said church, and were empowered to purchase lands, rents, and possessions, to the yearly value of ten pounds. This licence was dated Oct. 12, 1427. The founder then employed John Baysham, Nicholas Wynbush, and William Chamherlayn, clerks (who were intended to be of the number of his scholars), to purchase ground for the erection of buildings. The first purchase they made was a tenement called Deep Hall, situated in St. Mildred’s lane, between St. Mildred’s church on the west, and a garden on the east; but the founder’s death interrupting their progress, the society resided in Deep Hall, as it stood, maintained by the revenues of the churches above-mentioned, and the money left by the founder. They had as yet, however, no fixed statutes for their government, and were kept together merely at the discretion of the rectors, whose judicious conduct, joined to the utility of the institution, induced some benefactors to augment their revenues by gifts of lands and money. Among these were, John Forest, dean of Wells, who about 1437 built the chapel, library, hall, and kitchen, John Southam, archdeacon of Oxford, William Findarne,esq. cardinal Beaufort, and John Buketot; and these were followed by one who has been allowed to share the honours of foundership, Thomas Rotheram, bishop of Lincoln, of whom some account will be given, hereafter.

, nephew to the preceding, was educated at Oxford, and probably in Lincoln college, then newly founded by his uncle. On Jan. 21, 1451, he was admitted dean of Lincoln, being much admired for his learning. He afterwards went to Italy, and visited the principal universities; and among other eminent men, he attended the lectures of the celebrated orator and poet Baptista Guarini, professor of the Greek and Latin languages at Ferrara. From this place he went to Rome, >vhere he remained a year or two, and became acquainted with several learned men, particularly Earth. Platina, librarian of the Vatican. He became also known to pope Sixtus IV, in whose praise, during a summer’s recess at Tibur, or Tivoli, he composed a Latin poem in two books inscribed to his holiness; who was so pleased with it, that he made the author his protonotary. Of this poem, entitled “Lucubrationes Tiburtinae,” we have only a few verses quoted by Leland, and praised by him for the style. At his return from Italy, he brought over with him several books curiously illuminated, which he bequeathed to Lincoln college library, with some of his own composition, among which Leland, Bale, and Pits mention “Dictionarium Graeco-Latinum;” “Carolina diversi generis,” and “Epistolarum ad diversos, liber unus.” On Sept. 27, 1467, he was installed into the prebend of Leigh ton -man or, in the cathedral church of Lincoln, which he exchanged, Dec. 3, 1478, for that of Leighton-Bosard; and he fotmded in this cathedral, a chantry for two chaplains. This learned man died Aug. 12, 1483, and was buried near bishop Flemming, his relation.

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

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