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

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

, the celebrated cardinal of that name, was born in 1653, at Lodeve in Languedoc, but was brought to Paris at the age of six, and there educated for the church. He distinguished himself in the progress of his studies; and when he began to mix with the world, appeared there with the natural advantages of a handsome figure, pleasing address, and wellmanaged wit. His first preferment was that of a canon of Montpellier; he was also a doctor of the Sorbonne. But his friends becoming numerous, much interest was made for him, and in 1698, Louis XIV. named him bishop of Frejus. “I have made you wait a long time,” said the king, “but you have so many friends, that I was determined to stay till I could have the sole merit of preferring you.” Louis XIV. a little before he died, appointed him preceptor to his grandson, in which office he succeeded Bossuet and Fenelon. In 1726 he was made cardinal, and soon after advanced to the place of prime-minister. He was then turned seventy. Yet the weight of this active: post did not alarm him; and, to the age of ninety, he manifested a mind in full vigour, and capable of conducting affairs. From 1726 to 1740, every thing prospered. He commenced and brought to a glorious conclusion for his country, the war for the succession in Spain; and he added Lorraine to the French territory. In the war which commenced in 174-0 he was not so fortunate; and in 1743 he died, full of grief for a succession of misfortunes, of which the nation reproached him as the author. A too rigid attention to economy had led him to neglect the marine of his country; and the successes of England by sea completed the evil which had been thus begun. We was of a mild and tranquil character, a lover of peace, and not a man to make himself feared. He governed, says Millot, if not like a sublime genius who executes great things, at least like a prudent man, who accommodates his plans to circumstances, prefers essential to specious adVantages, and regards tranquillity and order as the foundation of public happiness. He had neither the pride of Richelieu, nor the avarice of Mazarin. No minister could be less costly to the state; his income did not amount tq five thousand pounds sterling a year, one half of which was employed in secret acts of benevolence. In the state of disorder to which the profusion of Louis XIV. had reduced the finances of France, it was happy for that country to have such a minister as Fleury, whose pacific turn counterbalanced the impetuosity of Villars, which would continually have plunged the country in new wars.

, or Frodoard, a French historian, was born in the year 894, at Epernai, and afterwards had preferment in the church of Rheims, where he wrote a chronicle, which extends from the year 919 to 966, and a history of the church of Rheims, regularly continued from its foundation to the year 949. The best edition is tij.it of 1617. Flodoard was also a poet. He composed in verse the history of the popes, as far as Leo VII. and the triumphs of Jesus Christ and the saints, in nineteen bonks. He was once near being promoted to be bishop of Noyon, but was disappointed. He died in the year 966, at the age of seventy-three.

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

, an English Jesuit, who merits some notice from his controversial connections, was born in Cambridgeshire, and going abroad, became a Jesuit in 1593, and returned to England as a missionary. After some years spent in this employment, he was apprehended and banished; but his sufferings and his talents procured him great respect in France, where he was employed by his superiors to teach humanity and divinity at St. Omer’s and Louvaine. He was alive at St. Omer’s in 1641, but the time of his death is not on record. In his publications, written in controversy with Chillingworth, Antonius de Dominis, Crashaw, sir Edward Hobby, and other learned protestants, he assumed the fictitious names of Daniel a Jesu, Hermannus Loemelius, and Annosus Fidelis Verimontanus. Under these he wrote, 1. “Synopsis Apostasiæ M. A. de Dominis,” Antw. 1617, 8vo. 2. “Detectio hypocrisis M. A. de Dominis,” ibid. 1619, 8vo. 3. “Censura decem Lib. de republica ecclesiast. M. A. de Dominis,” Cologne, 1621, 8vo. 4. “Apologia sedis Apostolicæ,” &c. Rothomag. 1631, 8vo. 5. “The church conquerant over human wit,” against Chillingworth, St. Omer’s, 1631, 4to. 6. “The Total Sum,” against the same, ibid. 1639, 4to. 7. “Answer to William Crashaw,” ibid. 1612, 4to. 8. “A treatise of Purgatory, in answer to sir Edward Hobby,” ibid. 1613. 9. “Answer to Francis White’s Reply concerning Nine Articles offered by king James I. to F. John Fisher (See Fisher), ibid. 1626. 10.” Spongia,“against the bishops of France, and the censure of the Sorbonne. 11.” Answer to a book entitled `Instructions for the Catholics of England'," with several other small treatises relative to the bishop of Chalcedon’s case; which attack of his on that bishop, and on the clergy of France, was repelled in various pamphlets by his brethren, who took part with the bishop. Floyd also published a translation of St. Augustine’s Meditations, and of some other religious works.

In 1742, Foggini refused the professorship of ecclesiastical history at Pisa, which was then vacant; but accepted an invitation from Bottari, second librarian of the Vatican, to come to Rome; where his merit being known to pope Benedict XIV. he gave him a place in the pontifical academy of history. Instead, however, of employing himself on the history of the popes, he devoted his time to a careful examination of the most valuable Mss. and had thus an opportunity of furnishing the editors of classics with much important assistance. The same researches enabled him to publish a Latin translation of a book of St. Epiphanius, addressed to Diodorus, which was printed in 1743, with a preface and notes; the subject is the twelve precious stones on the breast-plate of the high-priest of the Hebrews. About this time the pope appointed him coadjutor to Bottari; and in 1750 he drew up the form of prayers and instructions for the Jubilee. The same year he printed his Latin translation of St. Epiphnnius’s commentary on the Canticles. In 1752 he published a collection of passages from the Fathers, occasioned by a homily of the archbishop of Fermo, on the saying of Jesus Christ, respecting the small number of the elect. The following year he published the opinions of St. Charles Borromeo, and others on the theatre. In 1754 he published the first of eight volumes of writings of the fathers on the subject of grace; and in 1758 “The Works of St. Prosper,” 8vo, and separately, a poem by that saint, on ingratitude, with notes. These were followed by his “Treatise on the clergy of St. John de Lateran,” and in 1760, by an edition of the works of St. Fulgentius. The same year pope Ganganelli made him chamberlain of honour. He afterwards published some ecclesiastical pieces, and some on antiquities, among which was, “Fastorum Anni Ronaani Verrio Flacco ordinatorum reliquiae,” &c. Rome, 1780, fol. Verrius Flaccus composed a series of the Romania**!, which was engraved on tables of marble, and exposed to the view of the public at Praeneste. To recover these marbles, cardinal Stoppani, bishop of Praeneste, at the request of Foggini, ordered several excavations to be made, by which the fragments of four tables were discovered in 1774, and of these Foggini has given a description in this work. The last work by Foggini, noticed in our authority, is an appendix to the Byzantine history, published in 1777. When Pius VI. became pope, he promoted him to the charge of the secret chamber, and in 1775 he succeeded Bottari, as first librarian, but on account of his age, he was excused from the duties of the place, while he enjoyed the title and emoluments. He died May 31, 1783, regretted as a scholar of great accomplishments, and an amiable man.

, an Italian prelate and poet, was born at Foligno, in the fourteenth century, but the year is not known. He became a Dominican, and after some inferior preferments, was in 1403 appointed bishop of Foligno. He was afterwards called, both as a theologian and a bishop, to the council of Pisa, and was also made one of the fathers of the grand council of Constance, where he died in 1416. No other work of his is fcnown but his great poem entitled “Quadriregio,” in which he describes the four reigns of Love, Satan, the Vices and the Virtues. The morality of this poem was probably its greatest recommendation; but the author, who was an admirer of Dante, has endeavoured to imitate him, and in some respects, not unsuccessfully. The first edition of the “Quadriregio” was published at Perugia, in 1481, fol. and the second at Bologna, in 1494; but the best is that published by the academicians of Foligno, 2 vols. 4to, 1725.

This great author died in January 1757, without ever having had any violent disorder, or felt any of the maladies of age till he was turned of ninety, after which he was a little deaf, and his eyes in some degree failed. The tranquil ease Of his temper is thought to have contributed to extend his life to this unusual period. A fuller account of hi* works will doubtless be required, which we shall give in chronological order. I. Letters of “the Chav. d'Horny”[??] 1685; a work of wit and fancy. 2. “Discourses on the Plurality of Worlds,” 1686; the character of this performance has been already sketched, as well as that of his, 3. “History of Oracles,” 1687. 4. “Pastoral Poems, with a Discourse on the Eclogue, and a digression on the ancients and moderns,” 1688. It seems to he agreed, that if these are not good eclogues, they are at least elegant poems. It was in the dissertation annexed to these that he made his first attempt to depreciate the ancients, whose merit compared with that of the moderns, was then the subject of a well-known controversy. Among his papers after his death, was found a discourse on the Greek tragedians, which was given to Diderot for insertion in the Encyclopedic, but he said he could not possibly insert in that work, a treatise tending to prove that Æschylus was a madman. 5, Several volumes of “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences,” to which society he was secretary fortytwo years, from 1699. The general preface to this work is highly excellent; it contains also his “Eloges,” or Eulogies on the academicians, which have been published separately. 6. “History of the French Theatre, to Corneille,” with the life of that great Dramatist. 7. “Reflections on theatrical poetry, particularly Tragedy:” this is reckoned one of the most profound and judicious works of Fontenelle. 8. “Elements of the Geometry of Infinites,” 1727; not much esteemed by mathematicians. 9. “A Tragedy,” in prose, and “Six Comedies,” none of them calculated for theatrical effect. Warburton, it appears by his letters to bishop Hurd, entertained a high opinion of these comedies, and of Fontenelle’s preface to them. 10. “Theory of the Cartesian Vortices.” He remained unfortunately attached to the system of Descartes to the end of his life, having imbibed it very early. 11.“Endymion,” and some other pastoral lyric dramas. 12. “Moral Discourses,” and fugitive pieces. All these, except those on geometry and natural history, were collected in 11 vols, 12mo, under the title “Œuvres Diverses.” Other editions have since been published in folio and quarto. The style of this author is in general elegant and clear, but not altogether free from defects. It is often too negligent and familiar. He betrays at some times an affectation of giving great matters in a small compass; at others he der scends to puerile details unworthy of a philosopher. Ke displays occasionally too much refinement in his ideas; and, at times, is too elaborate in his ornaments. These defects are less offensive in the writings of Fontenelle, than they would be in any others; not only because they are overpowered by many striking beauties of various kinds, but because it is easy to perceive that they are truly natural to the author.

, a very eminent Scottish lawyer, was born at Culloden, in the county of Inverness, in 1685, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, whence he removed to Utrecht, and afterwards to Paris, where he studied the civil law. He returned, in 1710, to Scotland, and was called to the bar in the court of session. His abilities as an advocate were soon noticed, and he obtained great practice. In 1717, he was appointed solicitor-general of Scotland. In 1722, he was returned member for the county of Inverness; and in 1725, was promoted to the dignity of lord-advocate. He was further advanced in 1742, to be lord-president of the court of session, in which high station he acted with such integrity, that he was esteemed and honoured by his country. During the rebellion in 1745 and 6, he used the utmost of his power to oppose the pretender, and mortgaged his estate to support the government. With great reason he applied to the ministry for a repayment of those expences which he had incurred by his loyalty, and their refusal, undoubtedly a stain on the history of the times, is said to have operated so strongly upon his mind, as to produce a fever, of which he died in 1747, at the age of 62. His writings were chiefly on theological subjects, without any reference to his profession; they are, 1. “Thoughts on Religion.” 2. “A Letter to a Bishop.” 3. “Reflections on Incredulity,” 1750, in 2 vols. 12mo. Father Houbigant translated the two former of these works into French, but they were not greatly admired in that country; the solidity of the Scottish lawyer could not be expected to suit with the vivacity of French reasoners. Duncan Forbes of Culloden, says a recent biographer, was in all respects one of the most eminent men of his time. His learning was extensive and profound, reaching even to the oriental languages; and he had that acuteness and subtlety of parts, which is peculiarly fitted for the nice discriminations of the law; but which was always regulated in him by the prevailing principles of his nature, probity, candour, and a strong sense of the beauty of virtue and moral excellence. In the eloquence of the bar, he outshone all his contemporaries; for he united to great knowledge of jurisprudence, a quickness of comprehension that discovered to him at once the strong ground of argument which he was to press, or the weakness of the doctrine he wished to assail. When raised to the presidency of the court, the vigour of his intellect, his patience in the hearing of causes, his promptitude in the dispatch of business, the dignity, of his deportment, and above all, the known probity and integrity of his mind, gave the highest weight to the decisions of that tribunal over which he presided.

Of his religious sentiments this biographer, the late lord Woodhouselee, speaks with less approbation. He allows that his piety was fervent and habitual, but seems to refer it to warmth of heart, and feelings naturally ardent, and that all this co-operating with a lively imagination, led him to become an admirer and disciple of the Hutchinsonian scheme of theology; and he adds that he had not enough of physical science to detect the absurdities with which the scheme of his favourite author abounds. It does not appear, however, that he adopted the whole scheme of Hutchinson, or that he was more absurd in what he did adopt than bishop Home, Parkhurst, and some other men of equal talents and celebrity. Warburton in one of his “Letters” lately published, after recommending the lord president’s “Reflections on Incredulity,” which was a posthumous work, adds, “It is a little jewel. I knew and venerated the man; one of the greatest that ever Scotland bred, both as a judge, a patriot, and a Christian.”

, an eminent Scotsman, was born in 1564, when the affairs of the church of Scotland were in great confusion. He was distinguished by his family, an well as by his uncommon merit, being himself lord of Corse, and baron of O'Neil, in the shire of Aberdeen. He was liberally educated both at Aberdeen and St. Andrew’s; and having a plentiful estate, a noble alliance, and great credit in his country, he contributed much towards restoring order, by encouraging pious and peaceable ministers, and by instructing the people in set conferences as well as occasional discourses; especially the papists, who would hear nothing from the pulpit. In this laudable manner he acted as a layman; and his abilities became so conspicuous, that he was often solicited to enter into the ministry by eminent persons both in church and state. He at length submitted to their judgment, and was ordained a presbyter at the age of 28. He was admitted minister of Keith, where he continued with the highest applause till 1618; and then, at the earnest desire of the clergy and laity of the diocese of Aberdeen, as well as at the express command of the king, was promoted to the bishopric of Aberdeen, which he had held about seventeen years. “It was,” says Burnet, “with great difficulty, that king James made him accept that dignity; and for several months he refused it, having proposed to himself to live in a less conspicuous state. It was soon seen, how much, he deserved to be a bishop; and that his refusal was not counterfeit, but the real effect of his humility. In all his behaviour he has displayed the character of a truly apostolic man. He visited his diocese without pomp and noise, attended only by one servant, that he might more easily be informed of what belonged to his care, &c.”

, bishop of Edinburgh, was born in 1585, at Aberdeen, where he went through the courses of classical learning and philosophy. He was admitted master of arts at sixteen, and immediately afterwards made professor of logic: he applied himself to support Aristotle’s logic against the Ramists. Afterwards he went to travel, and made a great progress in divinity and the Hebrew language, in the universities of Germ-ant, during the four years he passed in that country. He then visited the university of Leyden, where he was greatly esteemed. His ill state of health not permitting him to undertake a journey into France and Italy, as he would willingly have done, he went over to England. The fame of his learning soon proclaimed him there, so that the university of Oxford offered him a professorship of Hebrew; which, however, he did not accept, because the physicians advised him to return to his native country. The magistrates of Aberdeen expressed a particular esteem for him. He recovered his health, and accepted at first a private cure; but afterwards, being strongly solicited by the inhabitants, went to be preacher in his native city. He was admitted doctor of divinity, when king James, among other regulations, had settled it with the deputies of the clergy, that the academical degrees and dignities should be restored to their ancient course. The labour of preaching hurting his health, they gave him a less painful employment, making hint principal of Markchal-college. He was afterwards dean of the faculty of divinity, and then rector of the university; a post immediately under the chancellor. Then he became pastor at Edinburgh, and was received there with every mark of friendship; but people’s dispositions being changed, from their warm attachment to the antiepiscopal discipline of Geneva, he withdrew himself, and retired to his own country. He was sent for some years after by Charles I. who had caused himself to be crowned at Edinburgh in 1633; and he preached before the monarch with great eloquence and learning. That prince, having founded an episcopal church at Edinburgh, knew of none more worthy to fill the new see than Dr. Forbes. He was consecrated with the usual ceremonies, and applied himself wholly to the functions of his dignity: but fell sick soon after, and died in 1634, after having enjoyed his bishopric only three months.

It was greatly advantageous to the cause of letters that Mr. Forcellini, being introduced to the notice of cardinal Cornaro, bishop of Padua, received from that prelate an order to compile a new Latin Dictionary, in which all the deficiencies of the preceding edition of Calepini’s performance, for the Latin department, should be supplied. Perhaps no person was better qualified for such an undertaking, or was possessed of more steadiness, patience, and perseverance; an almost incredible proof of which is, that he employed in it in-aHy forty years of his life He ransacked not only all the Latin writers of the several ages of Roman literature, but all the ancient grammarians, and every collection of inscriptions which had been published to his time. To each of the Latin words inserted in this new Dictionary he affixed the corresponding Italian and Greek, and, to render the work still more complete, he subjoined to u a copious list of barbarous words, and a numerous catalogue of the writers whose works he had investigated. The performance was soon considered classical and unrivalled. Besides the intimate friendship of Facciolati, his preceptor and benefactor, the abbe Forceliini was highly esteemed by Morgagni, Pontedera, Valsecchi, and other eminent professors in the university of Padua. His learning and his merit would have advanced him to high literary honours, had he been less modest and unassuming. He was regular in his domestic life, candid, disinterested, and exemplary; and as a literary character, he was satisfied that his memory would be dear to and respected by posterity. He died April 4, 1768.

, was a Scottish historian, whose time and place of birth are uncertain. It is most generally agreed that he was a priest in the church of Fordun in 1377, because he dedicated his history of Scotland to cardinal Wardlaw, who at that time was bishop of Glasgow. The time of his death is equally obscure, but may with probability be conjectured to have been soon after he finished his “Scoti-chronicon.” In this history there are some traditions that seem not sufficiently authenticated, and many legendary tales, too gross for belief, yet some curious and valuable particulars are also contained in it; among which may be reckoned the oration of a highland bard, delivered at the coronation of Alexander III. in 1249, a piece peculiar in its kind. Every convent in Scotland, and some in England, transcribed copies of this history; and two editions of it have been printed; one by Hearne at Oxford, 1722, in 5 vols. 8vo; the other by Mr. Goodall at Edinburgh, in a single volume, folio. ms copies are to be found in great plenty in the Bodleian library, in the British Museum, and at Edinburgh.

, an English divine and scholar of eminence in the last ceatury, was born Feb. 3, 1717, at Stadscombe, in the parish of Plimstock, Devonshire, of which his father, Robert Forster, was then minister. His mother, Elizabeth, was daughter of the rev. John Tindal, vicar of Cornwood, in the same county, and sister of the rev. Nicolas Tindal, translator of Rapin’s History. His father, soon after the birth of this his eldest child, being chosen lecturer to St. Andrew’s church at Plymouth, went thitherto reside, and continued in the same place and office till his death. His son, the subject of this article, having received the rudiments of a grammatical education at home, in which he made an early progress, was put under the tuition of the rev. John Bedford, master of the grammar-school at Plymouth; and of this numerous seminary he had gained the first place before he was thirteen years old. In 1731-2 he was removed to Eton, and at the same time entered at Pembroke college, Oxford, in order to entitle him to an exhibition. After passing about sixteen months at Eton, while Dr. George was head-master, he went to college, and became a pupil of Dr. Radcliffe. On June 13, 1733, he was admitted scholar of Corpus Christi, where Dr. Burton was tutor. In 1729 he became fellow; and afterwards took the care of pupils himself as assistant to Mr. Paget, but was disappointed in his wishes of succeeding that gentleman as the college tutor, Mr. Patten being appointed by the president to that office. He was admitted to the degree of B. A. Oct. 13, 1735; to that f M. A. Feb. 10, 1738, and to that 'of B. D. April 9, 1746, as soon as his standing allowed, in order to preserve hie seniority in college. His degree of D. D. was deferred till 1750, the time of his leaving the university. In 1739 he received deacon’s orders from Dr. Wynne, bishop of Bath and Wells, and priest’s orders from Dr. Hoadly, bishop of Winchester.

His first preferment in the church was the small rectory of Hethe in Oxfordshire, which was given him July 6, 1749, by the lord chancellor Hardwicke, on the recommendation of one of his earliest friends, Dr. Seeker, bishop of Oxford, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. By him he was also introduced to the notice of Dr. Butler, then bishop of Bristol, to whom, in 1750, he became domestic chaplain, when that prelate was translated to the see of Durham. In this situation he continued till the death of his new patron, which took place before he had &n opportunity of conferring upon Dr, Forster any mark of Ins affection and esteem. The bishop, however, who died in his arms at Bath, bequeathed him a legacy of 200l. and appointed him executor of his will. He now returned to college, determining to obliterate the remembrance of his disappointments by a renewed application to his studies. But he was very soon called forth again, and appointed, in July 1752, one of the chaplains to Dr. Herring, archbishop of Canterbury. In Feb. 1754 he was promoted by the lord chancellor Hardwicke to the prebendal stall in the church of Bristol; and in the autumn of the same year the archbishop gave him the valuable vicarage of Rochdale, in Lancashire. He was admitted fellow of the royal society in May 1765. In May 1756 he was sworn one of the chaplains to his late majesty, George II. and through the interest of lord Roystou, was appointed by sir Thomas Clarke to succeed Dr. Terrick, in the summer of 1757, as preacher at the Rolls chapel. In August 1757, he married Susan, relict of John Balls, esq. of the city of Norwich, a lady of great merit, and possessed of a considerable fortune. Upon his marriage he hired a house in Craig’s court, Westminster, where, after a short illness, he died on Oct. 20, foJlowing, in the forty-first year of his age, leaving no issue. His widow afterwards married Philip Bedingfield, esq. of Ditchingham, in Norfolk. His body was interred in St. Martin’s church, Westminster, and a monument was erected to his memory by his widow, in the cathedral church of Bristol, with an elegant Latin inscription, written by his friend Dr. Hayter, then bishop of Norwich.

To the number of his friends, who were at all known in the learned world, besides those already mentioned, may be added the rev. Zachary Mudge, author of a translation of the Psalms, and a volume of sermons Dr. Burton, Dr. Bentham, Dr. Benson, bishop of Gloucester and his great successor, Dr. Warburton, with the last of whom he occasionally held a literary correspondence. In private life, Dr. Forster was a man of much discernment, mildness, and benevolence. He always shewed his contempt of what was absurd, and his abhorrence of what he thought wicked, in a manner the most likely to produce a good effect on those whom he wished to convince or reform; at the same time with the most perfect command of his temper. By an uniform application to study, he acquired and deserved the character of very considerable erudition, and great critical acumen; possessing a knowledge of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew languages, not exceeded by any man of his time.

Dr. Forster published, 1. “Reflections on the natural antiquity of government, arts, and sciences, in Egypt,” Oxford, 1743. 2. “Platonis dialogi quinque, Recensuit, notisque iilustravit, N. Forster, A. M. &c.” ibid. 1745. This is a very correct text of the Amatores, Euthyphro, Apologia Socratis, Criton, and Phaedo; and this edition of 1745 is preferred to those of 1752, and 1765, afterwards published. 3. “Appendix Liviana, continens, 1. ‘ Selectas codicum Mss. et editionum antiquaruru lectiones, prsecipuas variorum emendationes, et supplementa lacunarum in iis T. Livii qui supersunt libris; 2. J. Freinshewiii supplementorum lib. decem in locum decadis secundac Livianae deperdittp,’” ibid. 1746. This was a joint publication of Dr, Forster and another fellow of Corpus college, and was published without a name. 4. “Popery destructive of the evidence of Christianity.; a sermon before the university of Oxford, Nov. 5, 1746,” ibid. 1746. 5. “A Dissertation upon the account supposed to have been give*i of Jesus Christ by Josephus: being an attempt to show that this celebrated passage, some slight corruptions only excepted, may reasonably be esteemed genuine,” ibid. 1749. The criticism contained in this dissertation is allowed to be ingenious, even by Mr. Bryant, who, in deciding the controversy, defended the passage as it stands. Bishop Warburton’s opinion of it was still more favourable, as appears by his testimony to the author’s “abilities, candour, and address,” in his Julian, p. 93; and by part of a letter of his to Dr. Forster, in which, after having noticed some judicious observations of Dr. Forster, made on his Julian in manuscript, Warburton says, “I have often wished for a hand capable of collecting all the fragments remaining of Porphyry, Celsus, Hierocles, and Julian, and giving them to us with a just, critical, and theological comment, as a ‘ Defy to Infidelity.’ It is certain we want something more than what their ancient answerers have given us. This would be a very noble work. I know of none that has all the talents fit for it but yourself. What an opening will this give to all the treasures of sacred and profane antiquity and what an opportunity would this be of establishing a great character The author of the dissertation on the passage of Josephus (which I think the best piece of criticism of this age) would shine here. Think of it: you cannot do a more useful thing to religion or your own character. Controversies of the times are things that presently vanish. This will be always of the same importance.” (Dated Oct. 15, 1749.) 6. “Biblia Hebraica, sine punctis,” Oxon. 1750, 2 vols. 4to. 7. “Remarks on the rev. Dr. Stebbing’s Dissertation on the power of states to deny civil protection to the Marriages of Minors, &c.” Lond. 1755.

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

, an English dissenting minister, was born at Exeter, Sept. 16, 1697. His grandfather was 9, clergyman at Kettering in Northamptonshire; but his father, being educated by an uncle who was a dissenter, imbibed the same principles, and was afterwards by trade a tucker, or fuller, in Exeter. He was sent early to the free school in that town, where the foundation of a friendship between him and Dr. Conybeare, afterwards bishop of Bristol, is said to have been laid; and thence was removed to an academy in the same city, where he finished his studies. He there displayed pre-eminent natural abilities, a quick apprehension, a solid judgment, a happy memory, and a free commanding elocution.

, an eminent lawyer, was born at Marlborough in Wiltshire, Dec. 16, 1689. His father Michael, and his grandfather John, were attornies in that place. After attending the free-school there, Mr. Foster was matriculated at Oxford May 7, 1705, and studied about two years at Exeter college, but like many eminent men in the profession of the law, left it without taking a degree. On May 23, 1707, he was admitted into the society of the Middle Temple, and in due time was called to the bar, but not having much success as an advocate, he retired into the country, and settled in his native town. Here he contracted an intimacy with Algernon, earl of Hertford, afterwards duke of Somerset, which continued many years, and until the death of the noble duke, who by his will appointed his friend executor in trust with his son-in-law Hugh, earl (afterwards duke) of Northumberland. In 1725 he married Martha, the eldest daughter of James Lyde, esq. of Stantonwick in Somersetshire; and in a few years afterwards he removed to Bristol, where he exercised his profession with great reputation and considerable success; and in August 1735 he was chosen rer corder of the city, which office he retained many years. Soon after accepting this office in Easter term, 1736, he took on him the degree of serjeant at law. In 1720 he had published “A Letter of Advice to protestant Dissenters,” in which he is said to discover the most liberal and enlarged views; and in 1735 he published a pamphlet which engaged the public attention very much, entitled “An Examination of the scheme of Church power laid down in the Codex juris ecclesiastici Anglicani, &c.” In this he controverted the system of church power vested in the clergy, and which forms the ground-work of bishop Gibson’s “Codex.” Several answers, however, were published to Mr. Foster’s pamphlet, the principal one by Dr. Andrews, a civilian. Mr. Foster seems to have promised a continuation, in reply to him and others, but did not pursue the subject. In the postscript, however, to the third edition of his pamphlet, he adverts to “the personal severity,” with which Dr. Andrews had treated him; and adds, “It is not in my nature to make any return of that kind. I forgive him with all my heart. If, upon poor reflection, he can forgive himself, I pity him.”

, an eminent physician, son of John and Margaret Fothergill, quakers, was born March 8, 6r, according to Dr. Thompson’s account, Oct. 12, 1712, at Carr End in Yorkshire, where his father, who had been a brewer at Knaresborough (after having travelled from one end of America to the other), lived retired on a small estate which he cultivated. The eldest son Alexander, who studied the law, inherited that estate. John was the second son. Joseph, the third son, was an ironmonger at Stockport, in Cheshire, where he died a few years ago. Samuel, the fourth son, went to America, and became a celebrated preacher among the quakers. There was also a sister, Anne, who lived with the doctor, and survived him. John received his education under the kind care of his grandfather Thomas Hough, a person of fortune in Cheshire (which gave him a predilection for that county), and at Sedburg in Yorkshire. About 1718 he was put apprentice to Benjamin Bartlett, apothecary, at Bradford, whence he removed to London, Oct. 20, 1736, and studied two years as a pupil of doctor (afterwards sir Edward) Wilmot, at St. Thomas’s hospital. He then went to the university of Edinburgh, to study physic, and there took his doctor’s degree. His Thesis was entitled, “De emeticorum usu in variis morbis tractandis;” and it has been republished in a collection of theses by Smellie. From Edinburgh he went to Leyden, whence, after a short stay, he travelled through some parts of France and Germany, and, returning to England, began his practice in London about 1740, in a house in Whitehart-court, Lombard-street (where he resided till his removal to Harpur-street in 1767), and acquired both reputation and fortune. He was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians of London, 1746, and in 1754, fellow of Edinburgh, to which he was a considerable benefactor. In 1753, he became a member both of the royal and antiquarian societies; and was at his death a member of the royal medical society at Paris. He continued his practice with uninterrupted success till within the last two years of his life, when an illness, which he had brought on himself by his unremitted attention, obliged him greatly to contract it. Besides his occupation in medical science, he had imbibed an early taste for natural history, improved by his -friend Peter Collinson, and employed himself particularly on the study of shells, and of botany. He was for many years a valuable contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine; which in return considerably assisted his rising fame. His observations on the weather and diseases were begun there in April 1751, and discontinued in the beginning of 1756, as he was disappointed in his views of exciting other experienced physicians in different parts to imitate the example. Though, his practice was very extensive, he did not add to his art any great or various improvements. His pamphlet on the ulcerous sore throat is, on every account, the best of his publications, and that owes much of its merit to the information of the late doctors Letherland or Sylvester. It was first printed in 1748, on the re-appearance of that fatal disorder whick in 1739 had carried off the two only sons of Mr. Pelham. It may be here added, that 0r. Wilmot preserved lady Catherine Pelham, after her sons had died of it, by lancing her throat; a method which, he said, he had once before pursued with the same success. In 1762, Dr. Fothergill purchased an estate at Upton in Essex, and formed an excellent botanic garden, with hot-houses and green-houses, to the extent of 260 feet. In 1766, he began regularly to withdraw, from Midsummer to Michaelmas, from the excessive fatigue of his profession, to Lee Hall, near Middlewich in Cheshire; which, though he only rented it by the year, he had spared no expence to improve. During this recess he took no fees, but attended, to prescribe gratis at an inn at Middlewich once a week. Some time before his death he had been industrious to contrive a method of generating and preserving ice in the West Indies. He was the patron of Sidney Parkinson, and drew up the preface prefixed to his account of the voyage to the South Seas. At his expence also was made and printed an entire new translation of the whole Bible, from the Hebrew and Greek originals, by Anthony Purver , a quaker, in two volumes, 1764, folio, and also, in 1780, an edition of bishop Percy’s “Key to the New Testament,” adapted to the use of a seminary of young quakers, at Acworth, near Leeds, which the doctor first projected, and afterwards endowed handsomely by his will. It now contains above 300 children of both sexes, who are clothed and instructed. Among the other beneficent schemes suggested by Dr. Fothergill, was that of bringing fish to London by land carriage, which, though it did not in every respect succeed, was supposed to defeat a monopoly; and, that of rendering bread much cheaper, though equally wholesome, by making it with one part of potatoes, and three parts of household flour. But his public benefactions, his encouragements ef science, the instances of his attention to the health, the police, the convenience of the metropolis, &c. are too numerous to specify . The fortune which Dr. Fothergill acquired, was computed at 80,000l. His business when he was in "full practice, was calculated at near 7000l. per annum. In the Influenza of 1775 and 1776*, he is said to have had sixty patients on his list daily, and his profits were then estimated at 8000l. The disorder which hastened his death was an obstruction in the bladder, occasioned by a delicacy which made him unwilling to alight from his carriage for relief. He died at his house in Harpur-street, Dec. 26, 1780; and his remains were interred, Jan. 5, in the quakers burying-ground at Winchmore-hill. The executors, who were his lister, and Mr. Ghorley, linen-draper, in Gracechurch-street, who married one of his nieces, intended the burial to be private; but the desire of the quakers to attend the funeral rendered it impossible. Only ten coaches were ordered to convey his relations and friends, but there were more than seventy coaches and post-chaises attending; and many of the friends came above 100 miles, to pay their last tribute of respect. The doctor by his will appointed, that his shells, and other pieces of natural history, should be offered to the late Dr. Hunter at 500l. under the valuation he ordered to be taken of them. Accordingly, Dr. Hunter bought them for 1200l. The drawings and collections in natural history, which he had spared no expence to augment, were also to be offered to Mr. (now sir Joseph) Banks, at a valution. His English portraits and prints, which had been collected by Mr. John Nickolls of Ware, and purchased by him for 80 guineas, were bought for 200 guineas by Mr. Thane. His books were sold by auction, April 30, 1731, and the eight following days. His house and garden, at Upton, were valued at 10,000l. The person of Dr. Fothergill was of a delicate rather than an extenuate4 make. His features were all expressive, and his eye had a peculiar brilliancy. His understanding was comprehensive and quick, and rarely embarrassed on the most sudden occasions. There was a charm in his conversation and address that conciliated the regard and confidence of all who employed him; and so discreet and uniform was his conduct, that he was not apt to forfeit the esteem which he had once acquired. At his meals he was uncommonly abstemious, eating sparingly, and rarely exceeding two glasses of wine at dinner or supper. By this uniform and steady temperance, he preserved his mind vigorous and active, and his constitution equal to all his engagements.

, a learned English prelate, was born in 1632, at Westerleigh, in Gloucestershire; of which place his father was minister, but ejected for noncon formitjr after the restoration. He was sent to the College-school in Gloucester, where he was educated under William Russel, who had married his sister. In the beginning of 1650 he became clerk of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and being looked upon, says Wood, “as a young man well endowed with the spirit, and gifted with extemporary prayer, he was admitted one of the chaplains thereof in 1653, and the same year took a bachelor of arts degree.” Afterwards removing to Cambridge, he took his master’s degree as a member of Trinity college, and returning to Oxford, was incorporated in the same degree July 5, 1656., About the same time he became chaplain to Arabella, countess dowager of Kent, who presented him to the rectory of Northill, in Bedfordshire. Having been educated a presbyterian, he scrupled about conformity at the restoration, but conformed afterwards, and became a great ornament to the church. His excellent moral writings renderedhim so considerable, that archbishop Sheldon, in order to introduce him into the metropolis, collated him in August 1673, to the rectory of All-hallows, Breadtreet. In February 1675-6, he was made prebendary of Gloucester; and in March IbSl, vicar of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, on which he resigned the living of Allhallows. The same year, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor of divinity. During the struggle between protestantism and popery in this kingdom, he appeared to great advantage in defence of the former; but this rendered him obnoxious to the court, and in all probability tvas the secret cause of a prosecution against him, in 1685, by some uf his parishioners, who alledged that he was guilty of Whiggism, that he admitted to the communion excommunicated persons before they were absolved, &c. We are told this matter was carried so far, that, after a trial at Doctors’-couimons, he was suspended, under the pretence of having acted in several respects contrary to the canons of the church. This affront, however, did not intimidate him from doing what he thought his duty; for he was the second, who in 1688, sighed the resolution of the London clergy, not to read king James’s new declaration for liberty of conscience. He was rewarded for this and other services at the revolution; for in 1691, he was preferred to the see of Gloucester, and continued there till his death, which happened at Chelsea, Aug. 26, 1714, in his eighty-second year. His widow survived him some years, dying April 2, 1732. She was his second wife, the widow of the rev. Dr. Ezekiel Burton, and daughter of Ralph Trevor, of London, merchant. His first wife, by whom he had a large family, was daughter of Arthur Barnardiston, one of the masters in chancery. She died Dec. 19, 1696, and was buried, as well as the bishop, in Hendon church-yard, Middlesex, in the chancel of which church is a monument to his memory.

In the registers of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, which Mr. Malcolm appears to have examined with care, we find no mention made of any litigious proceedings of the parishioners against Dr. Fowler; but on the contrary, there arc the following entries, which show how much he was respected by them after the revolution: “Feb. 7, 1700. Ordered, that in consideration the bishop of Gloucester has a long time, at his own charge, provided a lecturer in this parish, and been otherwise kind and bountiful to the same, that the chancel of this parish church be forthwith put in good repair at the charge of the parish.” In 1708 he represented to the vestry that he was grown so extremely infirm and old, he could no longer preach in a morning; and having a large family, with but small profits from the vicarage, together with having provided a lecturer for twenty-five years past at his own charge, he now entreated them to elect one themselves, which they did, with many acknowledgments for his lordship’s fatherly conduct towards them.

, an eminent statesman, almoner to Henry VIII. and bishop of Hereford, was born at Dursley, in Gloucestershire; but it is not mentioned in what year. After passing through Eton school he was admitted of King’s college in Cambridge, 1512, where he was elected provost in 1528, and continued in that office till his death. Being recommended to cardinal Wolsey as a man of an acute spirit and political turn, he was taken into his service; and, according to Lloyd, was the person who encouraged the cardinal to aspire to the papacy. In 1528 he was sent ambassador to Rome, jointly with Stephen Gardiner, afterwards bishop of Winchester, in order to obtain bulls from Clement VII. for Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Arragon. He was then almoner to the king; and reputed, as Burnet says, one of the best diviues ia England. He was afterwards employed in embassies both in France and Germany; during which, as he was one day discoursing upon terms of peace, he said, “honourable ones last long, but the dishonourable, no longer than till kings have power to break them the surest?way, therefore, to peace, is a constant prepared ness for war.” Two things, he would say, must support a government, “gold and iron: gold, to reward its friends; and iron, to keep under its enemies.” It was to him that Cranmer owed his first introduction to court, with all its important results.

In this family he lived, at Ryegate in Surrey, during the latter part of Henry’s reign, the five years reign of Edward, and part of Mary’s; being at this time protected by the duke of Norfolk, and Wood says he was restored to his fellowship of Magdalen college, under Edward VI. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, was, however, now determined to have him seized, and laid many snares and stratagems for that purpose. The bishop was very intimate with the duke of Norfolk, often visited him, and frequently desired to see this tutor. The duke evaded the request, one while alleging his absence, another that he was indisposed, still pretending reasons to put him off. At length it happened, that Fox, not knowing the bishop to be within the house, entered the room, where the duke and he were in discourse; and seeing the bishop, with a shew of bashfulness, withdrew himself. The bishop asking who he was, the duke answered, his physician, who was somewhat uncourtly, being newly come from the university. “I like his countenance and aspect very well,” replied the bishop, “and upon occasion will make use of himf.” The duke, perceiving from hence that danger was at hand, thought it time for Fox to retire, and accordingly furnished him with the means to go abroad. He found, before he could put to sea, that Gardiner had issued out a warrant for apprehending him, and was causing the most diligent search to be made for him; nevertheless, he at length escaped, with his wife then big with child; got over to Newport Haven, travelled to Antwerp and Francfort, where he was involved in the troubles excited by Dr. Cox and his party; and the first settlers being driven from that place, he removed from thence to Basil, where numbers of English subjects resorted in those times of persecution. In this city he maintained himself and family, by correcting the press for Oporinus, a celebrated printer; and it was here, that he laid the plan of his famous work, “The History of the Acts and Monuments of the Church.” He had published at Strasburgh, in 1554, in 8vo, “Commentarii Rerum in Ecclesia gestarum, maximarumque per totam Europam persecution um a Wiclavi temporibus ad hanc usque aetatem descriptarum,” in one book: to which he added five more books, all printed together at Basil, 1559, in folio.

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

, an eminent prelate, and the munificent founder of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, was the son of Thomas Fox, and born at Ropesley, near Grantham, in Lincolnshire, about the latter end of the reign of Henry VI. His parents are said to have been in mean circumstances, but they must at least have been able to afford him school education, since the only dispute on this subject between his biographers, is, whether he was educated in grammar learning at Boston, or at Winchester. They all agree that at a proper age he was sent to Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he was acquiring distinction for his extraordinary proficiency, when the plague, which happened to break out about that time, obliged him to go to Cambridge, and continue his studies at Pembrokehall. After remaining some time at Cambridge, he repaired to the university at Paris, and studied divinity and the canon law, and here, probably, he received his doctor’s degree. This visit gave a new and important turn to his life, and introduced him to that eminence which he preserved for many years as a statesman. In Paris he became acquainted with Dr. Morton, bishop of Ely, whom Richard III. had compelled to quit his native country, and by this prelate he was recommended to the earl of Richmond, afterwards Henry VII. who was then providing for a descent upon England. Richmond, to whom he devoted himself, conceived such an opinion of his talents and fidelity, that he entrusted to his care a negotiation with France for supplies of men and money, the issue of which he was not able himself to await; and Fox succeeded to the utmost of his wishes. After the defeat of the usurper at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, and the establishment of Henry on the throne, the latter immediately appointed Fox to be one of his privy-council, and about the same time bestowed on him the prebends of Bishopston and South Grantham, in the church of Salisbury. In 1487, he was promoted to the see of Exeter, and appointed keeper of the privy seal, with a pension of twenty shillings a day. He was also made principal secretary of state, and master of St. Cross, near Winchester. His employments in. affairs of state both at home and abroad, were very frequent, as he shared the king’s confidence with his early friend Dr. Morton, who was now advanced to the archbishopric of Canterbury. In 1487, Fox was sent ambassador, with sir Richard Edgecombe, comptroller of the household, to James III. of Scotland, where he negociated a prolongation of the truce between England and Scotland, which was to expire July 3, 1488, to Sept. 1, 1489. About the beginning of 1491, he was employed in an embassy to the king of France, and returned to England in November following. In 1494 he went again as ambassador to James IV. of Scotland, to conclude some differences respecting the fishery of the river Esk, in which he was not successful. Having been translated in 1492 from the see of Exeter to that of Bath and Wells, he was in 1494 removed to that of Durham. Jn 1497, the castle of Norham being threatened by the king of Scotland, the bishop caused it to be fortified and supplied with troops, and bravely defended it in person, until it was relieved by Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, who compelled the Scots to retire. Fox was then, a third time, appointed to negociate with Scotland, and signed a, seven years truce between the two kingdoms, Sept. 30, 1497. He soon after negociated a marriage between James IV. and Margaret, king Henry’s eldest daughter, which was, after many delays, fully concluded Jan. 24, 1501-.

In 1500, the university of Cambridge elected him their chancellor, which he retained till 1502; and in the same year (1500) he was promoted to the see of Winchester. In 1507 he was chosen master of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, which he retained until 1519. In 1507 and 1508 he was employed at Calais, with other commissioners, in negociating a treaty of marriage between Mary, the king’s third daughter, and Charles, archduke of Austria, afterwards the celebrated Charles V. In 1509-10, he was sent to France with the earl of Surrey, and Ruthal, bishop of Durham, and concluded a new treaty of alliance with Lewis XII. In 1512 he was one of the witnesses to the foundation charter of the hospital in the Savoy. In 1513 he attended the king (Henry VIII.) in his expedition to France, and was present at the taking of Teroiiane, and in October following, jointly with Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, he concluded a treaty with the emperor Maximilian against France. In 1514, he was one of the witnesses to the renunciation of the marriage with prince Charles of Spain by the princess Mary; one of the commissioners for the treaty of peace between Henry VIII. and Lewis XII. of France; and for the marriage between the said king of France and the princess Mary, the same year. He was also one of the witnesses to the marriage treaty, and to the confirmation of both treaties; to the treaty of friendship with Francis I. and to its continuation in the following year.

This appears to be the last of his public acts. During the reign of Henry VII. he enjoyed the unlimited favour and confidence of his sovereign, and bore a conspicuous share, not only in the political measures, but even in the court amusements and ceremonies of that reign. Henry likewise appointed him one of his executors, and recommended him strongly to his son and successor. But although he‘ retained his seat in the privy-council, and continued to hold the privy-seal, his influence in the new reign’ gradually abated. Howard, earl of Surrey and lord treasurer, had been his rival in Henry the Seventh’s time, and learned now to accommodate himself to the extravagant passions of his new master, with whom he was for a considerable time a confidential favourite; and the celebrated Wolsey, who had been introduced to the king by Fox, in order to counteract the influence of Surrey, soon became more powerful than either. After remaining some time in office, under many mortifications, our prelate, together with archbishop Warham, retired from court in 1515. Such was the political life of bishop Fox, distinguished by high influence and talent, but embittered at length, by the common intrigues and vicissitudes to which statesmen are subject.

His retirement at Winchester was devoted to acts of charity and munificence, although he did not now for the first time appear as a public benefactor. He had bestowed large sums on the repairs of the episcopal palace at Durham, while bishop of that see, and on every occasion of this kind discovered a considerable taste for architecture. In 1522 he founded a free-school at Taunton, and another at Grantham, and extended his beneficence to many other foundations within the diocese of Winchester. But the triumphs of his munificence and taste are principally to be contemplated in the additions which he built both within and without the cathedral of Winchester. Of these we shall borrow a character from one whose fine enthusiasm cannotbe easily surpassed. “Itis impossible to survey the works of this prelate, either on the outside of the church, or in the inside, without being? struck with their beauty and magnificence. In both of them we see the most exquisite art employed to execute the most noble and elegant designs. We cannot fail in particular of admiring the vast but well-proportioned and ornamented arched windows which surround this (the eastern) part, and give light to the sanctuary; the bold and airy flying buttresses that, stretching over the said ailes, support the upper walls; the rich open battlement which surmounts these walls; and the elegant sweep that contracts them to the size of the great eastern window: the two gorgeous canopies which crown the extreme turrets, and the profusion of elegant carved work that covers the whole east front, tapering up to a point, where we view the breathing statue of the pious founder resting upon his chosen emblem, the Pelican. In a word, neglected and mutilated as this work has been during the course of nearly three centuries, it still warrants us to assert, that if the whole cathedral had been finished in the style of this portion of it, the whole island, and perhaps all Europe, could not have exhibited a gothic structure equal to it.”

The foundation of Corpus Christi college was preceded by the purchase of certain pieces of land in Oxford, belonging to Merton college, the nunnery of Godstow, and the priory of St. Fridesvvyde, which he completed in 1513, But his design at this time went no farther than to found a college for a warden and a certain number of monks and secular scholars belonging to the priory of St. Svvithin, in Winchester, in the manner of Canterbury and Durham colleges, which were similar nurseries in Oxford for the priories of Canterbury and Durham. The buildings for this purpose were advancing under the care of William Vertue, mason, and Humphrey Cook, carpenter and master of the works, when the judicious advice of Hugh Oldham, bishop of Exeter, induced him to enlarge his plan to one pf more usefulness and durability. This prelate, an emir nent patron of literature, and a man of acute discernment, is said to have addressed him thus: “What! my lord, shall we build houses, and provide livelihoods fo/ a company of monks, whose end and fall we ourselves may live to see? No, no, it is more meet a great deal, that we should have care to provi.de for the increase of learning, and for such as who by their learning shall do good to the church and commonwealth.” These arguments, strengthened probably by others of a similar tendency, induced Fox to imitate those founders who had already contributed so largely to the fame of the university of Oxford. Accordingly, by licence of Henry VIII. dated Nov. 26, 1516, he obtained leave to found a college for the sciences of divinity, philosophy, and arts, for a president and thirty scholars, graduate and not graduate, more or less according to the revenues of the society, on a certain ground between Mefton college on the east, a lane Dear Canterbury college (afterwards part of Christ-church), and a garden of the priory of St. Frideswyde on the west, a street or lane of Oriel college on the north, and the town wall on the south, and this new college to be endowed with 3 50l. yearly. The charter, dated Cal. Mar. 151 G, recites that the founder, to the praise and honour of God Almighty, the most holy body of Christ, and the blessed Virgin Mary, as also of the apostles Peter, Paul, and Andrew, and of St. Cuthbert and St. Swithin, and St. Birin, patrons of the churches of Exeter, Bath and Wells, Durham, and Winchester, (the four sees which he successively rilled) doth found and appoint this college always to be called Corpus Christi College. The statutes are dated Feb. 13, 1527, in the 27th year of his translation to Winchester, and according to them, the society was to consist of a president, twenty fellows, twenty scholars, two chaplains, two clerks, and two choristers.

It does not appear that the parliamentary speeches, printed separately as his, of which there are many, were ever revised by him, but were taken from the public papers. But “A Sketch of the Character of the late most noble Francis duke of Bedford, as delivered in his introductory speech to a motion for a new writ for Tavistock, on the 16th of March, 1802,” was printed by his authority, and from his own manuscript copy; and it is said, that he observed on that occasion, “that he had never before attempted to make a copy of any speech which he had delivered in public.” After that he wrote an epitaph on the late bishop of Downe, which is engraved on his tomb in. the chapel of St. Jatnes, in the Hampstead road. “There are,” says lord Holland, “several, specimens of his composition in verse, in different languages; but the lines on. Mrs. Crewe, and those on Mrs. Fox, on his birth-day, are, as far as I recollect, all that have been printed.” An ode to Poverty, and an epigram upon Gibbon, though very generally attributed to him, are certainly not his com,-' positions.

, a celebrated saint of the Romish church, and founder of one of the four orders of mendicant friars, called Franciscans, was born at Assisi in Umbria, in 1182. He was the son of a merchant, and was christened John, but had the name of Francis added, from his facility of talking French, which he learned to qualify him for his father’s profession. He was at first a young man of dissolute manners, but in consequence of an illness about 1206, he became so strongly affected with religious zeal, that he took a resolution of retiring from the world. He now devoted himself so much to solitude, mortified himself to such a degree, and contracted so ghastly a countenance, that the inhabitants of Assisi thought him distracted. His father, thinking to make him resume his profession., employed a very severe method for that purpose, by throwing him into prison; but finding this made no impression on him, he took him before the bishop of Assisi, in order to make him resign all claim to his paternal estate, which he not only agreed to, but stripped off all his clothes, even to his shirt. He then prevailed with great numbers to devote themselves, as he had done, to the poverty which he considered as enjoined by the gospel; and drew up an institute or rule for their use, which was approved by pope Innocent III. in 1210. The year after, he obtained of the Benedictines the church of Portiuncula, near Assisi, and his order increased so fast, that when he held a chapter in 1219, near 5000 friars of the order of Minors (so they were called) were present. Soon after he obtained also a bull in favour of his order from pope Honorius III. About this time he went into the Holy Land, and endeavoured in vain to convert the sultan Meledin. It is said, that he offered to throw himself into the flames to prove his faith in what he taught. He returned soon after to his native country, and died at Assiai in 1226, being then only fortyfive. He was canonized by pope Gregory IX. the 6th of May, 1230; and Oct. the 4th, on which his death happened, was appointed as his festival.

, was born at the castle of Sales, in the diocese of Geneva, August 21, 1567. He descended from one of the most ancient and noble families of Savoy. Having taken a doctor of law’s degree at Padua, he was first advocate at Chambery, then provost of the church of Geneva at Annecy. Claudius de Granier, his bishop, sent him as missionary into the valleys of his diocese to. convert the Zuinglians, and Calvinists, which he is said to have performed in great numbers, and his sermons were attended with wonderful success. The bishop of Geneva chose him afterwards for his coadjutor, but was obliged to use authority before he could be persuaded to accept the office. Religious aftairs called him afterwards into France, where he was universally esteemed; and cardinal du Perron said, “There were no heretics whom he could not convince, but M. de Geneva must be employed to convert them.” Henry IV. being informed of his merit, made him considerable offers, in hopes of detaining hioi in France; but he chose rather to return to Savoy, where he arrived in 1602, and found bishop Grimier had died a few days before. St. Francis then undertook the reformation of his diocese, where piety and virtue soon flourished through his zeal; he restored regularity in the monasteries, and instituted the order of the Visitation in. 1610, which was confirmed by Paul V. 1618, and of whicli the baroness de Chantal, whom he converted by his preaching at Dijon, was the foundress. He also established a congregation of hermits in Chablais, restored ecclesiastical discipline to its ancient vigour, and converted nnmerous heretics to the faith. At the latter end of 1618 St. Francis was obliged to go again to Paris, with the cardinal de Savoy, to conclude a marriage between the prince of Piedmont and Christina of France, second daughter of Henry IV. This princess, herself, chose de Sales for her chief almoner; but he -would accept the place only on two conditions; one, that it should not preclude his residing in his diocese; the other, that whenever he did not execute his office, he should not receive the profits of it. These xinusual terms the princess was obliged to consent to, and immediately, as if by way of investing him with his office, presented him with a very valuable diamond, saying, “On condition that you will keep it for my sake.” To which he replied, “I promise to do so, madam, unless the poor stand in need of it.” Returning to Annecy, he continued to visit the sick, relieve those in want, instruct the people, and discharge all the duties of a pious bishop, till 1622, when he died of an apoplexy at Lyons, December 28, aged fifty-six, leaving several religious works, collected in 2 vols. fol. The most known are, “The Introduction to a devout Life;” and “Philo,” or a treatise on the love of God. MarsoHier has written his life, 2 yols. 12mo, which was translated into English by Mr. Crathornc. He was canonized in 16 65.

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

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

Dr. Freind, in his last will, dated March 12, 1727, directs all his pictures to be sold (except those of his wife, his son, the bishop of Rochester and his son, and his own brother). He gives 100l. a year to his brother William, and lOOOl. to Christ Church, Oxford, to found an anatomical lecture. The greater part of his fortune he bequeathed to his nephew William, son to his brother Robert. His widow died in Sept, 1737. The manor of Hitcham was purchased by the Freinds in 1700, and continued in that family until the death of Robert Freind, e*q. Jan. 26, 1780, soon after which it was purchased by the present lord Grenville, who has a house in that neighbourhood.

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

, an elegant Portuguese writer in prose and verse, was born in 1597, at Beja in Portugal, and became abbé of St. Mary de Chans. He appeared at first with some distinction at the court of Spain, but his attachment to the house of Braganza impeded his advancement. In 1640, when John IV. was proclaimed king of Portugal, he went to his court, and was well received. Yet it was found difficult to advance him, for he was of too light and careless a character to be employed in diplomatic business; and though the king would have gone so far as to make him bishop of Visieu, this dignity he had the wisdom to refuse, well-knowing that the pope who did not acknowledge his master as king, would never confirm his appointment as bishop. He did not choose, he said, merely to personate a bishop, like an actor on a stage. He died at Lisbon in 1657. Notwithstanding the levity of his character, he had a generous heart, and was a firm and active friend. He wrote with much success; his “Life of Don Juan de Castro,” is esteemed one of the best written books in the Portuguese language. It was published in folio, and was translated into Latin by Rotto, an Italian Jesuit. He wrote also a small number of poems in the same language, which have considerable elegance, and are to be found in a collection published at Lisbon in 1718, under the title of “Fenix Renacida.”

, a learned physician, was born at Nieder Wesel, in the duchy of Cleves, Oct. 30, 1581 but his relations being compelled, by the troubles of the times, to retire to Osnaburg, he began his classical studies there. He was afterwards sent to Cologne, Wesel, and Helmstadt; but his disposition being early turned to medicine, as a profession, he studied at Rostock, afterwards returned to Helmstadt to attend the lectures of Duncan Liddell and of Francis Parcovius; he likewise derived much advantage from the lectures of the celebrated Meibomius, in whose house he resided in the capacity of tutor to his son, and was soon thought fit to give private lectures to the younger students on the practice of physic. He afterwards lectured in public as professor extraordinary; and in 1604, at the age of twenty-three, he obtained the ordinary professorship in the university, which office he filled during four years. He then took his degree of doctor, and went to the court of Philip Sigismund, duke of Brunswick Lunenburg, and bishop of Osnaburg, who had appointed him his principal physician. About 1622, Ernest, duke of Holstein and earl of Schawenburg, offered him the same office, with the addition of the chief medical professorship in the university which he had lately founded at Rinteln; but his patron would not permit him. to accept it. This prince-bishop dying in 1623, his nephew, duke Frederic Ulric, gave Freitag the option of being his chief physician, or of resuming his professorship at Helmstadt. He con*­tinued at Osnaburg, where the new bishop retained him as his physician, and also appointed him one of his chamberlains. He also served his successor in the same capacity, but was dismissed in 1631, on account of his refusal to become a catholic. He found protection and patronage, however, under Ernest Cassimir, count of Nassau, and. the counts of Bettheim, who procured for him the vacant professorship in the university of Groningen. He fulfilled this new appointment with great reputation, and continued to distinguish himself by the success of his practice till the decline of his life, which was accelerated by a complication of maladies. Dropsy, gout, gravel, aud fever, terminated his life Feb. 8, 1641.

His works are these: “Treatise of Purgatory; Antithesis between Christ and the Pope; Letters unto the faithful followers of Christ’s Gospel, written in the Tower, 1532; Mirror, or Glass to know thyself, written in the Tower, 1532; Mirror or Looking-glass, wherein you may behold the Sacrament of Baptism; Articles, for which he died, written in Newgate-prison, June 23, 1533; Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogues concerning Heresies; Answer to John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, &c.” all which treatises were reprinted at London, 1573, in folio, with the works of Tyndale and Barnes. He also wrote some translations.

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

His works were, 1. “Sumtna totins philosophise e D. Thomae Aquinatis doctrina,” Paris, 1640, fol. 2. “Thomas a Kempis vindicatus per unuin e Canonicis regularibus congregationis Gallicanae,” Paris, 1641, 8vo. The purpose of this is to prove that Thomas a Kempis, and not Gerson, was the author of the celebrated “Imitation,” &c. and it produced a controversy, of which some notice will be taken in our article on that writer. 3. “Ivonis Carnotens-is Episcopi opera,” Paris, I 647, fol. This edition of the works of Ives de Chartres gave some offence to Souchet, whose notes he had adopted; and he was obliged to defend himself in a letter addressed to the bishop of Puy. 4. “Dissertatio philologiea de virginhate honorata, erudita, adornata, fnecunda,” ibid. 1651. 5. “Antitheses Angustini et Calvini,” ibid. 1651, 16mo. In this he gives the parallel passages of St. Augustin and Calvin on the subject of grace. The general of the congregation, thinking it might make some noise in the world, suppressed all the copies except one, from which a friend of Fronteau had a new edition printed. 6. “Kalendarinm Romanum,” taken from an ancient ms. and illustrated by a preface and two dissertations, on festival days, and saints’ days, ibid. 1652, 8vo. 7. “O ratio in obitum Matthoei Mole”,“ibid. 1656, 4to. Mole was keeper of the seals. He published also various epistles and tracts on subjects of ecclesiastical history. His own life was published in 1663, 4to, under the title” Joan. Frontonis Memoria disertis per amicos virosque clarissimos encomiis celebrata."

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

, an English law-writer, was the son of Thomas Fulbeck, who was mayor of Lincoln at the time of his death in J 566. He was born in the parish of St. Benedict in that city in 1560, entered as a commoner of St. Alban hall, Oxford, in 1577, and was admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college about two years after. In 1581 he took his bachelor’s degree, and the next year became probationer fellow. He then removed to Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college) where he completed the degree of M. A. in 1584. From Oxford he went to Gray’s Inn, London, where he applied with great assiduity to the study of the municipal law. Wood says, he had afterwards the degree of civil law conferred on him, but where he had not been able to discover, nor is the place or time of his death known. From an extract from, bishop Kennet, in the new edition of Wood, it seems not improbable that he took orders. His works are, 1. “Christian Ethics,” Lond. 1587, 8vo. 2. “An historical collection of the continual factions, tumults, and massacres -of the Romans before the peaceable empire of Augustus Caesar,” ibid. 1600, 8vo, 1601, 4to. 3. “A direction or preparative to the study of the Law,” ibid. 1600, 8vo, afterwards published, with a new title-page, as “A parallel or conference of the civil, the canon, and the common law,” ibid. 1618. 4. “The Pandects of the Laws of Nations; or the discourses of the matters in law, wherein the nations of the world do agree,” ibid. 1602, 4to.

, bishop of Chartres, who flourished towards the end of the tenth t and beginning of the eleventh century, is celebrated, in the Tlomish church history, for his learning and piety. Some authors rank him among the chancellors of France, under the reign or‘ king Robert, but he was only chancellor of the church of Chartres, at the same time that he was rector of the school. He had been himself a disciple of the learned Gerbert, who was afterwards pope Sylvester II. in the year 999. Fulbert came from Rome to France, and taught in the schools belonging to the church of Chartres, which were then not only attended by a great concourse of scholars, but by his means contributed greatly to the revival of learning and religioii in France and Germany; and most of the eminent men of his time thought it an honour to be able to say that they had been his scholars. In 1007 he succeeded to the bishopric of Chartres, and the duke William gave him the office of treasurer of St. Hilary of Poitiers, the profits of which Fulbert employed in rebuilding his cathedral church. He was distinguished in his time for attachment to ecclesiasrtical discipline, and apostolic courage; and such was his character and fame, that he was highly esteemed by the princes and sovereigns of his age, by Robert, king of France, Canute, king of England; Richard II. duke of Normandy; William, duke of Aquitaine; and the greater part of the contemporary noblemen and prelates. He continued bishop of Chartres for twenty-one years and six months, and died, according to the abbé Fleuri, in 1029; but others, with more probability, fix that event on April 10, 1028. His works, which were printed, not very correctly, by Charles de Villiers in 1608, consist of letters, sermons, and some lesser pieces in prose and verse. His sermons, Dupin thinks, contain little worthy of notice; but his letters, which amount to 134-, have ever been considered as curious memorials of the history and sentiments of the times. They prove, however, that although Fulbert might contribute much to the propagation of learning, he had not advanced in liberality of sentiment before his contemporaries. There are also two other letters of our prelate in existence, the one in D’Acheri’s “Spicilegium,” and the other in Martenne’s “Thesaurus Anecdotorum,” both illustrative of his sentiments, and the sentiments of his age.

, an ecclesiastical writer, was borti at Telepta, or Tellepte, about the year 468. He was of an illustrious family, the son of Claudius, and grandson of Gordianus, a senator of Carthage. Claudius dying early, left his son, then very young, to the care of his widow Mariana. He was properly educated in the knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages, and made such progress in his studies, that while yet a boy he could repeat all Homer, and spoke Greek with fluency and purity. As soon as he was capable of an employment he was made procurator or receiver of the revenues of his province. But this situation displeased him, because of the rigour he was forced to use in levying taxes; and therefore, notwithstanding the tears and dissuasions of his mother, he left the world, and took the monastic vows under Faustus, a bishop persecuted by the Arian faction, who had founded a monastery in that neighbourhood. The continued persecutions of the Arians soon separated him and Faustus; and not long after, the incursions of the Moors obliged him to retire into the country of Sicca, where he was whipped and imprisoned. Afterwards he resolved to go into Egypt; but in his voyage was dissuaded by Eulalius bishop of Syracuse, because the monks of the East had separated from the catholic church. He consulted also a bishop of Africa, who had retired into Sicily; and this bishop advised him to return to his own country, after he had made a journey to Rome. King Theodoric was in that city when he arrived there, which was in the year 500. After he had visited the sepulchres of the apostles he returned to his own country, where he built a monastery.

Africa was then under the dominion of Thrasitnond king of the Vandals, an Arian, and a cruel enemy to the catholics. He had forbidden to ordain catholic bishops in. the room of those who died: but the bishops of Africa were determined not to obey an order which threatened the extinction of orthodoxy. Fulgentius, under these circumstances, wished to avoid being a bishop; and when elected for the see of Vinta in the year 507, fled and concealed himself, but being soon discovered, was appointed bishop of Ruspae much against his will. On this elevation he did not change either his habit or manner of living, but uspd. the same austerities and abstinence as before. He still loved the monks, and delighted to retire into a monastery as often as the business of his episcopal function allowed him time. Afterwards he had the same fate with about two hundred and twenty catholic bishops of Africa, whom. Thrasimond banished into the island of Sardinia; and though he was not the oldest among them, yet they paid such respect to his learning, as to employ his pen in all the writings produced in the name of their body. So great was his reputation, that Thrasimond had a curiosity to see and hear him; and having sent for him to Carthage, he proposed to him many difficulties, which Fulgentius solved to his satisfaction: but because he confirmed the catholics, and converted many Arians, their bishop at Carthage prayed the king to send, him back to Sardinia. Thrasimond dying about the year 523, his son Hilderic recalled the catholic bishops, of whom Fulgentius was one. He returned, to the great joy of those who were concerned with him, led a most exemplary life, governed his clergy well, and performed all the offices of a good bishop. He died in the year 533, on the first day of the year, being then sixty- five.

, who is sometimes confounded with the preceding St. Fulgentius, is supposed to have been bishop of Carthage in the sixth century, but some think not before the eighth or ninth. He is the author of three books of mythology, addressed to one Catus, a priest. They were first published in 1498, at Bftilan, in folio, by Jo. Bapt. Pius, who added a commentary.Jerome Commolin reprinted them in 1599, with the works of other mythologists. There is likewise a treatise by him “De Prisco Sermone, ad Chalcidium,” published Hy Hadrian Junius, at Antwerp, 1565, along with Nonius Marcel I us, and afterwards reprinted with the “Auctones Linguae Latinaj,” Paris, 1586, and elsewhere. His works are now rather curious than valuable, as they bear the impress of the dark age in which be lived.

, a celebrated English divine, and master of Pembroke-hal in Cambridge, wns born in London, and educated in St. John’s college, Cambridge, of which he was chosen fellow in 1564. He was a youth of great parts, and of a very high spirit. When a boy at school, he is said to have betrayed great anger and mortification on losing a literary contest for a silver pen, with the celebrated Edmund Campian, and as the latter was educated at Christ’s hospital, this incident seems to prove that t'ulke was of the same school. Before he became fellow of his college, he complied with the wishes of his father, by studying law at Clirtbrd’s-inn, but on his return to the university, his inclinations became averse to that pursuit, and he was unable to conquer them, although his father refused to support him any longer. Young Fulke, however, trusted to his industry and endowments, and soon became a distinguished scholar in mathematics, languages, and divinity. Having taken orders, his early intimacy with some of the puritan divines induced him t< preach in favour of some of their sentiments respecting the ecclesiastical habits and ceremonies. This occurred about 1565, and brought upon him the censure of the chancellor of the university, which, it is said, proceeded to expulsion. On this he took lodgings in the town of Cambridge, and subsisted for some time by reading lectures. His expulsion, however, if it really took place, which seems doubtful, did not lessen his general reputation, as in 1561) there was an intention to choose him master of St. John’s college, had not archbishop Parker interfered but about the same time he found a patron in the earl of Leicester, who was more indulgent to the puritans, and who received Mr. luilke into his house, as his chaplain. It was now also that he fell under the charge of being concerned in some unlawful marriages, and in such circumstances thought it his duty to resign his fellowship, but being honourably acquitted in an examination before the bishop of Ely, he was immediately re-elected by the college.

, a learned English divine and critic, was born at Southampton in 1557, and educated at the free-school in that town. He did not go directly thence to the university, but was taken into the family of the bishop of Winchester, Dr. Robert Home; where spending some time in study, he was made at length his secretary, and afterwards continued in that office by his successor, Dr. Watson. But Watson dying also in about three years, Fuller returned home, with a resolution to follow his studies. Before he was gettled there, he was invited to be tutor to the sons of a knight in Hampshire, whom he accompanied to St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1584. His pupils leaving him in a little time, he removed himself to Hart- hall, where he took both the degrees in arts, and then retired into the country. He afterwards took order*, and was presented to the rectory of Aldington, or Ailington, near Amesbury, in Wiltshire. He afterwards became a prebendary in the church of Salisbury*, and rector of Bisbop’s-Waltham, in Hampshire. He died in 1622. He was extremely learned in the sacred tongues, and, as Wood quaintly says, “was so happy in pitching upon useful difficulties, tending to the understanding of the Scripture, that he surpassed all the critics of his time.” His “Miscellanea Theologica,” in four books, were published first at Heidelberg, 1612, 8vo, and afterwards at Oxford, in 1616, and at London, in 1617, 4 to. These miscellanies coming into the hands of John Drusius, in Holland, he charged Fuller with plagiarism, and with taking his best notes from him without any acknowledgment. But Fuller, knowing himself guiltless, as having never seen Drusius’s works, published a vindication of himself at Leyden, in 1622, together with two more books of “Miscellanea Sacra,” Leyden and Strasburgh, 1650, 4to. All these miscellanies are printed in the 9th volume of the Critici Sacri,“and dispersed throughout Pool’s” Synopsis Griticorum.“There are some manuscript* of Fuller in the Bodleian library at Oxford, which shew his great skill in Hebrew and in philological learning; as” An Exposition of rabbi Mordecai Nathan’s Hebrew Roots, with notes upon it,“and” A Lexicon," which he intended to have published with the preceding.

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

Dr. Fuller was in his person tall and well-made, but no way inclining to corpulency; his complexion was florid; and his hair of a light colour and curling. He was a kind husband to both his wives, a tender father to both his children, a good- friend and neighbour, and a well-behaved civilized person in every respect. He was a most agreeable companion, having a great deal of wit, which he could not suppress in his most serious- compositions, but it suited the age he lived in, and however introduced, wasalways made subservient to some good purpose. Ah his Jacetite, however, must not be referred to the age of James I. and Charles. Fuller has left enough to convince us that he would have been admitted a legitimate wit in any age. He had all the rich imagery of bishop Hall, but with more familiarity and less elegance. 1

, so called from the trade of a fuller, which he exercised in his monastic state, intruded himself into the see of Antioch, in the fifth century, and after having been several times deposed and condemned on account of the bitterness of his opposition to the council of Chalcedon, was at last fixed in it, in the year 482, by the authority of the emperor Zeno, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, Among the innovations which he introduced to excite discord in the church, was an alteration in the famous hymn which the Greeks called Tris-agion. After the words “O God most holy, &c.” he ordered the following phrase to be added in the eastern churches, “who has suffered for us upon the cross.” His design in this was to raise a new sect, and also to fix more deeply in the minds of the people, the doctrine of one nature in Christ, to which he was zealously attached. His adversaries, and especially Fcelix, the Roman pontiff, interpreted this addition in a quite different manner, and charged him with maintaining, that all the three persons of the Godhead were crucified and hence his followers were called Theopaschites. To put an end to the controversy, the emperor Zeno published in the year 482 the “Henoticon,” or decree of onion, which was designed to reconcile the parties, and Fullo signed it; but the effects of the contest disturbed the church for a long time after his death, which happened in the year 486.

, an accomplished scholar and Latin poet, was born at Verona, and not at Venice, as Foscarini asserts. He studied Greek and Latin with astonishing progress, under Romulus Amaseus, and the extensive learning he afterwards acquired made him known and respected by all the eminent scholars of his time. On the death pf one of his particular friends, John Matthew Giberti, bishop of Verona, which happened in 1544, he composed a funeral oration, which is said to have been very eloquent, but which he was not able to deliver without such continual interruption from the tears and sobs of his audience, as prevented its being heard with any other effect. At this time he enjoyed a canonry at Venice, which he kept all his life. Navagero and Valerio, the two successive bishops of Verona, and both cardinals, had the highest esteem for Fumani; by the interest of the former he was appointed secretary to the council of Trent. He died advanced in age in 1587. He published “D. Basilii Moralia, et Ascetica,” translated by him, Leyden, 1540, fol. but is best known by his Latin poems, the chief of which is a system of logic, in Latin verse, on which, notwithstanding the unpromising nature of the attempt, Tiraboschi bestows very high praises. This curious work remained in manuscript until 1739, when it was published in the Padua edition of the works of Fracastorius, 2 vols. 4to. There are other poems by Fumani in the same collection, both in Greek and Latin, and some in Italian; but in the latter he is not thought so successful.

, an eminent prelate, the descendant of a noble family in Westphalia, was born at Bilstein in 1626. He studied at Cologne, where he contracted an intimate friendship with Chigi, who was then nuncio, and afterwards pope. During the cardinalate of Chigi, he invited f urstemberg to reside with him, whom he raised to the bishopric of Paderborn in 1661, when he himself was seated in the papal chair, under the title of Alexander VII. The high reputation of the bishop attracted the notice of Vat) Galer:, who appointed him his, coadjutor, and whom he succeeded in 1678, when he. was declared by the pope apostolical vicar of all the north of Kurope. He was. a zealous catholic, and anxious for the conversion of those who were not already within the pale of the church; but at the same time he did not neglect the cultivation of the belles lettres, eitper by his own efforts or those of many learned men whom he patronized. He died in 1683, As an author he collected a number of Mss. and monuments of antiquity, and gave to the world valuable work relative to those subjects, entitled “Momimenta Paderbornensia.” He al*o printed at Rome a. collection of Latin poems, entitled “Septem Virorutn. illusirium Poemata.” In this work there were many poems of his own, written witU much purity. A magnificent edition of these poems was published in the same year in which he died, at the Louvre, at the expence of the king of France.

, one of those scholars who promoted the revival of literature, was a native of Verona, and a professor of Greek at Rome in the sixteenth century, but we have no dated particulars of his life. It is said he was eminent for his knowledge of the learned languages, and of philosophy and mathematics, and had even studied theology. He translated from Greek into Latin, the Commentaries of Theodoret bishop of Cyarus, on Daniel and Ezekiel, which translation was printed at Rome, 1563, fol. and was afterwards adopted by father Sirmond in his edition of Theodoret. He translated also the history of Scylitzes Curopalates, printed in 1570, along with the original, which is thought to be more complete than the Paris edition of 1648. About 1543 he published the first Latin translation of Sophocles, with scholia. Maflfei says that he also translated Zozimus, and the Hebrew Psalms, and translated into Greek the Gregorian Kalendar, with Santi’s tables, and an introductory epistle in Greek by himself. This was published at Home in 1583.

, an eminent musical writer, a native of Lodi, born Jan. 14, 1451, of obscure parents, was first intended for priest’s orders, but after studying music for two years under John Goodenach, a carmelite, he manifested so much genius for that science, that it was thought expedient to make it his profession. After learning the rudiments of music at Lodi, he went to Mantua, where he was patronized by the marquis Lodovico Gonzago; and where, during two years, he pursued his studies with unwearied assiduity night and day, and acquired great reputation, both in the speculative and practical part of his profession. From this city he went to Verona, where he read public lectures on music for two years more, and published several works; after which he removed to Genoa, whither he was invited by the doge Prospero; there he entered into priest’s orders. From Genoa he was invited to Milan by the duke and duchess Galeazzo, but they being soon after expelled that city, he returned to Naples, where Philip of Bologna, professor- royal, received him as his colleague; and he became so eminent in the theory of music, that he was thought superior to many celebrated and learned musicians, his contemporaries, with whom he now conversed and disputed. He there published his profound <“Treatise on the Theory of Harmony,” 1480 which was afterwards enlarged and re- published at Milan, 1492; but the plague raging in Naples, and that kingdom being likewise much incommoded by a war with the Turks, he retreated to Otranto, whence, after a short residence, he returned to Lodi, where he was protected and favoured by Pallavicino, the bishop, and opened a public school, in which, during three years, he formed many excellent scholars. He was offered great encouragement at Bergamo, if he would settle there; but the war being over, and the duke of Milan, his old patron, restored, he preferred the residence of that city to any others It was here that he composed and polished most of his works; that he was caressed by the first persons of his time for rank and learning; and that he read lectures by public authority to crowded audiences, for which he had a faculty granted him by the archbishop and chief magistrates of the city in 1483, which exalted him far above all his contemporaries; and how much he improved the science by his instructions, his lectures, and his writings, was testified by the approbation of the whole city; to which may be added the many disciples he formed, and the almost infinite number of volumes he wrote, among which several will live as long as music and the Latin tongue are understood. He likewise first collected, revised, commented, and translated into Latin the ancient Greek writers on music, Bacchius senior, Aristides, Quintilianus, Ptolemy’s Harmonics, and Manuel Briennius. The works which he published are, 1. “Theoricum Opus Harmonicae Disciplinse,” mentioned above, Neapolis, 1480, Milan, 1492. This was the first book on the subject of music that issued from the press after the invention of printing, if we except the “ Deftnitiones Term. Musicae,” of John Tinctor. 2. “Practica Musicse utriusque Cantus,” Milan, 1496; Brescia, 1497, 1502; and Venice, 1512. 3. “Angelicum ac Divinum Opus Musicae Materna Lingua Scrip.” Milan, 1508. 4. “De Harmonica Musicor. Instrumentorum,” Milan, 1518. This work, we are told by Pantaleoue Melegulo, his countryman and biographer, was written when Gaffurius was forty years of age; and though the subject is dark and difficult, it was absolutely necessary for understanding the ancient authors. With these abilities, however, Gaft'urius did not escape the superstitions of his time. He was not only addicted to astrology, but taught that art at Padua, in 1522. He was then seventy-one years of age, and is supposed to have died soon after, although Dr. Burney fixes his death two years before.

, an English clergyman and traveller, was descended from Robert Gage of Haling, in Surrey, third son of sir John Gage, of Firle, in Sussex, who died in 1557. He was the son of John Gage, of Haling, and his brother was sir Henry Gage, governor of Oxford, who was killed in battle at Culham-bridge,' Jan. 11, 1644. Of his early history we are only told that he studied in Spain, and became a Dominican monk. From thence he departed with a design to go to the Philippine islands, as a missionary, in 1625; but on his arrival at Mexico, he heard so bad an account of those islands, and became so delighted with New Spain, that he abandoned his original design, and contented him with a less dangerous mission. At length, being tired of this mode of life, and his request to return to England and preach the gospel among his countrymen being refused, he effected his escape, and arrived in London in 1637, after an absence of twentyfour years, in which he had quite lost the use of his native language. On examining into his domestic affairs, he found himself unnoticed in his father’s will, forgotten by some of his relations, and with difficulty acknowledged by others. After a little time, not being satisfied with respect to some religious doubts which had entered his mind while abroad, and disgusted with the great power of the papists, he resolved to take another journey to Italy, to “try what better satisfaction he could find for his conscience at Rome in that religion.” At Loretto his conversion from popery was fixed by proving the fallacy of the miracles attributed to the picture of our Lady there; on which he immediately returned home once more, and preached his recantation sermon at St. Paul’s, by order of the bishop of London. He continued above a year in. London, and when he saw that papists were entertained at Oxford and other parts of the kingdom attached to the royal cause, he adopted that of the parliament, and received a living from them, probably that of Deal, in Kent, in the register of which church is an entry of the burials of Mary daughter, and Mary the wife of “Thomas Gage, parson of Deale, March 21, 1652;” and in the title of his work he is styled “Preacher of the word of God at Deal.” We have not been able to discover when he died. His work is entitled “A new Survey of the West-Indies; or the English American his Travail by sea and land, containing a journal of 3300 miles within the main land of America. Wherein is set forth his voyage from Spain to St. John de Ulhua; and from thence to Xalappa, to Flaxcalla, the city of Angels, and forward to Mexico, &c. &c. &c.” The second edition, Lond. 1655, thin folio, with maps. The first edition, which we have not seen, bears date 1648. Mr. Southey, who has quoted much from this work in the notes on his poem of “Madoc,” says that Gage’s account of Mexico is copied verbatim from Nicholas’s “Conqueast of West-India,” which itself is a translation from Gomara. There is an Amsterdam edition of Gage, 1695, 2 vols. 12mo, in French, made by command of the French minister Colbert, by mons. de Beaulieu Hues O'Neil, which, however, was first published in 1676, at Paris. There are some retrenchments in this edition. Gage appears to be a faithful and accurate relator, but often credulous and superstitious. His recantation sermon was published at London, 1642, 4to; and in 165L he published “A duel between a Jesuite and a Dominican, begun at Paris, fought at Madrid, and ended at London,” 4to.

, a Latin poet of considerable note in the sixteenth century, was educated at Westminsterschool, from which he was elected to Oxford, in 1574, and took afterwards his degrees in arts at Christ-church, but in a few years preferring the study of the law, he took the degrees in that faculty also, in 1589. About this time his reputation had recommended him to Dr. Martin Heton, bishop of Ely, by whose interest, most probably, he was made chancellor of that diocese. Wood professes that he knows no more of him, unless that he was living in 1610; but by the assistance of the Ely registers, we are enabled to pursue him a little farther. By them it appears that in 1601, being then LL. D. he acted as surrogate to Dr. Swale, vicar-general of Ely, and in 1608 he was delegate and commissary to archbishop Bancroft, in the diocese of Ely; and in 1609 he was custos of the spiritualities in the vacancy of the see. In the years 1613, 1616, and 161S, he was, vicar-general and official principal to Lancelot Andrews, bishop of Ely; and in 1619 he acted as deputy for the archdeacon of Canterbury, at the installation of bishop Felton, in the cathedral of Ely. When he died we have not been able to discover.

, an eminent orientalist, was a native of Paris, where he was educated; and, applying himself to study the eastern languages, became a great master in the Hebrew and Arabic. He was trained up in the Roman Catholic religion, and taking orders, was made a canon regular of the abbey of St. Genevieve, but becoming dissatisfied with his religion, and marrying after he had left his convent, he was upon that account obliged to quit his native country, came to England, and embraced the faith and doctrine of that church in the beginning of the eighteenth century. He was well received here, and met with many friends, who gave him handsome encouragement, particularly archbishop Sharp, and the lord chancellor' Macclesfield, to which last he dedicated his edition of Abulfeda. He had a master of arts degree conferred upon him at Cambridge; and going thence to Oxford, for the sake of prosecuting his studies in the Bodleian library, he was admitted to the same degree in that university, where he supported himself by teaching Hebrew. He had previously been made chaplain to Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Worcester, whom he accompanied to Oxford.

In 1717 he was appointed to read the Arabic lecture at' Oxford, in the absence of the professor Wallis. In 1718 appeared his “Vindiciae Kircherianae, seu defensio concordantiarum Graecarum Conradi Kircheri, adversus Abr. Trommii animadversiones;” and in 1723, he published Abulfeda’s “Life of Mohammed,” in Arabic, with a Latin translation and notes, at Oxford, in folio. He also prepared for the press the same Arabic author’s Geography, and printed proposals for a subscription, but the attempt proved abortive, for want of encouragement. Eighteen sheets were printed, and the remainder, which was imperfect, was purchased of his widow by Dr. Hunt. It is said that he wrote a life of Mahommed, in French, published at Amsterdam, in 1730, in vols. 12mo. But this wa.s probably a translation of the former life, Gagnier had before this inserted Graves’s Latin translation of AbulfedaY description of Arabia, together with the original, in the third volume of Hudson’s “Geographiae veteris scriptores Grseci minores,” in 1712, 8vo, and had translated from the Arabic, Rhases on the Small-pox, at the request of Dr. Mead. He died March 2, 1740. By his wife he left a son, Thomas, or as in the Oxford graduates, John Gagnier, who was educated at Wadham-college, Oxford, and commenced M. A. July 2, 1743. Entering into holy orders, he was preferred by bishop Clavering to the rectory of Marsh-Gibbon, in Buckinghamshire, and afterwards obtained that of Stranton, near Hartlepool, in the. bishopric of Durham, where he was living in 1766, but the historian of Durham having concluded his list of vicars with Mr. Gagnier at the year of his induction, in 1745, we are not able to ascertain the time of his death. Preceding accounts of his father mention his being chosen Arabic professor in room of Dr. Wallis, which never was the case. Dr. Hunt was successor to Wallis.

, bishop of Apt from 1673 to 1695, in which year he died, is chiefly memorable for having first projected a great and universal “Historical Dictionary,” in the execution of which work he employed and patronized Moreri, who was his almoner. Towards the perfecting of this undertaking, he had researches made in all the principal libraries of Europe, but particularly in the Vatican. Moreri, in dedicating his firsi edition to his patron, pays him the highest encomiums, which he is said to have -very thoroughly deserved, by his love for the arts, and still more by his virtues.

In his person, Dr. Gale was rather taller than the conru mon size, and of an open pleasant countenance; in his temper, of an easy and affable behaviour, serious without any tincture of moroseness. In his manners and morals, chearful without levity, having a most perfect command over his passions. He was greatly esteemed by, and lived in friendship with, Bradford bishop of Rochester, Hoadly bishop of Bangor, and the lord chancellor King. After his death a collection of his sermons were printed by subscription; the second edition whereof was published 1726, in 4 vols. 8vo, to which is prefixed an account of his life. It appears from some passages in his funeral sermon, that he was married, and had a family, left in great want. A contribution, however, was raised, which enabled his widow to set up a coffee-house in Finch-lane for the maintenance of her children. What became of them afterwards we are not told. Of Dr. Gale’s principal performance it may be said, that, as Wall’s “History of Infant Baptism” is the best vindication of this doctrine, so the answer of Gale is the best defence of the baptists; which, as the subject had been handled by very great men before, is all ample commendation of both parties.

, a learned divine among the nonconformists, was born in 1628, at King’s-Teignton in Devonshire, where his father, Dr. Theophilus Gale, was then vicar, with which he likewise held a prebend in the church of Exeter. Being descended of a very good family in the West of England, his education was begun under a private preceptor, in his father’s house, and he was then sent to a school in the neighbourhood, where he made a great proficiency in classical learning, and was removed to Oxford in 1647. He was entered a commoner in Magdalen college, a little after that city, with the university, had been surrendered to the parliament; and their visitors in the general reformation (as they called it) of the university, had put Dr. Wilkinson into the presidentship of Magdalen college, who took particular notice of young Gale, and procured him to be appointed a demy of his college in 1648. But the current of kindness to him was far from stopping here; he was recommended to the degree of bachelor of arts Dec. 1649, by the commissioners, long before the time appointed for taking that degree by the statutes of the university, viz. four years after admission. Of this departure from the usual term of granting a degree they were so sensible, that care was taken by them to have a particular reason set forth, for conferring it so early upon him; expressing, that he was fully ripe for that honour, both in respect of his age. and the excellence of his abilities. It was probably owing to the countenance of the same patrons that he was chosen fellow of his college in 1650, in preference to many of his seniors, who were set aside to make room for him. It is acknowledged, however, that he deserved those distinctions. He took the degree of M. A. June 18, 1652, and being encouraged to take pupils, soon became an eminent tutor, and had, among other pupils, Ezekiel Hopkins, afterwards bishop of Raphoe, in Ireland.

, a pious bishop among the Moravian brethren, was born near Haverford Wes in SouthWales, and became a member of Christ- church, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. May 30, 1734; and was afterwards vicar of Stanton Harcourt, in Oxfordshire, to which he was presented by Dr. Seeker, when bishop of Oxford. At this place, in 1740, he wrote “The Martyrdom of Ignatius, a Tragedy,” published after his death by the rev. Benjamin La Trobe with the Life of Ignatius, drawn from authentic accounts, and from the epistles written by him from Smyrna and Troas in his way to Rome, 1773, 8vo. A sermon, which he preached before the university of Oxford, was published under the title of “Christianity, Tidings of Joy,” 1741, 8vo. In 1742 he published at Oxford, from the university-press, a neat edition of the Greek Testament, but without his name, “Textu per omnia Milliano, cum divisione pericoparum & interpunctura A. Bengelii,” 12mo. Joining afterwards the Church of the Brethren, established by an act of parliament of 1749, and known by the name of “Unitas Fratrum,” or, the United Brethren; he was, for many years, the regular minister of the congregation settled at London, and resided in Neville’s-court, Fetter-lane, where he preached at the chapel of the society. His connexion with these sectaries commenced in 1748, when Peter Boehler visited Oxford, and held frequent meetings with John and Charles Wesley, for the edification of awakened people, both learned and unlearned. His discourses were in Latin, and were interpreted by Mr. Gambold. He was consecrated a bishop at an English provincial synod held at Lindsey house in Nov. 1754, and was greatly esteemed for his piety and learning by several English bishops, who had been his contemporaries in the university of Oxford. In 1765 a congregation was settled by bishop Gatnbold, at Cootbill, in Ireland. Soon after he had joined the brethren, he published a treatise, written while he was at Stariton Haiv.ourt, and which proves his steady attachment to the church of England, entirely consistent with his connexion with, and ministry in, the church of the brethren. The title of it is, “A short summary of Christian Doctrine, in the w.iy ol question and answer; the answers being all made in the sound and venerable words of the Common-? prayer-book of the church of England. To which are added, some extracts out of the Homilies. Collected for the service of a few persons, members of the established church i but imagined not to be unuseful to others.” We know not the exact date of this treatise; but a second edition of it was printed in 1767, 12mo. Mr. Gam-bold also published in 1751, 8vo, “Maxims and Theological Ideas and Sentences, collected out of several dissertations and discourses of count Zinzendorf, from 1738 till 1747*” His “Hymns for the use of the Brethren” were printed in 174-8, 1749, and 1752; Some Hymns, and a small hymnbook for the children belonging to the brethren’s congregations, were printed entirely by Mr. Gambold’s own hand in Lindsey house at Chelsea. A letter from Mr. Gambold to Mr. Spangenberg, June 4, 1750, containing a concise and well-written character of the count of Zinzendorf, was inserted in Mr. James Mutton’s “Essay towards giving some just ideas of the personal character of count Zinzendorf, the present advocate and ordinary of the brethren’s churches,” 1755, 8vo. In 1752 he was editor of “Sixteen Discourses on the Second Article of the Creed, preached at Berlin by the ordinary of the Brethren,” 12mo. In June 1753 appeared “The ordinary oi' the Brethren’s churches his short and peremptory remarks on the way and manner wherein he has been hitherto treated in controversies, &c. Translated from the High Dutch, with a preface, by John Gambold, minister of the chapel in Fetterlane.” In the same year he published, “Twenty-one discourses, or dissertations, upon the Augsburg Confession, which is also the Brethren’s Confession of Faith; delivered by the ordinary of the Brethren’s churches before the seminary. To which is prefixed a synodical writing relating to the subject. Translated from fche High Dutch, by F. Okeley, A. B.” In 1754 he was editor of “A clest Plea for the Church of the Brethren,” &c. 8vo with a preface hy himself. In the same year, in conjunction with Mr. Hutton, secretary to the brethren, he also drew up 4< The representation of the committee of the English congregation in union with the Moravian church,“addressed to the archbishop of York; and also” The plain case of the representatives of the people known by the name f the Unitas Fratrum, from the year 1727 till these times, with regard to their conduct in this country under misrepresentation.“And in 1755 he assisted in the publication of” A letter from a minister of the Moravian branch of the Unitas Fratrum, together with some additional notes by the English editor, to the author of the Moravians compared and detected;“and also of” An exposition, or true state of the matters objected in England to the people known by the name of Unitas Fratrutn; by the ordinary of the brethren; the notes and additions by the editor.“In 1756 he preached at Fetter-lane chapel, and printed afterwards, a sermon upon a public fast and humiliation, setting forth” the reasonableness and extent of religious reverence.“He was not only a good scholar, but a man of great parts, and of singular mechanical ingenuity. It was. late in both their lives before the learned Bowyer was acquainted with his merits; but he no sooner knew them, than he was happy in his acquaintance, and very frequently applied to him as an occasional assistant in correcting the press; in which capacity Mr. Gambold superintended (among many other valuable publications) the beautiful and very accurate edition of lord chancellor Bacon’s works in 1765; and in 1767 he was professedly the editor, and took an active part in the translation from the High Dutch, of” The History of Greenland;“containing a” description of the country and its inhabitants; and particularly a relation of the mission carried on for above these thirty years by the Unitas Fratrum at New Herrnhut and Lichtenfels in that country, by David Crantz; illustrated with maps and other copper-plates: printed for the brethren’s society for the furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen," 2 vols. 8vo. In the autumn of 1768 he retired to his native country, where he died, at Haverford West, universally respected, Sept. 13, 1771.

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

During his residence at Rome, he had among other things obtained some favours at that court for bishop Nix of Norwich, who on his return rewarded him with the archdeaconry of Norfolk, in 1529; and this probably was the first preferment he obtained in the church. In truth, it must be owned that his merit as a divine did not entitle him to any extraordinary expectations that way, but as he made his first entrance into business in a civil capacity, so he continued to exercise and improve his talents in state affairs, which, gave him an opportunity of rendering himself useful, and in a manner necessary to the king; who soon after his arrival, took him from Wolsey, and declared him secretary of state. Thus introduced into the ministry at home, besides the ordinary business of his office, and the large share he is said to have had in the administration of affairs in general, he was particularly advised with by the king in that point which lay nearest to his heart; and when cardinal Campejus declared that the cause of the divorce was evoked to Rome, Gardiner, in conjunction with Fox the almoner, found out Cranmer, and discovering his opinion, introduced him to his majesty, whom they thus enabled to extricate himself out of a difficulty then considered as insuperable.

As this step proved the ruin of Wolsey, in his distress he applied to his old servant the secretary, who on this occasion is said by the writer of his life in the Biog. Britannica, to have afforded an eminent proof of his gratitude, in soliciting his pardon; which was followed in three days by his restoration to his archbishopric, and 6000l. sent him, besides plate and furniture for his house and chapel. It is certain, however, that Gardiner did not interpose before Wolsey had supplicated him more than once in the most humble manner, to intercede for him, and it is equally certain that Gardiner did not risk much in applying to the king, who for some time entertained a considerable regard for the fallen Wolsey. Gardiner also, at the cardinal’s recommendation, in 1530, introduced the provost of Beverly to the king, who received him graciously, and shewed him that he was his good and gracious lord, and admitted and accepted him as his orator and scholar. These were matters of easy management. But the year had not expired, when the king’s service called the secretary to a task of another nature, which was to procure from the university of Cambridge their declaration in favour of his majesty’s cause, after Cranmer’s book should appear in support of it. In this most difficult point his old colleague Fox was joined with him; and they spared no pains, address, or artifice in accomplishing it. To make amends for such an unreserved compliance with the royal will, a door was presently opened in the church, through which, by one single step (the archdeaconry of Leicester, into which he was installed in the spring of 1531), Gardiner advanced to the rich see of Winchester, and was there consecrated the November following. Gardiner was not, at the time, apprized of the king’s design of conferring on him this rich bishopric; for Henry, in his caprice, would sometimes rate him soundly, and when he bestowed it on him said, “I have often squared with you, Gardiner, but I love you never the worse, as the bishopric I give you will convince you.” As bishop of Winchester he now assisted in the court when the sentence, declaring Katharine’s marriage null and void, was passed by Cranmer, May 22, 1533. The same year he went ambassador to the French king at Marseilles, to discover the designs of the pope and that monarch in their interview, of which Henry was very suspicious; and upon his return home, being called, as other bishops were, to acknowledge and defend the king’s supremacy, he readily complied, and published his defence for it, with this title, “De vera Obedientia.” His conduct was very uniform in this point, as well as in that of the divorce and the subsequent marriage, and he acquired great reputation by his writings in defence of them.

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

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

After his discharge he went to his diocese;and,- though he opposed, as much as possible, the uew establishment in its first proposal, yet now it was settled by act of parliament, he knew how to conform; which he not 'only did himself, but took care that others should do the same. Yet he no sooner returned to town than he received an order, which brought him again before the council; where, after some rough treatment, he was directed not to stir from his house till he went to give satisfaction in a sermon, to be preached before the king and court in zt public audience; for the matter of which he was directed both what, he should, and what he should not say, by sir William Cecil. He did not refuse to preach, which was done on St. Peter’s day but so contrarily to the purpose required , that he was sent to the Tower the next clay, June 3O, 1548, where he was kept close prisoner for a year. But his affairs soon after put on a more pleasing countenance. When the protector’s fall was projected, Gardiner was deemed a necessary implement for the purpose; his head and hand were both employed for bringing it about, and the original draught of the articles was made by him. Upon this change in the council he had such assurances of his liberty, aid entertained so great hopes of it, that it is said he provided a new suit of clothes in order to keep that festival; but in all this he was disappointed: his first application for a discharge was treated with contempt by the council, who laughing said, “the bishop had a pleasant head;” for reward of which, they gave him leave to remain five or six weeks longer in prison, without any notice taken to him of his message. Nor did the lords shew any regard to his next address: and he had been almost two years in the Tower, when the protector, restored to that high office, went with others by virtue of an order of council, June 9, 1550, to confer with him in that place. In this conference they proposed to release him upon his submission for what was past, and promise of obedience for the future, if he would also subscribe the new settlement in religion, with the king’s complete power and supremacy, though under age; and the abrogation of the six articles. He consented to, and actually subscribed, all the conditions except the first, which he refused, insisting on his innocence. The lords used him with great kindness, and encouraged him to hope his troubles should be quickly ended, and upon this, seeing also the protector among them, he flattered himself with the hopes of being released in two days, and in that confidence actually made his farewell feast But the contempt he had at first shewn to the council, being still avowed by his refusing to make a submission. now, was not so readily overlooked. On the contrary, this first visit was followed by several others of the like tenor; which meeting with the same refusal, at length the lords Herbert, Petre, and bishop Ridley, brought him new articles, in which the required acknowledgement, being made more general, runs thus: “That he had been suspected of not approving the king’s proceedings, and being appointed to preach, had not done it as he ought to have done, and so deserved the king’s displeasure, for which he was sorry;” and the other articles being enlarged were, “besides the king’s supremacy, the suppression of abbies and chanteries, pilgrimages, masses, and images, adoring the sacrament, communion in both kinds, abolishing the old books, and bringing in the new book of service, with that for ordaining priests and bishops, the completeness of the scripture, and the use of it in the vulgar tongue, the lawfulness of clergymen’s marriage, and for Erasmus’s Paraphrase, that it had been on good considerations ordered to be set up in churches.” These being read, foe insisted first co be released from his imprisonment, and said that he would then freely give his answer, such as he would stand by, and suffer if he did amiss; but he vvoukl trouble himself with no more articles while he was detained in prison, since he desired not to be delivered out of his imprisonment in the way of mercy, but of justice. On July ly, he was brought before the council, who having told him that they sat by a special commission to judge him, asked whether he would subscribe these last articles or no? which he answering in the negative, his bishopric was sequestered, and he required to conform in three months on pain of deprivation. Upon this the liberty he had before of walking in some open galleries, when the duke of Norfolk was not in them, was taken from him, and he was again shut up in his chamber. At the expiration of the limited time, the bishop still keeping his resolution, was deprived for disobedience and contempt, by a court of delegates, in which Cranmer presided, after a trial which lasted from Dec. 15 to Feb. 14 following, in twenty-four sessions. He appealed from the delegates to the king; but no notice was taken of it, the court being known to be final and unappealable.

Gardiner, says an excellent modern biographer, was one of those motley ministers, half statesman and half ecclesiastic, which were common in those needy times, when the revenues of the church were necessary to support the servants of the crown. It was an inviduous support; and often fastened the odium of an indecorum on the king’s ministers; who had, as ministers always have, opposition enough to parry in the common course of business; and it^is very probable that Gardiner, on this very ground, has met with harder measure in history, than he might otherwise have done. He is represented as having nothing of a churchman about him but the name of a bishop. He had been bred to business from his earliest youth; and was thoroughly versed in all the wiles of men, considered either as individuals, or embodied in parties. He knew all the modes of access to every foible of the human heart; his own in the mean time was dark, and impenetrable. He was a man, “who,” as Lloyd quaintly says, “was to be traced like the fox; and, like the Hebrew, was to be read backwards;” and though the insidious cast of his eye indicated, that he was always lying in wait, yet his strong sense, and persuasive manner, inclined men to believe he was always sincere; as better reasons could hardly be given, than he had ready on every occasion. He was as little troubled with scruples as any man, who thought it not proper entirely to throw off decency. What moral virtues, and what natural feelings he had, were all under the influence of ambition; and were accompanied by a happy lubricity of conscience, which ran glibly over every obstacle. Such is the portrait, which historians have given us of this man; and though the colouring may be more heightened in some than in others; yet the same turn of feature is found in all.

, an English divine, was born at Bury St. Edmund’s, May 1, 1753, and was the only surviving child of the rev. Robert G. many years master of the free grammar-school at Bury, and rector of Nowton and Hargrave, in Suffolk . His mother was Mary, daughter of Mr. Benton, and sister of the late Edward Benton, esq. secondary in the court of king’s-bench. He was educated partly by his father, who supported a considerable reputation for classical learning, and partly at Bury school, whence he was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1770, and the following year was elected scholar. In 1774 he was admitted to his degree of B. A. which he obtained with credit to his college and himself; and was elected fellow in 1775, and proceeded M. A. in 1777. In 1793 he was elected college preacher, and in November 1797, was advanced into the seniority. He was ordained deacon March 3, 1776, and afterwards entered on the curacies of Newton and Great Welivatham, in the neighbourhood of Bury. On June 15, 1777, he was ordained priest, but having imbibed some scruples as to the articles of the church, of the Socinian cast, he determined sever to repeat his subscription to the articles for any preferment which he might become entitled to from the college patronage, or which might be offered to him from any other quarter. Agreeably to, and consistently with, this state of mind, be resigned, at Midsummer, 1789, the curacies in which he was then engaged, and resolved thenceforward to decline officiating in the ministry. Mr. Garnham’s health was never robust, and, during the last five or six years of his life, suffered much from sickness, which prevented his residing at Cambridge after the death of his father, in 1798, and indisposed and disqualified him from pursuing his former application to his studies. His indisposition and infirmities continued to increase; and, in the summer of 1801, he evidently appeared to be much broken. For some short time he had complained of an asthma; and, on the Saturday preceding his death, was attacked with an inflammation on the lungs and breast. He continued till the morning of the following Thursday, June 24, 1802, when he expired in the- 50th year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of Nowtoa church. His writings were numerous, but all anonymous. 1. “Examination of Mr. Harrison’s Sermon, preached in the cathedral church of St. Pawl, London, before the lord mayor, on May 25, 1788, 1789.” 2. “Letter to the right rev. the bishop of Norwich (Dr. Bagot), requesting him to name the prelate to whom he referred as * contending strenuously for the general excellence of our present authorized translation of the Bible,' 1789.” 3. “Letter to the right rev. the bishop of Chester (Dr. Cleave*), on the subject of two sermons addressed by him to the clergy of his diocese comprehending also a vindication of the late bishop Hoadly, 1790.” 4. “Review of Dr. Hay’s sermon, entitled, t Thoughts on the Athanasian Creed,' preached April 12, 1790, at the visitation of the archdeacon of Bucks,” 1790. 5. “Outline of a Commentary on Revelations xi. 114,” 1794. 6. “A Sermon preached in the chapel of Trinity-college, Cambridge, on Thursday, Dec. 19, 1793, the day appointed for the commemoration of the benefactors to that society,” 1794. He wrote also the papers in “Commentaries and Essays” signed Synergus: and some in “The Theological Repository,” signed Ereunetes, and Idiota.

A pamphlet of uncommon rarity has lately been brought to light, after a concealment of nearly a century. Bishop Tanner is the first who notices this pamphlet, under the title of “A Remembrance of the well-employed life and godly end of George Gascoigne, esq. who deceased at Stamford in Lincolnshire, 7th October, 1577, reported by George Whetstone.” But it is very extraordinary that the learned prelate should inform us of this pamphlet being in his possession, and at the same time express his doubt whether it was the life of this, or of another George Gascoigne, when a very slight inspection must have convinced him that it could be no other, and that, in its principal ftcts, it agreed with the account he had just transcribed from Wood. Since the antiquities of poetry have become a favourite study, many painful inquiries have been made after this tract, but it could not be found in Tanner’s library, which forms part of the Bodleian, or in any other collection, private or public, and doubts began to be entertained whether such a pamphlet had ever existed. About six or seven years ago, however, it was discovered in the collection of a deceased gentleman, a Mr. Voight of the Custom-house, London, and was purchased at his ale by Mr. Malone. It consists of about thirteen pages small quarto, black letter, and contains certainly not much life, but some particulars unknown to his biographers. A transcript of the whole is given in the late edition of the English Poets.

In July 1403, he was joined in a commission with Ralph Nevil, earl of Westmoreland, and others, to issue their power and authority, for levying forces in Yorkshire and Northumberland, against the insurrection of Henry Percy, earl of that county, in favour of Richard II. and, after that earl had submitted, was nominated April 1405, in another commission to treat with his rebellious abettors, a proclamation to the purpose being issued next day by the king at Pontefract. These were legal trusts, which he executed from a principle of gratitude and loyalty, with spirit and steadiness. But, on the taking of archbishop Scroop in arms the same year, when the king required him to pass sentence upon that prelate as a traitor, in his manor-house at Bishopthorp near York, no prospect of fear or favour was able to corrupt him to any such violation of the subjects’ rights, or infringement of those laws, which suffered no religious person to be brought to a secular or lay trial, unless he were a heretic, and first degraded by the church. He therefore refused to obey the royal command, and said to his majesty: “Neither you, my lord the king, nor any liege subject of yours in your name, can legally, according to the rights of the kingdom, adjudge any bishop to death.” Henry was highly displeased at this instance of his intrepidity; but his anger must have been short, if, as Fuller tells us, Gascoigne had the honour of knighthood conferred on him the same year. However that be, it is certain, the king was fully satisfied with his fidelity and circumspection in treating with the rebels; and on that account joined him again in a commission as before, dated at Pontefract- castle, April 25, 1408.

, a French divine of the eighteenth century, descended from a family of distinction, was born at Aix, in Provence, and being at an early age admitted into orders, officiated for some years as priest in the parish church of St. Paul. Among his theological publications is “A Collection, of Homilies on the Epistles to the Romans,” in two volumes, 12mo, with a delineation of the character of St. Paul prefixed. But on the death of his elder brother, a celebrated advocate in the parliament of Provence, he retired into the country, studied law, and being admitted an advocate, practised with uncommon success. The interests of the poor he advocated without hope of reward; and in 1717 he gained a famous cause against the Jesuits, of whom he was an active opponent. Not contented with pleading professionally against them, he attacked them by means of the press, and wrote a piece entitled “The Jesuits unmasked.” He published some treatises against the bishop of Marseilles, who procured him to be banished twice to Viviers, where he died in 1731, and on account of his reputed heresy he was denied the rites of Christian burial.

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

He now engaged in a very remarkable contest with the archbishop of Canterbury, about the degrees granted in virtue of his metropolitical power. The occasion was this: The presentation to the place of warden of the collegiate church of Manchester in Lancashire falling to the crown, George I. nominated Mr. Samuel Peploe, vicar of Preston, in the same county. But that gentleman, being then only M, A. found himself obliged by the charter of the college, to take the degree of B. D. as a necessary qualification to hold the wardenship. To that end, having been bred at Oxford, where he had taken his former degrees, he went thither in order to obtain this; and had actually prepared the best part of his exercise for that purpose, when he was called to Lambeth, and there created B. D. by the archbishop, who thought the university ought, in respect to the royal nomination, to dispense with the usual exercise. With this title, he applied to bishop Gastrell, in whose diocese the church of Manchester lies, for institution. But the bishop, being persuaded that his degree was not a sufficient qualification in this case, refused to admit him; and observed to him, that being in all respects qualified to take his degree regularly in the university, he might proceed that way without any danger of being denied; that, however, if he desired any favour usually indulged to other persons, he would endeavour to obtain it for him, and did not doubt but the university would grant it. On the other hand, Mr. Peploe insisted on his qualification by the archbishop, and had recourse to the court of king’sbench, where sentence was given in his favour. On this, bishop Gastrell, in his own vindication, published “The bishop of Chester’s Case, with relation to the Wardenship of Manchester. In which is shewn, that no other degrees but such as are taken in the university, can be deemed legal qualifications for any ecclesiastical preferment in England.” This was printed at Oxford; and that university, March 22, 1720, decreed in a full convocation, that solemn thanks should be returned to the bishop, for having so fully asserted the rights, privileges, and dignities, belonging to the university degrees in this book. This was attempted to be answered in a pamphlet entitled “Considerations, &c.” proving that bishop Gastrell’s pamphlet “is injurious, 1. to the prerogative royal of the imperial crown of England; 2. to the prerogatives, powers, and privileges, of the archbishops of Canterbury; and 3. to the legal rights, privileges, and liberties of the reverend presbyters of the church of England; wherein it is plainly proved, that ther Universities have not the sole power of granting degrees.” It is somewhat remarkable, that this Mr. Peploe succeeded him in the bishopric of Chester.

This affair was scarcely concluded, when the prosecution commenced against Atterbury, bishop of Rochester. Bishop Gastrell never liked the haughty temper of that prelate, and had always opposed his arbitrary attempts while dean of Christ Church; yet, being satisfied in his conscience, that the proceedings in parliament against him were pushed on with too much violence, he opposed them with great resolution; and when the bill for inflicting pains and penalties upon Atterbury was before the house of lords, he spoke againstit with earnestness and warmth, not sparing to censure the rest of his brethren the bishops, who all concurred with the bill.

He survived the bishop of Rochester’s banishment but a few years. The gout, with which he had been much afflicted in the latter part of his life, put a period to it, Nov. 24, 1725. He died at his canon’s lodgings in Christ Church, and was buried in that cathedral without any monument: but, as Dr. Willis observes, he left a sufficient monument of himself in his writings, and his virtues are far from being yet forgotten. His widow died in 1761, and his daughter, married to the Rev. Dr. Bromley, in 1768. Besides the pieces already mentioned, he published “A moral proof of a Future State,” in 8vo, which being printed without his name, gave occasion to ascribe some other pieces of a similar nature to him, but without any certainty.

, a very learned English divine aud critic, descended from a family of that name at Gatacre-hall, in Shropshire, was born Sept. 4j 1574, in the parsonage-house of St. Edmund the King, in Lombardstreet, London, where his father, an eminent Puritan divine (who died in 1593) was then minister. At sixteen years of age he was sent to St. John’s college in Cambridge; where, in due time, he took both the degrees in arts. He was greatly distinguished by his abilities, learning, and piety; insomuch that the foundation of Sidney college being laid about this time, he was, by archbishop Whitgift, and Dr. Goodman dean of Westminster, the trustees of that foundation, appointed a fellow of that society, even before the building was finished. In the mean while he went into Essex, as tutor to the eldest son of Mr. (afterwards sir) William Ayloff, of Berksted, who himself learned Hebrew of him at the same time. During his residence here, he usually expounded a portion of scripture to the family every morning; in this task, after rendering the text into English from the original language, he explained the sense of it, and concluded with some useful observations. In the space of two years he went through all the prophets in the Old Testament, and all the apostolical epistles in the New. Dr. Stern, then suffragan bishop of Colchester, being nearly related to the mistress of the family, happened in a visit to be present at one of these performances; and, being struck with admiration, instantly exhorted the expounder to enter into the priesthood; and Mr. Gataker was ordained by that suffragan.

This step was conformable to the statutes of his new college; and as soon as the building was finished, about 1599, he settled there, and became an eminent tutor. At the same time he engaged with Mr. William Bedell, afterwards bishop of Kilmore, in a design, then set on foot, of preaching in such places adjacent to the university as were destitute of ministers. In performing this engagement he preached every Sunday at Everton, a village upon the borders of Cambridge, Bedford, and Huntingdonshires; the vicar of which parish was said to be one hundred and thirty years old. He had not executed this charitable office above six months, when he went to London, and resided as chaplain in the family of sir William Cook, at Charing-cross, to whose lady he was nearly related. This situation made him known to several persons of fashion and fortune, and, among others, to some principal members of Lincoln’s-inn; of which society he was chosen preacher, about 1601. He thought it his duty to reside there during term-time, when he was obliged to attend the chapel; but in the vacations he went down to sir William Cook’s in Northamptonshire, and constantly preached there, either in their private chapel or in the parish-church, without any salary, but afterwards sir William settled on him an annuity of 20l. a year. In 1603 he commenced B. D. and was afterwards often solicited to proceed to doctor; but he declined it. He did not at all approve of pluralities; and upon that principle refused a considerable benefice in Kent, which was offered him by sir William Sedley, while he held the preachership at Lincoln’s-inn. Having married in 1611, he quitted that place for the rectory of Rotherhithe in Surrey: yet yielded to the acceptance of this living, only in the view of keeping it out of the hands of a very unworthy person.

In 1616 and 1617, he wrote two letters to archbishop Usher, concerning some curious Mss. of the famous Robert Grosthead, bishop of Lincoln, and others. It is true, that some mistakes in those letters are corrected by his correspondent, who, however, thought the whole very worthy of his notice; and they are mentioned here chiefly, as they shew at once his own modesty and erudition, as well as the esteem which Usher had for him. All this, however, he possessed in private, his modesty being yet unconquerable by any solicitations to commit any thing to the press; but this backwardness was at length subdued.

3. “The Papists’ bait; or their usual method in gaining proselytes answered,” London, 1674, 4to. To which is added a Letter of the Lord Viscount Falkland to the same gentleman. 4. “Examination of the case of the Quakers concerning Oaths, propounded by them, ann. f673, to the consideration of the king and both houses of parliament,” c. London, 1675, 4to. 5. “Ichnographia doctrinae de Justificationesecundum typum in monte,” London, 1681, 4to. Our author wrote likewise some animadversions on Mr. Bull’s “Harmonia Apostolica,” which Mr. Gataker, concealing his name, communicated to several bishops, stirring them up by letter to make use of their authority against the doctrines maintained by Mr. Bull, as pernicious and heretical, and contrary to the decrees of the Church of England, andof all other reformed churches. These “Animadversions,” which are commonly cited by Mr. Bull under the name of Censura, were communicated to him in 1670 by Dr. Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester; angl in 1671 they were discovered to Mr. Bull to have been written by Mr. Charles Gataker, who in these “Animadversions,” endeavours to reconcile St. Paul with St. James by the distinction of a twofold Justification, as respecting a twofold accusation, according to the different conditions of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. For he maintains, that we are accused before God, either as sinners or as unbelievers; and that we are justified against the first accusation by faith alone, laying hold on the grace and righteousness of Christ; and against the second by works, and not by faith only, as these are the signs and evidences of our being true believers. Mr. Nelson observes, that Mr. “Gataker” appears to have been a person of great violence in his temper, but one well-intentioned, and a very zealous protestant; and had he had but more coolness of thought, and had he withal read more of the ancients, and fewer of the moderns, he would have made no inconsiderable writer.“Mr. Bull wrote an answer to these” Animadversions,“which he entitled” Examen Censurae," in which he reflects severely on Mr. Charles Gataker for publishing his father’s posthumous tract abovementioned, since he had not thereby consulted the reputation of a parent, who by his great critical knowledge and other learning had made himself more considerable, than to deserve that such crudities should be published under his name, at least by a son.

In 1659, as soon as the first dawn of the restoration began to shew itself, the doctor printed “itf<* Jaxpwa, Ecclesiae Anglicanae suspiria;” “The tears, sighs, complaints, and prayers of the Church of England, setting forth her former constitution, compared with her present condition, also th visible causes and probable cures of her distemper,” in four books, folio. The same year, upon the death of bishop Brownrigg in 1659, whose funeral sermon he preached and published, with his life, he succeeded him as preacher to the Temple; and upon the return of Charles II. he succeeded the same bishop in the see of Exeter, Nov. 1660, having been made king’s chaplain before. The value of a bishopric was greatly enhanced at this time, by the long intermission that had happened in renewing the leases of their estates, during the abolition of episcopacy. In this view, the nomination to Exeter might be looked upon as a present from his majesty of 20,000l. since the bishop received that sum in fines on the renewal of leases.

He adhered, however, closely to the court, and in compliance with the measures which were then pursued, drew up a declaration for liberty of conscience extending to papists, of which a few copies were printed off, though presently called in; he was about the same time employed to draw up 'another declaration of indulgence to the quakers, by an exemption from all oaths. He also wrote, “Considerations touching the Liturgy of the Church of England, in reference to his Majesty’s late Declaration, and in order to a happy union in church and state,” 1660. He then obtained a removal to the see of Worcester, to which he was elected May 23, 1662. But with this promotion he was so far from being satisfied, that he looked upon it as an injury; he had, it seems, applied to the king for the rich bishopric of Winchester, and flattered himself with the hopes of a translation thither; and the regret and vexation at the disappointment is thought to have hastened his end, for he died on September 2O, that year. After his death, his widow, being left with five children, in consideration of the short time he had enjoyed Worcester, and the charge of removing from Exeter, petitioned the king for the half year’s profits of the last bishopric; but her petition was rejected as unreasonable, on account of his large revenues and profits at his first coming to Exeter. As to his character, it is certain he was an ambitious man; which, as is usually the case, occasioned the moral part to be severely sifted; and in this respect the behaviour of his relict, though otherwise intended, was far from being of service to his memory. In a letter to one of her sons, after the bishop’s death, she calls the Emov B<Wixj*J, “The Jewel;” said her husband had hoped to make a fortune by it; and that she had a letter of a very great man’s, which would clear up that he wrote it. This assertion, as Clarendon had predicted, was eagerly espoused by the anti-royalists, in order to disparage Charles I. This, on the other hand, kindling the indignation of those who thought his majesty greatly injured, they took every opportunity to expose the dark side of the bishop’s character; and represented him as an inconstant, ambiguous, and lukewarm man, covetous of preferment, hasty and impatient in the pursuit of it, and deeply tinctured with folly and vanity; upon the whole, an unhappy blemish and reproach of the sacred order. Nor is bishop Kennet’s censure less severe, though conveyed in a somewhat less intemperate language, when he tells us that Dr. Gauden was capable of underwork, and made himself a tool to the court, by the most sordid hopes of greater favour in it. This charge is supported by two instances, namely, his drawing up the two declarations already mentioned; one for liberty of conscience to the papists, the other for indulgence to the quakers in respect to taking an oath; the latter of which we have seen passed into an act of parliament, and the policy and justice of the former attested by a connivance to all loyal papists, or such as deny the pope’s power of dissolving their allegiance to their lawful sovereign, which was the express motive for making the declaration. The most candid character of him is that left us by Wood, who says, “that he was esteemed by all who knew him, to be a very comely person, a man of vast parts, and one that had strangely improved himself by unwearied labour; and was particularly much resorted to for his most admirable and edifying way of preaching.” It is certain, however, he had too luxuriant an imagination, which betrayed him into an Asiatic rankness of style; and thence, as bishop Burnet argues, that not he, but the king himself, was the true author of the Eixuv Boktixjkw; in. which there is a nobleness and justness of thought, with a greatness of style that caused it be esteemed the best written book in the English language. But Burnet had not the advantage of proofs which have since been published, particularly in Clarendon’s State Papers, vol. III. from which an opposite conclusion may be drawn. Those, however, who would examine this question in all its bearings, may be referred to Nichols’s “Literary Anecdotes” for the arguments against Gauden, and to Laing’s “History of Scotland,” for what can be alleged in favour of Gauden’s being the real author of the “Icon.” Our own opinion is, that the matter may still be questioned, nor can we agree with Mr. Laing in presuming “that no one will now venture to defend the authority of the Icon.” We think there is a strong probability that it was composed from materials written by the king; and that Gauden, a man so ambitious and avaricious as to claim high rewards for all his services, was very likely to attribute the whole to himself. We agree, however, with Mr. Laing, that “if ever a literary imposture were excusable, it was undoubtedly Gauden’s, and had it appeared a week sooner, it might have preserved the king.”

Soon after his death there came out, written by him, “A Discourse of artificial Beauty in point of Conscience between two Ladies,” 1662. This was followed by another tract, published together with some on the same subject, by Whitgift, Hooker, and Sanderson, under the title of “Prophecies concerning the Return of Popery,” 1663. These were aimed at the sectaries, who were said to be opening a door, at which popery would certainly enter; lastly, in 1631, there appeared in 12mo, “The whole Duty of a Communicant,” &c. with bishop Gauden’s name prefixed to it.

, bishop of Brescia, about the end of the fourth and the beginning of -the fifth century, was elected to that see by the prelates and the people of the province, while performing a journey of devotion to the east, but it appears that he was very reluctant to take upon him the office. Having at length accepted it, he was sent in the year 405 to Constantinople, with the legates of pope Innocent, to re-establish St. Chrysostom in his see, and to hold a general council. The time of his death is fixed by some at the year 410, and by others at 427. The 25th of October is celebrated as his day. He was author of several works, a life of his predecessor Philaster, and of letters and other pieces, which are inserted in the fifth volume of the “Bibliotheca Patrum;” but the most complete edition of his works was published at Brescia, in 1738, by Paul Galeardi, a canon of Brescia. His style is plain, but neither animated nor correct.

, was born about 1685, of a noble family, at Louviers. His refusing to sign the Formulary having put a stop to his degrees in the Sorbonne, he retired to the seminary of St. Magloir, and devoted himself to the study of theology. On his return home, he was appointed subdeacon of Evreux, but opposing the bull Unigenitus, was obliged to quit that diocese, upon which de Langle, bishop of Boulogne, gladly received him into his house, and ordained him priest; from that time Gaultier was the prelate’s counsellor, proctor, grand vicar, friend, and secretary. De Langle dying in 1724, Colbert bishop of Montpellier, took Gaultier to be his librarian, as was supposed, but in fact to be his adviser, confessor, and secretary; while he was looked upon at Montpellier merely as a quiet inoffensive man, with just abilities sufficient to take down the bishop’s books and put them in order again. Colbert died in 1738, and Gaultier went the same year to Paris, where he lived as retired as at Montpellier, only visiting his native place once a year for relaxation. In the last of these journies, returning to Paris with a friend, their post-chaise was overset, and Gaultier being dangerously hurt by his fall, was carried to Gaillon as the nearest place, where he died five days after, October 30, 1755. Besides what he wrote for messrs. Langle and Colbert, he left various works on the affairs of his time, all anonymous except the largest, which has been published since his death, and is entitled

In 1764 he returned to Scotland, and was ordered to Dundee to officiate as priest among the catholics in the county of Angus, but was scarcely settled when he received, an invitation to become a resident in the family of the earl of Traquaire, in what capacity, unless as a friend, does not appear. He accepted, however, an offer so favourable to the pursuit of his studies; and here,. as well as at Paris, he regulated his inquiries so as to be preparatory to the plan he had long conceived, of giving a new translation of the Bible. His residence here was unfortunately interrupted by an attachment he formed for a female relative of the earl of Traquaire’s, and which was reciprocal; but regarding his vow of celibacy as sacred, and his passion, otherwise invincible, he left the family, and went again to Paris, where he continued about eight or nine months, and returned to Scotland in the spring of 1769. He now accepted the charge of a catholic congregation at Auchinhalrig in the county of Bamff, where he engaged the affections of his flock by many pastoral offices, reconciling differences, administering to the poor, and rebuilding their ruinous chapel. All this, however, seems to have involved him in pecuniary difficulties, from which he was extricated by the late duke of Norfolk, the last catholic peer of that illustrious family. To prevent similar embarrassments, Mr. Geddes now took a small farm, which again involved him in debts, which he endeavoured to discharge by an application to the muses. “Some daemon,” he says, “whispered him' that he had a turn for poetry,” which produced in 1779, “Select Satires of Horace,' translated into English verse, and for the most part adapted to the present times and manners,” 4to. The impression of this work extended only to 750 copies, yet he reaped a profit of 100l. which he received with exultation, and applied to the liquidation of his arrears. This success determined him also to relinquish his retirement, and -try what his abilities might obtain for him in London, and his removal was probably accelerated by his having incurred the displeasure of the bishop of his diocese, Dr. Hay, on account of his attending trie ministry of a presbyterian friend. The bishop had before warned him to desist, and finding him refractory, deposed him from his office, and prohibited him from preaching within the extent of his diocese. He left his charge accordingly, and previous to his leaving Scotland, received the degree of LL. D. from one of the colleges of Aberdeen. His reputation for learning, indeed, was very considerable in Scotland, and he was one of the literati who took a very active part in the institution of a society of antiquaries at Edinburgh. In their volume for 1792 he wrote “A dissertation on the Seoto-Saxon Dialect,” and “The first Eklog of Virgil,” and “The first Idyllion of Theocritus, translatitt into Scottis vers,” in the former of which the Edinburgh dialect is chiefty imitated, and in the latter the Buchan. He also composed a “Caruien Seculare” for the society’s anniversary of 1788.

He arrived in London in the beginning of 1780, and was soon invited to officiate as priest in the Imperial ambassador’s chapel, and preached occasionally at the chapel in Duke-street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, until the Easter holidays, 1782, after which he voluntarily withdrew from every stated ministerial function, and seldom officiated in any chapel whatever. The principal reason was, that on his arrival in London he was introduced to men of literature of every class, obtained easy access to public libraries, and in his design of translating the Bible, obtained the patronage of lord Petre. This nobleman engaged to allow him a salary of 200l. and took upon himself the entire expence of whatever private library Dr. Geddes might judge requisite to collect in the prosecution of his favourite object. With such munificent encouragement, he published in 1780 his “Idea of a New Version of the Holy Bible, for the use of the English Catholics.” This was an imperfect sketch, as he had not settled what versions to follow. Among his encouragers, who then thought favourably of him, were Dr. Kennicott, and bishop Lowth. To the latter he presented, in 1785, his “Prospectus,” who returned it with a polite note, in which he recommended him to publish it, not only as an introduction to his work, bifC > as a useful and edifying treatise for young students in divinity. He accordingly published it at Glasgow, and it was very favourably received by biblical scholars in general. Being thus encouraged, he first published “A Letter to the right rev. the bishop of London, containing queries, doubts, and difficulties, relative to a vernacular version of the Holy Scriptures.” This was designed as an appendix to his Prospectus, and was accompanied with a success equal to that of his former publication. After this he published several pamphlets on temporary topics, of wliich it will be sufficient to give the titles in our list of his works. In 1788 appeared his “Proposals for printing by subscription, a New Translation of the Bible, from corrected texts of the original; with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical observations.” In this he solicited the opinion, hints, &c. of literary characters, and received so many that, in July 1790, he thought proper to publish “Dr. Geddes’ general Answer to the queries, counsels, and criticisms that have been communicated to him since the publication of his Proposals for printing a New Translation of the Bible.” In this pamphlet, while he resists the generality of counsels and criticisms communicated to him, from motives which he very candidly assigns, he yields to several, and liberally expresses his obligations to the correspondents who proposed them. It appears, however, that his brethren of the catholic persuasion were already suspicious, and that he lost whatever share of popularity he formerly had 'within the pale of his own church. He acknowledges that he received more encouragement from, the established church and the protestant dissenters. His subscribers amounted to 343, among which were very few Roman catholics. In 1792 the first volume of the translation appeared, under the title of “The Holy Bible, or the books accounted sacred by Jews and Christians; otherwise called the Books of the Old and New Covenants, faithfully translated from corrected texts of the originals, with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical remarks: Tr and a second volume appeared in 1797. The manner in which Dr. Geddes executed his translation, brought upon him attacks from various quarters, but especially fromhis catholic brethren. The opposition and difficulties he had, on this account, to encounter, were stated by him m a An Address to the Public.” Indeed, his orthodoxy having been questioned before his volume appeared, he wassummoned by those whom he admitted to be the organs of legitimate authority. His three judges, however, were either satisfied or silenced, much to the doctor’s satisfaction. Shortly after the first volume of his translation was published, an ecclesiastical interdict, under the title of “A Pastoral Letter,” signed by Walmsley, Gibson, and Douglas, as apostolic vicars of the western, northern, and London districts, was published, in which Geddes’s work was prohibited to the faithful. Against this prohibition (whjch bishop Thomas Talbot refused to subscribe) the doctor, first giving bishop Douglas notice, published a remonstrance in a letter addressed to him; but notwithstanding this, he was suspended from all ecclesiastical functions. In 1800 he published the first, and only volume he lived to finish, of “Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures; corresponding with a New Translation of the Bible,” 4to. How far Dr. Geddes merited the cen>­sures bestowed upon him both by Roman catholics and protestants, in his translation and Critical Remarks, the reader may judge, when he is told that in this volume he attacks the credit of Moses in every part of his character, as an historian, a legislator, and a moralist. He even doubts whether he was the author of the Pentateuch; but the writer, whoever he might be, is one, he tells us, who upon all occasions gives into the marvellous, adorns hisnarration with fictions of the interference of the Deity, when every thing happened in a natural way; and, at other times, dresses up fable in the garb of true history. The history of the creation is, according to him, a fabulous cosmogony. The story of the fall a mythos, in which nothing but the mere imagination of the commentators, possessing more piety than judgment, could have discovered either a seducing devil, or the promise of a Saviour. It is a fable, he asserts, intended for the purpose of persuading the vulgar, that knowledge is the root of all evil, and the desire of it a crime. Moses was, it seems, a man of great talents, as Numa and Lycurgus were. But like them, he was a false pretender to personal intercourse with the Deity, with whom he had no immediate communication. He had the art to take the advantage of rare, but natural occurrences, to persuade the Israelites that the immediate power of God was exerted to accomplish his projects. When a violent wind happened to lay dry the head of the Guiph of Suez, he persuaded them that God had made a passage for them through the sea; and the narrative of their march is embellished with circumstances of mere fiction. In the delivery of the ten commandments, he took advantage of a thunder-storm to persuade the people that Jehovah had descended upon mount Sinai; and he counterfeited the voice of God, by a person^ in the height of the storm, speaking through a trumpet, &c. &c. Without proceeding farther in accumulating the proofs of arrogance, ignorance, and impiety, with which this “Translation 11 and” Critical Remarks“abound, we shall only add, that even Dr. Priestley seemed to doubt” if such a man as Geddes, who believed so little, and who conceded so much, could be a Christian."

Dr. Geddes died the day after this interview, Feb. 26, 1802, and was buried in Paddington church-yard. IJe was unquestionably a man of extensive learning, although, not entitled to the superiority which his friends have assigned to him, and which indeed he too frequently arrogated to himself. It was this want of knowledge of his real powers, and the vanity superinduced upon it, that made him ambitious of the character of a wit and a poet, without either temper or genius. His wit was mere flippancy, and his poetry had rarely any other attribute than that of rhyme. The list of his works will show that in the employment of his talents there was something undignified and trifling, that showed a mind vexed with restlessness, rather than seriously anduniformly employed for the public good. While engaged in so important a work as the translation of the Bible., he was perpetually stooping to pick up any little paltry anecdote of the day, as the subject -for a pamphlet or <a poem, and while he was suffering: by the neglect or censure of those whose religious opinions he had shocked, he was seeking comfort in ridiculing the characters of men who had never offended him by any species of provocation. Of his private character, while he is praised for his benevolence and catholic 1 spirit, we find also, and not very consistently, that its leading feature was irritability upon the most trifling provocations, if they deserved the name, which discovered itself in the most gross and offensive language. One instance of this species of insanity, for such it appeared to be in him, is given by his biographer, which we shall throw into a note, for its excellence as a genuine portrait of the man . Dr. Geddes published, 1. “Select Satires of Horace,” &c. London, 1779, 4to. 2. “Linton, a Tweedale Pastoral,” Edinburgh, 4to. 3. “Cursory Remarks on a late fanatical publication entitled a Full Detection of Popery,” Lond. 1783, 8vo. 4. Prospectus of a New Translation of the Bible,“&c. ibid. 1786, 4to. 5.” Letter to the Bishop of London, containing doubts, queries, &c. relative to a vernacular translation of the Holy Scriptures,“ibid. 1787, 4to. 6.” Letter to the Rev. Dr. Priestley, in which the author attempts to prove by one prescriptive argument, that the divinity of Jesus Christ was a primitive tenet of Christianity,“ibid. 1787, 8vo. 7.” Letter to a, member of parliament on the case of the Protestant Dis-' senters, and the expediency of a general repeal of all penal statutes that regard religious opinions,“ibid. 1787, 8vo. 8.” Proposals, &c.“for his translation, ibid. 1788, 4to. 9.” Dr. Geddes’s general answer to queries, counsels,“&c. ibid. 1790, 4to. 10.” An answer to the bishop of Comana’s pastoral letter; by a protesting catholic,' 1 1790, 8vo. II. “A Letter to the right rev. the archbishops and bishops of England; pointing out the only sure means of preserving the church from the dangers that now threaten her. By an Upper Graduate,” 1790, 8vo. 12. “Epistola macaronica ad fratrem, de iis quo; gesta stint in nupero Dissentientium conventu,” 1790, 4to. 13. “Carmen seculare pro Gallica gente tyrannicli aristocraticae erepta,” 1790, 4to. 14. “Encyclical letter of the bishops of Rama, Acanthos, and Centuriæ, to the faithful clergy and laity of their respective districts, with a continued commentary for the use of the vulgar,” 1791, 8vo. 15. “An (ironical) apology for Slavery,” 1792, 8vo. 16. “The first book of the Iliad of Homer, verbally rendered into English verse; being a specimen of a new translation of that poet; with critical annotations,” 1792, 8vo. This was intended to rival Cowper’s Homer. 1*7. “L'Avocat du Diable the Devil’s Advocate,” &c. 1792, 4to. 18. “The Holy Bible, translation of, vol. I.” 1792, 4to. 19. Carmina Saecularia tria, pro tfibus celeberrirnis libertatis Gallicae epochis,“1793, 4to. 20.” Ver-Vert,“from the French of Gresset, 1793, 4to. 21.” Dr. Geddes’s address to the public on the publication of the first volume of his new Translationof the Bible,“1793. 22.” Letter to the right rv. John Douglas, bishop of Centurice, and vicar-apostolic in the London district/' 1794, 4to. 23. “A Norfolk Tale; or a Journal from London to Norwich,” 1794, 4to. 24. “Ode to the Hon. Thomas Pelham, occasioned by his speech in the Irish House of Commons on the Catholic bill,” 1795, 4to. 25. “A Sermon preached before the university of Cambridge, by H. W. C(6ulthurst)> D. D. &c.” in doggrel rhymes, 1796, 8vo. 26. “The Battle of B(a)ng(o)r; or the Church’s triumph a comic-heroic poerh,” 1797, 8vO. 27. “Translation of the Bible, vol. II.” 1797. 28. “A New-year’s gift to the good people of England, being a sermon, or something like a sermon, in defence of the present War,” &e. 1798, 8vo. 29. “A Sermon preached on the day of the general fast, Feb. 27, 1799, by Theomophilus Brown,” &c. 1799, 8vo. 30. “A Modest Apology for the Roman Catholics of Great Britain, addressed to all moderate Protestants,” &c. 1800, 8vo. 31. “Critical Remarks,” before mentioned, vol. I. 1800, 4to. 32. “Bardomachia, poema macaronico-Latinum,” 1800, 4tb. 33. “Paci feliciter feduci Ode Sapphica,” 1801, 4to. Besides these Dr. Geddes wrote many fugitive pieces, essays, poems in the riews- papers and magazines, and was a considerable contributor to the Analytical Review. After his death appeared in 1807, his “Translation of the Book of Psalms,” as far as Psalm CXVIII. In this, as may be expected, he gives up the prophetic sense of the Psalms.

, a divine of the church of England, but a native of Scotland, was educated and probably born at Edinburgh, where he took the degree of M. A. and was in July 1671 incorporated in the same at Oxford, being one of the first four natives of Scotland, who partook of bishop Warner’s exhibitions intended for Balliol college. Some demur occurring on the part of the college, these scholars were first placed in Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college), but, in 1672, they were removed to Balliol. In 1678 Mr. Geddes went to Lisbon, as chaplain to the English factory the exercise of which function giving offence to the inquisition, he was sent for by that court in 1686, and notwithstanding he pleaded a privilege which had never been called in question, founded on the treaty between England and Portugal, he was forbid to continue his ecclesiastical duties. The English merchants resenting this violation of their privilege, wrote immediately to the bishop of London, representing their case, and their right to a chaplain; but before their letter reached his lordship, he was suspended by the ecclesiastical commission ordered by king James, who was now endeavouring to establish popery at home. They were deprived therefore of all exercise of their religion till the arrival of Mr. Scarborough, the English envoy, under whose character as a public minister they were obliged to shelter themselves. Mr. Geddes finding matters in this situation, thought proper to return to England in May 1688, where he took the degree of LL. D. and after the promotion of Dr. Burnet to the bishopric of Salisbury, who speaks very respectfully of him in his “History of the Reformation,” was promoted by him to be chancellor of his church. He died before 1714, but at what time we have not been able- to discover. During his residence at Lisbon, he had collected materials of the historical kind from scarce books and Mss. in the Spanish and Portuguese language^ which he translated and published in various forms after his return to England. Among these publications are: 1. “The Church History of Malabar,” Lond. 1694, 8vo. 2. The Church History of Ethiopia,“ibid. 1696, 8vo. 3.” The Council of Trent plainly discovered not to have been a free assembly,“ibid. 1697 and 1714, 8vo. 4.” Miscellaneous Tracts,“of civil and ecclesiastical history, ibid. 1702—5, 8vo, extended afterwards to S vols. 1714, and 1730. 5.” Several Tracts against Popery," ibid. 1715, 8vo.

Gelasius the elder, was bishop of Csesarea, in Palestine, and nephew of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, by whom he was consecrated to Caesarea, in the year 380. He is classed by St. Jerome and others, among the ecclesiastical writers of his age. He wrote several works, which have been commended for the correctness and purity oi? their style; but there are extant only some fragments explanatory of the apostles* creed, and of the traditions of the church, which are in the Greek collection of testimonies, under the name of John Damascenus, in the Codex Claromont He died in the year 394.

, also bishop of Cæsarea, flourished about the year 476. He compiled a history of the Nicene council, in three books, partly from an old manuscript of Dalmatius archbishop of Cyzicus, and from other authorities. It was published at Paris, Gr. & Lat. 1559. His style, according to Photius, was extremely low and bad, and the credit of his account, whether from himself or his manuscript, is according to Dupin, as bad as possible. Two books of pope Gelasius I. on the double nature in Christ, have been erroneously ascribed to him.

bishop of Rome, elevated to that see in the year 492, was successor to Felix II. He was engaged, as his predecessor had been, in the disputes between the eastern and western churches; and particularly contended with Euphemius, patriarch of Constantinople, about the name of Acacius, which the latter refused to expunge from the sacred list. He is said to have assembled a /council of seventy bishops at Rome, in the year 494, where a decree was passed onthe subject of canonical and apo-' cryphal books but the existence of the decree, if not of the council, is doubted by Cave, for very strong reasons. He died Nov. 19, 046. Several works of his are extant, among which are, 1. Epistles. 2. A volume on the power of Anathema. 3. Against some Romans who continued to celebrate the Lupercalia. 4. Against the Pelagian heresy. 5. A book against Eutyches and Nestorius, all which are in the “Bibl. Patrum,” or in the “Collectio Conciliorum.” Dupin seems to have a very indifferent opinion of his writings, and there is little in his life that can be interesting unless in its connection with the history of the papal struggles for power.

, a learned German divine and historian, was born at Nimeguen, in 1482. He studied classical learning at Deventer, and went through his course of philosophy at Louvain with such success, that he was chosen to teach that science; and in that university he contracted a strict friendship with several learned men, particularly Erasmus. He made some stay at Antwerp, whence he was invited to the court of Charles of Austria, to be reader and historian to that prince; but, not liking to attend him into Spain, he entered into the service of Philip of Burgundy, bishop of Utrecht. He was his reader and secretary twelve years, that is, to 1524; after which, he executed the same functions at the court of Maximilian of Burgundy. Being sent to Wittemburg in 1526, in order to inquire into the state of the schools and of the church at that place, he faithfully reported what he had observed, and confessed he could not disapprove of a doctrine so conformable to the Scriptures, as that which he heard there; and upon this he forsook the popish religion, and retired towards the Upper Rhine. He married at Worms, and taught youth there for some time. Afterwards he was invited to Augsburg, to undertake the same employment; and at length, in 1534, he went thence to Marpurg, where he taught history for two years, and then divinity to his death. He died of the plague, Jan. 10, 1542. The story of his being assassinated by robbers is amply dispfoved by Bayle. He was a man well skilled in poetry, rhetoric, and history.

As Gellibrand was inclined to puritan principles, while he was engaged in this work, his servant, William Beale, by his encouragement, published an al manack for the year 1631, in which the popish saints, usually put into our kalendar, and the Epiphany, Annunciation, &c. were omitted; and the names of other saints and martyrs, mentioned in the book of martyrs, were placed in their room as they stand in Mr. Fox’s kalendar. This gave offence to Dr. Laud, who, being then bishop of London, cited them both into the high-commission court. But when the cause came to a hearing, it appeared, that other almanacks of the same kind had formerly been printed; on which plea they were both acquitted by abp. Abbot and the whole court, Laud only excepted; which was afterwards one of the articles against him at his own trial. This prosecution jdid not hinder Geliibrand from proceeding in his friend’s work, which he completed in 1632; and procured it to be printed by the famous Ulacque Adrian, at Gouda in Holland, in 1633, folio, with a preface, containing an encomium of Mr. Brigg’s, expressed in such language as shews him to have been a good master of the Latin tongue. Geliibrand wrote the second book, which was translated into English, and published in an English treatise with the same title, “Trigonometria Britaonica, &c.” the -first part by John Newton in 1658, folio. While he was abroad on this business, he had some discourse with Lansberg, aa eminent astronomer in Zealand, who affirming that he was fully persuaded of the truth of the Cop^ernican system, our author observes, “that this so styled a truth he should receive a an hypothesis; and so be easily led on to the consideration of the imbecility of man’s apprehension, as not able rightly to conceive of this admirable opifice of God, or frame of the world, without falling foul on so great an absurdity:” so firmly was he fixed in his adherence to the Ptolemaic system. He wrote several things after this, chiefly tending to the improvement of navigation, which would probably have been further advanced by him, had his life been continued longer; but he was untimely carried offby a fever in 1636, in his thirty-ninth year, and was buried in the parish church of St. Peter le Poor, Broadstreet. He had four younger brothers, John, Edward, Thomas, and Samuel; of whom John was his executor, and Thomas was a major in the parliamentary army, was an evidence in archbishop Laud’s trial; and was grandfather to Samuel Gellibrand, esq. who, about the middle of last century, was nnder-secretary in the plantation-office.

, an ecclesiastical writer, was a priest of Marseilles, but not a bishop, as some have imagined and died about the year 492 or 493. There are two works of his remaining; one, “De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis,” which was falsely attributed to St. Augustin, and has been printed in some editions of his works; another, “De II­lustribus Ecclesiae Scriptoribus,” in St. Jerome’s Works, Antwerp, 1639, fol. and Hamburgh, 1718, fol. Some chapters of it appear to have been added by a more modern hand. Gennadius has been accused of adhering some time to the errors of Pelagius; but, as is now agreed, without any reasonable foundation.

, surnamed the Cappadocian,*waa made bishop of Alexandria when Athanasius was driven from that see by the persecutions of the emperor Constantius, about the year 355. He was a native of Epiphania, in Cilicia, where his father pursued the business of a fuller. From this obscure situation the son raised himself, it is said, not bv the most honourable means, to the station of a prelate in the church, and his mean arts and depredations on the public purse became so notorious, that he was obliged to fly from the pursuit of justice, and contrived to take with him his ill-gotten wealth. The place of his retreat was Alexandria, where he professed great zeal for the Arian system of theology, and acquired considerable influence with his disciples in that city. Here he formed a very valuable collection of books, which the emperor Julian, afterwards made the foundation of the noble library established by him in the temple erected in honour of the emperor Trajan, but which was burnt by the connivance of the emperor Jovian. When Athanasius was driven from Alexandria, George was elected bishop by the prevailing party, and persecuted the catholics, and in other respects played the tyrant with such unrelenting cruelty and avarice, that at length the people rose as one man, and expelled him the city. With much difficulty he regained his authority, which he held till the year 362, when he and two other persons who had been ministers of his atrocities, were ignominiously dragged in chains to the public prison, and murdered by the populace. Such a character scarcely merits a place in this work, if it were not necessary to expose the ignorance of those who pretend that he has been transformed into the renowned St. George of England, the patron of arms, of chivalry, and of the garter, a calumny which has been amply refuted by Pegge, Miiner, and others.

, a famous writer in favour of Jansenism, was born at Saint Calais, in the French province of Maine, in 1628, and was first of the oratory, and then became a Benedictine in the congregation of St. Maur, in 1649. He there taught theology for some years with considerable success, but being too free in his opinions in favour of the Jansenists, was ordered to be arrested by Louis XIV. in 1682, at the abbey of Corbie. He contrived, however, to escape into Holland, but the air of that country disagreeing with him, he changed his situation for the Low Countries. In 1703 he was taken into custody by the bishop of Mechlin, and being condemned for errors on the doctrine of grace, suffered imprisonment at Amiens, and in the castle of Vincennes. No sufferings could shake his zeal for what he thought the truth, and in 17 10 he was given up to the superiors of his own order, who sent him to the abbey of St. Denis, where he died in 1711. He was author of many works on the subjects of controversy then agitated, particularly a general History of Jansenism, 3 vols. 12mo, Amsterdam, 1703, for which he was called a violent Jansenist. His other principal works were, edi-> tions of Marius Mercator, St. Anselm, and Baius; the Apology of Rupert, abbot of Tuy, respecting the Eucharist, in Latin, 8vo; “Le veritable Penitent, ou Apologie cte ja Penitence,” 12mo, against P. Hazard, a Jesuit “La verit6 Catholique victorieuse, sur la Predestination et la Grace efficase” “Traité historique sur la Grace” “Lettres a M. Bossuet, Eveque de Meaux” “La confiance Chretienne” “Le Chretien disabuse”“” La Regie des Moeurs contre les fausses Maximes de la Morale corrompue,“12mo;” La Defense de l‘Eglise Romaine’.' and “Avis salutaires de la Sainte Vierge a ses Devots indiscrets.” This last is a translation of the “Monita Salutaria” of Adam Windelfels, a German lawyer* Many others are enumerated by Moreri.

, an English divine of the puritan cast, was born in Yorkshire in 1600, and in 1615 entered as a servitor of Magdalen-hall. In 1621 he took his degree of M. A. and being ordained, became minister of Tewkesbury, in Gloucestershire, where he was afterwards silenced by bishop Goodman for objecting to certain ceremonies of the church. In 1641 this suspension was removed by one of the parliamentary committees which took upon them to new-model the church. In 1645 he became by the same interest minister of St. Albans, and about four years afterwards that of St. Faith’s, under St. Paul’s, London. Although a puritan' in matters of the ceremonies and discipline, -he appears soon to have penetrated into the designs of the reformers of his age, and opposed the civil war, aad especiaMy the murder of the king, the barbarity of which is said to have hastened his death. He died at his house in Ivy-lane, Paternoster-row, in February 1649. Wood gives a long list of sermons and tracts published by this author, against the baptists and independents; one of them is entitled “An exercise, wherein the evil of Health-drinking is by clear and solid arguments convinced,” 1648, 4to. Another, more useful in that age, was his “AstrologoMastix; or, the vanity of judicial astrology,” 1646. He had an elder brother, Stephen, also a puritan divine, who wrote against Dr. Crisp, in the Antinomian controversy.

, a French missionary, was a native of Paris, and the son of M. Gervaise, physician to M. Fouquet, superintendant of the finances. He had not arrived at his twentieth year, when he embarked with some ecclesiastics, who were going as missionaries to the kingdom of Siam. Here he remained four years, made himself master of the language, conversed with the learned, and, at his return, published “Hist, naturelle et politique du Royaume de Siatn,” 1G88, 4to, and “Description historique du Iloyaume de Macacar,” 12moj two very curious works. He was afterwards curate of Vannes in Brettany, then provost of the church of St. Martin at Tours. His new dignity induced him to write a life of St. Martin, 4-to, which was criticised by Dom. Stephen Badier, a Benedictine; and, sixteen years after, he printed “Hist, de Boe'ce” at Paris. Being consecrated bishop of Horren, some time after, at Rome, he embarked for the place of his mission; but the Caribbees murdered him and all his clergy on their arrival, November 20, 1729. He wrote several other books, but of less consequence than those above mentioned.

, an historian of the thirteenth century, was a native of Tilhury, in Essex, and nephew to king Henry II. Through the interest of Otho IV. he was made marshal of the kingdom of Aries. He wrote a commentary on Geoffrey of Monmouth’s British History, and also a tripartite History of England. His other works are, “A History of the Holy Land” “Origines Burgundionuru” “Mirabilia Orbis” and a chronicle, entitled “De Otiis imperialibus,” lib. III. of which there is a ms. in Bene't-college, Cambridge. The -compilation of the exchequer book, entitled “Liber Niger Scaccarii,” was ascribed to him; but Mr. Madox, who published a correct edition of it, gives it to Richard Nelson, bishop of London. There are two ms copies of it, the one in the Exchequer, which, according to Strype, archbishop Parker presented to that collection; the other is in Caius college, Cambridge, which the same author thinks might have been the original whence the archbishop’s copy was transcribed. Bale and Pitts differ much in their accounts of his works.

It may not be unuseful to give in this place the titles at least, of the principal writings which his bold and disingenuous attack on Christianity called forth. These were, i. “Remarks on the two last Chapters of Mr. Gibbon’s History. In a letter to a friend.” (See Art. 8.) 2. “An Apology for Christianity, in a series of letters, addressed to Edward Gibbon, esq. By R. Watson, D. D. F. R. S. and regius professor of divinity in the university of Cambridge” (now bishop of Llandaff), 1776, 12mo. 3. “The History of the establishment of Christianity, compiled from Jewish and Heathen authors only; translated from the French of professor Bullet, &c. By William Salisbury, B. D. with notes by the translator, and some strictures on Mr. Gib ­bon’s Account of Christianity, and its first teachers,” 1776, 8vo. 4. “A Reply to the reasonings of Mr. Gibbon in his History, &c. which seem to affect the truth of Christianity, but have not been noticed in the answer which Dr. Watson hath given to that book. By Smyth Loftus, A. M. vicar of Coolock,” Dublin, 1778, 8vo. 5. “Letters on the prevalence of Christianity, before its civil establishment. With observations on a late History of the Decline of the Roman Empire. By East Apthorpe, M. A. vicar of Crovdon, 1778, 8vo. 6.” An Examination of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of Mr. Gibbon’s History. In which his view of the progressof the Christian religion is shown to be founded on the misrepresentation of the authors he cites; and numerous instances of his inaccuracy and plagiarism are produced. By Henry Edward Davis, B. A. of Baliol college, Oxford,“1778, 8vo. 7.” A few Remarks on the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; relative chiefly to the Two last Chapters. By a gentleman,“8vo. 8.” Remarks on the Two last Chapters of Mr. Gibbon’s History. By James Chelsum, D. D. student of Christ Church, Oxford, and chaplain to the lord bishop of Worcester: the second edition enlarged," 1778, 12mo. This is a second edition of the Anonymous Remarks mentioned in the first article, and contains additional remarks by Dr. Randolph, Lady Margaret’s professor of divinity in the university of Oxford.

, an elegant French scholar, was born January 17, 1662, at Aix in Provence. He took a bachelor’s degree in divinity, and was appointed professor of philosophy at Beauvais at the age of twenty-four, and professor of rhetoric four years after, at the Mazarine college, in which the exercises began 1688, and were opened by him with a public speech. He filled this chair with much credit above fifty years, and formed a great number of excellent scholars, by whom he had the art of making himself beloved. He was several times rector of the university of Paris, and defended its rights with zeal and firmness. In 1728 he succeeded his friend, the celebrated Pourchot, as syndic of the university; and it was in this character that he made a requisition in the general assembly of the university in 1739, by which he formed an opposition to the revocation of the appeal which the university had made from the bull Unigenitus to a future council; which step occasioned his being banished to Auxerre. He died in the bishop of Auxerre’s house, October 28, 1741. His principal work is entitled, “Jugement des Savans, sur les Auteurs qui ont traite de la Rhtorique,” 3 vois. 12mo. He also left “Traite de la veritable Eloquence,” and “Reflexions sur la Rheiorique,” in 4 books, where he answers the objections of P. Lami; “La Rhetorique, ou les Regies de TEloquence,” 12mo, the best work the French have upon that subject.

, an eminent patron of literature, was born at Palermo, and in his youth distinguished himself in the literary court of Leo X. Clement VII. appointed him bishop of Verona at an early age; but as he was long resident at Rome, or employed on missions of the highest importance at the ecclesiastical state, Caraffi, who was afterwards Paul IV. was deputed to manage the concerns of his bishopric. At length, in the pontificate of Paul III. Gibertus returned to his diocese, where his public and private virtues rendered him an ornament to his station. His palace was always open to men of learning, whether Italians or strangers; and a considerable part of his great revenues was munificently employed in the encouragement of letters. He was a liberal patron of Greek literature, and had new Greek types cast at his own expence. He also employed under his roof, a number of persons in transcribing Mss. and defrayed the charge of publishing several excellent editions of the works of the Greek fathers, particularly a beautiful edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies on the epistles of St. Paul. He died Dec. 30, 1543. His works, with his life, were published at Verona, 1733. He is deservedly celebrated in the “Galateo” of Casa, and is the subject of the poem of Bembus, entitled “Benacus” and various other contemporary poets have paid him the tribute of praise which he so well merited; nor is it small praise that he was the firm opponent of Peter Aretin, and used all h.is efforts to strip the mask from that shameless impostor.

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

Lastly, one more service to the church and clergy, performed by the bishop of London, was thought worthy of their grateful acknowledgements; namely, his distinguished zeal (after he had animated his brethren on the bench to concur with him) in timely apprizing the clergy of the bold schemes that were formed by the Quakers, in order to deprive the clergy of their legal maintenance by tithes; and in advising them to avert so great a blow to religion, as well as so much injustice to themselves, by their early application to the legislature, to preserve them in the possession of their known rights and properties. But, though the designs of their adversaries were happily defeated, yet it ought ever to be remembered, in honour of the memory of the bishop of London, that such umbrage was taken by sir Robert Walpole, on occasion of the advice given by him and his brethren to the clergy in that critical juncture, as soon terminated in the visible diminution of his interest and authority.

The biographer of sir Robert Walpole allows that the inveteracy displayed against this eminent prelate for the conscientious discharge of his duty on this occasion, reflects no credit on the memory of that statesman. His esteem for Gibson had been so great, that when he was reproached with giving him the authority of a pope, he replied, “And a very good pope he is.” Even after theii; disagreement, he never failed to pay an eulogium to tha learning and integrity of his former friend. About this time, great pains were taken to fix upon this worthy prelate, the character of a haughty persecutor, and even of a Secret enemy to the civil establishment. To this end a passage in the introduction to his “Codex,” which suggested the groundlessness of the modern practice of sending prohibitions to the spiritual from the temporal courts, was severely handled, in a pamphlfet written by the recorder of Bristol, afterwards sir Michael Foster, as derogatory from the supreme power and superintendency of the court of king’s bench; and other writers, with less reason and no moderation, attacked our prelate in pamphlets and periodical journals. It is said also that he was obnoxious to the king, on a personal account, because he had censured, with a freedom becoming his character, the frequent recurrence of masquerades, of which his majesty was very fond. Bishop Gibson had preached against this diversion in the former reign: and he now procured an address to the king from several of the bishops, for the entire suppression of such pernicious amusements. In all this his zeal cannot be too highly commended; and to his honour be it recorded, that neither the enmity of statesmen, nor the frowns of princes, could divert his attention from the duties of his pastoral office; some of which consisted in writing and printinrg pastoral letters to the clergy and laity, in opposition to infidelity and enthusiasm; in visitation-charges, as well as occasional sermons, besides less pieces of a mixt nature, and some particular tracts against the prevailing immoralities of the age.

He was very sensible of his decay for some time before his death, in which he complained of a languor that hung about him. As, indeed, he had made free with his constitution by incredible industry, in a long course of study and business of various kinds; he had well nigh exhausted his spirits, and worn out a constitution which was naturally so vigorous, that life might, otherwise, have probably been protracted. He died, however, on September 6, 1748, with true Christian fortitude, an apparent sense of his approaching dissolution, and in perfect tranquillity of mind, during the intervals of his last fatal indisposition at Bath, after a very short continuance there. His lordship was married, and left several children of each sex, who were all handsomely provided for by him. In private life he possessed the social virtues in an eminent degree, and hi beneficence was very extensive. Of this one remarkable instance is recorded by Whiston. Dr. Crow had left him 2500l. which our prelate freely gave to Dr. Crow’s relations, who were in indigent circumstances. Recording this story does Whiston more credit than his foolish ravings against the bishop’s “gross ignorance” of what he calls “primitive Christianity.”

His works in the order of publication were: 1. An edition of Drummond’s “Polemo-middiana, &c. 1691,” 4to, already mentioned. 2. The “Chronicon Saxonicum,” 1692, 4to. 3. “Librorum Manuscriptorum Catalogus,” printed the same year at Oxford, 4to. 4. “Julii Caesaris Portus Iccius illustratus,” a tract of W. Somner, with a dissertation of his own, 1694. 5. An edition of “Quintilian de Arte Oratoria, with notes,” Oxon. 1693, 4to. 6. A translation of Camden’s “Britannia” into English, 1695, folio, and again with large additions in 1722, and 1772, two vols. folio. 7. “Vita Thomae Bodleii Equitis Aurati, & Historia Bibliothecae Bodleianae,” prefixed to “Catalog! Librorum Manuscriptorum in Anglia & Hibernia in unum collecti,” Oxon. 1697,“folio. 8.” Reliquiae Spelmannianae, &c.“1698, folio. 9.” Codex Juris Ecclesiastic! Anglicani, &c.“1713, folio. 10.” A Short State of some present Questions in Convocation,“1700, 4to. 11.” A Letter to a Friend in the Country, concerning the Proceedings in Convocation, in the years 1700 and 1701,“1703, 4to. 12.” The Right of the Archbishop to continue or prorogue the whole Convocation. A Summary of the Arguments in favour of the said right.“13.” Synodus Anglicana, &c.“1702. 14.” A Parallel between a Presbyterian Assembly, and the new Model of an English Provincial Synod,“4to. 15.” Reflections upon a paper entitled The Expedient proposed,'“4to. 16.” The Schedule of Prorogation reviewed,“4to. 17.” The pretended Independence of the Lower House upon the Upper House a groundless notion,“1703, 4to. 18.” The Marks of a defenceless Cause, in the proceedings and writings of the Lower House of Convocation,“4to. If.” An Account of the Proceedings in Convocation in a Cause of Contumacy, upon the Prolocutor’s going into the country without the leave of the archbishop, commenced April 10, 1707.“All these upon the disputes in convocation, except the” Synodus Anglicana,“&c. are printed without his name, but generally ascribed to him. 20.” Visitations parochial and general, with a Sermon, and some other Tracts,“1717, 8vo. 21. Five Pastoral Letters, &c. Directions to the Clergy, and Visitation Charges, &c. 8vo. To these may be added his lesser publications and. tracts, viz. Family Devotion; a Treatise against Intemperance; Admonition against Swearing; Advice to persons who have been sick; Trust in God; Sinfulness of neglecting the Lord’s Day; against Lukewarmness in Religion; several occasional Sermons. Remarks on part of a Bill brought into the house of lords by the earl of Nottingham, in 1721, entitled” A Bill for the more effectual Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness,“is also ascribed to the bishop; as is also” The Case of addressing the Earl of Nottingham, for his treatise on the Trinity,“published about the same time. Lastly,” A Collection of the principal Treatises against Popery, in the Papal Controversy, digested into proper heads and titles, with some Prefaces of his own," Lond. 1738, 3 vols. folio.

, D. D. son of Emanuel, and grandson of Andrew Gifford, both dissenting ministers of the baptist persuasion, was born Aug. 17, 1700, and educated at Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire, under the Rev. Mr. Jones, author of the “History of the Canon of the Scripture,” whose seminary produced, among other eminent men, archbishop Seeker, bishop Butler, and Dr. Chandler. Mr. Gifford finished his studies under the celebrated Dr. Ward, and being afterwards baptised, was joined to his father’s church at Bristol, but in 1723 removed to the baptist meeting in Devonshire-square, London. In 1725 his first ministerial duties appear to have been performed at Nottingham, where he was very popular. In Feb. 1730 he was invited to London and ordained. The following year he commenced an intimacy with sir Richard Ellys, bart. (see Ellys) and became his chaplain, taking the lead in family worship. Lady Ellys continued him in the same office, with an annual present of forty guineas, until her second marriage in 1745. One of Mr. Gifford’s sermons preached in commemoration of the great wind in 1703, and published in 1734, was dedicated to sir Richard. In 1754 Mr. Gifford received the degree of D.D. from Marischal college, Aberdeen. His favourite study was that of antiquities, and although at no time a man of opulence, he made a very large collection of curious books, Mss. coins, &c. for which he gave liberal prices. It is said that his collection of coins, which was a very valuable one, was purchased by George II. as an addition to his own cabinet. His reputation as an antiquary, recommended him to the situation of assistant librarian of the British Museum in 1757, in which he was placed by the interest of the lord chancellor Hardwicke, and some other friends, but not, as his biographer says, by that of sir Richard Ellys, who had been dead some years before this period. To a man of literary curiosity and taste, no situation can be more interesting than that of librarian in the British Museum, and Mr. Gifford knew how to improve the opportunities which it affords. Having the talent to receive and communicate information with unaffected politeness, his acquaintance among the nobility and gentry soon became extensive. Some of them honoured him by a mutual exchange of friendly visits, and others of the first rank discovered their respect for him, either by an occasional attendance on his ministry, or by an obliging correspondence and intimacy. Amongst these were the marquis of Lothian, the earl of Halifax, lord Dartmouth, lady Buchan, lady Huntingdon, &c.

, a nonconformist divine of very considerable abilities, was the son of William Gilbert of Priss, in Shropshire, and was born in 1613. In 1629 he was admitted a student of Edmund-hall, Oxford, where he took his bachelor’s degree, and after a short residence in Ireland, returned and took that of master in 1638. By the favour of Philip lord Wharton, he became minister of Upper Winchington, in Buckinghamshire; and in 1647, having taken the covenant, and become a favourite with the usurping powers, he was appointed vicar of St. Lawrence’s, Reading, and next year was created B. D. at the parliamentary visitation of the university of Oxford. About the same time he obtained the rich rectory of Edgemond, in his native county, where he was commonly called the bishop of Shropshire. In 1654 he was appointed an assistant to the commissioners of Shropshire, Middlesex, and the city of Westminster, for the ejection of such as were styled “scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters;” and according to Wood, was not sparing of the power which this sweeping commission gave him. After the restoration, he was ejected for nonconformity, and, retiring to Oxford, lived there very obscurely, with his wife, in St. Ebbe’s parish, sometimes preaching in conventicles, and in the family of lord Wharton. Nor was he without respect from some gentlemen of the university on account of his talents. Calamy informs us that, in a conversation with the celebrated Dr. South on the subject of predestination, he so satisfied him, that South became ever after an assertor of that doctrine. When a toleration or temporary indulgence was granted to the nonconformists in 1671, although a professed independent, he joined with three presbyterians in establishing a conventicle in Thames street, in the suburbs of Oxford; but this indulgence was soon called in. In his last days he was reduced to great distress, and was supported by the contributions of private persons, and of several heads of colleges. He died July 15, 1694, and was buried in the church of St. Aldate. He was esteemed a good philosopher, disputant, and philologist, and a good Latin poet. He published, 1. “Vindicise supremi Dei dominii,” against Dr. Owen, Lond. 1655, 8vo. 2. “An Assize Sermon,” ibid. 1657, 4to. 3. “England’s Passing-Bell, a poem written soon after the year of the plague, the fire of London, and the Dutch war,” 1675, 4to. 4. “Super auspicatissimo regis Gulielmi in Hiberniam descensu, et salva ex Hibernia reditu, carmen gratulatorium,” 1690, 4to, written in his eightieth year. 5. “Epitapbia diversa,” chiefly on persons not of the church of England. 6. “Julius Secundus,” a dialogue, Ox. 1669, 12mo, and 168O, 8vo. To this is prefixed a preface, also in the form of a dialogue, proving that piece to have been written by Erasmus. Dr. Jortin seems of the same opinion, and has reprinted it in his Life of Erasmus, pointing out some curious omissions by Gilbert. With the second edition, Gilbert republished “Jani Alex. Ferrafii Euclides catholicus,” an ironical work against the Romish church, written by an English convert who chose to conceal his true name. Gilbert translated into Latin a considerable part of Francis Potter’s book entitled “An interpretation of the number 666,” printed at Amsterdam, 1677. He is likewise supposed to have been concerned in the pamphlets called “Anni mirabiles,” printed in 1661, 1662, and the following years."

, a distinguished scholar and traveller, was born 1490, at Albi. After travelling over France, and into Italy, he spent some time, at his return, with George d'Armagnac, bishop of Rhodes, afterwards cardinal, who was his patron; and, at this prelate’s request, wrote his 16 books on the nature of animals, “De vi et natura Animalium,” Lyons, 1533, 4to, extracted from Ælian, Porphyry, Heliodorus, and Oppian to which he has added his own observations, and a book of the fish found at Marseilles. He dedicated this work to Francis I. and entreated him, in the dedication, to send some learned men into foreign countries, at his own expence. Francis approved this plan, and the author was sent to the Levant some time after but, receiving nothing from the king during his stay there, he was obliged, at the king’s death, 1547, to enlist himself in the service of Soliman II. for a maintenance. In 1550, however, he returned to France with M. d‘Aramont, ambassador from that kingdom to the Porte; he went afterwards to cardinal d’Armagnac at Rome, being entrusted with the affairs between France and the holy see, and died in that city in 1555. Besides his work above mentioned, he left “Elephanti descriptio,” 8vo; “De Bosphoro Thracio,” 24to; “De Topographia Constantinouoleos,” 24to; and in Banduri’s Imperium Orientate, editions of Demetrius of Constantinople in “Rei Accipitrariae Auctores,” 1612, 4toj of Tbeodpret’s “Commentary on the Twelve minor Prophets;” and of the “Hist, of Ferdinand, king of Arragon,” by Laurentius Valla.

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

He now began with great diligence to read over the Scriptures, and the writings of the fathers, the result of which was a more favourable opinion of the doctrines of the reformers. He also communicated some of his doubts to Cuthbert Tonstal, bishop of Durham, who was his mother’s uncle, and had always expressed a great regard for him, and to other learned men of the university, whose answers appear to have had a tendency to increase his scruples, and finally to make him declare himself a protestant; and it is certain, that while at Christ Church, he became fully convinced of the errors of popery. Such, however, was his diffidence in his own acquirements, and such his fear lest protestantism might suffer by the inexperience of its teachers, that he resisted many solicitations to leave the university, and undertake the cure of souls. These scruples detained him at Oxford until the thirty-fifth year of his age; about which time he yielded so far to the earnest solicitations of his friends as to accept the vicarage of Norton, in the diocese of Durham, in Nov. 1552. Before he went to Beside he was appointed to preach before the king, who was at Greenwich, which appears then to have been a custom before being presented to any benefice. On this occasion, with the true spirit of a reformer, he inveighed against the luxurious and corrupt manners of the times among all ranks, and although the king was not then present, delivered what he intended as an address to his majesty, not doubting, as he said, but that it would be carried to him. This courage recommended him to the notice of many persons of the first rank; particularly to sir Francis Russel, and sir Robert Dudley, afterwards earls of Bedford and Leicester, who from that time professed a great regard for him; and, when in power, were always ready to patronize him. Gilpin received their offered friendship with humility and gratitude, but never solicited it on his own account. He sometimes indeed applied to lord Bedford in behalf of his friends, but does not appear to have once asked any favour of the earl of Leicester, whose real character could not be unknown, or agreeable to him. He is likewise said to have been noticed by secretary Cecil, afterwards lord Burleigh, who obtained for him a general licence for preaching, a matter of great favour in those days. This licence he sometimes used in oilier parts of the country, but confined his services chiefly to his parish of Norton.

Here he made it his principal endeavour to inculcate moral virtue, and to dissuade from those vices which he observed most prevalent. He seldom handled controversial points, for he was still scarcely settled in some of his religious opinions. Hence by degrees a diffidence of himself arose, which gave him great uneasiness. He thought he had engaged too soon in his office, that he could not sufficiently discharge it, that he should not rest in giving his hearers only moral instructions, and that, overspread as the country was with popish doctrines, he did ill to pretend to be a teacher of religion, if he were unable to oppose such errors. These thoughts made every day a greater impression on him. At length, quite unhappy, he wrote his relation bishop Tonstal an account of his situation. The bishop very liberally told him, that as he was so uneasy, he should think of nothing till he had fixed his religion, and that, in his opinion, he could do no better than put his parish into the hands of some person, in whom he could confide, and spend a year or two in Germany, France, and Holland; by which means he might have an pportunity of conversing with some of the most eminent professors on both sides of the question. He acquainted him likewise, that his going abroad at this time would do him also a considerable service; for, during his confinement, he had written two or three books, particularly one upon the Lord’s Supper, which he had a desire to publish; and as this could nor be so conveniently done at home, he would be glad to have it done under his inspection at Paris.

This letter gave Mr. Gilpin much satisfaction, a conference with some of the learned men abroad being what his heart had been long set on. One objection, however, was the expencc, but the bishop told him his living would do something towards his maintenance, and deficiencies he would supply; but this did not remove a greater difficulty. Mr. Gilpin’s notions of the pastoral care were so strict, that he thought no excuse could justify non-residence for so considerable a time as he intended to be abroad. He could not, therefore, think of supporting himself with any part of the income of his living, and having discovered a person, with whose abilities and inclinations to discharge the duties of it, he was well acquainted, he resigned it to him, and set out lor London, to receive his last orders from the bishop, and to embark. The bishop received him at first -with some displeasure, but such an instance of sincerity could not fail to raise him higher in his esteem, although be would afterwards frequently chide him for these qualms of conscience, and would be often reminding him, that if he did not look better to his interest, he would certainly die a beggar.

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

Mr. Gilpin having spent three years abroad, was now fully satisfied in all his more considerable scruples. He wanted no further conviction of the bad tendency of popery: he saw the necessity of some reformation, and began to think every day more favourably of the present one. The doctrine of the corporal presence indeed he had not yet fully considered; but he looked upon it as a mystery, which it rather became him to acquiesce in than examine. The principal end of his going abroad being thus answered, he was desirous, of return ing iion:eb,ut ap the Marian persecution was still raging, his mends suggested that it was little less than madness to think of going to a place, from whence all of his sentiments were endeavouring to withdraw themselves. But it is most probable, that his purpose to return at this time was in pursuance of the bishop of Durham’s advice; who, rinding the infirmities of age increase upon him, and believing his nephew totally unqualified to advance himself in life, might be desirous of providing for him before l.is death; and hoped that his power, in that remote part of the kingdom, would be a sufficient protection for him against his enemies. It is, however, certain that he came into England during the heat of the persecution, and went immediately to the bishop, who was then in his diocese. Here this humane prelate kept himself withdrawn during most of that violent reign, to avoid having any hand in measures which he abhorred.

The bishop received him with great friendship, and within a very little time, gave him the archdeaconry of Durham, to which the rectory of Easington was annexed. Upon removing to this parish, he found it in great disorder, and set himself in earnest to reprove vice publicly and privately; and to explain the nature of true religion, with a freedom by no means suited to those dangerous times. In his office of archdeacon he endeavoured to reform the clergy, to discountenance pluralities, and to repress their private vices; and this he persisted in, notwithstanding the bishop hinted to him that more caution would be necessary in such times. It is, however, a little surprising that the bishop had not foreseen how much he must necessarily expose his nephew to the popish party, by placing him in such a station. He knew he could not temporize; and he must know, that without temporizing, he would soon be most obnoxious to those in power; with whose persecuting principles he was well acquainted. The consequence was as might have been expected; a clamour was raised against Mr. Gilpin as a heretic, and he was accused in form before the bishop of Durham, who, however, very artfully screened him at this time; but soon after, Mr. Gilpin finding the duties of his archdeaconry and rectory too nauch for his strength, and that they could not be divided, resigned both, and was for some time without any office in the church, except that of living with the bishop as one of his chaplains.

How long he continued unbeneficed, does not appear. It could not, however, be very long, because the rectory of Houghton-le-spring fell vacant, before Easington and the archdeaconry were disposed of; and the bishop, in a jocular way, made him an offer of all the three, which it was not likely he would listen to. He thanked the bishop, however, and accepted Houghton. This rectory was of considerable value, about 400l. per annum, but the duty of it was proportionably laborious, it being so extensive as to contain no less than fourteen villages, overrun with the darkness of popish ignorance and superstition. Gilpin, however, did not despair. He implored the assistance of God, and his sincere endeavours met with it. The people crowded about him, and heard him with attention, perceiving him a teacher of a different kind from those to whom they had hitherto been accustomed. This very cause, however, increased the malice of his enemies, and he was again formally accused before the bishop of Durham. How the bishop behaved at this time, we are not particularly informed; but no man knew better how to act upon an emergency; and it is certain that Mr. Gilpin was acquitted. The malice of his enemies succeeded, however, in part, for the bishop’s favour to him from this time visibly declined; though it is questionable, whether he really felt the indifference he expressed; or perhaps he might think it advisable thus far to temporize; hpping to deduct the sum of his own from the ill-will of others. Be this as it may, Mr. Gilpin acknowledged his great obligations to the bishop; was sorry to see him disgusted; and would have given up any thing to have him satisfied, except his conscience.

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

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

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

His hospitable manner of living was the admiration of the whole country, and strangers and travellers met with a cheerful reception. Even their beasts had so much care taken of them, that it was humorously said, “if a horse was turned loose in any part of the country, it would immediately make its way to the rector of Moughton’s.” Every Sunday, from Michaelmas to Easter, was a sort of public day with him. During this season, he expected to see all his parishioners and their families, whom he seated, according to their ranks, at three tables; and when absent from home, the same establishment was kept up. When lord Burleigh, then lord treasurer, was sent on public affairs into Scotland, he unexpectedly paid a visit to Mr. Gilpin, but the reconomy of his house was not easily disconcerted, and he entertained the statesman nnd his retinue in such a manner as made him acknowledge “he could hardly have expected more at Lambeth.” On looking back from an eminence, after he had left Houghton, Btirleigh eould not help exclaiming, “There is the enjoyment of life indeed! who can blame that man for not accepting of a bishopric! what doth he want to make him greater, or happier, or more useful to mankind!” Mr. Gilpin’s labours extended beyond his own parish; he every year visited divers neglected parishes in Northumberland, Yorkshire, Cheshire, Westmoreland, and Cumberland; and that his own flock might not suffer, he was at the expence of a constant assistant. In all his journeys he did not fail to visit the gaols and places of confinement; and by his labours and affectionate manner of behaviour, he is said to have reformed many abandoned persons in those abodes of human misery. He had set places and times for preaching in the different parts of the country, which were as regularly attended as the assize towns of a circuit. If he came to a place in which there was a church, he made use of it; if not, of barns, or any other large building, where great crowds of persons were sure to attend him, some for his instructions, more, perhaps, to partake of his bounty; but in his discourses he had a sort of enthusiastic warmth, which roused many to a sense of religion who had never thought of any thing serious before. The dangers and fatigues attending this employment were, in his estimation, abundantly compensated by the advantages which he hoped would accrue from them to his uninstructed fellow-creatures. He did not spare the rich; and in a discourse before Barnes, bishop of Durham, who had already conceived a prejudice against him, he spoke with so much freedom, that his best friends dreaded the result; they rebuked him for giving the prelate a handle against him, to which he replied, “If the discourse should do the good he intended by it, he was regardless of the consequences to himself.” He then waited on the prelate, who said, “Sir, I propose to wait upon you home myself.” When they arrived at the rectory, and entered the house, the bishop turned suddenly round, and grasped him eagerly by the hand, saying, “Father Gil pin, I know you are fitter to be bishop of Durham, than I am to be parson of this church of yours. I ask forgiveness for past injuries. Forgive me, father, I know you have enemies, but while I live bishop of Durham, none of tjiem shall cause you any further trouble.”

Thus died Bernard Gilpin, who, for his exemplary piety, laborious virtue, and unbounded benevolence, deserves to have his name transmitted to posterity with respect and reverence, and who obtained, and most deservedly, among his contemporaries, the title of the Northern Apostle. By his unwearied application he had amassed a great stock of knowledge, and was indeed ignorant of no part of learning at that time in esteem. He had given more than common attention to the study of the dead languages, to history and divinity; he is said to have excelled in poetry, but he expended little time in the pursuit of any thing that was foreign to his profession. His temper was naturally warm, but, by degrees, he succeeded in obtaining an entire command of himself. His disposition was serious, yet, among his particular friends, he was cheerful and even facetious. His severity had no other object but himself: to others he was mild, candid, and indulgent. His “Sermon preached at the court at Greenwich, before K. Edward VI.” in 1552, is the only revised composition of Mr. Gilpin’s that has survived him. It is printed in his Life by bishop Carleton, 1636, 12mo, fourth edition; and in that more elaborate and elegant life by his descendant, first printed in 1753, 8vo.

, an eminent painter, sculptor, and architect, was born in 1276, at a village near Florence, of parents who were plain country people. When a boy, he was sent out to keep sheep in the fields; and, having a natural inclination for design, he used to amuse himself with drawing his flock after the life upon sand, in the best manner he could. Cimabue travelling once that way, found him at this work, and thence conceived so good an opinion of his genius for painting, that he prevailed with his father to let him go to Florence, and be brought up under him. He had not applied himself long to designing, before he began to shake off the stiffness of the Grecian masters. He endeavoured to give a finer air to his heads, and more of nature to his colouring, with proper actions to his figures. He attempted likewise to draw after the life, and to express the different passions of the mind; but could not come up to the liveliness of the eyes, the tenderness of the flesh, or the strength of the muscles in naked figures. What he did, however, had not been done in, two centuries before, with any skill equal to his. Giotto’s reputation was so far extended, that pope Benedict IX. sent a gentleman of his court into Tuscany, to bring him a just report of his talents; and withal to bring him a design from each of the Florentine painters, being desirous to have some notion of their skill. When he came to Giotto, he told him of the pope’s intentions, which were to employ him in St. Peter’s church at Rome; and desired him to send some design by him to his holiness. Giotto, who was a pleasant ready man, took a sheet of white paper, and setting his arm close to his hip to keep it steady, he drew with one stroke of his pencil a circle so round and so equal, that “round as Giotto’s O” afterwards became proverbial. Then, presenting it to the gentleman, he told him smiling, that “there was a piece of design, which he might carry to his holiness.” The man replied, “I ask for a design:” Giotto answered, “Go, sir, I tell you his holiness asks nothing else of me.” The pope, who understood something of painting, easily comprehended by this, how much Giotto in strength of design excelled all the other painters of his time; and accordingly sent for him to Rome. Here he painted many pieces, and amongst the rest a ship of Mosaic work, which is over the three gates of the portico, in the entrance to St. Peter’s church, and is known to painters by the name of Giotto’s vessel. Pope Benedict was succeeded by Clement V. who transferred the papal court to Avignon; whither, likewise, Giotto was obliged to go. After some stay there, having perfectly satisfied the pope by many fine specimens of his art, he was largely rewarded, and returned to Florence full of riches and honour in 1316. He was soon invited to Padua, where he painted a new-built chapel very curiously; thence he went to Verona, and then to Ferrara. At the same time the poet Dante, hearing that Giotto was at Ferrara, and being himself then in exile at Ravenna, got him over to Ravenna, where he executed several pieces; and perhaps it might be here that he drew Dante’s picture, though the friendship between the poet and the painter was previous to this. In 1322, he was again invited abroad by Castruccio Castrucani, lord of Luca; and, after that, by Robert king of Naples. Giotto painted much at Naples, and chiefly the chapel, where the king was so pleased with him, that he used very often to go and sit by him while he was at work: for,Giotto was a man of pleasant conversation and wit. One day, it being very hot, the king said to him, “If I were you, Giotto, I would leave off working this hot weather” “and so would I, Sir,” says Giotto, “if I were you.” He returned from Naples to Rome, and from Rome to Florence, leaving monuments of his art in almost every place through which he passed. There is a picture of his in one of the churches of Florence, representing the death of the blessed Virgin, with the apostles about her: the attitudes of which story, Michael Angelo used to say, could not be better designed. Giotto, however, did not confine his genius altogether to painting: he was both a sculptor and architect. In 1327 he formed the design of a magnificent and beautiful monument for Guido Tarlati, bishop of Arezzo, who had been the head of the Ghibeline faction in Tuscany: and in 1334 he undertook the famous tower of Sancta Maria del Fiore; for which work, though it was not finished, he was made a citizen of Florence, and endowed with a considerable yearly pension. His death happened in 1336: and the city of Florence erected a marble statue over his tomb. He had the esteem and friendship of most of the excellent men of the age in which he lived and among the rest, of Dante and Petrarch. He drew, as already noticed, the picture of the former and the latter mentions him in his will, and in one of his familiar epistles.

Glanvil likewise laid the plan of a farther defence of the royal society; but bishop Sprat’s history of it being then in the press, he waited to see how far that treatise should anticipate his design. Upon its. publication, in 1667, finding there was room left for him, he pursued his resolution, and printed his piece the following year, with this title, expressing the motives of writing it: “Plus Ultra, or the Progress and Advancement of Knowledge since the days of Aristotle, in an account of some of the most remarkable late improvements of practical useful learning, to encourage philosophical endeavours, occasioned by a conference with one of the notional way,” 1668, 12mo. In some parts of this piece he treated the Somersetshire yicar with rough raillery, and this the vicar returned, in a piece which was denied the press both at Oxford and London, for its scurrility. Glanvil somehow obtaining the contents, printed them at London, with proper remarks of his own, under the title of “The Chew-Gazette,” but of these there were only 100 taken off, and those dispersed into private hands, in order, as Glanvil said, that Crosse’s shame might not be made public, &c. After this letter was published, Crosse wrote ballads against our author and the royal society; while other wags at Oxford, pleased with the controversy, made doggrel ballads on them both.

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

A series of honours and favours bestowed by the usurper, whose interest he constantly promoted, naturally incurred the displeasure of Charles II. who removed him from his wardenship, by a letter dated July 3, 1660; and claiming the right of nomination, during the vacancy of the see of Canterbury, appointed another warden in a manner the most mortifying to our author. The new warden was Dr. Edw. Reynolds, then king’s chaplain, and soon after bishop of Norwich, who was appointed successor to sir Nathaniel Brent, without the least notice being taken of Dr. Goddard. He then removed to Gresham college, where he had been chosen professor of physic on Nov. 7, 1655, and continued to frequent those meetings which gave birth to the royal society; and, upon their establishment by charter in 1663, was nominated one of the first council. This honour they were induced to confer upon him, both in regard to his merit in general as a scholar, and to his particular zeal and abilities in promoting the design of their institution, of which there is full proof in the “Memoirs” of that society by Dr. Birch, where there is scarcely a meeting mentioned, in which his name does not occur for some experiment or observation made by him. At the same time he carried on his business as a physician, being continued a fellow of the college by their new charter in 1663. Upon the conflagration in 1666, which consumed the old Exchange, our professor, with the rest of his brethren, removed from Gresham, to make room for the merchants to carry on the public affairs of the city; which, however, did not hinder him from going on with pursuits in natural philosophy and physic. In this last he was not only an able but a conscientious practitioner; for which reason he continued still to prepare his own medicines. He was so fully persuaded that this, no less than prescribing them, was the physician’s duty, that in 1668, whatever offence it might give the apothecaries, he was not afraid to publish a treatise, recommending it to general use. This treatise was received with applause; but as he found the proposal in it attended with such difficulties and discouragements as were likely to defeat it, he pursued that subject the follow, ing year, in “A Discourse, setting forth the unhappy condition of the practice of Physic in London,” 1669, 4to. But this availed nothing, and when an attempt was made by the college of physicians, with the same view, thirty years afterwards, it met with no better success. In 1671 he returned to his lodgings at Gresham college, where he continued prosecuting improvements in philosophy till his death, which was very sudden. He used to meet a select number of friends at the Crown-tavern in Bloomsbury, where they discoursed on philosophical subjects, and in his return thence in the evening of March 24, 1674, he was seized with an apoplectic fit in Cheapside, and dropped down dead.

His memory was long preserved by certain drops, which were his invention, and bore his name; but which, like all such nostrums, are now forgotten. His receipts “Arcana Goddardiana,” were published at the end of the “Pharmacopoeia Bateana,” 1691. He had several learned treatises dedicated to him as a patron of learning, made by persons well acquainted with him, such as Dr. Edmund Dickinson and Dr. Wallis, who highly praise his extensive learning, his skill in his profession, knowledge of public affairs, and generous disposition, his candour, affability, and benevolence to all good and learned men. Of this last there is one instance worth preserving; and that is, his taking into his apartment, at Gresham, Dr. Worthington, who lodged with him for the conveniency of preparing for the press the works of Mr. Joseph Mede, which he finished and published in 1664. According to Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, he was the first Englishman who made that noble astronomical instrument the telescope.

, a learned French bishop and writer, was descended from a good family at Dreux, and born in 1605. Being inclined to poetry from his youth, he applied himself to it, and so cultivated his genius, that he made his fortune by it. His first essay was a paraphrase in verse of the Benedicite, which was much commended. He was but twenty -four when he became a member of that society which met at the house of Mr. Conrart, to confer upon subjects of polite learning, and to communicate their performances. From this society cardinal Richlieu took the hint, and formed the resolution, of establishing the French academy for belles lettres; and our author in a few years obtained the patronage of that powerful ecclesiastic. The bishopric of Grasse becoming vacant in 1636, cardinal Richelieu recommended him to the king, who immediately conferred it upon him; and as soon as the ceremony of consecration was over, he repaired to his diocese, and applied himself to the functions of his office. He held several synods, composed a great number of pastoral instructions for the use of his clergy, and restored ecclesiastical discipline, which had been almost entirely neglected. He obtained from pope Innocent X. a bull for uniting the bishopric of Vence to that of Grasse, as his predecessor William le Blore had before obtained from Clement VIII. This arrangement, considering the propinquity of the two dioceses, and the small income of both together (about 450l.) was not unreasonable; but when Godeau found the people and clergy averse to it, he gave up his pretensions, and contented himself with the bishopric of Vence only. He assisted in several general assemblies of the clergy, held in 1645 and 1655; in which he vigorously maintained the dignity of the episcopal order, and the system of pure morality, against those who opposed both. One of his best pieces upon this subject, was published in 1709, with the title of “Christian Morals for the Instruction of the Clergy of the Diocese of Vence” and was afterwards translated into English, by Basil Kennet. These necessary absences excepted, he constantly resided upon his diocese, where he was perpetually employed in visitations, preaching, reading, writing, or attending upon the ecclesiastical or temporal affairs of his bishopric, till Easter-day, April 17, 1671; when he was seized with a fit of an apoplexy, of which he died the 21st.

Bishop Burnet says, “that he was the silentest and mojdestest man, who was perhaps ever bred in a court. He had a clear apprehension, and dispatched business with great method, and with so much temper, that he had no personal enemies. But his silence begot a jealousy, which hung long upon him. His notions were for the court; but his incorrupt and sincere way of managing the concerns of the treasury created in all people a very high esteem for him. He had true principles of religion and virtue, and never heaped up wealth. So that, all things being laid together, he was one of the worthiest and wisest men, who was employed in that age.” In another place the same historian observes, “that he was a man of the clearest head, the calmest temper, and the most incorrupt of all the ministers he had ever known; and that after having been thirty years in the treasury, and during nine of those lord treasurer, as he was never once suspected of corruption, ur of suffering his servants to grow rich under Jiim, so in all that time his estate was not increased by him to the value of four thousand pounds.” It is also said, that he had a penetrating contemplative genius, a slow, but unerring apprehension, and an exquisite judgment, with few words, though always to the purpose. He was temperate in his diet. His superior wisdom and spirit made han despise the low arts of vain-glorious courtiers; for he never kept suitors unprofitably in suspense, nor promised any thing, that he was not resolved to perform; but as he accounted dissimulation the worst of lying, so on the other hand his denials were softened by frankness and condescension to those whom he could not gratify. His great abilities and consummate experience qualified him for a prime minister; and his exact knowledge of all the branches of the revenue particularly fitted him for the management of the treasury. He was thrifty without the least tincture of avarice, being. as good an ceconomist of the public wealth, as he was of his private fortune. He had a clear conception of the whole government, both in church and state; and perfectly knew the temper, genius, and disposition of the English nation. And though his stern gravity appeared a little ungracious, yet his steady and impartial justice recommended him to the esteem of almost every person; so that no man, in so many different public stations, and so great a variety of business, ever had more friends, or fewer enemies. Dean Swift’s character of him is not so favourable, and in our references may be found many other opposite opinions of his merit and abilities. He had a brother of some poetical talent, noticed by Mr. Ellis.

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

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

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

, son of the preceding, was born at Havington in Northamptonshire, 1561; and, after a good foundation of grammar-learning, was sent to Christ Church college, Oxford, where he was elected a student in 1678, while his father was dean. He proceeded B. A. in 1580, and M. A. in 1583; about which time he wrote an entertaining piece upon a philosophical subject, where imagination, judgment, and knowledge, keep an equal pace; but this, as it contradicted certain received notions of his times, he never published. It came out about five years after his death, under the title of “The Man in the Moon; or, a discourse of a voyage thither;” by Domingo Gonsales, 1638, 8vo. It has been several times printed, and shews that he had a creative genius. Domingo Gonsales, a little Spaniard, is supposed to be shipwrecked on an uninhabited island, where he taught several ganzas, or wild geese, to fly with a light machine, and to fetch and carry things for his conveniency. He, after some time, ventured to put himself into the machine, and they carried him with great ease. He happened to be in this aerial chariot at the time of the year when these ganzas, which were birds of passage, took their flight to the moon, and was directly carried to that planet. He has given a very ingenious description of what occurred to him on his way, and the wonderful things which he saw there. Dr. Swift seems to have borrowed several hints from this novel, in his Voyage to Laputa; but it is more to Dr. Godwin’s praise that he appears to have been well acquainted with the Copernican system. He suppressed also another of his inventions at that time, which he called “Nuncius inanimatus,” or the “Inanimate Messenger.” The design was to communicate various methods of conveying intelligence secretly, speedily, and safely; but although he asserts that by an agreement settled between two parties, a message may be conveyed from the one to the other, at the distance of many miles, with an incredible swiftness, yet he does not reveal the secret. It appears, however, to have given rise to bishop Wilkins’s “Mercury, or secret and swift Messenger.” It is said that he afterwards communicated the secret to his majesty, but why it was not acted upon is not mentioned by his biographers. The pamphlet was published in 1629, and afterwards, in 1657, was translated by the learned Dr. Thomas Smith, and published with “The Man in the Moon.”

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

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

, a learned English writer, and an excellent schoolmaster, was born in Somersetshire, in 1587; and, after a suitable education in grammar-learning, was sent to Oxford. He was entered of Magdalenhall in 1602; and took the two degrees in arts 1606 and 1609. This last year he removed to Abingdon in Berkshire, having obtained the place of chief master of the freeschool there; and in this employ distinguished himself by his industry and abilities so much, that he brought the school into a very flourishing condition; and bred up many youths who proved ornaments to their country, both in church and state. To attain this commendable end he wrote his “Roman Historiae Anthologia,” an English exposition of the Roman antiquities, &c. and printed it at Oxford in 1613, 4to. The second edition was published in 1623, with considerable additions. He also printed for the use of his school, a “Florilegium Phrastcon, or a survey of the Latin Tongue.” However, his inclinations leading him to divinity, he entered into orders, and became chaplain to Montague bishop of Bath and Wells. He proceeded B. D. in 1616, in which year he published at Oxford, “Synopsis Antiquitatum Hebraicarum, &c.” a collection of Hebrew antiquities, in three books, 4to. Thi he dedicated to his patron; and, obtaining some time after from him the rectory of Brightwell in Berkshire, he resigned his school, the fatigue of which had long been too great for him. Amidst his parochial duties, he prosecuted the subject of the Jewish antiquities; and, in 1625, printed in 4to, “Moses and Aaron, &c.” which was long esteemed an useful book for explaining the civil and ecclesiastical rites of the Hebrews. He took his degree of D. D. in 1637, but did not enjoy that honour many years; dying upon his parsonage in 1642-3, and leaving a wife, whom he had married while he taught school at Abingdon.

, an English prelate, and the only one who forsook the church of England for that of Rome since the reformation, was born at Ruthvyn in Denbighshire, 1583. He was educated at Westminster school, whence, in 1600, he went to Trinity college, Cambridge. After taking orders, he got the living of Stapleford Abbots in Essex in 1607. Becoming acknowledged at court as a celebrated preacher, he obtained in 1617, a canonry of Windsor; in 1620, the deanery of Rochester, and in 1625 was consecrated bishop of Gloucester. In 1639, he refused to sign the seventeen canons of doctrine and discipline drawn up in a synod, and enjoined by archbishop Laud, who, after admonishing him three times, procured him to be suspended, and it appeared soon after that he was in all principles a Roman catholic. After this, and during the rebellion, he lived privately in Westminster, employing much of his time in researches in the Cottonian library. He died, in the open profession of popery, Jan. 19, 1655. He wrote, 1. “The Fall of Man, and Corruption of Nature, proved by reason,” 1616, 1624, 4to. 2. “Arguments and Animadversions on Dr. George Hackwil’s Apology for Divine Providence.” 3. “The two mysteries of Christian Religion, viz. the Trinity and Incarnation, explicated,” 1653, 4to. 4. “An Account of his Sufferings,” 1650. 5. “The Court of King James by Sir Anthony Weldon reviewed,” a ms. in the Bodleian.

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

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

, in Latin Gorreus, a physician, was born at Paris in 1505. He took the degree of doctor of physic in that city about 1540, and was appointed dean of the faculty in 1548. He is said to have possessed both the learning and sagacity requisite to form an accomplished physician, and to have practised with great humanity and success. His works, which were published in 1622, folio, by one of his sons, contributed to support this reputation. The greater part of them consists of commentaries on different portions of the writings of Hippocrates, Galen, and Nicander. During the civil war, which was fatal to numerous men of letters, John de Gorris was stopped by a party of soldiers, when on his journey to Melun to visit the bishop of Paris, and the fright which he sustained is said to have deprived him of his reason. This occurred in 1561, and he lived in this deplorable condition until hia death at Paris, in 1577. His father, Peter de Gouius, was a physician at Bourges, attained considerable eminence, and left two works, one on the general “practice of medicine,” dated 1555; the other, “a collection of formulae,” 1560, both in Latin.

, surnamed Fulgentius, and celebrated for propagating and exciting a controversy on the doctrines of predestination and free grace, was born in Germany, in the beginning, probably, of the ninth century. From early life he had been a monk, and had devoted himself to theological inquiries. He was peculiarly fond of the writings of St. Augustine, and entered with much zeal into his sentiments. About the year 846, he left his monastery at Fulcla, and went into Dalmatia and Pannonia, where he spread the doctrines of St. Augustine, under a pretence, as his enemies said, of preaching the gospel to the infidels. At his return, he remained some time in Lombardy, and in the year 847 held a conference with Notingus, or Nothingus, bishop of Vienne, concerning predestination, who prevailed on Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz, to undertake the confutation of what was called a new heresy. This the archbishop undertook, and was supported by a synod at Mentz, which condemned Gotteschalcus. He was farther prosecuted by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, was degraded from the priesthood, and ordered to be beaten with rods, and imprisoned. But as nothing was proved against him, except his adherence to the sentiments of Augustine, which were still held in estimation in the church, this shews, in the opinion of Dupin, that he was an injured man. He was, however, so severely whipped in the presence of the emperor Charles and the bishops, that his resolution failed him, and he complied with their commands so far as to throw into the fire a writing in which he had made a collection of scripture texts in order to prove his opinion. After this he was kept a close prisoner by Hincmar in a monastery, where he continued to maintain his opinions until his death in the same prison in the year 870. Hincmar, hearing that he lay at the point of death, sent him a formulary, which he was to subscribe, in order to his being received into the communion of the church; Gotteschalcus, however, rejected the offer with indignation, and therefore, by orders of Hincrnar, was denied Christian burial. But even in that age there were men who loudly remonstrated against the barbarity with which he had been treated. Remigius, archbishop of Lyons, distinguished himself among these; and, in a council held at Valence, in Dauphiny, in the year 855, both Gotteschalcus and his doctrine were vindicated and defended, and two subsequent councils confirmed the decrees of this council. The churches also of Lyons, Vienne, and Aries, vigorously supported the sentiments of Gotteschalcus, whom nothing but the secular influence of Hincmar could have detained in prison, while his cause was thus victorious. The only writings of this confessor that have reached the present times are, two “Confessions of Faith,” inserted in archbishop Usher’s “Historia Gotteschalci,” printed at Dublin in 1641; an epistle to Ratramnus, published in Cellot’s “Historia Gotteschalci,” at Paris, in 1655, and some fragments of other pieces, noticed by Cave. In 1650, the celebrated Maguin published, at Paris, a collection of the treatises produced on both sides of this controversy, entitled “Veterum Auctorum qui nono saeculo de Prasdestinatione et Gratia scripserunt, &c.” 2 vols. 4to.

, a very celebrated puritan divine, was born at Bow near Stratford, Middlesex, Nov. 1, 1575, and educated at Eton school, whence he went in 1595 to King’s college, Cambridge. He was endowed with considerable powers of mind, and by close application to study, accumulated a great fund of learning. Such was his ardour and regularity in his literary pursuits, that during his first three years, he slept only one night out of college, and for nine years never missed college prayers at halfpast five in the morning, unless when from home. It was his invariable rule to read fifteen chapters in the Bible every day, at three times. When chosen reader of logic and philosophy in the college, he was equally precise in regularity of duty and attendance. Having taken his degrees, and been admitted into orders, he was in 1608 preferred to the rectory of St. Anne’s Blackfiiars, London, where he became extremely popular; and having instituted a lecture on Wednesday mornings, it was frequented by many persons of the first rank. Having, however, imbibed some of the prejudices which were then so common against the church of England, he was occasionally censured, and at one time threatened with a prosecution in the Star-chamber for having become a member of a society for the purchase of impropriations; but this did not take effect, and the subsequent disturbances relieved him from any farther molestation. In 1643, he was nominated one of the assembly of divines, and took an active part in the various proceedings instituted by the then ruling powers for the reformation of the church. But when in 1648, he saw the lengths to which their reformations tended, he united with a large body of his brethren in declaring against putting the king to death. For forty-five years, says Granger, he was the laborious, the exemplary, and the much loved minister of St. Anne’s Blackfriars, where none ever thought or spoke ill of him, but such as were inclined to think or speak ill of religion itself. He died Dec. 12, 1653. He appears, indeed, to have had the suffrages of all his contemporaries, and is honourably mentioned by many foreign divines. He was at one time offered the provostship of King’s college, but declined it; his usual saying was, that it was his highest ambition “to go from Blackfriars to heaven.” He published several pious tracts and some sermons, which bishop Wilkins classes among the most excellent of his time; but his principal work was “A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 1655, fol. He had also a share in the commentary on the Bible, usually called “The Assembly’s Annotations.”

A few of Mr. Cough’s publications yet remain to be noticed: l.New editions of “Description desRoyaulmes d‘Angleterre et d’Ecosse, composed par Etienne Perlin,” Paris, 1558; and of “Histoire de I'entree de la Reine Mere dans le Grande Bretagne, par de la Serre,” Paris, 1639; which he illustrated with cuts, and English notes; and introduced by historical prefaces, in 1775. 2. “A Catalogue of the Coins of Canute, king of Denmark and England, with specimens,” 1777, 4to. 3. “An Essay on the Rise and Progress of Geography in Great Britain and Ireland; illustrated with specimens of our oldest maps, M 1780, 4to; and” Catalogue of Sarum and York Missals,“1780, both extracted from the second edition of his” British Topography.“5.” A comparative view of the ancient Monuments of India,“&c. 1785, 4to. 6.” List of the members of the Society of Antiquaries of London, from their revival *n 1717 to June 1796; arranged in chronological and alphabetical order,“1798, 4to. 7. In the same year he amended and considerably enlarged, from the Paris edition of 1786, an English translation of the” Arabian Nights Entertainments,“to which he added notes of illustration, and a preface, in which the supplementary tales published by Dom. Chavis are proved to be a palpable forgery. 8.” A Letter to the Lord Bishop of London, by a Layman,“1799, 8vo, on various subjects connected with the prosperity of the church. 9. * Rev. Kennett Gibson’s comment upon part of the fifth journey of Antoninus through Britain,” &c. 1800, 4to. 10. “Description of the Beauchamp chapel, adjoining to the church of St. Mary at Warwick,” 1804, 4to. As to his assistance to his friends engaged in literary pursuits, it was more extensive than probably will ever be known; but some particulars are stated by his biographer, to which we refer, and many other acknowledgments may be found in various works published within the last forty years. It is to be regretted that no portrait of Mr. Gough exists, nor is it known that he ever would consent to sit to any of the many artists with whom he was connected, and to some of whom he was a steady patron. His person was short, inclining to corpulence. His features bespoke the energy and activity of his mind. In youth he was peculiarly shy, which he attributed to a late entrance into the world, and an irresistible habit of application to books. As his intercourse with society advanced, his manner became more easy, and his conversation was always lively, often with a pleasant flow of humour, and his disposition communicative,

, a French writer of some note, was the son of Nicholas Goulu, royal professor of Greek in the university of Paris, in 1567, and author of a translation from Greek into Latin of Gregentius’s dispute with the Jew Herbanus, which De Noailles, the French ambassador, had brought from Constantinople, and of other works, a collection of which was printed at Paris in 1580. His son was born at Paris Aug. 25, 1576, and educated for the bar; but, having failed in the first cause he pleaded, he felt the disappointment so acutely as to relinquish the profession, and retire into a convent. He chose the order of the Feuillans, and entered amongst them in 1604. He was so much esteemed in his order that he always enjoyed some office in it, and was at last made general. The name he took when he became a monk, was Dom John of St. Francis. As he understood the Greek tongue, he translated into French Epictetus’s Manual, Arrian’s Dissertations, some of St. Basil’s treatises, and the works of Dionysius Areopagita; to which he added a vindication of this St. Dionysius’s works. He also revised his father’s Latin translation of St. Gregory Nyssen against Eunomius, and published it. He also wrote a book against Du Moulin’s treatise of the calling of pastors, “De la Vocation des Pasteurs” the Life of Francis de Sales, bishop of Geneva; and a Funeral Oration on Nicholas le Fevre, preceptor to Lewis XIII.; but it is said that he never delivered it. He did not, however, gain so great reputation by all those writings as by his angry controversy with Balzac, already noticed in our account of that writer. Goulu died Jan. 5, 1629.

The “Septuagint” had never been entirely printed from the Alexandrian ms. in St. James’s library, partly owing to the great difficulty ef performing it in a manner suitable to its real worth, and partly because that worth itself had been so much questioned by the advocates of the Roman copy, that it was even grown into some neglect. To perform this task, and to assert its superior merit, was an honour marked out for Grabe; and when her majesty acquainted him with it, she at the same time presented him with a purse of 60l. by the suggestion of her minister Harley, to enable him to go through with it. This was a most arduous undertaking, and he spared no pains to complete it. In the mean time he employed such hours as were necessary for refreshment, in other works of principal esteem. In 1705 he gave a beautiful edition of bishop Bull’s works, in folio, with notes; for which he received the author’s particular thanks; and he had also a hand in preparing for the press archdeacon Gregory’s edition of the New Testament in Greek, which was printed the same year at Oxford, revising the scholia, which Gregory, then dead, had collected from various authors, and making the proper references.

, an English printer and historian, was descended of a good family, and appears to have been brought up a merchant, and his works, as an author, evince him to have had a tolerable education. He tells us himself that he wrote the greatest part of Hall’s chronicle (who died in 1547), and next year printed that work, entitled “The union of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre and Yorke,” &c. continued to the end of the reign of Henry VIII. from Hall’s Mss. according to Ant. Wood. It had been printed by Berthelet in 1542, but brought down only to 1532. In 1562 Grafton’s “Abridgment of the Chronicles of England,” was printed by R. Tottyl, and reprinted the two succeeding years, and in 1572. And as Stowe had published his “Summarie of the Englyshe Chronicles” in 1565, Grafton sent out, as a rival, an abridgement of his abridgement, which he entitled “A Manuell of the Chronicles of England;” and Stowe, not to be behind with him, published in the same year his “Summarie of Chronicles abridged.” This rivalship was accompanied by harsh reflections on each other in their respective prefaces. In 1569 Grafton published his “Chronicle at large, and meere History of the affaires of England,” &c. some part of which seems to have been unjustly censured by Buchanan. In the time of Henry VIII. soon after the death of lord Cromwell, Grafton was imprisoned six weeks in the Fleet, for printing Matthews’s Bible, and what was called “The Great Bible” without notes, and, before his release, was bound in a penalty of lOOl. that he should neither sell nor print, or cause to be printed, anymore bibles, until the king and the clergy should agree upon a translation. As Whitchurch was concerned with him in printing those Bibles, he very probably shared the same fate. Grafton was also called before the council, on a charge of printing a ballad in favour of lord Cromwell; and his quondam friend bishop Bonner being present, aggravated the cause, by reciting a little chat between them, in which Grafton had intimated his “being sorry to hear of Cromwell’s apprehension;” but the lord chancellor Audley, disgusted probably at this meanness of spirit in Bonner, turned the discourse, and the matter seems to have ended. In a few years after, Grafton was appointed printer to prince Edward, and he with his associate Whitchurch had special patents for printing the church-service books, and also the Primers both in Latin and English.

In 1753 he published the result of his experience in some diseases of the army, in a volume written in Latin, entitled “Historia Febris Anomalae Batavre annorum 1746, 1747, 1748,” &c. In this work he appears to advantage as an acute observer of the phenomena of disease, and as a man of general learning, but what accession he had been able to make to the stock of medical knowledge was unfortunately anticipated in sir John Pringle’s recent and very valuable work on the diseases of the army. During his residence in London, “his literary talents introduced him to the acquaintance of many men of genius, particularly of Shenstone, Dr. Percy the late bishop of Dromore, Glover, Dr. Johnson, sir Joshua Reynolds, and others, who by Mr. BoswelPs comprehensive biography, are now known to have composed Dr. Johnson’s society, and it is no small praise that every member of it regarded Dr. Grainger with affection. He was first known as a poet by his” Ode on Solitude,“which has been universally praised, and never beyond its merits; but professional success is seldom promoted by the reputation of genius. Grainger’s practice was insufficient to employ his days or to provide for them, and he is said to have accepted the office of tutor to a young gentleman who settled an annuity upon him; nor did he disdain such literary employment as the booksellers suggested. Smollett, in the course of a controversy which will be noticed hereafter, accuses him of working for bread in the lowest employments of literature, and at the lowest prices. This, if it be not the loose assertion of a calumniator, may perhaps refer to the assistance he gave in preparing the second volume of Maitland’s” History of Scotland," in which he was employed by Andrew Millar, who has seldom been accused of bargaining with authors for the lowest prices. Maitland had left materials for the volume, and as Grainger' s business was to arrange them, and continue the work as nearly as possible in Maitiand’s manner and style, much fame could not result from his best endeavours.

, a French historical writer, was born Feb. 6, 1653, at St. Lo, in Normandy. After studying philosophy at Caen, he entered into the congregation of the oratory in 1671, where he applied to the belles lettres and theology, but quitted it in 1676, and went to Paris, where he engaged in the education of two young men of rank, the marquis de Vins, and the duke cTEstrees, and at the same time applied himself to the study of history under the direction of father Le Cointe, who formed a very high opinion of him. He first appeared as a writer in 1688, in “A History of the Divorce of Henry VIII. and Catharine of Arragon,” in three vols. 12mo. The main object of this work is to refute certain facts and arguments contained in the first two books of Burnet’s History of the Reformation. In 1685, when Burnet was at Paris, he had an interview with Le Grand in the presence of Messrs. Thevenot and Auzout, in which the latter proposed his doubts, and the former answered them, both preserving a tone of elegance and mutual respect. The publication of the above work, however, produced a controversy, in the course of which, in 1691, Le Grand addressed three letters to the bishop, to which he replied. How long the controversy might have continued is uncertain, as Le Grand was necessarily diverted from it in 1692, when he received the appointment of secretary to the abbe d'Estrees, in his embassy to Portugal. In this situation he continued till 1697. The leisure which his diplomatic functions allowed was employed in translations of voyages and travels from the Portuguese. In 1702 he accompanied the same minister in Spain, where he remained about two years as secretary. Soon after this, the marquis de Torci, minister of state, took him into his service, and employed his pen in drawing up several memorials concerning the Spanish monarchy, and other political topics, in which he acquitted himself with great ability, but most of them were printed without his name. He employed much of his time in writing a life of Louis XL; but, although this was quite finished in 1728, it still remains in manuscript. In that year, however, hepublished his translation of Lobo’s History of Abyssinia, with many additions; and about the same time his treatise “De la succession a la Couroune de France.” He died of an apoplectic stroke, April 30, 1733. He had been possessed of church preferment, and had held, for a time, the office of censor royal of books.

, a learned bishop of Amelia, was born in 1536 in the little city called Borgodi-san-Sepulcro in Tuscany. He was educated by cardinal Commendo, who trusted him with the most important affairs, and gave him a rich abbey. After this cardinal’s death, Gratiaiii was secretary to pope Sixtus V. then to cardinal Montalto and Clement VIII. who was partly indebted to him for his elevation to the papal chair, made him bishop of Amelia, sent him to Venice as nuncio, and would have even created him cardinal, but was dissuaded from it by cardinal Aldobraudino, because Gratiani was the duke of Florence’s subject. The air of Venice not agreeing with his health, he retired to Amelia, devoted himself to the duties of a holy bishop, and died there, 1611. He left “Synodal Ordinances;” “The Life of Cardinal Commendo,” 4to, which has been translated into French by M. Flechier; “De Bello Cyprio,” 4to; “De Casibus adversis illustrium virorum sui oevi,” 4to, translated into French by le Pelletier. In 1745, a posthumous work was published at Florence, “De Scriptis invita Minerva ad Aloysium fratrem libri viginti,” 4to.

This account of the time of our author’s admission into the government of the New-river is taken from the minute books, or register, of the general court of that company, and sufficiently clears him from an imputation thrown upon his memory by bishop Burnet who, having observed that the New-river was brought to a head at Islington, where there is a great room full of pipes that conveys it through the streets of London, and that the constant order was to set all the pipes running on Saturday night, that so the cisterns might be all full on Sunday morning, there being a more than ordinary consumption of water on that day, relates the following story, which he says was told him by Dr. Lloyd (afterwards bishop of Worcester) and the countess of Clarendon: “There was,” says he, “one Graunt, a papist, who under sir William Petty published his Observations an the Bills of Mortality. He had some time before applied himself to Lloyd, who had great credit with the countess of Clarendon, and said he could raise that estate considerably, if she would make him a trustee for her. His schemes were probable; and he was made one of the board that governed that matter, and by that he had a right to come as often as he pleased to view their works at Islington. He went thither the Saturday before the fire broke out, and called for the key where the heads of the pipes were, and turned all the cocks of the pipes that were then open, stopt the water, and went; away and carried 'the keys with him; so, when the fire broke out next morning, they opened the pipes in the streets to find water, but there was none. Some hours were lost in sending to Islington, where the door was broke open, and the cocks turned, and it was long before the water got to London. Graunt, indeed, denied that he had turned the cocks; but the officer of the works affirmed, that he had, according to order, st them all running, and that no person had got the keys from him besides Graunt, who confessed he had carried away the keys, but said he did it without design.” This, indeed, as Burnet observes, is but a presumption; and, we may add, a groundless calumny; since it is evident, from the above account, that Graunt was not admitted into the government of the New-river company till twenty-three days after the breaking out of the tire of London, to which may be added a farther proof that the parliament met September 18, 1666, and, on the very day that he was admitted a member of the New-river Company, they appointed a committee to inquire into the causes of the fire.

The report made by sir Robert Brooke, chairman of that committee, contains abundance of extraordinary relations, but not one word of the cocks being stopped, or any suspicions of Graunt. It is true, indeed, that he changed his religion, and was reconciled to the church of Rome some time before his death; but it is more than probable he was no papist at this juncture, since, in the title-page of his book in 1665, he is styled captain, and Wood informs us, that he had been two or three years a major when he made this change, which therefore could not have happened before 1667 or 1668 at soonest. However, the circumstances of the countess of Clarendon’s saying he was her trustee makes it plain that the story was not invented till some years after the fire, when Graunt was known to be a papist. It was apparently not invented till after his death. The first time of its appearance in public seems to have been in Echard’s “History of England.' 1 And according to bishop Burnet’s account, the story could not be told to him till after 1667, when Graunt was appointed trustee for the countess of Clarendon. The report, however, never reached his ears, and so could not disturb him in the prosecution of his studies, which he carried on after this change in his religion with the same assiduity as before, and made some considerable observations within two years of his death, which happened April 18, 1674, in the vigour of his age, having not quite completed his 54th year. He was interred on the 22d of the same month in St. Dunstan’s church, in Fleet-street, the corpse being at. tended by many of the most ingenious and learned persons of the time, and particularly by sir William Petty, who paid his last tribute with tears to his memory. He left his papers to this friend, who took care to adjust and insert them in a fifth edition of his work, which he published in 1676, 8vo, and that with so much care, and so much improved, that he frequently cites it as his own which probably gave occasion to bishop Burners mistake, who, as we have seen, called it sir William’s book, published under Graunt’s name. It is evident, however, that his observations were the elements of that useful science, which was afterwards styled” Political Arithmetic,“and of which Graunt must have the honour of being the first founder; and whatever merit may be ascribed to sir William Petty, Mr. Daniel King, Dr. Davenant, and others, upon the subject, it is all originally derived from the first author of the” Observations on the Bills of Mortality."

His first publication was a piece entitled “Prisci Censorini Photistici Hydra Mystica; sive, de corrupta morali doctrina dialogus,” Coloniic, 1691, 4to but really printed at Naples. This was without a name, and is very scarce the author having printed only fifty copies, which he distributed among his friends. 2. “L'Endimione di Erilo Cleoneo, Pasture Arcade, con nn Discorso di Bione Crateo,” Rome, 1692, 12mo. The Endymion is Alexander Guidi’s, who, in the academy of the Arcadians, went under the name of Erilo Cleoneo; and the discourse annexed, which illustrates the beauties of this pastoral, is Gravina’s, who conceals himself under that of Bione Crateo. 3. “Delle Antiche Favola,” Rome, 1696, 12 mo. 4. A Collection of pieces under the name of “Opuscula,” at Rome in lu96, 12mo; containing, first, “An Essay upon an ancient Law;” secondly, “A Dialogue concerning the excellence of the Latin Tongue,” thirdly, “A Discourse of the change which has happened in the Sciences, particularly in Italy;” fourthly, “A Treatise upon the Contempt of Death;” fifthly, upon “Moderation in Mourning;” sixthly, “The Laws of the Arcadians.” A collection of such of these as regard literary history and study was published in 1792, for the use of young students, by the present learned bishop of St. David’s. But the greatest of all his works, and for which he will be ever memorable, is, 5. His three books, “De Ortu et Progressu Juris Civiiis;” the first of which was printed at Maples, in 1701, 8vo, and at Leipsic in 1704, 8vo. Gravina afterwards sent the two other books of this work to John Burchard Mencken, librarian at Leipsic, who had published the first there, and who published these also in 1708, together with it, in one volume 4to. They were published also again at Naples in 1713, in two volumes, 4to, with the addition of a book, “De Romano Imperio;” and dedicated to pope Clement XI. who was much the author’s friend. This is reckoned the best edition of this famous work; for, when it was reprinted at Leipsic with the “Opuscula” abovementioned, in 1717, it was thought expedient to call it in the title-page, “Editio novissima ad nuperam Neapolitanam emt-ndata et aucta.” Gravina 1 s view, in this “History of Ancient Law,” was to induce the Roman youth to study it in its original records in the Pandects, the Institutes, and the Code, and not to content themselves, as he often complained they did, with learning it from modern abridgments, drawn up with great confusion, and in very barbarous Latin. Such knowledge and such language, he said, might do well enough for the bar, where a facility of speaking often supplied the place of learning and good sense, before judges who had no extraordinary share of either; but were what a real lawyer should be greatly above. As to the piece “De Romano Imperio,” Le Clerc pronounces it to be a work in which Gravina has shewn the greatest judgment and knowledge of Roman antiquity. The next performance we find in the list of his works is, 6. * c Acta Consistoriaiia creationis Em in. et Rev Cardinalium institute a S. D. N. Clemente XL P. M. diebus 17 Maii et 7 Junii anno salmis 1706. Accessit eorundem Cardinalium brevis delineatio,“Colonise, 1707, 4to. 7.” Delia Ragione Poetica Libri duo,“Rome, 1708, 4to. To a subsequent edition of this in 1716, was added a letter” De Poesi,“from which Blackwell, in his Inquiry into the life and writings of Homer, has taken many observations. Dr. Warton says that Gravina’s remarks have a novelty and penetration in them. 8. << Tragedie cinque,” ISlapofi, 1712, 8vo. These five tragedies are, “II Papimano;” “II Palamede” “L'Andromeda” “L'Appio Ciaudio;” “II Servio Tullio.” Gravina said that he composed these tragedies in three months, without interrupting l^is lectures; yet declares in his preface, that he should look upon all those as either ignorant or envious, who should scruple to prefer them to what Tasso, Bonarelli, Trissino, and others, had composed of the same kind. This at least shews that Gravina, great as his talents were, had too high an opinion of them. They could not, it is true, have been written by Sophocles himself in a more Grecian style; but he is entitled to more fame from having educated and formed the taste of Metastasio, who was his pupil, and to whom he left a legacy, amounting in our money to nearly 4000l. with his library, and a small estate in the kingdom of Naples. 9. “Orationes,” Nap. 1712, 12mo. These have been reprinted more than once, and are to be found with his < Opuscula“in the edition of 61 Origines Juris Civilis,” printed at Leipsic, in 1717. 10. <l Delia Tragedia Libro uno,“Napoli, 1715, 410. This work, his two books” Delia Ragione Poetica,“his discourse upon the” Endymion" of Alexander Guidt, and some other pieces, were printed together at Venice in 1731, 4to, but a more complete edition of his works was published at Naples by John Antony Sergi, 1756 1758, 3 vols. 4to.

, an empiric, whose wori r derful cures have been attested by some of the most eminent men of the seventeenth century, was the son of William Greatrakes, esq. and born at Affane, co. Waterforcl, in Ireland, Feb. 14, 1628. He was educated a protestant in the free-school of Lismore, until the age of thirteen, when his friends intended to have removed him to Trinity college, Dublin, but the rebellion breaking out, his mother took refuge with him in England, where he was kindly received by his great uncle Edmund Harris, brother to sir Edward Harris, knt. his grandfather by the mother’s side. After his uncle’s death he spent some years in the study of the classics and divinity under a clergyman in Devonshire, and then returned to Ireland, which was at that time in so deplorable a state that he retired to the castle of Caperquin, where he spent a year in contemplation, and seems to have contracted a species of enthusiasm which never altogether left him. In 1649 he entered into the service of the parliament, and continued in the army until 1656, when, a great part of the English being disbanded, he retired to his native country of Aflfane, and by the interest of the governor there, was made clerk cf the peace for the county of Cork, register for transplantation, and justice of the peace. At the Restoration all these places were taken from him, and his mind being disturbed partly with this disappointment, and partly for want of any regular and useful occupation, he felt an impulse, as he calls it, that the gift of curing the king’s evil was bestowed upon him and accordingly he began his operations, which were confined to praying, and stroking the part affected and such wonderful cures were effected, that he determined not to stop here. Three years after, he had another impulse that he could cure all kinds of diseases, and by the same simple remedy, which must be administered by himself. When however he pretended to some supernatural aid, and mentioned the Holy Ghost with irreverent presumption, as his assistant, he was cited to the bishop’s court, and forbid to take such liberties. This probably was the cause of his coming to England in January 1665, where he performed many cures, was invited by the king to Whitehall, and his reputation spread most extensively. Even Dr. Henry Stubbe, an eminent physician, published a pamphlet in praise of his skill. Having failed in one instance, that of a Mr. Cresset in Charterhouse square, there appeared a pamphlet entitled “Wonders no miracles: or Mr. Valentine Greatrakes Gift of Healing examined,” &c. Lond. 1666, 4to. This was written by Mr. David Lloyd, reader to the Charter-house, who treated Greatrakes as a cheat. In answer to this, he published “A brief account of Mr. Valentine Greatrakes, and divers of his strange cures,” &c. ibid. 1666, 4to. This was drawn up in the form of a letter to the right hon. Robert Boyle, who was a patron of our physician, as was also Dr. Henry More, and several other members of the royal society, before whom Greatrakes was examined. To his cures we find the attestations of Mr. Boyle, sir William Smith, Dr. Denton, Dr. Fairclough, Dr. Faber, sir Nathaniel Hobart, sir John Godolphin, Dr. Wilkins, Dr. VVhichcot (a patient), Dr. Cudworth, and many other persons of character and reputation. The truth seems to be, that he performed cures in certain cases of rheumatism, stiff joints, &c. by friction of the hand, and long perseverance in that remedy; in all which there would have been nothing extraordinary, as the same is practised till this day, had be not excited the astonishment and enthusiasm of his patients by pretensions to an extraordinary gift bestowed upon him, as he insinuates in one place, to cure the people of atheism. When he left England or died is not known. Mr. Harris says he was living in Dublin in 168 1.

, an English prelate, was born about 1706, at Beverly, in Yorkshire, and received the rudiments of his education at a private school. From this he was admitted a sizar in St. John’s college, Cambridge; and after taking his degrees in arts, with great credit as a classical scholar, engaged himself as usher to a school at Lichfield, before Dr. Johnson and Mr. Garrick had left that city, with both of whom he was of course acquainted, but he continued here only one year. In 1730 he was elected fellow of St. John’s, and soon after the bishop of Ely procured him the vicarage of Hingeston from Jesus college, which was tenable with a fellowship of St. John’s, but could not be held by any fellow of Jesus. In 1744, Charles duke of Somerset, chancellor of the university, appointed Mr. Green (then B. D.) his domestic chaplain. In January 1747, Green was presented by his noble patron to the rectory of Borough-green, near New-market, which he held with his fellowship. He then returned to college, and was appointed bursar. In December 1748, on the death of Dr. Whalley, he was elected regius professor of divinity, with which office he held the living of Barrow in Suffolk, and sodn after was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains. In June 170, on the death of dean Castle, master of Bene't college, a majority of the fellows (after the headship had been declined by their president, Mr. Scottowe) agreed to apply to archbishop Herring for his recommendation; and his grace, at the particular request of the duke of Newcastle, recommended professor Green, who was immediately elected. Among the writers on the subject of the new regulations proposed by the chancellor, and established by the senate, Dr. Green took an active part, in a pamphlet published in the following winter, 1750, without his name, entitled “The Academic, or a disputation on the state of the university of Cambridge.” On March 22, 1751, whenhis friend Dr. Keene, master of St. Peter’s college, was promoted to the bishopric of Chester, Dr. Green preached the consecration -sermon in Elyhouse chapel, which, by order of the archbishop of York, was soon after published. In October 1756, on the death of Dr. George, he was preferred to the deanery of Lincoln, and resigned his professorship. Being then eligible to the office of vice-chancellor, he was chosen in November following. In June 1761, the dean exerted his polemical talents in two letters (published without his name) “on the principles and practices of the Methodists,” the first addressed to Mr. Berridge, and the second to Mr. Whitfield. On the translation of bishop Thomas to the bishopric of Salisbury, Green was promoted to the see of Lincoln, the last mark of favour which the duke of Newcastle had it in his power to shew him. In 1762, archbishop Seeker (who had always a just esteem for his talents and abilities) being indisposed, the bishop of Lincoln visited as his proxy the diocese of Canterbury. In 1763 he preached the 30th of January sermon before the house of lords, which was printed.

The bishop resigned the mastership of Bene't college in July 17G4. After the death of lord Willoughby of Parham in 1765, the literary conversation meetings of the royal society, &c. which used to be held weekly at his lordship’s house, were transferred to the bishop of Lincoln’s in Scotland yard, as one of their most accomplished members. In July 1771, on a representation to his majesty, that, with distinguished learning and abilities, and a most extensive diocese, bishop Green (having nocommendam) had a very inadequate income, he was presented to the residentiaryship of St. Paul’s, which bishop Egerton vacated on his translation to the see of Durham. He now removed to his residentiary-house in Amen-corner, and took a small country-house at Tottenham. It has often been noticed as a circumstance conducing to our prelate’s honour, that, in May 1772, when the bill for relief of protestant dissenters, &c. after having passed the house of commons, was rejected, on the second reading, by the house of lords (102 to 27), he dissented from his brethren, and was the only bishop who voted in its favour. Without any particular previous indisposition, his lordship died suddenly in his chair at Bath, on Sunday, April 25, 1779. This elegant scholar was one of the writers of the celebrated “Athenian Letters,” published by the earl of Hardwicke in 1798, 2 vols. 4to.

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

, a puritan divine of considerable talents and popularity, was born about 1631, and educated at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he took his degrees in arts, and became a fellow. Quitting the university, he was appointed to the living of Dry Drayton near Cambridge, where he continued about twenty-one years, after which he removed to London, and died two years after, in 1591, of the plague, according to Fuller, who, as well as Strype, bishop Wilkins, and others, give him a high character for piety, usefulness, and moderation of sentiment, although a nonconformist in some points. His works, consisting of sermons, treatises, and a commentary on Psalm cxix. were collected into one volume, folio, and published in 1601, and again in 1612.

, a very ingenious English painter, was descended from a good family in Salisbury, where he was born. He was the most successful of all the disciples of sir Peter Lely, who is said to have considered him so much as a rival, that he never suffered him to see him paint. Greenhill, however, prevailed with sir Peter to draw his wife’s picture, and took the opportunity of observing how he managed his pencil; which was the great point aimed at. He is said to have been equally qualified by nature for the sister-arts of painting and poetry; but his loose and unguarded manner of living was probably the occasion of his early death; and only suffered him just to leave enough of his hand, to make us wish he had been more careful of a life so likely to do honour to his country. Mrs. Behn, with whom he was a great favourite, endeavoured to perpetuate his memory by an elegy, to be found among her works. He painted a portrait of bishop Ward, which is now in the town-hall of Salisbury. He died May 19, 1676.

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

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

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

In the year 599, he wrote a letter to Serenus bishop of Marseilles, commending his zeal in breaking some images which the people had been observed to worship, and throwing them out of the church; and the same year a circular letter to the principal bishops of Gaul, condemning simoniacal ordinations, and the promotions of laymen to bishoprics he likewise forbad clerks in holy orders to live with women, except such as are allowed by the canons and recommended the frequent holding assemblies to regulate the affairs of the church. The same year he re-r fused, on account of some foreseen opposition, to take cognizance of a crime alleged against the primate of Byzacena, a province in Africa. About the same time he wrote an important letter to the bishop of Syracuse, concerning ceremonies, in which he says, “That the church of Rome followed that of Constantinople, in the use of ceremonies; and declares that see to be undoubtedly subject to Rome, as was constantly testified by the emperor and the bishop of that city.” He had already this year reformed the office of the church, which is one of the most remarkable actions of his pontificate. In this reform, as it is called, he introduced several new customs and superstitions; amongst the rest, purgatory. He ordered pagan temples to be consecrated by sprinkling holy water, and an annual feast to be kept, since called wakes in England, on that day; with the view of gaining the pagans in England to the church-service. Besides other less important ceremonies, added to the public forms of prayer, he made it his chief care to reform the psalmody, of which he was excessively fond. Of this kind he composed the “Ainiphone ,” andnch tiines as hest suited the psalms, the hymns, the prayers, the verses, the canticles, the lessons, the epistles and gospels, the prefaces, and the Lor-i’s prayer. He likewise instituted an academy of chanters for all the clerks, as far as the deacons exclusively: he gave them lessons himself, and the bed, in which he continued to chant amidst his last illness, was preserved with great Generation in the palace of St. John Lateran for a long time, together with the whip with which he used to threaten the young clerks and singing hoys, when they sang out of tune. He was so rigid in regard to the chastity of ecclesiastics, that he was unwilling to admit a man into the priesthood who was not strictly free from defilement by any commerce with women. The candidates for orders were according to his commands questioned particularly on that subject. Widowers were excepted, if they had observed a state of continency for some considerable tiifie.

At this time, as well as the next, year 600, he was confined to his bed by the gout in his feet, which lasted for three years; yet he celebrated mass on holidays, although with much pain. This brought on a painful burning heat all over his body, which tormented him in the year 601. His behaviour in this sickness was very exemplary. It made him feel for others, whom he compassionated, exhorting them to make the right use of their infirmities, both by advancing in virtue and forsaking vice. He was always extremely watchful over his flock, and careful to preserve discipline; and while he allowed that the misfortunes of the times obliged the bishops to interfere in worldly matters, as he himself did, he constantly exhorted them not to be too intent on them. This year he held a council at Rome, which made the monks quite independent by the dangerous privileges which he granted them. Gregory forbad the bishops to diminish in any shape the goods, lands, and revenues, or titles of monasteries, and took from them the jurisdiction they ought naturally to have over the converts in their dioceses. But many of his letters shew, that though he favoured the monks in some respects, he nevertheless knew how to subject them to all the severity of their rules. The same year he executed a second mission into England, and, in answer to the bishop of Iberia, declared the validity of baptism by the Nestorians, as being performed in the name of the Trinity.

The dispute about the title of Universal Bishop and the equality of the two sons of Rome and Constantinople still subsisting, and the emperor Maurice having declared for the latter, our pope saw the murder of him and his family without any concern by Phocas. This usurper having sent his picture to Rome in the year C03, Gregory received it with great respect, and placed it with that of the empress his consort (Leontia) in the oratory of St. Csesarius in the palace; and soon after congratulated Phocas’s accession to the throne. There are still extant, written upon this occasion, by the holy pontiff, three letters^ wherein he expresses his joy, and returns thanks to Godj for that execrable parricide’s accession to the crown, as the greatest blessing that could befall the empire; and he praises God, that, after suffering under a heavy galling yoke, his subjects begin once more to enjoy the sweets of liberty under his empire flatteries unworthy a man of honour, and especially a pope and for which his historian, Maimbourg, condemns them. But Gregory thought himself in conscience obliged to assert the superiority of his see above that of Constantinople, and he exerted himself much to secure it. In general he had the pre-eminence of the holy see much at heart; accordingly this same year, one Stephen, a Spanish bishop, having complained to him of an unjust deprivation of his bishopric, the pope sent a delegate to judge the matter upon the spot, giving him a memorial of his instructions, in which among other particulars he orders thus: “If it be said, that bishop Stephen, had neither metropolitan nor patriarch, you must answer, that he ought to be tried, as he requested, by the holy see, which is the chief of all churches.” It was in the same spirit of preserving the dignity of his pontificate, that he resolved to repair the celebrated churches of St. Peter and St. Paul; with which view, he gave orders this year to the subdeacon Sabinian (afterwards his successor in the popedom), to fell all the timber necessary for that purpose in the country of the Brutii, and send it to Rome: he wrote several other letters on this occasion, which are striking proofs of his zeal for carrying on the repairs of old churches, although he built no new ones.

This letter, written in January 604, is the last of Gre* gory’s that has any date to it; he died the 12th of March following, worn out with violent and almost incessant ill* ness. His remains were interred in a private manner, near the old sacristy of St. Peter’s church, at the end of the great portico, in the same place with those of some preceding popes. It is thought he was not above sixty years of age. We shall only add one particular relating to our own country. Augustin the missionary having followed the rule approved by former popes of dividing the revenues of all the English churches into four parts, the first for the bishop, the second for the clergy, the third for the poor, and the fourth for repairing the church; this division was confirmed by Gregory, who directed farther, that the bishop’s share should be not only for himself, but likewise for all his necessary attendants, and to keep up hospitality,

, was born A. D. 324, at Azianzum, an obscure village belonging to Nazianzum, a town of the second Cappadocia, situated in a poor, barren, and unhealthy country. His parents were persons of rank, and no less eminent for their virtues: his father, whose name was also Gregory, had been educated in a religion called Hypsistarianism*, to which, being the religion of his ancestors, he was a bigot in his younger years; and the deserting it not only lost him the kindness of his friends, but estranged him from his mother, and deprived him of his estate. This, however, he bore with great cbearfulness for the sake of Christianity, to which he was converted by his wife, though not without the help of an emphatical dream; he was afterwards made bishop of Nazianzum, being the second who sat in that chair, where he behaved with great prudence and diligence. Nor was our author’s mother less eminent; descended of a pious family, sh was herself, for piety, so much the wonder of her age, that this son was said to have been the pure effect of her prayers, and of a vow to devote him to God, after the example of Hannah; and upon his birth she was careful to perform her vow.

Thus advantageously born, he proved a child of pregnant parts; by which, and the advantage of a domestic institution under his parents, he soon outstrip! his contemporaries in learning. Nature had formed him of a grave and serious temper, so that his studies were not obstructed by the little sports and pleasures of youth. After some time, he travelled abroad for his farther improvement; in which rout, the first step he took was to Crcsarea, and having rifled the learning of that university, he travelled to Caesarea Philippi in Palestine, where some of the most celebrated masters of that age resided, and where Eusebius then sat bishop. Here he studied under the famous orator Thespasias, and had among other fellow-pupils, Euzo'ius, afterwards

tUcy observed th labbath, and a strict tytslot, signifying The Most High., the Arian bishop of that place. He applied himself par* ticularly to rhetoric, minding the elegance, not the vanity and affectation, which then too much disgraced that pro* fession. Hence he removed to Alexandria, whose schools were famous next to those of Athens, which he designed for his last stage; and therefore went aboard a ship belon.ingto JEgina, an Island not far from Athens, the mari’si -3 of which were his familiar acquaintance?; but it being about the middle of November, a season for rough weather, they were taken with a storm in the road near Cyprus; and the case was become desperate, when suddenly the tern" pest, it was affirmed, ceased by the prayers of Gregory, Thus miraculously preserved, he arrived safe at Athens, where he was joyfully entertained, his great abilities rendering him the admiration both of the scholars and professors. Here he commenced a friendship wiih St. Basil, the great companion of his life; here too he became acquainted with Julian, afterwards emperor and apostate, an event which he remarkably foretold, although at that time Julian had given no ground for suspicion.

Having by Julian’s death obtained some respite from public concerns, he made a visit to his friend Basil, who was then in monastic solitude upon a mountain in Pontus, whither he had often solicited Nazianzen’s company. The latter was naturally inclined to such a course of life, and always looked upon his entering into orders as a kind of force and tyranny put upon him, which he could hardly digest; yet he knew not how to desert his parents. But his brother Caesarius being now returned from court, where he had been for some years, with a purpose to fix in his possession at home, gave him an opportunity to indulge his inclination. He accordingly retired to his old companion, with whom in his solitary recess he remained several years, passing the time in watching, fasting, and all the several acts of mortification. He was tbus employed when the necessity of affairs at home obliged him to quit his retirement. His father laboured under the infirmities of age, and being no longer able to attend his charge, prevailed with him to come home; he returned accordingly about Easter, and published a large apologetic in excuse of his flight, which had been much censured. He had not long entered upon his charge of assistant to his father, u-ben the family had the misfortune to lose his brother Cacsarius, who departed this life October 11, 358. Some time after, died of a malignant fever, his sister Gorgonia, whose funeral-sermon he preached; as he did also that of his father, the aged bishop of Nazianzum, who died not long after, near one hundred years old, having been fortyfive years bishop of that place. In the conclusion of thig latter oration he addressed himself to his mother Norma, to support her mind under so great a loss, consolations which were proper and seasonable: for she, being thus deprived of her affectionate partner, and being nearly of equal years to her husband, expired, as may probably be conjectured, soon after.

By these breaches in the family, Nazianzen was sufficiently weaned from the place of his nativity; and, though he was not able to procure a successor to" his father, he resolved to throw up his charge, and accordingly retired to Seleucia, famous for the temple of St. Thercla, the virginmartyr; where, in a monastery of devout virgins dedicated to that saint, he continued a long time, and did not return till the death of St. Basil, whom he deeply regretted he could not attend at his last hours, being himself confined by sickness. About this time he was summoned to a council at Antioch, holden anno 378, to consider the emperor’s late edict for tolerating the catholics, in order to suppress Arianism; and, being ordered by the council to fix himself for that purpose at Constantinople, he presently repaired thither. Here he found the catholic interest at the lowest ebb; the Arians, favoured by Valens, had possessed themselves of all the churches, and proceeded to such extremities that scarcely any of the orthodox dared avow their faith. He first preached in his lodgings to those that repaired thither, and the congregation soon growing numerous, the house was immediately consecrated by Nazianzen, under the name of the church of Anastasia, or the resurrection; because the catholic faith, which in that city had been hitherto oppressed, here seemed to have its resurrection. The opposition to his measures but increased his fame, together with the number of his auditors, and even drew admirers and followers from foreign parts; among whom St. Jerom, lately ordained presbyter, came on purpose to put himself under his tutelage and discipline; an honour in which Jerom glories on every occasion. As the catholics grew more considerable, they chose him for their bishop, and the choice was confirmed by Meletus of Antioch, and Peter who succeeded Athanasius at Alexandria; but he was opposed by the Arians, who consecrating Maximus, a famous cynic philosopher and Christian, gave him a great deal of trouble. The Arian bishop, however, was at length forced to retire, and his successor Demophilus was deposed by the emperor Theodosius, who directed an edict to the people of Constantinople, February 27, 380, re-establishing the orthodox faith; and afterward coming thither in person, he treated Nazianzen with all possible kindness and respect, and appointed a day for his instalment in the see.

But this ceremony was deferred for the present at his own request; and falling sick soon after, he was visited by crowds of his friends, who all departed when they had made their compliments, except a young man with a pale look, long hair, in squalid and tattered cloaths, who, standing at the bed’s feet, made all the dumb signs of the bitterest sorrow -and lamentation. Nazianzen, starting, asked him, “Who he was, whence he came, and what he wanted?” To which he returned no answer, but expressed so much the moi'e passion and resentment, howling, wringing his hands, and beating his breast in such a manner that the bishop himself was moved to tears. Being at length forced aside by one who stood by, he told the bishop, “This, sir, is the assassin, whom some had suborned to murder you; but his conscience has molested him, and he is here come ingenuously to confess ins fault, and to beg your pardon.” The bishop replied. “Friend, God Almighty be propitious to you, his gracious preservation of me obliges me freely to forgive you the desperate attempt you designed has made you mine, nor do I require any other reparation, than that henceforth you desert your party, and sincerely give up yourself to God.”

, was the younger brother of St. Basil, and had an equal care taken of his education, being brought up in all the polite and fashionable modes of learning; but, applying himself particularly to rhetoric, he valued himself more upon being accounted an orator than a Christian. On the admonition of his friend Gregory Nazianzen he quitted those studies; and, betaking himself to solitude and a monastic discipline, he turned his attention wholly to the holy scriptures, and the controversies of the age; so that he became as eminent in the knowledge of these as he had before been in the course of more pleasant studies. Thus qualified for the highest dignity in the church, he was placed in the see of Nyssa, a city on the borders of Cappadocia. The exact time of his promotion is not known, though it is certain he was bishop in the year 371. He proved in this station a stout champion for the Nicene faith, and so vigorously opposed the Arian party, that he was soon after banished by the emperor Valens; and, in a synod held at Nyssa by the bishop of Pontus and Galatia, was deposed, and met with very hard usage. He was hurried from place to place, heavily fined, and exposed to the rage and petulance of the populace, which fell heavier upon him, as he was both unused to trouble, and unapt to bear it. In this condition he remained for seven or eight years, during which, however, he went about countermining the stratagems of the Arians, and strengthening those in the orthodox faith; and in the council of Antioch in the year 378, he was, among others, delegated to visit the eastern churches lately harassed by the Arian persecution.

He went not long after to Arabia; and, having dispatched the affairs of the Arabian churches, he proceeded to Jerusalem, having engaged to confer with the bishops of those parts, and to assist in their reformation. Upon his arrival, finding the place overrun with vice, schism, and faction, some shunning his communion, and others setting up altars in opposition to him, he soon grew weary of it, and returned with a heavy heart to Antioch: and being on this occasion consulted afterwards, whether it was an essential part of religion to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem (which, it seems, was the opinion of the monastic disciplinarians at that time), he declared himself freely in the negative. After this, he was summoned to the great council at Constantinople, where he made no inconsiderable figure, his advice being chiefly relied on in the most important cases; and particularly the composition of the creed, called by us the Nicene creed, was committed to his care. He composed a great many other pieces, commentaries on different parts of the scriptures; sermons; lives, and letters. There is a good edition of his works by Fronton du Due, 1615, 2 vols. fol. and another of 1638, 3 vols. fol. more ample, but not so correct. They are, however, in less estimation than the works of almost any of the fathers. He lived to a great age, and was alive when St. Jerom wrote his “Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers” in the year 392; and two years after was present at the synod of Constantinople, on adjusting the controversy between Agapius and Bagadius, as appears by the acts of that council. He died March 9, 396. He was a married man, and lived with his wife Theosebia, even after he was bishop. Gregory Nazianzen, in a consolatory letter to his sister on her death, gives her extraordinary commendations.

The fame of Origen, who at that time had opened a school at Csesarea, in Palestine, and whose renown tid doubt was great at Alexandria, soon reached his ears. To that city therefore he betook himself, where meeting with Fermilian, a Cappaclocian gentleman, and afterwards bishop of Ca^area, in that country, he commenced a friendship with him, there being an extraordinary sympathy and agreement in their tempers and studies; and they jointly put themselves, together with his brother Athenodorus, under the tutorage of that celebrated master. Origen endeavoured to settle him in the full belief of Christianity, of which he had some insight before, and to ground him in the knowledge of the holy scriptures, as the best system of true wisdom and philosophy.

Neo-Caesarea was a large and populous place, but being miserably overgrown with superstition and idolatry, Christianity had as yet scarce made its entrance there. However, our young philosopher was appointed to be a guide of souls in the place of his nativity. Phredinius, bishop of Amasia, a neighbouring city in that province, cast his eye upon him for that purpose; and it was thought his relation to the place would more endear the employment tohim. But, upon receiving the tirst intimation of the design, he shifted his quarters, and, as oft as sought for, fled from one desert to another; so that the bishop by all his arts and industry could not obtain intelligence of him; he therefore constituted him bishop of the place in his absence, and how averse soever he seemed to be before, he now accepted the charge, when perhaps he had a more formal and solemn consecration. The province he entered upon was difficult; the city and neighbourhood being wholly addicted to the worship of demons, and there not being above seventeen Christians in those parts, so that he must find a church before he could govern it. The country was overrun with heresies; and himself, though accomplished sufficiently in human learning, was altogether unexercised in theological studies and the mysteries of religion. But here again he had immediate assistance from heaven; for, one night, as it is related by his biographer, Gregory of Nyssen, with the superstitious spirit then prevalent, while he was musingupon these things, and discussing matters of faith in his own mind, he bad a vJsJon, in which St. John the evangelist and the blessed virgin appeared in the chamber where he was, and discoursed before him concerning those points. In consequence, after their departure, he immediately penned that canou and rule of faith which they had declared. To this creed he always kept himself, and bequeathed it as an inestimable deposit to his successors. The original, written with his own hand, we are informed, was preserved in that church in his name. It is cited by Dr. Waterland, as express and explicit respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. There can be no doubt of its authenticity, although the Socinians have taken much pains to prove the contrary.

Thus furnished, he began to apply himself more directly to the charge committed to him, and he was said to b^> endowed with the power of working miracles: hence the title of Thaurnaturgus, or wonder-worker, is constantly ascribed to him in the writings of the church. St Basil assures us, that upon this account the Gentiles used to call him a second Moses. In this faithful and successful government of his flock he continued quietly till about anno '2bO, when he fled from the Decian persecution; but, as soon as the storm was over, he returned to his charge, and in a general visitation of his diocese, established in every place anniversary festivals and solemnities in honour of the martyrs who had suffered in the late persecution. In the reign of Galienus, about the year 260, upon the irruption of the northern nations into the Roman empire, the Goths breaking into Pontus, Asia, and some parts of Greece, created such confusion, that a neighbouring bishop of those parts wrote to Gregory for advice what to do: our author’s answer, sent by Euphrasymus, is called his “Canonical Epistle,” still extant among his works. Not long afterwards was convened that synod at Antioch, wherein Paul of Samosata, bishop of the place, which he did not care to lose, made a feigned recantation of his heretical opinions. Our St. Gregory was among the chief persons in this synod which met in the year 264, but did not long survive it, dying either this or most probably the following year.

, St., or frequently called Geregius Florentius Gregorius, an eminent bishop and writer of the sixth century, descended from a noble family of AuTergne, was born about the year 544. He was educated by his uncle Gallus, bishop of Clermont, and became so eminent for learning and virtue, as to be appointed bishop of Tours in the year 573. He assisted at the council held at Paris in the year 577, respecting Pretextat, bishop of Rouen, and strongly opposed the violence of some of the members of that assembly, particularly Chilperic and Fredegonde. He went afterwards to visit the tomb of > the apostles at Rome, where he formed a friendship with St. Gregory the Great, and died Norember 27, 595. This bishop wrote a “History of France,” in ten books; eight books of “The Miracles, or Lives of the Saints;” and other works, in the library of the fathers. The best edition-is that by Dom Ruinart, 1699, fol. His history is very useful; for though the style is dry and coarse, and the author extremely simple and credulous, yet an ingenious critic may easily separate the truths contained in it from the falsehoods. This work has been translated into French by the abbeé de Marolles, 1668, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a learned divine of a different family from the preceding, wus born November 10, 1607, at Agmondesham, in Buckinghamshire. There appeared in his infancy such a strong inclination to learning, as recommended him to the notice of some persons of the best rank in the town; and, his parents being well respected for their piety and honesty, it was resolved to give him a liberal education at the university, the ex pence of which they were not able to support. To this purpose, he was chosen at the age of fifteen, by Dr. Crooke, to go with sir William Drake to Christ church, in Oxford, whom he attended in the station of a servitor, and he was soon after retained by sir Robert Crook in the same capacity; Dr. George MorJey, afterwards bishop of Winchester, was their tutor. Mr. Gregory made the best use of this favour, and applied so closely to his studies, for several years at the rate of sixteen hours each day, that he became almost a prodigy for learning. He took his first degree in arts in 1628, and commenced master in 1631; about which time, entering into orders, the dean, Dr. Brian Duppa, gave him a chaplain’s place in that cathedral. In 1634, he published a second edition of sir Thomas Ridley’s “View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law,” 4to, with notes; which was well received, and afforded the world eminent proofs of his extensive knowledge; the notes shewing him well versed in? historical, ecclesiastical, ritual, and oriental learning, and a considerable master of the Saxon, French, Italian, Spanish, and all the eastern languages. All these acquisitions were the pure fruit of his own industry; for he had no assistance, except for the Hebrew tongue, in which Mr. John Dod, the decalogist, gave him some directions, during one vacation that he resided with him near Banbury. His merit engaged the farther kindness of Dr. Duppa; and, when that prelate was promoted to the bishopric of Chichester in 1638, he made Mr. Gregory his domestic chaplain, and some time after gave him a prebend in that church. His patron also continued his favours after his translation to the see of Salisbury in 1G41, when he seated him in a stall of that cathedral.

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

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

, a worthy parish priest, was born in November 1607, at Atherston, in the parish of Manceter, Warwickshire; and, having been well grounded in grammar-learning under his uncle Mr. John Denison, was admitted a student of Baliol college, Oxford, in 1624. Here pursuing his studies carefully, he became qualified for academical honours; and, taking both his degrees in arts at the regular times, he was ordained at twenty-eight years of age by Dr. Wright, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. In the beginning of the civil wars he sided with the parliament party, took the covenant, and, at the request of the corporation of Coventry, became minister of the great parish of St. Michael in that city, in which station he was admired for his conscientious performance of all his duties. The soundness of his doctrine according to his persuasion, the prudence and sanctity of his conversation, the vigilancy and tenderness of his care, were of that constant tenor, that he seemed to do all which the best writers upon the pastoral office tell us should be done. As he sided with the presbyterians against the hierarchy, so he joined with that party also against the design of destroying the king. In this, as in other things, he acted both with integrity and courage, of which we have the following remarkable instances. In 1648, when Cromwell, then lieutenant-general, was at Coventry upon his march towards London, Mr. Grew took this opportunity to represent to him the wickedness of the design, then evidently on foot, for taking off his majesty, and the sad consequences thereof, should it take effect; earnestly pressing him to use his endeavours to prevent it, and not ceasing to solicit him till he obtained his promise for it. Nor was he satisfied with this; for afterwards, when the design became more apparent, he addressed a letter to him, reminding him of his promise, and took care to have his letter delivered into CromwelPs own hands. At another time he was required to read in the church the proclamation against sir George Booth, and threatened by Lambert’s soldiers, then in Coventry, with the loss of his place if he refused, yet he determined not to read it. Of his liberality we have this instance: When Mr. Panton, a minister of the royalist party, was obliged to sell his library, Dr. Grew bought some of the books, and being afterwards requested to return them, with an offer of the money he paid, he returned the books, but refused the money, as he knew that Mr. Panton could not yet afford the money so well as himself.

In 1651 he accumulated the degrees of divinity, and completed that of doctor the ensuing act, when he preached the “Concio ad Clerum” with applause. In 1654 he was appointed one of the assistants to the commissioners of Warwickshire, for the ejectionof such as were then called scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and school^ masters. He continued at St. Michael’s greatly esteemed and beloved among his parishioners, till his majesty’s restoration; after which he resigned his benefice in pursuance to the act of conformity in 1661, although bishop Hacket was urgent with him to conform, and allowed him to preach a month beyond the prescribed time, but he delivered his farewell sermon, and afterwards restricted his labours to a few private hearers. Even in this, however, he was carefully watched, and underwent some severe trials, particularly an imprisonment of six months. He still, however, preserved the respect and affection of the citizens of Coventry till his death, which happened October 22, 1689. He published “A Sinner’s Justification by Christ, &c. delivered in several Sermons on Jer. ii. 6, 1670,” 8vo; and “Meditations upon our Saviour’s Parable of the Prodigal Son, &c. 1678,” 4to, both at the request, and for the common benefit, of some of his quondam parishioners.

, the first and most universal vegetable anatomist and physiologist of this country, the son of the preceding, was born at Coventry. The year of his birth is not mentioned, but from some circumstances appears to have been 1628. He was brought up a presbyterian, his father having taken the covenant; and on the change of the national form of religion, at the restoration of Charles II. he was sent to study in some foreign university, where he took his degree of doctor of physic. He settled first at Coventry, and probably resided there in 1664, when, as he informs us in tht 1 preface to his Anatomy of Plants, he first directed his thoughts to the subject of that work, “upon reading some of the many and curious inventions of learned men, in the bodies of animals. For considering that both of them came at first out of the same hand, and were therefore the contrivances of the same wisdom; I thence,” says he, “fully assured myself, that it could not be a vain design to seek it in both. That so I might put somewhat upon that side the leaf which the best botanicks had left bare and empty.” Four years afterwards he consulted his brother-in-law, Dr. Henry Sampson, who encouraged him to go on, by pointing out a passage in Glisson’s book “De Hepate,” chap. 1, in which the anatomy of plants is hinted at as an unexplored, but very promising line of study for a practical observer. For some time he resided at Coventry, but determining to settle in London, he came thither about 1672. Before this his first essay on the anatomy of plants was communicated to the royal society in 1670, by bishop Wilkins, under the title of an “Idea of a Philosophical History of Plants.” It was received with the honour and attention it deserved, being ordered to be printed, and its author, in that year also, on the recommendation of the same learned divine, became a fellow of the royal society. He was appointed secretary in 1677, in which capacity he published the Philosophical Transactions from Jan. 1677-8, to Feb. in the following year. In 1680 he was made an honorary fellovr of the college of physicians. He is said to have attained to considerable practice in his profession, nor did his being a nonconformist deprive him of the credit justly due to his piety and philosophical merit, even in the worst times. He lived indeed to see various changes of opinions and professions, apparently with the tranquillity becoming a philosopher and a good man, and died suddenly, March 25, 1711.

Her father had himself a tincture of letters, and was a great patron of the learned. He had two chaplains, Harding, and Aylmer afterwards bishop of London, both men of distinguished learning, whom he employed as tutors to his daughter; and under whose instructions she made such a proficiency as amazed them both. Her own language she spoke and wrote with peculiar accuracy: the French, Italian, Latin, and it is said Greek, were as natural to her as her own. She not only understood them, but spoke and wrote them with the greatest freedom: she was versed likewise in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic, and all this while a mere child. She had also a sedateness of temper, a quickness of apprehension, and a solidity of judgment, that enabled her not only to become the mistress of languages, but of sciences; so that she thought, spoke, and reasoned, upon subjects of the greatest importance, in a manner that surprized all. With these endowments, she had so much mildness, humility, and modesty, that she set no value upon those acquisitions. She was naturally fond of literature, and that fondness was much heightened as well by the severity of her parents in the feminine part of her education, as by the gentleness of her tutor Aylmer in this: when mortified and confounded by the unmerited chicling of the former, she returned with double pleasure to the lessons of the latter, and sought in Demosthenes and Plato, who were her favourite authors, the delight that was denied her in all other scenes of life, in which she mingled but little, and seldom with any satisfaction. It is true, her alliance to the crown, as well as the great favour in which the marquis of Dorset her father stood both with Henry VIII. and Edward VI. unavoidably brought her sometimes to court, and she received many marks of Edward’s attention; yet she seems to have continued for the most part in the country at Bradgate.

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

, an ingenious and learned English divine, the son of John Grey of Newcastle, was born there in 1694, and in 1712 was entered of Lincoln college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. May 15, 1716, and that of M. 4- January 16, 1718-19. May 1, he was ordained deacon, and priest April 10, 172Q, by Crew bishop of Durham, to whom he was chaplain and secretary, and who gave him, in 1721, the rectory of Hinton, near Brackley, in Northamptonshire; and obtained for him, from lord Willoughby de Broke, the rectory of Kimcote in Leicestershire. ' He was alsp a prebendary of St. Paul’s. In 1746, he was official and commissary of the archdeaconry of Leicester. In 1730, he published at Oxford a “Visitation-Sermon” and, the same year, '< Memoria Technica or a new Method of artificial Memory“a fourth edition of which came out in 1756. At this time also appeared his” System of English Ecclesiastical Law, extracted from the Codex Juris Ecclesiastic! Anglican!“of bishop Gibson, 8vo. This was for the use of young students designed for orders; and for this the university gave him the degree of D. D. May 28, 1731. He printed an assize sermon in 1732, called” The great Tribunal,“and in 1736, was the author of a large anonymous pamphlet, under the title of” The miserable and distracted State of Religion in England, upon the Downfall of the Church established,“8vo and, the same year, printed another Visitation- Sermon. He also published” A new and easy Method of learning Hebrew without points, 1738;“” Historia Josephi,“and” Paradigmata Verborum, 1719;“” Liber Jobi, 1742;“”Answer to Warburton’s Remarks,“1744;” The last Words of David,“1749;” Nova Methodus Hebraice discendi diligentius recognita & acl Usum Scholarum accornmodata, &c.“1751;” A Sermon at the opening of Steane chapel, Northampt.“1752; and, lastly, an English translation of Mr. Hawkins Browne’s poem” De Animi Immortalitate,“1753. He died Feb. 28, 1771, in his 77th year. He married Joyce, youngest daughter of the rev. John Thicknesse of Brazen-nose-college, Oxford, and sister of the late Philip Thicknesse, esq. by whom he left three daughters, the eldest of whom married Dr. Philip Lloyd, dean of Norwich, and was well-known for her genius in working in worsted, and for her painted windows in that cathedral. Dr. Grey was buried at Hinton, as is his widow, who died Jan. 12, 1794, aged eighty-nine. His” Memoria Technica" was at one time a very popular book, and the system has lately in part been revived by a foreigner, which has been the means of again directing the public attention to Dr. Grey’s book; but it seems agreed that such helps are of very little substantial efficacy, and that attention and exercise are the only means to assist or prolong memory. Dr. Grey was a man of piety and liberality, as appears by his frequent correspondence with Dr. Doddndge.

From this copious account of Dr. Grey’s literary employments, an idea may be formed of his character and sentiments. It would appear that in early life he had studied ffce history of the church to which he belonged, particularly during the seventeenth century when she suf* fered the severest shock; and having examined into the personal history of the artful agents, as well as the more artful means by which the hierarchy and civil government were overthrown, conceived an implacable dislike to the whole body of non-conformists, which by an easy transition, he continued towards their immediate successors, the dissenters. Finding the latter frequently employed in vindicating the cause of republican church-government, 'and bestowing all their pity on those who suffered by the restoration, without any notice of those whom they made to suffer by the previous revolution, he directed his power* of controversy to some of those advocates, and by his laborious researches into the private history, annals, and pamphlets of the Cromwell period, was enabled to become a very formidable antagonist. His Examinations of Neal are, in this respect, the most valuable of his writings, and strict impartiality will be found to require a close attention, in the readers of Neal, to what Dr. Grey and his precursor bishop Madox have advanced. The same researches which Dr. Grey had occasion to pursue in answering Neal and others of that party, seem to have furnished him with the matter of the notes by which he afterwards illustrated his edition of Butler’s Hudibras, a work which will probably preserve his memory to a very long date, as his plan was entirely new. Yet, he did not escape attacks, both serious and jocular on this publication. Warburton, in his preface to Shakspeare, “hardly thinks there ever appeared, in any learned language, so execrable an heap of nonsense, under the name of Commentaries, as hath lately been given us on this satiric poet:” and Fielding, in the preface to his “Voyage to Lisbon,” has introduced “the laborious much-read Dr. Zachary Grey, of whose redundant notes on Hudibras he shall only say, that it is, he is confident, the single book extant, in which above 500 authors are quoted, not one of which could be found in the collection of the late Dr. Mead.” But Dr. Warton has very well observed, that, “if Butler is worth reading, he is worth explaining; and the researches used for so valuable and elegant a purpose merit the thanks of genius and candor, not the satire of prejudice and ignorance.”

, a poet of considerable rank in his time, was a native of Huntingdonshire, and received the first part of his academical education at Christ’s college in Cambridge, where he became B. A. in 1539 or 1540. Removing to Oxford in 1542, he was elected fellow of Merton college; but, about 1547, having opened a rhetorical lecture in the refectory of Christ church, then newly founded, he was transplanted to that society, which gave the greatest encouragement to such students as were distinguished for their proficiency in criticism and philology. The same year he wrote a Latin tragedy, which probably was acted in the college, entitled “Archipropheta, sive Joannes Baptista,” dedicated to the dean, Richard Cox, and printed Colon. 1548, 8vo. In 1548, he explained all the four books of Virgil’s Georgics in a regular prose Latin paraphrase, in the public hall of his college, which was printed at London in 1591, 8vo. He wrote also explanatory commentaries, or lectures, on the <c Andria“of Terence, the Epistles of Horace, and many pieces of Cicero, perhaps for the same auditory. He translated Tully’s Offices into English, which he dedicated to the learned Thirlby, bishop of Ely, printed at London, 1553, 8vo, and reprinted in 1574 and 1596. He also made translations from some of the Greek classics; but these, Mr. Warton thinks, were never published; among others was the” Cyropaedia.“Bale mentions some plays and poems, but not with sufficient precision to enable us to know whether they were in Latin or English. It is allowed, however, that he was the second English poet after lord Surrey who wrote in blank verse, and added to Surrey’s style new strength, elegance, and modulation. In the disposition and conduct of his cadences, says our poetical historian, he often approaches to the legitimate structure of the improved blank verse, although he is not quite free from those dissonancies and asperities, which in his time adhered to the general character and state of English diction. Both Mr. Warton and Mr. Ellis have given specimens of his poetry from” The Songes written by N. G.“annexed to the” Songes and Soanettes of uncertain Auctours“in TottelPs edition of lord Surrey’s Poems (reprinted in the late edition of the English poets). As a writer of verses in rhyme, Mr. Warton thinks that Grimbold yields to none of his contemporaries, for a masterly choice of chaste expression, and the concise elegancies of didactic versification; and adds that some of the couplets in his” Praise of Measure-keeping,“or moderation, have all the smartness which mark the modern style of sententious poetry, and would have done honour to Pope’s ethic epistles. It is supposed that he died about 1563. Wood and Tanner, and after them, Warton, are decidedly of opinion that he is the same person, called by Strype” one Grimbold," who was chaplain to bishop Ridley, and who was employed by that prelate while in prison, to translate into English Laurentius Valla’s book against the fiction of Constantine’s Donation, with some other popular Latin pieces against the papists. In Mary’s reign, it is said that he was imprisoned for heresy, and saved his life by recantation. This may be true of the Grimbold mentioned by Strype, but we doubt whether he be the same with our poet, who is mentioned in high terms by Bale, on account of his zeal for the reformed doctrines, without a syllable of his apostacy, which Bale must have known, and would not have concealed.

, a celebrated lawyer, and master of the rolls in the seventeenth century, descended from a very ancient family, was born at Brad fieldball, near Manningtree, in Essex, about 1594. Where he had his early education is not known, but he studied law in Lincoln’s-inn, and practised with considerable success. In August 1638 he was chosen recorder of Colchester, and representative for that place in the parliament which met at Westminster April 13, 1640, and again in the parliament which met Nov. 3 of the same year. The measures he at first supported were those of the party which finally overthrew the government, and although he argued chiefly against such abuses as might have been reformed by a better understanding between the conflicting parties, yet his violence against the court, and particularly a bitter speech he made against archbishop Laud, seem to prove that he was too much swayed by the popular clamour of the times, and too readily became one of the committees for the redress of grievances, real or imaginary, as well as for bringing those to punishment who were most obnoxious to the people. In 1642 he was made one of the lieutenants of the county of Essex, in pursuance of the parliament’s ordinance for the militia, and in August the same year, came down to Colchester and proclaimed sir John Lucas a traitor, for intending to assist the king. When he came, however, to penetrate more deeply into the designs of the reformers, he began to withdraw his countenance from them, and when in 1647 he was appointed one of the commissioners to treat with the king at Newport, in the isle of Wight, his majesty had every reason to be pleased with his candour and moderation. On his return to parliament, he argued for accepting the king’s concessions, and being at the same time one of the commissioners for disbanding the army, was, among others, forcibly excluded from the house by a party of soldiers. After the murder of the king, he went abroad for some time, but in 1656 we find him elected to Cromwell’s parliament as one of the sixteen, representatives for the county of Essex, but not approved by the council, against whose decision he signed a spirited re* monstrance. In February 1659-60 he was chosen one of the new council of state, in whom the executive power was lodged by the remains of the long parliament that restored Charles II.; and a few months after, he was also chosen speaker of the house of commons in what was called the “Healing parliament” which met April 25, 1660. In May following, he waited on the king at Breda, and on his majesty’s arrival, and the settlement of the government, was appointed master of the roils Nov. 3, 1660, which office he filled for nearly twenty-four years with great ability and integrity. He was aiso appointed in the same year chief steward of the borough or St. AlbanV, and recorder of Harwich, and from the restoration to the time or his death, continued to represent Colchester in parliament. For several years he entertained Dr. Gilbert Burntt, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, as his chaplain, or preacher at the rolls; and much assisted him in his “History of the Reformation.” Burnet in his “Own Times” has given an affectionate and probably faithful character of sir Harbottle, who appears to have been a man of real worth, piety, and moderation in his latter days. Sir Harbottle died Dec. 31, 1683, aged about ninety, and was buried in the chancel of St. Michael’s church, St. Alban’s. He was twice married, first to Mary, daughter of sir George Croke, an edition of whose “Reports” he published, 3 vols. folio; and secondly to Anne, daughter of sir Nathaniel Bacon, of Culford-hall, in Suffolk. Other particulars of his family may be seen in our authorities.

Thus distinguished in the university, his merit was observed by Hid ley, bishop of London, who made him his chaplain in 1550; perhaps by the recommendation of Bucer, the king’s professor of divinity at Cambridge, who soon after his removal to London, in a letter to that prelate, styles our divine “a person eminent for his learning and piety.” And thus a door being opened to him into church -preferments, he rose by quick advances. tiis patron the bishop was so much pleased with him, that he designed for him the prebend of Cantrilles, in St. Paul’s church, and wrote to the council (some of whom had procured it for furnishing the king’s stables) for leave to give this living, as he says, “to his well deserving chaplain, who was without preferment, and to whom he would grant it with all his heart, that so he might have him continually with him and in his diocese to preach,” adding, that “he was known to be both of virtue, honesty, discretion, wisdom, and learning.” What effect this application had does not appear, but the praecentor’s place becoming vacant soon after, his lordship on August 24, 1551, collated him to that office, which was of much greater value, and likewise procured him to be made one of his majesty’s chaplains, with the usual salary of 40l. in December of the same year. On July 2, 1552, he obtained a stall in Westminster-abbey; which, however, he resigned to Dr. Bonner, whom he afterwards succeeded in the bishopric of London. In the mean time, there being a design on the death of Dr. Tonstall, to divide the rich see of Durham into two, Grindal was nominated lor one of these, and would have obtained it, had not one of the courtiers got the whole bishopric dissolved, and settled as a temporal estate upon himself.

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

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