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

, the late amiable and exemplary bishop of Norwich, was born Nov. 1, 1730, at Otham, near Maidstone, in Kent, where his father, the rev. Samuel Home, was rector. Of four sons and three daughters he was the second son; and his education was commenced at home under the instruction of his father. At thirteen, having made a good proficiency, he was sent to school at Maidstone, under the rev. Deodatus Bye, a man of good principles; and at little more than fifteen, being elected to a Maidstone scholarship at University college, Oxford, he went there to reside. He was so much approved at his college, that about the time when he took his bachelor’s degree, which was Oct. 27, 1749, in consequence of a strong recommendation from that place, he was elected to" a Kentish fellowship at Magdalen. On June 1, 1752, he took his master’s degree, and on Trinity Sunday, in the year following, he was ordained by the bishop of Oxford, and soon after preached his first sermon for his friend and biographer, Mr. Jones, at Finedon, in Northamptonshire. A short time after he preached in London with such success, that a person, eminent himself for the same talent, pronounced him, without exception, the best preacher in England.

At the early age of nineteen, Mr. Home had imbibed a very favourable opinion of the sentiments of Mr. Hutchinson; which he afterwards adopted and disseminated without disguise. Supported by the learning and zeal of his friends, Mr. Watson of University college, Dr. Hodges, provost of Oriel, and Dr. Patten, of Corpus, he ably vindicated his principles against the intemperate invectives to which their novelty exposed them. That part indeed of the Hutchinsonian controversy which relates to Hebrew etymology was discountenanced by Mr. Home as, in a great measure, fanciful and arbitrary. He considered it of infinitely more importance to be employed in investigating facts than to be disputing about verbal criticisms. The principles of Mr. Hutchinson beginning to extend their influence in the university, in 1756 a bold attack was made upon them in an anonymous pamphlet, entitled “A Word to the Hutchinsonians.” Mr. Home, considering himself more particularly called upon for a defence, as being personally aimed at in the animadversions, produced an Apology, which has been universally admired for in temper, learning, and good sense. The question agitated seems rather to involve the very essense of religion, than to concern Mr. Hutchinson or his principles. The pamphlet was attributed by the public in general, and Mr. Home in particular, to Mr. Kennicott, of Exeter college; a man who had distinguished himself by an accurate acquaintance with the Hebrew, and two masterly dissertations, one on the Tree of Life, the other on the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel.

After his Apology, Mr. Home took an active part in the controversy with Mr. Kennicott on the propriety of collating the text of the Hebrew Bible with such manuscripts as could then be procured, in order to reform the text, and prepare it for a new translation into the English language. Mr. Home strongly objected to the proposal, from a persuasion, among other serious reasons, that the wide principle upon which it was to be conducted might endanger the interest of genuine Christianity, He conceived that the unsound criticism to which the text would be liable by this measure, might afford some additional pretexts for the sceptical cavils of those, who, with affectation of superior learning, had already shewn themselves active in discovering imaginary corruptions. Whatever, in these speculative points, the opinions of Mr. Home might be, he was esteemed both now and throughout his life, a good and valuable -man, a sincere Christian in thought and in action, and in all respects worthy of the preferment he obtained. About 1756, he had planned and begun to execute his “Commentary on the Psalms,” which he did not complete and publish till twenty years after. It was a work in which he always proceeded with pleasure, and on which he delighted to dwell and meditate. Soon after the publication of this valuable work, Dr. Home, feeling much concern at the progress of infidelity, to which the writings of Mr. Hume seemed in no small degree to contribute, endeavoured to undeceive the world with respect to the pretended cheerfulness and tranquillity of the last moments of this unbelieving philosopher. He addressed an anonymous “Letter to Dr. Adam Smith,” in which, with clear and sound argument, and the most perfect natural good humour, he overthrows the artificial account givefn in Mr. Hume’s life, by allusions to certain well-founded anecdotes concerning him, which are totally inconsistent with it.

In 1784 this Letter was followed by his “Letters on Infidelity;” which abound with instruction and entertainment, and are exceedingly well adapted both to arm the minds of youth against the dangerous tendency of philosophizing infidelity, and to counteract any impression, which its specious garb and licentious easy temper may have already made. The unsoundness of Mr. Hume’s opinions, and the futility of his arguments, are displayed in so happy a strain of ridicule, that none, says one of his biographers, “but an unbeliever can be angry, or even feel displeased.” The latter part of these Letters is employed in attempting to shew the fallacy of some miscellaneous objections against Christianity, brought forward by a more modern advocate for infidelity.

The character and conduct of Mr. Home were so much approved in the college to which he belonged, that on a vacancy happening in 1768, he was elected to the high office of president of that society. Nearly at the same time he married the daughter, of Philip Burton, esq. of Eltham, in Kent, by whom he had three. daughters. The public situation ‘of Mr. Home now made it proper for hint to proceed to the degree of doctor in divinity; and he was also appointed one of the chapla-ins to the king. In 1776 Dr. Home was elected vice chancellor of the university of Oxford, which office he held for the customary period of four years. In this situation he became known to lord North, the chancellor, and this, it is probable, prepared the way to his subsequent elevation. In 1781, the very year after the expiration of his office of vice-chancellor, he was made dean of Canterbury, and’ would williogly have relinquished his cares at Oxford, to reside altogether in. his native county of Kent; but he yielded to the judgment of a prudent friend who advised him. to retain his situation at Magdalen. In 1789, on the translation of bishop Bagot to St. Asaph, Dr. Home was advanced to the episcopal dignity, and succeeded him in the see of Norwich. Unhappily, though he was no more than fifty-nine, he had already begun to suffer much from infirmities. “Alas!” said he, observing the large flight of steps which lead into the palace of Norwich, “I am come to these steps at a time of life when I can neither go up them nor down them with safety.” It happened consequently, that the church could not long be benefited by his piety and zeal. Even the charge which he composed for his primary visitation at Norwich, he was unable to deliver, and it was printed “as intended to have been delivered.” From two visits to Bath he had received sensible benefit, and was meditating a third in the autumn of 179 I, which he had been requested not to delay too long. He did, however, delay it too long, and was visited by a paralytic stroke on the road to that place. He completed his journey, though very ill; and for a short time was so far recovered as to walk daily to the pump-room; but the hopes of his friends and family were of short duration, for, on the 17th of January, 1792, in the sixty-second year of his age, his death afforded an edifying example of Christian resignation and hope; and he was buried at Eltham in Kent, with a commendatory but very just epitaph, which is also put up in the cathedral at Norwich.

It cannot often fall to the lot of the biographer to record a man so blameless in character and conduct as bishop Home. Whatever might be his peculiar opinions on some points, he was undoubtedly a sincere and exemplary Christian; and as a scholar, a writer, and a preacher, a man of no ordinary qualifications. The cheerfulness of his disposition is often marked by the vivacity of his writings, and the sincerity of his heart is every where conspicuous in them. So far was he from any tincture of covetousness, that he laid up nothing from his preferments in the church. If he was no loser at the year’s end he was perfectly satisfied. What he gave away was bestowed with so much secrecy, that it was supposed by some persons to be little; but, after his death, when the pensioners, to whom he had been a constant benefactor, rose up to look about them for some other support, it began to be known who, and how many they were.

The works of bishop Home amount to a good many articles, which we shall notice in chronological order: 1. <( The Theology and Philosophy in Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis explained; or a brief attempt to demonstrate that the Newtonian system is perfectly agreeable to the notions of the wisest antients, and that mathematical principles are the only sure ones,“Lond. 1751, 8vo. 2.” A fair, candid, and impartial state of the Case between sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Hutchinson,“&c. Oxford, 1753, 8vo. 3.” Spicilegium Shuckfordianum or a nosegay for the critics,“&c. Lond. 1754, 12mo. 4.” Christ and the Holy Ghost the supporters of the Spiritual Life,“&c. two sermons preached before the university of Oxford, 1755, 8vo. 5.” The Almighty justified in Judgment,“a sermon, 1756. 6.” An Apology for certain gentlemen in the university of Oxford, aspersed in a late anonymous Pamphlet,“1756, 8vo. 7.” A view of Mr. Kennicott’s method of correcting the Hebrew Text,“&c. Oxford, 1760, 8vo. 8.” Considerations on the Life and Death of St. John the Baptist,“Oxford, 1772, 8vo. This pleasing tract contained the substance of several sermons preached annually at Magdalen-college, in Oxford, the course of which had commenced in 1755. A second edition in 12mo, was published at Oxford in 1777. 9.” Considerations on the projected Reformation of the Church of England. In a letter to the right hon. lord North. By a clergyman,“London, 1772, 4to. 10.” A Commentary on the Book of Psalms,“&c. &c. Oxford, 1776, 2 vols, 4to. Reprinted in 8vo, in 1778, and three times since. With what satisfaction this good man composed this pious work, may best be judged frora, the following passage in his preface. * Could the author flatter himself that any one would have half the pleasure in reading the following exposition, which he hath had in writing it, he would not fear the loss of his labour. The employment detached him from the bustle and hurry of life, the din of politics, and the noise of folly. Vanity and vexation fiew away for a season, care and disquietude came not near his dwelling. He arose fresh as the morning to his task; the silence of the night invited him to pursue it; and he can truly say that food and rest were not preferred before it. Every psalm improved infinitely on his acquaintance with it, and no one gave him uneasiness but the last; for then he grieved that his work was done. Happier hours than those which have been spent in these meditations on the songs of Sion he never expects to see in this world. Very pleasantly did they pass, and move smoothly and swiftly along foi; when thus engaged he counted no time. They are gone, but have left a relish and a fragrance on the mind, and the remembrance of them is sweet.” 11. “A Letter to Adam Smith, LL. D. on the Life, Death, and Philosophy of David Hume, esq. By one” of the people called Christians,“Oxford, 1777, 12mo, 12.” Discourses on several subjects and occasions,“Oxford, 1779, 2 vols. 8vo. These sermons have gone through five editions. 13.” Letters on Infidelity,“Oxford, 1784, 12mo. 14” The Duty of contending for the Faith,“Jude, Ver. 3. preached at the primary visitation of the most reverend John lord archbishop of Canterbury, July 1, 1786. To which is subjoined, a” Discourse on the Trinity in Unity, Matth. xxviii. 19.“1786, 4to. These sermons, with fourteen others preached on particular occasions, and all published separately, were collected into one volume, 8vo, at Oxford, in 17y5. The two have also been published in 12mo, by the society for promoting Christian knowledge, and are among the books distributed by that society. 15.” A letter to the rev. Dr. Priestley, by an Undergraduate,“Oxford, 1787. 16.” Observations on the Case of the Protestant Dissenters, with reference to the Corporation and Test Acts,“Oxford, 1790, 8vo. 17.” Charge intended to have been delivered to the Clergy of Norwich, at the primary visitation,“1791, 4to. l. * Discourses on several subjects and occasions,” Oxford, 1794, 8vo, vols. 3 and 4; a posthumous publication. Ttyc four volumes have since been reprinted in an uniform edition; and lately an uniform edition of these and his other works, with his life, by Mr. Jones, has been printed in 6 vols. 8vo. Besides these, might be enumerated several occasional papers in different periodical publications, but particularly the papers signed Z. in the " Olla Podrida,‘-’ a periodical work, conducted by Mr. T. Monro, then bachelor of arts, and a demy of Magdalen college, Oxford.

, an English divine, was born at Baccharack, a town in the Lower Palatinate, in 1641. His father was recorder or secretary of that town, a strict protestant; and the doctor was brought up in the same manner, though some, we find, asserted that he was originally a papist. He was designed for the sacred ministry from his birth, and first sent to Heidelberg, where he studied divinity under Spanheim, afterwards professor at Leyden. When he was nineteen he came over to England, and was entered of Queen’s college, in Oxford, Dec. 1663; of which, by the interest of Barlow, the provost of that college, and afterwards bishop of Lincoln, he was made chaplain soon after his admission. He was incorporated M. A. from the university of Wittemberg, Dec. 1663; and not long after made vicar of All Saints, in Oxford, a living in the gift of Lincoln-college. Here he < ontinued two years, and was then taken into the family of the duke of Albemarle, in quality of tutor to his son lord Torrington. The duke presented him to the rectory of Doulton, in Devonshire, aud procured him also a prebend in the church of Exeter. In 1669, before he married, he went over into Germany to see his friends, where he was much admired as a preacher, and was entertained with great respect at the court of the elector Palatine. At his return in 1671, he was chosen preacher in the Savoyj where he continued to officiate till he died. This, however, was but poor maintenance, the salary being small as well as precarious, and be continued in mean circumstances for some years, after the revolution; till, as his. biographer, bishop Kidder, says, it pleased God to raise up a friend who concerned himself on his behalf, namely, the lord admiral Russel, afterwards earl of Orford. Before he went to sea, lord Russel waited on the queen to take leave and when he was with her, begged of her that she “would be pleased to bestow some preferment on Dr. Horneck.” The queen told him, that she “could not at present think of any way of preferring the doctor” and with this answer the admiral was dismissed. Some time after, the queen related what had passed to archbishop Tillotson; and added, that she “was anxious lest the ad-, miral should think her too unconcerned on the doctor’s behalf.” Consulting with him therefore what was to be done, Tillotson advised her to promise him the next prebend of Westminster that should happen to become void. This the queen did, and lived to make good her word in 1693. In 1681 he had commenced D. D. at Cambridge, and was afterwards made chaplain to king William and queen Mary. His prebend at Exeter lying at a great distance from him, he resigned it; and in Sept. 1694 was admitted to a prebend in the church of Wells, to which he was presented by his friend Dr. Kidder, bishop of Bath and Wells. It was no very profitable thing; and if it had been, he would have enjoyed but little of it, since he died so soon after as Jan. 1696, in his fifty-sixth year. His body being opened, it appeared that both his ureters were stopped; the one by a stone that entered the top of the ureter with a sharp end; the upper part of which was thick, and much too large to enter any farther; the other by stones of much less firmness and consistence. He was interred in Westminster-abbey, where a monument, with an handsome inscription upon it, was erected to his memory. He was, says Kidder, a man of very good learning, and had goou skill in the languages. He had applied himself to the Arabic from his youth, and retained it to his death. He had great skill in the Hebrew likewise nor was his skilllimited to the Biblical Hebrew only, but he was also a great master in the Rabbinical. He was a most diligent and indefatigable reader of the Scriptures in the original languages: “Sacras literas tractavit indefesso studio,” says his tutor Spanheiui of him: and adds, that he was then of an elevated wit, of which he gave a specimen in 1655, by publicly defending “A Dissertation upon the Vow of Jephthah concerning the sacrifice of his daughter.” He had great skill in ecclesiastical history, in controversial and casuistical divinity; and it is said, that few men were so frequently consulted in cases of conscience as Dr. Horneck. As to his pastoral care in all its branches, he is set forth as one of the greatest examples that ever lived. “He had the zeal, the spirit, the courage, of John the Baptist,” says Kidder, “and durst reprove a great man; and perhaps that man lived not, that was more conscientious in this matter. I very well knew a great man,” says the bishop, “and peer of the realm, from whom ne had just expectations of preferment; but this was so far from stopping his mouth, that he reproved him to his face, upon a very critical affair. He missed of his preferment, indeed, but saved his own soul. This freedom,” continues the bishop, “made his acquaintance and friendship very desirable by every good man, that would be better. He would in him be very sure of a friend, that would not suffer sin upon him. I may say of him what Pliny says of Corellius Rufus, whose death he laments, “amisi meæ vitæ testem,' &c. ‘I have lost a faithful witness of my life;’ and may add what he said upon that occasion to his friend Calvisius, ‘vereor ne negligentius vivam,’ ‘I am afraid lest for the time to come I should live more carelessly.’” His original works are, 1.” The great Law of Consideration: or, a discourse wherein the nature, usefulness, and absolute necessity of consideration, in order to a truly serious and religious life, are laid open,“London, 1676, 8vo, which has been several times reprinted with additions and corrections. 2.” A letter to a lady revolted to the Romish church,“London, 1678, 12mo. 3.” The happy Ascetick: or the best Exercise,“London, 1681, 8vo. To this is subjoined,” A letter to a person of quality concerning the holy lives of the primitive Christians.“4.” Delight and Judgment: or a prospect of the great day of Judgment, and its power to damp and imbitter sensual delights, sports, and recreations,“London, 1683, 12mo. 5.” The Fire of the Altar: or certain directions how to raise the soul into holy flames, before, at, and after the receiving of the blessed Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper with suitable prayers and devotions,“London, 1683, 12mo. To this is prefixed,” A Dialogue between a Christian and his own Conscience, touching the true nature of the Christian Religion.“6.” The Exercise of Prayer; or a help to devotion; being a supplement to the Happy Ascetick, or best exercise, containing prayers and devotions suitable to the respective exercises, with additional prayers for several occasions,“London, 1685, 8vo. 7.” The first fruits of Reason: or, a discouse shewing the necessity of applying ourselves betimes to the serious practice of Religion,“London, 1685, 8vo. 8.” The Crucified Jesus: or a full account of the nature, end, design, and benefit of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, with necessary dU rections, prayers, praises, and meditations, to be used by persons who come to the holy communion,“London, 1686, 8vo. 9.” Questions and Answers concerning the two Religions; viz. that of the Church of England and of the Church of Rome.“10.” An Answer to the Soldier’s Question: What shall we do?“11, Several single Sermons. 12.” Fifteen Sermons upon the fifth chapter of St. Matthew," London, 1698, 8vo.

Besides these he translated out of German into English, “A wonderful story or narrative of certain Swedish writers,” printed in Glanvil’s “Sadducismus Triumphatus” in the second edition of which book is a “Preface to the wonderful story,” with an addition of a “new relation from Sweden,” translated by him out of German. He translated likewise from Frepch into English, “An Antidote against a careless indifferency in matters of Religion in. opposition to those who believe that all religions are alike, and that it imports not what men profess,” London, 1693, with an introduction written by himself. He collected and published “Some discourses, sermons, and remains of Mr. Joseph Glanvil,” in 1681. He wrote likewise, in conjunction with Dr. Gilbert Burnet, “The last Confession, Prayers, and Meditations, of Lieutenant John Stern, delivered by him on the cart, immediately before his execution, to Dr. Burnet: together with the last Confession of George Borosky, signed by him in the prison, and sealed up in the lieutenant’s pacquet. With which an account is given of their deportment, both in the prison, and at the place of their execution, which was in the Pall-mall, on. the 10th of March, in the same place in which they had murdered Thomas Thynne, esq. on the 12th of February before, in 1681.” This was published at London, in folio, 1682.

, an historian in the 17th century, was born in the Palatinate. He visited most of the countries in Europe; was tutor to Thomas Morgan, a young English gentleman who lived at the Hague; and appointed professor of history, politics, and geography, at Harderwick; afterwards professor of history at Leyden, where, having sustained a great loss by confiding in an alchemical impostor, he became deranged, and died in 1670. His principal works are, “An Ecclesiastical History,” with an introduction to the universal political history; a curious and instructive work, which has been translated into French, and continued to 1704. “The History of England, during the year 1645, and 1646,” Leyden, 1648, 8vo. “History of the Origin of the Americans,” Hague, 1652, 8vo. “History of Philosophy,” in seven books, 1655, 4to. An edition of “Sulpitius Severus,” with notes, 8vo. “Noah’s Ark,” or, A History of Monarchies. This work is full of curious inquiries into the origin of each monarchy, &c. The above are all in Latin.

, a celebrated Danish astronomer, and professor of that science at Copenhagen, was born at Laegsted, in Jutland, in 1679. He studied at Aalburg under very unfavourable circumstances, beingobliged, at the same period, to submit to various kinds of labour. In 1714, he was appointed professor of mathematics at Copenhagen, and in 1725 he was elected a member of the Danish academy of sciences. He died in 1764. He was author of many works connected with his favourite pursuits, among which were “Copernicus Trinmphans, sive de Parallaxi Orbis Annui;” in which he shews himself an enthusiast for the system of Copernicus; the “Elements of Astronomy;” and “the Elements of Mathematics;” but he is best known in this country by his “Natural History of Iceland,” fol. 1758. His mathematical works were published in four vols, 4to, Copenhagen, 1735, &c.

, an English astronomer, and memorable for being the first who had observed the passage of Venus over the sun’s disk, was born at Toxteth in Lancashire, about 1619. From a school in the country, where he acquired grammar-learning, he was sent to Emanuel-college in Cambridge, and there spent some time in academical studies. About 1633, he began with real earnestness to study astronomy: but living at that time with his father at Toxteth, in very moderate circumstances, and being destitute of' books and other assistances for the prosecution of this study, he could not make any considerable progress. He spent some of his first years in studying the writings of Lansbergius, of which he repented and complained afterwards; neglecting in the mean time the more valuable and profitable works of Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and other excellent astronomers. In 16^6, he contracted an acquaintance with Mr. William Crabtree of Broughton near Manchester, and was engaged in the same studies; but living at a considerable distance from each other, they could have little correspondence except by letters. These, however, they frequently exchanged, communicating their observations to one another; and they sometimes consulted Mr. Samuel Foster, professor of astronomy at Gresham-college in London. Horrox having now obtained a companion in his studies, assumed new spirits. Procuring astronomical instruments and books, he applied himself to make observations; and by Crabtree’s advice, laid aside Lansbergius, whose tables he found erroneous, and his hypotheses inconsistent. He was pursuing his studies with great vigour and success, when he was cut off by a sudden death, Jan. 3, 1640-1.

What we have of his writings is sufficient to shew, that his death was a loss to science. A little before that time he had finished his “Venus in Sole visa.” He made his observations upon this new and extraordinary phenomenon at Hool near Liverpool; but they did not appear till 1662, when Hevelius published them at Dantzick, with some works of his own, under this title, “Mercurius in Sole visus Gedani anno 1661, Maij 3, cum aliis quibusdam rerum ccelestium observationibus rarisque phienomenis. Cui annexa est Venus in Sole pariter visa anno 1639, Nov. 24, &c.” Besides this work he had begun another, in which he proposed, first, to refute Lansbergius’s hypotheses, and to shew, how inconsistent they were with each other and the heavens; and, secondly, to draw up a new system of astronomy, agreeably to the heavens, from his own observations and those of others; retaining for the most part the Keplerian hypotheses, but changing the numbers as, observations required. Wallis, from whose “Epistola Nuncupatoria” we have extracted these memoirs of Horrox, published some of his papers in 1673, under the title of “Opera Poathuma:” others were carried into Ireland by his brother Jonas Horrox, who had pursued the same studies, and died there, by which means they were lost: and others came into the hands of Mr. Jeremiah Shakerly, who, by the assistance of them, formed his “British Tables,” published at London in 1653: which last papers, after Shakerly’s voyage to the East-Indies, where he died, are said to have remained in the possession of a bookseller, till they were destroyed by the great fire at London in 1666.

, author of a very learned and excellent work, entitled, “Britannia Romana,” by which only he is known, is supposed to have been a native of Northumberland, where, at a village called Long-Horsley, near Morpeth, the family, in all probability, originated. This parent stock, if such it was, is now lost in the Witheringtons, by the marriage of the heiress of Long-Horsley, about the middle of this century, with a person of that name. We know only of two other branches; one settled in Yorkshire, the other in the West, from which latter, we understand the late learned bishop of St. Asaph to have sprung: but the branches have been so long separated, that they cannot trace their relationship to each other. John Horsley was educated in the public grammar-school at Newcastle, and afterwards in Scotland, where he took a degree; he was finally settled at Morpeth, and is said, in Hutchinson’s View of Northumberland, to have been pastor to a dissenting congregation in that place. The same author adds, from Randall’s manuscripts, that he died in 1732,­which was the same year in which his great work appeared; but the truth is, as we learn from the journals of the time, that he died Dec. 12, 1731, a short time before the publication of his book. He was a fellow of the royal society. A few letters from him to Roger Gale, esq. on antiquarian subjects, are inserted in Hutchinson’s book; they are all dated in 1729. His “Britannia Romana” gives a full and learned account of the remains and vestiges of the Romans in Britain. It is divided into three books; the first containing “the History of all the Roman Transactions in Britain, with an account of their legionary and auxiliary forces employed here, and a determination of the stations per lineam valli; also a large description of the Roman walls, with maps of the same, laid down from a geometrical survey.” The second book contains, “a complete collection of the Roman inscriptions and sculptures, which have hitherto been discovered in Britain, with the letters engraved in their proper shape, and proportionate size, and the reading placed under each; as also an historical account of them, with explanatory and critical observations.” The third book contains, “the Roman Geography of Britain, in which are given the originals of Ptolemy, Antonini Itinerarium, the Notitia, the anonymous Ravennas, and Peutinger’s Table, so far as they relate to this island, with particular essays on each of those ancient authors, and the several places in Britain mentioned by them,” with tables, indexes, &c. Such is the author’s own account in his title-page; and the learned of all countries have testified that the accuracy of the execution has equalled the excellence of the plan. The plates of this work were purchased of one of his descendants for twenty guineas by Dr. Giftbrd, for the British Museum, where is a copy of the work, with considerable additions by Dr. Ward.

, a very learned and highly distinguished prelate, was the son of the rev. John Horsley, M. A. who was many years clerk in orders a$ St. Martin’s in the Fields. His grandfather is said to have been at first a dissenter, but afterwards conformed, and had the living of St. Martin’s in the Fields. This last circumstance, however, must be erroneous, as no such name occurs in the list of the vicars of that church. His father was in 1745 presented to the rectory of Thorley in Hertfordshire, where he resided constantly, and was a considerable benefactor to the parsonage. He also held the rectory of Newington Butts, in Surrey, a peculiar belonging to the bishop of Worcester By his first wife, Anne, daughter of Dr. Hamilton, principal of the college of Edinburgh, he had only one son, the subject of the present article, who was born in his father’s residence in St. Martin’s church-yard, in Oct. 1733. By his second wife, Mary, daughter of George Leslie, esq. of Kimragie in Scotland, he had three sons and four daughters, who were all born at Thorley. He died in 1777, aged seventy-eight; and his widow in 1787, at Nasing in Essex.

Samuel was educated in his early years chiefly by his father, and we are assured, never was at Westminster school, as has been asserted; but of this and the other transactions of his youth, his studies, and early character, we have very few particulars that can be depended on, and have failed in obtaining information on these subjects from the only quarter whence it could have been expected. It is certain, however, that he was entered of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, where it is easy to conceive that he was an industrious student, applying himself much to the study of mathematics, and storing his mind with the writings of the ancient and modern divines and logicians. Why with such qualifications he took no degree in arts, cannot now be ascertained. We find only that he took that of LL. B. in 1758, and became his father’s curate at Newington, to which living he succeeded, on the resignation of his father, in the following year, and held it till his translation to the see of Rochester in 1793.

In April 1767, he was elected a fellow of the royal society, of which he continued for many years an active member; and in the same year he published a pamphlet, entitled “The power of God, deduced from the computable instantaneous productions of it in the Solar System,” 8vo. This he allows to be a “very singular, and perhaps a whimsical speculation,” and says, in language not uncharacteristic of his future style, that in all probability this production would “roll down the gutter of time, forgotten and neglected.” His object was undoubtedly to display the wonderful power of God; but it was thought that he magnified omnipotent power at the expence of omniscient wisdom, and instead of supposing that the planets continue for ever to perform their courses, in consequence of the almighty ^/zfl, and original impulse impressed upon them, when first they were drawn out of chaos, he maintains the necessity of a new force every instant to preserve the system in motion.

In 1768 he went to Christ church, Oxford, as private tutor to Heneage earl of Aylesbury, then lord Guernsey. To this university he appears to have become attached; and his first mathematical publication was elegantly printed at the Clarendon press, “Apollonii Pergaci inclinationum libri duo. Resthuebat S. Horsley,” 1770. This work was criticised with some severity at the time, but does not appear to have injured his rising reputation, especially wnh the members of the royal society, who chose him to the office of secretary in November 1773. In 1774 he was incorporated B.C. L. at Oxford, and immediately proceeded to the degree of D. C. L. and was presented by his patron, the earl of Aylesbury, to the rectory of Aldbiiry in. Surrey, with which he obtained a dispensation to hold the rectory of Newington. In the same year he published “Remarks on the Observations made in the late Voyage towards the North Pole, for determining the acceleration, of the Pendulum, in latitude 79 51'. In a letter to the hon. Constantinefohn Phipps,” 4to. His intention in this pamphlet, which ought ever to be bound up with “Phipps’s Voyage,” is to correct two or three important errors and inaccuracies that had been introduced, by Israel Lyons, the mathematician employed on the voyage, in the numerous mathematical calculations which appear in that valuable work; and this it was acknowledged, was performed by our learned author with equal skill, delicacy, and candour. I>r. Horsley had long meditated a complete edition of the works of sir Isaac Newton, and in 1776 issued proposals for printing it, by subscription, in 5 vote. 4to, having obtained the royal permission to dedicate it to his majesty; but the commencement of it was for a considerable time delayed by severe domestic affliction, arising from the illness of his wife, for whom he had the tenderest regard. She died in the following year, and some time after, the works of Newton were put to press, but were not finally completed until 1785. In the mean time his great diligence and proficiency in various sciences attracted the notice of an excellent judge of literary merit, the late Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, who on his promotion to that see in 1777, appointed Dr. Horsley his domestic chaplain; and collated him to a prebend in St. Paul’s cathedral. He also, by the same interest, succeeded his father as clerk in orders at St. Martin’s in the Fields.

In 1778, during the controversy between Priestley, Price, and others, respecting materialism, and philosophical necessity, Dr. Horsley preached a sermon, on Good Friday, April 17, en-titled “Providence and free Agency,” 4to, in which he drew a very acute distinction between the philosophical necessity of our subtle moderns, and the predestination of their ancestors. It was evident he had an eye to the writings of Dr. Priestley in this discourse, but that polemic did not take any immediate notice of it. In 1779, Dr. Horsley resigned Aldbury, and in* 1780, bishop Lowth presented him to the living of Thorley, which he held, by dispensation, with Newington, but resigned the former on being appointed archdeacon of Essex, and, in 1782, vicar of South Weald in that county, both which he owed* to the same patron. In 1783, we find him deeply involved in a dispute with some of the members of the royal society, not worth reviving in a regular narrative; it is only to be regretted that it ended in his withdrawing himself from the society.

Dr. Horsley was now about to enter on that controversy with Dr. Priestley, in which he displayed his greatest learning and abilities, and on which his fame is irremoveably founded. In the year 1782 (we use Dr. Horsley’s words), an open and vehement attack was made by Dr. Priestley upon the creeds and established discipline of every church in Christendom, in a work in 2 vols. 8vo, entitled a “History of the Corruptions of Christianity.” At the head of these Dr. Priestley placed both the catholic doctrine of our Lord’s divinity, and the Arian notion of his pre-existence in a nature far superior to the human, representing the Socinian doctrine of his mere humanity, as the unanimous faith of the first Christians. It seemed to Dr. Horsley that the most effectual preservative against the intended mischief would be to destroy the writer’s credit, and the authority of his name, which the fame of certain lucky discoveries in the prosecution of physical experiments had set high in popular esteem, by a proof of his incompetency in every branch of literature connected with his present subject, of which the work itself afforded evident specimens in great abundance. For this declared purpose, a review of the imperfections of his work in the first part, relating to our Lord’s divinity, was made the subject of Dr. Horsley’s Charge, delivered to the clergy of the archdeaconry of St. Alban’s at a visitation held May 22, 1783, the spring next following Dr. Priestley’s publication. The specimens alledged by Dr. Horsley of the imperfections of the work, and the incompetency of the author, may be reduced to six general classes. 1. Instances of reasoning in a circle. 2, Instances of quotations misapplied through ignorance of the writer’s subject. 3. Instances of testimonies perverted by artful and forced constructions. 4. Instances of passages in the Greek Fathers misinterpreted through ignorance of the Greek language. 5. Instances of passages misinterpreted through the same ignorance, driven further out of the way by an ignorance of the Platonic philosophy; and 6. Instances of ignorance of the phraseology of the earliest ecclesiastical writers. Dr. Horsley concludes this masterly and argumentative Charge, by saying, “I feel no satisfaction in detecting the weaknesses of this learned writer’s argument, but what arises from a consciousness, that it is the discharge of some part of the duty which I owe to the church of God.” The whole of this charge affords a characteristic specimen of Dr. Horsley’s controversial style, with a mixture of temper leading him, perhaps, somewhat nearer the bounds of irony then became the solemnity of an address of this kind. After speaking of many things that may be perfectly obvious to the penetration of such a mind as Dr. Priestley’s, how absurd and contradictory and improbable soever they may appear to persons of plain sense and common understandings, unsubtilized by sophistry and metaphysics, and not stimulated by the love of paradox, he observes, that, to those who want the doctor’s sagacity, the “true meaning of an inspired writer” will not very readily be deemed “to be toe reverse of the natural and obvious sense of the expressions which he employs.”

Dr. Priestley, however, felt none of the alarm with which his admirers were affected. He promised an early and satisfactory answer. He predicted that he should rise more illustrious from his supposed defeat; he promised to strengthen the evidence of his favourite opinion by the very objections that had been raised against it; he seemed to flatter himself that he should find a new convert in his antagonist himself, and even hinted in print somewhat concerning the shame and remorse with which he was confident his adversary must be penetrated. From all this it soon became evident that Dr. Priestley, who could not but feel personally what every unprejudiced man felt argumentatively, that Dr. Horsley was an antagonist of no mean stamp, did not profit by this conviction so far as to take sufficient leisure to revise his own writings, but immediately repeated his former assertions respecting the doctrine of the Trinity not having been maintained by the Christian church in the first three centuries, in a publication entitled “Letters to Dr. Horsley, in answer to his animadversions on the ‘ History of the Corruptions of Christianity:’ with an additional evidence that the primitive Christian church was Unitarian,” 1783, 8vo. Irt this there are more of the weaknesses of argument, and the errors of haste, than could have been expected from one who had so much at stake, and it was therefore no very difficult task for Dr. Horsley to continue the contest, in the same epistolary form which his antagonist had adopted, by “Letters from the archdeacon of St. Alban’s in Reply to Dr. Priestley, with an Appendix, containing short strictures on Dr. Priestley’s Letters, by an unknown hand,” 1784, 8vo. These letters are seventeen in number, and their object is to prove that if Dr. Priestley’s mistakes which he pointed out, are few in number, tliey are too considerable in size to be incident to a well-informed writer; that they betray a want of such a general comprehension of the subject as might have enabled Dr. P. to draw the trne conclusions from the passages he cited; that they prove him incompetent in the very language of the writers from whom his proofs should be drawn, and unskilled in the philosophy whose doctrines he pretended to compare with the opinions of the church. These are serious charges, but our author did not confine himself merely to substantiate them, but followed up his numerous proofs by others in behalf 6f the doctrine of the Trinity, drawn from the early fathers of the church, and the best ecclesiastical historians. The display of reading and research in these letters is wonderful. The style also is admirable, and while it assumes the lofty and somewhat dictatorial manner peculiar to Dr. Horsley, and which indeed the high ground on which he stood in this case, seemed to justify, the reader of taste finds himself often charmed with the elegance of the language, and always with the closeness of the reasoning.

Dr. Priestley, in his letters, had expressed a great desire to draw Dr. Horsley into a tedious controversy on the main question, the article of our Lord’s divinity, but our author, knowing that question to have been long since exhausted, and that nothing new was to be said on either side, chose, in his “Letters in Reply,” to adhere closely to his own main question. He, therefore, as we have mentioned, defended his own argument, and collected new specimens from Dr. Priestley’s new publication, of his utter inability to throw light upon the subject. Thus a useless and endless contention on the main question was avoided but many discussions necessarily arose upon secondary points, which perhaps the learned reader will es- 1 teem the most interesting parts of the controversy, such as, the authority of the writings that go under the name of the apostolical Fathers the rise of the two sects of the Nazarenes and Ebionites; the difference between the two and the difference of both from the orthodox Hebrew Christians; and particularly an article on the accusation of Tritheism, which Dr. Priestley had brought against the Trinitarians of the seventeenth century. The “Short Strictures on Dr. Priestley” in the appendix to these Letters, it is now known, were written by Dr. Townson.

Dr. Priestley (we still use his antagonist’s words), mortified to find that his letters had failed of the expected success; that Dr. Horsley, touched with no shame, with no remorse, remained unshaken in his opinion; and that the authority of his own opinion was still set at nought, his learning disallowed, his ingenuity in argument impeached; and what was least to be borne finding that a haughty churchman ventured incidentally to avow his sentiments of the divine commission of the episcopal ministry, and presumed to question the authority of those teachers who usurp the preacher’s office without any better warrant than their own opinion of their own sufficiency, lost all temper. A second set of “Letters to the archdeacon of St. Alban’s” appeared in the autumn of 1784, in which all profession of personal regard and civility was laid aside. The charge of insufficiency in the subject was warmly retorted, and “the incorrigible dignitary” was taxed with manifest misrepresentation of his adversary’s argument; with injustice to the character of Origen, whose veracity he had called in question; and with the grossest falsification of ancient history. He was stigmatized in short as a “falsifier of history, and a defamer of the character of the dead.”

Regardless of this reproach, Dr. Horsley remained silent for eighteen months. A sermon “On the Incarnation,” preached in his parish church of St. Mary Newington, upon ttie feast of the Nativity in 1785, was the prelude to a renewal of the contest on his side, and was followed early in the ensuing spring, by his “Remarks on Dr. Priestley’s second Letters to the archdeacon of Saint Alban’s, with proofs of certain facts asserted by the archdeacon.” This tract consists of two parts; the first is a collection of new specimens of Dr. Priestley’s temerity in assertion; the second defends the attack upon the character of Origen, and proves the existence of a body of Hebrew Christians at JEYia. after the time of Adrian the fact upon which the author’s good faith had been so loudly arraigned by Dr. Priestley. With this publication Dr. Horsley promised himself that the controversy on his part would be closed. But at last he yielded, as he says, with some reluctance, to collect and republish what he had written in an octavo volume (printed in 1789) and took that opportunity to give Dr. Priestley’s Letters a second perusal, which produced not only many important notes, but some disquisitions of considerable length; and the remarks on Dr. Priestley’s second letters having produced a third set of “Letters” from him, upon the two questions of Origen’s veracity, and the orthodox Hebrews of the church of >Elia these two are partly answered in notes, and partly in two of the disquisitions. Towards the conclusion of Dr. Horsley' s “Remarks,” after exhibiting specimens of Drr Priestley’s incompetency to write on such subjects as fell within their controversy, he says, “These and many other glaring instances of unfinished criticism, weak argument, and unjustifiable art, to cover the weakness and supply the want of argument, which must strike every one who takes the trouble to look through those second letters, put me quite at ease with respect to the judgment which the public would be apt to form between my antagonist and me, and confirmed me in the resolution of making no reply to him, and of troubling the public no more upon the subject, except so far as might be necessary to establish some facts, which he hath- somewhat too peremptorily denied, and to vindicate my character from aspersions which he hath too inconsiderately thrown out.” It ought not to be forgot, that in this controversy Dr. Horsley derived not a little support from the Rev. Mr. Badcock, whose criticisms on Dr. Priestley’s works in the MonthJy Review left scarcely any thing unfinished that was necessary to prove his errors as a divine, and his incompetency as a historian.

The reputation Dr. Horsley had now acquired, recommended him to the patronage of the lord chancellor Thurlow, who presented him to a prebendal stall in the church of Gloucester; and in 1788, by the same interest, he was made bishop of St. David’s, and in this character answered the high expectations of eminent usefulness which his elevation, to the mitre so generally excited. As a bishop his conduct was exemplary and very praiseworthy. In this diocese, which was said to exhibit more of ignorance and poverty than that of any other in the kingdom, he carried through a regular system of reform. He regulated the ccndition of the clergy, and proceeded to a stricter course with respect to the candidates for holy orders, admitting none without personally examining them himself, and looking very narrowly into the titles which they produced. With all this vigilance, his lordship acted to them as a tender father, encouraging them to visit him during his stay in the country, which was usually for several months in the year, assisting them with advice, and ministering to their temporal necessities with a liberal hand. In his progress through the diocese, he frequently preached in the parish churches, and bestowed considerable largesses on the poor. He was, in short, a blessing to his people, and they followed him with grateful hearts, and parted from him with infinite reluctance; and this diocese may be congratulated in being again placed under a prelate whose zeal for the promotion of its best interests has seldom been equalled, and cannot easily be exceeded. Bishop Horsley’s first Charge to the clergy of St. David’s, delivered in 1790, was deservedly admired, as was his animated speech in the house of lords on the Catholic bill, May 31, 1791. These occasioned his subsequent promotion to the see of Rochester in 1793, and to the deanery of Westminster, on which he resigned the living of Newington. As dean of Westminster he effected some salutary changes. Finding the salaries of the minor- canons and officers extremely low, he liberally obtained an advance, and at the same time introduced some regulations in the discharge of their office, which were readily adopted.

During the turbulent period of 1793-4-5, &c. when the religion, government, and morals of the country were in imminent danger from the prevalence of democratic principles, the warmth and zeal of his endeavours in parliament to oppose the enemies of the constitution, procured him a considerable share of illiberal censure, which, however, was more than balanced by the general applause which followed the steady uniformity, consistency, and manly decision of his conduct. As a senator he was deservedly considered in the first class; and there were few important discussions, not only Oh ecclesiastical topics, but on those which concerned the civil interests of the country, in which he did not take an active part. He was not, however, an every-day speaker, nor desirous of adding to the dehates unless he had something original to produce, and he was on that account listened to with eagerness even, by those with whom he could not act, and who found it easier to arraign his manner than his matter. In 1802 he was translated to the bishopric of St. Asaph, and resigned the deanery of Westminster. During all this period his publications were frequent, as we shall notice in a list of them; and his vigour of body and mind was happily preserved until the year 1806, which proved his last. In July of that year he went to his diocese, a part of which he had visited and confirmed, and after two months’ residence intended to visit his patron lord Thurlow at Brighton, where he arrived Sept. 20, after hearing on the road that his noble friend was dead. On the 30th, a slight complaint in his bowels affected him, and very soon brought on a mortification, which proved fatal Oct. 4, in his 73d year. His remains were interred in the parish church of St. Mary Newington, where a monument has since been erected to his memory, with an inscription written by himself.

He was twice married: 6rst to Mary, one of the daughters of the Rev. John Botham, his predecessor at Aldbury, by whom he had one daughter, who died young, and a son, now the rev. Heneage Horsley, rector of Gresford in Denbighshire, prebendary of St. Asaph, and chaplain to the Scotch episcopalian church at Dundee. By his second wife, who died the year before him, he had no children. She is commemorated in the above inscription by the name of Sarah only.

Bishop Horsley’s works not yet mentioned, were, besides various occasional Sermons and Charges, 1. “On the properties of the Greek and Latin languages,” 1796, 8vo, without his name. 2. “On the acronychal rising of the Pleiades,” a dissertation appended to his friend Dr. Vincent’s “Voyage of Nearchus,” 1797. 3. “A circular Letter to the diocese of Rochester, on the Scarcity of Corn,” 1796. 4. Another circular Letter to that diocese, on “the Defence of the Kingdom,” 1798. 5. Critical Disquisitions on the 18th chapter of Isaiah: in a letter to Edward King, esq. F. R. S. &c.“1799, 4to. Towards the close of this discussion, in which he applies the words of Isaiah to the aspect of the times, he says, with almost a prophetic spirit,” I see nothing in the progress of the French arms which any nation fearing God, and worshipping the Son, should fear to resist: I see every thing that should rouse all Christendom to a vigorous confederate resistance. I see every thing that should excite this country in particular to resist, and to take the lead in a confederacy of resistance, by all measures which policy can suggest, and the valour and opulence of a great nation can supply.“6.” Hosea, translated from the Hebrew; with notes explanatory and critical,“1801, 4to. Archbishop Newcome, in his” Improved Version of the Minor Prophets,“had preceded bishop Horsley in translating Hosea; but our prelate has thought proper in so many instances to reject his emendations, that bishop Horsley’s labours will probably be thought indispensable to a just illustration of the sacred text. This was reprinted with large additions in 1804. 7.” Elementary treatises on the fundamental principles of practical Mathematics; for the use of students,“1801, 8vo. These tracts were at first composed, without any design of publication, for the use of his son, then a student of Christ-church; and the work was to be considered, although then first published, as the third and last in the order of the subject, of three volumes of elementary geometry, to be issued one after another from the university press of Oxford, The first accordingly appeared in 1802, under the title of” Euclidig Elementorum Libri priores XII. ex Commandini et Gregorii versionibus Latinis,“Oxon, 8vo; and the second in J 804,” Euclidis datorum liber, cum additamento, necnon tractatus alii ad geometriam pertinentes," ibid. 8vo.

Since Iris death have appeared, “Sermons,” 1810 and 1812, 3 vols. 8vo; “Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestley, upon the historical question of the belief of the first ages in our Lord’s Divinity, originally published in the years 17S3, 1784, and 1786: afterwards revised and augmented, with a large addition of notes and supplemental disquisitions; by the author. The third edition. To which is added, an Appendix by the rev. Heneage Horsley,” 1812, 8vo “The Speeches in Parliament of Samuel Horsley, &c.” 1813, 8vo and lastly, “The Charges delivered at his several visitations of the dioceses of St. David’s, Rochester, and St. Asaph,” 1813, 8vo. In this enumeration of his printed works, a few temporary tracts of lesser importance may probably have escaped us, as being published without his name; but a complete edition of his works, for which there is likely to be a demand, will supply this deficiency. His papers in the Philosophical Transactions would form a very necessary part of such a collection. It may also be noticed here, that he occasionally wrote some very elaborate criticisms in the “British Critic,” the plan and principles of which Review he cordially approved.

Dr. Horsley was throughout life an indefatigable student; he indulged no indolence in youth, and amidst an accumulation of preferments, contemplated no time when he might rest from his labours. His mind was constantly intent on some literary pursuit or discovery, and setting a high value on the fame he had acquired, his ambition was to justify the esteem of the public, and the liberality of his patrons. Knowing likewise, how much his fame was indebted to his theological contest, he endeavoured by laborious researches, to acquire that degree of accuracy which renders a controversialist invulnerable. It is evident that in the study of ecclesiastical history, particularly that of the early ages, on which his controversy with Priestley hinged, his range was most extensive, and it is no breach of charity to suppose that he vexed as well as surprized his antagonist, by proving himself more intimate with the minutiae of remote antiquity than himself, who, from a wish to become the re-founder of a sect, had made the subject the study of his whole life. Dr. Horsley, on the contrary, appears to have prepared himself as the exigencies of the times in which he lived demanded, and whether the subject was theological or political, he quickly accumulated a mass of knowledge which his genius enabled him to illustrate with all the charms of novelty. While the ablest champion of orthodoxy which the church has seen for many years, he was so much of an original thinker, and so independent of his predecessors or contemporaries, that his mode of defence was entirely his own, and his style and authoritative manner, like Warburton’s and Johnson’s, however dangerous to imitate, were yet, perhaps, the best that could be devised in the conflict of opinions with which he was surrounded. His writings possessed some of the most prominent features of his personal character, in which there was nothing lukewarm, nothing compromising. He disdained liberality itself, if it prescribed courtesy to men whose arrogance in matters of faith led by easy steps to more violent measures, and who, while they affected only a calm and impartial inquiry into the doctrines of the church, had nothing less in view than the destruction of her whole fabrick. Such men might expect to encounter with a roughness of temper which was natural to him on more common occasions, although in the latter qualified by much kindness of heart, benevolence, and charity. When he had once detected the ignorance of his opponents, and their misrepresentation of the ancient records to which they appealed,' when he found that they had no scruple to bend authorities to pre-conceived theory, and that their only way of prolonging a contest was by repeating the same assertions without additional proofs, he frequently assumed that high tone of contempt or irony which would have been out of place with opponents who had no other object in view than the establishment of truth.

As a preacher, or rather as a writer of sermons, Dr. Horsley might be allowed to stand in the first class, if we knew with whom of that class we can compare him. Some comparisons we have seen, the justice of which we do not think quite obvious. In force, profundity, and erudition, in precision and distinctness of ideas, in“aptitude and felicity of expression, and above all, in selection of 'subjects and original powers of thinking, Dr. Horsley’s Sermons have been very justly termed” compositions sui generis" Upon most of these accounts, or ^rather upon all in the aggregate, they remove him from a comparison with those who may have acquired‘ very just fame as popular preachers. Bishop Horsley ’everywhere addresses himself to scholars, philosophers, and biblical' critics. By these he was heard with delight, and by these his works will continue to be appreciated as the component parts of every theological library, although they may not assent to all his doctrines.

, an eminent physician, was born at Torgau in 1537; and took the degree of M. D. in the university of Francfort on the Oder, in 1562. He was offered the place of public physician in several places; and he practised successively at Sagan and Suidnitz in Silesia, and at Iglaw in Moravia, till 1580, when he was made physician in ordinary to the archduke of Austria; and four years after, quitting that place, was promoted to the medical professorship in the university of Helmstadt. The oration he delivered at his installation, “Of the Difficulties which attend the Study of Physic, and the means to remove them,” a very good one, is printed with his “Epistolse Philosophic” & Medicinales,“Lips. 1596, 8vo. Upon entering on this post, he distinguished himself by what was thought a great singularity; he joined devotion to the practice of physic. He always prayed to God to bless his prescriptions; and he published a form of prayer upon this subject, which he presented to the university. He acquitted himself worthily in his functions, and published some books which kept up the reputation he had already acquired, but among them was one which produced a contrary effect, his” Dissertation upon the Golden Tooth of a child in Silesia;“concerning which he suffered himself to be egregiously imposed upon. Van Dale has related in what manner this imposture was discovered. Horstius, in the mean time, took it for a great prodigy, which ought to be a comfort to those Christians who were oppressed by the Turks; as certainly foreboding the downfall of the Ottoman empire. Horstius’s dissertation was published at Leipsic, in 1595, 8vo, with another piece of his writing,” De Noctambulis,“or” Concerning those who walk in their sleep." He died about 1600.

, also a learned physician, nephew of the preceding, was born at Torgau, where his father was one of the chief magistrates in 1578. After being educated in the schools of Torgau and Halberstadt, he went to the university of Wittemberg, and commenced the study of medicine; and received the degree of M. D. in March 1606, at Basil. On his return in the same year, to his native place, he was immediately appointed to a medical professorship in the university of Wittemburg, bj the elector of Saxony. Two years afterwards he was promoted by the landgrave of Hesse to a medical chair in tke college at Giessen, and in 1609 was honoured with the title of Archiater of Hesse. At this time his professional character had risen in the public estimation, and he numbered among his patients the principal nobility of the district. In 1622, he received a public invitation from the magistracy of Ulm to settle there as physician to that city, and as president of the college. He fulfilled his duties in both these offices with great reputation; and his integrity and humanity, not less than his extensive erudition, and his successful practice, endeared him to his fellow-citizens, and claimed the respect and admiration of the surrounding states. He died in August 1636, aged fifty-eight years. He left a considerable number of works, which were collected, and published under the title of “Opera Medica,” in 1660, 3 vols. folio, at Nuremberg, by his youngest son, Gregory, who, as well as his brother John Daniel, acquired eminence as physicians. They were also both professors of medicine; Gregory died at the age of thirty-five; but John Daniel lived to his sixty-fifth year, and was the author of several works, chiefly anatomical, and of little value at present. He was concerned with his brother Gregory in editing the collection of his father’s works, and likewise published an edition of the “Questiones Medico-legales” of Paul Zacchias, Francfort, 1666, in folio; and an edition of the “Opera Medica” of Riverius, at the same place, in 1674, folio.

, archbishop of Tuam, appears to have been of a dissenting family, as he was educated in a dissenting school, between 1690 and 1695, under the direction of the rev. Thomas Rowe, and was a fellow-student with the celebrated Dr. Watts, who said of him, that he was “the first genius in that seminary.” After his academical studies were finished, he resided some time as chaplain with John Hampden, esq. M. P. for Bucks, and afterwards settled as a dissenting minister at Marshfield, in Gloucestershire. The time of his conformity is not ascertained, though it is evident that he was a clergyman of the church of England so early as 1708, for in that year he published a sermon preached at the archdeacon’s visitation at Aylesbury. In the preceding year he had printed a Thanksgiving Sermon on our national Successes, from Ps. cxlix. 6 8. There is a tradition in the family, that he had so greatly recommended himself to the court by his zeal and services in support of the Hanover succession, that, as he scrupled re-ordination, it was dispensed with, and the fivst preferment bescowed on him, was that of a bishopric in Ireland. It is certain that he went into that kingdom as chaplain to the lord lieutenant. He was consecrated bishop of Ferns and Leighlin, February 10, 1721, was translated to Kilinore and Ardagh, July 27, 1727, and preferred to the archiepiscopal see of Tuam, January 27, 1742, with the united bishopric of Enaghdoen, in the room of Dr. Synge, deceased, and likewise with liberty to retain his other bishopric of Ardagh. He died December 14, 1751, in a very advanced age. His publications were, 1. in 1738, at Dublin, a volume of Sermons, sixteen in number, in 8vo; they are judicious and impressive discourses. These were reprinted in London, in 1757, with the addition of the Visitation Sermon mentioned before. In this volume is a Sermon preached in the castle of Dublin, before the duke of Bolton the lord lieutenant of Ireland, after the suppression of the Preston rebellion. 2. A Charge entitled “Instructions to the Clergy of the Diocese of Tuam, at the primary visitation, July 8, 1742.” This, after the death of the author, was reprinted in London, with theapprobation and consent of the rev. Dr. Hort, canon of Windsor it is an excellent address. In the preface to the volume of sermons we learn, that for many years prer vious to its appearance from the press, the worthy author had been disabled from preaching by an over-strain of the voice in the pulpit, at a time when he had a cold with a hoarseness upon him. The providence of God, he says, having taken from him the power of discharging that part of his episcopal office which consisted in preaching, he, thought it incumbent on him to convey his thoughts and instructions from the press, that he might not be useless. The solemn promise that he made at his consecration, “to exercise himself in the Holy Scriptures, so as to be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine,” was no small motive to that undertaking, as being the only means left him for making good that promise. It appears, that he kept up an epistolary correspondence with his “old friend,” as he called him, and fellow-student, Dr. Watts, to the closing period of the life of each. In Swift’s works we find a humorous paper of Dr. Hort’s, entitled “A New Proposal for the better regulation and improvement of Quadrille,” and some letters respecting it.

, was a philologer, a writer of verses, and a historian. His real name is unknown; he took that of Hortensius, either because his father was a gardener, or because his family name signified gardener. He was born at Montfort, in the territory of Utrecht, in 1501, and studied at Louvain. Hortensius was for several years rector of the school at Naarden, and when that city was taken in 1572, he would have fallen a sacrifice to the military fury, had he not been preserved by the gratitude of' one who had been his pupil. His death happened at Naarden, in 1577. There are extant by him, besides satires, epithalamia, and other Latin poems, the following works: 1. Seven books, “De Bello Germanico,” under Charles V. 8vo. 2. “De Tumultu Anabaptistarum,” fol. 3. “De Secessionibus Ultrajectinis,” fol. 4. Commentaries on the six first books of the Æneid, and on Lucan. 5. Notes on four Comedies of Aristophanes.

, a Roman orator, was the contemporary and rival of Cicero, and so far his senior, that he was an established pleader some time before the appearance of the latter. He pleaded his first cause at the age of nineteen, in the consulship of L. Licinius Crassus, and Q. Mutius Scevola, ninety-four years before the Christian aera, Cicero being then in his twelfth year. This early effort was crowned with great success, and he continued throughout his life a very favourite orator. His enemies, however, represented his action as extravagant, and gave him the name of Hortensia, from a celebrated dancer of that time. He proceeded also in the line of public honours, was military tribune, praetor, and in the year 68 B. C. consul, together with Q. Caecilius Metellus. He was an eminent member of the college of augurs, and was the person who elected Cicero into that body, being sworn to present a man of proper dignity. By him also Cicero was there inaugurated, for which reason, says that author, “it was my duty to regard him as a parent.” He died in the year 49 B. C.“; and Cicero, to whom the news of that event was brought when he was at Rhodes, in his return from Ciiicia, has left a most eloquent eulogy and lamentation upon him, in the opening of his celebrated treatise on orators entitled Brutus.” I considered him,“says that writer,” not, as many supposed, in the light of an adversary, or one who robbed me of any praise, but as a companion and sharer in my glorious labour. It was much more honourable to have such an opponent, than to stand unrivalled; more especially as neither his career was impeded by me, nor mine by him, but each, on the contrary, was always ready to assist the other by communication, advice, and kindness." If, however, Cicero was sincere in his attachment, it was surmised that Hortensius was not, and this is even insinuated in one of the epistles of Cicero. Hortensius amassed great wealth, but lived at the same time in a splendid and liberal manner; and it is said that at his death his cellars were found stocked with 10,000 hogsheads of wine. His orations have all perished; but it was the opinion of Quintillian, that they did not in perusal answer to the fame he obtained by speaking them. Hortensius must have been si^ty-four at the time of his death.

, a learned and pious English divine, the son of Laurence Horton, a merchant of London, was born in that city. In July 1623 he was admitted a pensioner of Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1626, and that of master in 1630. He was also a fellow pf his college. In 1637 he took the degree of B. D. and was appointed one of the twelve university preachers. The following year he was chosen master of Queen’s-college, in that university, after the death of Mr. Herbert Palmer, and in July of the same year minister of St. Mary Colechurch, in London, a donative of the Mercers’ company, of which his father was a member.

In Oct. 1641, he was elected professor of divinity at Gresham-coliege, and in May 1647, was elected preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s-inn, of which he was also a member. In 1649 he was created D. D. and the ensuing year was chosen vice-chancellor of Cambridge. In 1651 he appears to have resigned the office of preacher of Gray’s-inn; and marrying about the same time, he procured an order from parliament that he should not be obliged by that step to vacate his professorship at Gresham college. The Gresham committee, however, referring to the founder’s will, came to a resolution that the place was vacant, but did not at this time proceed to an election. In August 1652, Dr. Horton was incorporated D. D. in the university of Oxford, and the year following was nominated one of the triers or commissioners for the approbation of young ministers. In 1656, the Gresham committee resumed the affair of his professorship, and proceeded to a new election, but Dr. Horton obtained a fresh dispensation from Cromwell by means of secretary Thurloe, and continued in quiet possession, holding with it his headship of Queen’s college, Cambridge. On the restoration he was obliged to resign the headship to Dr. Martin, who had been ejected by the parliamentary visitors; and although he had interest enough at court to retain his professorship for a little time, he was obliged in 1661 to resign it. When the Savoy conference was appointed, he was nominated as an assistant on the side of the presbyterians, but, according to Baxter, never sat among them; and although one of the number of the divines ejected by the Bartholomew act, he conformed afterwards,- and in June 1666, was admitted to the vicarage of Great St. Helen, in Bishopsgate-street, London, which he held till his death, in March 1673.

Dr. Wallis, who had been under his tuition at Cambridge, and after his decease published a volume of his sermons, with some account of his life, says he was “a pious and learned man, an hard student, a sound divine, a good textuary, very well skilled in the oriental languages, very well accomplished for the work of the ministry, and very conscientious in the discharge of it.” Nor did the close application to his province as a divine, occasion him wholly to neglect his juvenile studies. In the Cambridge verses, entitled “Sac-'ipa,” written upon the restoration of Charles II. there is a poem composed by Dr. Horton, while master of Queen’s. He printed but three sermons himself, but left many others prepared for the press; and after his death were published, 1. “Forty-six Sermons upon the whole eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans,” Lond. 1674, fol. 2. “A choice and practical Exposition, upon the 4, 47, 51, and 63 Psalms,” ibid. 1675, fol. 3. “One hundred select Sermons upon several texts,” with the author’s life by Dr. Wallis, ibid. 1679, fol. He left also some sacramental, funeral, and other sermons, prepared for the press, but which have not been printed.

, cardinal, was born at Cracow, in Poland, in 1503, of low parents, but being welleducated, bore such a character after taking his degrees, as to be admitted into the Polish se.nate. He was, here distinguished by the acuteness of his genius, the retentiveness of his memory, and other accomplishments mental and personal and was advanced successively to the places ofsecretary to the king, canon of Crac.ow, bishop of Culm, and bishop of Warmia. He was sentby the. pope Pius IV. to engage the emperor Ferdinand to continue the council of Trent; and the emperor was sq charmed with his eloquence and address, that he granted whatever he asked. Pius then made him a cardinal, and employed him as his legate, to open and preside at the council.Hosius was a zealous advocate for the Rpmish church, and de.? fended it ably, both in speeches and writings the latter of which amounted to two tolio, volumes, and were often printed during his life. He died in 1579, at the age of seventy-six, and was buried in the chmrch of St. Lawrence, from which he took hie title as cardinal. By his will he left his library to the university of Cracow, with an annual sum to provide for its support and increase. Am.ong his works, th^ chief are, 1. “Confessio Catholicae Fidei,” said to have been reprinted in various languages, thirty- four times. 2. “De Communione sub utraque specie.” 3. “De sacerdotum conjugio.” 4, " De Missa vulgari lingua celebrandaV' &c. His works were first collectively published, at Cologne, in 1584.

, an English lawyer and poet, was born in 1566, at Mownton, in the parish of Lanwarne, in Herefordshire, and was at first intended by his father for a trade, but his surprizing memory and capacity induced him to send him to Westminster, and afterwards to Winchester school, at both which he made great proficiency. From Winchester he was in 1584 elected probationer-felr low of New-college, Oxford, and two years afterwards admitted actual fellow. In 1591 he took his master’s degree; but being terra jiliu$ y in the act following, he was, says Wood, “so bitterly satirical,” as to be refused to complete his degree as regent master, and was also expelled the university. He then, for his maintenance, taught school for some time at Ilchester, in Somersetshire, where he compiled a Greek lexicon as far as the letter M. Marrying afterwards a lady of property, he entered himself as student in the Twiddle temple, and at the usual time was called to the bar. In 1614 he hid a seat in parliament, where some rash speeches occasioned his being imprisoned for a year. He was afterwards elected Lentreader of the Middle-temple, and four years after was made a serjeant at law, a justice itinerant for Wales, and one of the council of the Marches. He died at his house at Morehampton, in Herefordshire, Aug. 27, 1638.

He was much admired for his. talent in Latin and English poetry, and highly respected by the most eminent men of his time, Camclen, Selden, Daniel, Dr. Donne, sir Henry Wotton, sir Walter Raleigh, whose “History” he revised before it was sent to press; and others, particularly Ben Jonson, who used to say, “'t was he that polished me, I do acknowledge it.” Wood speaks of him, as the author of the Greek lexicon already mentioned, left in ms. and imperfeqj of several epigram-: and epitaphs, ill Latin and English, interspersed in various collections; “The Art of Memory,” in which he himself excelled and of some law treatises, in ms. which became the property of his grandson, sir John Hoskins, -knt. and bart. master in chancery, but better known to the world as a philosopher, and one of the first members of the royal society, of which he was president in 1682.

, a learned Swiss writer, who rendered important service to the Protestant cause, was born at Altdorf near Zurich, where his father was minister, in 1547. He began his studies with great diligence and success at Zurich, under the direction of Woltius, his uncle by his mother’s side; and losing his father in 1563, found an affectionate patron in his godfather Rodolphus Gualterus. He left Zurich in 1565, in order to visit the other universities and spent some time in Marpurg and Heidelberg. He was afterwardsrecalled, and received into the ministry in 1568; the year following he obtained the freedom of the city; and was made provisor of the abbey school in 1571. Though his school and his cure engrossed much of his time, he had the courage to undertake a noble work of vast extent, “An History of the Errors of Popery.” He considered, that the Papists, when defeated by the Holy Scriptures, had recourse to tradition; were for ever boasting of their antiquity, and despised the protestants for being modern. To deprive them of this plea, he determined to search into the rise and progress of the Popish rites and ceremonies; and to examine by what gradations the truth, taught by Christ and his apostles, had been corrupted by innovations. He could not, however, complete his work, agreeably to the plan he had drawn out; but he published some considerable parts of it, as, 1. “De Templis: hoc est, de origine, progressu, usu, & abusu Templorum, ac omnino rerum omnium ad Templa pertinentium,” 1587, folio. 2. “De Monachis: seu de origine & progressu monachatus & ordinum monasticorum,” 1588, folio. 3. “De Festis Judaeorum, et Ethnicorum: hoc est, de origine, progressu, ceremoiiiis, et ritibus festorum dierum Judaeorum, Graecorum, Romanorum, Turcarum, & Indianorum,” 1592, folio. 4. “Festa Christianorum,” &c. 1593, folio. 5. “Historia Sacramentaria hoc est, libri quinque Je Ccsnae Dominicae prima institutione, ejusque vero usu & abusu, in primaeva ecclesia necnon de origine, progressu, ceremoniis, & ritibus Missas, Transubstantiationis, & aliorum pene infinitorum errorum, quibus Ccenx prima institutio horribiliter in papatu polluta & profanata est,” 1598, folio. 6. “Pars altera: de origine et progressu controversies sacramentarias de Coena Domini inter Lutheranos, Ubiquistas, & Orthodoxos, quos Zuinglianos seu Calvinistas vocant, exortae ab anno 1517 usque ad 16,02 deducta, 1602,” folio. These are all of them parts of his great work, which he enlarged in succeeding editions, and added confutations of the arguments of Bellarmin, Baronius, and Gretser. What he published on the Eucharist, and another work entitled “Concordia Discors,” &c. printed in 1607, exasperated the Lutherans in a high degree; and they wrote against him with great animosity. He did not publish any answer, though he had almost finished one, but turned his arms against the Jesuits and published “Historia Jesuitica hoc est, de origine, regulis, constitutionibus, privileges, incrementis, progressu, & propagatione ordinis Jesuitarum. Item, de eorum dolis, fraudibus, imposturis, nefariis faci- ­noribus, cruentis consiliis, falsa quoque, seditiosa, & sanguinolenta doctrina,” 1619, folio.

These works justly gained him high reputation, and considerable preferment. He was appointed archdeacon of Caroline church in 1588; and, in 1594, minister of the abbey-church. He was deprived of his sight for near a year by a cataract, yet continued to preach as usual, and was happily couched in 1613. In 1623, being 76 years of age, his faculties became impaired, and so continued till his death in 1626. The public entertained so high an opinion of his learning from his writings, that he was exhorted from all quarters to refute Baronius’s “Annals;” and no one was thought to have greater abilities for the task. A new edition of his works was published at Geneva, 1681, in seven thin volumes, folio.

, chancellor of France, and one of the most liberal-minded men of his time, was the son of a physician, and born at Aigneperse in Auvergne, in 1505. His father sent him to study in the most celebrated universities of France and Italy, where he distinguished himself at once by his genius for literature, and for business. Having diligently studied jurisprudence, he was quickly advanced to very honourable posts; being successively auditor of the congregation called the congregation of Rota at Rome, and counsellor in the parliament of Paris, which he held during twelve years. He has described in one of his poems his habits of life during this time. He rose at a very early hour, and in the autumnal, winter, and spring sessions, was often in the court of justice before day-break, and reluctantly rose from his seat, when the beadle, at ten o'clock (the hour of dinner) announced the breaking up of the court. He says, that he made it a rule to listen to all with patience, to interrupt no one, to express himself as concisely as possible, and to oppose unnecessary delays. He mentions, with evident satisfaction, the joy which he felt when the vacations allowed him to quit Paris, and breathe in the country. The cares of magistracy he then banished wholly from his thoughts, and endeavoured, by harmless relaxation, to enable himself, on his return to the discharge of his functions, to resume them with fresh vigour. “But,” says he, “there is nothing frivolous in my amusements; sometimes Xenophon is the companion of my walks; sometimes the divine Plato regales me with the discourses of Socrates. History and poetry have their turns; but my chief delight is in the sacred writings: what comfort, what holy calm, does the meditation of them confer!” L‘Hospital was then appointed by Henry II. to be his ambassador at the council of Trent, which was sitting at Bologna, By his own desire, he was soon recalled from that honourable employment, and on his return experienced, at first, some coldness from the court, but was soon restored to the royal favour, and appointed master of the requests. In the beginning of If 54- he was made superintendent of the royal finances in France. His merits in this post were of the most singular and exalted kind. By a severe ceconomy, he laboured to restore the royal treasure, exhausted by the prodigality of the king, Henry II. and the dishonest avarice of his favourites; he defied the enmity of those whose profits he destroyed, and was himself so rigidly disinterested, that after five or six years’ continuance in this place, he was unable to give a portion to his^daughter, and the deficiency was supplied by the liberality of the sovereign. On the death of Henry, in 1549, the cardinal of Lorraine,then at the head of affairs, introduced l’Hospital into the council of state. Hence he was removed by Margaret of Valois, who took him into Savoy, as her chancellor. But the confusions of France soon made it necessaryto recal a man of such firmness and undaunted integrity. In the midst of faction and fury, he was advanced to the high office of chancellor of that kingdom, where he maintained his, post, like a philosopher who was superior.‘to fear, or any species of weakness. At the breaking out of the conspiracy of Amboice, in 1560, and on all other occasions, he was the advocate for mercy and reconciliation; and by the edict of Romorantin, prevented the establishment of the inquisition in France. It was perhaps for reasons of this kind, and his general aversion to persecution for religion’s sake, that the violent Romanists ac>­cused him of being a concealed Protestant; forgetting that by such suspicions they paid the highest compliment to the spirit of Protestantism. The queen, Catherine of Medicis, who had contributed to the elevation of l’Hospital, being too violent to approve his pacific measures, ex-, eluded him from the council of war; on which he retired to his country- house at Vignay near Estampes. Some days after, when the seals were demanded of him, he resigned them without regret, saying, that “the affairs of the world were too corrupt for him to meddle with them.” In lettered ease, amusing himself with Latin poetry, and a select society of friends“, he truly enjoyed his retreat, till his happiness was interrupted by the atrocious day of St. Bartholomew, in 1572. Of this disgraceful massacre,- he thought as posterity has thought but, though his friends conceived it probable that he might be included in the proscription, ha disdained to seek his safety by flight. So firm was he, that when a party of horsemen actually advanced to his house, though without orders, for the horrid purpose of murdering him, he refused to close his gates” If the small one,“said he,” will not admit them, throw open the large“and he was preserved only by the arrival of another party, with express orders from the king to declare that he was not among the proscribed. The persons who made the lists, it was added, pardoned him the opposition he had always made to their projects.” I did not know,“said he coldly, without any change of countenance,” that I had done any thing to deserve either death or pardon." His motto is said to have been,

and certainly no person ever had a better right to assume that sublime device. This excellent magistrate, and truly, great man, died March 13, 1573, at the age of 68 years. “L' Hospital,” says Brantome, “was the greatest, worthiest, and most learned chancellor, that was ever known in France. His large white beard, pale countenance, austere manner, made all who saw him think they beheld a true portrait of St. Jerome, and he was called St. Jerome by the courtiers. All orders of men feared him; particularly the members of the courts of justice; and, when he examined them on their lives, their discharge of their duties, their capacities, or their knowledge, and particularly when he examined candidates for offices, and found them deficient, he made them feel it. He was profoundly vesrsed in polite learning, very eloquent, and an excellent pbdt^ His severity was never ill-naturec! he made due allowance” for the imperfections of human nature was always equtil ' and always firm. After his death his Vety enemies acknowledged that he was the greatest magistrate whom France had known, and that they did not “expect to see such another.” There are extant by him, 1. “Latin Poems,” Their unpretending simplicity is their greatest merit; but they shew such real dignity of character, they breathe so pure a spirit of virtue, and are full of such excellent sentiments of public and private worth, that they will always be read with pleasure. 2. “Speeches delivered in the meeting of the States at Orleans.” As an orator he shines much less than as a poet. 3. “Memoirs, containing Treaties of Peace,” &c. &c. It is said that he had also projected a history of his own time in Latin, but this he did not execute. The best edition of his poems is that of Amsterdam, 1732, 8vo. He left only one child, a daughter, married to Robert Hurault, whose children added the name of l‘Hospital to that of their father; hut the male line of this family also was extinct in 1706. Nevertheless, the memory of the chancellor has received the highest honours within a few years of the present time. In 1777, Louis XVI. erected a statue of white marble to him, and in the same year he was proposed by the French academy for the subject of an eloge. M. Guibert and the abbe Remi contended for the prize. It was adjudged to the latter, who did not, however, print his work; M. Guibert was less prudent, but his eloge gave little satisfaction. The celebrated Condorcet afterwards entered the lists, but with equal want of success. Such fastidiousness of public opinion showed the high veneration entertained for the character of L’ Hospital. In 1807, M. Bernardi published his “Essai sur la Vie, les Ecrits, et les Loix de Michel de L'Hospital,” in one vol. 8vo, a work written with taste and judgment; from these and other documents, Charles Butler, esq. has lately published an elegant “Essay on the Life” of L'Hospital, principally with a view to exhibit him as a friend to toleration.

, a great mathematician of France, was born of a branch of the preceding family, in 1661. He was a geometrician almost from his infancy; for one day being at the duke de Rohan’s, where some able mathematicians were speaking of a problem of PaschaPs, which appeared to them extremely difficult, he ventured to say, that he, believed he could solve it. They were amazed at what appeared such unpardonable presumption in a boy of fifteen, for he was then no more, yet it a few days be sent them the solution. He entered early into the army, but always preserved his love for the mathematics, and studied them even in his tent; whither he used to retire, it is said, not only to study, but also to conceal his application to study: for in those days, to be knowing in the sciences was thought to derogate from nobility; and a soldier of quality, to preserve his dignity, was in some measure obliged to hide his literary attainments. De l'Hospital was a captain of horse; but, being extremely short-sighted, and exposed on that account to perpetual inconveniences and errors, he at length quitted the army, and applied himself entirely to his favourite amusement. He contracted a friendship with Malbranche, judging by his “Recherche de la Verite*,” that he must be an excellent guide in the sciences; and he took his opinion upon all occasions. His abilities and knowledge were no longer a secret: and at the age of thirty-two he gave a public solution of problems, drawn from the deepest geometry, which had been proposed to mathematicians in the acts of Leipsic. In 1693 he was received an honorary member of the academy of sciences at Paris; and published a work upon sir Isaac Newton’s calculations, entitled “L'Analyse des iniinimens petits.” He was the first in France who wrote on this subject: and on this account was regarded almost as a prodigy. He engaged afterwards in another work of the mathematical kind, in which he included “Les Sectiones coniques, les Lieux georoetriques, la Construction des Equations,” and “Une Theorie des Courbes mechaniques:” but a little before he had finished it, he was seized with a fever, of which he died Feb. 2, 1704, aged 49. It was published after his death, viz. in 1707. There are also six of his pieces inserted in different volumes of the memoirs of the academy of sciences.

, or L'Hoste (John), a learned mathematician of Nancy, towards the end of the sixteenth century, taught law and mathematics with uncommon reputation at Pont-a-Mousson, and was appointed superintendant of fortifications, and counsellor of war by Henry duke of Lorrain. His genius was extensive, penetrating, and formed for the sciences. He died in 1631, leaving several valuable works the principal ones are, “Le sommaire et l'usage de la Sphere Artificielle,” 4to “La Pratique de Géométrie,” 4to “Description et usage des principaux instrumens de Géométrie,” 4to “Du Quadran et quarré; Rayon astronomique Bâton de Jacob; interpretation du grand art de Raymond Lulle,” &c.

, born May 19, 1652, at Pont-de-Vesle, entered among the Jesuits in 1669, and acquired great skill in mathematics; accompanied the marechals d'Estrées and de Tourville, during twelve years, in all their naval expeditions, and gained their esteem. He was appointed king’s professor of mathematics at Toulon, and died there February 23, 1700, leaving, “Recueil des Traités de Mathematiques les plus necessaires a, un officier,” 3 volsi 12mo; “L'Art des armies navtrles, ou Traite” des evolutions navales,“Lyons, 1697, and more completely in 1727, folio. This work is not less historical than scientific, and contains an account of the most considerable naval events of the fifty preceding years. He presented it to Louis XIV. who received it graciously, and rewarded the author with 100 pistoles, and a pension of 600 livres a treatise on the construction of ships, which he wrote in consequence of some conversation with marechal de Tourville, is printed at the end of the preceding. In 1762, lieutenant O'Bryen published in 4to,” Naval Evolutions, or a System of Sea-discipline,“extracted from father L'Hoste’s” L'Art des armees navales."

, in Latin Hototnanus, a learned French civilian, was born in 1524, at Paris, where his family, originally of Breslau in Silesia, had flourished for some time. He made so; rapid a progress in the belles lettres, that at the age of fifteen, he was sent to Orleans to study the civil law, and in three years was received doctor to that faculty. His father, a counsellor in parliament, had already designed him for that employment; and therer fore sent for him home, and placed him at the bar. But Hotman was soon displeased with the chicanery of the court, and applied himself vigorously to the study of the Roman law and polite literature. At the age of twentythree, he was chosen to read public lectures in the schools pf Paris: but, relishing the opinions of Luther, on account of which many persons were put to death in France, and finding that he could not profess them at Paris, he Went to Lyons in 1548. Having now nothing to expect“from his father, who was greatly irritated at the change of his religion, he left France, and retired to Geneva; where he lived some time in Calvin’s house. From hence he went to Lausanne,' where the magistrates of Bern gave him the place of professor of polite literature. He published there some books, which, however, young as he was, were not his first publications; and married a French gentlewoman, who had also retired thither on account of religion. His merit was so universally known, that the magistrates of Strasburg offered him a professorship of civil law; which he accepted, and held till 1561, and during this period, received invitations from the duke of Prussia, the landgrave of Hesse, the dukes of Saxony, and even from queen Elizabeth of England; but did not accept them. He did not refuse, however, to go to the court of the king of Navarre, at the begining of the troubles; and he went twice into Germany, to desire assistance of Ferdinand, in the name of the princes of the blood, and even in the name of the queen-mother. The speech he made at the diet of Francfort is published. Upon his return to Strasburg, he was prevailed upon to teach civil law at Valence; which he did with such success, that he raised the reputation of that university. Three years after, he went to be professor at Bourges, by the invitation of Margaret of France, sister of Henry II. but left that city in about five months, and retired to Orleans to the heads of the party, who made great use of his advice. The peace which was made a month after, did not prevent him from apprehending the return of the storm: upon which account he retired to Sancerre, and there wrote an excellent book,” De Consolatione,“which his son published after his death. He returned afterwards to his professorship at Bourges, where he very narrowly escaped the massacre of 1572: which induced him to leave France, with a full resolution never to return. He then went to Geneva, where he read lectures upon the civil law. Some time after, he went to Basil, and taught civil law, and was so pleased with this situation, that he refused great offers from the prince of Orange and the States-general, who would have draxvn him to Leyden. The plague having obliged him to leave Basil, he retired to Montbeliard, where he lost his wife; and went afterwards to live with her sisters at Geneva. He returned once more to Basil, and there died in 1590, of a dropsy, which had kept him constantly in a state of indisposition for six years before. During this, he revised and digested his works for a new edition, which appeared at Geneva in 1599, in 3 vols. folio, with his life prefixed by Neveletus Doschius> The first two contain treatises upon the civil law; the third, pieces relating to the government of France, and the right of succession; five books of Roman antiquities; commentaries upon Tally’s” Orations and Epistles;“notes upon Caesar’s” Commentaries,“&c. His” Franco-Gallia,“or,” Account of the free state of France,“has been translated into English by lord Molesworth, author of” The Account of Denmark." He published also several other articles without his name; but, being of the controversial kind, they were probably not thought of consequence enough to be revived in the collection of his works.

He was one of those who would never consent to be painted; but we are told, that his picture was taken while he was in his last agony. His integrity, firmness, and piety, are highly extolled by the author of his life; yet, if Baudouin may be believed (whom, however, it is more reasonable not to believe, as he was his antagonist in religious opinions), he was suspected of being avaricious: but it must be remembered, that he lost his all when he changed his religion, and had no supplies but what arose from reading lectures; for it does not appear that his wife brought him a fortune. It is very probable, however, that his lectures would have been sufficient for his subsistence; had he not been deluded by schemes of finding out the philosopher’s stone; and we find him lamenting to a friend in his last illness, that he had squandered away his substance upon this hopeful project. With all these weaknesses, he xvas esteemed one of the greatest civilians France ever produced.

, a very learned writer, and famous for his skill in the oriental languages, was born at Zurich in Switzerland, in 1620. He had a particular talent for learning languages; and the progress he made in his first studies gave such promising hopes, that it was resolved he should be sent to study in foreign countries, at the public expence. He began his travels in 1638, and went to Geneva, where he studied two months under Fr. Spanheim. Then he went into France, and thence into Holland; and fixed at Groningen, where he studied divinity under Gomarus and Alting, and Arabic under Pasor. Here he intended to have remained; but being very desirous of improving himself in the oriental languages, he went in 1639 to Leyden, to be tutor to the children of Golius, who was the best skilled in those languages of any man of that age. By the instructions of Golius, he improved greatly in the knowledge of Arabic, and also by the assistance of a Turk, who happened to be at Leyden. Besides these advantages, Golius had a fine collection of Arabic books and Mss. from which Hottinger was suffered to copy what he pleased, during the fourteen months he staid at Leyden. In 1641, he was offered, at the recommendation of Golius, the place of chaplain to the ambassador of the States-general to Constantinople; and he would gladly have attended him, as such a journey would have co-operated wonderfully with his grand design of perfecting himself in the eastern languages: but the magistrates of Zurich did not consent to it: they chose rather to recall him, in order to employ him for the advantage of their public schools. They permitted him first, however, to visit England; and the instant he returned from that country, they appointed him professor of ecclesiastical history; and a year after, in 1643, gave him two professorships, that of catechetical divinity, and that of the oriental tongues.

He married at twenty-two, and began to publish books at twenty -four. New professorships were bestowed upon him in 1653, and he was admitted into the college of canons. In 1655, the elector Palatine, desirous to restore the credit of his university of Heidelberg, obtained leave of the senate of Zurich for Hottinger to go there, on condition that he should return at the end of three years: but before he set out for that city, he went to Basil, and took the degree of D. D. He arrived at Heidelberg the same year, and was graciously received in that city. Besides the professorship of divinity and the oriental tongues, he was appointed principal of. the Collegium Sapientia?. He was rector of the university the year following, and wrote a book concerning the re-union of the Lutherans and Calvinists; which he did to please the elector, who was zealous in that affair: but party-animosities rendered his performance ineffectual. Hottinger accompanied this prince to the electoral diet of Francfort in 1658, and there had a conference with Job Ludolf. Ludolf had acquired a vast knowledge of Ethiopia; and, in conjunction with Hottinger, concerted measures for sending into Africa some persons skilled in the oriental tongues, who might make exact inquiries concerning the state of the Christian religion in that part of the world. Hotiinger was not recalled to Zurich till 1661, his superiors, at the elector’s earnest request, having prolonged the term of years for which they lent him: and he then returned, honoured by the elector with the title of Ecclesiastical-counsellor.

Many employments were immediately conferred on him: among the rest, he was elected president of the commissioners who were to revise the German translation of the Bible. A civil war breaking out in Switzerland in 1664, he was sent into Holland on state affairs. Many universities would willingly have drawn Hottinger to them, but were not able. That of Ley den offered him a professorship of divinity in 1667; but, not obtaining leave of his superiors, he refused it, until the magistrates of Zurich consented, in complaisance to the States of Holland, who had interested themselves in this affair. As he was preparing for this journey, he unfortunately lost his life, June 5, 1667, in the river which passes through Zurich. He went into a boat, with his wife, three children, his brotherin-law, a friend, and a maid-servant, in order to go and let out upon lease an estate which he had two leagues from Zurich. The boat striking against a pier, which lay under water, overset: upon which Hottinger, his brother-in-law, and friend, escaped by swimming. But when they looked upon the women and children, and saw the danger they were in, they jumped back into the water: the consequence of which was, that Hottinger, his friend, and three children, lost their lives, while his wife, his brother-in-law, and servant-maid, were saved. His wife was the only daughter of Huldric, minister of Zurich, a man of very great learning, and brought him several children: for besides the three who were drowned with him, and those who died before, he left four sons and two daughters.

As an author, he was very prolific, and it is surprising, that a man, who had possessed so many academical employments, was interrupted with so many visits (for everybody came to see him, and consulted him as an oracle), and was engaged in a correspondence with all the literati of Europe, should have found time to write more than forty volumes, especially when it is considered, that he did not reach fifty years of age. The most considerable of his works are: 1. “Exercitationes Anti-Morinianse, de Pentateucho Samaritano, &c.” 1644, quarto. Moriti had asserted, in the strongest manner, the authenticity of the Samaritan Pentateuch; which he preferred to the Hebrew text, upon a pretence that this had been corrupted by the Jews and it was to combat this opinion, that Hottinger wrote these Exercitations. This work, though the first, is, in the judgment of father Simon, one of the best he wrote; and if he had never written any thing more, it is probable that he would have left higher notions of his abiJities for certainly it was no small enterprise for him, so early in life, to attack, on a very delicate and knotty subject, and with supposed success too, one of the most learned men in Europe at that time. 2. “Thesaurus Philologicus, seu clavis scripturic,” 1649, 4to. There was a second edition in 1649, in 4to, with additions. 3. “Historia Orientalis, ex variis Orientaliuin monumentis collecta,” 1651,4to. No man was better qualified to write on oriental affairs than Hottinger, as he was skilled in most of the languages which were anciently, as well as at present, spoken in the East: namely, the Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, and Coptic. 4. “Promptuarium, sive Bibliotheca. Orientalis, exhibens catalogum sive centurias aliquot tarn auctorum, quam librorum Hebraicorum, Syriacorum, Arabicorum, vEgyptiacorum: addita mantissa Bibliotheeurum aliquot Europaearum,” 16.58, 4to. Baillet does not speak very advantageously of this work of Hottinger, whom he accuses of not being very accurate in any of his compositions: and indeed his want of accuracy is a point agreed on by both papists and protestants. 5. “Etymologicon Orientale, sive Lexicon Harmonicum Heptaglotton,” &c. 1661, 4to. The seven languages contained in this Lexicon are, the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan, Ethiopic, and Rabbinical.

These works are valuable for containing materials of a curious nature, and which were before only accessible to persons skilled in oriental languages. A catalogue of his other works may be seen in the “Bibliotheca Tigurina;” or the Latin life of Hottinger, published by Heidegger at Zurich, 1667: in either of which they are all drawn up and digested into regular order. — John James Hottinger his son, was also a learned protestant divine, succeeded Heidegger in the divinity chair at Zurich, and died Dec. 18, 1735, leaving a great number of works, chiefly “Theological Dissertations,” on important subjects.

, a pious and learned translator of the Hebrew Scriptures, and commentator on them, was born at Paris in 168t>. In 1702 he became a priest of the congregation named the Oratory; and being-, by deafness, deprived of the chief comforts of society, addicted himself the more earnestly to books, in which he found his constant consolation. Of a disposition naturally benevolent, with great firmness of soul, goodness of temper, and politeness of manners, he was held in very general estimation, and received honours and rewards from the pope (Bened. XIV.) and from his countrymen, which he had never thought of soliciting. Though his income was’ but small, he dedicated a part of it to found a school near Chantilly; and the purity of his judgment, joined to the strength of his memory, enabled him to carry on his literary labours to a very advanced age. Even when his faculties had declined, and were further injured by the accident of a fall, the very sight of a book, that well-known gonsoler of all his cares, restored him to peace and rationality. He died Oct. 3 I, 1783, at the advanced age of ninetyeight. His works, for which he was no less esteemed in foreign countries than in his own, were chiefly these: 1. An edition of the Hebrew Bible, with a Latin version and notes, published at Paris in 1733, in 4 vols. folio. This is the most valuable and important work of the author, and contains the Hebrew text corrected by the soundest rules of criticism, a Latin version, and useful notes: and prefixed to each book is a very learned preface. Benedict XIV. who justly appreciated the value and difficulty of the work, honoured the author with a medal, and some other marks of approbation; and the clergy of his own country, unsolicited, conferred a pension on him. 2. A Latin translation of the Psalter, from the Hebrew, 1746, 12mo. 3. Another of the Old Testament at large, in 1753, in 8 vols. 8vo. 4. “Racines Hebraiques,” 1732, 8vo, against the points. 5. “Examen du Psautier des Capuchins,” 12mo, the mode of interpretation used in which, he thought too arbitrary. 6. A French translation of an English work by Forbes, entitled “Thoughts on Natural Religion.” 7. Most of the works of Charles Leslie translated, Paris, 1770, 8vo. Father Houhigant is said also to have left several works in manuscript, which, from the excellence of those he published, may be conjectured to be well deserving of the press. Among these are a “Traite des Etudes;” a translation of “Origen against Celsus;” a “Life of Cardinal Berulle;” and a complete translation of the Bible, according to his own corrections. The first of these was to have been published by father Dotteville, and the rest by Lalande, but we do not find that any of them have appeared.

, an eminent engraver, was the son of Arnold Houbraken, a native of Holland, and a painter, but of no very superior merit. He is known, however, to the literary world, as the author of a work in Dutch, entitled “The Great Theatre of the Dutch and Flemish Painters,” in 3 vols. folio, with their portraits. He came over into England, to make drawings of the pictures of Vandyke, which were afterwards engraved by Peter Van Gunst. He died at Amsterdam in the fifty-ninth year of his age, 1719.

His son Jacob was born December 25, 1698. By what master he was instructed in the art of engraving, we are not informed, but he was probably initiated in the art by his father; and Mr. Strutt supposes that he studied the neatest portraits of Edelink very attentively, especially that of Le Brun, which is usually prefixed to the engravings of Girard Audran, from his battles of Alexander. He worked, however, for some time with little profit, and with less celebrity; and he had arrived at the meridian of life before he engaged in that work by which he is best known; a work, which, notwithstanding some well-founded objections, will reflect honour on the several persons engaged in it. It seems to have been a plan of the accurate and industrious George Vertue, who proposed to give sets or classes of eminent men; but his design was adopted by others, and at length taken out of his hands, who, as lord Or ford observes, was best furnished with materials for such a work.

The persons who undertook and brought to conclusion this great national work, were the two Knaptons, booksellers, encouraged by the vast success of Rapin’s History of England. They employed both Vertue and Houbraken, but chiefly the latter, and the publication began in numbers in 1744. The rirst volume was completed in 1747, and the second in 1152. It was accompanied with short lives of the personages, written by Dr. Birch. Lord Orford observes, that some of Houbraken’s beads were carelessly done, especially those of the moderns; and the engraver living in Holland, ignorant of our history, uninquisitive into the authenticity of what was transmitted to him, engraved whatever was sent. His lordship mentions two instances, the heads of Carr earl of Somerset, and secretary Thurlow, which are not only not genuine, but have not the least resemblance to the persons they pretend to represent. Mr. Gilpin, in his Essay on Prints, says, "Houbraken is a genius, and has given us in his collection of English portraits, some pieces of engraving at least equal to any thing of the kind. Such are the heads of Hampden, Schomberg, the earl of Bedford, and the duke of Richmond particularly, aud some others. At the same time, we must own that he has intermixed among his works a great numbe/ of bad prints. In his best, there is a wonderful union of softness and freedom. A more elegant and flowing line no artist ever employed.]' Mr. Strutt estimates his general merits more minutely. Houbraken’s great excellence, says that ingenious writer, consisted in the portrait line of engraving. We admire the softness and delicacy of execution, which appear in his works, joined with good drawing, and a fine taste. If his best performances have ever been surpassed, it is in the masterly determination of the features which we find in the works of Nanteuil, Edelink, and Drevet this gives an animation to the countenance, more easily to be felt than described. From his solicitude to avoid the appearance of an outline, he seems frequently to have neglected the little sharpnesses of light and shadow, which not only appear in nature, but, like the accidental semitones in music, raise a pleasing sensation in the mind, in proportion as the variation is judiciously managed. For want of attention to this essential beauty, many of his celebrated productions have a misty appearance, and do not strike the eye with the force we might expect, when we consider the excellence of the engraving. The Sacrifice of Manoah, from Rembrandt, for the collection of prints from the pictures in the Dresden gallery, is the only attempt he made in historical engraving; but in it he by no means succeeded so well. Of his private life, family, or character, nothing is known. He lived to a good old age, and died at Amsterdam, in 1780.

, a Jesuit, was born Jan. 22, 1631, at Tours, and taught ethics, rhetoric, and philosophy among the Jesuits, and devoted himself afterwards to preaching twenty-four years; the rest of his life was spent in composing useful books. He died at Paris, in the college of Louis le Grand, March 29, 1729. His works are, “La Bibliotheque des Predicateurs,” Lyons, 1733, 22 vols. 4to. “Morality,” 8 vols. the supplement 2 vols. “Panegyrics,” 4 vols. and the supplement 1 vol. The “Mysteries,” 3 vols. and the supplement 1 vol. “The Tables,” 1 vol. *' The Ceremonies of the Church,“1 vol.” Christian Eloquence,“1 vol.” Traité de la maniere d'imiter le bons Predicateurs,“12mo.” Ars Typographica, carmen,“4to; and twenty volumes of” Sermons," all which shew more industry than genius, but some of them are consulted as repositories of facts and opinions.

, an English prelate, memorable for the firm and patriotic stand which he made against the tyranny and bigotry of James II. was the son of John Hough, a citizen of London, descended from the Houghs of Leighton in Cheshire, and iof Margaret, the daughter of John Byrche of Leacroft in the county of Stafford, esq. He was born in Middlesex, April 12, 1651; and, after having received his education either at Birmingham or Walsall in Staffordshire, was entered of Magdalen college, Oxford, Nov. 12, 1669, and in a few years was elected a fellow. He took orders in 1675, and in 1678 was appointed domestic chaplain to the duke of Ormond, at that time lord lieutenant of Ireland, and went over with him to that country; but he returned soon after, and in 1685 was made a prebendary of Worcester. He was also presented to the rectory of Tempsford in Bedfordshire, in the gift of the crown. From these circumstances, it should seem that he must have been considered as a man of talents and merit, before he acted the conspicuous part he did in October 1687.

In March of that year, the presidentship of Magdalen college being vacant by the death of Dr. Henry Clarke, the usual notice was given that the election of a president would take place on the 13th of April; but the fellows being afterwards informed, that his majesty James II. had granted letters mandatory, requiring them to elect Mr. Anthony Farmer, who had not been fellow either of this or New college, as indispensably required by the statutes, who had also given strong proofs of indifference to all religions, and whom they thought unfit in other respects to be their president, petitioned the king, either to leave them to the discharge of their duty and conscience, and to their founder’s statutes, or to recommend such a person as might be more serviceable to his majesty and to the college. No answer being given to this petition, they met on the 13th of April, but adjourned first to the 14th, and then to the 15th, the last day limited by the statutes for the election of a president, and having still received no answer (except a verbal one by the rev. Thomas Smith, one of the fellows, from lord Sunderland, president of the council, which was, “that his majesty expected to be obeyed”) they proceeded to the election, according to the usual forms, and the Rev. Mr. Hough was chosen, who is stated in the college register to be “a gentleman of liberality and firmness, who, by the simplicity and purity of his moral character, by the mildness of his disposition, and the happy temperament of his virtues, and many good qualities, had given everyone reason to expect that he would be a distinguished ornament to the college, and to the whole university.”

He was accordingly presented next day, April 16, to the visitor, Dr. Mews, bishop of Winchester, and was the same day sworn in president of the college. He returned next day, and was solemnly installed in the chapel. Many applications were made to the king during this and the tblflowing month in behalf of the fellows, both by themselves, the bishop of Winchester, and by the duke of Ormond, chancellor of the university: notwithstanding which, they were cited to appear at Whitehall, in June following, before his majesty’s commissioners for ecclesiastical causes, who decreed that the election of Mr. Hough, who had now taken his doctor’s degree, was void, and that he be removed from his office of president. Still as Farmer’s moral character was too strong to get over, another mandate was sent to the fellows on August 27, to admit Dr. Samuel Parker president, who was at that time bishop of Oxford, and a Roman Catholic. But this was declined, on the ground of the office heing full, and being directly contrary to their statutes and the oath they had taken, although the king went to Oxford in September in order to enforce his mandate, attended by lord Sunderland and others. Among these was the celebrated William Penn the quaker, whose influence with his brethren, and the dissenters in general, James II. made use of to promote his own designs in favour of popery, under the colour of a. general toleration and suspension of the penal laws against all sectaries, as well as against the Roman catholics. Perm’s interference in the present business, however, does not appear to havebeen improper. He even allowed, after making himself acquainted with the circumstances of the case, that the “fe^ows could not yield obedience without a breach of their oaths, and that such mandates were a force on conscience, and not agreeable to the king’s other gracious indulgencies.”

The king, however, with whom no good advice had any weight, as soon as he arrived at Oxford, sent for the fellows, Sept. 4, to attend him in person, at three in the afternoon, at Christ Church, of which the bishop of Oxford was dean. The fellows accordingly attended, and presented a petition, recapitulating their obligations to obey the statutes, &c. which the king refused to accept, and threatened them, in a very gross manner, with the whole weight of his displeasure, if they did not admit the bishop of Oxford, which they intimated was not in their power; and having returned to their chapel, and being asked by the senior fellow whether they would elect the bishop of Oxford their president, they all answered in their turn, that it being contrary to their statutes, and to the positive oath which they had taken, they did not apprehend it was in their power. Their refusal was followed by the appointment of certain lords commissioners to visit the college. These were, Cartwright bishop of Chester, sir Robert Wright, chief justice of the king’s bench, and sir Thomas Jenner, baron of the exchequer, who cited the pretended president, as he was called, and the fellows, to appear before them at Magdalen college on Oct. 21, the day before which the commissioners had arrived at Oxford, with the parade of three troops of horse. Having assembled on the day appointed in the hall, and their commission read, the names of the president and fellows were called over, and Dr. Hough was mentioned first. It was upon this occasion that he behaved with that courage and intrepidity, prudence and temper, which will endear his memory to the latest posterity. The commissioners, however, struck his name out of the books of the college, and admonished the fellows and others of the society no longer to suhmit to his authority. At their next meeting the president came into court, and said, “My lords, you were pleased this morning to deprive me of my place of president of this college I do hereby protect against all your proceedings, and against all that you have done, or hereafter shall do, in prejudice of me and my right, as illegal, unjust, and null: and therefore I appeal to my sovereign lord the king in his courts of justice.” As he had refused them the keys, they sent for a smiHi to force the door of the president’s lodgings. Burnet savs, “the nation, as well as the university, looked on all this proceeding with a just indignation. It was thought an open piece of robbery and burglary, when men, authorized by no legal commission, came forcibly and turned men out of their possessions and freeholds.”

It is remarkable, and highly honourable to the college, that out of twenty-eight fellows, there were only two who at all submitted to these proceedings; the rest were all deprived of their fellowships; and those demies, or probationer fellows, who did not appear when summoned, amounting to fourteen, were removed and dismissed. These proceedings, harsh as they may seem, were confirmed by the commissioners for ecclesiastical causes, who met at Whitehall Dec. 10 following, and who, “having taken into consideration all that had passed in the business of St. Mary Magdalen college, Oxford, and the contemptuous and disobedient behaviour of Dr. John Hough, and several of the fellows of that college,” whom they named individually, declared and decreed, that they should be incapable of receiving, or being admitted to, any ecclesiastical dignity, benefice, or promotion. Such of them as were not yet in holy orders, were adjudged incapable of receiving or hieing admitted into the same and all archbishops, bishops, &c. were required to take notice of the said decree, and to yield obedience to it.

It was not until the end of September in the following year, 1688, that the infatuated James II. began to see the folly of 4iis conduct, and, conscious both of his past error and present danger, began to be alarmed. Among other steps taken too late for the preservation of his crown, he ordered lord Sunderland to write to the bishop of Winchester, that “the king, having declared his resolution topreserve the church of England, and all its rights and immunities, his majesty, as an evidence of it, commanded him to signify to his lordship his royal will and pleasure, that, as visitor of St. Mary Magdalen college in Oxford, he should settle that society regularly and statuteably.” In consequence of this, Dr. Hough, as president, and the fellows and demies who had been expelled, wej;e all restored.

Soon after the revolution, viz. in April 1690, Dr. Hough was nominated bishop of Oxford, with a licence to hold the presidentship of Magdalen -college in commendam, which he did till he succeeded Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, in 1699. It must have been a singular satisfaction to him, as it was a most appropriate reward, that he should receive that mark of elevation in a place which was the scene of his degradation-, or rather of his exemplary fortitude and manly virtue; nor does it appear that this accession of rank at all altered the general benignity of his nature towards those with whom he was connected, either in his college or in his diocese; for even they who had taken a different part at the time of his election, or were of a different opinion with himself, were always treated by him with the greatest humanity and indulgence.

The remainder of bishop Hough’s life affords few incidents for biography, as he very seldom employed his pen, unless in correspondence, or other compositions not intended for the press, but the steady virtues of his character appeared throughout his whole conduct, and afforded subject for many a heart-felt and many a studied panegyric. Whilst in the see of Lichfield and Coventry, he repaired and almost rebuilt as well as adorned the episcopal house at Eccleshall, and afterwards, on his removal to Worcester, he rehuilt great part of the palace there, particularly the whole front, where his arms are impaled with those of the see in the pediment, and made considerable improvements at his other seat at the castle of Hardebury, so as to have laid out many thousand pounds upon them. He had before repaired the lodgings at Magdalen college at his own expence, and contributed 1000l. towards the hew building at that place of his education. He likewise contributed 1000l. towards building All Saints church in Worcester. In 1715 the metropolitan chair was offered to him, on the death of archbishop Tenison, which he declined, from the too modest and humble sentiments which he entertained of himself; but afterwards, in 1717, he succeeded bishop Lloyd in the see of Worcester. As his public benefactions have been just mentioned, it is necessary to add that his private acts of charity were very extensive. His usual manner of living was agreeable to his function, hospitable without profuseness, and his conversation with all was full of humanity and candour, as well as prudent and instructive.

His earliest biographer says, that *' his heavenly temper of mind, his contempt of the world, and his indifference to life, were most visible in the latter period of his own; his firm faith in the promises of the gospel exerted itself most remarkably in his declining years, as well in conversation with some of his friends about his hopes of a better state, and even in his own private thoughts on the nature of that state, as in several letters to others about the gradual decay of his body, the just sense he had of his approaching dissolution, and his entire resignation to the will of God. As he had on many occasions expressed his well-grounded hopes of immortality, so they gradually grew stronger on him, and seemed to be more vigorous in proportion to the decays of his body. Indeed, even the temper of his mind bore so just a proportion to his well-tempered constitution of body, as by an happy result of both, to extend his age to the beginning of his ninety-third year, and almost to the completion of the fifty-third year of his episcopate. But he cast only a cursory eye upon the minute distinctions of human life, as the whole is at best of a short duration. Bishop Hough’s lamp of life burnt clear,- if not bright, to the last^ and though his body was weak, he had no pain or sickness, as he himself acknowledged on several occasions, not only at a considerable distance from his death, but even a few minutes before he expired.“A little before his death, he wrote a letter to his friend lord Digby, where we find the following remarkable words” I am weak and forgetful In other respects 1 have ease to a degree beyond what I durst have thought on, when years began to multiply upon me. I wait contentedly for a deliverance out of this life into a better, in humble confidence, that by the mercy of God, through the merits of his Son, I shall stand at the resurrection on his right hand. And when you, my lord, have ended those days which are to come, which I pray may be many and comfortable, as innocently and as exemplary as those which are passed, I doubt not of our meeting in that state where the joys are unspeakable, and will always endure." He died March 8, 1743, and was buried in Worcester cathedral near his wife, where his memory is preserved by an elegant monument.

It does not appear that Dr. Hough ever prepared any thing for the press, except eight occasional sermons, and he gave a strict charge that none should be published from his manuscripts after his death. Many of his letters, however, with various important documents to illustrate his character and public services, have lately been given to the world in a splendid publication, entitled “The Life of the rev. John Hough, D. D. &c.” by John Wilmot, esq. F. It. S. and S. A. To this we are indebted for the preceding sketch; and Mr. Wilmot has accumulated so much information respecting Dr. Hough, that it is now unnecessary to refer to any other authority.

, a French poetess, was born at Paris in 1638, and possessed all the charms of her sex, and wit enough to shine in the age of Louis XIV. Her taste for poetry was cultivated by the celebrated poet Henault, who is said to have instructed her in all he knew, or imagined he knew; but she not only imitated him in his poetry, but also in his irreligion; for her verses savour strongly of Epicureanism. She composed epigrams, odes, eclogues, tragedies; but succeeded best in the idyllium or pastoral, which some affirm she carried to perfection. She died at Paris in 1694, and left a daughter of her own name, who had some talent for poetry, but inferior to that of her mother. The first verses, however, composed by this lady, bore away the prize at the French academy; which was highly to her honour, if it be true, as is reported, that Fontenelle wrote at the same time, and upon the same subject. She was a member of the academy of the Ilicovrati of Padua, as,was her mother, who was also of that of Aries. She died at Paris in 1718. The works of these two ladies were collectively published in 1747, in 2 vols. 12mo. Several maxims of the elder of these ladies are much cited by French writers; as, that on gaming, “On commence par tre dupe, on finit par etre fripon.” People begin dupes, and end rogues. And that on self-love: “Nul n'est content cle sa fortune, ni mécontent de son esprit.” No one is satisfied with his fortune, or dissatisfied with his talents.

, an able promoter of exotic botany in England, went first to the West Indies, in the character of a surgeon, and upon his return, after two years’ residence at Leyden, took his degrees in physic under Boerhaave, in 1728 and 1729. At Leyden he instituted a set of experiments on brutes; some of which were made in concert with the celebrated Van Swieten. They were afterwards published in the Philosophical Transactions under the title of “Experimenta de perforatione thoracis, ejusque in respiratione affectibus,” the result of which proved, contrary to the common opinion, that animals could live and breathe for some time, although air was freely admitted into both cavities of the thorax. Soon after his return from Holland, he was in 1732 elected a fellow of the royal society, and went immediately to the West Indies, where he fell a sacrifice to the heat of the climate, July 14, 1733. He had previously sent over a description and figure of the dorsteria contrayerva, which were published in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. XXXVII. This was the first authentic account received of that drug, although known in England from the time of sir Francis Drake, or earlier. He also sent to his friend Mr. Miller, of Chelsea, the seeds of many rare and new plants collected by him in the islands. His ms Catalogue of plants also came into the hands of Mr. Miller, and after his death into the possession of sir Joseph Banks, who, out of respect to the memory of so deserving a man, gratified the botanists with the publication of them, under the title of " Reliquiae Houstonianae, 1781, 4to.

, a native of Paris, was eighteen years a member of the congregation called the oratory, and afterwards secretary to cardinal Dubois, by whom he was much esteemed. He was appointed in 1742 perpetual secretary to the French academy, but did not long enjoy his preferment, for he died the same year, being about fifty- four years old. He published a work entitled “La Verite” de la Religion Chretienne prouvée par les fails," the latter editions of which are far superior to the first. The best edition is that of Paris, 1741, 3 vols. 4to. This book had an astonishing success on its first appearance; but sunk afterwards into a state of discredit no less astonishing: it had been extolled too highly at first, ancl afterwards too much depreciated. The style is affected, and the author lays down useless principles, and, sometimes, even such as are dangerous and hurtful to his cause. His proofs are not always solid or well chosen; but he is particularly blameable for having separated the difficulties and objections from the proofs brought against them. By thus heaping objections on objections at the end of his work, and giving very short and concise answers for fear of repetitions, he gives greater forceto the former than to the latter, makes us lose sight of his proofs, and seems to destroy what he had established.

, an English historian, who flourished in the reign of Henry II. was born in Yorkshire, most probably in the town of that name, was of a good family, and lived beyond the year 1204, but the exact periods of his birth and death are not known. He is said to have had some situation in the family of Henry II. and to have been employed by that monarch in confidential services, such as visiting monasteries. He was by profession a lawyer, but, like other lawyers of that time, in the church, and also a professor of theology at Oxford. After the death of Henry, he applied himself diligently to the writing of history, ancl composed annals, which he commenced at the year 731, the period where Bede left off, and continued to the third year of king John, 1202. These annals were first published by Savile among the Historic! Anglici, in 1595, and reprinted at Francfort in 1601, folio, in two books. Leland says of him, “If we consider his diligence, his knowledge of antiquity, and his religious strictness of veracity, he may be considered as having surpassed, not only the rude historians of the preceding ages, but even what could have been expected of himself. If to that fidelity, which is the first quality of a historian, he had joined a little more elegance of Latin style, he might have. stood the first among the authors of that class.” Vossius says that he wrote also a history of the Northumbrian kings, and a life of Thomas a Becket. Edward the Third caused a diligent search to be made for the works of Hoveden when he was endeavouring to ascertain his title to the crown of Scotland. Savile bears the same testimony to his fidelity that we have seen given by Leland.

, the first English botanist who gave a sketch of what is called a “Flora,” was bora in London in 1619, and educated at Merchant Taylors’ school. He became a commoner of St. John’s college in 1637, took his degree of B. A. in 1641, and that of M. A. in 1645, and began to study medicine, but we do not find that he graduated in that faculty, although he was commonly called Dr. How. With many other scholars of that time, he entered into the royal army, and was promoted to the rank of captain in a troop of horse. Upon the decline of the king’s affairs he prosecuted his studies in physic, and began to practise. His residence was first in Lawrencelane, and then in Milk-street. He died about the beginning of Sept, 1656, and was buried by the grave of his mother in St. Margaret’s church, Westminster; leaving behind him, as Wood says, “a choice library of books of his faculty, and the character of a noted herbalist.” The work which he published, fto which we have alluded, was entitled “Phytologia Britannica, natales exhibens indigenarum Stirpium sponte emergentium,” Lond. 1650, 12mo, This list contains 1220 plants, which (as few mosses and fungi are enumerated) is a copious catalogue for that time, even admitting the varieties which the present state of botany would reject, but there are many articles in it which have no title to a place as indigenous plants of England.

, earl of Surrey, and duke of Norfolk, an eminent commander in the reign of Henry VIII. was born in 1473, and brought up to arms, and soon after the accession of Henry was decorated with the knighthood of the garter. He served with his brother sir Edward, against sir Andrew Barton, a Scotch free-booter, or pirate, who perished in the action. Wuen his brother, sir Edward, was killed in an action near Brest, in 1513, he was appointed to the office in his stead, and in the capacity of high admiral he effectually cleared the channel of French cruisers. The victory of Flodden-field, in which the king of Scotland was slain, was chiefly owing to his valour and good conduct. For this his father was restored to the title of duke of Norfolk, and the title of earl of Surrey was conferred on him. In 1521 he was sent to Ireland as lordlieutenant, chiefly for the purpose, it was thought, of having him out of the way during the proceedings against his father-in-law, the duke of Buckingham. Here he was very instrumental in suppressing the rebellion, and having served there two years he returned, and had the command of the fleet against France. By the death of his father he succeeded to the title and estates as duke of Norfolk. Notwithstanding his great services, Henry, at the close of his tyrannical life and reign, caused the duke to be sent to the Tower on a charge of high treason, and his son to be beheaded in his presence. The death of the king saved the duke’s life. He was, however, detained prisoner during the whole of the reign of Edward VI. but one of the first acts of Mary, after her accession to the throne, was to liberate him. He was, after this, the principal instrument in suppressing the rebellion excited by sir Thomas Wyatt. He died in August 1554, having passed his eightieth year. He was father to the illustrious subject of our next article.

, Earl of Surrey. This highly accomplished nobleman has been peculiarly unfortunate in his biographers, nor is there in the whole range of the English series, a life written with less attention to probability. Even the few dates on which we can depend have been overlooked with a neglect that is wholly unaccountable in men so professedly attentive to these matters, as Birch, Walpole, and Warton. The story usually told consists of the following particulars:

Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, was the eldest son of Thomas, the third duke of Norfolk, lord high treasurer of England in the reign of Henry VIII. by Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham. He was born either at his father’s seat at Framlingham, in Suffolk, or in the city of Westminster, and being a child of great hopes, all imaginable care was taken of his education. When he was very young he was companion, at Windsor castle, with Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond, natural son to Henry VIII. and afterwards student in Cardinal college, now Christ Church, Oxford. In 1532 he was with the duke of Richmond at Paris, and continued there for some time in the prosecution of his studies, and learning the French language; and upon the death of that duke in July 1536, travelled into Germany, where he resided some time at the emperor’s court, and thence went to Florence, where he fell in love with the fair Geraldine, the great object of his poetical addresses, and in the grand duke’s court published a challenge against all who should dispute her beauty; which challenge being accepted, he came oft victorious. For this approved valour, the duke of Florence made him large offers to stay with him; but he refused them because he intended to defend the honour of his Geraldine in all the chief cities of Italy. But this design of his was diverted by letters sent to him by king Henry VIII. recalling him to England. He left Italy, therefore, where he had cultivated his poetical genius by the reading of the greatest writers of that country, and returned to his own country, where he was considered a one of the first of the English nobility, who adorned his high birth with the advantages of a polite taste and extensive literature. On the first of May, 1540, he was one of the chief of those who justed at Westminster, as a defendant, against sir John Dudley, sir Thomas Seymour, and other challengers, where he behaved himself with admirable courage, and great skill in the use of his arms, and, in 1542, served in the army, of which his father was lieutenant-genera!, and which, in October that year, entered Scotland, and burnt divers villages. In February or March following, he was confined to Windsor castle for eating flesh in Lent, contrary to the king’s proclamation of the 9th of February 1542. In 1544, upon the expedition to Boulogne, in France, he was field-marshal of the English army; and after taking that town, being then knight of the garter, he was in the beginning of September 1545, constituted the king’s lieutenant and captain-general of all his army within the town and country of Boulogne. During his command there in 1546, hearing that a convoy of provisions of the enemy was coming to the fort at Oultreau, he resolved to intercept it; but the Rhingrave, with' four thdusand Lanskinets, together with a considerable number of French under the marshal de Blez, making an obstinate defence, the Englisii were routed, anil sir Edward Poynings, with divers other gentlemen, killed, and the earl of Surrey himself obliged to fly; though it appears by a letter of his to the king, dated January 8, 1545-6, that this advantage cost the enemy a great number of men. But the king was so highly displeased with this ill success, that, from that time he contracted a prejudice against the earl, and, soon after, removed him from his command, appointing the earl of Hertford to succeed him. On this sir William Paget wrote to the earl of Surrey to advise him to procure some eminent post under the earl of Hertford, that he might not be unprovided in the town and field. The earl being desirous, in the mean time, to regain his former favour with the king, skirmished against the French, and routed them; but, soon after, writing over to the king’s council, that as the enemy had cast much larger cannon than had been yet seen, with which they imagined they should soon demolish Boulogne, it deserved consideration, whether the lower town should stand, as not being defensible, the council ordered him to return to England, in order to represent his sentiments more fully upon those points, and the earl of Hertford was immediately sent over in his room. This exasperating the earl of Surrey, occasioned him to let fall some expressions which savoured of revenge, and a dislike of the king, and an hatred of his counsellors; and was, probably, one great cause of his ruin soon after. His father, the duke of Norfolk, had endeavoured to ally himaelf to the earl of Hertford, and to his brother, sir Thomas Seymour, perceiving how much they were in the king’s favour, and how great an interest they were likely to have under the succeeding prince; and therefore he would have engaged his son, being then a widower (having lost his wife Frances, daughter of John earl of Oxford), to marry the earl of Hertford’s daughter, and pressed his daughter, the duchess of Richmond, widow of the king’s natural son, to marry sir Thomas Seymour. But though the earl of Surrey advised his sister to the marriage projected for her, yet he would nol consent to that designed for himself; nor did the proposition about himself take effect. The Seymours could not but perceive the enmity which the earl bore them; and they might well be jealous of the greatness of the Howard family, which was not only too considerable for subjects, of itself, but was raised so high by the dependence of th whole popish party, both at home and abroad, that they were likely to be very dangerous competitors for the chief government of affairs, if the king should die, whose disease was now growing so fast upon him that he could not live many weeks. Nor is it improbable, that they persuaded the king, that, if the earl of Surrey should marry the princess Mary, it might embroil his son’s government, and, perhaps, ruin him. And it was suggested that he had some such high project in his thoughts, both by his continuing unmarried, and by his using the arms of Edward the Confessor, which, of late, he had given in his coat without a diminution. To complete the duke of Norfolk’s and his son’s ruin, his duchess, who had complained of his using her ill, and had been separated from him about four years, turned informer against him. And the earl and his sister, the duchess dowager of Richmond, being upon ill terms together, she discovered all she knew against him; as likewise did one Mrs. Holland, for whom the duke was believed to have had an unlawful affection. But all these discoveries amounted only to some passionate expressions of the son, and some complaints of the father, who thought he was not beloved by the king and his counsellors, and that he was ill used in not being trusted with the secret of affairs. However, all persons being encouraged to bring informations against them, sir Richard Southwel charged the earl of Surrey in some points of an higher nature; which the earl denied, and desired to be admitted, according to the martial law, to fight, in his shirt, with sir Richard. But, that not being granted, he and his father were committed prisoners to the Tower on the 12th of December 1546; and the earl, being a commoner, was brought to his trial in Guildhall, on the 13th of January following, Jbefore the lord chancellor, the lord mayor, and other commissioners; where he defended himself with great skill and address, sometimes denying the accusations, and weakening the credit of the witnesses against him, and sometimes interpreting the words objected to him in a far different sense from what had been represented. For the point of bearing the arms of Edward the Confessor, he justified himself by the authority of the heralds. And when a witness was produced, who pretended to repeat some high words of his lordship’s, by way of discourse, which concerned him nearly, and provoked the witness to return him a braving answer; the qarl left it to the jury to judge whether it was probable that this man should speak thus to him, and he not strike him again. In conclusion, he insisted upon his innocence, but was found guilty, and had sentence of death passed upon him. He was beheaded on Tower-hill on the 19th of January 1546-7; and his body interred in the church of All Hallows Barking, and afterwards removed to Framlingham, in Suffolk.

Such is the account drawn up by Dr. Birch for the “Illustrious Heads,” from Anthony Wood, Camden, Herbert, Dugdale, and Burnet’s History of the Reformation. The principal errors, (corrected in this transcription,) are his making the earl of Surrey son to the second duke of Norfolk, and the duke of Richmond natural son to Henry the Seventh.

His next biographer to whom any respect is due was the late earl of Orford, in his Catalogue of “Royal and Noble Authors.” The account of Surrey, in this work, derives its chief merit from lord Orford’s ingenious explanation of the sonnet on Geraldine, which amounts to this, that Geraldine was Elizabeth (second daughter of Gerald Fitzgerald earl of Kildare), and afterwards third wife of Edward Clinton earl of Lincoln; and that Surrey probably saw her first at Hunsdon-house in Hertfordshire, where, as she was second cousin to the princesses Mary and Elizabeth, who were educated in this place, she might have been educated with them, and Surrey, as the companion of the duke of Richmond, the king’s natural son, might have had interviews with her, when the duke went to visit his sisters. All this is ingenious; but no light is thrown upon the personal history of the earl, and none of the difficulties, however obvious, in his courtship of Geraldine removed, or even hinted at; nor does lord Orford condescend to inquire into the dates of any event in his life.

Mr. Warton commences his account of Surrey by observing, that “Lord Surrey’s life throws so much light on the character and subjects of his poetry, that it is almost impossible to consider the one, without exhibiting a few anecdotes of the other.” He then gives the memoirs of Surrey almost in the words of lord Orford, except in th following instances: “A friendship of the closest kind commencing between these two illustrious youths (Surrey and the duke of Richmond), about the year 1530, they were both removed to cardinal Wolsey’s college at Oxford. Two years afterwards (1532) for the purpose of acquiring every accomplishment of an elegant education, the earl accompanied his noble friend and fellow-pupil into France, where they received king Henry, v on his arrival at Calais to visit Francis I. with a most magnificent retinue. The friendship of these two young noblemen was soon strengthened by a utw tie; for Richmond married the lady Mary Howard, Surrey’s sister. Richmond, however, appears to have died in the year 1536, about the age of seventeen, having never cohabited with his wife. It was long before Surrey forgot the untimely loss of this amiable youth, the friend and associate of his childhood, and who nearly resembled himself in genius, refinement of manners, and liberal acquisitions.”

"It is not precisely known at what period the earl of Surrey began his travels. They have the air of a romance. He made the tour of Europe in the true spirit of chivalry, and with the ideas of an Amadis: proclaiming the unparalleled charms of his mistress, and prepared to defend the cause of her beauty with the weapons of knight-errantry. Nor was this adventurous journey performed without the intervention of an enchanter. The first city in Italy which he proposed to visit was Florence, the capital of Tuscany, and the original seat of the ancestors of his Geraidine. In his way thither, he passed a few days at the emperor’s court ^ where he became acquainted with Cornelius Agrippa, a celebrated adept in natural magic. This visionary philosopher shewed our hero, in a mirror of glass, a living image of Geraidine, reclining on a couch, sick, and reading one of his most tender sonnets by a waxen taper. His imagination, which wanted not the flattering F represeniations and artificial incentives of illusion, was heated anew by this interesting and affecting spectacle. Inflamed wiih every enthusiasm of the most romantic passion, he hastened to Florence and on his arrival, immediately published a defiance against any person who could handle a lance and was in love, whether Christian, Jew, Turk, Saracen, or Canibal, who should presume to dispute the superiority of Geraldine’s beauty. As the lady was pretended to be of Tuscan extraction, the pride of the Flo-, rentines was flattered on this occasion: and the grand duke of Tuscany permitted a general and unmolested ingress into his dominions of the combatants of all countries, till this important trial should be decided. The challenge was accepted, and the earl victorious. The shield which he presented to the duke before the tournament began, is exhibited in Vertue’s valuable plate of the Arundel family, and was actually in the possession of the late duke of Norfolk.

_*' These heroic vanities did not, however, so totally engross the time which Surrey spent in Italy, as to alienate his mind from letters: he studied with the greatest success a critical knowledge of the Italian tongue; and, that he might give new lustre to the name of Geraldine, attained a just taste for the peculiar graces of the Italian poetry.

“He was recalled to England for some idle reason by the king, much sooner than he expected and he returned home, the most elegant traveller, the most polite lover, the most learned nobleman, and the most accomplished gentleman, of his age. Dexterity in tilting, and gracefulness in managing a horse under arms, were excellencies now viewed with a critical eye, and practised with a high degree of emulation. In 1540, at a tournament held in the presence of the court at Westminster^ and in which the principal of the nobility were engaged, Surrey was distinguished above the rest for his address in the use and exercise of arms. But his martial skill was not solely displayed in. the parade and ostentation of these domestic combats. In 1542, he marched into Scotland, as a chief commander in his father’s army; and was conspicuous for his conduct and bravery at the memorable battle of Flodden-Field, where James the Fourth of Scotland was killed.”

“Among these anecdotes of Surrey’s life, I had almost forgot to mention what became of his amour with the fair Geraldine. We lament to find that Surrey’s devotion to this lady did not end in a wedding, and that all his gallantries and verses availed so little. No memoirs of that incurious age have informed us whether her beauty was equalled by her cruelty; or whether her ambition prevailed so far over her gratitude, as to tempt her to prefer the solid glories of a more splendid title and ample fortune to the challenges and the compliments of so magnanimous, so faithful, and so eloquent a lover. She appears, however, to have been afterwards the third wife of Edward Clinton, earl of Lincoln. Such also is the power of time and accident over amorous vows, that even Surrey himself outlived the violence of his passion. He married Frances, daughter of John earl of Oxford, by whom he left several children. One of his daughters, Jane countess of Westmoreland, was among the learned ladies of that age, and became famous for her knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages.”

It is truly wonderful that lord Orford and Mr. Warton, delighted as they were with the “romantic air” of lord Surrey’s travels, should by any enchantment have been prevented from inquiring whether the events which they have placed between 1536 and 1546, when lord Surrey died, were at all consistent with probability. Had they made the slightest inquiry into the age of lord Surrey, although the precise year and day of his birth might not have been recoverable, they could not have failed to obtain such information as would have thrown a suspicion on the whole story of his knight-errantry.

The birth of lord Surrey may be conjectured to have taken place some time between 1515 and 1520, probably the former, or at least earlier than 1520. He was, it is, universally agreed, the school companion of the duke of Richmond, who died in 1536, in his seventeenth year, and if we allow that Surrey was two or three years older, it will not much affect the high probability that he was a very young man at the time when his biographers made him fall in love with Geraldine, and maintain her beauty at Florence. None of the portraits of Surrey, as far as the present writer has been able to ascertain, mention his age, except that in the picture gallery at Oxford, on which is inscribed, that he was beheaded in “1547, set. 27.” The inscription, indeed, is in a hand posterior to the date of the picture (supposed to be by Holbein), but it may have been the hand of some successful inquirer. None of the books of peerage notice his birth or age, nor are these circumstances inserted on his monument at Framlingham. Conjecture, it has been already observed, supposes him to have been born some time between 1515 and 1520. If we take the earliest of these dates, it will still remain that his biographers have either crowded more events into his life than it was capable of holding, or that they have delayed his principal adventures until they become undeserving of credit, and inconsistent with his character.

Mr. Warton observes, that “it is not precisely known at what period the earl of Surrey began his travels;” but this is a matter of little consequence in refuting the account usually given of those travels, because all his biographers are agreed that he did not set out before 1536, At this time he had ten years only of life before him, which have been filled up in a very extraordinary manner. First, he travels over a part of Europe, vindicating the beauty of Geraldine in 1540 he is celebrated at the justs at Westminster in 1542 he goes to Scotland with his father’s army in 1543 (probably) he is imprisoned for eating flesh in lent ^in 1544 5, he is commander at Boulogne and lastly, amidst all these romantic adventures, or serious events, he has leisure to marry the daughter of the earl of Oxford, and beget five children, which we may suppose would occupy at least five or six of the above ten years, and those not the last five or six years, for we find him a widower a considerable time before his death. Among other accusations whispered in the ear of his jealous sovereign, one was his continuing unmarried (an expression which usually denotes a considerable length of time) after the period when a second marriage might be decent, in order that he might marry the princess Mary, in the event of the king’s death, and so disturb the succession of Edward. The placing of these events in this series would render the story of his knight-errantry sufficiently improbable, were we left without any information respecting the date of Surrey’s marriage, but that event renders the whole impossible, if we wish to preserve any respect for the consistency of his character. Surrey was actually married before the commencement of his travels in pursuit or in defence of Geraldine’s beauty. His eldest son, Thomas, third duke of Norfolk, was eighteen years old when his grandfather died in 1554. He was consequently born in 1536, and his father, it is surely reasonable to suppose, was married in 1535. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to examine the story of Surrey’s romantic travels any farther, if we had not some collateral authorities which may still show that whatever may be wrong in the present statement, it is certain that there is nothing right in the common accounts, which have been read and copied without any suspicion.

If it be said that Surrey’s age is not exactly known, and therefore allowing 1536, the date of his travels, to be erroneous, it is possible that he might have been enamoured of Geraldine long before this, and it is possible that his travels might have commenced in 1526, or any other period founded on this new conjecture. This, however, is as improbable as all the rest of the story, for it can be decidedly proved that there was no time for Surrey’s gallantries towards Geraldine, except the period which his biographers, however absurdly, have assigned, namely, when he was a married man. The father of lady Elizabeth, the supposed Geraldine, married in 1519, one of the daughters of Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, and by her had five children, of whom Elizabeth was the fourth, and therefore probably not born before 1523 or 1524. If Surrey’s courtship, therefore, must be carried farther back, it must be carried to the nursery; for even in 1536, when we are told he was her knight-errant, she could not have been more than eleven or twelve years old. Let us add to this a few particulars respecting Geraldine’s husband. She married Edward lord C'linton. He was born in 1512, was educated in the court, and passed his youth in those magnificent and romantic amusements which distinguished the beginning of Henry VIII.'s reign, but did not appear as a public character until 1544, when he was thirty-two years of age, Geraldine about twenty-four, and Surrey within two years of his death, and most probably a widower. This earl of Lincoln had three wives; the date of his marriage with any of them is not known, nor how long they lived, but Geraldine was the third, the only one by whom he had no children, and who survived his death, which took place in 1584, thirty-eight years after the death of Surrey. Mr. Warton, in his earnest desire to connect her with Surrey, insinuates that she might have been either cruel, or that her “ambition prevailed so far over her gratitude as to tempt her to prefer the solid glories of a more splendid title and ample fortune, to the challenges and the compliments of so magnanimous, so faithful, and so eloquent a lover.” On this it is only necessary to remark, that the lady’s ambition might have been as highly gratified by marrying the accomplished and gallant Surrey, the heir of the duke of Norfolk, as by allying herself to a nobleman of inferior talents and rank. But of his two conjectures, Mr. Warton seems most to adhere to that of cruelty^ for he adds, that “Surrey himgelf outlived his amorous vows, and married the daughter of the earl of Oxford.” This, however, is as little deserving of serious examination, as the ridiculous story of Cornelius Agrippa showing Geraldine in a glass, which Anthony Wood found in Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle,” or probably, as Mr. Park thinks, took it from Nash’s fanciful “Life of Jack Wilton,” published in 1594, where, under the character of his hero, he professes to have travelled to the emperor’s court as page to the earl of Surrey. But it is unfortunate for this story, wheresoever borrowed, that Agrippa was no more a conjurer than any other learned man of his time, and that he died at Grenoble the year before Surrey is said to have set out on his romantic expedition. Drayton has made a similar mistake in giving to Surrey, as one of the companions of his voyage, the great sir Thomas More, who was beheaded in 1535, a year likewise before Surrey set out. Poetical authorities, although not wholly to be rejected, are of all others to be received with the greatest caution, yet it was probably Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle” which led Mr. Warton into so egregious a blunder as that of our poet being present at Flodden-field, in 1513. Dr. Sewell, indeed, in the short memoirs prefixed to his edition of Surrey’s Poems, asserts the same; tut little credit is due to the assertion -of a writer who at the same time fixes Surrey’s birth in 1520, seven years after that memorable battle was fought.

It is now time to inquire whether the accounts hitherto given can be confirmed by internal evidence. It has been so common to consider Geraldine as the mistress of Surrey, that all his love-poems are supposed to have a reference to his attachment to that lady. Mr. Warton begins his narrative by observing, that “Surrey’s life throws so much light on the character and subjects of his poetry, that it is almost impossible to consider the one without exhibiting a few anecdtes of the other.” We have already seen what those anecdotes are, how totally* irreconcileable with probability, and how amply refuted by the dates which hi biographers, unfortunately for their story, have uniformly furnished. When we look into the poems, we find the celebrated sonnet to Geraldine, the only specious foundation for his romantic attachment; but as that attachment and its consequences cannot be supported without a continual violation of probability, and in opposition to the very dates which are brought to confirm it, it seems more safe to conjecture that this sonnet was one of our author’s earliest productions, addressed to Geraldine, a mere child, by one who was only not a child, as an effort of youthful gallantry, in one of his interviews with her at Hunsdon. Whatever credit may be given to this conjecture, for which the present writer is by no means anxious, it is certain that if we reject it, or some conjecture of the same import, and adopt the accounts given by his biographers, we cannot proceed a single step without being opposed by invincible difficulties. There is no other poem in Surrey’s collection that can be proved to have any reference to Geraldine, but there are two with the same title, viz. “The Complaint of the absence of her lover being upon the sea,” which are evidently written in the character of a wife, lamenting the absence of her husband, and tenderly alluding to “his faire litle Sonne.” Mr. Wanon, indeed, finds Geraldine in the beautiful lines beginning “Give place, ye lovers, here before,” and from the lines “Spite drave me into Boreas reign,” infers that her anger “drave him into a colder climate,” with what truth may now be left to the reader. But another of his conjectures cannot be passed over. “In 1544,” he says, “lord Surrey was fieldmarshal of the English army in the expedition to Boulogne, which he took. In that age, love and arms constantly went together; and it was amid the fatigues of this protracted campaign, that he composed his last sonnet, called * The Fansie of a Wearied Lover.” But this is a mere supposition. The poems of Surrey are without dates, and were arranged by their first editor without any attention to a matter of so much importance. The few allusions made to his personal history in these poems are very dark, but in some of them there is a train of reflection which seems to indicate that misfortunes and disappointments had dissipated his Quixotism, and reduced him to the sober and serious tone of a man whose days had been “fevr and evil.” Although he names his productions songs and sonnets, they have less of the properties of either than of the elegiac strain. His scripture- translations appear to be characteristic of his mind and situation in his latter days. What unless a heart almost broken by the unnatural conduct of his friends and family, could have induced the gay and gallant Surrey, the accomplished courtier and soldier, to console himself by translating those passages from Ecclesiastes which treat of the shortness and uncertainty of all human enjoyments, or those Psalms which direct the penitent and the forsaken to the throne of almighty power and grace? Mr. Warton remarks that these translations of Scripture “show him to have been a friend to the reformation;” and this, which is highly probable, may have been one reason why his sufferings were embittered by the neglect, if not the direct hostility of his bigotted father and sister. The translation of the Scriptures into prose was but just tolerated in his time, and to familiarize them by the graces of poetry must have appeared yet more obnoxious to the enemies of the reformation.

Although the present writer has taken some liberties with the Historian of English poetry, in his account of Surrey’s life, he has not the presumption to omit Mr. Warton’s elegant and just criticism on his poems. “Surrey for justness of thought, correctness of style, and purity of expression, may justly be pronounced the first English classical poet. He unquestionably is the first polite writer of love-verses in our language, although it must be allowed that there is a striking native beauty in some of our love-verse, written much earlier than Surrey’s.” It is also worthy of notice, that while all his biographers send him to Italy to study its poetry, Mr. Warton finds nothing in his works of that metaphysical cast which marks the Italian poets his supposed masters, especially Petrarch. “Surrey’s sentiments are for the most part natural and unaffected; arising from his own feelings, and dictated by the present circumstances. His poetry is alike unembarrassed by learned allusions, or elaborate conceits. If our author copies Petrarch, it is Petrarch’s better manner; when he descends from his Platonic abstractions, his refinements of passion, his exaggerated compliments, and his play upon opposite sentiments, into a track of tenderness, simplicity, and nature. Petrarch would have been a better poet had he been. a worse scholar. Our author’s mind was not too much over-laid by learning.”

The translation of the two books of the Eneid is “executed with fidelity, without a prosaic servility; the diction is often poetical, and the versification varied with proper pauses.” Its principal merit, however, is that of being the first specimen in the English language, of blank verse, which was at that time growing fashionable in the Italian poetry. It is very probable that he intended to have translated the whole, and he is so much more elegant and correct in this than in his other translations, that the Eneid appears to have been the production of his happier days.

The fidelity which Mr. Warton attributes to the translations from Virgil, our author has not preserved in his translations from Scripture, which are very liberal, and by frequent omissions, and a different arrangement, made to suit his situation and feelings at the time they were written, which was probably when he was in the Tower.

Surrey’s poems were in high reputation among his contemporaries and immediate successors, who vied with each other in compliments to his genius, gallantry, and personal worth. They were first printed in 1557, by Tottel, in 4to, with die title of “Songes and sonnettes by the right honorable Henry Howard, late earl of Surrey, and other.” Several editions of the same followed in 1565, 1567, 1569, 1574, 1585, and 1587. So many editions prove a degree of popularity which fell to the lot of very few poems of that age. But after the time of Elizabeth they became gradually obscure, and we find no modern edition until Pope’s incidental notice of him (in Windsor-Forest), as the “Granville of a former age,” induced the booksellers to employ Dr. Sewell to be the editor of Surrey’s, Wyat’s, and the poems of uncertain authors. But the doctor performed his task, with so little knowledge of the language, that this is perhaps the most incorrect edition extant of any ancient poet. It would have been surprizing had it contributed to revive his memory, or justify Pope’s comparison and eulogium.

The translation of the second and fourth book of the Eneid was published in 1557, but it seems doubtful whether together or separately. The translations of the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and the few additional original poems, were printed, but not published, many years ago, by Dr. Percy, from a ms.f now in the possession of Thomas Hill, esq. A more correct and perfect edition of Surrey may soon be expected from Dr. Nott.

, earl of Northampton, second son of the preceding, but unworthy of such a father, was born at Shottisham in Norfolk about 1539. He was educated at King’s college, and afterwards at Trinity-hall, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. M. to which he was also admitted at Oxford, in 1568. Bishop Godwin says, his reputation for literature was so great in the unU versity, that he was esteemed“the learnedest among the nobility; and the most noble among the learned.” He was at first, probably, very slenderly provided for, being often obliged, as Lloyd records, “to dine with the chair of duke Humphrey.” He contrived, however, to spend some years in travel; but on his return could obtain no favour at court, at least till the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, which was probably owing to his connections. In 1597, it seems as if he was in some power (perhaps, however, only through the influence of his friend lord Essex), because Rowland White applied to him concerning sir Robert Sydney’s suits at court. He was the grossest of flatterers, as appears by his letters to his patron and friend lord Essex; but while he professed the most unbounded friendship for Essex, he yet paid his suit to the lord treasurer Burleigh. On the fall of Essex, he insinuated himself so far into the confidence of his mortal enemy, secretary Cecil, as to become the instrument of the secretary’s correspondence with the king of Scotland, which passed through his hands, and has been since published by sit David Dalrymple. It is not wonderful, therefore, that a man of his intriguing spirit, was immediately on king James’s accession, received into favour. In May 1603, he was made a privy-counsellor; in January following, lord warden of the Cinque Ports; in March, baron of Marnhill, and earl of Northampton; in April 1608, lord privy seal; and honoured with the garter. In 1609, he succeeded John lord Lumley, as high steward of Oxford; and in 1612, Robert, earl of Salisbury, as chancellor of Cambridge. Soon after he became the principal instrument in the infamous intrigue of his great niece the countess of Essex with Carr viscount Rochester. The wretch acted as pander to the countess, for the purpose of conciliating die rising favourite and it is impossible to doubt his deep criminality in the murder of Overbury. About nine months afterwards, June 15, 1614, he died, luckily for himself, before this atrocious affair became the subject of public investigation. He was a learned man, but a pedant dark and mysterious, and far from possessing masterly abilities. It causes astonishment, says the elegant writer to whom we are indebted for this article, “when we reflect that this despicable and wicked wretch was the sou of the generous and accomplished earl of Surrey.” One of his biographers remarks, that “his lordship very prudently died a papist; he stood no chance for heaven in any other religion.”

His works are, 1. “A Defensative against the poison of supposed Prophecies,” Lond. 1583, 4to, and 1620, folio. This is well analysed by Oldys in his “British Librarian.” 2. “An Apology for the government of Women,” a ms. in the Bodleian, and in lord Orford’s library. 3. “An abstract of the'frauds of the officers in the navy,” ms. in the king’s library. 4. “A devotional piece, with the judgment of primitive interpreters.” It seems doubtful whether this exists. It is mentioned by him in a letter to lord Burleigh, to whom he sent it, 5. “Forms of Prayer,” ms, Mr. Park has specified a few other articles among the Harleian Mss.

, earl of Nottingham, lord high admiral of England, was son of William lord Howard of Effingliam, and grandson of Thomas second duke of Norfolk/ He was born in 1536, and initiated early into the affairs of state, being sent in 1559, on the death of Henry II. king of France, with a compliment or condolence to his successor Francis II. and to congratulate him on "his accession to the throne, &c. On his return he was elected one of the knights of the shire for the county of Surrey in 1562, and in 1569 was general of the horse under the earl of Warwick, in the army sent against the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, then in rebellion. The year following he went with a fleet of men of war to convoy the princess Anne of Austria, daughter of the emperor Maximilian, going into Spain, over the British seas; and in 1573, upon the death of his father, succeeded him in honours and estate. The same year he was installed knight of the garter, and likewise made lord chamberlain of the household; and in 1585 constituted lord high admiral of England.

In 1588, the memorable year of the Spanish invasion, the queen, knowing his abilities in naval affairs, and popularity with the seamen, gave him the command of her whole fleet, with which he entirely dispersed and destroyed the Spanish armada; and when, in 1596, another invasion was apprehended from the Spaniards, and a fleet of 150 ships was equipped with a proper number of land forces, he was appointed commander in chief at sea, as the earl of Essex was at land. In this expedition Cadiz was taken, and the Spanish fleet there burnt; and the lord high admiral had so great a share in this success, that on Oct. 22 of the same year he was advanced to the dignity of Earl of Nottingham, and appointed justice itinerant for, life of all the forests south of Trent. In 1599, upon an apprehension of the Spaniards again designing the invasion of England, and on private intelligence, that the earl of Essex, then lord deputy of Ireland, discontented at the power of his adversaries, was meditating to return into England with a select party of men, the queen having raised 6000 foot soldiers to be ready on any emergency, reposed so entire a confidence in the earl of Nottingham, that she committed to him the chief command. But these forces being again disbanded a few days after, he had no opportunity for action until 1601, when he suppressed the carl of Essex’s insurrection. The same year he was appointed one of the commissioners for exercising the office of earl marshal of England; and in the beginning of 1602-3, dnring the queen’s last illness, he was deputed by the council, with the lord keeper Egerton and secretary Cecil, to know her majesty’s pleasure in reference to the succession, which she declared in favour of James king of Scotland.

Upon the accession of that king to the throne of England, the earl was continued in his post of lord admiral, and at the coronation was made lord high steward of England for that occasion; and the year following, upon the renewing the commission to seven lords for exercising the office of earl marshal, he was appointed one of that number. In 1604 he was one of the commissioners to treat of an union between England and Scotland; and in 1605, sent ambassador to the court of Spain, attended with a splendid retinue, who being, as Wilson says, “persons of quality, accoutred with all ornaments suitable, were the more admired by the Spaniards for beauty and excellency, by how much the Jesuits had made impressions in the vulgar opinion, that since the English left the Roman religion, they were transformed into strange horrid shapes, with heads and tails like beasts and monsters.” His employment there was to take the oath of the king of Spain to the treaty of peace lately made with him; and he had a particular instruction, that in performing that ceremony, which was most likely to be in the royal chapel, he should have especial care, that it might be done, not in the forenoon in the time of mass, but rather in the afternoon, at which time the Romish service is most free from superstition. During this embassy, the king of Spain did more honour to the earl than ever he had done to any person in his employment in that kingdom; and the people in general shewed all possible regard for him, as his lordship’s behaviour there justly deserved; and at his departure from thence in June the same year, he had presents made him by that king in plate, jewels, and horses, to the value of 20.000l. besides the gold chains and jewels given to his Upon the marriage of the lady Elizabeth to the Elector Palatine, February 14, 1612-13, the earl of Nottingham with the duke of Lenox conducted her highness from the chapel; and had the honour of convoying Jierwith a royal navy to Flushing. He continued lord high admiral of England till February 6, 1618-19, when finding himself unable any longer to perform the necessary duties of that great employment, which he ha4 enjoyed about thirty-three years with the highest applause, he voluntarily resigned it to his majesty; who being sensible of the important services which he had done the nation, remitted him a debt owing to the crown of 1 8,000l. settled upon him a pension of 1000l. a year for life, and granted him the place and precedency of John Mowbray, who had been created earl of Nottingham by king Richard II. at the time of his coronation.

He died at the age of eighty-eight, leaving rather an everlasting memorial of his extraordiaary worth, than any great estate to his family; although he had enjoyed so long the profitable post of lord admiral. He lived in a most splendid and magnificent manner, keeping seven standing houses at the same time; and was always forward to promote any design serviceable to his country. He expended in several expeditions great sums out of his private fortune; and in the critical year 1588, when, on a surmise, that the Spaniards were unable to set sail that year, secretary Walsingham, by order of the queen, wrote to him to send back four of his largest ships, he desired, that nothing might be rashly credited in so weighty a matter, and that he might keep those ships with him, though it were at his own cost; and in the expedition to Cadiz, he, and the earl of Essex, the two commanders, contributed very largely out of their own estates. Sir Robert Naunton styles him “a good, honest, and brave man; and as for his person, as goodly a gentleman as any of that age:” and Mr. Osborne tells us, that his “fidelity was impregnable in relation to corruption.” By his first wife, Catharine, daughter to Henry Gary lord Hunsdon, he had two sons and three daughters; and by his second, Margaret, daughter to James Stuart earl of Murray in Scot-< land, two sons.

, the indefatigable friend of the poor and unfortunate, was born at Hackney, in 1726. His father, who kept a carpet-warehouse in Long-lane, Smithfield, ciymg wiule he was very young, left him to the care or' guardians, by whom he was apprenticed to Mr. Newnham, grandfather to the late alderman Newhham, a wholesale grocer in the city of London. His constitution appearing too weak for attention to trade, and his father having left him, and an only sister, in circumstances which placed them above the necessity of pursuing it, he bought out the remainder of his indentures before the time, and took a tour in France and Italy. On his return, he lodgei at the house of a Mrs Lardeau^ a widow, in Stoke- Newing. ton, where he was so carefully attended by the lady, thai though she was many years older than himself, he form an attachment to her, and in 1752 made her his wife. She Wag possessed of a small fortune, which he generously presented to her sister. She lived, however, only three yeai after their union, and he was a sincere mourner for hei loss. About this time he became a fellow of the royal society, and, in 1756, being desirous to view the state ol Lisbon after the dreadful earthquakej he embarked for thai city. In this voyage, the Hanover frigate, in which hi sailed, was taken by a French privateer, and the inconveniences which he suffered during his subsequent confine ment in France, are supposed to have awakened his sympathies with peculiar strength in favour of prisoners, and to have given rise to his plans for rendering prisons less pernicious to health. It is supposed, that after his release, he made the tour of Italy. On his return, he fixed himself at Brokenhurst, a retired and pleasant villa near Lymington, in the New Forest. Mr. Howard married a second time in 1758; but this lady, a daughter of a Mr. Leeds, of Croxton in Cambridgeshire, died in child-bed of her only child, a son, in 1765. Either before, or soon after the death of his second wife, he left Lymington, and purchased an estate at Cardington, near Bedford, adjoining to that of his relation Mr. Whitbread. Here he much conciliated the poor by giving them employment, building them cottages, and other acts of benevolence; and regularly attended the congregations of dissenters at Bedford, being of that persuasion. His time was also a good deal occupied by the education of his only son, a task for which he is said to have been little qualified. With all his benevolence of heart, he is asserted to have been disposed to a rigid severity of discipline, arising probably from a very strict sense of rectitude, but not well calculated to form a tender mind to advantage. In 1773, he served the office of sheriflj which, as he has said himself, “brought the distress of prisoners more immediately under his notice,” and led to his benevolent design of visiting the gaols and other places of confinement throughout England, for the sake of procuring alleviation to the miseries of the sufferers. In 1774, trusting to his interest among the sectaries at Bedford, he offered himself as a candidate for that borough, but was not returned; and endeavouring to gain his seat by petition, was unsuccessful. He was, however, in the same year, examined before the House of Commons, on the subject of the prisons, and received the thanks of the house for his attention to them. Thus encouraged, he completed his inspection of the British prisons, and extended his views even to foreign countries. He travelled with this design, three times tnrough France, four through Germany, five through Holland, twice through Italy, once in Spain and Portugal, and once also through the northern states, and Turkey. These excursions were taken between 1775 and 1787. In the mean time, his sister died, and left him a considerable property, which he regarded as the gift of Providence to promote his humane designs, and applied accordingly. He published also in 1777, “The State of the Prisons in England and Wales, with preliminary Observations, and an Account of some Foreign Prisons,” dedicated, to the House of Commons, in 4to. In 1780 he published an Appendix to this book, with the narrative of his travels in Italy; and in 1784, republished it, extending his account to many other countries. About this time, his benevolence had so much attracted the public attention, that a large subscription was made for the purpose of erecting a statue to his honour; but he was too modest and sincere to accept of such a. tribute, and wrote himself to the subscribers to put a stop to it. “Have I not one friend in England,” he said, when he first heard of the design, “that would put a stop to such a proceeding?” In 1789, he published “An Account of the principal Lazarettos in Europe, with various Papers relative to the Plague, together with further Observations on some foreign Prisoas and Hospitals; and additional remarks on the present state of those in Great Britain and Ireland.” He had published also, in 1780, a translation of a French account of the Bastille; and, in 1789, the duke of Tusany' new code ef civil law, with an English translation. In his book on Lazarettos, he had announced his. intention of revisiting Russia, Turkey, and some other conntries, and extending his tour in the East. “I am not insensible,” says he, “<>f the dangers that must attend such a journey. Trusting, however, in the protection of that kind Providence which has hitherto preserved me, I calmly and cheerfully commit myself to the disposal of unerring wisdom. Should it please God to cut off my life in the prosecution of this design, let not my conduct be uncandidly imputed to rashness or enthusiasm, but to a serious, deliberate conviction, tnat I am pursuing the path of duty; and to a sincere desire of being made an instrument of more extensive usefulness to my fellow-creatures, than couid be expected in the narrower circle of a retired life.” He did actually fall a sacrifice to this design; for in visiting a sick patient at Cherson, who had a malignant epidemic fever, he caught the distemper, and died, Jan, 20, 1790. An honour was now paid to him, which we believe is without a precedent: his death was announced in the London Gazette.

Mr. Howard was, in his own habits of life, rigidly temperate, and even abstemious; subsisting entirely, at one time, on. potatoes; at another, chiefly on tea and bread and butter; of course not mixing in convivial society, nor accepting invitations to public repasts. His labours have certainly had the admirable effect of drawing the attention of this country to the regulation of public prisons. In many places his improvements have been adopted, and perhaps in all our gaols some advantage has been derived from them. We may hope that these plans will terminate in such general regulations as will make judicial confinement, instead of the means of confirming and increasing depravity (as it has been too generally), the successful instrument of amendment in morality, and acquiring habits of industry. While the few criminals, and probably very few, who may be too depraved for amendment, will be compelled to be beneficial to the community by their labour; and, being advantageously situated in point of health, may suffer nothing more than that restraint which is necessary for the sake of society, and that exertion which they ought never to have abandoned. Considered as the first mover of these important plans, Howard will always be honoured with the gratitude of his country; and his monument, lately erected in St. Paul’s cathedral, is a proof that this gratitude is not inert. The monument is at the same time a noble proof of the skill and genius of the artist, Mr. Bacon, and represents Mr. Howard in a Roman dress,- with a look and attitude expressive of benevolence and activity, holding in one hand a scroll of plans for the improvement of prisons, hospitals, &c. and in the other a key while he is trampling on chains and fetters. The epitaph contains a sketch of his life, and concludes in words which we also heartily adopt: “He trod an open but unfrequented path to immortality, in the ardent and unremitted exercise of Christian charity. May this tribute to his fame excite an emulation of his truly glorious achievements!” To this may be added the eloquent eulogium pronounced upon Mr. Howard by Mr. Burke, in his “Speech at Bristol, previous to the election in 1780.” Having occasion to mention him, he adds, “I cannot name this gentleman without remarking, that his labours and writings have done much to open the eyes and hearts of mankind. He has visited all Europe, not to survey the sumptuousness of palaces, or the stateliness of temples; not to make accurate measurements of the remains of ancient grandeur, nor to form a scale of the curiosity of modern art not to collect medals, or collate manuscripts; but to dive into the depths of dungeons to plunge into the infection of hospitals to survey the mansions of sorrow and pain; to take the gage and dimensions of misery, depression, and contempt to remember the forgotten, to attend to the neglected, to visit the forsaken, and to compare and collate the distresses of all men in all countries. His plan is original, and it is as full of genius as it is of humanity. It was a voyage of discovery; a circumnavigation of charity. Already the benefit of his labour is felt more or less in every country; I hope he will anticipate his final reward, by seeing all its effects fully realised in his own. He will receive, not by retail, but in gross, the reward of those who visit the prisoner; and he has so forestalled and monopolized this branch of charity, that there will be, I trust, little room to merit by such acts of benevolence hereafter”

, an English writer of some abilities and learning, born Jan. 1626, was a younger son of Thomas earl of Berkshire, and educated at Magdalen college, Cambridge. During the civil war he suffered with his family, who adhered to Charles I. but at the Restoration was made a knight, and chosen for Stockbridge in Hampshire, to serve in the parliament which began in May 1661. He was afterwards made auditor of the exchequer, and was reckoned a creature of Charles II. whom the monarch advanced on account of his faithful services, in cajoling the parliament for money. In 1679 he was chosen to serve in parliament for Castle Rising in Norfolk; and re-elected for the same place in 1688. He was a strong advocate for the Revolution, and became so passionate an abhorrer of the nonjurors, that he disclaimed all manner of conversation and intercourse with persons of that description. His obstinacy and pride procured him many enemies, and among them the duke of Buckingham; who intended to have exposed him under the name of Bilboa in the “Rehearsal,” but afterwards altered his resolution, and levelled his ridicule at a much greater name, under that of Bayes. He was so extremely positive, and so sure of being in the right upon every subject, that Shadwell the poet, though a man of the same principles, could not help ridiculing him in his comedy of the “Sullen Lovers,” under the character of Sir Positive At-all. Jn the same play there is a lady Vaine, a courtezan which the wits then understood to be the mistress of sir Robert, whom he afterwards married. He died Sept. 3, 1698. He published, 1. “Poems and Plays.” 2. “The History of the Reigns of Edward and Richard II. with reflections and characters of their chief ministers and favourites; also a comparison of these princes with Edward I. and III.” 1690, 8vo. 3. “A letter to Mr. Samuel Johnson, occasioned by a scurrilous pamphlet, entitled Animadversions on Mr. Johnson’s answer to Jovian,” 1692, 8vo. 4. “The History of Religion,” 1694, 8vo. 5. “The fourth book of Virgil translated,” 1660, 8vo. 6. “Statius’s Achilleis translated,” 1660, 8vo.

Edward Howard, esq. likewise, his brother, exposed himself to the severity of our satirists, by writing bad plays and the hon. James Howard, probably a relative, wrote two plays about the same time, called “All Mistaken,” and “The English Monsieur,” which were successful; but little else is recorded of him.

, Mus. D. was brought up in the king’s chapel, and took his degree of doctor of music at Cambridge at the time of the Installation of theduke of Grafton as chancellor of that university. Dr. Howard had studied much under Dr. Pepusch at the Charter-house, and was well acquainted with the mechanical rules of counterpoint. His overture in the “Amorous Goddess,” a happy imitation of Handel’s overture in “Alcina,” particularly the musette and minuet, was very popular in the theatres and public gardens. But his ballads, which were long the delight of natural and inexperienced lovers of music, had the merit of facility; for this honest Englishman preferred the style of his own country to that of any other so mnch, that he never staggered in his belief of its being the best in the world, by listening to foreign artists or their productions, for whom and for which he had an invincible aversion.

He began to flourish about the year 1740, and from that time till Arne’s Vauxhall songs were published under the title of “Lyric Harmony,” they were the most natural and pleasing which our country could boast. After the decease of Michael Christian Festing, Dr. Howard took the lead in managing the affairs of the musical fund; but not with equal address and intelligence. He was a dull, vulgar, and unpleasant man; and by over-rating his own importance, and reigning paramount over his equals, he rendered the monthly meetings disagreeable, and cooled the zeal of many well-wishers to the society. He long laboured under a dropsy, yet walked about with legs of an enormous size, during several years. But it was not this disorder which put an end to his existence at last, but repeated paralytic strokes. He died about the year 1783.

, the author of a very popular book of “Devout Meditations,” was the third son of John, Grubham Howe, of Langar in Nottinghamshire, by his wife Annabelia, third natural daughter and coheiress of Emanuel earl of Sunderland, lord Scrope of Bolton. He was born in Gloucestershire in 1661, and during the latter end of the reign of Charles II. was much at court. About 1686 he went abroad with a near relation, who was sent by James II. as ambassador to a foreign court. The ambassador died; and our author, by powers given to hint to that effect, concluded the business of the embassy. He had an offer of being appointed successor to his friend in his public character; but disliking the measures that were then carried on at court, he declined it, and returned to England, where he soon after married a lady of rank and fortune, who, dying in a few years, left behind her an only daughter, married afterwards to Peter Bathurst, esq. brother to the first earl Bathurst. After his lady’s death, Mr. Howe lived for the most part in the country, where he spent many of his latter years in a close retirement, consecrated to religious meditations and exercises. He was a man of good understanding, of an exemplary life, and cheerful conversation. He died in 1745. The work by which he is still remembered, was entitled “Devout Meditations; or a collection of thoughts upon religious and philosophical subjects,” 8vo, and was first published anonymously; but the second edition, at the instance of Dr. Young and others, came out in 1752 with the author’s name. It has often been reprinted since. Dr. Young said of this book, that he " should never lay it far out of his reach; for a greater demonstration of a sound head and sincere heart he never saw.

, a relation of the preceding, was the younger brother of sir Scroop Howe, of Nottinghamshire. In the convention-parliament, which met at Westminster Jan. 22, 1688-9, he served for Cirencester, and was constantly chosen for that borough, or as a knight of the shire for the county of Gloucester, in the three last parliaments of king William, and in the three first of queen Anne. In 1696 he was a strenuous advocate for sir John Fenwick; and his pleading in behalf of that unfortunate gentleman, shews his extensive knowledge of the laws, and aversion to unconstitutional measures. In 1699, when the army was reduced, it was principally in consideration of Mr. Howe’s remonstrances, that the House of Commons agreed to allow half-pay to the disbanded officers; and when the partition-treaty was afterwards under the consideration of that house, he expressed his sentiments of it in guch terms, that king William declared, that if it were not foi the disparity of their rank, he would demand satisfaction with the sword. At the accession of queen Anne, he was sworn of her privy-council April 21, 1702; and, on June 7 following, constituted vice-admiral of the county of Gloucester. Before the end of that year, Jan. 4, 1702-3, he was constituted paymaster-general of her majesty’s guards and garrisons. Macky says of him, “he seemed to be pleased with and joined in the Revolution, and was made vice-chamberlain to queen Mary; but having asked a grant, which was refused him, and given to lord Portland, he fell from the court, and was all that reign the most violent and open antagonist king William had in the house. A great enemy to foreigners settling in England; most clauses in acts against them being brought in by him. He is indefatigable in whatever he undertakes; witness the old East India company, whose cause he maintained till he> fixed it upon as sure a foot as the new, even when they thought themselves past recovery. He lives up” to what his visible estate can afford; yet purchases, instead of running in debt. He is endued with good natural parts, attended with an unaccountable boldness; daring to say what he pleases, and will be heard out; so that he passeth with some for the shrew of the house. On the queen’s accession to the throne he was made a privy-counsellor, and paymaster of the guards and garrisons. He is a tall, thin, pale-faced man, with a very wild look; brave in his person, bold in expressing himself, a violent enemy, a sure friend, and seems to be always in a hurry. Near fifty years old." Such is the character given of this gentleman in 1703. A new privy council being settled May 10, 1708, according to act of parliament, relating to the union of the two kingdoms, he was, among the other great officers, sworn into it. He continued paymaster of the guards and garrisons till after the accession of George I. who appointed Mr. Walpole to succeed him on Sept. 23, 1714: the privy council being also dissolved, and a new one appointed to meet on Oct. 1 following, he was left out of the list. Retiring to his seat at Stowell in Gloucestershire, he died there in 1721, and was buried in the chancel of the church of Stowell.

Mr. Howe was author of “A panegyric on king William,” and of several songs and little poems; and is introduced in Swift’s celebrated ballad “On the Game of Traffic.” He married Mary, daughter and coheir of Humphrey Baskerville, of Pantryllos. in Herefordshire, esq. widow of sir Edward Morgan, of Laternam in Monmouthshire, bart. b$ whom he was father to the first lord Chedworth.

, a learned non-conformist divine in the seventeenth century, was a minister’s son, and nephew to Mr. Obadiah Howe, vicar of Boston in Lincolnshire. He was born May 17, 1630, at Loughborough in Leicestershire, of which town his father was minister, being settled there by archbishop Laud, though afterwards ejected by that prelate on account of his adherence to the Puritans; upon which he went with his son to Ireland, where they continued till the Irish Rebellion broke out, when they returned to England, and settled in Lancashire, where our author was educated in the first rudiments of learning and the knowledge of the tongues. He was sent pretty early to Christ college in Cambridge, where he continued till he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, and then removed to Oxford, and became bible-clerk of Brazen-nose college in Michaelmas term 1648, and took the degree of bachelor of arts Jan. 18, 1649. He was made a demy of Magdalen college by the parliament visitors, and afterwards fellow; and July 9, 1652, took the degree of master of arts. Soon after this he became a preacher, and was ordained by Mr. Charles Herle at his church of Winwick in Lancashire, and not long after became minister of Great Torrington in Devonshire. His labours here were characteristic of the times. He informed Dr. Calamy, that on the public fasts it was his common way to begin about nine in the morning with a prayer for about a quarter of an hour, in which he begged a blessing on the work of the day; and afterwards read and expounded a chapter or psalm, in which he spent about three quarters; then prayed for about an hour, preached for another hour, and prayed for about half an hour. After this he retired, and took some little refreshment for about a quarter of an hour or more (the people singing all the while), and then came again into the pulpit, and prayed for another hour, and gave them another sermon of about an hour’s length, and so concluded the service of the day, about four o'clock in the evening, with half an hour or more in prayer.

In March 1654 he married the daughter of Mr. George Hughes, minister of Plymouth. Having occasion to take a journey to London, he went as a hearer to the chapel at Whitehall. Cromwell was present, and, struck with his demeanor and person, sent a messenger to inform him that he wished to speak with him when the service was over. In the course of the interview he desired him to preach before him the following Sunday: he requested to be excused, but Cromwell would not be denied, and even undertook to write to his congregation a sufficient apology for his absence from them longer than he intended. This led to the appointment of Mr. Howe to the office of his domestic chaplain, and he accordingly removed with his family to Whitehall. Dr. Calamy tells us, that while he was in this station, he behaved in such a manner that he was never charged, even by those who have been most forward to inveigh against a number of his contemporaries, with improving his interest in those who then had the management of affairs in their hands, either to the enriching himself, or the doing ill offices to others, though of known differing sentiments. He readily embraced every occasion that offered, of serving the interest of religion and learning, and opposing the errors and designs which at that time threatened both. The notion of a particular faith prevailed much at Cromwell’s court; and it was a common opinion among them, that such as were in a special manner favoured of God, when they offered up prayers and supplications to him for his mercies, either for themselves or others, often had such impressions made upon their minds and spirits by a divine hand, as signified to them, not only in the general that their prayers would be heard and answered, but that the particular mercies which were sought for would be certainly bestowed; nay, and sometimes also intimated to them in what way and manner they would be afforded, and pointed out to them future events beforehand, which in reality is the same with inspiration. Mr. Howe told Dr. Calamy, that not a little pains was taken to cultivate and support this notion at Whitehall and that he once heard a sermon there from a person of note, the avowed design of which was to defend it. He said, that he was so fully convinced of the ill tendency of such a principle, that after hearing this sermon, he thought himself bound in conscience, when it came next to his turn to preach before Cromwell, to set himself industriously to oppose it, and to beat down that spiritual pride and confidence, which such fancied impulses and impressions were apt to produce and cherish. He observed, while he was in the pulpit, that Cromwell heard him with great attention, but would sometimes knit his brows, and discover great uneasiness. When the sermon was over, a person of distinction came to him, and asked him, if he knevy. what he had done? and signified it to him as his apprehension, that Cromwell would be so incensed at that dis’A course, that he would find it very difficult ever to make his peace with him, or secure his favour for the future. Mr. Howe replied, that he had but discharged his conscience, and could leave the event with God. He afterwards observed, that Cromwell was cooler in his carriage to him than before; and sometimes he thought he would have spoken to him of the matter, but never did.

Upon the death of Oliver Cromwell, his son Richard succeeding him as protector, Mr. Howe stood in the same relation to him of chaplain as he had done to the father; and was in his judgment very much averse tp Richard’s parting with his parliament, which he foresaw would prove his ruin. When the army had set Richard aside, Mr. Howe returned to his people at Great Torrington, among whom he continued till the act of uniformity took place August 24, 1662, after which he preached for some time in private houses in Devonshire. In April 1671 he went to Ireland, where he lived as chaplain to the lord Massarene in the parish of Antrim, and had leave from the bishop of the diocese and the metropolitan to preach in the public church of that town every Sunday in the afternoon, without submitting to any terms of conformity. In 1675, upon the death of Dr. Lazarus Seaman, he was chosen minister of his congregation, upon which he returned to England and settled at London, where he was highly respected, not only by his brethren in the ministry among the dissenters, but also by several eminent divines of the church of England, as Dr. Whichcot, Dr. Kidder, Dr. Fowler, Dr. Lucas, and others. In August 1685 he travelled beyond sea with the lord Wharton, and the year following settled at Utrecht, and took his turn in preaching at the English church in that city. In 1687, upon king James’s publishing his “Declaration for liberty of conscience,” Mr. Howe returned to London, where he died April 2, 1705, and was interred in the parish church of Allhallows Bread-street.

Mr. Howe, abating his attachment to the family of the Usurper, was a man of more moderation than most of his brethren, and as a divine laboured zealously to promote the interests of real practical religion, and to diffuse a spirit of candour, charity, and mutual forbearance, among his dissenting brethren. He was a man of distinguished piety and virtue, of eminent intellectual endowments, and of extensive learning. Granger says, “He was one of the most learned and polite writers among the dissenters. His reading in divinity was very extensive: he was a good Orientalist, and understood several of the modern languages.”

Among his works are, 1. “A Treatise on the blessedness of the righteous,” 1668, 8vo. 2. “A Treatise on delighting in God,” 1674. 3. “Of thoughtfulness for the morrow;” and many sermons and discourses on several subjects. His whole works were printed in 1724, 2 vols. folio, with a life by Dr. Galamy.

, an accomplished scholar of the seventeenth century, was born at Crendon in Buckinghamshire, and elected scholar of Trinity-college in 1632, of which, when B. A. he became fellow in 1637. By Hearne, in his preface to “Robert of Gloucester,” he is called “a very great cavalier and loyalist, and a most ingenious man.” He appears to have been a general scholar, and in polite literature was esteemed one of the ornaments of the university. In 1644 he preached before Charles I. at Christchurch cathedral, Oxford; and the sermon was printed, and in red letters (but only thirty copies), of which perhaps the only one extant is in the Bodleian library. In 1646 he was created bachelor of divinity by decree of the king, among others who were complimented with that degree for having distinguished themselves as preachers before the court at Oxford. He was soon afterwards ejected from his fellowship by the presbyterians, but not in the general expulsion in 1648, according to Walker. Being one of the bursars of the college, and foreseeing its fate, and having resolved at the same time never to acknowledge the authority of Cromwell’s visitors, he retired, in the beginning of 1648, to a college estate in Buckinghamshire, carrying with him many rentals, rolls, papers, and other authentic documents belonging to his office. These he was soon after induced to return on a promise of being allowed to retain his fellowship; but they were no sooner recovered than he was expelled, and not restored until 1660. He lived forty-two years after this, greatly respected, and died fellow of the college, where he constantly resided, Aug. 28, 1701, and was interred in the college chapel. Hearne says, “he lived. so retiredly in the latter part of his life, that he rarely came abroad; so that I could never see him, though I have often much desired to have a sight of him.”

Mr. Howe has a copy of recommendatory English verses prefixed to the folio edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, printed in 1647; another to Randolph’s poems, 1640, and another to Cartwright’s comedies and poems, 1651. These pieces, says Warton, which are in the witty epigrammatic style that then prevailed, have uncommon acuteness, and highly deserve to be revived. Denham, Waller, Jonson, Corbet, Brome, Shirley, &c. appear to have been of his intimate acquaintance. Wood says that he wrote some English verses, which were much applauded, spoken before the duke and duchess of York, in 1683, at Trinitycollege.

, fourth viscount Howe, and earl Howe, and first baron Howe of Langar, a gallant English admiral, was the third son of sir Emanuel Scrope, second lord viscount Howe, and Mary Sophia Charlotte, eldest daughter to the baron Kilmansegge. He was born in 1725, was educated at Eton, entered the sea-service at the age of fourteen, on board the Severn, hon. captain Legge, part of the squadron destined for the South Seas under Anson. He next served on board the Burford, 1743, under admiral Knowles, in which he was afterwards appointed acting lieutenant; but his commission not being confirmed, he returned to admiral Knowles in the West- Indies, where he was made lieutenant of a sloop of war; and being employed to cut an English merchantman, which had been taken by a French privateer under the guns of the Dutch settlement of St. Eustatia, and with the connivance of the governor, out of that harbour, he executed the difficult and dangerous enterprise in such a manner, as to produce the most sanguine expectations of his future services. In 1745, lieutenant Howe was with admiral Vernon in the Downs, but was in a short time raised to the rank of commander, in the Baltimore sloop of war, which joined the squadron then cruizing on the coast of Scotland, under the command of admiral Smith. During this cruize an action took place, in which captain Howe gave a fine example of persevering intrepidity. The Baltimore, in company with another armed vessel, fell in with two French frigates of thirty guns, with troops and ammunition for the service of the pretender, which she instantly attacked, by running between them. In the action which followed, capt. Howe received a wound hi his head, which at first appeared to be fatal. He, however, soon discovered signs of life, and when the necessary operation was performed, resumed all his former activity, continued the action, if possible, with redoubled spirit, and obliged the French ships, with their prodigious superiority in men and metal, to sheer off, leaving the Baltimore, at the same time, in such a shattered condition, as to be wholly disqualified to pursue them. He was, in consequence of this gallant service, immediately made post-captain, and in April 1746, was appointed to the Triton frigate, and ordered to Lisbon, where, in consequence of captain Holbourne’s bad state of health, he was transferred to the Rippon, destined for the Coast of Guinea. But he soon quitted that station to join his early patron admiral Knowles in Jamaica, who appointed him first captain of his ship of 80 guns; and at the conclusion of the war in 1748, he returned in her to England. In March 1750-51, captain Howe was appointed to the command of the Guinea station, in La Gloire, of 44 guns; when, with his usual spirit and activity, he checked the injurious proceedings of the Dutch governor-general on the coast, and adjusted the difference between the English and Dutch settlements. At the close of 1751, he was appointed to the Mary yacht, which was soon exchanged for the Dolphin frigate, in which he sailed to the Streights, where he executed many difficult and important services. Here he remained about three years; and soon after, on his return to England, he obtained the command of the Dunkirk of 60 guns, which was among the ships that were commissioned from an apprehension of a rupture with France. This ship was one of the fleet with which admiral Boscawen sailed to obstruct the passage of the French fleet into the Gulph of St. Lawrence, when captain Howe took the Alcide, a French ship of 64 guns, off the coast of Newfoundland. A powerful fleet being prepared, in 1757, under the command of sir Edward Hawke, to make an attack upon the French coast, captain Howe was appointed to the Magnanime, in which ship he battered the fort on the island of Aix till it surrendered. In 1758 he was appointed commodore of a small squadron, which sailed to annoy tke enemy on their coasts. This he effected with his usual success at St. Malo, where an hundred sail of ships and several magazines were destroyed; and the heavy gale blowing into shore, which rendered it impracticable for the troops to land, alone prevented the executing a similar mischief in the town and harbour of Cherbourg. On the 1st of July he returned to St. Helen’s. This expedition was soon followed by another, when prince Edward, afterwards duke of York, was entrusted to the care of commodore Howe, on board his ship the Essex. The fleet sailed on the 1st of August 1758, and on the 6th came to an anchor in the Bay of Cherbourg; the town was taken, and the bason destroyed. The commodore, with his royal midshipman on board, next sailed to St. Malo; and as his instructions were to keep the coast of France in continual alarm, he very effectually obeyed them. The unsuccessful affair of St. Cas followed. But never was courage, skill, or humanity, more powerfully or successfully displayed than on this occasion. He went in person in his barge, which was rowed through the thickest fire, to save the retreating soldiers; the rest of the fleet, inspired hy his conduct, followed his example, and at least seven hundred men were preserved, by his exertions, from the fire of the enemy or the fury of the waves. In July in the same year (1758), his elder brother, who was serving his country with equal ardour and heroism in America, found an early grave. That brave and admirable officer was killed in a skirmish between the advanced guard of the French, and the troops commanded by general Abercrombie, in the expedition against Ticonderago. Commodore Howe then succeeded to the titles and property of his family. In the following year (1759), lord Howe was employed in the Channel, on board his old ship the Magnanime but no opportunity offered- to distinguish himself till the month of November, when the French fleet, under Conflans, was defeated. When he was presented to the king by sir Edward Hawke on this occasion, his majesty said, “Your life, my lord, has been one continued series of services to your country.” In March 1760, he was appointed colonel of the Chatham division of marines; and in September following, he was ordered by sir Edward Hawke to reduce the French fort on the isle of Dumet, in order to save the expence of the transports employed to carry water for the use of the fleet. Lord Howe continued to serve, as occasion required, in the Channel; and in the summer of 1762, he removed to the Princess Amelia, of 80 guns, having accepted the command as captain to his royal highness the duke of York, now rear-admiral of the blue, serving as second in command under sir Edward Hawke, in the Channel. On the 23d of August, 1763, his lordship was appointed to the board of admiralty, where he remained till August 1765: he was then made treasurer of the navy; and in October 1770, was promoted to be rear-admiral of the blue, and commander in chief in the Mediterranean. In March 1775, he was appointed rear-admiral of the white; and was soon after chosen to represent the borough of Dartmouth in parliament. In the month of December, in the same year, he was made vice-admiral of the blue. It was on one of these promotions that lord Hawke, then first lord of the admiralty, rose in the house of peers, and said, “I advised his majesty to make the promotion. 1 have tried my lord Howe on fmportant occasions; he never asked me how he was to execute any service, but always went and performed it.” In 1778, France having become a party in the war, the French admiral D‘Estaing appeared, on the llth of July, in sight of the British fleet, at Sandy Hook, with a considerable force of line of battle ships, in complete equipment and condition. Most of the ships under lord Howe had been long in service, were not well manned, and were not line of battle ships of the present day. The French admiral, however, remained seven days without making an attack, and by that lime lord Howe had disposed his inferior force in such a manner as to set him at defiance. On D’Estaing’s leaving the Hook, lord Howe heard of the critical situation of Rhode Island, and made every possible exertion to preserve it. He afterwards acted chiefly on the defensive. Such a conduct appears to have been required, from the state of his fleet, and the particular situation of the British cause in America. He, however, contrived to baffle all the designs of the French admiral; and may be said, considering the disadvantages with which he was surrounded, to have conducted and closed the campaign with honour. Lord Howe now resigned the command to admiral Byron; and on his return to England in October, immediately struck his flag. In the course of this year, he had been advanced to be vice-admiral of the white, and shortly after, to the same rank in the red squadron. On the change of administration in 1782, lord Howe was raised to the dignity of a viscount of Great Britain, having been previously advanced to the rank of admiral of the blue. He was then appointed to command the fleet fitted out for the relief of Gibraltar; and he fulfilled the important objects of this expedition. That fortress was effectually relieved, the hostile fleet baffled, and dared in vain to battle; and different squadrons detached to their important destinations; while the ardent hopes of his country’s foes were disappointed. Peace was concluded shortly after lord Howe’s return from performing this important service: and in January 1783, he was nominated first lord of the admiralty. That office, in the succeeding April, he resigned to lord Keppel; but was re-appointed on the 30th of December in the same year. On the 24th of September 1787, he was advanced to the rank of admiral of the white; and in July 1788, he finally quitted his station at the admiralty. In the following August he was created an earl of Great Britain.

But the greatest glory of lord Howe’s life was reserved almost to its close. On the breaking out of the revolutionary war in 1793, he accepted the command of the western squadron. Three powerful armaments were prepared for the campaign of 1794: one under lord Hood commanded the Mediterranean, reduced the island of Corsica, and protected the coasts of Spain and Italy; a second under sir John Jervis, afterwards lord St. Vincent, with a military force headed by sir Charles Grey, reduced Martijiico, Guadaloupe, St. Lucia, and St. Domingo; but the most illustrious monument of British naval glory was raised by earl Howe. During the preceding part of the war, France, conscious of her maritime inferiority, had confined her exertions to cruizers and small squadrons for harassing our trade; but in the month of May, the French were induced to depart from this system, and being very anxious for the safety of a convoy daily expected from America, with an immense supply of corn and flour, naval stores, &c. the Brest fleet, amounting to twenty-seven sail of the line, ventured to sea under tjbe command of rearadmiral Villaret. Lord Howe expecting the same convoy, went to sea with twenty ships of the line, and on the 28th of May descried the enemy to windward. After various previous manoeuvres which had been interrupted by a thick fog, the admiral found an opportunity of bringing the French to battle on the 1st of June. Between seven antj eight in the morning, our fleet advanced in a close and compact line; and the enemy, finding an engagement unavoidable, received our onset with their accustomed valour. A close and desperate engagement ensued, in the course of which, the Montague of 130 guns, the French admiral’s ship, having adventured to encounter the Queen Charlotte of 100 guns, earl Howe’s ship, was, in less than an hour, compelled to fly; the other ships of the same division, seeing all efforts ineffectual, endeavoured to follow the flying admiral: ten, however, were so crippled that they could not keep pace with the rest; but many of the British ships being also greatly damaged, some of these disabled French ships effected their escape. Six remained in the possession of the British admiral, and were brought safe into Portsmouth, viz. two of 80 and four of 74 guns; and the Le Vengeur, of 74, was sunk, making the whole loss to the enemy amount to seven ships of the line. The victorious ships arrived safe in harbour with their prizes; and the crews, officers, and admiral, were received with every testimony of national gratitude. On the 26th of the same month, their majesties, with three of the princesses, arrived at Portsmouth, and proceeded the next morning in barges to visit lord Howe’s ship, the Queen Charlotte, at Spithead. His majesty held a naval levee on board, and presented the victorious admiral with a sword, enriched with diamonds and a gold chain, with the naval medal suspended from it. The thanks of both houses of parliament, the freedom of the city of London, and the universal acclamations of the nation, followed the acknowledgments of the sovereign. In the course of the following year, he was appointed general of marines, on the death of admiral Forbes; and finally resigned the command of the western squadron in April 1797. On the 2d of June in the same year, he was invested with the insignia of the garter. The last public act of a life employed against the foreign enemies of his country, was exerted to compose its internal dissentions. It was the lot of earl Howe to contribute to the restoration of the fleet, which he had conducted to glory on the sea, to loyalty in the harbour. His experience suggested the measures to be pursued by government on the alarming mutinies, which in 1797 distressed and terrified the nation; while his personal exertions powerfully promoted the dispersion of that spirit, which had, for a time, changed the very nature of British seamen, and greatly helped to recall them to their former career of duty and obedience. This gallant officer, who gained the first of the four great naval victories which have raised the reputation of the British navy beyond all precedent and all comparison, died at his house in Graf ton -street, London, of the gout in his stomach, August 5, 1799. In 1758 his lordship married Mary, daughter of Chiverton Hartop, esq. of Welby, in the county of Leicester. His issue by this lady, is lady Sophia Charlotte, married to the hon. Pen Ashton Curzon, eldest son of lord Cuizon, who died in 1797; lady Mary Indiana, and lady Louisa Catharine, married to earl of Altamont, of Ireland. He was succeeded in his Irish viscounty by his brother, general sir William Howe, who died (1814) while this sheet was passing through the press; and in the English barony by lady Curzon.

, a voluminous English writer, the son of Thomas Howell, minister of Abernant in Caermarthenshire, was born about 1594, and, to use his own words, “his ascendant was that hot constellation of cancer about the midst of the dog-days.” He was sent to the freeschool at Hereford -, and entered of Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1610. His elder brother Thomas Howell was already a fellow of that society, afterwards king’s chaplain, and was nominated in 1644 to the see of Bristol. James Howell, having taken the degree of B. A. in 1613, left college, and removed to London; for being, says Wood, “a pure cadet, a true cosmopolite, not born to land, lease, house, or office, he had his fortune to make; and being withal not so much inclined to a sedentary as an active life, this situation pleased him best, as most likely to answer his views.” The first employment he obtained was that of steward to a glass-house in Broad-street, which was procured for him by sir Robert Mansel, who was principally concerned in it. The proprietors of this work, intent upon improving the manufactory, came to a resolution to send an agent abroad, who should procure the best materials and workmen; and they made choice of Howell for this purpose, who, setting off in 1619, visited several of the principal places in Holland, Flanders, France, Spain, and Italy. In Dec. 1621, he returned to London; having executed the purpose of his mission very well, and particularly having acquired a masterly knowledge in the modern languages, which afforded him a singular cause for gratitude. “Thank God,” he says, “I have this fruit of my foreign travels, that I can pray unto him every day of the week in a separate language, and upon Sunday in seven.”

Soon after his return, he quitted his stewardship of the glass-house; and having experienced the pleasures of travelling, was anxious to obtain more employments of the same kind. In 1622 he was sent into Spain, to recover a rich English ship, seized by the viceroy of Sardinia for his master’s use, on pretence of its having prohibited goods on board. In 1623, during his absence abroad, he was chosen fellow of Jesus college in Oxford, upon the new foundation of sir Eubule Thelwal: for he had taken unremitting care to cultivate his interest in that society. He tells sir Eubule, in his letter of thanks to him, that he “will reserve his fellowship, and lay it by as a good warm garment against rough weather, if any fall on him:” in which he was followed by Prior, who alleged the same reason for keeping his fellowship at St. John’s-college in Cambridge. Howell returned to England in 1624; and was soon after appointed secretary to lord Scrope, afterwards earl of Sunderland, who was made lord-president of the North. This office carried him to York; and while he resided there, the corporation of Richmond, without any application from himself, and against several competitors, chose him one of their representatives, in the parliament which began in 1627. In 1632, he went as secretary to Robert earl of Leicester, ambassador extraordinary from Charles I. to the court of Denmark, on occasion of the death of the queen dowager, who was grandmother to that king: and there gave proofs of his oratorical talents, in several Latin speeches before the king of Denmark, and other princes of Germany. After his return to England, his affairs do not appear so prosperous; for, except an inconsiderable mission, on which he was dispatched to Orleans in France by secretary Windebankin 1635, he was for some years destitute of any employment. At last, in 1639, he went to Ireland, and was well received by lord Strafford, the lord-lieutenant, who had before made him very warm professions of kindness, and employed him as an assistant-clerk upon some business to Edinburgh, and afterwards to London; but his rising hopes were ruined by the unhappy fate which soon overtook that nobleman. I 1640 he was dispatched upon some business to France; and the same year was made clerk of the council, which post was the most fixed in point of residence^ and the most permanent in its nature, that he bad ever enjoyed. But his royal master, having departed from his palace at Whitehall, was not able to secure his continuance long in it: for, in 1643, having visited London upon some business of his own, all his papers were seized by a committee of the parliament, his person secured, and, in a few days after, he was committed close prisoner to the Fleet. This at least he himself assigns as the cause of his imprisonment: but Wood insinuates, that he was thrown into prison, for debts contracted through his own extravagance; and indeed some of his own letters give room enough to suspect it. But whatever was the cause, he bore it cheerfully.

He had now no resource except his pen: and applied himself therefore wholly to write and translate books. “Here,” he says, “I purchased a small spot of ground upon Parnassus, which I have in fee of the muses, and I have endeavoured to manure it as well as I could, though I confess it hath yielded me little fruit hitherto.” This spot, however, brought him a comfortable subsistence, during his long stay in prison, where he was confined till some time after the king’s death; and as he got nothing by his discharge but his liberty, he was obliged to continue the same employment afterwards. His numerous productions, written rather out of necessity than choice, shew, however, readiness of wit, and exuberant fancy. Though always a firm royalist, he does not seem to have approved the measures pursued by Buckingham, Laud, and Strafford; and was far from approving the imposition of shipmoney, and the policy of creating and multiplying monopolies. Yet the unbridled insolence and outrages of the republican governors so much disgusted him, that he was not displeased when Oliver assumed the sovereign power under the title of protector; and in this light he addressed him on that occasion in a speech, which shall be mentioned presently. His behaviour under Cromwell’s tyranny was prudential, and was so considered; for Charles II. at his restoration, thought him worthy of his notice and favour: and his former post under the council being otherwise disposed of, a new place was created, by the grant of which he became the first historiographer royal in England. He died Nov. 1666, and was interred in the Temple-church. London, where a monument was erected to his memory, with the following inscription, which was taken down when the church was repaired in 1683, and has not since been replaced: “Jacobus Howell, Cambro-Britannus, Regius Historiographus in Anglia primus, qui post varies peregrinationes tandem naturae cursum peregit, satur annorum & famas domi forisque hue usque erraticus, hie fixus 1666.”

His works were numerous. 1. “Dodona’s Grove, or, The Vocal Forest, 1640.” 2. “The Vote:” a poem, presented to the king on New-year’s day, 1641. 3. “Instructions for Forraine Travell shewing by what course, and in what compass of time, one may take an exact survey of the kingdomes and states of Christendome, and arrive to the practical knowledge of the languages to good purpose, 1642.” Dedicated to prince Charles. Reprinted in 1650, with additions. These works were published before he was thrown into prison. 4. “Casual Discourses and Interlocutions between Patricius and Peregrin, touching the distractions of the times.” Written soon after the battle of Edgehill, and the first book published in vindication of the king. 5. “Mercurius Hibernicus: or, a discourse of the Irish Massacre, 1644.” 6. “Parables reflecting on the Times, 1644.” 7. “England’s Tears for the present Wars, &c. 1644.” 8. “Preheminence and Pedigree of Parliaments, 1644.” 9. “Vindication of some passages reflecting upon him in Mr. Prynne’s book called The Popish Royal Favourite, 1644.” 10. “Epistolae Ho-Elianae: or, Familiar Letters, domestic and foreign, divided into sundry sections, partly historical, partly political, partly philosophical,” 1645. Another collection was published in 1647; and both these, with the addition of a third, came out in 1650. A few additional letters appeared in some subsequent editions of which the eleventh was printed in 1754, 8vo. It is not, indeed, to be wondered at, that these letters have run through so many editions since they not only contain much of the history of his own times, but are also- interspersed with many pleasant stories properly introduced and applied. It cannot be denied, that he has given way frequently to very low witticisms, the most unpardonable instance of which is, his remark upon Charles the First’s death, where he says, “I will attend with patience how England will thrive, now that she is let blood in the Bapilical vein, and cured as they say of the king’s evil:” and it is no great excuse, that he was led into this manner by the humour of the times. Wood relates, it does not appear on what authority, that “many of these letters were never written before the author of them was in. the Fleet, as he pretends they were, but only feigned and purposely published to gain money to relieve his necessities:” be this as it will, he allows that they “give a tolerable history of those times,” which, if true, is sufficient to recommend them*. There are also some of his letters among the Strafford papers.

These letters are almost the only work of Howell that is now regarded: the rest are very obscure. 11. “A Nocturnal Progress: or, a Perambulation of most Countries in Christendom, performed in one night by strength of imagination,” 1645. 12. “Lustra Ludovici: or the Life of Lewis XIII. King of France, &c.” 13. “An Account of the deplorable state of England in 1647, &c.” 1647. 14. “Letter to Lord Pembroke concerning the Times, and the sad condition both of Prince and People,” 1647. 15. “Bella Scot-Anglica: A Brief of all the Battles betwixt England and Scotland, from all times to this present,”

1648. 16. “Corollary declaring the Causes, whereby the Scot is come of late years to be so heightened in his Spirits.” 17. “The Instruments of a King: or, a short Discourse of the Sword, Crown, and Sceptre, &c. 1648.” 18. “Winter-Dream,” 1649. 19. “A Trance, or News from Hell, brought first to town by Mercurius Acheronticus,”

1649. 20. “Inquisition after Blood, &c.” 1649. 21. “Vision, or Dialogue between Soul and Body,” 1651. 22. “Survey of the Signory of Venice, &c.” 1651. 23. “Some sober Inspections made into the carriage and consults of the late Long Parliament, whereby occasion is taken to speak of Parliaments in former times, and of Magna Charta: with some Reflections upon Government in general,” 1653. Dedicated to Oliver lord protector, whom he compares to Charles Martel, and compliments in language much beyond the truth and the sentiments of his own heart. The fourth edition of this book came out

* " I believe the second published friend of Jonson, and the first who bore

correspondence of this kind (after As- the office of the royal historiographer, chain), and in our own language, at which discover a variety of literature,

least of any importance after (bishop) and abound with much entertaining

Hall, will be found in the “Epistolae and useful information.” Wartoiv?

Hoelianae,“or the letters of James History of Poetry, vol. IV. p. 54. Howell, a great traveller, an intimate Hi 1660, with several additions. 24.” History of the Wars of Jerusalem epitomised.“25.” Ah, Ha; Tumulus, Thalamus two Counter- Poems the first an Elegy on Edward late earl of Dorset: the second an Epithalamium to the Marquis of Dorchester,“1653. 26.” The German Diet: or Balance of Europe, &c.“1653, folio, with the author’s portrait, at whole length. 27.” Parthenopeia: or, the History of Naples, &c.“1654. 28.” Londinopolis,“1657: a short discourse, says Wood, mostly taken from Stowe’s” Survey of London,“but a work which in onr time bears a high price, and is worth consulting, as containing particulars of the manners of Loodon in his days. 29.” Discourse of the Empire, and of the Election of the King of the Romans,“1658. 3O.” Lexicon Tetraglotton an English-French-Italian-Spanish Dictionary, &c.“1660, 31.” A Cordial for the Cavaliers,“1661. Answered immediately by sir Roger L'Estrange, in a book entitled” A Caveat for the Cavaliers:“replied to by Mr. Howell, in the next article, 32.” Some sober Inspections made into those ingredients that went to the composition of a late Cordial for the Cavaliers,“1661. 33.” A French Grammar, &c.“34.” The Parley of Beasts, &c.“1660. 35.” The second Part of casual Discourses and Interlocutions between Patricius and Peregrin, &c.“1661. 36.” Twelve Treatises of the hite Revolutions,“1661. 37.” New English Grammar ifor Foreigners to learn English: with a Grammar for the Spanish and Castilian Tongue, with special Remarks on the Portuguese Dialect, for the service of her Majesty,“1662. 38.” Discourse concerning the Precedency of Kings,"

1663. 39. “Poems:” collected and published by serjeant-major P. F. that is, Payne Fisher, who had been poet-laureat to Cromwell. The editor tells us, that his author Howell “may be called the prodigy of the age for the variety of his volumes: for there hath passed the press above forty of his works on various subjects, useful not only to the present times, but to all posterity. And it is to be observed,” says he, “that in all his writings there is something still new, either in the matter, method, or fancy, and in an untrodden tract.” It is quite impossible, however, to say any thing in favour of his poetry. He published next, 40. “A Treatise concerning Ambassadors,”

1664. 41. “Concerning the surrender of Dunkirk, thiit it was done upon good Grounds,” 1664. Besides these original works, he translated several from foreign languages; as, 1. “St. Paul’s late Progress upon Earth about a Divorce betwixt Christ and the Church of Rome, by reason of her dissoluteness and excesses, &c.” 1644. The author of this book published it about 1642, and was forced to fly from Rome on that account. He withdrew in the company, and under the conduct of one, who pretended friendship for him; but who betrayed him at Avignon, where he was first hanged and then burnt. 2. “A Venetian Looking-glass: or, a Letter written very lately from London to Cardinal Barberini at Rome, by a Venetian Clarissimo, touching the present Distempers in England,” 1648. 3. “An exact History of the late Revolutions in Naples, &c.” 1650. 4. “A Letter of Advice from the prime Statesmen- of Florence, how England may come to herself again,” 1659. All these were translated from the Italian. He translated also from the French, “The Nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, &c.” 1654; and fro tn the Spanish, “The Process and Pleadings in the Court of Spain, upon the death of Anthony Ascham, resident for the Parliament of England, &c.” 1651.

Lastly, he published, in 1649, “The late King’s Declaration in Latin, French, and English:” and in 1651, “Cottoni Posthuma, or divers choice Pieces of that renowned antiquary sir Robert Cotton, knight and baronet,” in 8vo. The print of him prefixed to some of his works was taken from a painting which is now at Landeilo house, in Monmouthshire, the seat of Richard Lewis, esq.

, a learned, but somewhat unfortunate divine, was born soon after the restoration, and educated at Jesus college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1684, and that of M. A. in 1688, after which it is not improbable that he left the university, as he not only scrupled the oaths to the new government, but adhered to the nonjuring party with a degree of firmness, zeal, and rashness, which no considerations of personal loss or suffering could repress. In 1712 he was ordained and instituted into priest’s orders by Dr. Hickes, the celebrated nonjuror, who was titled Suffragan Bishop of Thetford. Before this, in 1708, he published “Synopsis Canonum S. S. Apostolorum, et conciliorum cecumenicorum et provincialium, ab ecclesia Graeca receptorum,” 1710, in folio; “Synopsis canonum ecclesiae Latinae,” folio and in 1715, the third and last volume was announced “as once more finished” by Mr. Howel, the manuscript having been burnt at the fire whicb consumed Mr. Bowyer’s printing-house. Soon after this he printed a pamphlet entitled “The case of Schism in the Church of England truly stated,” which was intended to be dispersed or sold privately, there being no name of any author or printer. Both, however, were soon discovered, andRedmayne, the printer, was sentenced to pay a fine of 500l. to be imprisoned for five years, and to find security for his good behaviour for life. The principles laid down in Howel’s pamphlet are these: 1. “That the subjects of England could not transfer their allegiance from king James II.; and thence it is concluded, that all who resisted king James, or have since complied with such as did, are excommunicated by the second canon: 2. That the catholic bishops cannot be deprived by a lay-power only; and thence it is inferred, that all who have joined with them that were put into the places of the deprived bishops, are schismatics.” As such assertions seemed to aim at the vitals of government, both civil and ecclesiastical, it was thought necessary to visit Mr. Howel’s crime with a more severe punishment than had been inflicted on. the printer. Accordingly he was indicted at the Old Bailey Feb. 18, 1717, fora misdemeanour, in publishing “a seditious libel, wherein are contained expressions denying his majesty’s title to the crown of this realm, and asserting the pretender’s right to the same &c. &c.” and being found guilty, he was ordered to pay a fine of 500l. to be imprisoned for three years, to find four securities of 500l. each, himself bound in 1000l. for his good behaviour during life, and to be twice whipped. On hearing this last part of the sentence, he asked, if they would whip a clergyman? and was answered by the court, that they paid no deference to his cloth, because he was a disgrace to it, and had no right to wear it that they did not look upon him as a clergyman in that he had produced no proof of his ordination, but from Dr. Hickes, under the denomination of the bishop of Thetford, which was illegal, and not according to the constitution of this kingdom, which knows no such bishop. And as he behaved in other respects haughtily, on receiving his sentence, he was ordered to be degraded, and stripped of the gown he had no right to wear, which was accordingly done in court by the executioner, A few days after, however, upon his humble petition to his majesty, the corporal punishment was remitted. He died in Newgate, July 19, 1720. The history of this man may now excite unmixed compassion. He was a man of irreproachable character, and of great learning and acquaintance with ecclesiastical history. One of the ablest attacks on popery was of his writing, entitled “The View of the Pontificate, from its supposed beginning, to the end of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1563, in which the corruptions of the Scripture and sacred antiquity, forgeries in the councils, and encroachments of the court of Rome on the church and state, to support their infallibility, supremacy, and other modern doctrines, are set in a true light.” The first edition of this appeared in 1712, and a second was published while the author was in prison, along with a second edition of his well-known “History of the Bible,” 3 vols. 8vo, with above 150 cuts by Sturt; and a second edition of his “Orthodox Communicant.” From the list of nonjurors at the end of Kettlevvell’s Life, we learn that he was at one time master of the school at Epping, and at another time curate of Estwich in Suffolk.

There is another work, often reprinted, and once a very popular book, which has been attributed to this Mr. Howel, but in 1712 the publisher ascribed it to Dr. William Howell. It is an abridged history of England, under the title “Medulla Historiae Anglicanae,” with many wood-cuts, and we are inclined to think was really the production of Dr. William Howell, an Oxford graduate, but originally of Magdalen college, Cambridge, afterwards chancellor of Lincoln, and admitted a civilian in 1678. He acquired higher reputation by writing a History of the World, from the earliest times to the ruin of the Roman empire in the west, a work praised by Gibbon. It was published in 3 or 4 vols. in 1680, folio. He also published “Elementa Historiae Civilis,” Ox. 1660, of which an enlarged edition was published in English in 1704 by another hand. Dr. Howell died in 1683.

, successively bishop of Oxford and Durham, was born in St. Bride’s parish, London, in 1556, and educated at St. Paul’s school, whence he became student of Christ church, Oxford, in 1577. After taking his degrees in arts, and entering into holy orders, he was vicar of Bampton in Oxfordshire, rector of Brightwell in Berkshire, a fellow of Chelsea college, and canon of Hereford. When vice-chancellor of Oxford he exerted himself against those puritans who opposed the discipline and ceremonies, but was afterwards a more distinguished writer and preacher against popery. He appears to have entered the lists against Bellarmine and his friends with determined resolution, declaring “that he'd loosen the pope from his chair, though he were fastened thereto with a tenpenny nail.” King James commanded his polemical discourses, which are the most considerable of his works, to be printed, in 1622, 4to. They are all in the form of sermons.

He was, first, bishop of Oxford, and Sept. 28, 1628, translated to Durham, which he held only two years, dying Feb. 6, 1631, aged seventy-five, and was interred in St. Paul’s church, London, leaving behind him, as Wood says, (t the character of a very learned man, and one plentifully endowed with all those virtues which were most proper for a bishop.“ Hozier (Peter D'), a man famous in his time, and even celebrated by Boileau, for his skill in genealogies, was born of a good family at Marseilles, in 1592, and bred to military service; but very early applied himself with great zeal to that study for which he became so eminent. By his probity as well as talents, he obtained the confidence of Louis XIII. and XIV. and enjoyed the benefit of their favour in several lucrative and honourable posts. After rising through several appointments, such as judge of arms in 1641, and certifier of titles in 1643, he was admitted in, 1654 to the council of state. He died at Paris in 1660. Hozier was author of a History of Britany, in folio, and of many genealogical tables. His son, Charles, was born Feb. 24, 1640, at Paris. His father had given him some instructions in genealogy, which he made use of to draw up, under the direction of M. de Caumartin,” the Peerage of Champagne,“Chalons, 1673, folio, in form of an Atlas. He received the cross of St. Maurice from the duke of Savoy in 1631, and had also the office of judge of the arms of the French nobility, and was rewarded with a pension of 4000 livres. He died in 1732. This gentleman’s nephew succeeded him in his office, and died in 1767. He compiled the” L'Armorial, ou Registres de la Noblesse de France," 10 vols. folio. Such works, of late years, have been of very little use in France.

, a native of French Navarre, though he is usually supposed to be a Spaniard, lived in the seventeenth century. He gained great fame by a work which he published in Spanish, upon a very curious and interesting subject. The title of it runs thus: “Examen de ingenios para las Sciencias, &c. or, an examination of such geniuses as are fit for acquiring the sciences, and were born such: wherein, by marvellous and useful secrets, drawn from true philosophy both natural and divine, are shewn the gifts and different abilities found in men, and ibr what kind of study the genius of every man is adapted, in such a manner, that whoever shall read this book attentively, will discover the properties of his own genius, and be able to make choice of that science in which he will make the greatest improvement.” This book has been translated into several languages, and gone through several impressions. It was translated into Italian, and published at Venice in 1582; at least the dedication of that translation bears this date. It was translated into French by Gabriel Chappuis in 1580; but there is a better French version than this, by Savinien d'Alquie, printed at Amsterdam in 1672. He has taken in the additions inserted by Huarte in the last edition of his book, which are considerable both in quality and quantity. It has been translated also into Latin, and lastly, into English, by Carew and Bellamy. This very admired author has been highly extolled for acuteness and subtlety, and undoubtedly had a great share of these qualities: Bayle, however, thinks, that “it would not be prudent for any person to rely either on his maxims or authorities for,” says he, “he is not to be trusted on either of these heads, and his hypotheses are frequently chimerical, especially when he pretends to teach the formalities to be observed by those who would beget children of a virtuous turn of mind. There are, in this part of his book, a great many particulars repugnant to modesty (a discovery which we are surprized Bayle should have made): and he deserves censure for publishing, as a genuine and authentic piece, a pretended letter of Lentulus the proconsul from Jerusalem to the Roman senate, wherein a portrait is given of Jesus Christ, a description of his shape and stature, the colour of his hair, the qualities of his beard, &c.” The work, however, has now altogether lost its popularity, and deservedly.

, Hucbald, or Hugbald, a monk of St. Amand, in Flanders, who preceded Guido more than one hundred years, was contemporary with Remi, and author of a treatise on music, which is still subsisting in the king of France’s library, under the title of “Enchiridion Musicae,” No. 7202, transcribed in the eleventh century. In this work there 4s a kind of gammut, or expedient for delineating the several sourrds of the scale, in a way wholly different from his predecessors; but the method of Guido not only superseded this, but by degrees effaced the knowledge and remembrance of every other that had been adopted in the different countries and convents of Europe. However, the awkward attempts at singing in consonance, which appear in this tract, are curious, and clearly prove that Guido neither invented, nor, rude as it was before his time, much contributed to the improvement of this art.

Hubald was not only a musician, but a poet; and an idea may be formed of his patience and perseverance, if not of his genius, from a circumstance related by Sigebert, the author of his life, by which it appears that he vanquished a much greater difficulty in poetry than the lippogrammists of antiquity ever attempted: for they only excommunicated a single letter of the alphabet from a whole poem; but this determined monk composed three hundred verses in praise of baldness, which he addressed to the emperor Charles the Bald, and in which he obliged the letter C to take the lead in every word, as the initial of his patron’s name and infirmity, as thus:

, a celebrated anatomist, was born at Basle, in 1707. He was a pupil of Haller at Berne, in 1730, after which he studied at Strasburgh, and in 1733 took the degree of M. D. at his native place. He visited Paris in 1735, and in the same year was appointed physician to the court of Baden Dourlach. At the request of Haller, he examined the Graubund mountains, in Switzerland, and transmitted to him his collection of plants found in that district, previous to the publication of Haller’s work on the botany of Switzerland. Haller then invited him to Gottingen in 1738, to be dissector, where, having acquired considerable reputation, he was made extraordinary professor of anatomy in that city in 1739; professor in the Caroline college at Cassel, with the rank of court-physician, in 1742; and counsellor of state and body-physician to the prince in 1748. He died in 1778. His principal works are entitled, “Commentatio de Medulla Spinali, speciatim de Nervis ab ea provenientibus,” cum icon. Goett. 1741, 4to. “Commentatio de Vaginas Uteri structura rugosa, necnon *de Hymene,” 1742, 4to. He published a letter in the Philos. Transactions, vol. XLVI, “De cadavere aperto in quo non existit vesica fellea, et de Sterno gibboso.”

, a voluminous female author, was born at Geneva in 1710, and died at Lyons in 1753. Her principal works are, 1. “Le monde fou, prefere au monde sage,” 1731—1744, in 8vo. 2. “Le Systeme des Theologiens anciens et modernes, sur l'etat des Ames separees des corps,” 1731—1739, 12mo. 3. “Suite du meme ouvrage, servant de reponse a M. Ruchat,” 1731—1739, 12mo. 4. “Reduction du Spectateur Anglois.” This was an abridgment of the Spectator, and appeared in 1753, in six parts, duodecimo; but did not succeed. 5. “Lettres sur la Religion essentielle a l'homme,” 1739 1754. Mary Huber was a protestant, and this latter work, in particular, was attacked by the divines of the Romish communion. She had wit and knowledge, but was sometimes obscure, from wanting the talent to develope her own ideas.

, a native of Dockum, in the Dutch territories, famous as a lawyer, an historian, and a philologer, was born in 1635, and became professor at Franeker, and afterwards at Lewarde. He published, 1. in 1662, seven dissertations, “De genuina aetate Assyriorum, et regno Medorum.” Also, 2. A treatise “De Jure civitatis.” 3. “Jurisprudentia Frisiaca.” 4. “Specimen Philosophise civilis.” 5. “Institutiones Historiae civilis;” and several other works. From 1688, he was engaged in violent controversy with Perizonius, on some points of jurisprudence, and on his work last-mentioned, the “Institutiones historic civilis.” He died in 1694. The dispute with Perizonius was carried on with sufficient scurrility on both sides.

, son of the former, was born at Franeker in 1669; and afterwards advanced to the same professorships. He published in 1690, 1. “A dissertation” De vero sensu atque interpretatione, legis IX. D. de lege Pompeia, de Parricidis,“Franeker, 4to. 2. Also, <c Dissertation urn libri tres, quibus explicantur, &c. selecta juris publici, sacri, privatique capita,” Franeker, 1702. He died in 1732.

, a celebrated French preacher, was born in 1640, and was contemporary with Bourdaloue, whom, indeed, he could not rival, but was skilful enough to please; being esteemed by him one of the first preachers of the time. He was a priest of the congregation of the Oratory, and no less remarkable for his gentle piety and profound humility, than for his eloquence. He excelled consequently rather in the touching style of the sacred, than the vivid manner of the temporal orator. He was used to say, that his brother Massillon was fit to preach to the masters, and himself to the servants. He died in. 1717, after displaying his powers in the provinces, in the capital, and at court. Eight years after his death, in 1725, his sermons were published at Paris, in 6 vols. 12mo, and were much approved by all persons of piety and taste. “His manner of reasoning,” says his editor, father Monteuil, “had not that dryness which frequently destroys the effect of a discourse; nor did he employ that studied elocution which frequently enervates the style by an excess of polish.” The best composition in these volumes is the funeral oration on Mary of Austria. As a trait of his humility, it is related, that on being told by a person in a large company, that they had been fellow-students; he replied, “I cannot easily forget it, since you not only lent me books, but gave me clothes.”

, a native of Lusatia, or, according to some authorities, of Torgau, in Saxony, highly celebrated for his skill in history, geography, and genealogy, was born in 1668. His works were chiefly written in the form of question and answer, and so popular in Germany, that his introduction to geography went through a vast number of editions in that country, and has been translated into English, French, and other languages. His works, therefore, are calculated rather for the instruction, of the ignorant, than the satisfaction of the learned; but are well executed in their way. Hubner was professor of geography at Leipsic, and rector of the school at Hamburgh, in which city he died in 1731. His questions on modern and ancient geography were published at Leipsic in 1693, in 8vo, under the title of “Kurtze Fragen aus der newen und alten Geographic.” He published, 2. in 1697, and several subsequent years, in 10 volumes, similar questions on political history, entitled “Kurtze Fragen aus der Politischen Historic, bis zum Ausgang des Siebenzenden saeculi.” 3. His next work was Genealogical Tables, with genealogical questions subjoined, 1708, &c. 4. “Supplements to the preceding works. 5. Lexicons, resembling our Gazetteers, for the aid of common life, entitled fs Staats, Zeitungs, und Conversations-Lexico.” 6. A Genealogical Lexicon. 7. “Bibliotheca Historica Hamburgensis,” Leipsic, 1715. And, 8. “Museum Geographicum.” The two last were more esteemed by the learned than any of his other works.

, was an eminent English navigator, who flourished in high fame in the beginning of the seventeenth century. Where he was born and educated, we have no certain account; nor have we of any private circumstances of his life. The custom of discovering foreign countries for the benefit of trade not dying with queen Elizabeth, in whose reign it had been zealously pursued, Hudson, among others, attempted to find out a passage by the north to Japan and China. His first voyage was in 1607, at the charge of some London merchants; and his first attempt was for the north-east passage to the Indies. He departed therefore on the 1st of May; and after various adventures through icy seas, and regions intensely cold, returned to England, and arrived in the Thames Sept. 15. The year following he undertook a second voyage for discovering the same passage, and accordingly set sail with fifteen persons only, April 22; but not succeeding, returned homewards, and arrived at Gravesend on Aug. 26.

Not disheartened by his former unsuccessful voyages, he undertook again, in 1609, a third voyage to the same parts, for further discoveries; and was fitted out by the Dutch East India company. He sailed from Amsterdam with twenty men English and Dutch, March 25; and on April 25, doubled the North Cape of Finmark, in Norway. He kept along the coasts of Lapland towards Nova Zembla, but found the sea so full of ice that he could not proceed. Then turning about, he went towards America, and arrived at the coast of New France on July 18. He sailed from place to place, without any hopes of succeeding in their grand scheme; and the ship’s crew disagreeing, and being in danger of mutinying, he pursued his way homewards, and arrived Nov. 7, at Dartmouth, in Devonshire; of which he gave advice to his directors in Holland, sending them also a journal of his voyage. In 1610, he was again fitted out by some gentlemen, with a commission to try, if through any of those American inlets which captain Davis saw, but durst not enter, on the western side of Davis’s Streights, any passage might be found to the South Sea. They sailed from St. Catharine’s April 17, and on June 4, came within sight of Greenland. On the 9th they were off Forbisher’s Streights, and on the 15th came in sight of Cape Desolation. Thence they proceeded north-westward, among great quantities of ice, until they came to the mouth of the Streights that bear Hudson’s name. They advanced in those Streights westerly, as the land and ice would permit, till they got into the bay, which has ever since been called by the bold discoverer’s name, “Hudson’s Bay.” He gave names to places as he %vent along; and called the country itself “Nova Britan^­nia,” or New Britain. He sailed above 100 leagues south into this bay, being confident that he had found the desired passage; but perceiving at last that it was only a bay, he resolved to winter in the most southern point of it, with, an intention of pursuing his discoveries the following spring. Upon this he was so intent, that he did not consider how unprovided he was with necessaries to support himself during a severe winter in that desolate place. On Nov. 3, however, they drew their ship into a small creek, where they would all infallibly have, perished, if they had not been unexpectedly and providentially supplied with uncommon flights of wild fowl, which served them for provision. In the spring, when the ice began to waste, Hudson, in order to complete his discovery, made several efforts of various kinds; but notwithstanding all his endeavours, he found it necessary to abandon his enterprise, and to make the best of his way home; and therefore distributed to his men, with tears in his eyes, all the bread be had left, which was only a pound to each: though it is said other provisions were afterwards found in the ship. In his despair and uneasiness, he had let fall some threatening words, of setting some of his men on shore; upon which, a few of the sturdiest, who had before been very mutinous, entered his cabin in the night, tied his arms behind him, and exposed him in his own shallop at the west end of the streights, with his son, John Hudson, and seven of the most sick and infirm of his men. There they turned them adrift, and it is supposed that they all perished, being never heard of more. The crew proceeded with the ship for England; but going on shore near the streight’s mouth, four of them were killed by savages. The rest, after enduring the greatest hardships, and ready to die for want, arrived at Plymouth Sept. 1611.

, a learned English critic, was born at Widehope, near Cockermouth, in Cumberland, 1662; and, after having been educated in grammar and classical learning by Jerome Hechstetter, who lived in that neighbourhood, was entered in 1676 of Queen’s-college, Oxford. Soon after he had taken the degree of M. A. in 1684, he removed to University-college, of which he was unanimously chosen fellow in March 1686, and became a most considerable and esteemed tutor. In April 1701, on the resignation of Dr. Thomas Hyde, he was elected principal keeper of the Bodleian library; and in June following, accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. With this librarian’s place, which he held till his death, he kept his fellowship till June 1711, when, according to the statutes of the college, he would have been obliged to resign it; but he had just before disqualified himself for holding it any longer, by marrying Margaret, daughter of sir Robert Harrison, knight, an alderman of Oxford, and a mercer. In 1712, he was appointed principal of St. Maryby the chancellor of the university, through the interest of Dr. Radcliffe; and it is said, that to Hudson’s interest with^this physician, the university of Oxford is obliged for the very ample benefactions she afterwards received from him. Hudson’s studious and sedentary way of life, and extreme abstemiousness, brought him at length into a bad habit of body, which turning to a dropsy, kept him about a year in a very languishing condition. He died Nov. 27, 1719, leaving a widow, and one daughter.

His publications were, 1. “Introductio ad Chronographiam; sive ars chronologica in Epitomen redacta,” 1691, 8vo. Extracted from Beveridge’s treatise on that subject, for the use of his pupils. 2. “Velieius Paterculus, cum variis lectionibus, & notis, &- indice,” 1693, 8vo. A second edition, with the notes enlarged, in 1711. 3. “Thucydides,” 1696, folio. A neat and beautiful edition, but somewhat eclipsed in its credit by that of Duker and Wasse. 4. “Geographies Veteris Scriptores Graeci Minores cum Dissertationibus & Armotationibus Henrici Dodwelli,” 8vo. The first published in 1698, the second in 1703, and the third and fourth in 1712. 5. “Dionysii Halicarnassensis opera omnia,” 1704, 2 vols. folio. A beautiful and valuable edition, enriched with the various readings of an ancient copy in the Vatican library, and of several manuscripts in France. The learned editor has subjoined to his own notes several of Sylburgius, Portus, Stephens, Casaubon, and Vaiesius. 6. “Dionysius Longinus,” 1710, 4to, and 1718, 8vo. A very beautiful edition, and the notes, like all the rest of Hudson’s, very short. 7. “Moeris Atticista, de vocibus Atticis & Hellenicis. Gregorius Martinus de Grsecarum literarum pronunciatione,” 1712, 8vo. 8. “Fabulse Æsopicae,” Greek and Latin, 1718, 8vo. i). “Flavii Josephi Opera,” he had just finished, but did not live to publish. He had proceeded as far as the third index, when, finding himself unable to go quite through, he recommended the work to his intimate friend Mr. Antony Hall, who published it in 1720, in 2 vols. folio. It is a correct and beautiful edition, and deserving of the ample commendation bestowed upon, it by Fabricius, Harwood, Harles, and Oberthur. The care of Mr. Hall extended not only to the works of his deceased friend, but to his family, for he married his widow, whom he also left a widow.

Dr. Hudson intended, if he had lived, to publish a catalogue of the Bodleian library, which he had caused to be fairly transcribed in 6 vols. folio. He was an able assistant to several editors in Oxford, particularly to Dr. Gregory in his “Euclid,” and to the industrious Mr. Hearne in his “Livy,” &c. He corresponded with many learned men in foreign countries; with Muratori, Salvini, and Bianchini, in Italy; with Boivin, Kuster, and Lequien, in France; with Olearius, Menckenius, Christopher Woifius, and, whom he chiefly esteemed, John Albert Fabricius, in Germany; Eric Benzel, in Sweden; Frederic Rostgard, in Denmark; with Pezron, Reland, Le Clerc, in Holland, &c. He used to complain of the vast expence of foreign letters; for he was far from being rich, never having been possessed of any ecclesiastical preferment; of which he used also to make frequent and not unjust complaints. He met, sometimes, however, with generous patronage. When employed on his edition of Josephus, the earl of Caernarvon (afterwards duke of Chandos) hearing of his merit and the expensive nature of his undertaking, sent him a present of two hundred guineas, which Dr. Hudson handsomely acknowledges in the dedication to the earl’s son, lord Wilton, of his edition of Esop’s Fables. On his decease, several sets of his Josephus were disposed of by his widow, at twelve shillings per set, a work which now ranks in the very first class of Variorum editions in folio. Dr. Hudson had been long conversant with Josephus, had revised sir Roger L'Estrange’s translation, and added some critical notes. He also digested and finished Dr. Willis’s two discourses prefixed to that work. Hearne was a kind of pupil to Dr. Hudson, and directed by him in his critical studies.

, a portrait-painter of some celebrity, born in 1701, was the scholar and son-in-law of Richardson, and enjoyed for many years the chief business of portrait-painting in the capital, after the favourite artists, his master and Jervas, were gone off the stage. Though Vanloo first, and Liotard afterwards, for a few years diverted the torrent of fashion from the established professor, still the country gentlemen were faithful to their compatriot, and were content with his honest similitudes, and with the fair tied wigs, blue velvet coats, and white satin waistcoats, which he bestowed liberally on his customers, and which with complacence they beheld multiplied in Faber’s mezzotintos. The better taste introduced by sir Joshua Reynolds, who had been for some time his pupil, put an end to Hudson’s reign, who had the good sense to resign the throne soon after finishing his capital work, the family piece of Charles duke of Marlboro ugh, about 1756. He retired to a small villa he had built at Twickenham, on a most beautiful point of the river, and where he furnished the best rooms with a well- chosen collection of cabinet-pictures and drawings by great masters having purchased many of the latter from his father-inlaw’s capital collection. Towards the end of his life he married to his second wife, Mrs. Fiennes, a gentlewoman with a good fortune, to whom he bequeathed his villa. He died Jan. 26, 1779.

, one of the earliest Linniean botanists in England, was born in Westmoreland, about the year 1730. He served his apprenticeship to an apothecary in Panton-street, Haymarket, to whose business he succeeded, and with whose widow and daughters he continued to reside. His acquaintance with the amiable and learned Mr. Benjamin Stillingfleet greatly advanced his taste and information in natural history. This gentleman directed his attention to the writings of Linnæus, and gave his mind that correct and scientific turn, which caused him to take the lead as a classical English botanist, and induced him to become the author of the “Flora Anglica,” published in 1762, in one volume octavo. The plan of this book was, taking Kay’s “Synopsis” as a ground-work, to dispose his plants in order, according to the Linnaean system and nomenclature, with such additions of new species, or of new places of growth, as the author or his friends were able to furnish. The particular places of growth of the rarer species were given in Ray’s manner, in English, though the rest of the book was Latin. The elegant preface was written by Mr. Stillingfleet, and probably the concise, but not less elegant, dedication to the late duke of Northumberland, “artium, turn utilium, turn elegant ioruin, judici et patrono”

This publication gave Mr. Hudson a considerable rank as a botanist, not only in his own country, but on the eontinent, and derived no small advantage from a comparison with Dr. Hill’s attempt of the same kind. He had indeed previously, in the course of his medical practice, formed some valuable connexions, which were cemented by botanical taste; and his correspondence with Linnæus, Haller, and others, as well as amongst his countrymen, was frequent, and very useful to him in the course of his studies, which were extended, not only to botany in all its cryptogamic minutiae, but with great ardour also, to insects, shells, and other branches of British zoology. He was elected a fellow of the royal society Nov. 5th, and admitted Nov. 12th, 1761. He took the lead very much in. the affairs of the Apothecaries’ company, and was their botanical demonstrator in the Chelsea-garden for many years.

Mr. Hudson, having never married, continued to reside in Panton-street with the last surviving daughter of his friend and master, an amiable and valuable woman, married to Mr. Hole. His “Flora” being grown very scarce, he published, in 1778, a new edition, in two volumes, with many additions, and various alterations, which, on the whole, was worthy of the advanced state of the science.

Mr. Hudson’s tranquillity received a dreadful shock in the winter of 1783, when his house, and the greater part of his literary treasures, were destroyed by a sudden fire, caused, as it was believed, by the villany of a confidential servant, who knew of a considerable sum in money which his master had received a day or two before; and the insurance having been neglected, although for a short time only, the loss was considerable, in a pecuniary point of view, to a man whose resources were not extensive. He bore the whole like a philosopher and a Christian, giving up his practice, and retiring, with Mr. and Mrs. Hole, to a more economical residence in Jermyn-street, where he died May 23d, 1793, and was buried in St. James’s church.

The accident of the fire entirely defeated a project Mr. Hudson had for many years kept in view, of publishing a “Fauna Britannica,” on the plan of his “Flora,” for which he had long been collecting materials. His taste for his favourite pursuit remained to the last, unimpaired and unembittered by these disappointments. He became a fellow of the Linnaean Society early in 1791, liberally contributing to its infant funds, and attending the meetings as often as his now declining health would allow.

, a Spanish poet and critic, and a member of the Spanish academy, was born at Zaira in Estremadura, about the year 1730. Among his countrymen he acquired considerable fame by the exercise of his poetical and critical talents, and was at least successful in one of his dramas, “La Raquel,” a tragedy, which, to many stronger recommendations, adds that of being exempt from the anachronisms and irregularities so often objected to the productions of the Spanish stage. He published “A Military library;” and “Poems” in 2 vols. printed at Madrid in 1778: but his principal work is his “Teatro Hespanol,” Madrid, 1785, 17 vols. 4to, a collection of what he reckoned the best Spanish plays, with prefaces, in which he endeavours to vindicate the honour of Spanish literature from the strictures of Voltaire, Linguet, Signorelli, and others of its adversaries; but on the whole, in the opinion of lord Holland, who appears well acquainted with this work, so far from retrieving the lost honours of the Spanish theatre, he has only exposed it to the insults and ridicule of its antagonists. La Huerta died about the close of the last century.

, bishop of Avranches in France, a very eminent scholar, was born of a good family at Caen in Normandy, Feb. 8, 1630. His parents dying when he was scarcely out of his infancy, Huet fell into the hands of guardians, who neglected him: his own invincible love of letters, however, made him amends for all disadvantages; and he finished his studies in the belles lettres before he was thirteen years of age. In the prosecution of his philosophical studies, he met with an excellent professor, father Mambrun, a Jesuit; who, alter Plato’s example, directed him to begin by learning a little geometry, and Huet contracted such a relish for it, that he went through every branch of mathematics, and maintained public theses at Caen, a thing never before done in that city. Having passed through his classes, it was his business to study the law, and to take his degrees in it; but two books then published, seduced him from this pursuit. These were, “The Principles of Des Cartes,” and “Bochart’s Sacred Geography.” He was a great admirer of Des Cartes, and adhered to his philosophy for many years; but afterwards saw reason to abandon it as a visionary fabrick, and wrote against it. Bochart’s geography made a more lasting impression upon him, as well on account of the immense erudition with which it abounds, as by his acquaintance with its author, who was minister of the Protestant church at Caen. This book, being full of Greek and Hebrew learning, inspired Huet with an ardent desire of being versed in those languages, and, to assist his progress in these studies, he contracted a friendship with Bochart, and put himself under his directions.

At the age of twenty years and one day, he was delivered by the custom of Normandy from the tuition of his guardians: and soon after took a journey to Paris, not so much from curiosity to see the place, as for the sake of purchasing books, and making himself acquainted with the learned men of the times. He soon became known to Sirmond, Petavius, Vavassor, Cossart, Rapin, Naude, and, in short, to almost all the scholars in France. With Petavius in particular he passed much of his time: he was a great admirer of the splendour of his diction, and the variety of his erudition; but he confesses, that in weighing the arguments which he offered in support of his dogmas, he perceived in them a degree of weakness and ambiguity, which obliged him to suspend his assent, and inclined him towards scepticism. Naturally excelling rather in genius than judgment, and the vigour of his understanding having been rather repressed than improved by an immense variety of reading, Huet found his mind too feeble to master the difficulties of metaphysical and theological studies, and concluded that his want of success in the search after truth was owing, not to any peculiar infelicity in his own case, but to the general imbecility of the human mind.

With this bias towards scepticism Huet entered upon his travels, and Christina of Sweden having invited Bochart to her court, Huet accompanied him, in April 1652. He saw Salmasius at Leyden, and Isaac Vossius at Amsterdam. He often visited the queen, who would have engaged him. in her service; but Bochart not having been very graciously received, through the intrigues of Bourdel, another physician, who was jealous of him, and the queen’s fickle temper being well known, Huet declined^ all offers, and after a stay of three months returned to France. The chief fruit of his journey was a copy of a manuscript of Origen’s “Commentaries upon St. Matthew,” which he transcribed at Stockholm; and the acquaintance he contracted with the learned men in Sweden and Holland, through which he passed. Upon his return to his own country, Caen, he resumed his studies with more vigour than ever, in order to publish his manuscript of Origen . While he was employed in translating this work, he was led to consider the rules to be observed in translations, as well as the different manners of the most celebrated translators. This gave occasion to his first performance, which came out at Paris in 1661, under this title, “De interpretatione libri duo:” and it is written in the form of a dialogue between Casaubon, Fronto Ducaeus, and Thuanus. M. de Segrais tells us, that tf nothing can be added to this treatise, either with respect to strength of critical judgment, variety of learning, or elegance of style;“” which last,“says abbe Olivet,” is so very extraordinary, that it might have done honour to the age of Augustus.“This book was first printed in a thin 4to, but afterwards in 12mo and 8vo^ In 1688, were published at Rouen, in 2 vo!s. folio, his” Origenis Commentaria, &e. cum Latina interpretatione, notis & observationibus;“to which is prefixed, a large preliminary discourse, in which is collected all that antiquity relates of Origen. The interval of sixteen years, between his return from Sweden and the publication of this work, was spent entirely in study, excepting a month or two every year, when he went to Paris; during which time he gave the public a specimen of his skill in polite literature, in an elegant collection of poems, entitled” Carmina Latina & Grajca;“which were published at Utrecht in 1664, and afterwards enlarged in several successive editions. While he was employed upon his” Commentaries of Origen,“he had the misfortune to quarrel with his friend and master Bochart; who desiring one day a sight qf his manuscript for the sake of consulting some passages about the Encbarist, which had been greatly controverted between Papists and Protestants, discovered an hiatus or defect, which seemed to determine the sense in favour of the Papists, and reproached Huet with being the contriver of it. Huet at first thought that it was a defect in the original ms. but upon consulting another very antient ms. in the king’s libra' Paris, he found that he had omitted some words in the harry of transcribing, as he says, and that the mistake was his own. Bochart, still supposing that this was a kind of pious fraud in Huet, to support the doctrine of the church of Rome in regard to the Eucharist, warned the Protestants against Hoet’s edition of Origen’s” Commentaries," and dissolved the friendship which had so long subsisted between Huet and himself.

In 1659 Huet was invited to Rome by Christina, who bad abdicated her crown, and retired thither; but, remembering the cool reception which Bochart had experienced from her majesty after as warm an invitation, he refused to go. His literary reputation, however, Bossuet was appointed by the king preceptor to the Dauphin, procured him to be chosen for his colleague, with the title of sub-preceptor, which honour had some time been designed him by the duke de Montausier, governor to the Dauphin. He went to court in 1670, and staved there till 1680, when the Dauphin was married. Though his employment must of necessity occupy a considerable part of his time, he found enough to complete his “Demonstratio Evangelica,” which, though a great and laborious work, was begun and ended amidst the embarrassments of a court *. It was published at Paris in 1679, in folio; and has been reprinted since in folio, 4to, and 8vo. Huet owns that this work was better received by foreigners than by his own countrymen; many of whom considered it as a work full of learning indeed, but utterly devoid of that demonstration to which it so formally and pompously pretends. Others, less equitable, borrowed from it, and attacked it at the same time, to cover their plagiarism; which Huet complains of. Father Simon had a design of Baking an abridgment“of this work; bat Haet being informed that his purpose was likewise to alter it as he thought proper, desired him to excuse himself that trouble. Huet was employed on the editions of the classics” in usum Delphini:" for though the first idea of these was started by the duke de Montausier, yet Huet formed the plan, and directed the execution, as far as the capacity of the persons employed in that work would permit. He undertook, he tells us, only to promote and conduct the work, but at last came in for a share of it, in completing Faye’s edition of Manilius. He was also chosen a member of the French academy and his speech pronounced on the occasion before that illustrious body was published at Paris in 1674.

While he was employed in composing his “Demonstratio Evangel. ca,” the sentiments of piety, which he had cherished from his earliest youth, moved him to enter into orders, which he did at the late age of forty-six; and be tells us, that previous to this he gradually laid aside the lay habit and outward appearances. In 1678, he was presented by the king to the abbey of Aunay in Normandy, which was so agreeable to him, tiiat be retired there every summer, after he had left the court. In 1685, he was nominated to the bUho;>ric of Soissons but before the bulls for his institution were expedited, the abbe de Sillery having been nominated to the see of Avranches, they exchanged bishoprics with the consent of the king; though, owing to the differences between the court of France and that of Rome, they could not be consecrated till 1692. In 1689, he published his “Censura Philosophise Cartesians,” and addressed it to the duke de Montausier: it appears that he was greatly piqued at the Cartesians, when he wrote this book; but it may be questioned whether he thoroughly understood the system. In 1690, be published in Caen, in 4to, his “Qusestiones Ainetanse de Concordia Rationis & Fidei” which is written in the form of a dialogue, after the manner of Cicero’s Tusculan Questions. In this he endeavours to fix the respective limits of reason and faith, and maintains, that the dogmas and precepts of each have no alliance, and that there is nothing, however, contradictory to common sense, or to good morals, which has not been received, and which we may not be bound to receive, as a dictate of faith. He honestly confesses that he wrote this work to establish the authority of tradition against the empire of reason.

In 1699, he resigned his bishopric of Avranches, and was presented to the abbey of Fontenay, near the gates of Caen. His love to his native place determined him to fix there, for which purpose he improved the house and gardens belonging to the abbot. But several grievances and law-suits obliged him to remove to Paris, where he lodged among the Jesuits in the Maison Professe“, whom he had made heirs to his library, reserving to himself the use of it while he lived. Here he spent the last twenty years of his life, dividing his time between devotion and study. He did not consider the Bible as the only book to be read, but thought that all other books must be read, before it could be rightly understood. He employed himself chiefly in writing notes on the vulgate translation: for which purpose he read over the Hebrew text twenty-four times; comparing it, as he went along, with the other Oriental texts, and spent every day two or three hours in this work from 1681 to 1712. He was then seized with a very severe distemper, which confined him to his bed for near six months, and brought him so very low, that he was given up by his physicians, and received extreme unction. Recovering, however, by degrees, he applied himself to the writing of his life, which was published at Amsterdam in 1718, in 12mo, underline title of” Pet. Dan. Huetii, Episcopi Abrincensts, Commentarius de rebus ad eum pertinentibus:“where the critics have wondered, that so great a master of Latin as Huetius was, and who has written it, perhaps, as well as any of the moderns, should be guilty of a solecism in the very title of his book; in writing” eum,“when he should have manifestly written” se.“This performance, though drawn up in a very amusing and entertaining manner, and with great elegance of style, is not executed with that order and exactness which appear in his other works: his memory being then decayed, and afterwards declining more and more, so that he was no longer capable of a continued work, but only committed detached thoughts to paper. Olivet in the mean time relates a most remarkable singularity of him, namely, that,” for two or three hours before his death, he recovered all the vigour of his genius and memory." He died January 26, 1721, in his 91st year.

Besides the works -which we have mentioned in the course of this memoir, he published others of a similar nature, viz. “De l'Origine des Romans,” 1670; published in English 1672, 12mo. “De la situation du Paradis Terrestre,” 1691. “Nouveaux Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire du Cartesianisrne,” 1692. “Statuts Synodaux pour le diocese d'Avranches, &c.” 1693 to which were added three supplements in the years 1695, 1696, 1698. “De Navigationibus Salomonis,” Amst. 1698. “Notse in Anthologiam Epigrammatum Grsecorum,” Ultraj. 1700. “Origines de Caen,” Roan, 1702. “Lettres a Mons. Perrault, sur le Parallele des Anciens & des Modernes, du 10 Oct. 1692,” printed without the author’s knowledge in the third part of the “Pieces Fugitives,” Paris, 1704. “Examen du sentiment de Longin sur ce passage de la Genese, Et Dieu dit, que la lumiere soit faite, & la lumiere fut faite,” inserted in tome X of Le Clerc’s “Bibliotheque Choisee,” Amst. 1706. Huet, in his “Demonstratio Evangelica,” had asserted, that there was nothing sublime in this passage, as Longinus had observed, but that it was perfectly simple. Messrs, de Port Royal and Boileau, who gave translations of Longinus, asserted its sublimity on that very account; and this occasioned the “Examen” just mentioned. “Lettre a M. Foucault, conseiller d‘etat, sur l’origine de la Poesie Franchise, du 16 Mar. 1706,” inserted in the “Memoires de Trevoux,” in 1711. “Lettre de M. Morin (that is, of M. Huet,) de Tacademie des inscriptions a M. Huet, tonchant le livre de M. Tolandus Anglois, intitule, Adeisidtemon, & Origines Judaicce,” inserted in the “Memoires de Trevoux” for Sept. 1709, and in the collection which the abbe* Tilladet published of Huet’s works, under the title of “Dissertations sur diverses rnatieres de la Religion & de Philologie,” 1712. “Histoire de Commerce & de la Navigation des Anciens,” 1716. After his death were published, “Traite Philosophique de laFoiblesse de I'esprit huniain,” Amst. 1723; in which the sceptical spirit which followed Huet through every change of situation appears in its full vigour. Of this work, which was originally written in French, the author left behind him a Latin translation. It has also been translated into English. “Huetiana, ou pensees diverses de M. Huet,” 1722. These contain those loose thoughts he committed to paper after his last illness, when, as we have already observed, he was incapable of producing a connected work. “Diana de Castro, ou le faux Yncas,” 1728, a romance, written when he was very young. There are yet in being other Mss. of his, which, as far we know, have not been published; viz. “A Latin translation of Longus’s Loves of Daphnis and Chloe;” “An Answer to Regis, with regard to Des Cartes’s Metaphysics;” “Notes upon the Vulgate translation of the Bible;” and a collection of between 5 and 600 letters in Latin and French written to learned men.

On the whole, though it cannot be questioned that Huet, on account of his great learning and fertile genius, may justly claim to have his name preserved with honour in the republic of letters, several circumstances must prevent us from ranking him among the first philosophers of the seventeenth century. Better qualified to accumulate testimonies than to investigate truth, and more disposed to raise difficulties than to solve them, he was an injudicious advocate for a good cause. If we are not very much mistaken, Huet did not strictly adhere to the scholastic art of reasoning which he had learned in the schools of the Jesuits; otherwise he must have seen that there can be no room for faith, or for, what he artfully conceals under that name, the authority of the church, if every criterion of truth be rejected, and human reason be pronounced a blind and fallacious guide.

. There are several ecclesiastics of this name in French history, few of which perhaps will be thought now very interesting. St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble in 1080, was a native of Chateau-neuf-sur-PIsere, near Valence in Dauphiny, who received St. Bruno and his companions, and fixed them in the Grande Chartreuse. He was author of a Cartulary, some fragments of which are in Mabillon’s posthumous works, and in Allard’s Memoirs of Dauphiny, 1711 and 1727, 2 vols. fol. He died April 1, 1132. He must be distinguished from the subject of the next article.

, a saint of the Romish calendar, was of a very distinguished family in Burgundy, and was born in 1023. When he was only fifteen, he rejected all worldly views, and entered into the monastic life at Cluni, under the guidance of the abbot Odilon. After some years, he was created prior of the order, and abbot in 1048, at the death of Odilon. In this situation he extended the reform of Cluni to so many monasteries, that, according to an ancient author, he had under his jurisdiction above ten thousand monks. In 1058 he attended pope Stephen when dying, at Florence; and in 1074 he made a religious pilgrimage to Rome. Some epistles written by him are extant in Dacheri Spicilegium. There are also other pieces by him in the “Bibliotheque de Cluni.” He died in 1108 or 9. He is said to have united moderation with his exemplary piety; and was embroiled, at one time, with the bishop of Lyons, for saying the prayer for the emperor Henry IV. when that prince was under excommunication.

, or de St. Marie, a celebrated monk of the abbey of Fleury towards the end of the 11th century, was called Hugh de St. Marie from the name of a village which belonged to his father. He is little known but by his works, which are two books: “De la Puissance Royale, et de la Dignite” Sacerdotale,“dedicated to Henry king of England, in which he establishes with great solidity the rights and bounds of the priestly and royal powers, in opposition to the prejudices which prevailed at that time. This work may be found in torn. IV. of the” Miscellanea“of Beluze. % He wrote also” A Chronicle," or History, from the beginning of the world to 840, and a small Chronicle from 996 to 1109, Minister, 163S, 4to, valuable and scarce. It may also be found in Troher’s collection.

, born in 1065, was a monk of St. Vannes at Verdun, and afterwards abbot of Flavigny in the 12th century, but was dispossessed of that dignity by the bishop of Autun, who caused another abbot to be elected. Hugh, however, supplanted St. Laurentius, abbot of Vannes, who was persecuted by the bishop of Verdun for his attachment to the pope, and kept his place till 1115, after which time it is not known what became of him. He wrote the “Chronicle of Verdun,” which is esteemed, and may be found in P. Labbe’s * Bibl. Manuscript."

, also called Hugh Of Rouen, left Amiens, his native place, and going to England was made first, abbot of Roding, and afterwards bishop of Rouen, 1130, and died 1164. He has the character in his church of being one of the greatest, most pious, and most learned bishops of his age. He wrote three books for the instruction of his clergy, which are in the library of the fathers, and P. d'Achery has printed them at the end of Guibert de Nogent’s works. Some other pieces by Hugh may be found in the collections by Martenne and Durand.

, an eminent divine in the 12th century, originally of Flanders, devoted himself to religion in the abbey of St. Victor at Paris, at that time governed by its first abbot Gilduin in 1115, and taught theology with so much reputation, that he was called a second Augustine. He died in 1142, aged 44, after having been prior to St. Victor, leaving several works, in which he imitates St. Augustine’s style, and follows his doctrine. The principal among these is a large treatise “On the Sacraments.” They have all been printed at Rouen, 1648, 3 vols. fol. and some may also be found in Madeline’s “Thesaurus.”

, a celebrated cardinal of the Dominican order, was so called from the place of his birth, at the gates of Vienne, where there is a church dedicated to St. Cher. He acquired great reputation in the 13th century by his prudence, learning, and genius; was doctor of divinity of the faculty of Paris, appointed provincial of his order, afterwards cardinal by Innocent IV. May 28, 1244, and employed by this pope and his successor Alexander IV. in affairs of the greatest consequence. He died March 19, 1263, at Orvieto. His principal works are a collection of the various readings of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Mss. of the bible, entitled “Correctorium Bibliae,” which is in the Sorbonne in ms.; a “Concordance of the Bible,” Cologn, 1684, 8vo; the earliest work of this kind. He is said to have been the inventor of concordances. “Commentaries on the Bible” “Speculum Ecclesiae,” Paris, 1480, 4to, &c.

, an English poet, was son of a citizen of London, and born at Marlborough in Wiltshire July 29, 1677. He was educated at a dissenting academy, under the care of Mr. Thomas Rowe, where, at the same time, the afterwards celebrated Dr. Isaac Watts was a student, whose piety and friendship for Mr. Hughes induced him to regret that he employed any part of his talents in writing for the stage. Mr. Hughes had a weak or at least a delicate constitution, which perhaps restrained him from severer studies, and inclined him to pursue the softer arts of poetry, music, and drawing; in each of which he made considerable progress. Hk acquaintance with the Muses and the Graces did not render him averse to business; he had a place in the office of ordnance, and was secretary to several commissions under the great seal for purchasing lands, in order to the better securing of the royal docks and yards at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Harwich. He continued, however, to cultivate his taste for letters, and added to a competent knowledge of the ancient, an intimate acquaintance with the modern languages. The first testimony he gave the public of his poetic vein, was in a poesi “on the peace of Ryswick,” printed in 1697, and received with uncommon approbation. In 1699, “The Court of Neptune” was written by him on king William’s return from Holland; and, the same year, a song on the duke of Gloucester’s birth-day. In the year 1702, he published, on the death of king William, a Pindaric ode, entitled “Of the House of Nassau,” which he dedicated to Charles duke of Somerset and in 1703 his “Ode in Praise of Music” was performed with great applause at Stationers’-hall.

His numerous performances, for he had all along employed his leisure hours in translations and imitations from the ancients, had by this time introduced him, not only to the wits of the age, Addison, Congreve, Pope, Southerne, Rowe, and others, but also to some men of rank in the kingdom, and among these to the earl of Wharton, who offered to carry him over, and to provide for him, when appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland; but, having other other views at home, he declined the offer. His views, however, were not very promising, until in 1717 the lord chancellor Cowper made him secretary to the commissions of the peace; in which he afterwards, by a particular request, desired his successor, lord Parker, to continue him. He had now affluence; but such is human life, that he had it when his declining health could neither allow him long possession nor full enjoyment. His last work was his tragedy, “The Siege of Damascus;” after which a Siege became a popular title. This play was long popular, and is still occasionally produced; but is not acted or printed according to the author’s original draught, or his settled intention. He had made Phocyas apostatize from his religion; after which the abhorrence of Eudocia would have been reasonable, his misery would have been just, and the horrors of his repentance exemplary. The players, however, required that the guilt of Phocyas should terminate in desertion to the enemy; and Hughes, unwilling that his relations should lose the benefit of his work, complied with the alteration. He was now weak with a lingering consumption, and not able to attend the rehearsal; yet was so vigorous in his faculties, that only ten days before his death he wrote the dedication to his patron lord Cowper. On Feb. 17, 1720, the play was represented, and the author died. He lived ta hear that it was well received; but paid no regard to the intelligence, being then wholly employed in the meditations of a departing Christian.

A few weeks before he died, he sent, as a testimony of gratitude, to his noble friend earl Cowper, his own picture drawn by sir Godfrey Kneller, which he had received as a present from that painter: upon which the earl wrote him the following letter. “24 January 1719-20. Sir, I thank you for the most acceptable present of your picture, and assure you, that none of this age can set an higher value on it than I do, and shall while 1 live; though I am sensible that posterity will outdo me in that particular.”

A man of his amiable character was undoubtedly regretted; and Steele devoted an essay in the paper called “The Theatre,” to the memory of his virtues. In 1735 his poems were collected and published in. 2 vols. 12 mo, under the following title: “Poems on several occasions, with some select Kssays in prose.” Hughes was also the author of other works in prose. “The Advices from Parnassus,” and “The Political Touchstone of Boccalini,” translated by several hands, and printed in folio, 1706, “were revised, corrected, and had a preface prefixed to them, by him. He translated himself” Fontenelle’s Dialogues of the Dead, and Discourse concerning the Ancients and Moderns;“”the Abbé Vertot’s History of the Revolutions in Portugal;“and” Letters of Abelard and Heloisa.“He wrote the preface to the collection of the” History of England“by various hands, Called” The Complete History of England,“printed in 1706, in 3 vols. folio; in which he gives a clear, satisfactory, and impartial account of the historians there collected. Several papers in the” Tatlers,“” Spectators,“and” Guardians,“were written by him. He is supposed to have written the whole, or at least a considerable part, of the” Lay Monastery,“consisting of Essays, Discourses, &c. published singly under the title of the” Lay Monk,“being the sequel of the” Spectators.“The second edition of this was printed in 1714, 12mo. Lastly, he published, in 1715, an accurate edition of the works of Spenser, in 6 vols. 12mo; to which are prefixed the” Life of Spenser,“”An Essay on Allegorical Poetry,“” Remarks on the Fairy Queen, and other writings of Spenser,“and a glossary, explaining old words; all by Mr. Hughes. This was a work for which he was well qualified, as a judge of the beauties of writing, but he wanted an antiquary’s knowledge of the obsolete words. He did not much revive the curiosity of the public, for near thirty years elapsed before his edition was reprinted. The character of his genius is not unfairly given in the correspondence of Swift and Pope.” A month ago,“says Swift,” was sent me over, by a friend of mine, the works of John Hughes, esq. They are in prose and verse. I never heard of the man in my life, yet I find your name as a subscriber. He is too grave a poet for me; and I think among the mediocrists, in prose as well as verse.“To this Pope returns:” To answer your question as to Mr. Hughes; what he wanted in genius, he made up as an honest man; but he was of the class you think him."

, was the younger brother of Mr. John Hughes, and, like him, a votary of the Muses, and an excellent scholar. He was born in 1685. He published, in 1714, in 8vo, a translation of “The Rape of Proserpine,” from Claudian, and “The Story of Sektus and Erictho,” from Lucan’s “Pharsalia,” book vi. These translations, with notes, were reprinted in 1723, 12mo. He also published, in 1717, a translation of Suetonius’ s “Lives of the Twelve Caesars,” and translated several “Novels” from the Spanish of Cervantes, which are inserted in the “Select Collection of Novels and Histories,” printed for Watts, 1729. He died Jan. 17, 1731. A posthumous volume of his “Miscellanies in Verse and Prose” was published in 1737. His widow accompanied the lady of governor Byng to Barbadoes, and died there in 1740.

, of a different family from the former, was born in 1682, and became a fellow of Jesus college, Cambridge. He was called by bishop Atterbury “a learned hand,” and is known to the republic of letters as editor of St Chrysostom’s treatise “On the Priesthood.” Two letters of his to Mr. Bonwicke are printed in “The Gentleman’s Magazine,” in one of which he says, “I have at last been prevailed on to undertake an edition of St. Chrysostom’s tsefi itfaxrvws, and I would beg the favour of you to send me your octavo edition. I want a small volume to lay by me; and the Latin version may be of some service to me, if I cancel the interpretation of Fronto Ducaeus.” A second edition of this treatise was printed at Cambridge in Greek and Latin, with notes, and a preliminary dissertation against the pretended “Rights of the Church,” &c. in 1712. A good English translation of St. Chrysostom “On the Priesthood,” a posthumous work by the Rev. John Bunce, M. A. was published by his son (vicar of St. Stephen’s near Canterbury) in 1760. Mr. Hughes died Nov. 18, 1710, and was buried in the church of St. Nicholas, Deptford, where there is a long Latin inscription to his memory.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Brussels in 1588; and died of the plague at Rhinberg in 1639. He published his first work in 1617, which was “De prima scribendi origine, et universae rei literarise antiquitate,” Antwerp, 8vo. This book was republished by Trotzius in 1738, with many notes. 2. “Obsidio Bredana, sub Ambrosio Spinola,” Antwerp, 1629, folio. 3. “Militia equestris, antiqua et nova,” Antwerp, 1630, folio. 4. His “Pia JDesideria,” the work by which he is best known, was first published in 1632, 8vo, and reprinted in 32mo, with all the clearness of Elzevir, and adorned with rather fanciful engravings. These “Pia Desideria” are in Latin, and consist of three books, the subjects of which are thus arranged. B. 1. “Gemitus Animae penitentis.” 2. “Vota animae sanctas.” 3. “Suspiria animae amantis.” They consist of long paraphrases in elegiac verse, on various passages of scripture. His versification is usually good, but he wants simplicity and sublimity; yet he is sometimes p oetical, though his muse is not like that of David.

, a voluminous author in Latin and French, whose works, from their subjects, are little known here, was a canon of the Premonstratensian order, a doctor of divinity, abbe of Etival, and titular bishop of Ptolemais. He died at an advanced age, in 1735. His works are, 1. “Annales Praemonstratensium,” a history of his own order, and a very laborious work, in two volumes, folio; illustrated with plans of the monasteries, and other curious particulars; but accused of some remarkable errors. 2. “Vie de St. Norbert Fondateur des Premontres,” 1704, 4to. 3. “Sacrae antiquitatis monumenta historica, dogmatica, diplomatica,” 1725, 2 vols. folio. 4. “Trait historique et critique de la Maison de Lorraine,” 1711, 3vo. This being a work of some boldness, not only the name of the author, but that of the place where it was printed, was concealed: the former being professedly Balcicourt, the latter Berlin, instead of Nanci. Yet the author was traced out, and fell under the censure of the parliament, in 1712. In 1713, he published another work, 5. entitled “Reflexions sur les deux Ouvrages concernant la Maison de Lorraine,” where he defends his former publication.

, a protestant divine, of a considerable family, was born at Zurich in 1683, and was educated partly at home, and partly at Bremen, devoting his chief attention to the study of the Hebrew language and the writings of the Rabbins. From Bremen he went to Holland, where he published at Leyden a very curious book, not in 4to, as Moreri says, but in 8vo, -entitled “Sepher Toledot Jescho,” or the history of Jesus Christ, written by a Jew, full of atrocious calumnies, which Huldrich refutes in his notes. The work is in Hebrew and Latin. On his return to Zurich in 1706, he was made chaplain of the house of orphans, and four years after professor of Christian morals, in the lesser college, to which was afterwards added the professorship of the law of nature. This led him to write a commentary on Puffendorff “on the duties of men and citizens.” His other works are the “Miscellanea Tigurina,” 3 vols. 8vo, and some sermons in German. He died May 25, 1731. Zimmerman, who wrote his life, published also a Sermon of his on the last words of St. Stephen. He was a man of considerable learning, and of great piety, sincerity, and humility.

, a late dramatic and miscellaneous writer, and an actor, was born in the Strand, London, in 1728, where his father was in considerable practice as an apothecary. He was educated at the Charter-house, with a view to the church, but afterwards embraced his father’s profession, which, however, he was obliged to relinquish after an unsuccessful trial. What induced him to go on the stage we know not, as nature had not been very bountiful to him in essential requisites. He performed, however, for some time in the provincial theatres, and in 1759 obtained an engagement at Covent-garden theatre, which he never quitted, unless for summer engagements. In one of these he became acquainted with Shenstone the poet, who, observing his irreproachable moral conduct, so different from that of his brethren on the stage, patronized him as far as he was able, and assisted him in writing his tragedy of “Henry II.” and “Rosamund.” It was indeed Mr. Hull’s moral character which did every thing for him. No man could speak seriously of him as an actor, but all spoke affectionately of his amiable manners and undeviating integrity. He was also a man of some learning, critically skilled in the dramatic art, and the correspondent of some of the more eminent literary men of his time. His poetical talents were often employed, and always in the cause of humanity and virtue, but he seldom soared above the level of easy and correct versification. In prose, perhaps, he is entitled to higher praise, but none of his works have had more than temporary success. He died at his house at Westminster, April 22, 1808. For the stage he altered, or wrote entirely, nineteen pieces, of which a list may be seen in our authority. His other works were, I. “The History of sir William Harrington,” a novel, 1771, 4 vols. 2. “Genuine Letters from a gentleman to a young lady his pupil,” 1772, 2 vols. 3. “Richard Plantagenet,” a legendary tale, 1774, 4to. 4. “Select Letters between the late duchess of Somerset, lady Luxborough, miss Dolman, Mr. Whistler, Mr. Dodsley, Shenstone, and others,” 1778, 2 vols. This is now the most interesting of his publications, and contains many curious particulars of literary history and opinions. The letters were given to him by Shenstone. 5. “Moral Tales in verse,” 1797, 2 vols. 8vo.

, an English physician, was born at Holme Torp in Yorkshire, June 17, 1732, and was taught the rudiments of medical science by his brother, Dr. Joseph Hulme, an eminent physician at Halifax, and afterwards was a pupil at Guy’s hospital. In 1755, he served in the capacity of surgeon in the navy, and being stationed at Leith after the peace of 1763, he embraced the favourable opportunity of prosecuting his medical studies at Edinburgh, where he took his degree of doctor in 1765. His inaugural thesis was entitled “Dissertatio Medica Inauguralis de Scorbuto.” Soon after his graduation, he settled in London as a physician, intending to devote his attention particularly to the practice of midwifery. This, however, he soon relinquished: and, on the establishment of the general dispensary (the first institution of the kind in London), he was appointed its first physician. He was also some time physician to the City of London Lying-in hospital. About 1774, he was, through the influence of lord Sandwich, then first lord of the admiralty, elected physician to the Charter-house His other official situations he resigned many years before his death, and withdrew himself at the same time in a great measure from the active exercise of his profession; but continued in the Charter-house during the remainder of his life. In March 1807, he was bruised by a fall, of which he died on the 28th of that month, and was buried at his own desire in the pensioners’ burial ground, followed by twenty-four physicians and surgeons, who highly respected his character.

Dr. Hulme was the author of several dissertations; viz. a republication of his thesis, with additions, 1768. “A treatise on Puerperal Fever,” 1772. An oration “De Re Medica cognostenda et promovenda,” delivered at the anniversary of the medical society in 1777, to which a small tract was annexed, entitled “Via tuta et jucunda Calculum solvendi in vesica urinaria inhaerentem.” An enlarged edition of this tract, in English, appeared in the following year, under the title of “A safe and easy Remedy for the relief of the Stone and Gravel, the Scurvy, Gout, &c. and for the destruction of Worms in the human body illustrated by cases together with an extemporaneous method of impregnating water and other liquids with fixed air, by simple mixture only, &c.” 1778. In 1787 he was presented with a gold medal by the royal society of medicine at Paris, for his treatise on the following prize question, “Rechercher quelles sont les causes de i'endurcissement de tissu cellulaire auquel plusieurs enfans nouveauxnés sont sujets.” In 1800, Dr. Hulme instituted a series of experiments “on the light spontaneously emitted from various bodies,” an account of which was published in the Philosophical Transactions of that and the following year. He had been chosen a fellow of that society in 1794, and of the society of antiquaries in 1795. To the Archaeologia he contributed an account of a brick brought from the site of ancient Babylon. Dr. Hulme was also one of the editors of the “London Practice of Physic.” In 1791, a Mr. Obadiah Hulme died in Charter-house square, author of an “Historical Essay on the English Constitution,” and other tracts, probably a relation of Dr. Hulme.

, a celebrated philosopher and historian, was descended from a good family in Scotland, and born at Edinburgh April 26, 1711. His father was a descendant of the family of the earl of Hume or Home, and his mother, whose name was Falconer, was descended from that of lord Halkerton, whose title came by succession to her brother. This double alliance with nobility was a source of great self-complacency to Hume, who was a philosopher only in his writings. In his infancy he does not appear to have been impressed with those sentiments of religion, which parents so generally, we may almost add universally, at the time of his birth, thought it their duty to inculcate. He once owned that he had never read the New Testament with attention. However this may be, as he was a younger brother with a very slender patrimony, and of a studious, sober, industrious turn, he was destined by his family to the law: but, being seized with an early passion for letters, he found an insurmountable aversion to any thing else; and, as he relates, while they fancied him to be poring upon Voet and Vinnius, he was occupied with Cicero and Virgil. His fortune, however, being very small, and his health a little broken by ardent application to books, he was tempted, or rather forced, to make a feeble trial at business; and, in 1734, went to Bristol, with recommendations to some eminent merchants: but, in a few months, found that scene totally unfit for him. He seems, also, to have conceived some personal disgust against the men of business in that place: for, though he was by no means addicted to satire, yet we can scarcely interpret him otherwise than ironically, when, speaking in his History (anno 1660) of James Naylor’s entrance into Bristol upon a horse, in imitation of Christ, he presumes it to be “from the difficulty in that place of finding an ass”

Immediately on leaving Bristol, he went over to France, with a view of prosecuting his studies in privacy; and practised a very rigid frugality, for the sake of maintaining his independency unimpaired. During his retreat there, first at Rheims, but chiefly at L& Fleche, in Anjou, he composed his “Treatise of Human Nature;” and, coming over to London in 1737, he published it the year after. This work, he informs us, he meditated even while at the university; a circumstance which, it has been observed, proves the self-sufficiency of Hume in a very striking manner. For a youth, in the full tide of blood and generous sympathy, to meditate the diffusion of a system of universal scepticism, in which it is endeavoured to prove, not only that all the speculations of the philosopher or the divine, but every virtuous feeling of the heart, every endearing tie by which man is bound to man, are no better than ridiculous prejudices and empty dreams, is the most singular deviation from the natural and laudable propensities of a mind unhacknied in the ways of the world, that has yet occurred in the anomalous history of man. The scepticism and irreligion of Voltaire, Diderot, and Rousseau, “grew with their growth, and strengthened with their strength,” but Hume started as if from the nursery, a perfect and full-grown infidel.

Never, however, according to the avowal of the author himself, was any literary attempt more unsuccessful. “It fell,” he says, “dead born from the press, without reaching such distinction as even to excite a murmur among the zealots.” He adds, however, that “being naturally of a cheerful and sanguine temper, he soon recovered the blow.” But this equanimity, we shall afterwards find was mere affectation, nor was the work quite unnoticed. It was criticised with great ability in the only review of that period, “The Works of the Learned;” and from a perusal of the article, we have no hesitation in ascribing it to Warburton. Whether it be true, that Hume called on Jacob Robinson, the publisher, and demanded satisfaction, we will not affirm. One remark of the Reviewer seems somewhat singular, and it may be thought prophetic. “This work abounds throughout with egotisms. The author would scarcely use that form of speech more frequently, if he had written his own memoirs.”

In 1742, he printed, with more success, the first part of his “Essays.” In 1745, he lived with the marquis of Annandale, the state of that nobleman’s mind and health requiring such an attendant: the emoluments of the situation must have been his motive for undertaking such a charge. He then received an invitation from general St. Clair, to attend him as a secretary to his expedition; which was at first meant against Canada, but ended in an incursion upon the coast of France. Next year, 1747, he attended the general in the same station, in his military embassy to the courts of Vienna and Turin: he then wore the uniform of an officer, and was introduced to these courts as aid-de-camp to the general. These two years were almost the only interruptions which his studies received during the course of his life: his appointments, however, had made him in his own opinion “independent; for he was now master of near 1000l.”

Having always imagined, that his want of success, in publishing the *' Treatise of Human Nature,“proceeded more from the manner than the matter, he cast the first part of that work anew, in the” Inquiry concerning Human Understanding,“which was published while he was at Turin; but with little more success. He perceived, however, some symptoms of a rising reputation: his books grew more and more the subject of conversation; and” I found,“says he,” by Dr. Warburton’s railing, that they were beginning to be esteemed in good company.“In 1752, were published at Edinburgh, where he then lived, his” Political Discourses;“and the same year, at London, his” Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals.“Of the former he says,” that it was the only work of his which was successful on the first publication, being well received abroad and at home:“and he pronounces the latter to be,” in his own opinion, of all his writings, historical, philosophical, or literary, incomparably the best; although it came unnoticed and unobserved into the world."

In 1754, he published the first volume, in 4to, of “A Portion of English History, from the Accession of James I. to the Revolution.” He strongly promised himself success from this work, thinking himself the first English historian that was free from bias in his principles: but he says, “that he was herein miserably disappointed and that, instead of pleasing all parties, he had made himself obnoxious to all.” He was, as he relates, “so discouraged with this, that, had not the war at that time been breaking out between France and England, he had certainly retired to some provincial town of the former kingdom, changed his name, and never more have returned to his native country.” The “cheerful and sanguine temper” of which he formerly boasted, had now forsaken him, and the philosopher had dwindled to a mere irritable author. He recovered himself, however, so far, as to publish, in 1756, his second volume of the same history and this was better received. “It not only rose itself,” he says, “but helped to buoy up its unfortunate brother.” Between these publications came out, along with some other small pieces, his “Natural History of Religion:” which, though but indifferently received, was in the end the cause of some consolation to him; because, as he expresses himself, “Dr. Hurd wrote a pamphlet against it, with all the illiberal petulance, arrogance, and scurrility, which distinguish the Warburtonian school;” so well aware was he, that, to an author, attack of any kind is much more favourable than neglect. Dr. Hurd, however, was only the ostensible author; he has since declared expressly, that it proceeded from Warburton himself. In 1759, he published his “History of the House of Tudor;” and, in 1761, the more early part of the English History: each in 2 vols. 4to. The clamour against the former of these was almost equal to that against the history of th two first Stuarts; and the latter was attended with but tolerable success: but he was now, he tells us, grown callous against the impressions of public censure. He had, indeed, what he would think good reason to be so; for the copy-money given by the booksellers for his history, exceptionable as it was deemed, had made him not only independent, but opulent.

Being now about fifty, he retired to Scotland, determined never more to set his foot out of it; and carried with him “the satisfaction of never having preferred a request to one great man, or even making advances of friendship to any of them.” But, while meditating to spend the rest of his life in a philosophical manner, he received, in 1763, an invitation from the earl of Hertford to attend him on his embassy to Paris; which at length he accepted, and was left there charg6 d'affaires in the summer of 1765. In Paris, where his peculiar philosophical opinions were then the mode, he met with the most flattering and unbounded attentions. He was panegyrized by the literati, courted by the ladies, and complimented by grandees, and even princes of the blood. In the beginning of 1766 he quitted Paris; and in the summer of that year went to Edinburgh, with the same view as before, of burying himself in a philosophical retreat; but, in 1767, he received from Mr. Con way a new invitation to be under-secretary of state, which, like the former, he did not think it expedient to decline. He returned to Edinburgh in 1769, “very opulent,” he says, “for he possessed a revenue of lOOOl. a year, healthy, and, though somewhat stricken in years, with the prospect of enjoying long his ease.” In the spring of 1775, he was struck with a disorder in his bowels; which, though it gave him no alarm at first, proved incurable, and at length mortal. It appears, however, that it was not painful, nor even troublesome or fatiguing: for he declares, that “notwithstanding the great decline of his person, he had never suffered a moment’s abatement. of his spirits; that he possessed the same ardour as ever in study, and the same gaiety in company: insomuch,” says he, “that, were I to name a period of my life which I should most choose to pass over again, I might be tempted to point to this latter period.” He died August 25, 1776; and his account of his own life, from which we have borrowed many of the above particulars, is dated only four mjonths previous to -hi* decease. As the author was then aware of the impossibility of a recovery, this may he considered as the testimony of a dying man respecting his own character and conduct. But it disappointed those who expected to find in it some acknowledgment of error, and some remorse on reflecting on the many whom he had led astray by his writings. Hume, however, was not the man from whom this was to be expected. He had no religious principles which he had violated, and which his conscience might now recall. He had none of the stamina of repentance. From a mere fondness for speculation, or a love of philosophical applause, the least harmful motives we can attribute to Hume, it was the business of his life, not only to extirpate from the human mind all that the good and wise among mankind have concurred in venerating, the authority and obligations of revealed religion; but he treats that authority and the believers in, and defenders of revealed religion, with a contempt bordering on abhorrence; or, as has been said of another modern infidel, “as if he had been revenging a personal injury.” Hume early imbibed the principles of a gloomy philosophy, the direct tendency of which was to distract the mind with doubts on subjects the most serious and important, and, in fact, to undermine the best interests, and dissolve the strongest ties of society. Such is the character of Hume’s philosophy, by one who knew him as intimately as Dr. Smith, who respected his talents and his manners, but would have disdained to insult wisdom and virtue by bestowing the perfection of them on the studies, the conversation, and the correspondence that were constantly employed in ridiculing religion. Another reason, perhaps, why Hume died in the same state of mind in which he had lived, gibing and jesting, as Dr. Smith informs us, with the prospect of eternity, may be this, that he was at the last surrounded by men who, being of nearly the same way of thinking, contemplated his end with a degree of satisfaction or as the triumph of philosophy over what he and they deemed superstition. Even his clerical friends, the Blairs and Robertsons, who professed to know, to feel, aud to teach what Christianity is, appear to have withheld the solemn duties of their office, and by their silence at least, acquiesced in his obduracy. His social qualities, his wit, his acuteness, and we may add, his fame, preserved to him the regard of his learned countrymen, who forgot the infidel in the historian.

It is, indeed, as an historian, or perhaps occasionally as a political writer, that Hume will probahly be best known to posterity; and it is in these capacities that he can be read with the greatest pleasure and advantage by the friends of sound morals and religion. Yet even as an historian, he has many faults; he does not scruple to disguise facts from party motives, and he never loses an opportunity of throwing out his cool sceptical sneer at Christianity, under the names of fanaticism and superstition. “When Mr. Hume rears the standard of infidelity,” says Gilpin, “he acts openly and honestly; but when he scatters his careless insinuations, as he traverses the paths of history, we characterize him as a dark, insidious enemy.”

, a learned English writer, was born at Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire, about 1527, and had his school education at Cambridge; after which he became first a demy, then a fellow, of Magdalen-college in Oxford. He took the degree of M. A. in 1552, and about that time was made Greek reader of his college, and entered into orders. In June 1555 he had leave from his college to travel into foreign countries; he went to Zurich, and associated himself with the English there, who had fled from their country on account of their religion. After the death of queen Mary he returned to England, and was restored to his fellowship in Magdalen college, from which he had been expelled because he did not return within the space of a year, which was one condition on which he was permitted to travel; another was, that he should refrain from all heretical company. In 1560 he was appointed the queen’s professor of divinity at Oxford; and the year after elected president of his college. In 1562 he took both the degrees in divinity; and, in 1570, was made dean of Gloucester. In 1580 he was removed to the deanery of Winchester; and had probably been promoted to a bishopric if he had not been disaffected to the church of England. For Wood tells us, that from the city of Zurich, where the preaching of Zuinglius had fashioned people’s notions, and from the correspondence he had at Geneva, he brought back with him so much of the Calvinist both in doctrine and discipline, that the best which could be said of him was, that he was a moderate and conscientious nonconformist. This was at least the opinion of several divines, who used to call him and Dr. Fulke of Cambridge, standard-bearers among the nonconformists; though others thought they grew more conformable in the end. Be this as it will, “sure it is,” says Wood, that “Humphrey was a great and general scholar, an able linguist, a deep divine and for his excellency of style, exactness of method, and substance of matter in his writings, went beyond most of our theologists.” He died in Feb. 1590, N. S. leaving a wife, by whom he had twelve children. His writings are, 1 “Epistola de Graecis literis, et Homeri lectione et imitatione;” printed before a book of Hadrian Junius, entitled “Cornucopias,” at Basil, 1558. 2. “De Religionis conservatione et reformatione, deque primatu regum, Bas. 1559.” 3. “De ratione interpretandi auctores, Bas. 1559.” 4. “Optimates: sive de nobilitate, ejusque autiqua origine, &c.” Bas. 1560. 5. “Joannis Juelli Angli, Episcopi Sarisburiensis, vita et mors, ejusque verae doctrinae defensio, &c. Lond. 1573.” 6. “Two Latin orations spoken before queen Elizabeth; one in 1572, another in 1575.” 7. “Sermons;” and 8. “Some Latin pieces against the Papists, Campian in particular.” Wood quotes Tobias Matthew, an eminent archbishop, who knew him well, as declaring, that “Dr. Humphrey had read more fathers than Campian the Jesuit ever saw; devoured more than he ever tasted; and taught more in the university of Oxford, than he had either learned or heard.”

, an eminent anatomist and physician, was born at Chateau- Briant, in February 1701. His father was a physician, and practised at St. Malo. He studied first at Rennes, and afterwards at Angers and Paris, and received the degree of M. D. at Rheims in 1722. On his return to Paris he studied anatomy and surgery with great assiduity, under the celebrated teachers Winslow and Du Verney, and was admitted into the academy of sciences in 1724. Having been honoured with the appointment of physician to the duke of Richelieu, he accompanied rliat nobleman in his embassy to the court of the emperor Charles VI. at Vienna, and ever afterwards retained his entire confidence, and had apartments in his house. On the death of Du Verney, in 1730, Hunauld was appointed his successor, as professor of anatomy in the king’s garden, where he soon acquired a reputation little short of that of his predecessor, and found the spacious theatre overflowing with pupils. Having been admitted a member of the faculty of medicine of Paris, he practised with great success, and attracted the notice of the court. He took a journey into Holland, where he became acquainted with the celebrated Boerhaave, with whom he ever afterwards maintained a friendly correspondence; and, in 1735, he visited London, where he was elected a member of the royal society, at one of the meetings of which he read some “Reflections on the operation for Fistula Lacrymalis,” which were printed in the Transactions. He was cut off in the vigour of life by a putrid fever, in December 1742, being in his forty-second year. The greater part of his writings consist of papers, which were published in various volumes of the memoirs of the academy of sciences, between 1729 and 1742 inclusive. Osteology was a favourite subject of his enquiry, and some of the most curious of his observations relate to the formation and growth of the bones of the skull. He likewise traced with great accuracy the lymphatics of the lungs to the thoracic duct, and the progress of some of the nerves of the thoracic viscera. He published anonymously, in 1726, a critique, in the form of a letter, on the book of Petit, relative to the diseases of the bones, which occasioned some controversy, and received the formal disapproval of the academy. Hunauld had collected a considerable anatomical museum, which was especially rich in preparations illustrative of osteology and the diseases of the bones, and which came into the possession of the academy after his death.

, waiwode of Transylvania, and general of the armies of Ladislas, king of Hungary, was one of the greatest commanders of his time. He fought against the Turks like a hero, and, in 1442 and 1443, gained important battles against the generals of Arnurath and obliged that prince to retire from Belgrade, after besieging it seven months. In the battle of Varnes, so fatal to the Christian cause, and in which Ladislas fell, Corvinus was not less distinguished than in his more fortunate contests; and, being appointed governor of Hungary, became proverbially formidable to the Turks. In 1448, however, he suffered a defeat from them. He was more fortunate afterwards, and in 1456, obliged Mahomet U. also to relinquish the siege of Belgrade; and died the 10th of September in the same year. Mahomet, though an enemy, had generosity enough to lament the death of so great a man; and pride enough to allege as one cause for his regret, that the world did not now contain a man against whom he could deign to turn his arms, or from whom he could regain the glory he had so lately lost before Belgrade. The pope is said to have shed tears on the news of his death; and Christians in general lamented Huniades as their best defender against the infidels.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine, was born at Winende, a village in the duchy of Wirtemburg, in 1550. He was educated at the schools in that vicinity, and took his degree in arts at Tubingen, in 1567. He then applied himself earnestly to the study of theology, and was so remarkable for his progress in it, that in 1576he was made professor of divinity at Marpurg. About the same period he married. He was particularly zealous against the Calvinists, and not long after this time began to write against them, by which he gained so much reputation, that in 1592 he was sent for into Saxony to reform that electorate, was made divinity-professor at Wittemburg, and a member of the ecclesiastical consistory. In these offices he proved very vigilant in discovering those who had departed from the Lutheran communion; and, from the accounts of the severities practised against those who would not conform to that rule, it appears that nothing less than a strong persecution was carried on by him and his colleagues. In 1595 he was appointed pastor of the church at Wittemburg, and in the same year published his most celebrated polemical work, entitled “Calvin us Judaizans,” in which he charges that reformer with all possible heresies. At the same time he carried on a controversy with Hnberus, about predestination and election. Against Calvin he wrote with the most intemperate acrimony. Hunnius was present at the conference at Ratisbon in 1601, between the Lutherans and Roman catholics. He died of an inflammation brought on by the stone, in April 1603. His works have been collected in five volumes; and contain, funeral orations, a catechism, prayers, colloquies, notes on some of the evangelists, &c. &c. His acrimony in writing went beyond his judgment.

, a dissenting divine, was born in London in 1678, and was the son of Benjamin Hunt, a member of the mercers’ company in London. He was educated under Mr. Thomas Rowe,and after he had finished his course with him, he went first to Edinburgh, and then to Leyden; at the latter place he applied himself most diligently to the study of the Hebrew language and the Jewish antiquities. In Holland he preached to a small English congregation, and upon his return he officiated some time at Tunstead, in Norfolk, from whence he removed to London about 1710, and was appointed pastor of the congregation at Pinners’ hall. In 1729 the university of Edinburgh conferred on him the degree of D. U. He died in 1744. He was author of several single sermons; and likewise of “An Essay towards explaining the History and Revelations of Scripture in their several periods; to which is annexed a dissertation on the Fall of Man.” After his death four volumes of his “Sermons,” with tracts, were published, to which was prefixed Dr. Lardner’s Funeral Sermon for him.