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

, a puritan divine, the son of Henry Roberts of Aslake, in Yorkshire, was born there or in that county in 1609, and entered a student of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1625. In 1632 he completed his degrees in arts, and was ordained. Where he first officiated does not appear but on the breaking out of the rebellion he went to London, took the covenant, and wns appointed minister of St. Augustine’s, Watlirtg-street, in room of Ephraim Udal, ejected for his loyalty. In 1649 he was presented to the rectory of WriiHTton in Somersetshire by his patron Arthur lord Capel, son of the beheaded lord Capel. While on this living he was appointed one of the commissioners for the “ejectment of those” who were called “ignorant and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters.” At the restoration, however^ he conformed, tired out, as many other’s were, by the distractions of the contending parties, and disappointed in every hope which the encouragers of rebellion had held forth. It does not appear whether he had any additional preferment, except that of chaplain to his patron lord Capel whenhe became earl of Essex; and when thrit nobleman was lord-lieutenant, of Ireland in 1672, it is suppose. i he procured him the degree of D. D. from the university of Dublin. He died at Wriugton about the end of 1675, and most probably wasi interred in that church. He published some single sermons: “The Believer’s evidence for Eternal Life,” &c, 1649, 1655, 8vo, and the “Communicant instructed,” 1651, 8vo, often reprinted; but his principal work is entitled “Chivis Bibliorum, the Key of the Bible,” in eluding the order, names, times, penmen, occasion, scope, and principal matter of the Old and New Testament. This was first printed at London and Edinburgh, 1649, in 2 vols, 8vo, and afterwards in 4to; and the fourth edition, 1675, in folio. Wood mentions another work, “Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum, or the Mystery and Marrow of the Bible,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. as he says, but this is doubtful, and “The True way to the Tree of Life,” 1673, 8vo.

, a learned English divine and miscellaneous writer, was descended from a reputable family, which from time immemorial possessed a considerable estate at Mutter, in tae parish of Appleby, in Westmoreland. His father was an eminent maltster; and his mother, the only daughter of Mr. Edward Stevenson, of Knipe, in the same county, cousin to Edmund Gibson, bishop of London. He was born at this latter place, August 28, 1726; but his father soon afterwards removing to Rutter, he was sent, at a proper age, to the free-school at Appleby, where he received the rudiments of classical learning under Mr. Richard Yates, a man of eminent abilities, and distinguished character in his profession. From thence, in 1746, he went to Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his degrees in arts, with considerable reputation for his ingenuity and learning. On his receiving orders he was, for some time, curate to the celebrated Dr. Sykes, at Rayleigh in Essex, and in 1758 he was instituted to the vicarage of Herriard in Hampshire; in 1770, to the rectory of Sutton in Essex; and in 1779, to the vicarage of Horucastle in Lincolnshire, to which he wns prcseuteU by his relation, Dr> Edtnund Law, bishop of Carlisle. In 1761 he published a sermon, entitled “The subversion of ancient Kingdoms considered,” preached at St. John’s, Westminster, Feb. 13, the day appointed for a general fast. In 1772, he revised and corrected for the press Dr. Gregory Sharpens posthumous sermons; and the same year completed a new edition of Algernon Sidney’s Discourses on Government, with historical notes, in one volume quarto, at the persuasion of Thomas Hollis, esq. who highly approved his performance.

, a very learned divine, was born in Dublin, Oct. 16, 1705. His father was a native of Scotland, who carried on the linen-manufacture there; and his mother, Diana Allen, was of a very reputable family in the bishopric of Durham, and married to his father in England. From his childhood he was of a very tender and delicate constitution, with great weakness in his eyes till he was twelve years of age, at which period he was sent to school. He had his grammar-education under the celebrated Dr. Francis Hutcheson, who then taught in Dublin, but was afterwards professor of philosophy in the university of Glasgow. He went from Dr. Hutcheson to that university in 1722, where he remained till 1725, and took the degree of M. A. He had for his tutor Mr. John Lowdon, professor of philosophy; and attended the lectures of Mr Ross, professor of humanity; of Mr. Dunlop, professor of Greek; of Mr. Morthland, professor of the Oriental languages; of Mr. Simpson, professor of mathematics; and of Dr. John Simpson, professor of divinity. In the last-mentioned year, a dispute was revived, which had been often agitated before, between Mr. John Sterling the principal, and the students, about a right to chuse a rector, whose office and power is somewhat like that of the vice-chancellor of Oxford or Cambridge. Mr. Robertson took part with his fellow- students, and was appointed by them, together with William Campbell, esq. son of Campbell of Mamore, whose family has since succeeded to the estates and titles of Argyle, to wait upon the principal with a petition signed by more than threescore matriculated students, praying that he would, on the 1st day of March, according to the statutes, summon an university-meeting for the election of a rector; which petition he rejected with contempt. On this Mr. Campbell, in his own name and in the name of all the petitioners, protested against the principal’s refusal, and all the petitioners went to the house of Hugh Montgomery, esq. the unlawful rector, where Mr. Robertson read aloud the protest against him and his- authority. Mr. Robertson, by these proceedings, became the immediate and indeed the only object of prosecution. He was cited before the faculty, i. e. the principal and the professors of the university, of wbotn the principal was sure of a majority, and, after a trial which lasted several clays, had the sentence of expulsion pronounced against him; of which sentence he demanded a copy, and was so fully persuaded of the justice of his cause, and the propriety of his proceedings, that he openly and strenuously acknowledged and adhered to what he had done. Upon this, Mr. Lowdon, his tutor, and Mr. Dunlop, professor of Greek, wrote letters to Mr. Robertson’s father, acquainting him of what had happened, and assuring him that his son had been expelled, not for any crime or immorality, but for appearing very zealous in a dispute about a matter of right between the principal and the students. These letters Mr. Robertson sent inclosed hi 'one from himself, relating his proceedings and suffer! ngs in the cause of what he thought justice and right. Upon this his father desired him to take every step he might think proper, to assert and maintain his own and his fellowstudents claims; and accordingly Mr. Robertson went up to London, and presented a memorial to John duke of Argyle, containing the claims of the students of the university of Glasgow, their proceedings in the vindication of them, and his own particular sufferings in the cause. The duke received him very graciously, but said, that “he was little acquainted with things of this sort;” and advised him “to apply to his brother Archibald earl of Hay, who was better versed in such matters than he.” He then waited on lord Hay, who, upon reading the representation of the case, said “he would consider of it.” And, upon consideration of it, he was so affected, that he applied to the king for a commission to visit the university of Glasgow, with full power to examine into and rectify all abuses therein. In the summer of 1726, the earl of Hay with the other visitors repaired to Glasgow, and, upon a full examination into the several injuries and abuses complained of, they restored to the students the right of electing their rector; recovered the right of the university to send two gentlemen, upon plentiful exhibitions, to Baliol college in Oxford; took off the expulsion of Mr. Robertson, and ordered that particularly to be recorded in the proceedings of the commission; annulled the election uf the rector who had been named by the principal; and assembled the students, who immediately chose the master of Ross, son of lord Ross, to be their rector, &c. These things so affected Mr* Sterling, that he died soon after; but the university revived, and has since continued in a most flourishing condition.

His studies at the university being finished, he was licensed to preach in 1741, and in 1743 was presented to the living of Gladsmuir, in East Lothian, by John, second earl of Hopeton. This preferment, although the whole emoluments did not exceed 100l. a year, was singularly opportune, as his father and mother died about this time, leaving a family of six daughters and a younger son unprovided for, whom our author removed to Gladsmuir, and maintained with decency and frugality, until they were settled in the world. During the rebellion in 1745, when the capital of Scotland was in danger of falling into the hands of the rebels, the state of public affairs appeared so critical that he thought himself justified in laying aside for a time the pacific habits of his profession, and in quitting his parochial residence at Gladsmuir, to join the volunteers of Edinburgh; and, when at last it was determined that the city should be surrendered, he was one of the small band who repaired to Haddington, and offered their services to the commander-in-chief of his majesty’s forces. He returned, however, as soon as peace was restored, to Gladsmuir, and in 1751 married his cousin, miss Mary Nesbit, daughter of the Rev. Mr. Nesbit, o e of the mU nisters of Edinburgh, He now applied himself to his pastoral duties, which he discharged with a punctuality that procured him the veneration and attachment of his parishioners, and as his eloquence in the pulpit began to attract the notice of the neighbouring clergy, this circumstance, no doubt, prepared the way for that influence in the church which he afterwards attained. In 1755 he published “A Sermon preached before the Society for promoting Christian knowledge,” which has been deservedly admired, and encouraged by a sale of five editions, besides a translation into German. He had some time before this made his appearance in the General Assembly of the church of Scotland, and had taken an active part in their proceedings. In 1757, he distinguished himself in the defence of Mr. John Home, minister of Athelstoneford, who had written the tragedy of “Douglas.” This was considered as so bold a departure from the austerity expected in a presbyterian divine, that the author, and some of his brethren, who had witnessed the play in the theatre, were prosecuted in the ecclesiastical court. On this occasion Dr. Robertson contributed much, by his eloquence, to the mildness of the sentence in which the prosecution terminated; and his conduct was no inconsiderable proof of his general candour, as he had never himself entered within the walls of a play-house, avoiding such an indulgence as inconsistent with the scruis circumspection which he maintained in his private character.

, a learned divine and schoolmaster, was born in St. Mary’s parish, in the county of Anglesea, and educated at Winchester school, where he was admitted probationary fellow of New college, Oxford, in 1603, and in 1605 perpetual fellow. He completed his master’s degree in 1611, and about three years after, leaving college, became chief master of Winchester school. He was afterwards archdeacon of Winchester, canon of Wei is, D. D. and archdeacon of Gloucester. Having sided with the party that were reducing the church to the presbyterian form, and taken the covenant, he lost the advantages of his canonry and archdeaconry, but obtained the rectory of Hinton, near Winchester, in room of a loyalist. He died March 30, 1655, and was buried in St. GilesVin-the-Fields, London. Wood gives him the character of an excellent linguist, an able divine, and very conversant in ancient history. He wrote for the use of Winchester school, “Preces; Grammaticalis quaedam & Antiquae Historian Synopsis,” printed together at Oxford in 1616, 8vo “Scholar Wintoniensis Phrases Latinse,” Lond. 1654 and 1664, published by his son Nicholas; and “Annalium mundi universalium, &c. Tomus Unicus, lib. 14. absolutus,” &c. Lond. 1677, fol. improved by Dr. Thomas Peirce, dean of Salisbury, by the king’s command. Wood adds, that he wrote a vindication of the covenant, which he had not seen.

, a dissenting divine, of the Baptist persuasion, was born in October 1735, at Swaffham, in the county of Norfolk, and was son of Mr. Michael Robinson, a native of North Britain, who possessed a moderate independence. He was sent to a Latin school at SwalFham, at the age of six years, where he made a considerable proficiency, and discovered an uncommon capacity for learning, and afterwards to an endowed grammar-school at Seaming, where he gained some knowledge of the French, as well as of the classical languages. All this, however, ended in his being put apprentice to a hair-dresser, in Crutched-Friars, London. For tjhis occupation his mind was, as may be supposed, already unfitted by the taste for learning which his education had given him, and which he still endeavoured to improve during some part of the hours devoted to sleep. During his apprenticeship he appears to have imbibed serious impressions of religion, which he encouraged, by attending the most celebrated preachers of the day among the independents, the baptists, and the Calvinistic clergy. Dr. Guyse and Gill among the dissenters, Romaine in the church, and Whitfield, the leader of the Calvinistical methodists, were his chief favourites.

In the year 1776, during the controversy respecting the divinity of Christ, which had been carried on principally by members of the church of England, Mr. Robinson published “A Plea for the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.” This piece is written with much ingenuity, and it procured the author a number of handsome compliments, not only from dissenting ministers, but also from several dignitaries of the established church. Among the latter were Dr. HinchlirTe, Bishop of Peterborough, Dr. Hallifax, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, Dr. Beadon, afterwards bishop of Bath and Weils, and Dr. Tucker, dean of Gloucester. Some years after, Mr. Lindsey published, first without, but afterwards with his name, “An Examination of Mr.Robinson’s Plea for the Divinity of Christ;” to which Mr. Robinson, although frequently called upon, declined to reply. To his friends he said, “The anonymous examiner has not touched my arguments, and his spirit is bitter and contemptuous. His faith stands on criticisms; and my argument is, that if the doctrine requires critical proof, it is not popular, and therefore not divine.” This silence, however, occasioned some suspicion that he was not very sincere, which his conduct afterwards continued. In 1777, Mr. Robinson published a small tract, entitled “The History and Mystery of Good Friday,” in which he employed the same “bitter and contemptuous spirit,” which he had just complained of, in ridiculing the commemoration of the death of our Saviour. In 1778, Mr. Robinson published *' A Plan of Lectures on the Principles of Nonconformity, for the instruction of Catechumens.“This piece contains an outline of the whole controversy of the dissenters with the church of England, and of their history, from the period of the reformation, to 1778, which of course appeared highly satisfactory to his brethren. Towards the close of the same year, he published” An Essay on the Composition of a Sermon, translated from the original French of the rev. John Claude, with Notes,“in 2 vols. 8vo. The preface to the first volume of the Cl Essay” consists of memoirs of the life of the author.

During the latter years of his life the intense application he had bestowed on his work on Baptism undermined the strength of his constitution, and brought on a gradual decay, attended with a great depression of spirits. In these circumstances, it was hoped by his family that a journey to Birmingham, and an interview with Dr. Priestley, which he had long wished for, might prove beneficial to him. Having arrived at that town, he ventured to preach twice on the same Sunday, for the benefit of the charity schools. His friends perceived that he was ill, but none of them suspected his end was so near; he spent the evening of the following Tuesday in the cheerful society of his friends, but next morning, June 8, 1790, he was found dead in his bed. Some time before this he had become a complete convert to the doctrines of the modern Socinians; a change which they seem willing to attribute to the writings of Dr. Priestley. This divine, we are told, charmed as he was with Mr. Robinson’s conversation, confessed himself much disappointed with his preaching, and characterized it in these words: “His discourse was unconnected and desultory: and his manner of treating the Trinity savoured rather of burlesque than serious reasoning. He attacked orthodoxy more pointedly and sarcastically than ever I did in my life.” Few of our readers will require any other character of Mr. Robinson’s attacks on those principles which he once held sacred. His largest work, “The History of Baptism,” &c. appeared after his death in a quartovolume, with another connected with the subject, but entitled, “Ecclesiastical Researches;” both written with considerable ability, but less finished than if he had lived to prepare them for the press. The latter, in particular, exhibits striking proofs of his rooted inveteracy to the established church, as well as of his glaring inconsistency. He appears, indeed, in none of his works, as a man who had attained that truth, or those positions, which he sought to establish; what was wanting in argument he aimed to supply by a kind of buffoonery peculiar to himself; and yet, while thus versatile and unsteady in all his opinions, no man was more intolerant towards those who rested in the belief of what they had been taught, and were desirous to propagate.

, a late eminent divine at Leicester, the son of James Robinson, hosier of Wakefield in Yorkshire, was born Aug. 29, 1749. He was educated at the grammar-school of his native place, where he made such proficiency that his masters earnestly solicited his father to permit him to continue a learned education, instead of putting him to business, which was his original intention; and when it was determined to send him to the university, the governors of the school unanimously agreed to allow him a double exhibition. With this provision he was admitted a sizar of Trinity college, Cambridge, in Oct. 1768. Various circumstances, for which we may refer the reader to an elaborate life of him latelypublished, contributed to give his mind more serious impressions than are usual at his period of life, and his whole behaviour as a student became exemplary. He scrupulously observed all the attendances which were required of him, and quickly obtained the reputation of having made much proficiency as a scholar. His religious character too, though not yet formed to that degree of strictness which it afterwards attained, was at least so far advanced as to make his habits, conversation, and avowed opinions widely different from those of the greater part of his contemporaries.

, a celebrated protestant divine, and theological professor, was born in 1653 at Doelberg, in Westphalia. He received, at Unna, an excellent education in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, and in 1670 maintained with great ability a thesis “de studio mathematico philosophic prsemittendo.” In the same year he went to Utrecht, where he received lectures from the celebrated Francis Burmann on the scriptures; but on the war with France, was obliged to go to Gottingen, where he studied under James Alting: this place also becoming unsafe, he returned to Germany, and studied for some time at Marpurg, and after that at Heidelberg. From thence he went to Basil and Zurich; and in 1676 he once more visited the United Provinces, and spent two years at the universities of Utrecht and Leyden. No sooner had he returned to his native country than he received an invitation to become pastor of the protcstant church at Cologne, which he declined, owing to ill-health; and he undertook the chaplainship to Elizabeth, abbess of Hervorden, and daughter of Frederic, king of Bohemia; which post he retained till the death of the princess, in 1680. After this he was appointed preacher to Albertine, princess of Orange, and widow of William of Nassau; and in 1686, was elected professor of divinity at the university of Franeker. In June 1704 he was appointed, on very honourable and advantageous terms, professor of divinity at Utrecht, a post which he retained with great reputation till his death, July 12, 1718, in the 66th year of his age. Barman says, he was without dispute a first-rate philosopher and divine; but leaves it to his brethren to determine whether he was not somewhat heretical in his singular opinions on the generation of the son of God, and on the temporal death of believers. These were expressed in his “Theses Theologicos de generatione filii, et morte fidelium temporali,” Francfort, 1689, 4to, and were answered by Vitringa and others. His principal works are, 1. “Commentarius in principinm epistolae Pauli ad Epht’sos,” Utrecht, 1715, 4to. 2. A continuation of the same, with an exegesis on the Colossians, ibid. 1731, 4to. 3. “Explicatio Catecheseos Heidelbergensis,” ibid. 1728. 4. “Exegesis in Psalmum Ixxxix.” Duisburg, 1728, 8vo. 5. “Gulichii Analysis et compendium hbrorum propheticorum antiqui et novi fcederis,” Amst. 1683, 4to. 6. “Oratio inauguralis de religione rationali,” afterwards, and often reprinted under the title of a “Dissertntio,” which Heumann calls a very learned and elegant work,

Wood adds, that he was “a very good man, excellently well learned, a good Latin poet, and one that was especially beloved by the famous antiquary and historian William Camden, for whose sake he had laid the foundation of ‘ A Discourse concerning the acts of the Britains, the form of their Commonwealth, and the order and laws by which they lived’.” This was intended for Camden’s “Britannia,” but he did not live to finish it. He wrote, 1. “Odae, Epigrammata, Kpitaphia,” &c. in laudem et mortem Johannis Juelli Episc. Sarisbur, at the end of Humphrey’s Life of Jewell. 2. “A memorial or oration of Dr. Dan. Rogers on the death of Frederic II. and the accession of Christian IV.” (probably addressed to the senate of Denmark, Copenhagen, July 19, 1588). 3. “Dr. Rogers” Search,“being a repertory of various transactions relating to Commerce the two preceding are among the Cotton Mss. 4.” Dan, Rogersii Albimontii Angli, ad Stephani Malescoti Catechesin ^oo-pawicnf, carmine Latino,“Basil, 1567, 8vo. 5.” Elegia ad Gulielmum Cecilium baronem Burleigh,“among the” lllust. et clar. virorum Epist. select.“Leyden, 1617, 8vo. 6.” Epistolae tres ad Buchananum,“among the” Epist. Buchanani,“Lond. 1711, 8vo. 7.” Epistola Adriano Vander Mylen,“among the above Leydeu epistles. Among the Harleian Mss. is his” Letter to Abraham Ortelius at Antwerp,“complimenting him on the glory he will reap from posterity by his geographical works, and concluding with the mention of his own commentary upon the laws and manners of the ancient Britons. Wood also mentions an epigram of his printed with Ralph Aggas’s description of Oxford in 1578. Wood notices another Daniel Rogers, and his works,” David’s Cost“” A practical Catechism“” Lectures upon the history of Naaman," &c. This, however, was a puritan divine born in 1573, and educated at Cambridge. He was son to Richard Rogers, and brother to Ezekiel Rogers, both puritan divines, and men of note in their day, but we do not find in their memoirs much to recommend a distinct article on either. It remains to be noticed, that Strype, in his Life of Whitgift, conjectures the above Daniel Rogers, the ambassador, to be son to John Rogers the proto-martyr; but this is inconsistent with the above account, and seems founded on no authority, as the martyr Rogers never left the kingdom on the accession of queen Mary, but remained to be the first sacrifice to her infernal bigotry.

, an English divine, was born in 1679, at Ensham in Oxfordshire, where his father was vicar and rector of Wick-Rissington, in Gloucestershire. He was educated at New college school, in Oxford; and, in 1693, elected scholar of Corpus Christi college. After taking the degrees in arts, and entering into orders, he waited a long time for a fellowship, by reason of the slowsuccession in the college; but at length succeeded Mr, Edmund Chishull, in 1706, but in the mean time had becti presented to the vicarage of Buchland, in Berkshire, about ten miles from Oxford, in which he continued about five or six years, dividing his’ time usefully between his cure and the university. At the former he became so popular, that the inhabitants entered into a handsome subscription for an afternoon sermon by him, which was discontinued after he left them. Jn 1710, be took a bachelor of divinity’s degree; and, two years after, went to London, to be lecturer of St. Clement’s Danes. He afterwards became lecturer of the united parishes of Christ-church, and St. Leonard’s Foster-lane. In 1716, he was presented to the rectory of Wrington, in Somersetshire; and, the same year, resigning his fellowship, married the hon. Mrs. Lydia Hare, sister to the lord Colerane, who was his pupil in the university. Some time after, he was elected canon residentiary of the church of Wells; in which he also bore the office of sub-dean. In 1719, he engaged in the Bangorian controversy, and published, upon that occasion, “A Discourse of the visible and invisible Church of Christ: in which it is shewn, that the powers, claimed by the officers of the visible church, are not inconsistent with the supremacy of Christ as head, or with the rights and liberties of Christians, as members of the invisible church,” 8vo. The Rev. Dr. Sykes having published an “Answer to this Discourse,” our author replied to him in “A Review of the Discourse of the visible and invisible Church of Christ.”

He gained much credit by these performances, even those who were against his argument allowing him to have good parts and an excellent pen; and the university of Oxford made a public acknowledgment of their opinion of his merit, by conferring on him, in 1721, without his knowledge, and by diploma, the 'degree of doctor in divinity. In 1726, he was made chaplain to George II. then prince of Wales and about the same time appeared in defence of Christianity, against the attacks of Collins in his “Scheme of Literal Prophecy.” Rogers did not at, first professedly write against the “Scheme;” but, publiihing, in 1727, a volume of sermons, entitled “The necessity of Divine Revelation, and the truth of the Christian Religion, asserted,” he prefixed to them “A Preface with Remarks on the Scheme of Literal Prophecy.” This preface, however, in the opinion of his friends, seemed Kable to some exception, or at least to demand a more full and distinct explication: and he received a letter upon it the same year from his friend Dr. Nath. Marshall. He endeavoured to give satisfaction to all; and therefore, Collins having written “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Rogers, on occasion of his eight Sermons concerning the necessity of Divine Revelation, and the Preface prefixed to them,” our author published “A Vindication of the Civil Establishment of Religion, wherein some positions of Mr. Chandler, the author of the l Literal Scheme, 7 &c. and an aiionymo-us Letter on that subject, are occasionally considered. With an Appendix, containing a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Marshall, and an Answer to the same,” 1723, 8vo.

, another English divine, of a somewhat different stamp, was the son and grandson of two successive rectors of Bishops Hampton, in Warwickshire, where he was horn, Dec. 27, 1660, and educated at the free-school there. In Lent-term 1675, he entered of Trinity college, Oxford, but soon after removed to Hart hall, where he took his degrees in arts, and went into holy orders. Wood celebrates him as a man of extraordinary memory, and independent of the common helps to that faculty, either in the pulpit or in conversation. The latter he enlivened by quotations of uncommon accuracy, particularly from the classics, and would even give the page, &c. if required* His sermons he carefully studied, yet delivered them fluently without notes, and, as Wood says, in elegant and correct language. In July 1689, he was inducted to the small rectory of Slapton, near Towcester, in Northamptonshire. He died of the small-pox, while on a visit at London, June 8, 1694, and was buried in St. Saviour’s, Southwark. Wood speaks of him as a true son of the church of England, in opposition to all extremes, and his writings shew him a friend to the revolution. These writings are mostly poetical, published without his name. As we have not seen any of them, we can only deduce from some expressions used by Wood, that they were not all becoming the character of a divine; their titles are, 1. “Lux occidentalis or Providence displayed in the coronation of king William and queen Mary,” Lond. 1689. 2. “The Loyal and Impartial Satyrist, containing eight miscellany poems,” ibid. 1693, 4to. These seem mostly levelled at the Jesuits and Jacobites. 3. “A Poesy for Lovers,” &c. ibid. 1693, 4to. 4. “The conspiracy of guts and brains; or an answer to the Turn-shams,” ibid. 1693. In prose, he wrote “A true Protestant Bridle; or some cursory remarks upon a Sermon preached (by William Stephens, rector of Sutton) before the Lord Mayor, &c. Jan. 30, 1693,” ibid. 1694, 4to; and the “Commonwealthsman unmasked,” a rebuke, as he calls it, to the “Account of Denmark,” by Molesworth. This he dedicated, and had the honour to present to king William, who received it very graciously.

, a French writer of very great abilities, was the second son of a master-cutler at Paris and born there Jan. 30, 1661. He was intended, as well as his elder brother, for his father’s profession; when a Benedictine, perceiving in him a peculiar turn for letters, communicated this to his mother, and pressed her to give him a liberal education. The proposal was flattering, but as she had been left a widow, and had nothing to depend upon but the continuation of her late husband’s business, and was incapable of providing for his education, she was reluctant to lose the advantages of her son’s skill. The good Benedictine, however, removed part of her fears, by procuring the youth a pension in the college of Du Plessis, and Roliin was now suffered to pursue the natural bent of his inclination. He distinguished himself immediately by parts and application, and easily obtained the first rank among his felloe-students. Many stories are told to his advantage in this respect, and how he became known and esteemed by the minister Pelletier, whose two eldest sons were of Rollin’s class. He studied rhetoric in the college of Du Plessis under Mr. Hersan, whose custom it was to create emulation among his scholars, by bestowing on them epithets, each according to his merit; and is said to have declared in public, that he knew not sufficiently to distinguish the young Roliin otherwise than by giving hirn. the title of “Divine:” and when Hersan was asked for any piece in verse or prose, he used to refer them to Roliin, “who,” he said, “would do it better than he could.” Hersan intended Roliin for his successor, therefore first took him as an assistant in 1683, and afterwards, in. 1687, gave up the chair to him. The year after, Hersan, with the king’s leave and approbation, declined the professorship of eloquence in the royal college in favour of his beloved disciple Roliin, who was admitted into it. No man ever exercised the functions of it with greater eclat: he often made Latin orations, to celebrate the memorable events of the times; and frequently accompanied them with poems, which wer^ generally read and esteemed. In 1694, he was chosen rector of the university, and continued in that office two years, which was then a great mark of distinction. By virtue of his office, he spoke the annual panegyric upon Louis XIV. He made many useful regulations in the university, and particularly revived the study of the Greek language, which was then growing into neglect. He was a man of indefatigable attention, and trained innumerable persons, who did honour to the church, the state, and the army. The first president Portail was pleased one day to reproach Roilin in a jocular strain, as if he exceeded even himself in doing business: to whom Roilin replied, with that plainness and sincerity which was natural to him, “It becomes you well, Sir, to reproach me with this: it is this habit of labour in me, which has distinguished you in the place of advocate general, which has raised you to that of first president: you owe the greatness of your fortune to me,” Upon the expiration of the rectorship, cardinal Noailles engaged him to superintend the studies of his nephews, who were in the college of Laon; and in this office he was agreeably employed, when, in 1699, he was with great reluctance made coadjutor to the principal of the college of Beauvais. This college was then a kind of a desert, inhabited by very few students, and without any manner of discipline: but Rollings great reputation and industry soon made it a most flourishing society. In this situation he remained till 1712; when, the contests between the Jesuits and the Jansenists drawing towards a crisis, he fell a sacrifice to the prevalence of the former. F. Le Tellier, the king’s confessor, and bigoted agent of the Jesuits, infused into his master prejudices against Rollin, whose connections with cardinal de Noailles would alone have sufficed to have made him a Jansenist; and on this account he lost his share in the principality of Beauvais. No man, however, could have lost less in this than Rollin, who had every thing left him that was necessary to make him happy; retirement, books, and a decent competence. He now began to employ himself upon Quintilian; an author he justly valued, and not without uneasiness saw neglected. He retrenched in him whatever he thought rather curious than useful for the instruction of youth: he placed summaries or contents at the head of each chapter; and he accompanied the text with short select notes. His edition appeared in 1715, in 2 vols. 12mo, with an elegant preface, setting forth his method and views.

, an English divine and writer of great popularity, was born at Hartlepool in the county of Durham, Sept. 25, 1714. His father, one of the French protestants who took refuge in England upon the revocation of the edict of Nantz, resided at Hartlepool as a merchant, and particularly as a dealer in corn. He had two sons and three daughters, whom he educated in the strict doctrines and discipline of the church of England, and lived to see well settled in the world before be left it in 1757. His second son, William, gave indication, at a very early age, of considerable talents, and a laudable eagerness to improve them. This induced his father to send him to the grammar-school, at Houghton-le-Spring, a village in the road from Durham to Sunderland. This school was founded by the celebrated Bernard Gilpin, rector of that parish at the memorable acra of the reformation. At this seminary Mr. Romaine remained seven years, and in 1730 or 1731 was sent to Oxford, where he was entered first at Hertford-college, and thence removed to Christchurch. He resided principally at Oxford till he took his degree of master of arts, Oct. 15, 1737, having been ordained a deacon at Hereford, a year before, by Dr. Egerton, bishop of that diocese.

His first engagement was the curacy of Loe Trenchard, near Lid ford in Devonshire. In the year following he appears to have been resident at Epsom in Surrey, from the date of a letter from him, Oct. 4, 1733, to rev. William Warburton, upon the publication of his “Divine Legation of Moses.” In the same year he was ordained a priest by Dr. Hoadly, bishop of Winchester. His title for orders was probably a nomination to the church of Banstead, which he served some years, together with that of Horton, near Epsom, being curate to Mr. Edwards, who had both these livings. At Banstead he became acquainted with sir Daniel Lambert, lord-mayor of London in 1741, who had a country-house in this parish, and appointed Mr. Romaine to be chaplain during his mayoralty.

The first sermon which he printed had been preached before the university of Oxford, March 4, 1739. It was entitled “The Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated, from his having made express mention of, and insisted so. much on, the doctrine of a future state; whereby Mr. Warburton’s attempt to prove the Divine Legation of Moses from the omission of a future state, is proved to be absurd, and destructive of all revelation.” This was followed by a second sermon, preached also before the university, entitled “Future rewards and punishments proved to be the sanctions of the Mosaic dispensation.” These sermons and the letter above-mentioned to Mr. Warburton involved him in a personal dispute with that gentleman Mr. Romaine in his letter attempted to be witty and sarcastic; Warburton used the same weapons and could handle them better. The controversy, however, did not last long. Mr. Romaine appeared to more advantage in 1742, in another sermon before the university, entitled “Jepthah’s Vow fulfilled, and his daughter not sacrificed.” The ingenuity with which he proved this opinion obtained him much credit, and was by many looked upon as a new discovery, which it certainly was not, as the same point was contended for in a sermon printed in the works of Dr. Thomas Taylor, of Aldermanbury, an eminent puritan divine, who died in 1632. Besides other sermons before the university, he preached one in 1757, entitled “The Lord our Righteousness,” in consequence of which he was refused any future admission into the university pulpit. He interpreted the articles of the church in the strict Calvinistic sense, which at this time gave great offence.

, a learned barrister, and a very amiable man, was born June 20, 1767, at Chiswick in Middlesex, where his father Dr. William Rose, a native of Scotland, conducted an academy during many years, with considerable emolument and unblemished reputation. Dr. Rose was known in the literary world as one of the earliest writers in the Monthly Review, and as the author of a very elegant translation of Sallust. He had originally been an assistant to Dr. Doddridge at Northampton, and married a daughter of Dr. Samuel Clark, of St. Alban’s, a divine of talents and eminence among the dissenters. She bore him many children; but Samuel was his only surviving son, and after a successful education under his father, was sent in 1784 to the university of Glasgow. There he resided in the house of the late professor Richardson, a philosopher and poet, between whom and his pupil, a friendship and correspondence commenced which terminated only with the life of the latter. Mr. Rose also gained the esteem of several other learned men in Scotland, with whom he afterwards maintained a correspondence. Nor was this wonderful, for his manners were uncommonly amiable and attractive, and his studies amply justified the respect paid to him. He gained every prize, except one, for which he. contended as a student of the university.

After passing three winters at Glasgow, he attended thecourts of law in Edinburgh, and here obtained an introduction to the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith, who was so highly pleased with him, that as long as he resided in Edinburgh,, Mr. Rose was constantly invited to the literary circle of that eminent philosopher. His subsequent intimacy with Cowper appears in Mr. Hayley’s interesting volumes, and perhaps Cowper’s visit to Mr. Rose in Chancery-lane is one of the most affecting incidents in the eventful history of that poet. Mr. Rose had the misfortune to lose his ex* cellent father, while he was pursuing his studies in the North; but a loss so unseasonable did not induce him to shrink from the first irksome labours of an arduous profes^ sion. Having entered his name at LincolnVInn, Nov. 6, 3786, he devoted himself to the law, for which he seemed equally prepared by nature and education. With a mind acute and powerful, with a fund of classical learning, and of general knowledge, with an early command of language, and with manners, as we have already noticed, peculiarly conciliating, he had every thing to hope. Though his spirit was naturally ardent, he submitted to the most tire-r some process of early discipline in his profession, placing himself under a special pleader in 1787, and attending him three years. Being called to the bar in 1796, he attached himself to the home circuit, and to the sessions of Sussex. His first opportunity of displaying professional ability occurred in Chichester, where, having a clergyman for his client, he conciliated the esteem of his audience byexpatiating with propriety, eloquence, and success, on the character of a divine. He was still more admired for the rare talent of examining a witness with a becoming ture of acuteness and humanity; and upon the whole his friends were persuaded, from this first display of his talents^ that he was destined to rise l>y sure, though slow degrees, to the highest honours of his profession.

, an eminent physician, whose treatment df Linna3Us we have already noticed (see Linnaeus, p; 297), was born Feb. 1, 1706, at a village near Gottenburgh, and was sent to the college of that place in 1718. His father was a divine, and he was intended for the same profession, biit gave a decided preference to medicine, whidh he studied at Lund tinder Kilian Stobseus. After residing four years at this university he went to Stockholm, and became tutor in a nobleman’s family. la 1728, when the assessor Martin died at Upsal, Rosen became substitute professor of physic; but before he took tipon him this office^ he made a tour through Germany, Switzerland, France, and Holland, and took his doctor’s degree at Harderwyk in 1730. In the spring of the following year he entered on his professorship at Upsal, became member of the academy of sciences there, and was received a member of the royal academy of Stockholm in 1739. In 1740 he became ordinary professor in room of Rudbeck; in 1757, he was created a knight of the order of the polar star, and was ennobled in 1762, when queen Louisa Ulrica gave him the name of Rosenstein. He gairied great celebrity as physician to the royal family of Sweden, and received in 1769^ for his inoculation of some of them for the small pox, a reward of 100,000 rix dollars from the states of the kingdom. In his last illness, his animosity to Linnreus was so subdued, that he requested the medical assistance of that celebrated man. He died July 16, 1773. The academy of Stockholm struck a medal to his memory, with the inscription, “Sscculi decus incferlibile nostri.” He had a brother, who was also eminent as a physician and botanist; and in honour of both, Thunberg named a plant Rosenia. Dr. Nicholas Rosen’s principal works, which were all published in the Swedish language, are, “A medical repository of Domestic Medicine,” published by order of the queen dowager, &c. “A Treatise on the Diseases of Children,” which has been translated into German, English, Dutch, French, and Italian. He contributed likewise several papers to the memoirs of the academy of Stockholm.

, a voluminous author of the seventeenth century, was born in 1590 in Scotland, and became a divine, but left that country in Charles I.'s reign, and was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplainsj and master of the free-school at Southampton. He died in 1654, leaving a handsome bequest to the above school, from which it is said he had retired for some time before his death, and passed the remainder of his days in the family of the Henleys of Hampshire, to whom he left a large library and a considerable sum of money, part of which was concealed among his books. Echard says “he was a busy, various, and voluminous writer, who by his pen and ether ways made a considerable noise and figure in these* times, and who so managed his affairs, that in the midst of these storms, he died very rich, as appears from the several benefactions he made.” We have a list before us of thirty pieces by this author, but whether published separately, each forming a volume, we know not. Most of them occur very seldom. Among them are some whose dates we have recovered, but cannot vouch for the accuracy of the list. 1. “Comment, de Terrae motu refutatum/' Lond. 1634, 4to. 2.” The new Planet no Planet^ or, the earth no wandering star,“ibid. 1640, 4to, reprinted in 1646. 3.” Virgilius Evangelizans;“ibid. 1634, 8vo. This is a cento on the life of Christ, collected entirely from Virgil. Granger says it is ingenious, and was deservedly admired. 4.” Medicus medicatus, or, the physician’s religion cured,“ibid. 1645, 8vo. Th;s was one of the pieces in which he attacked the reputation of sir Thomas Browne in his” ReJigio Medici.“We find him returning to the charge afterwards in a work entitled, 5.” Refutation of Dr. Browne’s Vulgar Errors,“ibid. 1652, 8vo. 6.” Observations upon sir Kenelm Digby’s Discourse on the nature of Bodies,“ibid. 1645, 4to. 7.” The picture of the Conscience,“ibid. 1646, 12mo. 8.” The Muses’ Interpreter,“ibid. 1646, 8vo. 9.” Arcana Microcosmi,“ibid. 1651 and 1652, 12mo and 8vo. 10.” Observations upon Hobbes’s Leviathan,“ibid. 1653, 12mo. 11.” Observations upon sir Walter Raleigh’s History of the World,“ibid. 12mo. After this he published” A Continuation“of that history, which Granger calls his” great work;“but adds, that it is like a piece of bad Gothic tacked to a magnificent pile of Roman architecture, which serves to heighten the effect of it, while it exposes its own deficiency in strength and beauty. 12.” An Epitome“of the same history. 13.” A View of all Religions,“the work for which he is best known, and which has passed through variotfs editions, the sixth in 1683. It had the merit of being the first compilation of the kind in our language, and attained a great degree of popularity. 14.” Abridgment and translation of John Wollebius’s Christian divinity,“ibid. 1657, 8vo. 15*” Three Decades of Divine Meditations,“no date. This is one of his poetical works, and valued in the” Bibliotheca Anglo-Poetica“at Si. tis. 16.” Mel Helreonium, or, Poetical Honey gathered out of the weeds of Parnassus, &c.“ibid. 1642, 8vo. This, of which an account is given by Mr. Park in the” Censura Literaria,“is an attempt to spiritualize the Greek and Roman mythology. In moral and metre it resembles Quarles. Of the following works we have no dates:” De rebus Judaicis, libri quatuor,“in hexameter verse;” Rasura tonsoris,“prose;” Chymera Pythagoria;“”Meditations upon Predestination;“” Questions upon Genesis;“” Melissomachia;“”Four books of Epigrams,“in Latin elegiacs” Mystagogus poeticus“”ColloquiaPlantina;“” Chronology,“in English” Christiados poematis libri tredecim," with others, which seem of doubtful authority.

, LL. D. an English divine, and bishop of Derry in Ireland, was born in the parish of Milton-Abbot, near Tavistock, in Devonshire, about 1686, of what family is not known. He was educated at the freeschool of Exeter, under the care of Mr. John Reynolds, uncle to the celebrated painter sir Joshua Reynolds. In 1702 he was removed to Exeter college, Oxford, and about this time his friend and fellow collegian, Joseph Taylor, esq. (father of Thomas Taylor, of Denbury, esq.) introduced him to Mr. Edward Talbot, of Oriel college, the second son of Dr. William Talbot, at that time bishop of Oxford. This event was of great importance in his future life, as it secured him the friendship and patronage of the Talbot family, to whom he owed all his promotion. Recommenced bachelor of civil laws in July 1710, and two years afterwards became acquainted with the celebrated Whiston, and was inclined to adopt his notions as to reviving what he called primitive Christianity. Mr. Whiston, who has given us many particulars respecting bishop Rundie in his “Memoirs of his own Life,” says that Mr. Rundie, before he entered into holy orders, became so disgusted at the corrupt state of the church, and at the tyranny of the ecclesiastical laws, that he sometimes declared against obeying them, even where they were in themselves not unlawful, which, adds Whiston, “was farther than 1 could go with him.” The truth seems to have been, as stated by bishop Rundle’s late biegrapher, that the singular character of Whiston, his profound erudition, and disinterested attachment to the doctrines of Arius, supported by an ostensible love of truth, were likely to attract the notice of young men who, in the ardour of free inquiry, did not immediately perceive the pernicious tendency of their new opinions.

The issue of this matter, however, was, that the bishop of London proposed Dr. Benson, the friend of Dr. Rundle, for the vacant see of Gloucester, and Dr, Rundle was soon after promoted to the. lucrative bishopric of Derry in Ireland, to which he was consecrated February 1734-5. The aspersions thrown on his character in England had by this time reached Ireland, and created great discontent at the appointment; but a residence of a few years, and repeated acts of public munificence and private generosity, gradually endeared him to the people of Ireland. He died at his palace in. Dublin April 14, 1743, scarcely sixty years of age. Having survived the nearer connections of his own family, he left his property, amounting to 20,000^, principally to the hon. John Talbot, second son to the chancellor. His person is said to have been slender, and not inelegantly formed. As to his character as a man, he appears to have been distinguished by many virtues, and by some weaknesses. His biographer says, he was precipitate in forming friendships, and as ready to relinquish them; a character by no means amiable; but for which, perhaps, some excuse might be formed, if we were made acquainted with the nature of his friendships. Unsuspicious men often contract friendships which, upon a closer inspection, they find unworthy and untenable; and this may happen before years have accumulated experience, if not without blame, at least with some excuse; and perhaps Dr. Rundle did not always suffer himself to be deceived. His character as a divine, we see, once laboured under suspicion, and if we except his own declaration, it was principally vindicated by those who were not very friendly to the church. The attestations of Pope and Swift can add little to his reputation. There was nothing, however, in his public conduct subsequent to the clamour raised against him, which could be censured; and the last letter he appears to have written, a little before his death, to archdeacon S. breathes the language of genuine piety.

, an ingenious philosopher and divine, the son of the rev. Thomas Rutherforth, rector of Papworth Everard, in the county of Cambridge, who had made large collections for an history of that county, was born October 13, 1712. He was entered of St. John’s college, Cambridge, about 1725, and took his degrees of A. B. 1729, and A.M. 1733. He was then chosen fellow, and proceeded bachelor of divinity in 1740. Two years after he was chosen fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1745, on being appointed professor of divinity, took his doctor’s degree, and was appointed chaplain to his royal highness the prince of Wales. In the church, he was promoted to be rector of Barrow in Suffolk, of Shenfield in Essex, and of Barley in Hertfordshire, and archdeacon of Essex. He communicated to the Gentleman’s Society at Spalding a curious correction of Plutarch’s description of the instrument used to renew the vestal fire, as relating to the triangle with which the instrument was formed. It was nothing but a concave speculum, whose principal focus which collected the rays is not in the centre of concavity, but at the distance of half a diameter from its surface: but some of the ancients thought otherwise, as appears from Prop. 31 of Euclid’s il Catoptrics;“and, though this piece has been thought spurious, and this error a proof of it, the sophist and Plutarch might easily know as little of mathematics. He published” An Essay on the nature and oblirgations of Virtue,“1744, 8vo, which Mr. Maurice Johnson, of Spalding, in a letter to Dr. Birch, calls” an useful, ingenious, and learned piece, wherein the noble author of the Characteristics, and all other authors ancient and modern, are, as to their notions and dogmata, duly, candidly, and in a gentleman-like manner, considered, and fully, to my satisfaction, answered as becomes a Christian divine. If you have not yet read that amiable work, I must (notwithstanding, as we have been told by some, whom he answers in his Xlth and last chapters, do not so much approve it) not forbear recommending it to your perusal.“”Two Sermons preached at Cambridge,“1747, 8vo.” A System of Natural Philosophy, Cambridge,“1748, 2 vols. 4to.” A Letter to Dr. Middleton in defence of bishop Sherlock on Prophecy,“1750, 8vo.” A Discourse on Miracles,“1751, 8vo.” “Institutes of Natural Law,” 1754, 2 vols. 8vo. “A Charge to the Clergy of Essex,” 1753, 4to, reprinted with three others in 1763, 8vo. “Two Letters to Dr. Kennicott,” 1761 and 1762. “A Vindication of the Right of Protestant Churches to require the Clergy to subscribe to an established Confession of Faith and Doctrines, in a Charge delivered at a Visitation, July 1766,” Cambridge, 1766, 8vo. A second, the same year. “A Letter to Archdeacon Blackburn,” 1767, 8vo, on the same subject. He died Oct. 5, 1771, aged fifty-nine, having married a sister of the late sir Anthony Thomas Abdy, bart of Albins, in Essex, by whom he had two sons, one of whom survived him. Dr. llutherforth was interred in the church at Barley, where, on his monument, it is said, that “he was no less eminent for his piety and integrity than his extensive learning; and filled every public station in which he was placed with general approbation. In private life, his behaviour was truly amiable. He was esteemed, beloved, and honoured by his family and friends; a,nd his death was sincerely lamented by all who ever heard of his well-deserved character.”

, related to sir Thomas Ryves, mentioned in the next article, a loyal divine and celebrated preacher, was born in Dorsetshire, and educated at New college, Oxford, of which he became one of the clerks in 1610, and was afterwards, in 1616, appointed one of the chaplains of Magdalen college. Having taken his degrees in arts, he attained great reputation as a preacher, and was made vicar of Stanwell, in Middlesex, rector of St. Martin’s Vintry, in London, chaplain to king Charles I. and in 1639, doctor in divinity. When the rebellion broke out, he was sequestered and plundered. At the restoration of king Charles II. he had the deanry of Windsor conferred on him, with the rectory of Acton, in Middlesex, and was made secretary to the garter. He died July 13, 1677. His works are, “Mercurius Rusticus; or, the Country’s Complaint, recounting the sad events of this unparalleled War,” &c. These Mercuries begin August 22, 1642. “Mercurius Rusticus, the 2d part, giving an account of Sacrileges, in and upon Cathedrals,” &c. When the war was ended, all these Mercuries were reprinted in 8vo, in 1646 and 1647, with an addition of the papers following: 1. “A general Bill of Mortality of the Clergy of London, &c. or a brief Martyrology and Catalogue of the learned and religious Ministers of the City of London, who have been imprisoned, plundered,” &c. 2. “Q,uerela Cantabrigiensis or, a Remonstrance by way of Apology for the banished Members of the flourishing University of Cambridge.” 3. “Micro-Chronicon or, a brief Chronology of the Time and Place of the Battles, Sieges, Conflicts, and other remarkable passages, which have happened betwixt his Majesty and the Parliament,” &c. 4. “A Catalogue of all, or most part of the Lords, Knights, Commanders, and Persons of Quality, slain or executed by Law Martial, from the beginning of this unnatural War to March 25, 1647.” And here we may observe, that the edition of 1647 has more in it than that of 1646. Dr. Ryves has likewise printed several occasional sermons, and is said to have assisted in the celebrated Polyglot Bible.

, an eminent Lutheran divine, historian to the duke of Saxony, and professor of history at Halle, was born Sept. 23, 1643, at Lunenburg. He studied in, or visited the greatest part of the German universities, where he was much esteemed for his extensive knowledge of history and antiquities. He died March 9, 1694, leaving nearly 70 volumes of dissertations, principally on historical subjects on oracles on the gates of the ancients “The succession of the Princes of Orange,” 4to “History of the City of Herderwich” a life of St. Norbert, 1683 “Tractatus varii da historia legenda,” 4to “Historia antiqua Noribergse,” 4to “Origin of the Dukes of Brunswick” “History of Lubec” “Antiquities of the kingdom of Thuringia” “History of the Marquises and Electors of Brandenburg,” and many others, enumerated by Niceron. His life was written by Schmid, and published in 1713, 8vo.

, lord viscount Bolingbroke, an eminent statesman and writer, was descended from an ancient and noble family, and born, as all his biographers say, in 1672, but it appears by the register of Battersea parish that he was baptised Oct. 10, 1678. His father, sir Henry St. John, son of sir Walter St. John, died at Battersea, his family-seat, July 3, 1708, in his eighty- seventh year his mother was lady Mary, second daughter and coheiress of Robert Rich, earl of Warwick. He was bred up, with great care, under the inspection of his grandfather, as well as his father, who neglected no means to cultivate his mind. It was once noticed in parliament that he was educated in dissenting principles, and it is very certain that the first director of his studies was the famous Daniel Burgess, who, with all his oddities (See Burgess) was frequently employed as tutor to the sons of men of rank. Goldsmith seems desirous to impute Bolingbroke’s infidelity to this divine, and to his being obliged to read Manton’s Sermons on the 119th Psalm but such an opinion is as dangerous as it is absurd. From Burgess or Manton, he could have imbibed only a higher reverence for religion than was to be expected from a lively youth; and as to the disgust he felt, to which his biographer seems inclined to trace his infidelity, it is probable that a boy would not have entertained much less dislike to a voluminous history of England, if obliged to read it when he wished to be idle. But, whatever instruction he might receive from his first tutors, it is very certain, that he had a regular and liberal education. He was sent to Eton, where he had for his companion and rival sir Robert Waipole. “The parts of Mr. St. John,” says Coxe, “were more lively and brilliant, those of Walpole more steady and solid. Walpole was industrious and diligent, because his talents required application; St. John was negligent, because his quickness of apprehension rendered labour less necessary.” These characteristics prevailed in both throughout life. From Eton Mr. St. John was removed to Christ-church, Oxford, where he made a shining figure as a polite scholar, and when he left the university, he was considered as a youth highly accomplished for public life. His person was agreeable, and he had a dignity mixed with sweetness in his looks, and a manner very prepossessing, and, as some of his contemporaries said, irresistible. He had much acuteness, great judgment, and a prodigious memory. Whatever he read he retained so as to make it entirely his own; but in youth, he was not in general much given either to reading or reflection. With great parts, he had, as it usually happens, great passions which hurried him into those indiscretions and follies that distinguish the libertine. He does not, however, appear to have been without his serious moments, nor always unwilling to listen to the voice of conscience. “There has been something always,” says he, “ready to whisper in my ear, while I ran the course of pleasure and of business, * Solve senescentem mature sanus equum;‘ < and while ’tis well, release thy aged horse.' But my genius, unlike the demon of Socrates, whispered so softly, that very often I heard him not, in the hurry of those passions with which I was transported. Some calmer hours there were in them I hearkened to him. Reflection had often its turn and the love of study and the desire of knowledge have never quite abandoned me. I am not, therefore, entirely unprepared for the life I will lead; and it is not without reason that I promise myself more satisfaction in the latter part of it than I ever knew in the former.”

, a learned English divine, was the eldest son of Dr. Samuel Salter, prebendary of Norwich, and archdeacon of Norfolk, by Anne-Penelope, the daughter of Dr. John Jeffery, archdeacon of Norwich. He was educated for some time in the free-school of that city, whence he removed to that of the Charter-house, and was admitted of Bene't-college, Cambridge, June 30, 1730, under the tuition of Mr. Charles Skottowe. Soon after his taking the degree of B. A. in 1733, he was chosen into a fellowship, and took his master’s degree in 1737. His natural and acquired abilities recommended him to sir Philip Yorke, then lord-chief-jqstice of the King’s-bench, and afterwards earl of Hardwicke, for the instruction of his eldest son the second earl, who, with three of his brothers, in compliment to abp. Herring, was educated at that college. As soon as that eminent lawyer was made Jordehancellor, he appointed Mr. Salter his domestic chaplain, and gave him a prebend in the church of Gloucester, which he afterwards exchanged for one in that of Norwich. About the time of his quitting Cambridge, he was one of the writers in the “Athenian Letters.” Soon after the chancellor gave Mr. Salter the rectory of Burton Goggles, in the county of Lincoln, in 1740; where he went to reside soon after, and, marrying Miss Seeker, a relation of the then bishop of Oxford, continued there till 1750, when he was nominated minister of Great Yarmouth by the dean and chapter of Norwich. Here he performed the duties of that large parish with great diligence, till his promotion to the preachership at the Charter-house in January 1754, some time before which (in July, 1751), abp. Herring had honoured him with the degree of D. D. at Lambeth. In 1756, he was presented by the lord-chancellor to the rectory of St. Bartholomew near the Royal Exchange, which was the last ecclesiastical preferment he obtained; but in Nov. 1761, he succeeded Dr. Bearcroft as master of the Charter-house, who had been his predecessor in the preachership. While he was a member of Bene't college, he printed Greek Pindaric odes on the nuptials of the princes of Orange and Wales, and a copy of Latin verses on the death of queen Caroline. Besides a sermon preached on occasion of a music-meeting at Gloucester, another before the lord-mayor, Sept. 2, 1740, on the anniversary of the fire of London, a third before the sons of the clergy, 1755, which was much noticed at the time, and underwent several alterations before it was printed; and one before the House of Commons, Jan. 30, 1762; he published “A complete Collection of Sermons and Tracts” of his grandfather Dr. Jeffery, 1751, in 2 vols. 8vo, with his life prefixed, and a new edition of “Moral and Religious Aphorisms,” by Dr. Whichcote, with large additions of some letters that passed between him and Dr. Tuckney, “concerning the Use of Reason in Religion,” &c. and a biograpiiical preface, 1751, 8vo. To these may be added, “Some Queries relative to the Jews, occasioned by a late sermon,” with some other papers occasioned by the “Queries,” published the same year. In 1773 jmd 1774, he revised through the press seven of the celebrated “Letters of Ben Mordecai;” written by the rev. Henry Taylor, of Crawley in Hants. In 1776, Dr. Salter printed for private use, “The first 106 lines of the First Book of the Iliad; nearly as written in Homer’s Time and Country;” and printed also in that year, “Extract from the Statutes of the House, and Orders of the Governors, respecting the Pensioners or poor Brethren” (of the Charterhouse), a large single sheet in folio; in 1777, he corrected the proof-sheets of Bentley’s “Dissertation on Phalaris;” and not long before his death, which happened May 2, 1773, he printed also an inscription to the memory of his parents, an account of all which may be seen in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer.” Dr. Salter was buried, by his own express direction, in the most private manner, in the common burial-ground belonging to the brethren of the Charter-house.

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

On the accession of queen Elizabeth he returned home, not only confirmed in his aversion to the habits, but with a dislike, it would appear, to the whole of the hierarchy, and refused the bishopric of Norwich because dissatisfied with the nature of the office. He continued, however, to preach, particularly at Paul’s cross, where his wonderful memory and eloquence were very much admired; and in September 1560 he was made a prebendary of Durham. In Michaelmas-term 1561, he was instalied clean of Christ-church, Oxford. On this occasion some members of that society, who recommended him for the situation, said, that “it was very doubtful, whether there was a better man, a greater linguist, a more complete scholar, or a more profound divine;” and it is certain that for some years he and Dr. Lawrence Humphrey were the only protestant preachers at Oxford of any celebrity. In 1562, he resigned his prebend of Durham, and became so open and zealous in his invectives against the habits, that after considerable forbearance, he was cited, with Dr. Humphrey, before the high commission court at Lambeth, and Sampson was Deprived of his deanery, and for some time imprisoned. Notwithstanding his nonconformity, however, he was presented, in 1568, to the mastership of Wigston-hospitaJ, at Leicester, and had likewise, according to Wood, a prebend in St. Paul’s. He went to reside at Leicester, and continued there until his death, April 9, 1589. He mar-? ried bishop Latimer’s niece, by whom he had two sons, John and Nathaniel, who erected a monument to his memory, with a Latin inscription, in the chapel of the hospital at Leicester, where he was buried. His works are tew 1. “Letter to the professors of Christ’s Gospel, in the parish of Allhallows in Breadstreet,” Strasburgb, 1554, 8vo, which is reprinted in the appendix to Strype’s “Ecclesiastical Memorials,” vol. III. 2. “A Warning to take heed pf ‘Fowler’s Psalter’,” Loud. 1576 and 1578, 8vo. This was a popish psalter published by John Fowler, once a Fellow of New-college, Oxford, but who went abroad, turned printer, and printed the popish controversial works for some years. 3, ' Brief Collection of the Church and Ceremonies thereof,“Lond. 1581, 8vo. 4.” Prayers and Meditations Apostolike; gathered and framed out of the Epistles of the Apostles,“&c. ibid. 1592, J6mo. He was also editor of two sermons of his friend John Bradford, on repentance and the Lord’s-supper, Lond. 1574, 1581, and, 1589, 8vo. Baker ascribes to him, a translation of” a Sermon of John Chrysostome, of Pacience, of the end of the world, and the last judgment,“1550, 8vo; and of” An Homelye of the Resurrection of Christ," by John Brentius, 1550, 8vo. Other works, or papers in which he was concerned, may be seen in pur authorities.

, or Sanctius Brocensis, an eminent classical scholar of the sixteenth century, was born at Las Brocas, in the province of Estremaduras in Spain, in 1523. His principal residence appears to have been at Salamanca, where he was professor of rhetoric, and taught Greek and Latin with the highest reputation, derived from the originality of his criticisms and remarks on the classics. Justus Lipsius, Scioppius, and others, seem at a loss for language to express their admiration of his talents and learning. Lipsius bestows the epithets “divine” and “admirable;” and Scioppius says he ought to be considered as “com munis literatorum omnium pater et doctor.” Sanchez died in 1600, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. He published a great many works on subjects of classical criticism, and was the editor of Persius, Pomponius Mela, Politian’s “Sylvan,” Alciat’s emblems, Virgil’s Bucolics, and Horace’s Art of Poetry, He published also two Greek grammars, and some other pieces on grammar and rhetoric; but the work which has perpetuated his reputation is his “Minerva, de causis linguae Latinse,” Salamanca, 1587, 8vo, which was often reprinted. In more modem times, an edition was published at Amsterdam, in 1754, or 1761, 8vo, with a supplement by Scioppius, and notes by Perizonjus. This was reprinted with farther improvements by Scheidius, at Utrecht, in 1795, 8vo and again by Bauer, at Leipsic, in 1804, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a learned Spanish ecclesiastic, was born at Vigo in Gallicia in 1740. After the preparatory studies of divinity, &c. he entered into the church, and obtained a canonry in the cathedral of St. James, and was likewise appointed professor of divinity in that city. His fame procured him admission into many learned societies, and he became one of the most celebrated preachers of the last century, nor was he less admired for his benevolence. He obtained the honourable title of the father of the unfortunate, among whom he spent the whole profits of his canonry, and at his death in 1806, left no more than was barely sufficient to defray the expences of his funeral. The leisure he could spare from his professional duties was employed in the study of the ecclesiastical history of his country, which produced several works that are highly esteemed in Spain. Some of them were written in Latin, and some probably in Spanish, but our authority does not specify which. Among them are, 1. “Summa theologize sacrse,” Madrid, 1789, 4 jrols. 4to. 2. “Annales sacri,” ibid. 1784, 2 vols. 8vo. 3. ^History of the church of Africa,“ibid. 1784, 8vo, a work abounding in learned research. 4.” A treatise on Toleration in matters of Religion,“ibid. 1783, 3 vols. 4to, rather a singular subject for a Spanish divine. 5.” An essay on the eloquence of the pulpit in Spain,“ibid. 1778, 8vo. This is a history of sacred oratory in that country in various ages, with the names of those who were the best models of it. The restoration of a true taste in this species of eloquence he attributes to his countrymen becoming acquainted with the works of those eminent French preachers Bossuet, Massillon, Bourdaloue, &c. 6.” A collection of his Sermons,“ibid. 3 vols. 4to. These were much admired in Spain, and were the same year translated into Italian, and printed at Venice in 4 vols. 4to. 7.” A paper read in the Patriotic Society of Madrid in 1782, on the means of encouraging industry in Gallicia," ibid. 1782, 8vo. This being his native country, Dr. Sanchez had long laboured to introduce habits of industry, and had influence enough to procure a repeal of some oppressive laws which retarded an object of so much importance.

, from whom a religious sect is generally named, was born at Perth in Scotland in 1723. Being intended for one of the learned professions, he studied for two years at the university of Edinburgh, but at the expiration of that time married, and his fortune being- small, entered into the linen trade at Perth, whence he removed to Dundee, and afterwards to Edinburgh. The lady he married was the daughter of the rev. John Glass (See Glass), who founded the sect, at that time called from him Gtassitcs; and Mr. Sandeman, who was now an elder in one of Glass’s churches, or congregations, and had imbibed all his opinions, published a series of letters addressed to Mr. Hervey, occasioned by that author’s “Therou and Aspasio,” in which he endeavours to shew that his notion of faith is contradictory to the scripture account of it, and could only serve to lead men, professedly holding the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic, to establish their own righteousness upon their frames, inward feelings, and various acts of faith. In these letters Mr. Sandeman attempts to prove, that faith is neither more nor less than a simple assent to the divine testimony concerning Jesus Christ, recorded in the New Testament; and he maintains, that the word faith, or belief, is constantlyused by the apostles to signify what is denoted by it in common discourse, viz. a persuasion of the truth of any proposition, and that there is no difference between believing any common testimony, and believing the apostolic testimony, except that which results from the nature of the testimony itself. This led the way to a controversy, among Calvin ists in Scotland, concerning the nature of justifying faith and those who adopted Mr. Sandeman’s; notion of it, and who took the denomination of Sandemanians, formed themselves into church order, in strict fellowship with the church of Scotland, but holding no kind of communion with other churches. The chief opinions and practices in which this sect differs from others, are, their weekly administration of the Lord’s Supper; their lovefeasts, of which every member is not only allowed but required to partake, and which consist of their dining together at each other’s houses in the interval between the morning and afternoon service: their kiss of charity used on this occasion, at the admission of a new member, and at other times, when they deem it to be necessary or proper; their weekly collection before the Lord’s Supper for the support of the poor, and defraying other expences mutual exhortation abstinence from blood and things strangled washing each other’s feet, the precept concerning which, as well as other precepts, they understand literally community of goods so far as that every one is to consider all that he has in his possession and power as liable to the calls of the poor and church, and the unlawfulness of laying up treasures on earth, by setting them apart for any distant, future, and uncertain use. They allow of public and private diversions so far as they are not connected with circumstances really sinful; but apprehending a lot to be sacred, disapprove of playing at cards, dice, &c They maintain a plurality of elders, pastors, or bishops, in each church, and the necessity of the presence of two elders in every act of discipline, and at the administration of the Lord’s Supper. In the choice of these elders, want of learning, and engagements in trade, &c. are no sufficient objection; but second marriages disqualify for the office; and they are ordained by prayer and fasting, imposition of hands, and giving the right hand of fellowship. In their discipline they are strict and severe, and think themselves obliged to separate from the communion and worship of all such religious societies as appear to them not to profess the simple truth for their only ground of hope, and who do not walk in obedience to it. We shall only add, that in every church transaction, they esteem unanimity to be absolutely necessary.

, an eminent English bishop, was descended from an ancient family, and was the youngest son of Robert Sanderson, of Gilthwaite-hall, Yorkshire, by Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Richard Carr, of Butterthwaite-hall, in the parish of Ecclesfield. He was born at Rotherham, in Yorkshire, Sept. 19, 1587, and educated in the grammar-school there, where he made so uncommon a progress in the languages, that, at thirteen, he was sent to Lincoln college in Oxford. Soon after taking his degree of B. A. his tutor told Dr. Kilbie, the rector, that his “pupil Sanderson had a metaphysical brain, and a matchless memory, and that he thought he had improved or made the last so by an art of his own invention.” While at college, he generally spent eleven hours a day in study, chiefly of philosophy and the classics. In 1606 he was chosen fellow, and in July 1608, completed his degree of M. A. In November of the same year, he was elected logic reader, and re-elected in Nov. 1609. His lectures on this subject were published in 1615, and ran through several editions. In 1613, 1614, and 1616, he served the office of sub-rector, and in the latter of those years, that of proctor. In 1611, he was ordained deacon and priest by Dr. King, bishop of London, and took the degree of bachelor of divinity in 1617. In 1618, he was presented by his cousin sir Nicolas Sanderson, lord viscount Castleton, to the rectory of Wybberton, near Boston, in Lincolnshire, but resigned it the year following on account of the unhealthiness of its situation; and about the same time was collated to the rectory of Boothby-Paniiell, or Paynel, in the same county, which he enjoyed above forty years. Having now quitted his fellowship, he married Anne, the daughter of Henry Nelson, B. D. rector of Haugham in the county of Lincoln; and soon after was made a prebendary of Southwell, as he was also of Lincoln in 1629. He continued to attend to his parochial duties in a very exemplary manner, and particularly laboured much to reconcile differences, and prevent law-suits both in his parish, and in the neighbourhood. He also often visited sick and disconsolate families, giving advice and often pecuniary assistance, or obtaining the latter by applications to persons of opulence. He was often called upon to preach at assizes and visitations; but his practice of reading his sermons, as it was then not very common, raised some prejudice against him. Walton observes, that notwithstanding he had an extraordinary memory, he had such an innate bashfulness and sense of fear, as to render it of little use in the delivery of his sermons. It was remarked, when his sermons were printed in 1632, that “the best sermons that were ever read, were never preached.” At the beginning of the reign of Charles I. he was chosen one of the clerks in convocation for the diocese of Lincoln; and Laud, then bishop of London, having recommended him to that king as a man excellently skilled in casuistical learning, he was appointed chaplain to his majesty in 1631. When he became known to the king, his majesty put many cases of conscience to him, and received from him solutions which gave him so great satisfaction, that at the end of his month’s attendance, which was in November, the king told him, that “he should long for next November; for he resolved to have more inward acquaintance with him, when the month and he returned.” The king indeed was never absent from his sermons, and used to say, that “he carried his ears to hear other preachers, but his conscience to hear Mr. Sanderson.” In 1633 he obtained, through the earl of Rutland’s interest, the rectory of Muston, in Leicestershire, which he held eight years. In Aug. 1636, when the court was entertained at Oxford, he was,‘ among others, created D. D. In 1642, he was proposed by both Houses of parliament to king Charles, who was then at Oxford, to be one of their trustees for the settling of church affairs, and approved by the king: but that treaty came to nothing. The same year, his majesty appointed him regius professor of divinity at Oxford, with the canonry of Christ church annexed: but the national calamities hindered him from entering on it till 1646, and then he did not hold it undisturbed much more than a year. In 1643, he was nominated by the parliament one of the assembly of divines, but never sat among them neither did he take the covenant or engagement, so that his living was sequestered but, so great was his reputation for piety and learning, that he was not deprived of it. He had the’ chief hand in drawing up “The Reasons of the university of Oxford against the solemn League and Covenant, the Negative Oath, and the Ordinances concerning Discipline and Worship:” and, when the parliament had sent proposals to the king for a peace in church and state, his majesty desired, that Dr. Sanderson, with the doctors Hammond, Sheldon, and Morley, should attend him, and advise him how far he might with a good conscience comply with those proposals. This request was rejected by the presbyterian party; but, it being complied with afterwards by the independents, when his majesty was at Hampton-court, and in the isle of Wight, in 1647 and 1648, those divines attended him there. Dr. Sanderson often preached before him, and had many public and private conferences with him, to his majesty’s great satisfaction. The king also desired him, at Hampton-court, since the parliament had proposed the abolishing of episcopal government as inconsistent with monarchy, that he would consider of it, and declare his judgment; and what he wrote upon that subject was afterwards printed in 1661, 8vo, under this title, “Episcopacy, as established by law in England, not prejudicial to Regal power.” At Sanderson’s taking leave of his majesty in this his last attendance on him, the king requested him to apply himself to the writing of “Cases of Conscience;” to which his answer was, that “he was now grown old, and unfit to write cases of conscience.” But the king told him plainly, “it was the simplest thing he ever heard from him; for, no young man was fit to be a judge, or write cases of conscience.” Upon this occasion, Walton relates the following anecdote: that in one of these conferences the king told Sanderson, or one of them that then waited with him, that “the remembrance of two errors did much afflict him, which were, his assent to the earl of Stafford’s death, and the abolishing of episcopacy in Scotland; and that, if God ever restored him to the peaceable possession of his crown, he would demonstrate his repentance by a public confession and a voluntary penance, by walking barefoot from the Tower of London, or Whitehall, to St. Paul’s church, and would desire the people to intercede with God for his pardon.” In 1643, Dr. Sanderson was ejected from his professorship and canonry in Oxford by the parliamentary visitors, and retired to his living of Boothby-Pannel. Soon after, he was taken prisoner, and carried to Lincoln, to be exchanged for one Clarke, a puritan divine, and minister of Alington, who had been made prisoner by the king’s party. He was, however, soon released upon articles, one of which was, that the sequestration of his living should be recalled; by which means he enjoyed a moderate subsistence for himself, wife, and children, till the restoration. But, though the articles imported also, that he should live undisturbed, yet he was far from bein^r either quiet or safe, being once wounded, and several times plundered; and the outrage of the soldiers was such, that they not only came into his church, and disturbed him when reading prayers, but even forced the common prayer book from him, and tore it to pieces. During this retirement, he received a visit from Dr. Hammond, who wanted to discourse with him upon some points disputed between the Caivinists and Arminians; and he was often applied to for resolution in cases of conscience, several letters upon which subjects were afterwards printed*. In 1658, the hon, Robert Boyle sent him a present of 50l.; his circumstances, as of most of the royalists at that time, being very low. Boyle had read his lectures “De juramenti obligatione,” published the preceding year, with great satisfaction; and asked Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, if he thought Sanderson could be induced to write cases of conscience, provided he had an honorary pension allowed, to supply him with books and an amanuensis But Sanderson told Barlow, “that, if any future tract of his could bring any benefit to mankind, he would readily set about it without a pension.” Upon this, Boyle sent the above present by the hands of Barlow; and Sanderson presently revised, finished, and published, his book “De obligatione conscientiae,” which, as well as

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

About 1602, he was diverted from his private studies, which he had now indulged, though amidst numerous vexations, for many years, by the state of public affairs. A dispute arose between the republic of Venice and the court of Rome, relating to ecclesiastical immunities; and, as both divinity and Taw were concerned in it, father Paul was appointed divine and canonist for the republic of Venice, to act in concert with the iaw-consultors. The dispute had commenced, and been carried on, under ClementVIII.; but when Paul V. came to the popedom, he required absolute obedience without disputes. At length, when he found his commands slighted, the pope excommunicated the duke, the whole senate, and all their dominions, in April 1606, and the Venetians in return recalled their ambassador at Rome, suspended the inquisition by order of state, and published by sound of trumpet a proclamation to this eilect, viz. “That whosoever hath received from Rome any copy of a papal edict, published there, as well against the law of God, as against the honour of this nation, shall immediately bring it to the council of ten upon pain of death.” But as the minds, not only of the common burghers, but also of some noble personages belonging to the state, were alarmed at this papal interdict, Paul endeavoured to relieve their fears, by a piece entitled “Consolation of mind, to quiet the consciences of those who live well, against the terrors of the interdict by Paul V.” As this was written for the sole use of the government under which he was born, it was deposited in the archives of Venice; till at length, from a copy clandestinely taken, it was first published at the Hague, both in the Italian and French languages, and the same year in English, under this title, “The Rights of Sovereigns and Subjects, argued from the civil, canon, and common law, under the several heads of Excommunications, Interdicts, Persecution, Councils, Appeals, Infallibility, describing the boundaries of that power which is claimed throughout Christendom by the Crown and the Mitre; and of the privileges which appertain to the subjects, both clergy and laity, according to the laws of God and Man.” Paul wrote, or assisted in writing and publishing, several other pieces in this controversy between the two states; and had the Inquisition, cardinal Bellarmine, and other great personages, for his antagonists. Paul and his brother writers, whatever might be the abilities of their adversaries, were at least superior to them in the justice of their cause. The propositions maintained on the side of Rome were these; that the pope is invested with all the authority of heaven and earth that all princes are his vassals, and that he may annul their laws at pleasure that kings may appeal to him, as he is temporal monarch of the whole earth; that he can discharge subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and make it their duty to take up arms against their sovereign that he may depose kings without any fault committed by them, if the good of the church requires it that the clergy are exempt from all tribute to kings, and are not accountable to them even in cases of high treason; that the pope cannot err; that his decisions are to be received and obeyed on pain of sin, though all the world should judge them to be false; that the pope is God upon earth, and that to call his power in question, is to call in question the power of God; maxims equally shocking, weak, pernicious, and absurd, which did not require the abilities or learning of father Paul, to demonstrate their falsehood, and destructive tendency. The court of Rome, however, was now so exasperated against him, as to cite him by a decree, Oct. 30, 1606, under pain of absolute excommunication, to appear in person at Rome, to answer the charges of heresies against him. Instead cf appearing, he published a manifesto, shewing the invalidity of the summons; yet offered to dispute with any of the pope’s advocates, in a place of safety, on the articles laid to his charge.

, a protestant divine, was born August 28, 1639, at Usseaux, in the valley of Pragelas on the frontiers of Daupliiny, where his father officiated as minister. He was himself appointed minister of Venterole in 1661, of Embrun in 1662, and would have been shortly chosen professor of divinity at Die, but meeting accidentally with a priest who was carrying the host to a sick person, he would not take off his hat. This trifle, as might be expected in a popish country, was so much resented, that Saurin found it necessary to retire into Holland, where he arrived in June 1664, was appointed minister of the Walloon church at Delft the following year, and had a great share in deposing the famous Labadie. In 1671, he was invited to be minister of the Walloon church at Utrecht, where he became very celebrated by his works, and had some Tery warm disputes with Jurieu, which were the subject of much conversation; but he is said to have satisfactorily answered the charge of heresy which that author brought against him. Saurin died unmarried at Utrecht, April 8, 1703, aged sixty-four, leaving the following works: an “Examination of M. Jurieu’s Theology,” 2 vols. 8vo, in which he treats of several important questions in divinity; “Reflections on the Rights of Conscience,” against Jurieu, and Bayle’s Philosophical Commentary; a treatise on “the Love of God,” in which he supports the doctrine of disinterested love; and another on the “Love of our Neighbours,” &c.

, an English divine, was born about 1604, of a good family, in the parish of Eldsfield, Worcestershire. He entered of Baliol college, Oxford, as a commoner in 1621, took the degree of B. A. in Nov. 1625, in 1628 was made probationer fellow, and in 1630 completed his master’s degree. On the commencement of the rebellion, he travelled into France with William lord Sandys, whose sister, the lady Mary, he afterwards married. Soon after his return he obtained the mastership of his college, Feb. 20, 1650, being at that time bachelor of divinity, and next year took his doctor’s degree in the same faculty. Notwithstanding this compliance with the usurping powers, he was, on the restoration, made chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, prebendary of Gloucester in 1665, and rector of Bladon near Woodstock in Oxfordshire. He died, master of Baliol college, June 2, 1672, and was buried in the chapel.

His son Joseph has described him as a man with many excellent qualities both of body and mind; tall, well-made, of a noble and venerable air, and very strong and active even to old age of such sagacity, that he could divine the characters of men from their looks of a prodigious memory; singularly averse to every departure from truth, and so charitable that his house was a kind of hospital to the indigent and distressed. With these good qualities, however, he had an insupportable pride and vanity, and a fastidious and petulant temper, which was excited to fury by every difference from his opinions, and every, the least contradiction, or fancied mark of disrespect. This appeared particularly in his treatment of Erasmus, who, in his “Ciceronianus, sive de optimo dicendi genere,” had ridiculed certain of the learned in Italy, who would allow no expressions to be pure latinity but what were to be found in Cicero; and had even criticised the style of Cicero himself, for whom, nevertheless, he had the profoundest veneration. This provoked Scaliger to publish two orations in his defence; in which he treated his antagonist with the utmost virulence of contempt. The death of Erasmus, however, which happened while the second oration was printing, appears to have softened Scaliger' s heart, and he wrote a poem, in which he expressed great grief at his dying before they were reconciled, and shewed a willingness to acknowledge his great virtues and merit.

, a learned Lutheran divine, was born at Worms, in 1652. In his twenty-seventh year, he hurt his right arm with a fall so much, that he could never recover the use of it: he learned to write, however, so well with the left, as to be able to compose near a hundred publications, without the help of an amanuensis, but they are chiefly theses upon subjects of ecclesiastical history. One of his pieces is entitled “Arcana dominationis in rebus gestis Oliverii Cromwelli;” another is against a book, supposed to be Le Clerc’s, with this title, “Liberii de sancto amore Epistolse Theoiogicse*” He translated Pardie’s “Elements of Geometry” out of French into Latin. He died in 1726; and his funeral oration was made by John Laurence Mosheim, who speaks very highly in his praise.

, a German divine, was bora at Groningen, where he studied till 1706, and greatly distinguished himself by taste and skill in Arabic learning. He became a minister of Wassenar, and professor of the oriental tongues at Franeker. At length he was invited to Leyden, where he taught Hebrew and the oriental languages with reputation till his death, which happened in 1750. There are many works of Schultens, which shew profound learning and just criticism as, “Commentaries upon Job and the Proverbs” a book, entitled “Vet us et regia via Hebraizandi” “A Treatise of Hebrew Roots,” &c. He had a son John Jacob Schultens, who was professor of divinity and oriental languages at Leyden, in his room. This John Jacob was father to the subject of the following article.

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

This divine wrote an excellent work, called “The Christian Life,” which has been often printed, and much read. The first part was published 1681, in 8vo, wiih this title, “The Christian Life, from its beginning to its consummation in glory, together with the several means and instruments of Christianity conducing thereunto, with directions for private devotion and forms of prayer, fitted to the several states of Christians;” in 1685, another part, “wherein, the fundamental principles of Christian duty are assigned, explained, and proved;” in 1686, another part, “wherein the doctrine of our Saviour’s mediation is explained and proved.” To these volumes of the “Christian Life” the pious author intended a continuation, had not long infirmity, and afterwards death, prevented him. This work is not now much read, although the ninth edition was published in 1729. Mr. Orton, in his “Letters to young Ministers,” seems to recommend the first volume only. Dr. Scott published two pieces against the papists: I. “Examination of Bellarmine’s eighth note concerning sanctity of doctrine.” 2. “The texts examined, which papists cite out of the Bible concerning prayer in an unknown tongue.” Both these pieces were printed together, Oct. 1688, while king James was upon the throne. He wrote also “Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the lawfulness of joining with forms of prayer in public worship,” 1683, in two parts; which were both reprinted, and inserted in the second volume of a work entitled “A collection of Cases and other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the Communion of the Church of England,” 1685, 4to. His whole works, including sermons, &c. were published in 2 vols. fol. 1704.

A doctrine of this nature, advanced in an age when the reality of witches was so universally believed, that even the great bishop Jewel, touching upon the subject in a sermon before queen Elizabeth, could “pray God they might never practise farther than upon the subject,” exposed the author to every species of obloquy and persecution; and accordingly Voetius, a foreign divine, informs us in his “Disput. Theolog.” vol. III. p. 564, though Wood says nothing of it, that his book was actually burnt. It was also opposed, and, as it should seem, by great authority too: for, James I. in the preface to his “Demonologie,” printed first at Edinburgh in 1597, and afterwards at London in 1603, observes, that be “wrote that book chiefly against the damnable opinions of Wierus and Scott; the latter of whom is not ashamed,” the king says, “in public print to deny, that there can be such a thing as witchcraft, and so maintains the old error of the Sadducees in the denying of spirits,” an inference which by no means follows from Scot’s premises. Dr. John Raynolds, in his “Praslectiones upon the Apocrypha/' animadverts on several passages in Scot’s” Discovery;“Meric Casaubon treats him as an illiterate person; and Mr. Joseph Glanvil, one of the greatest advocates for witchcraft, affirms, that” Mr. Scot doth little but tell odd tales and silly legends, which he confutes and laughs at, and pretends this to be a confutation of the being of witches and apparitions: in all which his reasonings are trifling and childish; and, when he ventures at philosophy, he is little better than absurd." Scot did not live to see the full effects of his endeavours to abate the prejudices of the times, nor could this indeed be the work of a single hand, contending against the king on the thfone, many very learned men, almost the whole body of the people, and what was the last to yield, the statutelaw of the land. His work, however, was reprinted in 1651, 4to, and in 1665, folio, with additions, and was translated into German.

, an eminent Scotch divine, and second son of Patrick Scougal, bishop of Aberdeen, was born June 1650, at Salton, in East Lothian, where his father, the immediate predecessor of Bishop Burnet, was rector. His father, designing him for the sacred ministry, watched over his infant mind with peculiar care, and soon had the satisfaction of perceiving the most amiable dispositions unfold themselves, and his understanding rise at once into the vigour of manhood. Relinquishing the amusements of youth, young Scougal applied to his studies with ardour: and, agreeably to his father’s wish, at an early period directed his thoughts to sacred literature. He perused the historical parts of the bible with peculiar pleasure, and then began to examine its contents more minutely. He was struck with the peculiarities of the Jewish dispensation, and felt an anxiety to understand why its rites and ceremonies were abolished. The nature and evidences of the Christian religion also occupied his mind. He perused sermons with much attention, committed to writing those passages which most affected him, and could comprehend and remember their whole scope. Nor was he inattentive to polite literature. He read the Roman classics, and made considerable proficiency in the Greek, Hebrew, and other oriental languages. He was also well versed in history and mathematics. His diversions were of a manly kind. After becoming acquainted with Roman history, he formed, in concert with some of his companions, a little senate, where orations of their own composition were delivered.

, an eminent protestant divine, was born at Grumberg in Silesia, Aug. i?4, 1556, and after having studied there till 1582, was sent to BresUw to continue his progress in the sciences He was recalled soon after, his father, who had lost all his fortune in the fire of Grunberg, being no longer able to maintain him at the college, and therefore intending to bring him up to some trade. The young man was not at all pleased with such a proposal; and looked out for the place of a tutor, which he found in the family of a burgomaster of Freistad, and this gave him an opportunity of hearing the sermons of Melancthon and of Abraham Bucholtzer. In 1584 he took a journey into Poland, and went to Gorlitz in Lusatia the year following, and resided there above two years, constantly attending the public lectures, and reading private lectures to others. He employed himself in the same manner in the university of Wittemberg in 1588 and 1589, and afterwards in that of Heidelberg till he was admitted into the church in 1594. He officiated in a village of the palatinate for some months; after which he was sent for by the elector palatine to be one of his preachers. In 1598 he was appointed pastor of the church of St. Francis at Heidelberg, and two years after was made a member of the ecclesiastical senate. He was employed several times in visiting the churches and schools of the palatinate, and among these avocations wrote some works, which required great labour. He attended the prince of Anhalt to the war at Juliers in 1610, and applied himself with great prudence and vigilance to the re-settlement of the affairs of the reformed church in those parts. He attended Frederic V. prince palatine into England in 1612, and contracted an acquaintance with the most learned men of that kingdom, but Wood speaks of his having resided some time at Oxford in 1598. He took a journey to Brandenburg in 1614, the elector John Sigismond, who was about renouncing Lutheranism, being desirous of concerting measures with him with respect to that change; and on his return to Heidelberg he accepted the place of courtpreacher, which he relinquished when appointed professor of divinity in 1618. He was deputed soon after to the synod of Dort, where he endeavoured at first to procure a reconciliation of the contending parties; but finding nothing of that kind was to be expected, he opposed vigorously the doctrines of the Arminians. He preached at Francfort the year following during the electoral diet held there, his master having appointed him preacher to the deputies whom he sent thither. He also attended that prince in his journey into Bohemia; and retiring into Silesia after the fatal battle of Prague, resolved to return to Heidelberg in order to discharge the functions of his professorship there; but the fury of the war having dispersed the students, he went to Bretten, and afterwards to Schorndorf in the country of Wirtemberg, whence he removed to Embden in August 1622. The king of Bohemia his master had consented that the city of Embden should offer Scultetus the place of preacher, but he did not enjoy it very long; for he died October the 24th, 1625.

The principal works of this learned divine, who, as Freher says, was reckoned another Chrysostom, are, 1. “Confutatio disputationis Baronii de baptismo Constantini,” Neost. 1607, 4to. 2. “Annales Evangelii per Europara 15 Seculi renovati, Decad. 1 et 2,” Heidelberg, 1618, 8vo. In these annals of the reformation he has shown himself a very candid and credible historian. 3. “Axiomata concionancii,” Han. 1619, 8vo. 4. “Observationes in Pauli Epistolas ad Timotheum, Titum, et Philernonem.” 5. “Medulla Patrum,” 1634, 4to. So indefatigable was his application, that he wrote the following lines over his study door:

On the translation of Dr. Potter to the archbishopric of Canterbury, Dr. Seeker was translated to the bishopric of Oxford, in May 1737. When the unfortunate breach happened between the late king and the prince of Wales, his highness having removed to Norfolk-house, in the parish of St. James’s, attended divine service constantly at that church. Two stories are told of this matter, which, although without much foundation, served to amuse the public for a while. The one was, that the first time the prince made his appearance at church, the clerk in orders, Mr. Bonney, began the service with the sentence, “I will arise and go to my father,” &c- The other, that Dr. Seeker preached from the text, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” &c. Dr. Seeker had the honour of baptizing all his highness’s children except two, and though he did not attend his court, which was forbidden to those who went to the king’s, yet on every proper occasion he behaved with all the submission and respect due to his illustrious rank. In consequence of this, his influence with the prince being supposed much greater than it really was, he was sent, by the king’s direction, with a message to his royal highness; which not producing the effects expected from it, he had the misfortune to incur his majesty’s displeasure, who had been unhappily persuaded to think that he might have done more with the prince than he did, though indeed he could not For this reason, and because he sometimes acted with those who opposed the court, the king did not speak to him for a great number of years. The whole of Dr, Seeker’s parliamentary conduct appears to have been loyalj manly, and independent. His circular letter to his clergy, and his sermon on the subject of the rebellion in 1745, rank among the best and most efficacious documents of the kind which that melancholy event produced. In the spring of 1748 his wife died, to whom he had now been married upwards of twenty years.

During the whole time that he was dean of St. Paul’s, he attended divine service constantly in that cathedral twice every day, whether in residence or not and in concert with the three other residentiaries, established the custom of always- preaching their own turns in the afternoon, or exchanging with each other only, which, excepting the case of illness, or extraordinary accidents, was very punctually observed. He also introduced many salutary regulations in the financial concerns of the church, the keeping of the registers, &c. &c. In the summer months he resided constantly at his episcopal house at Ctiddesden, the vicinity of which to Oxford rendered it very pleasing to a man of his literary turn. His house was the resort of those who were most distinguished for academical merit, and his conversation such as was worthy of his guests, who always left him with a high esteem of his understanding and learning. And though in the warm contest in 1754, for representatives of the county (in which it was scarce possible for any person of eminence to remain neuter), he openly espoused that side 'which was thought most favourable to the principles of the revolution; yet it was without bitterness or vehemence, without ever departing from the decency of his profession, the dignity of his station, or the charity prescribed by his religion.

, a nonconformist divine, was born at Marlborough in Wiltshire, in 1600, and educated first at Queen’s college, and then at Magdalen-hall, Oxford. After taking his degrees in arts, he was ordained, and became chaplain to lord Horatio Vere, whom he accompanied into the Netherlands. After his return, he went again to Oxford, and was admitted to the reading of the sentences in 1629. Going then to London he preached at St. Mildred’s, Bread-street, until interrupted by the bishop, and in 1639 became vicar of Coggeshall in Essex, where he continued three or four years. The commencement of the rebellion allowing men of his sentiments unconstrained liberty, he returned to London, and preached frequently before the parliament, inveighing with extreme violence against the church and state: to the overthrow of both, his biographers cannot deny that he contributed his full share, in the various characters of one of the assembly of divines, a chaplain in the army, one of the triers, and pne of the ejectors of those who were called “ignorant and scandalous ministers.” In 1646 he became preacher at St. Paul’s, Covent-garden, where he appears to have continued until the decay of his health, when he retired to Marl borough, and died there in January 1658. As a divine, he was much admired in his day, and his printed works had considerable popularity. The principal of them are, “The Fountain opened,” 1657; “An exposition of Psalm xxiii.” 1658, 4to; “The Anatomy of Secret Sins,” 1660; “The Parable of the Prodigal,” 1660; “Synopsis of Christianity,” &c. &c. He had a brother, John, an ad*, herent to the "parliamentary cause, and a preacher, but of less note; and another brother Joseph, who became batler in Magdalen college in 1634, and B.A. in 1637, and then went to Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree, and, was elected fellow of Christ’s college. After the restora-^ tion he conformed, and was beneficed in the church; in 1675 he was made prebendary of Lincoln, and was also rector of Fisherton, where he died Sept. 22, 1702, in the seventy-fourth year of his age, leaving a son John Sedgwick, who succeeded him in the prebend, and was vicar of Burton Pedvvardine in Lincolnshire, where he died in 1717.

, an English divine, who was born at Clifton, near Penrith, in Cumberland, of which place his father was rector, had his school-education at Lowther, and his academical at Queen’s college, in Oxford. Of this society he was chosen fellow in 1732. The greatest part of his life was spent at Twickenham, where he was assistant or curate to Dr. Waterland. In 1741, he was presented by his college to the living of Enham in Hampshire, at which place he died in 1747, without ever having obtained any higher preferment, which he amply deserved. He was exemplary in his morals, orthodox in his opinions, had an able head, and a most amiable heart. A late romantic writer against the Athanasian doctrines, whose testimony we choose to give, as it is truth extorted from an adversary, speaks of him in the following terms: “Notwithstanding this gentleman’s being a contender for the Trinity, yet he was a benevolent man, an upright Christian, and a beautiful writer; exclusive of his zeal for the Trinity, he was in every thing else an excellent clergyman, and an admirable scholar. 1 knew him well, and on account of his amiable qualities very highly honour his memory; though no two ever differed more in religious sentiments.” He published in his life-time, “Discourses on several important Subjects,” 2 vols. 8vo and his “Posthumous Works, consisting of sermons, letters, essays, &c.” in 2 vols. 8vo, were published from his original manuscripts by Jos. Hall, M. A. fellow of Queen’s college, Oxford, 1750. They are all very ingenious, and full of good matter, but abound too much in antithesis and point.

In his next, and one of his most memorable performances, he did not earn th*e fame of it without some danger. This was his “Treatise of Tythes,” the object of which was to prove that tithes were not due by divine right under Christianity, although the clergy are entitled to them by the laws of the land. This book was attacked by sir James Sempill in the Appendix to his treatise entitled “Sacrilege sacredly handled,” London, 1619, and by Dr. Richard Tillesley, archdeacon of Rochester, in his “Animadversions upon Mr. Selden’s History of Tithes,” London, 1621, 4to. Selden wrote an answer to Dr. Tillesley, which being dispersed in manuscript, the doctor published it with remarks in the second edition of his “Animadversions,” London, 1621, 4to, under this title, “Animadversions upon Mr. Selden’s History of Tithes, and his Review thereof. Before which (in lieu of the two first chapters purposely praetermitted) is premised a catalogue of 72 authors before the yeare 1215, maintaining the Jus divinum of Tythes, or more, to be paid to the Priesthood under the Gospell.” Selden’s book was likewise answered by Dr. Richard Montague in his “Diatribe,” London, 1621, 4to; by Stephen Nettles, B. D. in his “Answer to the Jewish Part of Mr. Selden’s History of Tythes,” Oxford, 1625; and by William Sclater in his “Arguments about Tithes,” London, 1623, in 4to. Selden’s work having been reprinted in 1680, 4to, with the old date put to it, Dr. Thomas Comber answered it in a treatise entitled, “An Historical Vindication of the Divine Right of Tithes, &c.” London, 1G&1, in 4to. This work also excited the displeasure of the court, and the author was called before some of the lords of the high commission, Jan. 28, 1618, and obliged to make a publicsubmission, which he did in these words: “My good Lords, I most humbly acknowledge my errour, which 1 have committed in publishing the ‘ History of Tithes,’ and especially in that I have at all, by shewing any interpretation of Holy Scriptures, by meddling with Councils, Fathers, or Canons, or by what else soever occures in it, offered any occasion of argument against any right of maintenance ' Juredivino* of the Ministers of the Gospell; beseeching your Lordships to receive this ingenuous and humble acknowledgment, together with the unfeined protestation of my griefe, for that through it I have so incurred both his Majestie’s and your Lordships’ displeasure conceix-ed against mee in behalfe of the Church of England.” We give this literally, because some of Mr. Selden’s admirers have asserted that he never recanted any thing in his book. The above is at least the language of recantation; yet he says himself in his answer to Dr. Tillesley, “I confesse, that I did most willingly acknowledge, not only before some Lords of the High Commission (not in the High Commission Court) but also to the Lords of his Majesty’s Privy Council, that I was most sorry for the publishing of that History, because it had offended. And his Majesty’s most gracious favour towards me received that satisfaction of the fault in so untimely printing it; and I profess still to all the world, that I am sorry for it. And so should I have been, if I had published a most orthodox Catechism, that had offended. But what is that to the doctrinal consequences of it, which the Doctor talks of? Is there a syllable of it of less truth, because I was sorry for the publishing of it Indeed, perhaps by the Doctor’s logic there is; and just so might he prove, that there is the more truth in his animadversions, because he was so glad of the printing them. And because he hopes, as he says, that my submission hath cleared my judgment touching the right of tithes: what dream made him hope so? There is not a word of tithes in that submission more than in mentioning the title; neither was my judgment at all in question, but my publishing it; and this the Doctor knows too, as I am assured.” Selden, therefore, if this means any thing, was not sorry for what he had written, but because he had published it, and he was sorry he had published it, because it gave offence to the court and to the clergy. In 1621, king James having, in his speech to the parliament, asserted that their privileges were originally grants from the crown^ Selden was consulted by the House of Lords on that question, and gave his opinion in favour of parliament; which being dissolved soon after, he was committed to the custody of the sheriff of London, as a principal promoter of the famous protest of the House of Commons, previous to its dissolution. From this confinement, which lasted only five weeks, he was released by the interest of Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, and returned to his studies, the first fruits of which were> a learned epistle prefixed to Vincent’s “Discovery of errors in two editions of the Catalogue of Nobility by Ralph Brooke,” Lond. 1622, and the year following his “Spicilegium in Eadmeri sex libros Historiarum,” fol.

Selden was a man of extensive learning, and had as much skill in the Hebrew and Oriental languages as perhaps any man of his time, Pocock excepted. Grotius, over whom he triumphed in his “Mare clausum,” styles him “the glory of the English nation.” He was knowing in all laws, human and divine, yet did not greatly trouble himself with the practice of law: he seldom appeared at the bar, but sometimes gave counsel in his chamber. “His mind also,” says Whitelocke, “was as great as his learning; he was as hospitable and generous as any man, and as good company to those he liked.” Wilkins relates, that he was a man of uncommon gravity and greatness of soul, averse to flattery, liberal to scholars, charitable to the poor; and that, though he had a great latitude in his principles with regard to ecclesiastical power, yet he had a sincere regard for the church of England. Baxter remarks, that “he was a resolved se-> rious Christian, a great adversary, particularly, to Hobbes’s errors;” and that sir Matthew Hale affirmed, “how he had seen Selden openly oppose Hobbes so earnestly, as either to depart from him, or drive him out of the room.” But the noblest testimony in his favour is that of his intimate friend the earl of Clarendon, who thus describes him in all parts of his character: “Mr. Selden was a person,” says he, “whom no character can flatter, or transmit in any expressions equal to his merit and virtue. He was of such stupendous learning in all kinds and in all languages, as may appear from his excellent and transcendant writings, that a man would have thought he had been entirely conversant among books, and had never spent an hour but in reading or writing; yet his humanity, courtesy, and affability, was such, that he would have been thought to have been bred in the best courts, but that his good-nature, charity, and delight in doing good, and in communicating all he knew, exceeded that breeding. His style in all his writings seems harsh, and sometimes obscure; which is not wholly to be imputed to the abstruse subjects of which he commonly treated, out of the paths trod by other men, but to a little undervaluing the beauty of a style , and too much propensity to the language of antiquity: but in his conversation he was the most clear discourser, and had the best faculty in making hard things easy, and present to the understanding, of any man that hath been known.” His lordship also used to say, that *' he valued himself upon nothing more than upon having had Mr. Selden’s acquaintance, from the time he was very young; and held it with great delight as long as they were suffered to continue together in London: and he was very much troubled always when he heard him blamed, censured, and reproached for staving in London, and in the parliament, after they- were in rebellion, and in the worst times, which his age obliged him to do; and how wicked soever the actions were, which were every day done, he was confident he had not given his consent to them, but would have hindered them if he could with his own safety, to which he was always enough indulgent. If he had some infirmities with other men, they were weighed down with wonderful and prodigious abilities and excellences in the other scale.“The political part of Selden’s life, is that which the majority of readers will contemplate with least pleasure; but on this it is unnecessary to dwell. The same flexibility of spirit, which made him. crouch before the reprehension of James I. disfigured the rest of his life, and deprived him of that dignity and importance which would have resulted from his standing erect in any place he might have chosen. Clarendon seems to have hit the true cause of all, in that anxiety for his own safety to which, as he says,” he was always indulgent enough."

, an eloquent French divine, was born in 1601, at Paris, and was the son of Peter Senault, secretary to the council of the League. He entered young into the congregation of the oratory, then newly established by cardinal de Berulle, and was one of the most celebrated preachers and best directors of his time. He preached with uncommon reputation during forty years, at Paris, and in the principal cities of France, and wrote several books on pious and moral subjects, which were much esteemed by pious catholics. He appears to have been a disinterested man, for he refused some considerable pensions, and two bishoprics, but was elected general of the oratory in 1662. He died August 3, 1672, at Paris, aged seventy-one. His principal works are, “A Paraphrase on the Book oflob,” 8vo; “L' Usage des Passions,” 12mo; “L'Homme Chretien,” 4to; “L'Homme criminel,” 4to “Le Monarque, on les Devoirs du Souverain,” 12mo; “Panegyrics on the Saints,” 3 vols. 8vo; and the Lives of several persons illustrious for their piety, &c. It was this father, says L'Avocat, who banished from the pulpit that empty parade of profane learning, and that false taste, by which it was degraded, and who introduced a strong, sublime, and majestic eloquence, suited to the solemnity of our mysteries, and to the truths of our holy religion.

, a Spanish writer of no good fame, was born at Cordova in 1491, and became historiographer to the Emperor Charles V. He is memorable for writing a “Vindication of the Cruelties of the Spaniards against the Incliana,” in opposition to the benevolent pen of Barthelemi de la Casas. Sepulveda affirmed, that such cruelties were justifiable both by human and divine laws, as well as by the rights of war. It is an act of justice to Charles V. to mention that he suppressed the publication of Sepulveda’s book in his dominions; but it was published at Rome. This advocate for the greatest barbarities that ever disgraced human nature, died at Salamanca in 1572. He was author of various works besides that above mentioned; in particular, of some Latin letters, a translation from Aristotle, with notes, a life of Charles V. &c. printed together at Madrid in 1780, 4 vols. 4to. under the care of the royal academy of history, a proof that he still holds his rank among Spanish authors.

The character of Sharp, says Mr. Todd, whose accurate and well-arranged memoir we have followed, affords one of the best examples that can challenge imitation, whether he is considered as a man, as a scholar, as a divine, or as a diocesan. His amiable disposition and unshaken integrity, his distinguished learning and extensive charity, will transmil his name to latest ages, as one of the greatest ornaments of this country. He was that faithful and vigilant governor, who promoted the diligent clergy of his own diocese to the dignities in his cathedral: who conferred, indeed, on the deserving whatever was in his own gift, without the least regard to political opinions and partv interest; who enforced the laudable injunction of residence to the prebendaries of York, Southwell, and Rippon: who, in all respects, promoted by true discipline the decency of the church, as “by sound doctrine he exhorted and convinced the gainsayers.”

, a clergyman’s son, born at Adstock, in Buckinghamshire, in the seventeenth century, was sent from Winchester school to New college, Oxford, where he was admitted perpetual fellow in 1649. In 1660 he took the degree of doctor of civil law, was prebendary and archdeacon of Winchester, and rector of Bishop’s Waltham, in Hampshire. He died July 11, 1684, having the character of a good divine, civilian, and lawyer,and well skilled in the nature and philosophy of plants. His works are: “The History of the Propagating and Improvement of Vegetables, by the concurrence of Art and Nature, &c.” Oxon. 1666, and 1672, 8vo. “Hypothesis de Officiis secundum Humanae Rationis Dictata, seu Naturae jus, unde Casus omnes Conscientitc quatenus Notiones a Natura supersunt dijudicari possint,” &c. ibid. 1660, 8vo, and 1682. This book was written against Hobbes. “Judicia (seu Legum Censurae) de variis Incontinentioe speciebus.” ibid. 1662, 8vo. “De finibus virtutis Christians,” or the ends of the Christian religion, in ten sermons, 4to.

Dr. Sheldon’s character has been represented with the discordance that must be expected in the reports of contending parties. It would appear on an impartial view of contemporary authorities, that he was more eminent as a politician than a divine; and that in the former character, resentment of personal injuries, as well as of the more extensive evils brought on the church by the abettors of the usurpation, led him to take a very decided and severe part in the penal laws enacted against the nonconformists. Burnet, with due allowance for his talents and many good qualities, speaks with censure on his conduct in this respect. The character given of him by Dr. Samuel Parker, bishop of Oxford, who had been his chaplain, seems in a great degree to correspond with other authorities, and confirms the general opinion that Sheldon was not precise as a divine.

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

On his release he determined to follow the fortunes of his royal master, who made him commissary-general of the artillery, in which post he witnessed the battle of Edge-hill, and afterwards attended the king at Oxford, where he was created master of arts, Dec. 20, 1642. Here he took such opportunities as his office permitted of pursuing his studies, and did not leave Oxford untilJune 1646, when it was surrendered to the parliamentary forces. He then went to London, and was entertained by a near relation, John Povey, esq. at his chambers in the Middle Temple. Being plundered of all his property, and what is ever most dear* to a man of learning, his ample library, he would probably have sunk under his accumulated sufferings, had he not met with his kinsman, Thomas Stanley, esq. father of the learned Thomas Stanley, esq. who was a sufferer in the same cause, and secreted near the same place. But some degree of toleration must have been extended to him soon after, as in 1648, he published his translation of Seneca’s “Medea,” and in the same year, Seneca’s answer to Lucilius’s question “Why good men suffer misfortunes, seeing there is a divine providence?” In 1651, he published his “Poems and Translations,” with a Latin dedication to Mr. Stanley; and when sir George Savile, afterwards marquis of Halifax, returned from his travels about that time, he appointed Mr. Sherburne superintendant of his affairs; and by the recommendation of his mother, kidy Savile, he was afterwards made travelling tutor to her nephew, sir John Coventry. With this gentleman he visited various parts of the continent, from March 1654 to October 1659. On the restoration, sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, afterwards lord Shaftesbury, put another into his place in the ordnance, but on Mr. Sherburne’s application to tlve House of Peers, it was restored to him, although its emoluments were soon greatly retrenched.

, a learned English divine, was born in South wark about 1641, and educated at Eton 1 school, where he distinguished himself by the vigour of his genius and application to his studies. Thence he removed to Peter-house in Cambridge in May 1657, where he took a bachelor of arts degree in 1660, and a master’s in 1665. He now went into holy orders, and officiated as a curate until 1669, when he was preferred to the rectory of St. George’s, Botolph-lane, in London. In this parish he discharged the duties of his function with great zeal, and was esteemed an excellent preacher. In 1673, he.published “A discourse concerning the knowledge of Christ, and our union and communion with him,” which involved him in a controversy with the celebrated nonconformist Dr. John Owen, and with Mr. Vincent Alsop. In 1680, he took the degree of D. D. and about the same time published some pieces against the nonconformists. Soon after he was collated to a prebend of St. Paul’s, was appointed master of the Temple, and had the rectory of Therfield in Hertfordshire. In 1684 he published a pamphlet, entitled “The case of Resistance to the Supreme Powers stated and resolved, according to the doctrine of the holy Scriptures;” and continued to preach the same opinion after the accession of James II. when it was put to the test. He engaged also in the controversy with the papists, which shews that he was not a servile adherent to the king, but conscientious in his notions of regal power. This likewise he shewed at the Revolution, when he refused to take the oaths to William and Mary, and was therefore suspended from all his preferments. During his suspension, he published his celebrated treatise, entitled “A practical discourse on Death,” 1690, which has passed through at least forty editions, and is indeed the only one of his works now read. But before the expiration of that year, he thought proper to comply with the new government, and taking the oaths, was reinstated in all his preferments, of which, though forfeited, he had not been deprived. Being much censured for this step by those who could not yield a like compliance, he endeavoured to vindicate himself in a piece entitled “The Case of the Allegiance due to the Sovereign Princes stated and resolved, according to Scripture and Reason, and the principles of the Church of England, with a more particular respect to the Oath lately enjoined of Allegiance to their present Majesties king William and queen Mary, 1690,” quarto. This was followed by twelve answers. His design was to lay down such principles as would prove the allegiance due to William and Mary, even supposing them to have no legal right, which the celebrated Mr. Kettlewell could by no means agree with, and therefore wrote, upon another principle, “The duty of Allegiance settled upon its true grounds.” The dispute is perhaps now of little consequence; but Sherlock persisted in preaching his doctrine of non-resistance in the new reign, and had undoubtedly some merit in this kind of consistency, and in rendering that plausible in any degree, which the other nonjurors thought contradictory in every degree. In 1691, he published his “Vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity;” but his attempt to explain this mystery was not satisfactory, and involved him in a controversy with Dr. South. What was more mortifying, a fellow of University-college, Oxford, having preached his doctrine in a sermon at St. Mary’s, the university issued a decree, censuring that doctrine as false, impious, and heretical, and warned all persons under their jurisdiction not to preach or maintain any such notions. The controversy being exasperated by this indignity, the king at last interposed, and issued directions “to the archbishops and bishops,” ordaining, that “all preachers should carefully avoid all new terms, and confine themselves to such ways of explanation as have been commonly used in the church.” After this, it is but fair to state Dr. Sherlock’s notion: he thought that there were three eternal minds 9 two of these issuing from the father, but that these three were one by a mutual consciousness in the three to every one of their thoughts. Dr. Sherlock was promoied to the deanery of St. Paul’s in 1691. He died at Hampstead June 19, 1707, in his 67th year; and was interred in the cathedral of St. Paul. He left two sons and two daughters; the eldest of his sons was Dr. Thomas SherLck, bishop of London. Burnet says, that “he was a clear, polite, and a strong writer, but apt to assume too much to himself, and to treat his adversaries with contempt. This created him many enemies, and made him pass for an insolent haughty man.” He was, however, a man of considerable learning and abilities, and conscientious, however mistaken, in those peculiar opinions which engaged him in such frequent controversies with his brethren.

for reforming the lives and manners ters, 1790, 8vo, p. 457. and enlarged, was published in 1744, 8vo; to which are added, “Four Dissertations: I. ‘The Authority of the second Epistie of St. Peter.’ 2. ‘ The Sense of the Ancients before Christ, upon the Circumstances and Consequences of the Fall.’ 3. ‘ The blessing of Judah,’ Gen. xlix. 4. ‘ Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem’.” Three of these dissertations, if we mistake not, accompanied the discourses from their first publication; the fourth was added afterwards. In 1749, Sherlock, then bishop of London, published “An Appendix to the second Dissertation, being a farther enquiry into the Mosaic account of the Fall,” 8vo. An advertisement is prefixed, setting forth, that the dissertation was drawn up some years since, and intended as an examination of the objections made to the History of the Fall by the author of “The Literal Scheme of Prophecy;” but that author being dead, was now published, not in answer to him, but to all who call in question, or are offended with, the History of the Fall, as it stands recorded by Moses. Whether Dr. Middleton, who had ridiculed the “Literal History of the Fall,” considered himself as particularly aimed at here, or whether he acted from other private motives of resentment, which has been asserted, we know not, but he published the year after, 1750, a sharp and satirical “Examination of the Discourses upon Prophecy, with Animadversions upon this Dissertation:” in which he undertakes to explain and affirm these four points: 1. “That the use of Prophecy, as it was taught and practised by Christ, his Apostles, and Evangelists, was drawn entirely from single and separate predictions, gathered by them from the books of the Law and the Prophets, and applied, independently on each other, to the several acts and circumstances of the life of Jesus, as so many proofs of his Divine Mission; and, consequently, that his Lordship’s pretended chain of Antediluvian Prophecies is nothing else but a fanciful conceit which has no connection at all with the evidences of the Gospel.” 2. “That the Bishop’s exposition of his text is forced, unnatural, and inconsistent with the sense of St. Peter, from whose epistle it is taken.” 3. “That the historical Interpretation, which he gives to the account of Fall, is absurd and contradictory to reason; and that the said account cannot be considered under any other character than that of Allegory, Apologue, or Moral Fable.” 4. “That the Oracles of the Heathen World, which his Lordship declares to have been given out by the, Devil, in the form of a Serpent, were all impostures, wholly managed by human craft, without any supernatural aid or interposition whatever.”

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

Dr. Shipley gave an early and decided opinion against the coercive measures adopted towards America, to which his friends imputed his receiving no further advancement. In the year 1774 he published “A speech intended to have been spoken on the bill for altering the charters of the Colony of Massachusetts-bay,” 8vo the style of which was much admired even by those who disliked the sentiments. Mr. Mainvvaring, in the introduction to his “Sermons,” p. 28, 8vo, speaks of it in the following terms “If it were allowable for a moment to adopt the poetical creed of the antients, one would almost imagine, that the thoughts of a truly elegant writer were formed by Apollo, and attired by the Graces. It would seem, indeed, that language was at a loss to furnish a garb adapted to their rank and worth; that judgment, fancy, taste, had all combined to adorn them, yet without impairing that divine simplicity for the want of which nothing can compensate.” And in a note on this passage, he says, “Amongst all the productions, antient or modern, it would be difficult to find an instance of more consummate elegance than in a printed Speech intended to be spoken in the House of Lords.” Besides this effort, his lordship during the whole American war, continued to be an opponent of Government; but his character, talents, and manners were always highly respected by men of all parties. His works, consisting of sermons, charges, and parliamentary speeches, were published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1792.

, an eminent and pious divine, was born at Exeter in May 1657, and educated in school learning at his native city, whence, at the age of fourteen he was placed at a dissenting academy at Taunton, and afterwards at another at Newington-green, London. Having gone through the usual course of studies in these seminaries, and having decided in favour of nonconformity, he was encouraged by the celebrated Dr. Manton, to preach as a candidate for the ministry before he was quite twenty years of age. Two years after, in 1679, he received ordination from some dissenting ministers, but in a very private way, and his first settlement appears to have been as assistant to Mr. Vincent Alsop, at the meeting Tothill-fields, Westminster. He was also one of those who established a lecture against popery, which was carried on with good success in a large room in Exchange-alley.

, a learned divine of the last century, was educated at Caius college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1716, and that of M. A. in 1720. He afterwards became curate of Shelthon in Norfolk, prebendary of Canterbury, and lastly had the city living of All-hallows, Lombard-street. He died July 14, 1754. He published a few occasional sermons, but is principally known for his “History of the World, sacred and profane,” 3 vols. 8vo, intended to serve as an introduction to Prideaux’s “Connection,” but he did not live to carry it down to the year 747 B. C. where Prideaux begins. He wrote also a treatise on “The Creation and Fall of Man,” intended as a supplement to the preface to his history. His works are heavily written, but display a great deal of erudition, although not well applied, in the opinion of the late bishop Home, and his biographer Mr. Jones. They blame Shuckford for rendering the subject almost ridiculous, by illustrating the sacred history of the creation from Ovid, and Cicero, and even Pope’s “Essay on Man.”

, a learned puritan divine, whose works are still in reputation, was born at Sudbury in Suffolk, in 1577, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees with great applause, and obtained a fellowship. The foundation of that character for humility and piety which he enjoyed throughout life, appears to have been laid while at college. After taking orders he was chosen lecturer of Trinity church, Cambridge, and held the living of that church during the last two years of his life. The reputation he acquired here procured him an invitation from the learned society of Gray’s-inn, and in 1618 he became their preacher, and had for his audience not only the gentlemen of the robe, but many noblemen and persons of rank. In 1625, he was chosen master of Katherine-hall, Cambridge, which, although a puritan, he was permitted to retain till his death, with very little molestation. He found that society, says Granger, in a very declining state, but it soon began to flourish under his care, and he was a great benefactor to it. He died July 5, 1635, aged fifty-seven. His works, which are numerous, have lately been reprinted in a new edition, 3 vols. 8vo. They are chiefly sermons and pious treatises. One of the most popular, entitled “The bruised reed,” of which there have been many editions, was that to which Baxter tells us he in a great measure owed his conversion. This circumstance alone, says Granger, would have rendered Sibbs’s name memorable. As a commentator, his principal work is his “Commentary on the first chapter of the second epistle to the Corinthians,”" 1655, fol.

At the restoration, Sidney would not personally accept of the oblivion and indemnity generally granted to the whole nation; but continued abroad till 1677, when his father died. He then returned to England, and obtained from the king a particular pardon, upon repeated promises of constant and quiet obedience for the future. Burnet observes, “that he came back when the parliament was pressing the king into the war, the court of France having obtained leave for him to return; and that, upon his doing all he could to divert the people from that war, some took him for a pensioner of France: while he in the mean time declared, to those to whom he durst speak freely, that he knew it was a juggle; that our court was in an entire confidence with France; and had no other design in this show of a war but to raise an army, and keep it beyond sea till it was trained and modelled.” In 1683, he was accused of being concerned in the Rye-house plot; and, after lord Eussel had been examined, was next brought before the king and council. He said, that he would make the best defence he could, if they had any proof against him, but xvould not fortify their evidence by any thing he should say; so that the examination was very short. He was arraigned for high treason before the chief justice Jeffreys, Nov. 1683; and found guilty. After his conviction he sent to the marquis of Halifax, who was his nephew by marriage, a paper to be laid before the king, containing the main points of his defence upon which he appealed to the king, and desired he would review the whole matter but this had no other effect, except only to respite his execution for three weeks. When the warrant for his execution was brought, he told the sheriff, that he would not expostulate any thing upon his own account; for, the world was nothing to him: but he desired it mig^ht be considered, how guilty they were of his blood, who had not returned a fair jury, but one packed, and as directed by the king’s solicitor. He was beheaded on Tower-hill, where he delivered a written paper to the Sheriff, Dec. 7, 1683: but his attainder was reversed in the first year of William and Mary. “The execution of Sidney,” says Hume, “is regarded as one of the greatest blemishes of the reign of Charles II. The evidence against him, it must be confessed, was not legal: and the jury, who condemned him, were, for that reason, very blameable. But that after sentence parsed by a court of judicature, the king should interpose and pardon a man, who, though otherwise possessed of merit, was undoubtedly guilty, who had ever been a most indexible and most inveterate enemy to the royal family, and who lately had even abused the king’s clemency, might be an act of heroic generosity, but can never be regarded as a necessary and indispensable duty.” Burnet, who knew Sidney personally, gives the following character of him: “He was a man of most extraordinary courage; a steady man, even to obstinacy; sincere, but of a rough and boisterous temper, that could not bear contradiction. He seemed to be a Christian, but in a particular form of his own he thought it was to be like a divine philosophy in tue mind but he was against all public worship, and every thing that looked like a church. He was stiff to all republican principles; and such an enemy to every thing that looked like monarchy, that he set himself in a high opposition against Cromwell when he was made protector. He had studied the history of government in all its branches, beyond anv man I ever knew.”

, a French writer, whose taste for English literature entitles him to a place here, was born at Limoges in 1709, and appears to have been brought up to civil or political life, although he always cultivated a taste for literature. He purchased the office of master of requests, and after having managed the affairs of the duke of Orleans, became comptroller-general and minister of state in 1759. This was a critical time for France, which was carrying on a ruinous war, and the finances were in a very low condition. Silhouette wished to remedy this last evil by retrenchment and ceconomy, but finding that such a plan was only a topic for ridicule, he quitted his post in about nine months, and retired to his estate of Brie-sur-Marne,and devoted his time to study, and his wealth to benevolence. He died in 1767. His works were: 1. “Idee generate du Government Chinois,” 1729, 4to, 1731, 12mo. 2. “Reflexion politique,” from the Spanish of Balthazar Gracian, 1730, 4to. 3. A translation of Pope’s “Essay on Man,” which the French speak of as faithful, but not elegant. 4. A translation of Bolingbroke’s “Dissertation on Parties.” This is said to have been printed at London in 1739, where, perhaps about this time Silhouette was on a visit. 5 “Lettre sur les transactions pubiiques du Regrie d'Elizabeth,” with some remarks on Rapin’s account of that reign, Amst. 1736, 12mo. 6. A translation of Pope’s “Miscellanies,” 1741, 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Traite* mathematique sur le bonheur,” 1741, 12mo. 8. A translation of Warburton’s “Alliance,” 1742, 2 vols. 1.2 mo. With Warburton he appears to have corresponded, for in one of Warburton’s letters, printed by Mr. Nichols, we find that celebrated author desiring that a copy of his “Divine Legation” may be sent to M. Silhouette in Franoe. In the “History of the Works of the Learned” also, we find “Observations on the Abbe* Pluche’s History of the Heavens,” translated from the French of Silhouette, who professes that he was chiefly indebted for them to the second volume of the “Divine Legation,” and to some particular remarks communicated to him hy Mr. Warburton. 9. “Epitres morales, Lettres phiiosophiques, et Traits mathematiques,” printed at the Bowyer press, in 1741. 10. “Memoirs des commissaires du roi et de ceux de sa majeste Britamuque stir les possessions et les droits respectifs des deux couronnes en Amerique,” Paris, 1755, 4to. In this he was assisted by M. de la Gahssonniere. 1 1> “Voyage de France, d‘Espagne, de Portugal, et d’ltalie,” a posthumous work, Paris, 1770.

, a learned divine of the sixteenth century, who co-operated in the reformation, was born Nov. 6, 1530, at Cappell, a village near Zurich in Swisserland. His father, Peter Simler, after having been for many years a member of, and afterwards prior of the L onastery there, embraced the reformed religion, became a preacher of it, and died in 1557. After being educated for some time in his father’s monastery, he went to Zurich in 1544, and studied for two years under the direction of the celebrated Bullinger, who was his god-father. He removed thence to Basil, where he studied rhetoric and mathematics, and afterwards to Strasburgh, where Sturmius, Martyr, Bucer, and others of the reformers resided; but as he had no thoughts at this time of divinity as a profession, he improved himself chiefly in other branches of learning. He continued here about two years, and passed three more in visiting various universities, and hearing the lectures of the most eminent professors. In 1549, he returned home, and with such visible improvement in learning, that Gesner often employed him to lecture to his scholars, both in geometry and astronomy. In 1552 he was appointed to expound in public the New Testament, which he did with so much ability as to be greatly admired by the learned of Zurich, as wt 11 as by the English who had taken refuge there from the Marian persecution. In 1557 he was made deacon; and when Bibliander, on account of his advanced age, was declared emeritus^ Simler was appointed to teach in his place, and was likewise colleague with Peter Martyr, who had a high opinion of him, and on his death in 1563, Simler succeeded him as professor of divinity. He filled this office with great reputation until his constitution became impaired by a hereditary gout, which in his latter years interrupted his studies, and shortened his useful life. He was only forty-five when he died, July 2, 1576. He is represented as a man of a meek, placid, and affectionate temper, and although never rich, always liberal, charitable, and hospitable.

, a French critic and divine of great learning, was born at Dieppe, May 13, 1638, and commenced his studies among the priests of the oratory, whom he quitted for some time, and went to Paris, where he applied himself to divinity, and made a great progress in Oriental learning, for which he had always a particular turn. About the end of 1662, he returned to the oratory and became a priest of it. On the death of father Bourgouin, general of this congregation, some cause of displeasure inclined him to leave them, and join the society of the Jesuits; but from this he was diverted by the persuasions of father Bertad, the superior of the oratory. He was then sent to the college of Juilly, in the diocese of Meaux, to teach philosophy; but other business occurring, he was ordered to go to Paris. In the library of the oratory there was a valuable collection of Oriental books, of which Simon was employed to make a catalogue, which he executed with great skill, and perused at the same time those treasures with great avidity. M. de Lamoignon, first president of the parliament of Paris, meeting with him one day in the library, was so pleased with his conversation, that he requested of Senault, the new general of the oratory, that he might be permitted to remain in Paris; but this being unaccompanied by any advantages, Simon, who had much of an independent spirit, petitioned to go back to Juilly, to teach philosophy, as before. He accordingly arrived there in 1668, and, in 1670, his first publication appeared, a defence of the Jews against the accusation of having murdered a Christian child, “Factum pour les Juifs de Metz,” &c. In the following year, with a view to shew that the opinion of the Greek church is not materially different from that of the church of Rome, with respect to the sacrament, he published “Fides Ecclesiae Orientalis, seu Gabrielis Metropolitae Philadelphiensis opuscula, cum interpretatione Latina et notis,” Paris, 1671, quarto, reprinted 16S6. When the first volume of the “Perpetuity of the faith respecting the Eucharist” appeared, our author, who from his youth was an original, if not always a just thinker, expressed some opinions on that work, and on the subject, which involved him in a controversy with the gentlemen of Port-Royal; and this seems to have laid the foundation of the opposition he afterwards met with from the learned of his own communion. His next publication came out under the name of Recared Simeon (for he often used fictitious names), and was a translation from Leo of Modena, entitled “Ceremonies et Coutumes qui s’observent aujourdui parmi les Juifs,” &c. 1674, 12mo. This was republished in 1681, under the name of the Sieur de Semonville; with the addition of a “Comparison between the ceremonies of the Jews and the discipline of the church.” In this edition, and perhaps in the subsequent ones of 1682 and 1684, the reader will find a great number of parentheses and crotchets, which Bayle thus accounts for: The work having been submitted in ms. to M. Perot, a doctor of the Sorbonne, for examination, he added some passages, which the author being obliged to retain, and yet unwilling that they should pass for his own, inclosed in crotchets; but had afterwards to complain, that the printers, who were not in the secret, had omitted some of these. In 1675, Simon published a “Voyage duMontLiban,” from the Italian of Dandini, with notes; and, about the same time, a “Factum du Prince de Neubourg, abbe de Feschamps, centre les religieux de cette abbay” and, as was usual with him, took an opportunity to attack the Benedictines.

, an ancient philosopher of the sixth century, was a native of Cihcia, a disciple of Ammonias, the peripatetic, and endeavoured to unite the Platonic and Stoic doctrines with the peripatetic. Distrusting his situation under the emperor Justinian, he went to Cosroes king of the Persians: but returned to Athens, after it had been stipulated in a truce between the Persians and the Romans, A. D. 549, that he and his friends should live quietly and securely upon what was their own, and not be compelled by the Christians to depart from the religion of their ancestors. From his wish to unite discordant sects, he is called by a modern (Peter Petit) “omnium veterum philosophorurn coagulum.” He wrote commentaries upon several of Aristotle’s works, once thought to be valuable in themselves, but now consulted only for some curious fragments of ancient philosophers preserved in them. Of these there are three Aldine editions, 152b and 1527. But, of all his productions, some of which are lost, at least unpublished, his “Commentary upon Epictetus” has obtained most reputation. Fabricius is of opinion, that there is nothing in Pagan antiquity better calculated to form the manners, or to give juster ideas of a Divine Providence. It has been several times printed in Greek and Latin, particularly at Ley den, 1639, in 4to, and at London, in 1670, in 8vo. Dacier published a French translation of it at Paris, 1715, 12mo; and Dr. George Stanhope an English one at London, 1704, 8vo.

, a learned English divine, the son of Edward Simpson, rector of Tottenham, was born tli ere in May 1573. His father taught him the rudiments of Latin, and when he had attained the age of fourteen, placed him at Westminster school, where he was under the celebrated Camden for four years, at the expiration of which, in 1596, he was elected to Trinity-college, Cambridge. In 1600 he took his degree of A. B. and next year was admitted fellow of his college. In 1603 he was ado

Notwithstanding this affected indifference to what passed in the world, he was never without able spies, who informed him from time to time of every the most minute particular. He had assumed great appearance of imbecility and all the infirmities of old age, for some years before the death of Gregory XIII. in 1585; when it was not without much seeming reluctance, that Montalto accompanied the rest of the cardinals into the conclave, where he maintained the same uniformity of behaviour in which he had so long persisted. “He kept himself close shut up in his chamber, and was no more thought or spoken of, than if he had not been there. He very seldom stirred out, and when he went to mass, or any of the scrutinies, appeared so little concerned, that one would have thought he had no manner of interest in any thing that happened within those walls;” and, without promising any thing, he flattered everybody. This method of proceeding was judiciously calculated to serve his ambition. He was early apprised, that there would be great contests or divisions in the conclave; and he knew it was no uncommon case, that when the chiefs of the respective parties met with opposition to the person they were desirous of electing, they would all willingly concur in the choice of some very old and infirm cardinal, whose life would last only long enough to prepare themselves with more strength against another vacancy. These views directed his conduct, nor was he mistaken in his expectations of success. Three cardinals, who were the heads of potent factions, finding themselves unable to choose the persons they respectively favoured, all concurred to elect Montalto. As it was not yet necessary for him to discover himself, when they came to acquaint him with their intention, “he fell into such a violent fit of coughing, that they thought he would have expired upon the spot.” When he recovered himself, he told them, “that his reign would be but for a few days that, besides the continual difficulty of breathing, he had not strength enough to support such a weight; and that his small experience in affairs made him altogether unfit for a charge of so important a nature.” Nor would he be prevailed on to accept it on any other terms, than that “they should all three promise not to abandon him, but take the greatest part of the weight off his shoulders, as he was neither able, nor could in conscience pretend, to take the whole upon himself.” The cardinals giving a ready assent to his proposal, he added, “If you are resolved to make me pope, it will be only placing yourselves on the throne; we must share the pontificate. For my part, I shall be content with the bare title; let them call me pope, and you are heartily welcome to the power and authority.” This artifice succeeded; and, in confidence of engrossing the administration, they exerted their joint interests so effectually, that Montalto was elected. He now immediately pulled off the mask which be had worn for fourteen years, with an amazing steadiness and uniformity. As soon as ever he found a sufficient number of votes to secure his election, he threw the staff with which he used to support himself into the middle of the chapel; and appeared taller by almost a foot than he had done for several years. Being asked according to custom, “Whether he would please to accept of the papacy,” he replied somewhat sharply, “It is trifling and impertinent to ask whether I will accept what I have already accepted: however, to satisfy any scruple that may arise, I tell you, that I accept it with great pleasure; and would accept another, if I could get it; for I find myself strong enough, by the divine assistance, to manage two papacies.” Nor was the change in his manners less remarkable than in his person: he immediately divested himself of the humility he had so long professed; and, laying aside his accustomed civility and complaisance, treated every body with reserve and haughtiness.

The lenity of Gregory’s government had introduced a general licentiousness among all ranks of people; which, though somewhat restrained while he lived, broke out into open violence the very day after his death. Riots, rapes, robberies, and murders, were, during the vacancy of the see, claily committed in every part of the ecclesiastical state; so that the reformation of abuses, in the church as well as the state, was the first and principal care of Sixtus V. for such was the title Montalto assumed. The first days of his pontificate were employed in receiving the congratulations of the Roman nobility, and in giving audience to foreign ministers; and though he received them with seeming cheerfulness and complaisance, yet he soon dismissed them, desiring to be excused, “for he had something else to do than to attend to compliments.” It having been customary with preceding popes to release prisoners on the day of their coronation, delinquents used to surrender themselves after the pope was chosen; and several offenders, judging of Montalto’s disposition by his behaviour while a cardinal, came voluntarily to the prisons, not making the least doubt of a pardon: but they were fatally disappointed; for when the governor of Rome and the keeper of St. Angelo’s castle waited on his holiness to know his intention upon this matter, Sixtus replied, “You certainly do not either know your proper distance, or are very impertinent. What have you to do with pardons and acts of grace, and releasing of prisoners? Don't you think it sufficient, that our predecessor has suffered the judges to lie idle and unemployed these thirteen years? Would you have us likewise stain our pontificate with the same neglect of justice? We have too long seen, with inexpressible concern, the prodigious degree of wickedness that reigns in the ecclesiastical state, to think of granting any pardon. God forbid we should entertain such a design! So far from releasing any prisoners, it is our express command, that they be more closely confined. Let them be brought to a speedy trial, and punished as they deserve, that the prisons may be emptied, and room made for others; and that the world may see, that Divine Providence has called us to the chair of St. Peter to reward the good, and to chastise the wicked; that we bear not the sword in vain, but are the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil.”

In respect to his private character, it appears, from several instances, that he was, as well in his habit as diet, generally temperate and frugal; that he remembered, and greatly rewarded, every service that was conferred upon him when he was in an inferior station. Nor did his elevation make him unmindful of his former poverty: his sister once intimating, that it was unbecoming his dignity to wear patched linen, he said to her, “Though we are exalted, through the Divine Providence, to this high station, we ought not to forget, that shreds and patches are the only coat of arms our family has any title to.” The behaviour of Sixtus to his relations, previous to his exaltation, has been already noted: soon after his accession to the pontificate, he sent for his family to Rome, with express orders, that they should appear in a decent and modest manner. Accordingly, his sister Camilla, accompanied by her daughter and two grandsons, and a niece, came thither. The pope’s reception of them was as singular as any other part of his conduct; for some of the cardinals, to ingratiate themselves with his holiness, went out to meet her, dressed them all in a very superb manner, and introduced them with great ceremony to the Vatican. When Sixtus saw Camilla, he pretended not to know her, and asked two or three times who she was; upon which one of the cardinals, who handed her in, said, “It is your sister, holy father.” “My sister!” replied Sixtus, with a frown, “I have but one sister, and she is a poor woman at Le Grotte: if you have introduced her in this disguise, I declare 1 do not know her; and yet I think I should know her again, if I was to see her in such clothes as she used to wear.” Their conductors then thought it expedient to send them to a common inn, where they were disrobed of their finery. When this was done, Sixtus sent two of his ordinary coaches for them; and being introduced a second time, the pope embraced them tenderly, and said to Camilla, “Now we see it is our sister indeed: nobody shall make a princess of you but ourselves.” The terms Sixtus stipulated with his sister, as the conditions of her advancement, were, “not to ask any favour in matters of government, or make the least intercession for criminals, or otherwise interfere in the administration of justice;” assuring her that every suit of that kind would meet with a refusal not less mortifying to her than painful to himself. This being settled, he made, indeed, a princely provision, not only for his sister, who took care punctually to obey his orders, but also for all the family.

After he returned to his curacy, he was offered a school xvorth 500l. a year, arising from the benefit of the scholars, but refused it as interfering with the plan of literary improvement and labour which he had marked out for himself; and when told that he might employ ushers, he said he could not in conscience take the money, without giving up his whole time and attention to his scholars. In 1744, he published “The Candid Reader, addressed to his terraqueous majesty, the WorUl.” The objects of his ridicule in this are Hill, the mathematician, who proposed making verses by an arithmetical table, lord Shaftesbury, and Johnson, the author of a play called “Hurlothrumbo,” with a parallel between Hurlothrumbo and the rhapsody of Shaftesbury. In the same year he also published “A Letter to the authors of Divine Analogy and the Minute Philosopher, from an old officer,” a plain, sensible letter, advising the two polemics to turn their arms from one another against the common enemies of the Christian faith. During the rebellion in 1745, he published a very seasonable and shrewd pamphlet, entitled the “Chevalier’s hopes.” On the death of Dr. Sterne, the see of Clogher was filled by Dr. Clayton, author of the “Essay on Spirit,” a decided Arian; and between him and Skelton there could consequently be no coincidence of opinion, or mutuality of respect. In 1748, Mr. Skelton having prepared for the press his valuable work entitled “Deism revealed,” he conceived it too important to be published in Ireland, and therefore determined to go to London, and dispose of it there. On his arrival, he submitted his manuscript to Andrew Millar, the bookseller, to know if he would purchase it, and have it printed at his own expence. The bookseller desired him, as is usual, to leave it with him for a day or two, until he could get a certain gentleman of great abilities to examine it. Hume is said to have come in accidentally into the shop, and Millar shewed him the ms. Hume took it into a room adjoining the shop, examined it here and there for about an hour, and then said to Andrew, print. By this work Skelton made about 200l. The bookseller allowed him for the manuscript a great many copies, which he disposed of among the citizens of London, with whom, on account of his preaching, he was a great favourite. He always spake with high approbation of the kindness with which he was received by many eminent merchants. When in London he spent a great part of his time in going through the city, purchasing books at a cheap rate, with the greater part of the money he got by his “Deism revealed,” and formed a good library. This work was published in 1749, in two volumes, large octavo, and a second edition was called for in 1751, which waacomprized in two volumes 12mo. It has ever been considered as a masterly answer to the cavils of deists; but the style in this, as in some other of his works, is not uniform, and his attempts at wit are rather too frequent, and certainly not very successful. A few months after its publication the bishop of Clogher, Dr. Clayton, was asked by Sherlock, bishop of London, if he knew the author. “O yes, he has been a curate in my diocese near these twenty years.” “More shame for your lordship,” answered Sherlock, “to let a man of his merit continue so long a curate in your diocese.”

, a learned divine and poet, was born in Somersetshire in 1587, and was admitted a member of St. Mary hall, Oxford, in 1600, whence he removed to Brasenose college in 1607. In the following year he took his degree of B. A. and was chosen to a fellowship. He took his master’s degree in 1611, entered into holy orders, and was beneficed. In 1623 he took his degrees in divinity, and bad by this time acquired very considerable reputation for his poetical talent, and his knowledge in English history. He died at Otterden in Kent, where he was beneficed, in Oct. or Nov. 1647. His works are, 1. “Threnodia, sive Pandioniuni,” &c. being elegies and epitaphs on the queen Anne of Denmark, to whom he had been chaplain. It is a quarto of four sheets, printed in 1619. The elegies and epitaphs are in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English verses, and some of them in the fantastical shape of pillars, circles, &c. 2. “PaltcAlbion, or the History of Great Britain from the first peopling of this island to the reign of king James,” Lond. 1621, fol. in Latin and English verse, with historical notes, which Granger, who calls this Slater’s “capital work,” thinks the most valuable part. 3. “Genethliacon, sive stemma regis Jacobi,” Lond. 1630, a thin folio in Lat. and English, with a foolish genealogy of king James from Adam. He published also “The Psalms of David, in fowre languages, Hebrew, Greeke, Latin, and English, and in 4 parts, set to the tunes of our church, with corrections,” 1652, 16mo. There appears to have been an edition before this, which was posthumous, but the date is not known. Dr, Burney says this is the most curious and beautiful production of the kind, during the seventeenth century, that has come to his knowledge. Both words and music are very neatly engraved on near sixty copper- plates. The English version is that of Sternhold, retouched, not always for the better, and the music is selected from Ravenscroft.

Of Dr. Stnalridge bishop Newton says, he was “truly ft worthy prelate, an excellent scholar, a sound divine, an eloquent preacher, and a good writer both in Latin and English, of great gravity and dignity in his whole deportment, and at the same time of as great complacency and sweetness of manners, a character at once both amiable and venerable. He was so noted for his good temper, that succeeding Dr. Atterbury in the deaneries of Carlisle and Christ-church, he was said to carry die bucket wherewith to extinguish the fires which the other had kindled.”

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

, bishop of Down and Connor, a learned divine and philosopher, was born at Lisburn in the county of Antrim, in 1665, and was educated in the university of Dublin, of which he was elected a fellow in 1684, in the nineteenth year of his age. He afterwards took his degree of doctor of divinity. During the troublesome times in 1689, he retired for safety to England, where he was recommended to the Smyrna company, and made chaplain to their factories at Constantinople and Smyrna. Here he remained four years, and, probably by engaging in trade, very much advanced his private fortune. In 16U3 he returned to England, and was made chaplain to king William III. whom he attended four years in Flanders, and became a great favourite with his majesty. His first promotion was to the deanery of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, in 1695, whence he was advanced to the bishopric of Down and Connor in 1699, and was soon after admitted into the privy. council. He died at Bath in October 1720, leaving large property to his family. He printed four sermons, one preached at London before the Turkey company, the others at Dublin, upon public occasions. While at the university, he was a member of the philosophical society of Dublin, and for some time their secretary. In 1695 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of London, and contributed to the “Philosophical Transactions,” papers on the follow subjects: “Answers to Queries about LoughNeagh;” “A relation of an extraordinary effect of the power of imagination;” “Account of soap earth near Smyrna;” “Of Rusma, a black earth;” and of “The Use of Opium among the Turks.”

, an English divine of popular fame in the sixteenth century, was born in 1550 of a good family at Withcock in Leicestershire, and after purstuing his studies at Oxford, entered into the church. Wood thinks he took the degree of M. A. as a member of Hart-hall, in 1583; and adds, that “he was then esteemed the miracle and wonder of his age, for his prodigious memory, and for his fluent, eloquent, and practical way of preaching.” His scruples, however, as to subscription and ceremonies were such, that being loth, as his biographer Fuller informs us, “to make a rent either in his own conscience or in the church,” he resolved not to undertake a pastoral charge, but accepted the office of lecturer of the church of St. Clement Danes, London. Here he was patronized by William Cecil, lord Burleigh, to whom he dedicated his sermons, and who prevented the prosecutions to which the other scrupulous puritans were at that time exposed. He appears to have been one of the most popular preachers of his age. Fuller informs us, as an instance, that after his preaching a sermon on Sarah’s nursing of Isaac, in which he maintained the doctrine that it was the duty of all mothers to nurse their own children, “ladies and great gentlewomen presently remanded their children from the vicinage round about London, and endeavoured to discharge the second moietie of a mother, and to nurse them, whom they had brought into the world.” Their compliance with his instructions on this point was the more condescending 1 as Mr. Smith was a bachelor.

, an English divine, was born in Warwickshire in 1563, and elected a scholar of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1577, where he also obtained a fellowship; and Wood informs us, was “highly valued in the university for piety and parts, especially by those that excelled in both.” He succeeded Dr. Lancelot Andrews as lecturer in St. Paul’s cathedral, London, and was much admired as a preacher. He was presented to the vicarage of Clavering in Essex, in Sept. 1592, where “he shined as a star in its proper sphere, antl was much reverenced for his religion, learning, humility, and holiness oi 'ife.” Wood also speaks of him as being skilled in the original languages, and well acquainted with the writings of the ablest divines. He died Nov. 1616, and was buried in the church of Clavering. He left several books to the library of St. John’s college, and a singular bequest “to ten faithful and good ministers, that have been deprived upon that unhappy contention about the ceremonies in question, 20l. i. e. 40s. to each; and hopes that none will attempt to defeat those parties of this his gilt, considering God in his own law hath provided that the priests of Aaron, deposed for idolatry, should be maintained; and that the canonlaw saith, Si quis excommunicatis in sustentationem dare aiiquid voluerit, non prohibemus.” Mr. Smith’s works are,

, an English divine of distinguished learning, was descended of an ancient family originally seated at Durham, and was the eldest son of the rev. William Smith, rector of Lowther in Westmoreland, by Elizabeth, his wife, daughter of Giles Wetherali of Stockton near Durham. His grandfather, Matthew Smith, was a barrister, and of much reputation for his skill in the law, and for some valuable annotations which he left in ms. on Littleton’s tenures. He wrote also some poetical pieces and two dramas, for which he is commemorated in Gibber’s “Lives of the Poets.” During the rebellion he took up arms in defence of Charles I. and served under prince Rupert, particularly at the battle of Marston-moor in 1644, for which he and his family were plundered and sequestered.

During his provostship, which lasted twenty-six years, he was sensible of the infirmities of age, and was a great sufferer by acute complaints, particularly the strangury, which he bore with great resignation, and was always cheerful, active, and liberal. He passed much of his time at a villa at Kidlington, where he had purchased a manor and estate, but went up to London for some part of the year, and officiated at St. Dionis church. He died in Queen’s college, Tuesday, Nov. 23, 1756, in the eighty-sixth year of his age, and was interred in the vault under the chapel. He published only two sermons, the one on the death of queen Anne, entitled “The duty of the living to the memory of the dead,” the other before the sons of the clergy; and in 1754, a pamphlet entitled “A clear and comprehensive view of the Being and Attributes of God, formed not only upon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures, but the solid reasonings and testimonies of the best authors, both Heathen and Christian, which have writ upon that subject.” He also contributed much to the publication of bishop Beveridge’s works, when the Mss. were entrusted to his care in 1707, and gave an excellent character of that pious author in the preface.

, a learned English divine, was born in 1618, at Achurch, near Oundle in Northamptonshire, where his father possessed a small farm. In April 1636, he was admitted of Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he had the happiness of having Dr. Whichcote, then fellow of that college, afterwards provost of King’s, for his tutor. He took a bachelor of arts’ degree in 1640, and a master’s in 1644; and, the same year, was chosen a fellow of Queen’s college, the fellowships appropriated to his county in his own college being none of them vacant. Here he became an eminent tutor, and read a mathematical lecture for some years in the public schools. He died Aug. 7, 1652, and was interred in the chapel of the same college; at which time a sermon was preached by Simon Patrick, then fellow of Queen’s, and afterwards bishop of Ely, giving a short account of his life and death. In this he is represented as a man of great abilities, vast learning, and possessing also every grace and virtue which can improve and adorn human nature. His moral and spiritual perfections could be only known to his contemporaries; but his uncommon abilities and erudition appear manifestly in those treatises of his, which were published by Dr. John Worth in gton at Cambridge, in 1660, 4to, under the title of “Select Discourses,” consisting, 1. “Of the true Way or Method of attaining to Divine Knowledge.” 2. “Of Superstition.” 3. “Of Atheism.” 4. “Of the Immortality of the Soul.” 5. Of the Existence and Nature of God.“6.” Of Prophesy.“7.” Of the Difference between the Legal and the Evangelical Righteousness, the old and new Covenant, &c. 8. “Of the Shortness and Vanity of a Pharisaical Righteousness.” 9. “Of the Excellency and Nobleness of true Religion.” 10. “Of a Christian’s conflict with, and conquests over, Satan.”

, a learned popish divine, but of great fickleness in his principles, was born in Worcestershire in 1500, and educated at Oxford. In 1527 he was admitted a probationary fellow of Mer ton-college, took the degree of M. A. in 1530, and was elected registrar of the university the year following. He afterwards became rector of Cuxham in Oxfordshire, principal of St. Alban’shail, divinity-reader of Magdalen-college, regius professor of divinity, and took his doctor’s degree in that faculty. In 1537, he was made master of Wittington-college in London, of which he was deprived in the reign of Edward VI. In the first year of this reign, he recanted his opinions at St. Paul’s-cross, yet was obliged to resign his professorship at Oxford, in which he was succeeded by the celebrated reformer Peter Martyr, with whom he had afterwards a controversy. From Oxford he went first to St. Andrew’s in Scotland, and thenceto Paris, in 1550, and from Paris to Lovaine, where he was complimented with the professorship of theology.

, a learned English writer and divine, was born in the parish of Allhallows Barking, in London, June 3, 1638, and admitted of Queen’s college in Oxford at nineteen, where he took the degrees in arts. In 1663 he was made master of the free school joining to Magdalen college; and, in 1666, elected fellow of that college, being then famous for his skill in the oriental languages. In June 1668, he went as chaplain to sir Daniel Harvey, ambassador to Constantinople; and returned thence in 1671. In 1676, he travelled into France; and, returning after a short stay, became chaplain to sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of state. In 1679 he was designed to collate and publish the Alexandrian manuscript in St. James’s library, and to have for his reward (as Charles II. promised) a canonry of Windsor or Westminster; but that design was reserved for the industry and abilities of Mr. Woide, at a far distant period (1784). Mr. Smith published a great many works, and had an established reputation among the learned. So high an opinion was conceived of him, that he was solicited Ijr the bishops Pearson, Fell, and Lloyd, to return into the east, in order to collect ancient manuscripts of the Greek fathers. It was designed that be should visit the monasteries of Mount Athos, where there was said to be extant a great number of Mss. reposited there before the decline of the Greek empire. He was then to proceed to ^Smyrna, Nice, Nicornedia, Ancyra, and at last to Egypt; and to employ two or three years in this voyage; but he could not prevail on himself to undertake it, both on account of the dangers inevitably to be encountered, and of the just expectations he had from his patron Williamson of preferment in the church. These expectations, however, were disappointed; for Wood says, that, after living several years with him, and performing a great deal of drudgery for him, he was at length dismissed without any reward . In 1683, he took a doctor of divinity’s degree; and, the year after, was nominated by his college to the rectory of Stanlake in the diocese of Oxford, but upon some dislike resigned it in a month. In 1687, he was collated to a prebend in the church of Heytesbury in Wilts. In August 3688, he was deprived of his fellowship by Dr. GilTard, the Popish president of Magdalen college, because he refused to live among the new Popish fellows of that college. He had before resisted the intrusion of Antony Farmer into the office of president, and presented a petition to the earl of Sunderland, beseeching the king either to leave the college to a free election, or recommend a qualified person. This being refused, he was for presenting a second address, before they proceeded to the election, and at last he and Mr. Chernock were the only two fellows that submitted to the authority of the royal commissioners, yet this did not avail him when he refused to associate with the new popish fellows under GilTard. He was, however, restored in Octoher following; but, afterwards refusing to take the oaths to William and Mary, his fellowship was pronounced void, July 25, 1692. From this time he lived chiefly in sir John Cotton’s family. He died at London, May 11, 1710, and was buried in St. Anne’s church, Soho, privately, according to his desire.

, a learned English divine and translator, was the son of the rev. Richard Smith, rector of AllSaints, and minister of St. Andrew, both in Worcester, who died in 1726. He was born at Worcester in 1711, and educated at the grammar-school of that city. In 1728 he was admitted of New-college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. A. in 1732, M. A. in 1737, and D. D. in 1758. In 1735 he was presented by his patron, James earl of Derby, in whose family he was reader, to the rectory of Trinity-church, Chester, and by his son and successor’s interest, whose chaplain he was, to the deanery of Chester in 1753. He held the mastership of Brentwood-school in Essex for one year, 1748; and in 1753 was nominated by the corporation of Liverpool one of the ministers of St. George’s church there, which he resigned in 1767. With his deanery he held the parish churches of Handley and Trinity, but in 1780 resigned the last for the rectory of West Kirkby. He died Jan. 12, 1787. His character is thus briefly drawn by his biographer: “He was tall and genteel; his voice was strong, clear, and melodious; he spoke Latin fluently, and was complete master not only of the Greek but Hebrew language; his mind was so replete with knowledge, that he was a living library; his manner of address was graceful, engaging, and delightful; his sermons were pleasing, informing, convincing; his memory, even in age, was wonderfully retentive, and his conversation was polite, affable, and in the highest degree improving.” He is known in the learned world, chiefly by his valuable translations of “Longinus on the Sublime,” 1739, 8vo, which went through four editions, the last of which, with the frontispiece designed by Dr. Wall of Worcester, is said to be the best; “Thucydides,” 1753, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1781, 8vo; “Xenophon’s History of the Affairs of Greece,” 1770, 4to. In 1782 he published “Nine Sermons on the Beatitudes,” 8vo, very elegantly written. In 1791, appeared “The Poetic Works of the rev. William Smith, D. D. late dean of Chester; with some account of the life and writings of the Author. By Thomas Crane, minister of the parish church of St. Olave in Chester, &c.” This work we have not seen, and for the account of Dr. Smith’s life we are indebted to a review of it in the Gent. Mag.

, a learned divine, was the son of Andrew Snape, serjeant-farrier to Charles II. and author of “The Anatomy of a Horse,” which has been several times printed in folio, with a considerable number of copperplates and a portrait. It is said that one or other of the family of Snape had been serjeant-farrier to the king for three centuries. The subject of this article was born at Hampton-court, and admitted into Eton college in 1683, and of King’s college, Cambridge, in 1689. After taking his degrees, of B. A. in 1693, and M. A. in 1697, he obtained a fellowship, and went to London, where he was much admired as a preacher, and was elected lecturer of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, and afterwards held the rectory of St. Mary-at-Hill. He was created D. D. in 1705, and represented the university of Cambridge, in that faculty, at the Jubilee atFrancfortin 1707, when the university of Francfort intending to celebrate the jubilee of its foundation by the house of Brandenburgh in 1507, sent a formal invitation to Cambridge to be present at it, or to depute some of the members to represent it. This was accordingly complied with, by sending over Dr. Snape, for divinity, Dr. Peurice for law, Dr. Plumptre for medicine, and William Grigg, M. A. and John Wyvill, M. A. as regent and nonregent masters. These representatives were received with the greatest kindness, the king of Prussia himself assisting at the ceremony. While Dr. Snape was in Germany, he took an opportunity to pay his duty to the princess Sophia of Hanover, and preached a sermon before her, which he afterwards printed under the title of “The just prerogative of Human Nature.”

In 1713, he had been installed a canon of Windsor, and on Feb. 21, 1719, was elected provost of King’s college, although the court-interest was in favour of Dr. Waddington. In 1723 he served the office of vice-chancellor of the university, and gave every satisfaction in discharging the duties of both offices. The revenues of the college were greatly augmented in his time, by the assistance of some fellows of the college, his particular friends. It was said that in 1722 he drew up the address to his majesty, George II. upon the institution of Whitehall preachers, “an address,” says Dr. Zachary Grey, “worthy of the imitation of both universities on all occasions of the like kind, as it was thought to have nothing redundant or defective in it.” He was for a short time rector of Knebworth in Hertfordshire, and afterwards, in 1737, of West-Ildesley in Berkshire. This last he retained till his death, which happened at his lodgings at Windsor castle, Dec, 30, 1742. He was buried at the east end of the south aile of the choir of the chapel, near his wife, who died in 1731. She was, when he married her, the opulent widow of sir Joshua Sharpe, knt. and alderman of London. It remains yet to be added to his preferments that he was several years head master of Eton school. He was a man of great learning and acuteness, and of an amiable temper. His zeal for the principles of the church of England was warm and honest, for it procured him many enemies, and probably obstructed his promotron. In 17 15, '3 vols. 8vo. of his “Sermons” were published by Drs. Berriman and Chapman. He had himself been editor of Dean Moss’s Sermons, and gave that divine a character which was thought to resemble his own. Although we seldom notice such matters, it may be worth while to add that there was a 4to mezzotinto print of him, which, after he was out of fashion, the print-sellers imposed on the public as the portrait of orator Henley.

His sect did not die with him; but the sentiments of the modern Socinians are widely different from those of their founder, who approached to a degree of orthodoxy nowhere now to be found among them. To enter, however, upon all the varieties of their opinions would occupy a much larger space than is consistent with the plan of this work. Yet all those varieties, and all the shapes and forms on which the modern Socinians, or Unitarians, as they affect to be called, rest their opinions, may be traced to the main principle of Socinianism, as stated by Mosheim. Although, says that writer, the Socinians profess to believe that our divine knowledge is derived solely from the Holy Scriptures; yet they maintain in reality, that the sense of the Scripture is to be investigated and explained by the Dictates of right reason, to which, of consequence, they attribute a great influence in determining the nature, and unfolding the various doctrines of religion. When their writings are perused with attention, they will he found to attribute more to reason, in this matter, than most other Christian societies. For they frequently insinuate artfully, and sometimes declare plainly, that the sacred penmen were guilty of many errors, from a defect of memory, as well as a want of capacity; that they expressed their sentiments without perspicuity or precision, and rendered the plainest things obscure by their pompous and diffuse Asiatic style; and that it was therefore absolutely necessary to employ the lamp of human reason to cast a light upon their doctrine, and to explain it in a manner conformable to truth. It is easy to see what they had in view by maintaining propositions of this kind. They aimed at nothing less than the establishment of the following general rule, viz. that the history of the Jews, and also that of Jesus Christ, were indeed to be derived from the books of the Old and New Testament, and that it was not lawful to entertain the least doubt concerning the truth of this history, or the authenticity of these books in general; but that the particular doctrines which they contain, were, nevertheless, to be understood and explained in such a manner as to render them consonant with the dictates of reason. According to this representation of tilings, it is not the Holy Scripture, which declares clearly and expressly what we are to believe concerning the nature, counsels, and perfections of the Deity; but it is human reason, which shews us the system of religion that we ought to seek in, and deduce from, the divine oracles. This fundamental principle of Socinianism, continues Mosheim, will appear the more dangerous and pernicious, when we consider the sense in which the word reason was understood by this sect. The pompous title of right reason was given, by the Socinians, to that measure of intelligence and discernment, or, in other words, to that faculty of comprehending and judging, which we derive from nature. According to this definition, the fundamental rule of Socinianism necessarily supposes, that no doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or divine in its origin, all whose pu.is are not level to the comprehension of the human understanding.; and that, whatever the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the perfections of God, his counsels and decrees, and the way of salvation, must be modified, curtailed, and filed down, in such a manner, by the transforming power of an and argument, ai to answer the extent of our limited faculties. Thosr wlio adopt this singular rule, must at the same time grant that the number of religions must be nearly equ~l to that of individuals. For as there is a great variety in the talents and capacities of different persons, so what will appear dnKcolt and abstruse to one, will seem evident and clear to another; and thus the more discerning and penetrating will adopt as divine truth, what the slow and superficial will look upon as unintelligible jargon. This consequence, however, does not at all alarm the Socinians, who suffer their members to explain, in very different ways, many doctrines of the highest importance, and permit every one to follow his particular fancy in composing his theological system, provided they acknowledge in general, the truth and authenticity of the history of Christ, and adhere to the precepts which the gospel lays down for the regulation of our lives and actions.

Xenophon represents him as excelling in all kinds of learning. He instances only in arithmetic, geometry, and astrology, but Plato mentions natural philosophy; lilomeneus, rhetoric; and Laertius, medicine. Cicero affirms, that by the testimony of all the learned, anu toe judgment of all Greece, he was, in respect to wisdom, acuteness, politeness, and subtilty, in eloquence, variety, and richness, and in whatever he applied himself to, beyond comparison the first man of his age. As to his philosophy, it may be necessary to observe, that having searched into all kinds of science, he first discovered that it was wrong to neglect those things which concern human life, for the sake of inquiring into those things which do not; secondly, that the things men have usually made the objects of their inquiries, ure above the reach of human understanding, and the source of all the disputes, errors, and superstitions, which have prevailed in the uorld; and, thirdly, that such divine mysteries cannot be made subservient to the uses of human life. Thus, esteeming speculative knowledge so far only as it conduces to practice, be decried in all the sciences what he conceived to be useless, and exchanged speculation for action, and theory for practice: and thus, says Cicero, “first called philosophy down from heaven, and from things involved by. nature in impenetrable secrecy, which yet had employed all the philosophers till his time, and brought her to common life, to inquireafter virtue and vice, good and evil.” That Socrates had an attendant spirit, genius, or daemon, which guarded him from dangers, is asserted by Plato and Antisthenes, who were his contemporaries, and repeated by innumerable authors of antiquity; but what this attendant spirit, genius, or daemon was, or what we are to understand by it, neither antient nor modern writers have in general been able to determine. There is some disagreement concerning the name, and more concerning the nature of it: only it is by most writers agreed, that the advice it gave him was always dissuasive; “never impelling,” says Cicero, “but often restraining him.” It is commonly named his daemon, by which title he himself is supposed to have owned it. Plato sometimes calls it his guardian, and Apuleius his god; because the namv of daemon, as St. Austin tells us, at last grew odious. As for the sign or manner, in which this daemon or genius foretold, and by foretelling, guarded him against evils to come, nothing certain can be collected about it. Plutarch, who rejects some popular absurdities upon the subject, conjectures, first, that it iiiigtit be an apparition; but at last concludes, that it was his observation of some inarticulate unaccustomed sound or voi-e, conveyed to him in an extraordinary way, as happens in dreams. Others confine this foreknowledge of evils within the soul of Socrates himself; and when he said that “his enius advised him,” think that he only meant that “his mind foreboded and so inclined him.” But this is inconsistent with the description which Socrates himself gives of a voice and signs from without. Lastly, some conceive it to be one of those spirits that have a particular care of men; which Maxhmis Tyrius and Apuletus describe in such a manner, that they want only the name of a good angel; and this Laciantius has suppl ed; for, after proving that God sends angels to guard mankind, he adds, “and Socrates affirmed that there was a daemon constantly near him, which had kept him company from a child, and by whose beck and instruction he uidecl his life.” Such are the varieties of opinion entertained unon this singular subject, winch, however, have arisen chiefly out of the prevalence of Platonic ideas, and the desire of exalting Socrates beyond all reason. The account given by Xeriophon, the strictest and truest Socratic, and confirmed by some passages in Plutarch’s treatise “De Genio Socratis,” is perhaps clear and reasonable. It is plainly this, that, believing in the gods of his country, and the divinations commonly in use, Socrates, when he took an omen, said that he proceeded by divine intimation. This he did out of piety, thinking it more respectful to the gods to refer the suggestion to them, than to the voice or other intermediate sign by which they conveyed it. His phrase on this occasion was, To dai/wviov auna ay/Aa'iveiv, which being in some degree ambiguous, as foufumotnignt mean either the divine power abstractedly, 01 -Omh- parricular deity, his e-iemies took advantage of it to accuse him of introducing new deities; and his friends to indulge the vanity of boasting that he had an attendant daemon. This account may be seen at full length, supported by many arguments and proofs from the original authors, in a little tract on this subject, published in 1782*.

Concerning the human soul, the opinion of Socrates, according to Xenophon, was, tliat it is allied to the divine Bt-ing, not by a participation of essence, but by a similarity of nature; that man excels all other animals in the (acuity of reason, and that the existence of good men will be continued after death, in a state in which they will receive the reward of their virtue. Although it appears that, on this latter topic, Socrates was not wholly free from uncertainty, the consolation which he professed to derive from this source in the immediate prospect of death, leaves little room to doubt, that he entertained a real belief and expectation of immortality. The doctrine which Cicero ascribes to Socrates on this head is, that the human soul is a divine principle, which, when it passes out of the body, returns to heaven and that this passage is most easy to those who have, in this life, made the greatest progress in virtue.

fora g'iceque. Nor did any ri:aii-ever exactness in his family.“ Many are the encomiums which have been bestowed upon this noble and illustrious person. Burnet tells us that” he was very learned in his own profession, with a great deal more learning in other professions; in divinity, philosophy, and history. He had a great capacity for business, with an extraordinary temper; for he was fair and gentle, perhaps to a fault, considering his post: so that he ru:d all the patience and softness, as well as the justice and equity, becoming a great magistrate.“Lord Orford calls him” one of those divine men, who, like a chapel in a palace, remain unprofaned, while all the rest i tyranny, corruption, and folly. All the traditional accounts of him, the historians of the last age, and its best authors, represent him as the most incorrupt lawyer, and the honestest statesman, as a master-orator, a genius of the finest taste, and as a patriot of the noblest and most extensive views; as a man who dispensed blessings by his life, and planned them for posterity.“He was a very great patron of men of parts and learning, and particularly of Mr. Addison, who has drawn his character at large in one of his” Freeholders,“in that of May 4, 1716, where he has chosen -his lordship’s motto for that of his paper,” Prodesse quam conspici.“Lord Somers was one of those who first redeemed Milton’s” Paradise Lost“from that obscurity in which party-prejudice and hatred had suffered it long to lie neglected, and who pointed out the merits of that noble poem. The most unfavourable character of lord Somers is that drawn by Swift, once his friend, as appears by the dedication of the” Tale of a Tub,“if that be Swift’s; and here we may notice that lord Somers’s biographer, Mr. Cooksey, offers some arguments, and combines some facts, to prove that this satire was the production of his lordship, and of his gay young friend lord Shrewsbury. The characters of Peter, Jack, and Martin, are said to have been sketched from living persons, and these sketches of character, after many years remaining in ms. and passing through the hands of lord Shaftesbury and sir William Temple, are said to have been published by dean Swift. That this work was the sportive production of Mr. Somers,” I have no doubt,“says Mr. Cooksey,” from the private tradition of the family, and drawn by him from real life, and originals within his own observation.“Blurton, the uncle of Mr. Somers, a good and pious man, furnished, it is said, the portrait of the church of England man. The character of Jack, the Calvinist, exhibited that of his grandfather, Somers, who was so devoted an admirer of Richard Baxter, of presbyterian memory, as to be induced to spend most of his latter days with him at Kidderminster, and to direct his remains to be deposited under a cross in the church-yard there, as he supposed the ground hallowed by die sanctity of Baxter. Peter had his lineaments from father Petre, the Jesuit. Lord Somers’s later biographer, Mr. Maddock, after examining the probability of this story, discredits it, and leaves the” Tale of a Tub" the property of its generally reputed author, dean Swift; and most readers, we apprehend, will be more inclined to acquiesce in the opinion of Mr. Maddock than in that of Mr. Cooksey.

If JEschylus be styled, as he usually has been, the father, Sophocles will certainly demand the title of the master of tragedy; since what the former brought into the world, the other reduced to a more regular form. Diogenes Laertius, when he would give us the highest idea of the advances Plato made in philosophy, compares them to the improvements of Sophocles in tragedy. The chief reason of Aristotle’s giving him the preference to Euripides was, his allowing the chorus an interest in the main action, so as to make every thing to conduce regularly to the main design; whereas we often meet in Euripides with a rambling song of the chorus, entirely independent of the main business of the play. Aristotle, indeed, has given Euripides the epithet of T^ayixuralog, but it is easy to discover, that he can mean only the most pathetic; whereas, on the whole, he gives Sophocles the precedency, at least in the most noble perfections of ceconomy, manners, and style. Dionysius Halicarnassensis, in his “Art of Rhetoric,” commends Sophocles for preserving the dignity of his persons and characters; whereas Euripides, says he, did not so much consult the truth of his manners, as their conformity to common life. He gives the preference to Sophocles on two other accounts: first, because Sophocles chose the noblest and most generous affections and manners to represent; while Euripides employed himself in expressing the more dishonest, abject, and effeminate passions; and, secondly, because the former never says anything but what is necessary, whereas the latter frequently amuses the reader with oratorical deductions. Cicero had so high an opinion of Sophocles, that he called him the divine poet; and, Virgil, by his “Sophocleo cothurno,” has left a mark of distinction, which seems to denote a preference of Sophocles to all other writers of tragedy. Sophocles is certainly the most masterly of the three Greek tragedians, the most correct in the conduct of his subjects, and the most just and sublime in his sentiments; and is eminent for his descriptive talent.

In the mean time, it is supposed that Sorbiere’s connections would have advanced him higher in the church, if he had been sound in his principles; but he was more of a philosopher than a divine. He revered the memory of such writers as Rabelais, whom he made his constant study: Montaione and Charron were heroes with him, nor would he suffer them to be ill spoken of in his presence: and he had a known attachment to the principles and person of Gassendi, whose life, prefixed to his works, was written by Sorbiere. These connections and attachments made him suspected of scepticism, and this suspicion was probably some check to his promotion: for, otherwise, he was a man of learning, and not destitute of good qualities. He was very well skilled in languages and polite literature, and had some knowledge in many sciences. He died of a dropsy, the 9th of April, 1670.

, an English divine of great parts and learning, but of very inconsistent character, was the son of a merchant in London, and born at Hackney, in Middlesex, 1633. He was educated in Westminster-school, under Dr. Busby, where he acquired an uncommon share of grammatical and philological learning. In 1648 he made himself remarkable by reading the Latin prayers in the school, on the day in which king Charles was beheaded, and praying for that prince by name. He continued four years at Westminster, and in 1651 was elected thence student of Christchurch, Oxford. He took a bachelor of arts degree in 1654; and the same year wrote a copy of Latin verses, to congratulate the protector Cromwell upon the peace concluded with the Dutch. They were published in a collection of poems by the university. The year after, he published another Latin poem, entitled “Musica Incantans; sive Poema exprimens Musicse vires juvenem in insaniam abigentis, et?lusici hide periculum.” This was at that time highly appLuded for the beauty of the language, and was printed at the request of Dr. Fell; but it is said that Dr. South, to his dying day, regretted the publication of it, as a juvenile and trifling performance. He commenced M. A. in June 1657, alter performing all the preparatory exercises for it with the highest applause, and such wit and humour, as justly entitled him to represent the Terra: F'dius, in which character he spoke the usual speech at the celebration of the act the same year. He preached frequently, and (as Wood thinks) without any orders. He appeared, at St. Mary’s, the great champion for Calvinism against Sociniuuism and Arminianisir; and his behaviour was such, and his talents esteemed so exceedingly useful and serviceable, that the heads of that party were considering how to give proper encouragement and proportionable preferment to so hopeful a convert. In the mean time the protector Cromwell died and then, the presbyterians prevailing over the independents,South sided with them. He began to contemn, and in a manner to defy, the dean of his college. Dr. Owen, who was reckoned the head of the independent party; upon which the doctor plainly told him, that he was one who “sate in the seat of the scornful.” The author of the memoirs of South’s life tells us, that he was admitted into holy orders according to the rites and ceremonies of the church or England, in 1658. In July 1659, he preached the assize-sermon at Oxford, in which he inveighed vehemently against the independents; and by this greatly pleased the presbyterians, who made him their acknowledgments. The same year, when it was visible that the king would be restored, he appeared someuhat irresolute, yet was still reckoned a member of “the fanatic ordinary,” as Wood expresses it; but, as his majesty’s restoration approached, he began to exercise his pulpittalents, which were very great, as much against the presbyterians, as he had done before against the independents. Such was the conduct and behaviour of this celebrated divine in the earlier part of his life, as it is described by his contemporary in the university, Mr. Anthony Wood; and if Wood was not unreasonably prejudiced against him, he is, doubtless, to be classed among those time-servers, who know no better use of the great abilities God has given them, than to obtain the favour of those who can reward them best .

During the greatest part of queen Annie’s reign, South was in a state of inactivity; and, the infirmities of old age growing fast upon him, he performed very little of the duty of his ministerial function, otherwise than by attending divine service at Westminster abbey. Yet when there was any alarm about the church’s danger, none shewed greater activity; nor had Sacheverell in 1710 a more strenuous advocate. He had from time to time given his sermons to the public; and, in 1715, he published a fourth volume, which he dedicated to the right hon. William Bromley, esq. “some time speaker to the Hon. House of Commons, and after that principal Secretary of State to her Majesty Queen Anne, of ever blessed memory.” He died aged eightythree, July 8, 1716 and was interred with great solemnity, in Westminster abbey, where a monument is erected to him, with an inscription upon it. He was a man of very uncommon abilities and attainments; of judgment, wit, and learning equally great. There is as much wit in his sermons, as there is good sense and learning, well combined and strongly set forth: and there is yet more ill humour, spleen, and batire. His wit indeed was his bane, for he never could repress it on the most solemn occasions, and preaching may surely be reckoned one of those. Of this he seems to have been sensible himself; for when Sherlock accused him of employing wit in a controversy on the Trinity, South, in his reply, observed that, " had it pleased God to have made him (Dr. Sherlock) a wit, he wished to know what he would have done? However admirable, there was certainly nothing amiable in his nature: for it is doing him no injustice to say, that he was sour, morose, peevish, quarrelsome, intolerant, and unforgiving; and, had not his zeal for religion served for the time to cover a multitude of moral imperfections, all his parts and learning could not have screened him from the imputation of being but an indifferent kind of man.

, a late worthy divine and antiquary, was born at Alwalton, in Huntingdonshire, March 16, 1729. He was the son of William Southgate, a considerable farmer of that place, and of Hannah, the daughter of Robert Wright, of Castor, in Northamptonshire, a surveyor and civil engineer. He was the eldest of ten children, three of whom died in infancy, and all the rest survived him. He was educated for some time at a private school at Uppingham, but chiefly at the free grammar-school at Peterborough, under the rev. Thomas Marshall, an excellent scholar, who became afterwards his cordial friend. The rapidity of his acquisitions at this school gained him the esteem of many, particularly of Dr. John Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, an intimate friend of his father. Under the patronage of this prelate, and with an exhibition from Peterborough, he removed to Cambridge, where he was entered of St. John’s college in 1745, under Mr. (afterwards the learned Dr.) Rutherforth, to whom he was recommended with great warmth by his friend and late master, Mr. Marshall.

, a puritan divine of considerable note, was born at South-Somercote in Lincolnshire in 1548. Of his early education we have no account until he became a fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, in 1570, in whicli year he was admitted bachelor of arts. Soon after he was presented, by Arthur lord Grey, to the parsonage of Bletchley in Buckinghamshire, where he was held in great esteem for his piety. He was also chaplain to Cooper, bishop of Lincoln, who, in 1575, bestowed on him the archdeaconry of Stow. In 1581 he proceeded in his divinity degrees, being then, Wood says, in great esteem for his learning. In 1582, h'ncling that he could not attend to his archdeaconry, from its distance from his cure, he resigned it, and retained Bletchley only; but in Sept. 1582 he was installed into the prebend of Sutton in Marisco in the church of Lincoln. In 1603 he was called to the conference at Hampton-court, as one of the representatives of the puritans, as he had been one of their champions in 1584 at the dispute at Lambeth; but the issue of the Hampton-court conference was, that he inclined to conformity, and afterwards expressed his sentiments in “A brotherly persuasion to unity and uniformity in judgment and practice, touching the received and present ecclesiastical government, and the authorized rites and ceremonies of the church of England,” Lond. 1607, 4to. This brought on a controversy, his book being answered by two anonymous writers. During queen Elizabeth’s reign he had written on the subject of the succession to the crown, the title of which we are not told. This brought him into some trouble, but in a conversation with king James he so satisfied him that his majesty ever after countenanced him. He died at Bletchley Oct. 8, 1616, and was buried in the chancel of that church, with a long epitaph on a plate of brass.

Wood says, he “was a learned man, a solid divine, well read in the fathers, and so much esteemed for his profoundness, gravity, and exemplary life and conversation, that the sages of the university thought it fit, after his death, to have his picture painted on the wall in the schoolgallery among the English divines of note there.” His works, besides what we have mentioned, were, “A comfortable treatise for a troubled conscience,” Lond. 1680, 8vo. 2. “Brief Catechism,” printed with the former, and a treatise on catechising, Oxon. 1588, 4to. 3. '“Answer to Mr. Job. deAlbine’s notable discourse against heresies,” ibid. 1591, 4to, 4. “The Highway to Heaven, &c. against Bellarmine and others, in a treatise on the 37, 38, and 39 verses of the 7 John,” Lond. 1597, 8vo; also a funeral sermon on the earl of Bedford, and another on lord Grey. Dr. Sparke left three learned sons, Thomas, fellow of New-college, Oxford, Andrew of Peterhouse in Caiiibridge, and William of Magdalen-college, Oxford, who succeeded his father in the living of Bletchley. He wrote “Vis naturae, et Virtus Vitae explicata, ad universum doctrine ordinem constituendum,” Lond. 1612, 8vo; and “The Mystery of Godliness,” Oxon. 1628, 4to. He was living at Bletchley in 1630.

, a well-known English historian, was born at Farington in Cheshire, about 1555, and brought up to the business of a taylor, and became a freeman of the company of Merchant-taylors in the city of London. He had probably shewn some taste for literature, as sir Fulk Grevile, a patron of learning, took him from his shop-­board, and supported him in his study of English history and antiquities. By such encouragement he published, in 1606, his “Theatre of Great-Britain;” which was afterwards reprinted, particularly in 1650, under this title: “The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine, presenting an exact geography of the kingdomes of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the isles adjoyning. With the shires, hundreds, cities, and shire-townes within the kingdome of England, divided and described by John Speed,” folio. Nicolson observes, that these maps “are extremely good; and make a noble apparatus, as they were designed, to his history: but his descriptions of the several counties are mostly short abstracts of what Camden had said before him.” In 1614 he published, in folio, “The History of Great Britain under the conquests of the Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans; their originals, manners, warres, coines, and scales, with the successions, lives, actes, and issnes of the English monarchs, from Julius Cæsar to our most gracious sovereigne king James;” dedicated to James I. He borrowed many of his materials from Camden; and was supplied with many by sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Spelman, and other antiquaries, with whom he was well acquainted. There are prefixed to it commendatory poems in Latin, French, and English, by sir Henry Spelman and others; and many writers have spoken of it in terms of high commendation. Speed was not only an historian, but also a divine; for, in 1616, he published a work in 8vo, called “The Cloud of Witnesses, or the Genealogies of Scripture, confirming the truth of holy history and humanity of Christ.” This was prefixed to the new translation of the Bible in 1611, and printed for many years in the subsequent editions, particularly of the folio and quarto sizes, and king James I. gave him a patent for securing the property of it to him and his heirs.

, an English divine, and polite scholar, was born in 1698, we know not of what parents, and educated probably at Winchester school, whence he became a fellow of New college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. Nov. 2, 1727 and in that year became first known to the learned world by “An Essay on Pope’s Odyssey; in which some particular beauties and blemishes of that work are considered, in two parts,” 12mo. “On the English Odyssey, says Dr. Johnson,” a criticism was published by Spence, a man whose learning was not very great, and whose mind was not very powerful. His criticism, however, was commonly just; what he thought, he thought rightly; and his remarks were recommended by his coolness and candour. In him Pope had the first experience of a critic without malevolence, who thought it as much his duty to display beauties as expose faults; who censured with respect, and praised with alacrity. With this criticism Pope was so little offended, that he sought the acquaintance of the writer, who lived with him from that time in great familiarity, attended him in his last hours, and compiled memorials of his conversation. The regard of Pope recommended him to the great and powerful, and he obtained very valuable preferments in the church.“Dr. Warton, in his” Essay on Pope,“styles Spence’s judicious Essay on the Odyssey” a work of the truest taste;“and adds, that” Pope was so far from taking it amiss, thut it was the origin of a lasting friendship betwixt them. I have seen,“says Dr. Warton,” a copy of this work, with marginal observations, written in Pope’s own hand, and generally acknowledging the justness of Spence’s observations, and in a few instances pleading, humourously enough, that some favourite lines might be spared. 1 am indebted,“he adds,” to this learned and amiable man, on whose friendship I set the greatest value, for most of the anecdotes relating to Pope, mentioned in this work, which he gave me, when I was making him a visit at Byfleet, in 1754.“He was elected, by the university, professor of poetry, July 11, 1728, succeeding the rev. Thomas War-, ton, B. D. father to the learned brothers, Dr. Joseph, and Mr. Thomas Warton each of these professors were twice ejected to their office, and held it for ten years, a period as long as the statutes will allow. Mr. Speu-.-e wrote an account of Stephen Duck, which was first published, as a pamphlet, in 1731, and said to he written hy” Joseph Spenre, esq. poetry professor.“From this circumstance it has been supposed th:it he was not then in orders, but this is a mistake, as he was ordained in 17 J4; and left this pamphlet in the hands of his friend, Mr Lowth , to be published as soon as he left England, with a Grubstreet title, which he had drawn up merely for a disguise, not choosing to have it thought that he published it himself. It was afterwards much altered, and prefixed io Duck’s poems. He travelled with the duke of Newcastle (then. earl of Lincoln) into Italy, where his attention to his noble pupil did him the highest honour f. In 1736, at Mr. Pope’s desire, he republished J” Gorboduc,“wit ha preface containing an account of the author, the earl of Dorset. He never took a doctor’s degree, hut quitteii his fellowship on being presented by the society of New college to the rectory of Great Horwood, in Buckinghamshire, in 1742. As he never resided upon his living, but in a pleasant house and gardens lent to him by his noble pupil, at Byfleet, in Surrey (the rectory of which parish he had obtained for his friend Stephen Duck), he thought it his duty to snake an annual visit to Horwood, and gave away several sums of money to the distressed poor, and placed out many of their children as apprentices. In June 174-2, he succeeded Dr. Holmes as his majesty’s professor of modern history, at Oxford. His” Polymetis, or an inquiry concerning the agreement between the works of the Roman Poets, andthe f remains of the ancient Artists, being an attempt: to illustrate them mutually from each other," was published in folio, in

, a learned divine, was a native of Bocton under Biean, in Kent, where he was baptised, Oct. 31, 1G30. While an infant he lost his father, who, leaving him in very narrow circumstances, the care and expence of his education was undertaken by an uncle. By bin) he was sent to the free school at Canterbury, where he made great proficiency, and became a king’s scholar. At the age of fourteen he was recommended by Mr. Thomas Jackson, then the onry prebendary of that church, t a Parker scholarship in Corpus college, Cambridge, of which he was admitted, March 25, 1645. Under Mr. Richard Kennet, an excellent tutor, an ancestor of the bishop of Peterborough, he applied with great assiduity to his studies, and having taken his degrees in arts, that of A. B. in 164-8, and of A. Jvj. in 1652, he was chosen fellow of his college in 1655. About this time his uncle, who had hitherto supported his education, died, and having kept an xact account of what he had expended, left the same tincancelled, and his executors and sons immediately sued Mr. Spencer for the debt, which he was totally unable to ;niy. In this perplexity he found friends i- it college, among w.,om was Dr. Tenison, afterwards achbishop of Canterbury, who raised a loin among the suthcit-nt to extricate him from the rigour of his unworny relations. He now also became a tutor, and entering int. holy orders was appointed one of the university preacher-, -Ik. served the cures, first of St. Gyles’s, and then of St. Benedict, in Cambridge. In 1659 he proceeded B. D. As he was not ciisuJrhed in his fellowship, it has been supposed that he acquiesced in the measures taken during the usurpation, without approving them. He was soon, however, released from this painful restraint by the restoration, on which event he preached a sermon before the university, June 2tf, 1660, which was printed the same year, under the title of “The Righteous Ruler.” He published about three years after, a preservative against the prophecies in which the fanatics of that day dealt very largely. This he entitled “A discourse concerning Prodigies, wherein the vanity of presages by them is reprehended, and their true and proper ends asserted and vindicated.” A second edition of this seasonable and learned work, corrected and enlarged, was published at London, 1665, 8vo; when was added to it, “A discourse concerning vulgar Prophecies; wherein the vanity of receiving them, as the certain indications of any future event, is discovered; and some characters of distinction between true and pretended prophets are laid down.” In this last- mentioned year he proceeded D. D. and in 1667 was presented by his college to the rectory of Landbeach, in Cambridgeshire, and Aug. 3, was elected master of the college. In this office he shewed himself not only a lover of learning, but a great encourager of it in others, as the many salutary regulations made in ­his time concerning the discipline and exercises of the college amply testily and the society had such an opinion of liis judgment an1 integrity, that he was generally made the arbiter of their differences.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine of Frankfort on the Maine, but born in Alsatia, Jan. 1J, 1635, was one of those who first endeavoured to free divinity from scholastic subtleties, and captious questions, and to introduce a more plain and popular method of teaching theology. He succeeded, in a great measure, though not universally and, about 1680, became the founder of a new sect, style1 Pietists It originated in certain private societies forme >j nim at Frankfort, with a design to rouse the lukewarm from their indifference, and excite a spirit of vigour and resolution in those who before had silently lamented the progress of impiety. The effect of these pious* meetings was greatly increased by a book published by this able am! wt it -meaning man, entitled “Pious Desires,” in which he exhibited a striking -view of the disorders of the church, and proposed the suitable remedies. His work was approved; but the remedies he proposed fell into unskiliul hands, and were administered without sugacity and prudence.

, an eminent nonjuving divine, was the son of the rev. Edward, or Edmund Spinckes, rector of Castor, Northamptonshire, and was born there in 1653 or 1654. His father came from New Kngland with Dr. Patrick, afterwards bishop of Ely, and, being a nonconformist, had been ejected from Castor and from Overton Longviil in Huntingdonshire. His mother, Martha, was daughter of Thomas Elmes, of Lilford in Huntingdonshire. After being initiated in classical learning under Mr. Samuel Morton, rector of Haddon, he was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, under Mr. Bainbrigg, March 22, 1670; and matriculated on July 9, the same year. In the following year, by the death of his father, he obtained a plentiful fortune, and a valuable library; and, on the 12th of October, 1672, tempted by the prospect of a Rustat scholarship, he entered himself of Jesus- college, where, in nine days, he was admitted a probationer, and May 20, 1673, sworn a scholar on the Iiustat foundation. “This,” Mr. T. Baker observes in the registers, “was for his honour; for the scholars of that foundation undergo a very strict examination, and afterwards are probationers for a year. And as these scholarships are the best, so the scholars are commonly the best in college, and so reputed.” He became B. A. early in 1674; was ordained deacon May 21, 1676; was M. A. in 1677; and admitted into priest’s orders Dec. 22, 1678. After residing some time in Devonshire, as chaplain to sir Richard Edgcomb, he removed to Petersham, where, in 1681, he was associated with Dr. Hickes, as chaplain to the duke of Lauderdale. On the duke’s death, in 1683, he removed to St. Stephen’s Waibrook, London, where he continued two years, curate and lecturer. In 1685 the dean and chapter of Peterborough conferred on him the rectory of Peakirk or Peaking cum Glynton, in Northamptonshire, where he married Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Rutland, citizen of London. On July 21, 1687, he was made a prebendary of Salisbury; in the same year, Sept. 24, instituted to the rectory of St. Mary, in that town; and three days after, was licensed to preach at Stratford subter Castrum, or Mid en -castle, in Wilts, for which he had an annual stipend of 80l. Being decided in his attachment to the Stuart family, he was deprived of all his preferments in 1690, for refusing to take the oaths to William and Mary. He was, after this period, in low circumstances, but was supported by the benefactions of the more wealthy ftonjurors; and on the third of June, 1713, he was consecrated one of their bishops, receiving that title from the hands of Dr. Hickes. He died July 28, 1727, and was buried in the cemetery of the parish of St. Faith, on the north side of St. Paul’s, London, where an inscription is engraven on a white marble stone. By his wife, who lived but seven days after him, he had many children, of whom two survived their parents: William Spinckes, esq. who, by industry and abilities, acquired a plentiful fortune; and Anne, married to Anthony Cope, esq. Mr. Nelson was the particular friend of Mr. Spinckes, who was a proficient in the Greek, Saxon, and French languages, and had made some progress in the oriental. He is said to have been “low of stature, venerable of aspect, and exalted in character. He had no wealth, few enemies, many friends. He was orthodox in the faith: his enemies being judges. He had uncommon learning and superior judgment; and his exemplary life was concluded with a happy death. His patience was great; his self-denial greater; his charity still greater; though his temper seemed his cardinal virtue (a happy conjunction of constitution and grace), having never been observed to fail him in a stage of thirty-nine years.”. He assisted in the publication of Grabe’s Septuagint, Newcourt’s Repertorium, Howell’s Canons, Potter’s Clemens Alexandrinus, and Walker’s “Sufferings of the Clergy.” His own works were chiefly controversial, as, 1. An answer to “The Essay towards a proposal for Catholic Communion, &c.” 1705. 2. “The new Pretenders to Prophecy re-examined, &c.” 1710. 3. Two pamphlets against HoadJy’s “Measures of Submission,” 1711 and 1712. 4. Two pamphlets on “The Case stated between the church of Rome and the church of England,” as to supremacy, 1714 and 1718. 5. Two pamphlets against “Restoring the prayers and directions of Edward Vlth’s Liturgy,” 1718, &c. &c. His most popular work was “The Sick Man visited, &c.” 1712. A portrait of him, by Vertue, from a painting by Wollaston, is prefixed to this work, of which a sixth edition was published in 1775, containing a short account of his life, and an accurate list of his publications.

, an Italian painter of portrait and history, was born at Arezzo in 1328. His genius for painting was early developed, and he studied under Jacopo di Casentino, whom, at the age of twenty, he greatly surpassed. He gave a singular grace to his figures, and to his Madonnas especially, a modesty and beauty that seemed almost divine. His style was simple and elegant, with the utmost neatness in finishing The greatness of his abilities procured him an early fame, and a constant abundance of employment. He was particularly successful in the portraits of the popes Innocent IV. and Gregory IX. and in his fresco paintings on the life of the Blessed Virgin, in the chapel of S. Maria Maggiore, at Florence. He lived to the age of ninety-two, and died in 1420.

Spinoza, in his life-time, published “Tractatus theologico-politicus,” “A Treatise theological and political,” which was reckoned his great work; and after his death were published five treatises: 1. Ethics demonstrated geometrically. 2. Politics. 3. On the Improvement of the Understanding. 4. Epistles and Answers. 5. A Hebrew Grammar. The impieties contained in these treatises excited general indignation; and refutations were sent forth from various quarters, by writers of all religious persuasions, in which the empty sophisms, the equivocal definitions, the false reasonings, and all the absurdities of the writings of Spinoza are fully exposed. The sum of his doctrine, according to Brucker, is this: The essence of substance, is to exist. There is in naaire only one substance, with two modifications, thought and extension. This substance is infinitely diversified, having within its own essence the necessary causes of the changes through which it passes. No substance can be supposed‘ td’ produce or create another; therefore, besides the substance of the universe there can be no other, but all things are comprehended in it, and are modes of this substance, either thinking or extended. This one universal substance, Spinoza calls God, and ascribes to it divine attributes. He expressly asserts, that God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things. His doctrine is, therefore, not to be confounded with that of those ancient philosophers, who held God to be To Trar, “The Universal Whole;” lor, according to them, the visible and intellectual worlds are produced by emanation from the eternal fountain of divinity; that is, by an expanding, or unfolding, of the divine nature, which was the effect of intelligence and design; whereas, in the system of Spinoza, all things are immanent, and necessary modifications of one universal substance, which, to conceal his atheism, he calls God. Nor can Spinozism be with any propriety derived, as some have imagined, from the Cartesian philosophy; for, in that system, two distinct substances are supposed; and the existence of Deity is a fundamental principle.

, a learned Lutheran divine, descended from a grandfather who had been ennobled by the emperor Ferdinand II. was born Sept. 11, 1639. His father dying when he was about seven years of age, the care of him devolved on a mother whose affection repaired that loss. In 1654 he began his academical studies at Leipsic, and was honoured with the degree of M. A. in 1658. He afterwards, as was much the custom in those days with men destined for literarylife, visited other eminent schools or colleges, at Wittemberg, Leyden, Cologne, Mentz, &c. and lastly Basil, where he formed a friendship with John Buxtorf. He had not quite completed his intended excursions, when in 1661 he was recalled to Augsburgh, to be deacon of the church of St. James. This office he filled until 1682, when he was made pastor of the same church, and iti 1690 was appointed elder. This, however, he did not long enjoy, as he died Jan. 7, 1691, in the fifty-second year of his age. He was a laborious student, and seems particularly to have studied literary history and biography, and his works on these subjects are noticed with respect by Morhoff, whose opinion, we confess, we are inclined to prefer to that of either Moreri or Baillet. He wrote some few books against infidelity, and some sermons: but among those of the classes we have mentioned, are, 1. “De re literaria Sinensinm commentarius,” Leyden, 16*60, 12mo. 2. “Sacra Bibliothecarum illustrium arcana retecta, sive Mss. theologicorum, in præcipuis Europie bibliothecis extantium de^signatio cum preliminari dissertatione, speciniine Uovib Bibliotbecae un'iversalis, et coronide philologica,” Augsburgh, 1668, 8vo. 3. “Templum honoris reseratum, in quo quinquagVnta illustrium hujus at-vi orthodoxorum theologarum, pbilologorumque imagines exhibentur,” ibid. 1673, 4to. It has beeu objected to these lives, which are accompanied with weltengraven portraits, that the author deals too much in generalities, and too little in facts; but this was a common fault with the early biographers. On the other hand, we have found him very correct in what he has given, and particularly in the lists of the works of the respective authors. 4. “Felix Litteratus,” ibid. 1673, “Infelix Litteratus,” ibid. 1630, and “Litteratus felicissimus,” are three works which Spizelius wrote on a subject that has lately engaged theingeniouspen of Mr. D'Israeli, in the “Calamities of Authors.” Mr. D‘Israeli blames our author’s ponderosity, but allows that he is not to be condemned because he is verbose and heavy; and he has reflected more deeply than Valerianus, his predecessor on the subject, by opening the moral causes of those calamities which he describes. Spizelius wrote a life of himself under the title of; ’ Ad Litteratos homines autor felicis, infelicis, felicissimique litterati de seipso.“We know not whether this was printed separately, but it was inserted in Pipping’s collection, entitled” Sacer decadum Septenarius memoriam Theologorum nostrae setatis renovatam exhibens," Leipsic, 1705, 8vo, a work which we have not seen.

, a learned English prelate, was born in 1636, at Tallaton in Devonshire, the son of a clergyman; and having been educated, as he tells of himself, not at Westminster or Eton, but at a little school by the church-yard side, became a commoner of Wadham college, in Oxford, in 1651; and, being chosen scholar next year, proceeded through the usual academical course, and in 1657 became M. A. He obtained a fellowship, and commenced poet. In 1659, his poem on the death of Oliver was published, with those of Dryden and Waller. In his dedication to Dr. Wilkins he appears a very willing and liberal encomiast, both of the living and the dead. He implores his patron’s excuse of his verses, both as falling so “infinitely below the full and sublime genius of that excellent poet who made this way of writing free of our nation,” and being “so little equal and proportioned to the renown of the prince on whom they were written; such great actions and lives deserving to be the subject of the noblest pens and most divine phansies.” He proceeds “Having so long experienced your care and indulgence, and been formed, as it were, by your own hands, not to entitle you to any thing which my meanness produces, would be not only injustice but sacrilege.” He published the same year a poem on the “Plague of Athens;” a subject recommended to him doubtless by the great success of Lucretius in describing the same event. To these he added afterwards a poem on Cowley’s death. After the Restoration he took orders, and by Cowley’s recommendation was made chaplain to the witty and profligate duke of Buckingham, whom he is said to have helped in writing “The Rehearsal,” and who is said to have submitted all his works to his perusal . He was likewise chaplain to the king. As he was the favourite of Wilkins, at whose house began those philosophical conferences and inquiries which in time produced the royal society, he was consequently engaged in the same studies, and became one of the fellows and when, after their incorporation, something seemed necessary to reconcile the public to the new institution, he undertook to write its history, which he published in 1667. This is one of the few books which selection of sentiment and elegance of diction have been able to preserve, though written upon a subject flux and transitory *. The “History of the Royal Society” is now read, not with the wish to know what they were then doing, but how their transactions are exhibited by Sprat. They have certainly been since exhibited far better by Dr. Birch, and more recently by Dr. Thomson. In the next year he published “Observations on Sorbiere’s Voyage into England, in a letter to Mr. Wren.” This is a work not ill performed; but was rewarded with at least its full proportion of praise. In 1668 he published Cowley’s Latin poems, and prefixed in Latin the life of the author, which he afterwards amplified, and placed before Cowley’s English works, which were by will committed to his care. Ecclesiastical dignities now fell fast upon him. In 166S he became a prebendary of Westminster, and had afterwords the church o*f St. Margaret, adjoining to the abbey. He was in 1680 made canon of Windsor, in 1683 dean of Westminster, and in 1684 bishop of Rochester. The court having thus a claim to his diligence and gratitude, he was required to write the “History of the Rye-house Plot;” and in 1685 published “A true account and declaration of the horrid Conspiracy against the late King, his present Majesty, and the present Government;” a performance which he thought convenient, after the revolution, to ex­* This work was attacked by Mr. ing betwixt H. and Dr. Merret;"

, a learned divine, was the son of an apothecary, and was born at War minster, in Wiltshire, in 1714. He was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow, and took his degrees of B. A. in 1733, and M. A. in 1737. Soon after, Dr. Wynn, bishop -of Bath and Wells, appointed him his chaplain, and in 1739 gave him the chancellorship and a canonry of Weils, and afterwards collated him to the archdeaconry of Bath. In 1748 he was presented by the king to the rectory of Topsfield, in Essex; and, in 1749, when the duke of Newcastle (to whom he was chaplain, and private secretary *, as chancellor of the university) was installed chancellor of Cambridge, he preached one of the commencement sermons, and took the degree of D. D. In

, a learned and laborious divine, was born in 1680, but in what part of the kingdom, or where educated, is not knoun. Somewhat late in life he added the degree of A. M. to his name, but he does not c ccur in the lists of the Oxford or Cambridge graduates, and his right to the degree must have proceeded either from Lambeth, or some of the northern universities. He was some time minister of the English church at Amsterdam, and afterwards successively curate at Richmond, Ealmg, and Finchley, in all which places he was much respected. In 1733 he was presented to the vicarage of Benham Valence, alias Beenham, in Berkshire, where he died Oct. 11, 1752, aged seventy-two, and was buried in the parish church. A neat tablet is inscribed to his memory, intimating the support he gave to the cause or the Christian faith, and referring to his numerous works for a testimony of his merit.

, dean of Canterbury, a divine of eminent talents and personal worth, was born March 5, 1660, at Hertishorn in the county of Derby. Of this parish his father, the rev. Thomas Stanhope, was rector, as well as vicar of St. Margaret in the town of Leicester, and chaplain to the earls of Chesterfield and Clare. His mother, whose name was Allestree, was of an ancient family in Derbyshire. His grandfather, Dr. George Stanhope, precentor of York, and rector of Wheldrake in that county, was one of those persecuted ecclesiastics who, for their loyalty to Charles I. experienced the greatest distress; he was dispossessed of his preferments, and (as dean Stanhope told Mr. Walker himself) was driven to the doors with eleven children, and died in 1644.

necessary to obviate the tendency of a divine as Stanhope should translate

, an historian, poet, and divine of the sixteenth century, was born in Dublii^ probably about 1545 or 1546. His father James Stanyhurst was a lawyer, recorder of Dublin, and speaker of the House of Commons in several parliaments. He published; in Latin, “Piae Orationes” “Ad Corsagiensem Decanum Epistoke,” and three speeches, in English, which he delivered as speaker, at the beginning of the parliaments of the 3d and 4th Philip and Mary, and the 2d and llth of Elizabeth. He died Dec. 27, 1573, leaving two sons, Walter and Richard. Of Walter our only information is, that he translated “Innocentins de contemptu Mundi.”

Richard had some classical education at Dublin, under Peter White, a celebrated school-master, whence he was sent to Oxford in 1563, and admitted of University-college. After taking one degree in arts, he left Oxford, and undertook the study of the law with diligence, first at FurnivaPsnn, and then at Lincoln’s-inn, where he resided for some time. He then returned to Ireland, married, and turned Roman Catholic. Removing afterwards to the continent, he is said by A. Wood to have become famous for his learning in France, and the Low Countries. Losing his wife, while he was abroad, he entered into orders, and was made chaplain, at Brussels, to Albert archduke of Austria, who was then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. At this place he died in 1618, being universally esteemed as an excellent scholar in the learned languages, a good divine, philosopher, historian, and poet. He kept up a constant correspondence with Usher, afterwards the celebrated archbishop, who was his sister’s son. They were allied, says Dodd, “in their studies as well as blood; being both very curious in searching after the writings of the primitive ages. But their reading had not the same effect. The uncle became a catholic, and took no small pains to bring over the nephew.” Stanyhurst published several works, tke first of which was written when he had been only two years at Oxford, and published about five years after. Ic was a learned commentary on Porphyry, and raised the greatest expectations of his powers, being mentioned with particular praise, as the work of so young a man, by Edmund Campion, the Jesuit, then a siudent of St. John’seollege. It is entitled “Harmonia, seu catena dialectics in Porphyrium,” Lond. 1570, folio. 2. “De rebus in Hibernia gestis, lib, iv.” Antwerp, 1584, 4to. According t*v Keating, this work abounds, not only in errors, but misrepresentations, which Stanyhurst afterwards acknowledged. 3. “Descriptio Hiberniac,” inserted in Holinshed’s Chronicle. 4. “De vita S. Patricii, Hiberniae Apostoli, lib. ii.” Antw. 1587, 12mo. 5. “Hebdotnada Mariana,” Antw. 1609, 8vo. 6. “Hebdomacla Euclmristiea,” Douay, 1614, 8vo. 7. “Brevis prsemonitio pro futura concertatione cum Jacobo Usserio,” Douay, 1615, 8vo. 8. “The Principles of the Catholic Religion.” 9. “The four first books of Virgil’s Æneis, in English Hexameters,” 1583, small 8vo, black letter. To these are subjoined the four first Psalms the first in English Iambics, though he confesses, that “the lambical quantitie relisheth somwhat unsavorly in our language, being, in truth, not al togeather the toothsomest in the Latine.” The second is in elegiac verse, or English hexameter or pentameter. The third is a short specimen of the asclepiac verse; thus “Lord, my dirye foes, why do they multiply.” The fourth is in sapphics, with a prayer to the Trinity in the same measure. Then follow, “certayne poetical conceites,” in Latin and English: and after these some epitaphs. The English throughout is in Roman measures. The preface, in which he assigns his reasons for translating after Phaer, is a curious specimen of quaintness and pedantry. Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, seems not to have attended to these reasons, such as they are; but thus speaks of the attempt of Stanyhurst: “After the associated labours of Phaier end Twyne, it is hard to say what could induce Robert [Richard] Stanyhurst, a native of Dublin, to translate the four first books of the Æneid into English hexameters, which he printed at London, in 15S3, and dedicated to his brother Peter Plunket, the learned baron of Dusanay [Dunsanye], in Ireland. Stanyhurst was at that time living at Leyden, having left England for some time, on account of the [his] change of religion. In the choice of his measure he is more unfortunate than his predecessors, and in other respects succeeded worse. Thomas Naishe, in his Apology of Pierce Pennilesse, printed in 1593, observes, that * jltany hurst, the otherwise learned, trod a foul, lumbring, boistrcus, wallowing measure, in his translation of Virgil. He had never been praised by Gabriel Harvey for his labour, it therein he had not been so famously absurd.' Harvey, Spenser’s friend, was one of the chief patrons, if not the inventor of the English hexameter here used by Stanyhurst.” His translation, opens thus:

, a celebrated controversialist on the side of the papists, was born at Henfield, in Sussex, in 1535, of a genteel family from Yorkshire. Having been educated at Canterbury and Winchester, he was removed to New college, Oxford, where he obtained a perpetual fellowship in 1554. In the same reign, which was that of Mary, he was made prebendary of Chichester; but on the accession of Elizabeth, left the kingdom, vith his father and other relations, and settled at Louvain, where he distinguished himself by his controversial writings against Jewel, Home, Whitaker, and other eminent divines of the English church. He also visited Paris and Rome, but returned to Louvain, where he translated Bede’s Church History into English. He then became regius professor of divinity in the new university of Douay, and canon in the church of St. Amoiue. He became a Jesuit, but again relinquished the order, and returning to Louvain, was appointed regius professor in divinity there, canon of St. Peter’s, and dean of Hillerbeck. He died in 1598, and was buried in the church of St. Peter at Louvain. Clement VIII. had invited him to Rome, but he did not choose to go. This pope, it is said, intended to bestow upon him a cardinal’s hat, and that this honour was prevented by his death. He was, however, so great an admirer of Stapleton’s writings, that he ordered them to be read publicly at his table. Cardinal Perron, who was an eminent author himself, esteemed him, both for learning and acuteness, the first polemical divine of his age; and Whitaker himself, seems to allow no less.

Among the finest editions from the press of Robert are, 1. His Hebrew Bibles, 4 vols. 4to, and 8 vols. 16mo. 2. The Latin Bible, 1538 — 40, fol. of which the large paper copies are principally valued. 3. The Greek New Testament, 1530, fol. one of the most beautiful books ever printed; to which may be added the small editions of 1546 and 1549, usually called the O mirifcam, the first two words of the preface. That of 1549 is the most correct. 4. “Historiae ecclesiastics scriptores, Eusebii preparatio et demonstratio evangelica,” Gr. 1544, 2 vols. fol: this is the first work published with Garamond’s new Greek types. 5. The works of Cicero, Terence, Plautus, &c. &,c. Besides the prefaces and notes with which Robert introduced or illustrated various works, he is deemed the author of the following: 1. “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae,” before mentioned, which has been often reprinted. One of the best of the modern editions is that of London, 1734 5, 4 vols. fol. and the last is Gessner’s, Leipsic, 1749, 4 vols, fol. 2. “Dictionarium Latino-Gallicum,” Paris, 1543, 2 vols. fol. He published an abridgment of this for young people. 3. “Ad censuras Theologorum Parisiensium quibus Biblia a Roberto Stephano excusa calumniose notarunr, responsio,” Geneva, 1552, 8vo. The same year a French edition of this was published; it forms a very able answer to the calumnies of his enemies the Sorbonnists. 4. “Gallicae grammatices libellus,” ibid. 1558, 8vo, and a “Grammaire Frangaise,” 1558, 8vo. He intended to have published a commentary on the Bible, and had engaged the assistance of the celebrated divine Marlorat; he also had projected a Greek Thesaurus, but the honour of that work was reserved for his son Henry, to whom he gave what materials he had collected. Robert had several sons, of whom Henry, Robert, and Francis, will be noticed hereafter, and a daughter, Catherine, who was married to Jacquelin, a royal notary of Paris.

, a learned English divine, the son of Walter Stephens, vector of Bishops Castle in Shropshire, was born therein 1592, and was entered of Brasenose college, Oxford, in 1609. Having completed his degrees in arts in 161 i, he was ordained deacon, and was appointed chaplain of All Souls college. In May 1616, he was admitted to priest’s orders, and in 1621 was presented to the rectory of Quinton in Northamptonshire, and in 1626 to that of Wotton adjoining, both by Charles I. In 1641 he was made prebendary of Biggleswade in the church of Lincoln, by the interest of archbishop Laud, as a reward for the assi>tance he gave sir Henry Spelman in the first volume of his edition of the “Councils;” but in 1644 he was deprived of all his preferments, and imprisoned by the usurping powers. At the restoration he was replaced in his former livings, and had also a prebend in the church of Salisbury. He died Jan. 9, 1665, at Wotton, and was buried in the chancel of that church.

His leisure time, during the whole of his life, he dedicated to study, to intercourse with learned men, and to the duties of benevolence and devotion. His reading was extensive, and his taste may be understood from the plan of his studies. He was well versed in the writings of the fathers of the church of the first three centuries, generally called the Apostolic fathers; he had twice read through Dr. Thomas Jackson’s Body of Divinity, in three large folios; a divine for whose writings bishop Home always expressed the highest respect. The works of bishops Andrews, Jeremy Taylor, and dean Hickes, were quite familiar to Mr. Stevens; and there was hardiy a writer of modern days, at all celebrated for orthodox opinions, who was unknown to him. Such was the esteem in which he was held, as a theologian, that Dr. Douglas, bishop of Salisbury, once said of him, “Here is a man, who, though not a bishop, yet would have been thought worthy of that character in the first and purest ages of the Christian church;” and the late bishop Horsley, who was not given to flattery, when on one occasion Mr. Stevens paid him a compliment on account of his sermon, said, “Mr. Stevens, a compliment from you upon such a subject is of no inconsiderable value.” Mr. Stevens was also, like bishop Home, a great admirer of the works of Mr. John Hutchinson.

While at Nottingham, as tutor to Mr. Pierrepoint, he composed his first publication, and printed it in 1659, under the title of “Irenicum, a weapon-salve for the church’s wounds, or the divine right of particular forms of churchgovernment discussed and examined according to the principles of the law of nature; the positive laws of God; the practice of the apostles; and the primitive church; and the judgment of reformed divines, whereby a foundation is laid for the church’s peace, and the accommodation of our present differences.” As this was an attempt to promote the return of the non-conformists to the church, and consequently implied some concessions which were irreconcilable with the divine right of episcopacy, for which the adherents of the church contended, and yet not enough to please either presbyterians or independents, the author had not the satisfaction of meeting with full credit even for his intentions; and upon more mature consideration, he himself thought his labour in vain, and did not scruple afterwards to say of his work, that “there are many things in it, which, if he were to write again, he would not say; some, which shew his youth, and want of due consideration; others, which he yielded too far, in hopes of gaining the dissenting parties to the church of England.” In 1662 he reprinted this work; with the addition of a discourse “concerning the power of Excommunication in a Christian Church” in which he attempts to prove, that “the church is a distinct society from the state, and has divers rights and privileges of its own, particularly that it has a power of censuring offenders, resulting from its constitution as a Christian society; and that these rights of the church cannot be alienated to the state, after their being united, in a Christian country.”

At Sutton, while he performed all the duties of a diligent and faithful pastor, he adhered closely to his studies, and in 1662, produced his “Origines Sacræ; or a rational account of the Christian Faith, as to the truth and divine authority of the Scriptures, and the matters therein contained,” 4to. The highest compliment paid him in consequence of this very learned work, was at a visitation, when bishop Sanderson, his diocesan, hearing his name called over, asked him if he was any relation to the great Stillingfleet, author of the Origines Sacræ? When modestly informed that he was the very man, the bishop welcomed him with great cordiality, and said, that “he expected rather to have seen one as considerable for his years as he had already shewn himself for his learning.” This work has indeed been always justly esteemed one of the ablest defences of revealed religion that had then appeared in any language. It was republished by Dr. Bentley in 1709, with “Part of another book upon the same subject, written in 1697, from the author’s own manuscript,” folio. Bishop Sanderson, as a special mark of his respect, granted the author a licence to preach throughout his diocese; and Henchman, bishop of London, conceived so high an opinion of his talents, that he employed him to write a vindication of archbishop Laud’s conference with Fisher, the Jesuit. Laud’s conference had been attacked in a publication entitled “Labyrinthus Cantuariensis, or, Dr. Laud’s Labyrinth, by T. C.” said to have been printed at Paris, in 1658, but which did not appear till 1663. Stillingfleet’s answer was entitled “A rational account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion; being a vindication of the lord archbishop of Canterbury’s relation of a conference,” &c. Lond. 1664, fol. Such was his readiness in composition, that he is reported to have sent to the press six or seven sheets a week of this volume, which Dr. Tillotson said he “found in every part answerable to its title, a rational account.”

“When I was a young man,” says the present venerable bishop of Llandaff, “I had formed a mean opinion of the reasoniog faculties of bishop Stillingfleet, from reading Mr. Locke’s Letter and two replies to him but a better acquaintance with the bishop’s works has convinced me that my opinion was ill-founded. Though no match for Mr. Locke in strength and acuteness of argument, yet his `Origines Sacræ,' and other works, show him to have been not merely a searcher into ecclesiastical antiquities, but a sound divine and a good reasoner.” This confession from one, perhaps a little more latitudinarian than our author in some important points, has probably contributed to revive an attention to Stillingfleet’s works, which have accordingly risen very highly in value. Indeed if we consider the variety of subjects on which he wrote, and wrote with acknowledged skill and with elegance of style, and the early fame he acquired and uniformly preserved, it will not be thought too much to rank him in the first class of learned men of the seventeenth century. While he was rector of Sutton, he married a daughter of William Dobyns, a Gloucestershire gentleman, who lived not long with him; yet had two daughters who died in their infancy, and one son, Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, afterwards rector of Wood-Norton in Norfolk. Then he married a daughter of sir Nicholas Pedley of Huntingdon, Serjeant at law, who lived with him almost all his life, and brought him seven children, of whom two only survived him; James rector of Hartlebury and canon of Windsor, and Anne, married afterwards to Humphrey Tyshe, of Gray’s-Inn, esq. His grandson is the subject of the next article.

, an eminent puritan divine, was born in the city of York, and educated in St. John’s- college, Cambridge, where, on account of his great progress in learning, he acquired the friendship of the celebrated Dr. Whitaker. He took his degrees in arts here, and in 1595 was incorporated M. A. at Oxford. Leaving the university, he became domestic chaplain first to sir Anthony Cope of Ashby in Northamptonshire, and then to lady Lane of Bourton-on-the-water in Gloucestershire. Soon after he came to London, he officiated as assistant to the vicar of All-hallows, Breadstreet, for sixteen years, and in 1610 succeeded him in that living. His preaching was much admired, and his conduct answering to his profession procured him an extraordinary degree of esteem and reverence. He died April 20, 1626, and was buried in Allhallows-church, where a monument was erected to his memory, but was destroyed at the great fire in 1666. His works are, 1. “Doctrine and use of Repentance,” Lond. 1610, 8vo. 2. “Sermon at the funeral of John lord Harrington,” &c. 1614, 8vo. 3. “Stock of Divine Knowledge,” ibid. 1641, 4to. 4. “Truth’s Champion,” &c. 5. “Commentary on the prophecy of Malachi,” edited by Torshell, folio, 1641.

, a pious and worthy baronet, originally a physician and afterwards a divine, was the son of Richard and Caroline Stonhouse, of Tubney, near Abingdon, in Berkshire, and was born July 20, 1716. His father, who died when his son was ten years old, was, as sir James informs us, “a country squire, kept a pack of hounds, and was a violent Jacobite.” Our author succeeded to the title of baronet late in life, by the death of his collateral relation sir James Stonhouse cf Radley.

, of Lampsacus, the successor of Theophrastus in the charge of the Peripatetic school, flourished in the third century B. C. and presided eighteen years over that school with a hi;;h degree of reputation for learning and eloquence. Ptolemy Philadelphus made him his preceptor, and repaid his services with a royal present of eighty talents. He died about the end of the 127th Olympiad. His opinions have been suspected of atheism. Brucker collects from them that “there is inherent in nature a principle of motion, or force, without intelligence, which is the only cause of the production and dissolution of bodies: that the world has neither been formed by the agency of a deity, distinct from matter, nor by an intelligent animating principle, but has arisen from a force innate to matter, originally excited by accident, and since continuing to act, according to the peculiar qualities of natural bodies.” It does not appear, adds Brucker, that Strato expressly either denied or asserted the existence of a divine nature; but, in excluding all idea of deity from the formation of the world, it cannot be doubted, that he indirectly excluded from his system the doctrine of the existence of the Supreme Being. Strato also taught, that the seat of the soul is in the middle of the brain; and that it only acts by means of the senses. Brucker has a more laboured defence of Strato in a dissertation inserted in Schelhorn’s “Amputates Litterarije.”

, a German Luthe-an divine and mathematician, but in this country known only as a chronologist, was born in 1632, at Wittemberg. He studied at Leipsic, and was afterwards professor of theology at Wittemberg, and at Dantzick. He was frequently involved in theological disputes, both with the Roman catholics and the Calvinists, from his intemperate zeal in favour of Lutheranism. He died at Wittemberg in 1682. He published some mathematical works; but was chiefly distinguished for his chronological and historical disquisitions, of which he published a considerable number from 1652 to 1680. One of the best and most useful, his “Breviarium Chronologicum,” was long known in this country by three editions (with improvements in each) of an English translation, by Richard Sault, called in the title F. R. S. but his name does not occur in Dr. Thomson’s list of the members of the Royal Society. Locke’s high commendation of this work probably introduced it as a useful manual of chronology. The edition of 1745, which, we believe, was the last, received many improvements and corrections, but it has since given way to lesser chronological systems.

, a learned divine and promoter of the reformation, was born at Kaufbeir, Dec. 26th 1524. He lost his father in the year 1527, and was sent to Fribourg in Brisgaw in 1538; where he went through a course of philosophy under John Zinckius, and removed from thence in 1542 to the university of Wittemberg, and attended the lectures of Luther and Melancthon. Having taken the degree of master of philosophy in 1544, he applied himself to the reading of private lectures, which gained him great reputation, and he continued them until the war obliged him to leave Witteuoberg, and go to Magdeburg, and afterwards to Erfurt. The war being concluded, he went to Jena in 1548. In 1556, he was present at the conference of Eisenach, and disputed amicably with Menius upon a question relating to the necessity of good works. He reduced this controversy to seven propositions, on which the whole dispute turned, and which Menius owned to be agreeable to the word of God. Strigelius afterwards drew up, by order of the elector of Saxony, a form of confession, to which all the divines subscribed. The year following he was attacked by Flacciuslllyricus, and disputed with him viva voce at Weimar. The acts of that conference were published, but not faithfully, and he complained that something was retrenched. In 1559, he was imprisoned with two others, owing to certain theological disputes with the divines of Weimar, but by the influence of the emperor Maximilian recovered his liberty at the end of three years, and resumed the usual course of his lectures. As, however, he found that he was not in a safe situation, he retired from Jena, and paid no regard to the remonstrances that university wrote to him to engage him to return. Removing to Leipsic, he published there notes on the psalter. He obtained of the elector the liberty of teaching, either in the university of Wittemberg, or in that of Leipsic, which last he preferred, and beginning his lectures there in March 1563, explained not only divinity, but likewise logic and ethics. He had carried his commonplaces as far as the article of the eucharist, and was to enter upon that in February 1567; but a fresh opposition being raised against him, in which the elector would not interfere, he retired into the Palatinate, and soon after was invited to Heidelberg to be professor of ethics, which office he discharged with great reputation till his death, June 26th, 1569. He had the reputation of an able philosopher and divine, and had an incomparable talent in instructing youth. His principal works are, 1 “Epitome doctrinse de primo motu,” Wittem. 1565, 8vo. 2. “Argumenta et scholia in Nov. Test.” 3 “Tres partes locorum communium.” 4. “Enchiridion locorum Theologicorum.” 5. Scholiæ Historicæ, a condito mundo ad natum Christum, &c."

In this suffering Stubbs had the sympathy of the people, and did not lose the regard of thuse who had previously known his learning and talents, and who probably thought little of an offence that proceeded from his zeal for the reformation, and evidently from no principle of disloyalty. A very few years afterwards he was employed by the lord treasurer, to answer cardinal Allan’s “Defence of the English Catholics;” a task which he executed with acknowledged ability. Several letters of Stubbs, addressed to the lord treasurer and his secretary Hickes, are preserved in the Burghley -papers, now in the British Museum; and most of them having been written with his left-hand, he usually, in allusion to the loss of his right, signed himself Scæva. Whether his answer to Allen was ever published is uncertain; but he translated Beza’s meditations on the first Psalm, and the seven penitential Psalrns, from the French, which he dedicated to lady Anne Bacon, wife of sir Nicholas Bacon. The dedication is dated from v Thelveton in Norfolk, where he appears to have taken up his residence, May 31, 1582, and it is signed “John Stubbe, Sceva.” It is said that Stubbs was afterwards a commander in the army in Ireland, but we have no farther accouu- of him, or any notice of his death. Wood is of opinion, that he was either father or brother to Philip Stubbs, author of “The Anatomy of Abuses,” and other works against the vices and abuses of his time. This man, who was not m orders, although all his publications are such as might have been expected from a divine, lived about the same time with John Stubbs; but Wood’s account of him is imperfect.

He had the misfortune to lose his patron in 1749 on whose death he published some verses, with others on his entertainment at Boughton, and a “Philosophic Hymn on Christmas-day.” Two papers by the doctor, upon the earthquakes in 1750, read at the Royal Society, and a sermon preached at his own parish-church on that alarming occasion, were published in 1750, 8vo, under the title of “The Philosophy of Earthquakes, natural and religious;” of which a second part was printed with a second edition of his sermon on “the Healing of Diseases as a Character of the Messiah, preached before the College of Physicians Sept. 20, 1750.” In 1751 (in “Palaeographia Britannica, No. III.”) he gave an account of Oriuna the wife of Carausius; in Phil. Trans, vol. XLVIII. art. 33, an account of the Eclipse predicted by Thales; and in the Gentleman’s Magazine, 1754, p. 407, is the substance of a paper read at the Royal Society in 1752, to prove that the coral-tree is a sea-vegetable. On Wednesday the 27th of February, 1765, Dr. Stukeley was seized with a stroke of the palsy, which was brought on by attending a full vestry, at which he was accompanied by serjeant Eyre, on a contested election for a lecturer. The room being hot, on their return through Dr. Stukeley’s garden, they both caught their deaths; for the serjeant never was abroad again, and the doctor’s illness came on that night. Soon after this accident his faculties failed him; but he continued quiet and composed until Sunday following, March 3, 1765, when he departed in his seventy eighth year, which he attained by remarkable temperance and regularity. By his own particular directions, his corpse was conveyed in a private manner to East- Ham in Essex, and was buried in the church-yard, just beyond the east end of the church, the turf being laid smoothly over it, without any monument. This spot he particularly fixed on, in a visit he paid some time before to the vicar of that parish, when walking with him one day in the church-yard. Thus ended a valuable life, daily spent in throwing light on the dark remains of antiquity. His great learning and profound skill in those researches enabled him to publish many elaborate and curious works, and to leave many ready for the press. In his medical capacity, his “Dissertation on the Spleen” was well received. His “Itinerariutn Curiosum,” the first-fruits of his juvenile excursions, presaged what might be expected from his riper age, when he had acquired more experience. The curious in these studies were not disappointed; for, with a sagacity peculiar to his great genius, with unwearied pains and industry, and some years spent in actual surveys, he investigated and published an account of those stupendous works of the remotest antiquity, Stonehenge and Abury, in 1743, and has given the most probable and rational account of their origin and use, ascertaining also their dimensions with the greatest accuracy. So great was his proficiency in Druidical history, that his familiar friends used to call him “the arch-druid of this age.” His works abound with particulars that shew his knowledge of this celebrated British priesthood; and in his Itinerary he announced a “History of the Ancient Celts, particularly the first inhabitants of Great Britain,” for the most part finished, to have consisted of four vplumes, folio, with above 300 copper-plates, many of which were engraved. Great part of this work was incorporated into his Stonehenge and Abury. In his “History of Carausius,” 1757, 1751), in two vols. 4to, he has shewn much learning and ingenuity in settling the principal events of that emperor’s government in Britain. To his interest and application we are indebted for recovering from obscurity Richard of Cirencester’s Itinerary of Roman Britain, which has been mentioned before. His discourses, or sermons, under the title of “Palaeographia Sacra, 1763, on the vegetable creation,” bespeak him a botanist, philosopher, and divine, replete with antient learning, and excellent observations; but a little too much transported by a lively fancy and invention. He closed the last scenes of his life with completing a long and laborious work on ancient British coins, in particular of Cunobelin; and felicitated himself on having from them discovered many remarkable, curious, and new anecdotes, relating to the reigns of that and other British kings. The twenty-three plates of this work were published after his decease; but the ms. (left ready for publishing) remained in the hands of his daughter Mrs. Fleming, relict of Richard Fleming, esq. an eminent solicitor, who was the doctor’s executor, and died in 1774. By his fii^t wife Dr. Stukeley had three daughters; of whom one died young; the other two survived him; the one, Mrs. Fleming already mentioned; the other, wife to the Rev. Thomas Fairchild, rector of Pitsey, in Essex. They both died in 1782. By his second wife, Dr. Stukeley had no child. To the great names already mentioned among his friends and patrons, may be added those of Mr. Folkes, Dr. Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne (with whom he corresponded on the subject of Tar* water), Dr. Pocock bishop of Meath, and many others of the first rank of literature at home: and amou. the eminent foreigners with whom he corresponded wete Dr. Heigertahl, Mr. Keysler, and the learned father Montfaucon, who inserted some of his designs (sent him by archbishop Wake) in his “Antiquity explained.” A good account of Dr. Stukeley was, with his own permission, printed in 1725, by Mr. Masters, in the second part of his History of Corpus Christi college; and very soon after his death a short but just character of him was given in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1765, by his friend Peter Collinson. Of both these, Mr. Nichols availed himself; and was favoured with several additional particulars from Dr. Ducarel and Mr. Gough. After his decease, a medal of him was cast and repaired by Gaub; on one side, the head adorned with oak leaves, inscribed Rev. Gvl. Stvkeley, M.D.S. R. & A. s. Exergue, act. 54. Reverse, a view of Stonehenge, Ob. Mar. 4, 1765, Æt. 84; [but this is a mistake, for he was in fact but 78]. There is a portrait of him, after Kneller, in mezzotino, by;J". Smith in 172 i, before he took orders, with his arms, viz. Argent, a spread-eagle double-headed Sable. Mrs. Fleming had another portrait of him in his robes, by Wills; and Mrs. Parsons (relict of Dr. James Parsons) had a fine miniature, which was esteemed a good likeness.

, a Spanish Jesuit, born at Grenada, Jan. 5, 1548, was a professor of reputation at Alcala, at Salamanca, and at Rome. He was afterwards invited to Coimbra in Portugal, where he became the principal professor of divinity. He is an author of the most voluminous kind: his works extended to twenty -three volumes, in folio; and so extraordinary was his memory, that if any passage was cited from them, he could' immediately go on to the end of the chapter or book. Yet, with all his talents, his examiners had such an indifferent opinion of him, that it was with some difficulty he gained admission into the order of Jesuits. He died at Lisbon, Sept. 25, 1617. By order of pope Paul V. he wrote a book “against the errors of the English sect,” which James I. caused to be publicly burnt at St. Paul’s. “Happy should I be,” said he, “could I seal with my blood the truths I have defended with my pen.” Yet unpopular as this work must have rendered his name in this country, his treatise on law, “Tractatus de Legibus,” was printed in London in 1679, in folio. His works are chiefly on the subjects of metaphysics, morality, and theology; and what seems to recommend them is, that he almost every where relates and explains, with great fidelity and precision, the different sentiments of divines concerning the subjects on which he treats. The Jesuits consider Suarez as the greatest and best scholastic divine their order has produced, and lavish the highest encomiums upon him. He was the principal author of the system of Congruism, which is at bottom only that of Molina, although, perhaps, better adapted to the method and language of the theolorians, and disguised under a less offensive form. Father Noel, a French Jesuit, made an abridgment of the works of this commentator, which was published at Geneva in 173;2, in folio. There is a prolix life of him by AntonyIgnatius Deschamps, printed at Perpignan in 1671, a 4to of 800 pages.

, a learned German divine, was born at Zurich June 26, 1619; became professor there of the Greek and Hebrew languages; and died at Heidelberg Nov. 8, 1684, according to Saxius. He was the compiler of a very useful work, called “Lexicon, sive Thesaurus Ecclesiastic us Patrum Graeconm):” the best edition of which is that of Amsterdam, 1728, 2 vols. fol. He had a son, Henry Suicer, distinguished by some literary productions, who was a professor, first at Zurich, then at Heidelberg, and who died in 1705.

Henry king of Navarre, who had been married to Charles the IXth’s sister bnt six days before, with the greatest solemnity and with all the marks of kindness and affection from the court, was awaked two hours before day by a great number of soldiers, who rushed boldly into a chamber in the Louvre, where he and the prince of Conde lay, and insolently commanded them to dress themselves, and attend the king. They would not suffer the two princes to take their swords with them, who, as they went, saw several of their gentlemen massacred before their eyes. This was contrived, doubtless, to intimidate them; and, with the same view, as Henry went to the king, the queers gave orders, that they should lead him under the vaults, and make him pass through the guards, drawn up in files on each side, and in menacing postures. He trembled, and recoiled two or three steps back; but the captain of the guards swearing that they should do him no hurt, he proceeded through, amidst carbines and halberts. The king waited for them, and received them with a countenance and eyes full of fury: he ordered them with oaths and blasphemies, which were familiar with him, to quit a religion, which he said had been taken up only for a cloke to their rebellion: he told them in a fierce and angry tone, “that he would no longer be contradicted in his opinions by his subjects; that they by their example should teach others to revere him as the image of God, and cease to be enemies to the images of his mother;” and ended by declaring, that “if they did not go to mass, he would treat them as Criminals guilty of treason against divine and human majesty.” The manner of pronouncing these words not suffering the princes to doubt the sincerity of them, they yielded to necessity, and performed what was required of them: and Henry was even obliged to send an edict into his dominions, by which the exercise of any other religion but the Romish was forbidden.

, an English divine of considerable abilities in controversy, was educated at Trinity-college, Cambridge, but of his early history we have no account. In 1586, he was installed archdeacon of Taunton, and on Oct. 22, 1588, confirmed dean of Exeter. He had been admitted a civilian in 1582. He died in 162U, leaving a daughter his heiress, who, Prince thinks, was married to the son and heir of the Halse family in Devonshire; and as the estates Dr. Sutcliffe left to Chelsea-college were in that country, it probably was his birth-place. He was esteemed a very learned writer in defence of the protestant establishment; but although long in favour with James I. upon that account, we find that this prince, in 1621, ordered him to be taken into custody for the freedom of his remarks upon public affairs. On the other hand Strype, in his life of Whitgift, has published a long letter from that eminent prelate to Beza, defending Sutcliffe against some disrespectful expressions used by the reformer. Among his works, may be noticed, 1. “A treatise of Ecclesiastical Discipline,” Loud. 1591, 4to. 2. “De Presbyterio, ejusque nova in Ecclesia Christiana Politeia,” the same year, 4to. 3. “De Turco-Papismo,” or, on the resemblance between Mahometanism and Popery, London, 1599, 4to. 4. “De Purgatorio, adversus Bellarminum,” the same year, 4to. 5. “De vera Christi Ecclesia,” 1600, 4to. 6. “De Missa, adversus Bellarminurn,” 1603, 4to. 7. “The Laws of Armes,” 1593, 4to. 8. lt Examination of Cartwright’s Apology," 1596, 4to; and many other works, enumerated in the Bodleian catalogue, of the controversial kind, against Beliarmin, Parsons, Garnet, and other popish propagandists.

, a divine of the church of England, but to whom that church was little indebted, was the son of Mr. Arthur Sykes, of Ardely or Yardly in Hertfordshire, and was born in London about 1684. He was educated at St. Paul’s school under the celebrated Mr. Postlethwayte, and was admitted of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, in 1701, under the care of the rev; Charles Kidman, B. D. tutor of that college. In Feb. 1701-2 he was appointed a scholar of the house. While an undergraduate he wrote some Hebrew verses on the death of king William, which were printed in the Cambridge collection on that occasion. He took the degree of B. A. in 1704-5, and proceeded M. A. in 1708, After leaving college he was employed for some time as one of the assistants at St. Paul’s school, but quitted this situation as inconsistent with the prosecution of his private studies. In 1712-13 he was collated to the vicarage of Godmersham in Kent by archbishop Tenison, who had a great personal regard for him, and was a generous patron to the members of Corpus Christi) of which he had himself been fellow. In April 1714 he was instituted to the rectory of Dry-Dray ton in Cambridgeshire, on the presentation of the duchess dowager of Bedford, and in August following he resigned his vicarage of Godmersham in Kent. In Nov. 1718, he was instituted to the rectory of Rayleigh in Essex, which he retained to his death, but now resigned the living of DryDrayton. In Dec. following, at a meeting of the governors and directors of King-street chapel, Golden-square, he was unanimously appointed afternoon preacher at that place, which is a chapel of ease to St. James’s Westminster, of which his friend Dr. Clarke was then rector. In 1721, on the morning preachership becoming vacant by Dr. Wilcocks’s promotion to the see of Gloucester, Mr. Sykes was unanimously appointed to succeed him. In January 1723-4 he was collated to the prebend of AltonBorealis in the cathedral of Salisbury, by bishop Hoadly, and three years afterwards his lordship appointed him to the pnrcentorship of the same cathedral, vacant by the death of their common friend Dr. Daniel Whitby. In April 1725, upon the nomination of Dr. Clarke, he was appointed assistant preacher at St. James’s church, Westminster. In 1726 he proceeded to take the degree of D. D. in the university of Cambridge. In Feb. 1739 he was advanced to the deanry of St. Burien in Cornwall, which is in the patronage of the crown; and on October 15, 1740, he was collated to a prebend in the cathedral of Winchester, through the friendship of his former patron bishop Hoadly, who had been translated to the see of Winchester in 1734. His ecclesiastical promotions seem to have ended here.

Dr. Sykes was a divine of the school of Clarke and Hoadly 3 who, while they made it the business of their lives to oppose the distinguishing doctrines of the established church, were content to enjoy both its dignities and emoluments. Such men have been well represented by an ingenious critic , as holding a grand debate between conviction and interest, and endeavouring to accommodate matters with as much ease as possible between both; a sort of half-way reformers, who endeavour to find out the secret band which will unite the two opposite extremes, and coalesce, in one mass, the most heterogeneous qualities of inward persuasion and outward profession. They subscribe articles which they do not believe, and reconcile it to their conscience by calling them articles of peace and not of faith; and by this principle of accommodation they endeavour to secure the character of the “children of light,” without wholly relinquishing the good things which fall to the share of the “children of the world.”

It is remarkable of this prelate, that he was the son of one; bishop the nephew of another, namely, George Synge, bislnop of Cloyne and the father of two bishops, Edward, bishop of Elphin, and Nicholas, bishop of Killaloe. This learned divine, in the course of his ministry, composed and published several excellent treatises for the promotion of piety and virtue; they are written in a sensible, easy, and rational manner; and have been so well received by the public, as to go through many editions. His works form altogether 4 vols. 12mo, but consist of small tracts, whi ch are all printed separately for Rivingtons and others. It has been said of archbishop Synge, that his life was as exemplary as his writings were instructive and that, “what he wrote he believed and what he believed he practised.”

Besides her mother’s instructions, which were chiefly confined to religious principles, Miss Talbot enjoyed the benefit of a constant intercourse with the eminent divine with whom they lived; and his enlightened mind soon discovered the extent of her early genius, and was delighted to assist in its improvement. Hence, although she never studied the learned languages, unless perhaps a little Latin, she reaped all the advantages of Mr. Seeker’s deep and extensive learning, of his accurate knowledge of the Scriptures, and of his critical and unwearied research into the sciences and languages more immediately connected with that important study. Yet though so much attention was bestowed on serious pursuits, the lighter and more ornamental parts of female education were not neglected; and for the acquirement of these there was abundant opportunity in the different situations in which Mr. Seeker’s rapid progress in the church placed him. From the time that she was seven years old, she lived, almost constantly, in or near large cities; and was consequently enabled to acquire every useful branch of education, and all elegant accomplishments. She made some progress in music, but much more in drawing and painting in water-colours. Nor were the sciences and modern languages neglected; she had a competent knowledge of French and Italian, and late in life she taught herself German. She studied also geography and astronomy with much care and attention, and her master in the latter of these sciences, a Mr. Wright, was the means of her becoming acquainted with the celebrated Mrs. Carter, with whom she formed a strict friendship, the amiable turn of which may be seen in their correspondence lately published. Miss Talbot formed also other friendly connections with persons of merit and rank, who highly esteemed her.

, a non-conformist divine of considerable eminence and learning, was born at Paisley, near Chesterfield, Nov. 1619, and educated at the public schools at Mansfield and Newark, whence he went to Pete rhouse, Cambridge, but being chosen sub-tutor to the sons of the earl of Suffolk, removed for that purpose to Magdalen college, and in 1642 travelled with them on the continent. On his return he was chosen fellow of Magdalen college, and afterwards became senior fellow and president. In 1648 he was ordained at London, in the presbyterian form. In 1652 he left the university, and went to Shrewsbury, where he became minister of St. Mary’s. At the restoration, an event in which he rejoiced, he was inclined to conform, but probably scrupling to be re-ordained, which was the chief obstacle with many other non-conformists, he was ejected. In 1670 he again visited the continent as tutor to two- young gentlemen, and about three years afterwards returned to Shrewsbury, and preached in a dissenting meeting there, while unmolested. He lived also some time in London, but very privately. After reaching the very advanced age of eighty-nine, he died April 11, 1708, and was buried in St. Mary’s, Shrewsbury. His funeral sermon was preached by the celebrated Matthew Henry, who, in an account appended, gives him a very high character for piety, learning, and moderation. He was one of those of whom the great Mr. Boyle took early notice, and Jived in friendship with all his life. He published a few religious, chiefly controversial, tracts, but is principally remembered as the editor of a work once hi very high reputation, “A view of Universal History; or, chronological Tables,” engraved in his house and under his particular inspection, on sixteen large copper-plates.

Though it has been commonly said that Tallis was organist to Henry VIII. and the three succeeding princes his descendants, it may well be doubted whether any \-ayman were employed in that office till the beginning of the reign of queen Elizabeth, when Tallis and Bird were severally appointed organists of the royal chapel. Notwithstanding he was a diligent collector of musical antiquities, and a careful peruser of the works of other men, the compositions of Tallis, learned and elegant as they are, are so truly original, that he may justly be said to be the father of the cathedral style; and, though a like appellation is given by the Italians to Palestrina, it is much to be questioned, considering the time when Tallis flourished, whether he could derive the least advantage from the improvements of that great man. Perhaps he laid the foundation of his studies in the works of the old cathedralists of this kingdom, and probably in those of the German musicians, who in his time had the pre-eminence of the Italians; and that he had an emulation to excel even these, may be presumed from the following particular. John Okenheim, a native of the Low Countries, and a disciple of Iodocus Pratensis, had made a composition for no fewer than thirty-six voices, which, Glareanus says, was greatly admired. Tallis composed a motet in forty parts, the history of which stupendous composition, as far as it can now be traced, i< ^iven by sir John Hawkins. Notwithstanding his supposed attachment to the Romish religion, it seems that Tallis accommodated himself and his studies to the alterations introduced at the reformation. With this view, he set to music those several parts of the English liturgy, which at that time were deemed the mojt proper to be sung, namely, the two morning services, the one comprehending the “Veriite Exultemus,” “Te Deum,” and “Benedictus” and the other, which is part of the communion-office, consisting of the “Kyrie Eleison,” “Nicene Creed,” and “Sanctus:” as also the evening service, containing the “Magnificat,” and “Nunc dimittis.” All these are comprehended in that which is called Tallis’s first service, as being the first of two composed by htm. He also set musical notes to the Preces ftnd Responses, and composed that Litany which for its excellence is sung on solemn occasions in all places where the choral service is performed. As to the Preces of Tallis in his first service, they are no other than those of Marbeck in his book of Common-prayer noted: the Responses are somewhat different in the tenor part, which is supposed to contain the melody; but Tallis has improved them by the addition of three parts, and has thus formed a judicious contrast between the supplications of the priest and the suffrages of the people as represented by the choir. The services of Tallis contain also chants for the “Venite Kxultemus,' 1 and the” Creed of St. Athanasius:" these are tunes that divide each verse of the psalm or hymn according to the pointing, to the end that the whole may be sung alternately by the choir, as distinguished by the two sides of the dean and thfe chanter. Two of these chants are published in Dr. Boyce’s Cathedral Music, vol. I. The care of selecting from the Common-prayer the offices most proper to be sung was a matter of some importance, especially as the rubric contains no directions about it; for this reason it is supposed that the musical part of queen Elizabeth’s liturgy was settled by Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, who was not only a great divine, an excellent canonlawyer and ritualist, and a general scholar, but also a skilful musician. Besides the offices above-mentioned, constituting what are now termed the Morning, Communion, and Evening Services, in four parts, with the Preces, Responses, and Litany, Tailis composed many anthems. He died Nov. 23, 1585, and was buried in the parishchurch of Greenwich in Kent; where there is a brass plate for him in the chancel; the inscription on which was repaired by dean Aldrich, and may be seen in Strype’s Stow, but no memorial now remains,

His apology for Christianity, entitled “Oratio ad Graecos,” “An address to the Greeks,” the only genuine work of Tatian which remains, every where breathes the spirit of the Oriental philosophy. He teaches that God, after having from eternity remained at rest in the plenitude of his own light, that he might manifest himself, sent forth from his simple nature, by an act of his will, the Logos, through whom he gave existence to the universe, the essence of which had eternally subsisted in himself. “The Logos,” he says, “through the will of God, sprang from his simple nature.” This first emanation, which, after the Alexandrian Platonists, he calls the Logos, and which, like the Adam Kadmon of the Cabbalists, is the first medium through which all things flow from God, he represents as proceeding, without being separated from the divine nature. Matter is conceived by Tatian to have been the production of the Logos, sent forth from his bosom. And the mind of man is, according to him, reason produced from a rational power, or an essential emanation from the divine Logos. He distinguishes between the rational mind and the animal soul, as the Alexandrian philosophers between *3j and ^%>i, and the Cabbalists between Zelem and Nephesh. The world he supposed to be animated by a subordinate spirit, of which all the parts of visible nature partake: and he taught that daemons, clothed in material vehicles, inhabit the aerial regions; and that above the stars, aeons, or higher emanations from the divine nature, dwell in eternal light. In fine, the sentiments and language of Tatian upon these subjects perfectly agree with those of the Ægyptian and the Cabbalistic philosophy, whence it may be presumed that he derived them, in a great measure, from these sources. After Plato, this Christian father maintained the imperfection of matter as the cause of evil, and the consequent merit of rising above all corporeal appetites and passions; and it was, probably, owing to this notion, that, with other fathers, he held the superior merit of the state of celibacy above that of marriage; and that he adopted, as Jerom relates, the Gnostic opinion, that Christ had no real body. The tenor of Tatian’s Apology concurs with what is known of his history, to prove, that he was a Platonic Christian. His “Oratio” was first printed at Zurich in 1546, together with the Latin version of Conradus Gesner. It was afterwards subjoined to Justin Martyr’s works, printed at Paris in 1615 and 1636, folio but the best edition of it is that of Oxford, 1700, in 12mo.

, a writer famous among the mystical devotees, flourished in the fourteenth century. We have no certain account of the year or place of his birth, He was born in Germany, and became a monk of the Dominican order, and acquired great skill in philosophy and school-divinity; but he applied himself principally to mystical divinity; and as it was believed that he was favoured with revelations from heaven, he was styled the illuminated, divine. He had great talents for preaching, and there was no preacher in that age more followed than he. He reproved with great zeal and great freedom the faults of every body; and this made him odious to some monks, whose persecutions of him he bore patiently. He submitted witii the same resolution to other trials, and it was thought that he was thus visited by God, that he might not grow proud of the extraordinary gifts which he had received from heaven. The two principal cities in which he preached, were Cologne and Strasburg. He died in the latter after a long sickness, May 17, 1361, and was honourably interred there in the academical college, near the winter-auditory. He wrote several books; concerning which different judgments have been formed; some catholics have censured them, and some protestants have commended them. Among the latter, we may mention our Dr. Henry More, who exceedingly admired Taulerus’swork entitled “Theologia Germanica,” which Luther also praises. This was first translated from the German into Latin by Surius, and then by Sebastian Castalio, and went through a great many editions from 1518 to 1700, when it was printed in French at Amsterdam.

Previous to the death of the countess of Carbery, Taylor had been occupied in writing his “Rule and Exercises of Holy Dying,” and that part of his volume of “Sermons,” which was preached at Golden Grove, in the summer halfyear. These, with the addition of the funeral sermon lately delivered, and a “Discourse of the Divine institution, necessity, and sacredness of the office Ministerial,” he published in 1651. His “Holy Living” and “Holy Dying” have been supposed by their late editor, the rev. Thomas Thirwall, to have been Dr. Taylor’s favourite works, and they are certainly elaborated with more than his usual care; and the latter, as being occasioned by the countess of Carbery’s illness, comes more from the heart. His “Sermons” have been ably analysed by his biographer, and are indeed to be recommended to the attention of the present age, rather in the form of extracts or selections, than as originally published.

In the same year appeared his “Unum necessarium, or the Doctrine arrd Practice of Repentance.” This, says his biographer, led him into the consideration of original sin, and its effects; points which were at that time much controverted between the Arminian and Calvinistic parties, and he adopted the opinion of the former, carrying it to a degree that the latter utterly condemned, and which the church of England does not approve. His sentiments with regard to the doctrine of original sin were then, and are at present, generally considered heterodox; and are irreconcilable to the tenets of our church, as laid down in her liturgy, articles, and homilies. It was this, therefore, which drew him into controversy. His friend, the bishop of Rochester, Dr. Warner, shewed his disapprobation of the chapter of original sin, in a letter addressed to Dr. Taylor, dated July 28, 1656. It was also censured by Dr. Sanderson, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, and others, to whom he endeavoured to reply in two tracts, the one “Deus justificatus, or a Vindication of the Glory of the divine attributes, &c.” and the other “A further explication of the doctrine of original sin, &c.”

From his first settling at Warrington as tutor, he spent all his leisure hours in reviewing his “Concordance,” collating passages in an alphabetical order, and correcting the English translation. He had made a considerable advance in this useful work, when death seized him. Dr. Taylor somposed, and fairly transcribed, a number of discourses On moral, critical, and practical subjects, sufficient to make four volumes in 8vo, which he designed for the press, and intended to be published after his death: and accordingly his “Scheme of Scripture Divinity” was afterwards published by his son. Dr. Taylor deviated very early from the orthodox system, at first adopting the sentiments of Dr. Clarke on the subject of the Trinity, but became at last a Socinian, which Dr. Clarke was not. Gilbert Wakefield gives a singular character of Dr. Taylor: “The reader,” says Wakefield, “who is acquainted with the writings of this very learned, liberal, and rational divine, cannot fail to be impressed with sentiments highly favourable to the gentleness and forbearance of their author: for even the meekness of Christianity itself is exhibited in his prefaces and occasional addresses to the reader. But he was, in reality, a very peevish and angry disputant in conversation, and dictatorial even to intolerance. So imperfect a judgment may be formed of the mildness or asperity of any author from the correspondent quality of his writings.” But an authority, equally valid with that of Mr. Wakefield, praises Dr. Taylor’s “agreeable deportment in society, free from pedantry and superciliousness, and marked by kindness and affability;” yet Mr. Wakefield’s character of him is a curious document, as affording a perfect contrast to his own.

The learned world at Cambridge was at that time divided into two parties: the polite scholars and the philologists. The former, at the head of which were Gray, Mason, &c. superciliously confined all merit to their own circle, and looked down with fastidious contempt on the rest of the world. It is needless to observe that Dr. Taylor belonged to the latter class. Dr. Kurd, a member of the former, a writer of celebrity, and eminent for his attachment to Warburton, of whose “school” he was a distinguished disciple, in a most unjustifiable pamphlet, published the same year, 1755, and directed against the amiable and modest Jortin , steps out of his way to express his contempt of Taylor, which was but the prelude to a more severe attack from Warburton himself. Our author in his Elements bad expressed his opinioa that the persecutions which the first Christians experienced from the Roman emperors proceeded not from any peculiar disapprobation of their tenets, but from a jealousy entertained of their nocturnal assemblies. In expressing this opinion, Taylor did not mention, and perhaps did not even think of Warburton: but as the latter in his Divine Legation had derived these persecutions from another source, the absurdities of Pagan religion and the iniquities of Pagan politics; the holding, and much more the publishing, of a contrary notion by any contemporary was too great an offence for that haughty dogmatist to pass with impunity. His prefaces and notes were, as was wittily observed of him, the established places of execution for the punishment of all who did not implicitly adopt liis sentiments, and having occasion soon after (in 1758) to publish a new edition of that celebrated work, he seized that opportunity to chastise Taylor, with all the virulence, wit, and ingenuity of distortion, which he could command.

, an ancient Gretik orator and philosopher, whose eloquence procured him the name of Euphrades, was of Paphlagonia, and flourished in the fourth century His father, Eugenius, was a man of noble birth, and educated his son under his own care. After teaching philosophy twenty years at Constantinople, and acquiring a great reputation, he went to Rome, where the emperor offered any conditions if he would fix himself in that city; but he returned soon, and settled at Constantinople, where he married, and had children. Themistius was a peripatetic, and tells us in one of his orations that he had chosen Aristotle for the arbiter of his opinions, and the guide of his life; yet he was not so bigotted to this master, but that he was well versed in Plato, and was particularly studious of the diction and manner of this philosopher, as appears from his works. He had a great opinion of the necessity of sacrificing to the graces; and he says in another oration, “I often converse with the divine Plato, I live with Aristotle, and I am very unwillingly separated from Homer.”

Great encomiums have been bestowed upon this writer, particularly by Dupin, who asserts that “Of all the fathers who have composed works of different kinds, Theodoret is one of those who has succeeded the very best in every kind. Some have been excellent writers in matters of controversy, but bad interpreters of Scripture; others have been good historians, but bad divines; some have had good success in morality, who have had no skill in doctrinal points; those who have applied themselves to confute Paganism by their own principles and authors, have usually Lad little knowledge in the mysteries of our religion; and lastly, it is very rare for those. who have addicted themselves to works of piety to be good critics. Theodoret had all these qualities; and it may be said, that he has equally deserved the name of a good interpreter, divine, historian, writer in controversy, apologist for religion, and author of works of piety. But he hath principally excelled in his compositions on Holy Scripture, and has outdone almost all other commentators, according to the judgment of the learned Phqtius. His style, says that able critic, is veryproper for a commentary; for he explains, in just and significant terms, whatsoever is obscure and difficult in the text, and render* the mind more fit to read and understand it by the elegance of his style. He never wearies his reader with long digressions, but on the contrary labours to instruct him clearly, neatly, and methodically, in every thing that seems hard. He never departs from the purity and elegance of the Attic dialect, unless when he is obliged to speak of abstruse matters, to which the ears are not accustomed: for it is certain that he passes over nothing that needs explication; and it is almost impossible to find any interpreter who unfolds all manner of difficulties better, and teaves fewer things obscure. We may find many others who write elegantly and explain clearly, but we shall find few who have forgotten nothing which needed illustration, without being too diffuse, and without running out into digressions, at least such as are not absolutely necessary to clear the matter in hand. Yet this is what Theodoret has observed throughout his commentaries, in. which he hath opened the text admirably well by his accurate inquiries.” Other writers, however, have not expressed so high an opinion of Theodoret. Beausobre, in his History of the Manichees, says that “Theodoret is, in my opinion, one of the most valuable of the fathers. He is learned; he reasons well, especially in his dialogues against the Greek heresies of his times: he is a good literal interpreter of the Scriptures. I cannot help admiring his prudence and moderation, when I consider that he ended his Ecclesiastical History at the time when the Nestorian quarrels, in which he was so deeply interested, began. But, I fear, his zeal against heretics imposed upon him almost as much, as his admiration for the heroes of the ascetic life, with whom he was charmed. Monasteries have undoubtedly sent forth great men into the world, but these disciples of the monks contracted there in their youth a superstitious disposition, which is hardly ever thrown off; and the weak side of this able man seems to have been an excessive credulity.” In truth, Theodoret surpasses all other writers in admiration of monastic institutions, and is credulous beyond measure in subjects of that nature. Yet he was undoubtedly one of the most learned and best men in the Eastern church. His pacific conduct displeased the bigots, during the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, and because he inclined to healing methods, he was condemned at one of the synods, and was not without difficulty reinstated. “His works,” says Milner, “are large, on a variety of subjects; but they speak not for him equally with his life; and it will be sufficient to say, that his theology, with a stronger mixture of superstitioiij was of the same kind as that of Chrysostom. But his spirit was humble, heavenly, charitable; and he seems to have walked in the iaith, hope, and love of the gospel, a shining ornament in a dark age and country.”

The study of nature led Theon to many just conceptions concerning God, and to many useful reflections in the science of moral philosophy; hence, it is said, he wrote with great accuracy on divine providence. And he seems to have made it his standing rule, to judge the truth of certain principles, or sentiments, from their natural or necessary tendency. Thus, he says, that a full persuasion, that the Deity sees every thing we do, is the strongest incentive to virtue; for he insists, that the most profligate have power to refrain their hands, and hold their tongues, when they think they are observed, or overheard, by some person whom they fear or respect. “With how much more reason then,” says he, “should the apprehension and belief that God sees all things, restrain men from sin, and constantly excite them to their duty?” He also represents this belief concerning the Deity as productive of the greatest pleasure imaginable, especially to the virtuous, who might depend with greater confidence on the favour and protection of Providence. For this reason, he recommends nothing so much as meditation on the presence of God; and he recommended it to the civil magistrate, as a restraint on such as were profane and wicked, to have the following inscription written in large characters at the corner of every street: “God sees thee, O sinner.”

Theophrastus, although he held the first place among the disciples of Aristotle, did not so implicitly follow his master as to have no peculiar tenets of his own. In several particulars he deviated from the doctrine of Aristotle; and he made some material additions to the system of the Peripatetic school. He taught, that the predicaments, or categories, are as numerous as the motions and changes to which beings are liable; and that, among motions or changes are to be reckoned desires, appetites, judgments, and thoughts. In this opinion he deviated widely from Aristotle: for, if these actions of the mind are to be referred to motion, the first mover, in contemplating himself, is not immovable. He maintained, that all things are not produced from contraries; but some from contraries, some from similar causes, and some from simple energy: that motion i* not to he distinguished from action; and that there is one divine principle of all things, by which all things subsist. By this divine principle Tneophrastus probably meant the first Mover, without whom other things could not be moved, and therefore could not subsist.

An “Introduction to Puffendorf,” which Thomas published in 1687, in which he deduced the obligation of morality from natural principles, occasioned great offence, which he increased in the following year, by commencing a monthly journal which he called “Free Thoughts: or Monthly Dialogues on various books, chiefly new;” iti which he attacked many of his contemporaries with such severity, and probably with such injustice, that he -narrowly escaped punishment from the ecclesiastical court of Dresden. A charge also of contempt of religion was brought against him, but was not prosecuted. A satirical review, which he wrote, of a treatise “On the Divine right of Kings,” published by a Danish divine; “A Defence of the Sect of the Pietists,” and other satirical publications, at last excited the resentment of the clergy against Thomas, and he found it necessary to leave Leipsic, and by the permission of the elector of Brandenburgh, read private lectures in the city of Hall. After a short interval, he was appointed public professor of jurisprudence, first in Berlin, and afterwards at Hall. In these situations, he thought himself at full liberty to indulge his satirical humour, and to engage in the controversies of the times; and, as long as he lived, he continued to make use of this liberty in a manner which subjected him to much odium. He died at Hall in 1728.

Besides the satirical journal already mentioned, Thomas wrote several treatises on logic, morals, and jurisprudence; in which he advanced many dogmas contrary to received opinions. In his writings on physics, he leaves the ground of experiment and rational investigation, and appears among the mystics. His later pieces are in many particulars inconsistent with the former. His principal philosophical works are “An Introduction to Aulic Philosophy, of Outlines to the Art of Thinking and Reasoning;” “Introduction to Rational Philosophy;” “A Logical Praxis;” “Introduction to Moral Philosophy;” “A Cure for Irregular Passions, and the Doctrine of Self-Knowledge;” “The new Art of discovering the secret Thoughts of Men;” “Divine Jurisprudence;” “Foundations of the Law of Nature and Nations;” “Dissertation on the Crime of Magic;” “Essay on the Nature and Essence of Spirit, or Principles of Natural and Moral Science;” “History of Wisdom and Folly.”

“Perception is a passive affection, produced by some external object, either in the intellectual sense, or in the inclination of the will. Essence is that without which a thing cannot be perceived. God is not perceived by the intellectual sense, but by the inclination of the will: for creatures affect the brain; but God, the heart. All creatures are in God: nothing is exterior to him. Creation is extension produced from nothing by the divine power. Creatures are of two kinds, passive and active; the former is mattr r; the latter, spirit. Matter is dark and cold, and capable of being acted upon by spirit, which is light, warm, and active. Spirit may subsist without matter, but desires a union with it. All bodies consist of matter and spirit, and have therefore some kind of life. Spirit attracts spirit, and thus sensibly operates upon matter united to spirit. This attraction in man is called love; in other bodies, sympathy. A finite spirit may be cgnsidcred as a limited sphere in which rays, luminous, warm, and active, flow from a centre. Spirit is the region of the body to which it is united. The region of finite spirits is God. The human soul is a ray From the divine nature; whence it desires union with God, who is love. Since the essence of spirit consists in action, and of body in passion, spirit may exist without thought: of this kind are light, ether, and other active principles in nature.” Fortunately, says a very judicious writer, this jargon is as unintelligible as the categories of Kant, and the blasphemies of Spinosa.

The next morning being the feast of St. Bartholomew, the king went to hear mass at the popish chapel, built at his accession to the crown, on the east side of Foregatestreet, attended by the mayor and aldermen, whom, when they came to the gate of the chapel, his majesty asked if they would not go in with him; to which the mayor with a becoming spirit replied, “I think we have attended your majesty too far already.” This worthy magistrate, who preferred his religion, and duty to his country, to every other consideration, should have his name recorded in letters of gold: Dr. Nash took pains to find out who it was, and believed it to be either Thomas Bearcroft or Thomas Sherwin; the former was elected by the new charter, the Jatter by the old charter restored. Upon this answer made by the mayor, the king went into the popish chapel, and the mayor, with all the protestants who attended him, went to the college church, where, when divine service was ended, the bishop waited on his majesty till dinner came in, and the meat being set on the table he offered to say grace; but the king was pleased to say that he would spare him that trouble, for he had a chaplain of his own, upon which the good old man withdrew, not without tears in his eyes. As soon as the dinner was over, his majesty proceeded in his progress to Ludlow, having expressed himself well pleased with the attendance of the gentlemen of the county, and his entertainment by the bishop, which, his lordship says in a private letter to a friend, though very chargeable to him, yet he did not grudge it, as he hoped he had done the church some credit by it. The white broad

He published in his life-time, “An Apology for the Church of England, 1678-9,” 8vo. “A Sermon preached at Caermarthen Assizes,” printed in 1657. “The Mammon of Unrighteousness,”, a sermon preached at the cathedral church of Worcester when he was in a very languishing state of health. His “Letter to the Clergy,” and an imperfect work, entitled “Roman Oracles silenced,” were published after his death. All these shew him to have been a good bishop and industrious divine, but not a writer of parts or genius; his style is harder and more antiquated than that of most writers of his time; but his matter shews the simplicity and humility of his heart; for meekness and unaffected humility were his chief ornaments. These rendered him peaceable and quiet, patient of contradiction, and contented in all conditions, the same easy man when sequestered as when bishop and with the same easy- tranquillity and cheerfulness of mind he prepared to lay down his bishopric, as in his younger years he had done his vicarage. He was never known to have been in a passion. When he was dean of Worcester, one of the prebendaries in chapter fell into a sudden and violent emotion upon no great provocation, which made the dean say to him. “Brother, brother, God give you more patience.” To which the angry gentleman replied, “Mr. Dean, Mr. Dean, God give you more passion.” The good man made no reply, but by a smile. His memory was very good, for though he penned his sermons with great' accuracy, yet he always delivered them memoriter. He was of a stature somewhat tall anci slender, of a long visage, his forehead large, his countenance graceful, and his aspect venerable. The constitution of his body in his younger years was strong and healthful, though afterwards much broken by frequent infirmities, particularly the gout; to frequent and violent fits of which he was subject for upwards of four and twenty years: and that disorder would much sooner have brought him to an end, if it had not been checked by his great temperance and repeated abstinence.

, a learned French divine, was born Aug. 28, 1619, at Aix in Provence, of a good and ancient family, and admitted at the age of fourteen into the congregation of the oratory, where he had been educated. After teaching ethics in his congregation, and philosophy, he was appointed professor of divinity at Saumur, and introduced in his school the method of treating theological subjects according to the scriptures, the fatheri, and councils. Being invited to Paris in 1654, he began to bold conferences of positive theology in the seminary of St. Magloire, according to the method he had adopted it Saumur, and continued them till 166S, at which time his superiors and several eminent prelates persuaded him to give the fruits of his labours to the public. He complied, and afterwards became so celebrated by his works, that pope Innocent XI. endeavoured to draw him to Koine, with an intention of giving him a cardinal’s hat, and making use of his talents; but the king of France replied that so learned a man was necessary in his dominions. The French clergy gave him a pension of Jooo livres, which the poor always shared with him. He was mild, modest, active, agreeable in his manners, and very assiduous in all his pursuits. He died December 25, 1695, aged seventyseven. His principal works are: 1. A large treatise on “Ecclesiastical Discipline,” reprinted 1725, 3 vols. fol. in French; of which he, made a Latin translation, reprinted also in 1706, 3 vols. fol. This work is highly praised by persons in the catholic community. 2. “Theological Dogmas,” 1680, 3 torn. fol. in Latin. 3. “Tracts on the Divine office, 8 vo; on the Feasts, 8vo; on the Fasts, 8 vo; on Truth and Falsehood, 8vo; on Alms, 8vo on Trade and on Usury, 8vo; 4.” Tr. dogmatique des Moyens dont on s’est servi dans tous les terns pour maintenir Tunite de i'Eglise,“1703, 3 vols. 4to. To these may be added,” Directions for studying and teaching philosophy in a Christian manner,“8vo the same” for the profane historians,“8vo; apian of the same kind for grammar or the languages with relation to the Holy Scriptures, 2 vols. 8vo;” A Universal Hebrew Glossary,“printed at the Louvre, 1697, fol.” Dissertations on the Councils,“in Latin, 1667, 1 vol. 4to;” Memoires sur la Grace," 1682, 4to, &c. His Life, written by father Bordes, is prefixed to his Hebrew Glossary.

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, was educated in Trinity-college, in the university of Cambridge, of which he was fellow. In 1638 he was proctor of that university. In July 1642 he was admitted to the rectory of Barley in Hertfordshire and, upon the death of Dr. Samuel Ward, in September 1643, he was elected master of Sidney-college in Cambridge, from which, Dr. Walker says, he was kept out “by the oppressions of the times;” but there was also somewhat of court-intrigue in this affair, as related in Walter Pope’s life of bishop Ward. He tells us, that upon the death of the latter, the fellows of the college assembled to choose a new master. “Mr. Seth Ward, with nine of them, gave their suffrages for Mr. Thorndike of Trinity-college; for Mr. Minshull there were eight votes including his own. But while they were at the election, a band of soldiers rushed in upon them, and forcibly carried away Mr. Parsons, one of those fellows who voted for Mr. Thorndike, so that the number of suffrages for Mr. Minshull, his own being accounted for one, was equal to those Mr. Thorndike had. Upon which Mr. Minshull was admitted master, the other eight only protesting against it, being ill-advised, for they should have adhered to their votes. Two of them, whereof Mr. Ward was one, went to Oxford, and brought thence a mandamus from the king, commanding Mr. Minshull, and the fellows of Sidney-college, to repair thither, and give an account of their proceedings as to that election. This mandamus, or peremptory summons, was fixed upon the chapel-door by Mr. Linnet, who was afterwards a fellow of Trinity-college, but at that time attended on Mr. Thorndike. On the other side, one Mr. Bertie, a kinsman of the earl of Lindsey, being one of those who voted for Mr. Minshull, was also sent to Oxford on his behalf. This gentleman, by the assistance and mediation of my lord of Lindsey, procured an order from the king to confirm Mr. Minshull’s election; but he, not thinking this title sufficient, did corroborate it with the broad seal, to which Mr. Thorndike consented, Mr. Minshull paying him and the rest of the fellows the charges they had been at in the management of that affair,amounting to about an hundred pounds.” This was therefore evidently a matter in which “the oppressions of the times” (which are usually understood to mean those which arose from the usurpation) were not concerned. He was, however, afterwards, to experience the latter also, and was ejected from his living of Barley, which was given to the rev. Nath. Ball of King’s college, Cambridge, who, Calamy informs us, punctually paid a fifth part of the income to Mr. Thorndike. At the restoration he was replaced in this living, but resigned it on being made a prebendary of Westminster. He very much assisted Dr. Walton in the edition of the Polyglot Bible, particularly in marking the variations in the Syriac version of the Old Testament; and wrote several treatises: “A Discourse concerning the primitive Forme of the Government of Churches,” Cambridge, 1641, 8vo; “A Discourse of Religious Assemblies and the Publike Service of God,” Cambridge, 1642, 8vo; “A Discourse of the Right of the Church in a Christian State, with a Review by way of Appendix,” London, 1649, 8vo; “Just Weights and Measures; that is, the present State of Religion weighed in the Balance, and measured by the Standard of the Sanctuary,” London, 1662, 4to; “A Discourse of the Forbearance of the Penalties, which a due Reformation requires,” London, 1670, 8vo; “Origines Ecclesiae, seu de ratione ac jure finiendi Controversias Ecclesise,” Lond. 1670. To these we may add, what is called his famous book, published in 1659, under the title of “An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England, in three books, viz. 1. Of the Principles of Christian Truth. 2. Of the Covenant of Grace. 3. Of the Laws of the Church.” By a letter from chancellor Hyde, in the appendix to Dr. Barwick’s Life, it would appear that this work had given offence, as being unseasonable and injudicious. Hyde says, “Pray tell me, what melancholy hath possessed poor Mr. Thorndike? And what do our friends think of his book? And is it possible that he would publish it, without ever imparting it, or communicating with them? His name and reputation in learning is too much made use of, to the discountenance of the poor church; and though it might not be in his power to be without some doubts and scruples, I do not know what impulsion of conscience there could be to publish those doubts to the world, in a time when he might reasonably believe the worst use would be made, and the greatest scandal proceed from them.” This seems to allude to some opinions he held that were unfavourable to the measures of the court: and we find that there was some difficulty in admitting him into the convocation in 1661, “on account of his speaking much of the Bohemian churches, called Unitas Fratrum.” He was a member of the Savoy conference, and in the little he said completely undeceived the non-conformists, who, from his early publications, had supposed he was of their side. There was also a suspicion that he had a little too much leaning to the church of Rome, so that his character has not descended to us with all the evidences of consistency; but that he was a man of great learning, and an able oriental scholar, seems indisputable.

, a natural historian, was born May 31, 1676, at Keiberg, in the parish of Kirkoswald in Cumberland. In 1698 he commenced master of arts in the university of Glasgow, and soon after settled at Low Huddlesceugh, near the place of his birth, in the character of a dissenting minister. In this situation he made a considerable progress in the study of physic, and contracted a love for plants; insomuch, that in 1712, he took a doctor’s degree in medicine at Edinburgh and the next spring, having- a narrow income, and a large family, he removed to Dublin and settled there in both characters, as a divine and a physician. His family, consisting of a wife and three sons, and as many daughters, did not follow till more than a year had elapsed; when, finding himself likely to succeed, he sent for them over. His practice <in medicine soon increased, so far as to enable him to drop his other character entirely, and devote himself wholly to physic; but he died after a short sickness of a violent fever, at hia house in Mark Valley, Frances-street, April 28, 1728, and was buried in the new burial ground belonging to St. Patrick’s, near Cavan Street, to which place his obsequies were attended by a set of children educated by a society t)f gentlemen. He was much regretted by the poor, to whom he had been both as a man, and as a physician, a kind benefactor.

, a learned protestant divine of the French church, was born at Goldberg in Silesia, Feb*4, 1563. He came into France about 1590, and was naturalized by Henry IV. He at first distinguished himself as an opponent of the tenetsof Arminius, but afterwards changed his opinion, and enlisted on the side of the remonstrants. His principal controversy was with Peter Du Moulin, which was carried on with so much warmth, that those who were friends to the peace of the church, and admired both writers for their respective excellencies, interposed to reconcile them, or put a stop to the dispute. James I. of England, among others, wrote a letter in 1614 to the synod of Tonneins on this subject, which with the answer and proceedings of that assembly, may be seen in Quick’s “Synodicon,” vol. I. Tilenus had, before this, been appointed by the mareschal de Bouillon, to be professor at the college of Sedan, which de Bouillon had founded, but about 1619, or 1620, Tilenus was obliged to resign in consequence of persisting in his peculiar sentiments, and came to Paris, where he lived on his property. He afterwards had a personal controversy at a country house near Orleans, with John Cameron, divinity professor at Saumur, concerning the subject of grace and free will. This lasted five days, and an account of it was published, under the title of “Collatio inter Tilenum & Cameronem, &c.” (See Cameron). Some time after, Tilenus addressed a letter to the Scotch nation, disapproving of the presbyterian, and commending the episcopal form of the reformed church, as established in England. This pleased king James so much, who hated presbyterianism, that he invited the author to England, where he received him very graciously, and offered him a pension. Tilenus accepted the offer, and only begged leave to return to France to settle his affairs; but his character becoming by some means obnoxious in this country, he was discouraged from returning, and died at Paris, Aug. 1, 163S. His latter days were spent in defending the Arminian tenets against the reformed church of France, and he wrote several books, the titles of which may now be dispensed with, but may be found in our authorities.

His first education and impressions were among Puritans; from whose principles he gradually seceded, and is said to have felt a great repugnance to read the works usually put into the hands of youth. Mr. Chillingworth’s works are said to have first given his mind a new bias, and dire. -ted Dim to a new method of study, and about the same time he entered into friendship with some great men, which contributed not a little to give him new views of theological matters. Cambridge then could boast of the celebrated names of Dr Cudworth, master of Christ’s-colle^e; Dr. More, and Dr. Rust, afterwards bishop of Dromore in Ireland, fellows of the same Dr. Whichcot, provost of King’s; Dr. Worthington, master of Jesus and Mr. John Smith, author of the “Select Discourses,” fellow of Queen’s. Tillotson enjoyed also a close and intimate friendship with Dr. Wilkins, afterwards bishop of Chester; he adopted all the best studies of this great man, but so as to perfect every one of them; for, though Wilkins had more general knowledge, yet Tillotson was the greater divine.

In 1656, Tillotson left his college, and went upon invitation to Edmund Prideaux, esq. of Ford-abbey in Devonshire, to be tutor to his son. Prideaux had been commissioner of the great seal under the long parliament, and was then attorney-general to the protector Cromwell. How long he continued in this Station does not appear;, but he was in London at the time of Cromwell’s death, Sept. 3, 1658; and was present about a week after at a very remarkable scene in Whitehall palace, which we have already related from Burnet in our account of Dr. Owen. The time of his going into orders, and by whom he was ordained, are particulars not known. Some have supposed, that he was curate to Dr. Wilkins at St. Lawrence Jewry, before the restoration; but Wilkins was not admitted to that vicarage till 1662. The first sermon of his that appeared in print was in Sept. 1661: it was preached at the morning exercise at Cripplegate, on “Matth. vii. 12.” and published among a collection with that title, but not admitted among his works till the edition of 1752. At the time of preaching this sermon he was still among the Presbyterians, whose commissioners he attended, thou. h as an auditor only, at the conference held at the Savoy for the review of the Liturgy, in July 1661 but he immediately submitted to the act of uniformity, which commenced on St. Bartholomew’s-day the year following. Upon thus becoming a preacher in the church, he was very little disposed to follow the patterns then set him, or indeed of former times; and therefore formed one to himself, which was long esteemed as a model. He certainly began his course of divinity with the true foundation of it, an exact study of the Scriptures, on which he spent four or five years. He then applied himself to the reading ol all the ancient philosophers and writers upon ethics, and among the fathers chiefly St. Basil and St. Chry*.ostom, with Episcopius among the moderns, whom he made the pattern both of his principles and eloquence. With these preparations, he set himself to compose the greatest variety of sermons that any divine had yet undertaken.

As good sense, sound reasoning, and profound knowledge, justly entitled archbishop Tillotson to the character of a great and excellent divine, so copiousness of style, and ease of composition, have made him also esteemed and admired as an orator. Yet a polite writer of our own country, Melmoth, in “Fitzosborne’s Letters,” cannot allow this to him, but, on the contrary, “thinks that no man had ever less pretensions to genuine oratory, than this celebrated preacher. One cannot indeed but regret,” says he, “that Dr. Tillotson, who abounds with such noble and generous sentiments, should want the art of setting them off with all the advantage they deserve; that the sublime in morals should not be attended with a suitable elevation of language. The truth, however, is, his words are frequently ill chosen, and almost always ill placed; his periods are both tedious and unharmonious; as his metaphors are generally mean, and often ridiculous.” He imputes this chiefly to his “having had no sort of notion of rhetorical numbers,” which seems, indeed, to have been in some measure the case and, as far as this can detract from the character of a complete orator, it is necessary to make some abatement: yet there is certainly great copiousness, and, as this gentleman allows, “a noble simplicity,” in his discourses. As for his language, notwithstanding some exceptionable passages with regard to the use of metaphors, incident to the best authors, Dryden frequently owned with pleasure, that, if he had any talent for English prose (as certainly he had a very great one), it was owing to his having often read the writings of archbishop Tillotson. Addison likewise considered Tiltotson’s writings as the chief standard of our language and accordingly marked the particular pbrases in the sermons published during his life-time, as the ground-work of an English dictionary, which he had projected. But there are some very just sentiments of Tillotson in one of Warbiirton’s letters, which deserve more attention. Tillotson, Warburton says, “was certainly a virtuous, pious, humane, and moderate man, which last quality was a kind of rarity in those times. His notions of civil society were but confused and imperfect, as appears in the affair of lord Russel. As to religion, he was among the class of latitudinarian divines. I think the sermons published in Iris life-time are fine moral discourses. They bear indeed the character of their author, simple, elegant, candid, clear, and rational. No orator in the Greek and Roman sense of the word, like Taylor; nor a discourser in their sense, like Barrow: free from their irregularities, but not able to reach their heights. On which account I prefer them infinitely to him. You cannot sleep with Taylor; you cannot forbear thinking with Barrow. But you may be much at your ease in the mi^lst of a long lecture from Tillotson: clear, and rational, and equable as he is. Perhaps the last quality may account for it.”

, an English deistical writer, was the son of a clergyman of Beer-ferres, in Devonshire, and born about 1657. He became a commoner of Lincoln college, m Oxford, in 1672, where he had the famous Dr. Hickes for his tutor, and thence removed to Exeter college. In 1676 he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and was afterwards elected fellow of All Souls college In 1679 he took a bachelor of laws degree; and in July 1685, became a doctor in that faculty. In the reign of James II. he declared himself a Roman catholic, but afterwards renounced that religion. Wood says that he did not return to the protestant religion till after that king had left the nation; but, according to his own account, he returned to it before that memorable epocha. In 1694 he published, at London, in 4to, “An Esay concerning obedience to the supreme powers, and the duty of subjects iti all revolutions; with some considerations touching the present juncture of affairs;” and “An Essay concerning the Laws of Nations and the right of sovereigns,” &c. He published also some other pamphlets on the same subjects, particularly one concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and the Athanasian. creed; but was first particularly noticed for a publication which came out in 1706, v\itn this title, “The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, against the Romish and all other priests, who claim an independent power over it; with a preface concerning the government of the Church of England, as by law established,” 8vo. Tindal was aware of the. offence this work would give, and even took some pleasure in it; for, as Dr. Hickes relates, he told a gentleman who found him at it with pen in hand, that “he was writing a book which would make the clergy mad.” Perhaps few books were ever published which they more resented; and, accordingly, numbers among them immediately wrote against it. 'Among the most distinguished of his answerers were, I. “The Rights of the Clergy in the Christian Church asserted in a sermon preached at Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire, Sept. 2, 1706, at the primary visitation of the right reverend father in God, William lord bishop of Lincoln; by W. Wotton, B. D.” II. “The second pa/t of the Wolf stripped of Shepherd’s cloa thing, in answer to a late book entitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, published at London in March,” 1707. III. “Two treatises, one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the dignity of the Episcopal Order, formerly written, and npw published to obviate the erroneous opinions, fallacious reasonings, and bold and false assertions, in a late book entitled The Rights of the Christian Church; with a large prefatory discourse, wherein is contained an Answer to the said book; all written by George Hickes, D. D.” London, 1707. IV. “A thorough examination of the false principles and fallacious arguments advanced against the Christian Church, Priesthood, and Religion, in a late pernicious book, ironically entitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, &c. in a dialogue between Demas and Hierarcha: humbly offered to the consideration of the nobility and gentry of England; by Samuel Hill, rector of Kilmington, and archdeacon of Wells.” London, 1707, 8vo. V. “Three short treatises, viz. 1. A modest plea for the Clergy, &c. 2. A Sermon of the Sacerdotal Benediction, &c. 3. A Discourse published to undeceive the people in point of Tithes, &c. formerly printed, and now again published, by Dr. George Hickes, in defence of the priesthood and true rights of the church against the slanderous and reproachful treatment of The Rights of the Christian Church,” London, 1709, 8vo. VI. “Adversaria; or truths opposed to some of the falsehoods contained in a book called The Rights of the Christian Church asserted,” c.; by Conyers Place, M. A. London, 1709, 8vo. VII. “A Dialogue between Timothy and Philatheus in which the principles and projects of a late whimsical book entitled The Rights of the Christian Church, &c. are fairly stated, and answered in their kinds, &c. written by a layman,” London, 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Oldisworth was the author. Swift also wrote “Remarks” on Tindal’s book, which are in his works, but were left unfinished by the author. But, whatever disturbance this work might create at home, and whatever prejudices it might raise against its author, among the clergy of the church of England, some of the protestants abroad judged very differently, and even spoke of it in terms of approbation and applause. Le Clerc gave an account of it in his “Bibliotheque choisie,” which begins in these words: “We hear that this book has made a great noise in England, and it is not at all surprising, since the author attacks, with all his might, the pretensions of those who are called highchurchmen; that is, of those who carry the rights of bishops so far as to make them independent in ecclesiastical affairs of prince and people, and who consider everything that has been done to prevent the dependence of the laity on bishops, as an usurpation of the laics against divine right. I am far from taking part in any particular disputes, which the learned of England may have with one another, concerning the independent power and authority of their bishops, and farther still from desiring to hurt in any way the church of England, which I respect and honour as the most illustrious of all protestant churches; but I am persuaded that the wise and moderate members of this church can never be alarmed at such a book as this, as if the church was actually in danger. I believe the author, as himself says, had no design against the present establishment, which he approves^ but only against some excessive pretensions, which are even contrary to the laws of the land, ana* to the authority of the king and parlialiament. As I do not know, nor have any connection with him, I have no particular interest to serve by defending him, and I do not undertake it. His book is too full of matter for me to give an exact abridgment of it, and they who understand English will do well to read the original: they have never read a book so strong and so supported in favour of the principles which protestants on this side the water hold in common.”

The lower house of convocation, in queen Anne’s reign, thought that such a character of “The Rights of the Christian Church,” &c. from a man of Le Clerc’s reputation for parts and learning, must have no small influence in recommending the book, and in suggesting favourable notions of the principles advanced in it; and therefore, in their representation of the present state of religion, they judged it expedient to give it this turn, namely, “that those infidels” (meaning Tindal and others) “have procured abstracts and commendations of their own profane writings, and probably drawn up by themselves, to be inserted in foreign journals, and that they have translated them into the English tongue, and published them here at home, in order to add the greater weight to their wicked opinions.” Hence a notion prevailed in England, that Le Clerc had been paid for the favourable account he gave of Tindal’s book; upon which he took occasion to declare, in a subsequent journal, that there never was a greater falsehood, and protests as an honest man before God, “that, for making mention of that or any other hook, he had never had either promise or reward.*' It will easily be imagined that, in the course of this controversy, Dr. Tindal’s antagonists would object to him his variableness and mutability in matters of religion, and insult him not a little upon his Hrst apostatizing to the chjirch of Rome, upon the prospect of a national conversion to Popery, and then, at the revolution, reverting to Protestantism. To <his he replied, that” Coming, as most boys do, a rasa tabula to the university, and believing (his country education teaching him no better) that all human and divine knowledge was to be had there, he quickly fell into the then prevailing notions of the high and independent powers of the clergy; and meeting with none, during his long stay there, who questioned the truth of them, they by degrees became so fixed and riveted in him, that he no more doubted of them than of his own being: and he perceived not the consequence of them, till the Roman emissaries (who were busy in making proselytes in the university in king James*s time, and knew how to turn the weapons of high church against them) caused him to see, that, upon these notions, a separation from the church of Rome could not be justified; and that they who pretended to answer them as to those points, did only shuffle, or talk backward and forward. This made him, fur some small time, go to the Popish mass-house; till meeting, upon his going into the world, with people who treated that notion of the independent power as it deserved, and finding the absurdities of Popery to be much greater at hand than they appeared at a distance, he began to examine the whole matter with all the attention he was capable of; and then he quickly found, and was surprised at the discovery, that all his till then undoubted maxims were so far from having any solid foundation, that they were built on as great a contradiction as can be, that of two independent powers in the same society. Upon this he returned, as he had good reason, to the church of England, which he found, by examining into her constitution, disclaimed all that independent power he had been bred up in the belief of; Candlemas 1687-8 being the last time he saw any of the Popish tricks, the very next opportunity (namely, Easter) he publicly received the sacrament (the warden giving it him first) in his college chapel, &c. And thus having made his escape from errors which prejudice of education had drawn him into, he resolved to take nothing on trust for the future; and, consequently, his notions concerning our civil, as well as religious liberties, became very different from those in which he was educated.“What Dr. Tindal says here may be true; yet it is observable, that his conversion to Popery, and re-conversion to Protestantism, lay between February 1685, and February 1688, that is, between the twenty-seventh and thirtieth, year of his age; and many will be ready to suspect, that a man of his reasoning and inquiring turn must, before then, have been too much fixed and settled in his principles, either to be a dupe of Popish missionaries, or then to discover first the absurdity and falsehood of fundamental principles. In the mean time he endeavoured to defend his work, in a” Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church against a late visitation sermon, entitled The Rights of the Clergy in the Christian Church asserted, preached at Newport- Pagnell in the county of Bucks by W. Wotton, B. D. and made public at the command and desire of the bishop of Lincoln, and the clergy of the deaneries of Buckingham and Newport,“London, 1707, in 8vo, and in his” Second Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church, occasioned by two late indictments against a bookseller and his servant for selling one of thf said books. In a Letter from a- gentleman in London to a clergyman in the country. To which are added two tracts of Hugo Grotius on these questions; I. Whether the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper may be administered where there are no pastors? II. Whether it be necessary at all times to communicate with the Symbols? As also some tracts of Mr. John Hales of Eaton, viz. Of the Lord’s Supper, the Power of the Keys, of Schism, &c.“London, 1707, in 8vo. In 1709 he published at London in 8vo, a pamphlet entitled,” New High Church turned old Presbyterian“and in 1710 several pamphlets, viz.” An High Church Catechism;“” The jacobitism, perjury, and popery of High Church Priests;“”The merciful judgments of 'High Church-triumphant on offending clergymen and others in the reign of Charles I.“In 1711 and 1712 he published at London in 8vo,” The Nation vindicated from the aspersions cast on it in a late pamphlet entitled, A representation of the present State of Religion, with regard to the late excessive growth of infidelity, heresy, and profaneness, as it passed the Lower House of convocation,“in two parts. In 1713, and some following years he published several other pamphlets, mostly political, which attracted more or less attention, but are now forgotten. He had hitherto passed for an enemy to the church of England, but was soon determined to show himself equally hostile to revealed religion, and in 1730, published in 4to, his” Christianity as old as the Creation, or the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature.“It might have been expected from the title of this book, that his purpose was to prove the Gospel perfectly agreeable to the law of nature; to prove, that it has set the principles of natural religion in the clearest light, and was intended to publish and confirm it anew, after it had been very much obscured and defaced through the corruption ct mankind. We should be further confirmed in this supposition from his acknowledging, that” Christianity itself, stripped of the additions which policy, mistake, and the circumstances of time, have made to it, is a most holy religion, and that all its doctrines plainly speak themselves to be the will of an infinitely wise and good God:“for this, and several declarations of a similar nature, he makes in his work; and accordingly distinguishes himself and his friends with the title of” Christian Deists.“Yet whoever examines his book attentively will find, that this is only plausible appearance, intended to cover his real design; which was to set aside all revealed religion, by showing, that there neither is, nor can be, any external revelation at all, distinct from what he calls” the external revelation of the law of nature in the hearts of all mankind;“and accordingly his refuters, the most considerable of whom was Dr. Conybeare, afterwards bishop of Bristol, Foster, and Leland, have very justly treated him as a Deist. It appears from a letter written by the rev. Mr. Jonas Proast to Dr. Hickes, and printed in Hickes’s” Preliminary Discourse“cited above, that Tindal espoused this principle very early in life; and that he was known to espouse it long before even his” Rights of the Christian Church" was published. The letter bears date the 2d of July, 1708, and is in the following terms:

, D.D. a learned English divine, was born in 1658, at Blencow in Cumberland, became a poor scholar of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1672, and when B. A. taberdar of that house. He was elected fellow of University college, Dec. 23, 1678; and proceeding M. A. July 2, 1679, became chaplain to Dr. Smith, bishop of Carlisle. He was appointed one of the four canon residentiaries of Carlisle, in 1635; and the same year obtained the vicarage of Stanwix, which he resigned in 1688. He accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. Dec. 12, 1692. By a petition presented to the House of Commons by Dr. Todd, requesting to be heard by counsel before the bill “to dvoid doubts and questions touching statutes, &c.” should pass, it appears that “the bishop of Carlisle (Dr. Nicolson) had cited the dean and chapter before him in his visitation held at Carlisle in September 1707, and exhibited articles tof inquiry against them; and the petitioner appeared, and entered his protest against the bishop’s power, being informed, the right of local visitor was in the crown; but the said bishop, in an illegal manner, suspended the petitioner ab officio et beneficio, and afterwards excommunicated him.” The apprehensions of Dr. Todd were, that, if the bill should pass, it would “subject him to further inquiries and arbitrary censures of the bishop in his visitations.” The bill passed the Commons, with some amendments, March 17, and received the royal assent March 20, 1708. He resigned his residentiaryship in 1720, which was then given to Dr. Tullie, and died vicar of Penrith in 1728. He was also rector of Arthuret at the time of his death. His publications are, “The description of Sweden,” 1680, folio; “An Account of a Salt-spring and another medicinal spring on the banks of the river Weare, or Ware, in the bishopric of Durham,” 1684, Phil. Trans. No. 163; and “The Life of Phocion,” 1684. He left also in ms “Notitia EcclesiiE Cathedralis Carliolensis una cum Catalogo Priorum, dum Conventualis erat, & Decanorum & Canonicorum quum Collegiata. Notitia Prioratus de Wedderhall cum Catalogo omnium Benefactorum qui ad ambas has sacras Ædes stfuendas, dotandas, & ornandas, pecuniam, terras & ornamenta, vel aliqua alia beneficia, pie & munifice contulerunt.” These two were written in 1688, and dedicated by the author to the dean and chapter of Carlisle. They are now in the Lambeth library. He left also in ms. “A History of the Diocese of Carlisle, containing an. account of the Parishes, Abbeys, Nunneries, Churches, Monuments, Epitaphs, Coats of Arms, Founders, Benefactors, &c. with a perfect catalogue of the Bishops, Priors, Deans, Chancellors, Arch-deacons, Prebendaries, and of all Rectors and Vicars of the several Parishes in the said Diocese,” 1689. He was also one of the translators of Plutarch’s Morals, and of Cornelius Nepos. By Ballard’s ms letters in the Bodleian library it appears, that Dr. Todd sent achartulary of Fountains Abbey to the University college library and that he was solicited by Dr. Hickes to assist in publishing some Saxon books .

He seems now to have quitted politics, and to have betaken himself, in a great measure, to learned and theological inquiries; for, in 1718, he published a work of about one hundred and fifty pages in 8vo, with this long title, “Nazarenus or Jewish, Gentile, or Mahometan Christianity containing the history of the ancient Gospel of Barnabas, and the modern Gospel of the Mahometans, attributed to the same apostle, this last Gospel being now first made known among Christians. Also, the original plan of Christianity occasionally explained in the Nazarenes, whereby divers controversies about this divine (but highly perverted) institution may be happily terminated. With the relation of an Irish manuscript of the four Gospels, as likewise a summary of the ancient Irish Christianity, and the reality of the Keldees (an order of lay religious) against the two last bishops of Worcester.” We make no observation upon this work: the reader knows enough of Toland to conclude that it was not written with any friendly view to revelation. He published the same year “The Destiny of Rome; or, the speedy and final destruction of the Pope,” &c.

, an Italian prelate and biographer, was born at Padua, Nov. 17, 1597, of a noble family, originally of Lucca. He was instructed in Greek, Latin, and logic, by the learned divine and lawyer, Benedetti, of Legnano, and afterwards entered the congregation of the regular canons of St. George, in Alga, where he studied philosophy and theology, and received the degree of doctor in the latter faculty at Padua, in 1619. He would then have made profession, but the rules of the congregation not permitting it, he employed himself in the composition of his various works. At length his merit advanced him to the first situations in his order; and when he went to Rome, as visitor, he was very favourably received by many persons of eminence, and especially by pope Urban VIII. who would have appointed him to a bishopric in the island of Candy, but at his own request this was exchanged for the see of Citta Nuova, in Istria, to which he was consecrated in 1642. Study and the care of his diocese occupied the whole of his time until his death in 1654, in the fifty-seventh year of his age.

His publications were, 1. “The Church of England vindicated from the charge of Arminianism; and the case of Arminian Subscription particularly considered; in a Letter to the rev. Dr. Nowell,” 1769. 2. “The Doctrine of absolute Predestination stated and asserted; with a preliminary discourse on the Divine Attributes: translated in great measure, from the Latin of Jerom Zanchius; with some account of his Life prefixed,” 1769. 3. “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, relative to his pretended abridgment of Zanchius on Predestination,” 1770, 2d edit. 1771. 4. “A Caveat against unsound Doctrines: a Sermon preached at Blackfryars, April 29, 1770.” 5. “Jesus seen of Angels; and God’s mindfulness of man: three Sermons, preached at Broad Hembury, Devon, Dec. 25, 1770.” 6. “Free Thoughts on the projected Application to Parliament for the Abolition of Ecclesiastical Subscriptions,” 1771. 7. “More work for Mr. John Wesley: or a vindication of the Decrees and Providence of God from the defamations of a late printed paper, entitled ' The Consequence proved/ 1772.” 8. “Clerical Subscription no grievance: a Sermon, preached at the annual Visitation of the archdeaconry of Exeter, May 12, 1772.” 9. “Historical Proof of the Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England,” 1774, 2 vols. 8vo. 10. “Free-will and merit fairly examined; or men not their own Saviours: a Sermon preached at Blackfryars, May 25, 1774.” 11. “Good News from Heaven or, the Gospel a joyful sound a Sermon, preached at the Lock-chapel, June 19, 1774.” 12. “The scheme of Christian and Philosophical necessity asserted, in answer to Mr. John Wesley’s tract on that subject,” 1775. 13. “Joy in Heaven, and the Creed of Devils: two Sermons, preached in London,” 1775. 14. “Moral and Political Moderation recommended” a Sermon, preached on the general fast, Dec. 13, 1776. 15. “Collection of hymns for public and private worship,” 1776. 16. “His dying avowal, dated Knightsbridge,” July 22, 177S. Since his death, a complete edition of his Works has been printed in 6 vols. 8vo, besides a volume of posthumous pieces, concerning the authenticity of which some doubts had been entertained, but these were removed by a letter from his executor, Mr. Hussey of Kensington, to whom he gave permission to publish them. How far this was done with judgment has been doubted. It is certain that some of Mr. Toplady’s posthumous works have placed his character in a different point of view from that in which his followers and admirers were wont to contemplate it.

, a celebrated Dominican, better known by the name of Turrecremata, was born in 1388, of an illustrious family at Valladolid. He attended the council of Constance in 1417, was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne in 1429, held some important offices in his order, and became master of the sacred palace. Pope EugeniusIV. sent him to the council of Basil, where he strenuously supported the court of Rome. He was created cardinal in 1439, did oreat services to his order, and died at Rome, September 26, 14-68, aged eighty. His works are, “Commentaries on Gratian’s Decretal,” Venice, 157S, 5 torn. a treatise “On the Church and the Papal Authority,” Venice, 1562, fol. “Expositio super toto Psalterio,” Rome, 1470, 4to, reprinted in 1472, and at Mentz in 1474 “Medltatione*,” Rome, 1467, often reprinted in the same century, and all now of great rarity. He wrote also various others in Latin, in which, says L'Avocat, he servilely defends the Ultramontane opinions, like a slave to the court of Rome, rather than like an impartial divine, and a bishop. He was unquestionably an excessive bigot, and of a most persecuting spirit. Father Touron has written his life.

, a learned protestant divine, was born at Montbeillard, then belonging to the dukes of Wirtemberg, July 15, 1541. His father, Peter Toussain, who was minister of that place, had formerly been a canon of Metz, but afterwards embraced the reformed religion, and was employed by George duke of Wirtemberg to introduce it at Montbeillard, which he did with great effect until his death in 1573, in his seventy-fourth year. His latter days were embittered by the loss of two of his sons, one of whom was assassinated at Montbeillard, and the other perished in the massacre at Paris in 1572.

His son Paul, also a divine of much learning and reputation in his time, published a life of his father, “Vita et obitus Danielis Tossani,” &c. Heidelberg, 1603, 4to, with various other works, mostly of the controversial kind, and a translation of Luther’s Bible with notes, ibid. 1617, folio. These notes were attacked by the Lutheran divines, and defended by the author in an “Apologia pro suis notis Biblicis, &c.” 1618, 4to. He published also a “Lexicon Concordantiale Biblicum, &c.” of which there have been several editions, the last at Francfort in 1687, folio. He died in 1629. His father’s works, in German and Latin, amountto many volumes 4to and folio, principally commentaries on various parts of the Bible, and defences of particular doctrines of the reformed church. A list may be seen in any of our authorities.

, a pious French divine, was born April 30, 1640, at Rouen, of poor parents, but the inclination for learning which he discovered from his childhood, induced M. du Fosse, maitre des comptes at Rouen, to encourage him in that pursuit, and to send him to the Jesuits’ college at Paris. He completed his philosophical studies at the college de Grassins, under M. Hervent, and was afterwards vicar of $t. Etienne des Tonneliera, at Rouen, where he distinguished himself by his public services. During a visit to Paris in 1675, he gained the prize given by the French academy. Reflecting afterwards on the inconsiderate manner in which he had engaged in the sacred office, he went again to Paris, and renounced all the duties of the priesthood, that had done him so much honour, till M. de Sacy, to whom he applied for directions in his penitence, drew him from this state of dejection, and persuaded him to resume the sacred functions. His talents procured him a benefice in the holy chapel, and the priory of Villers, which the archbishop of Rouen gave him. M. Tourneux would gladly have resigned his benefice in favour of some pious ecclesiastic; but only simple resignations were at that time accepted. A change of this rule was hoped for, but did not take place during his life. The king gave him a pension of 300 crowns. He preached one Lent in the church of St. Benoit, at Paris, to a prodigious number of auditors. M. le Tourneux spent his last years at his priory of Villers-sur-Fere, in Tardenois, in the dio* cese of Soissons. M. le Maitre de Sacy, and M. de.Santeuil, who were his friends, placed great confidence in him, and frequently consulted him, in consequence of which he was involved in some difficulties. He died suddenly at Parts, Nov. 28, 1686, aged forty -seven, and his remains were interred at Port Royal. The principal among his numerous works are, “La Vie.de Jesu Christ;” “La meiliure maniere d'entendre la Messe;” “L‘Anne’e Chretienne,” Paris, 1685, 13 vols. 12mo; a French “Translation of the Roman breviary,” 4 vols. 8vo; with other works suited to persons of his communion. His translation of the breviary was censured by a sentence from M. Cheron, official of Paris, 1688; but M. Arnauld undertook its defence. An “Abridgment of the principal Theological Treatises,” 4to, is also ascribed to M. le Tourneux. L'Avocat says that he had a peculiar talent for homilies and instructions, and it is said that while he preached the Lent sermons at St. Benoft, in Paris, instead of father Quesnel, who had been obliged to abscond, Louis XIV. inquired of Boileau concerning a preacher named le Tourneux, whom every body was running after. “Sire,” replied the poet, “your majesty knows that people always run after novelties this man preaches the gospel.” The king then pressing him to give his opinion seriously, Boileau added, *' When M. le Tourneux first Ascends the pulpit, his ugliness so disgusts the congregation, that they wish he would go down again but when he begins to speak, they dread the time of his descending."

, a learned English divine, of the seventeenth century, was a native of Middlesex, and became a commoner of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1650, where he completed his degree of master of arts in 1657. In 1660, he was elected fellow of All Souls, about which time he entered into holy orders. His first preferment was to the rectory of Welwyn in Hertfordshire. He took his degree of D. D. in 1677, and in April 16i)2 was inducted into the living of St'. Andrew Undershaft, London, where he became a very distinguished preacher. He was presented to this rectory by king William, on the promotion of Dr. Grove to the bishopric of Chichester, and in consequence of the recommendation of archbishop Tillotson. This he acknowledges in the epistle dedicatory to his Latin “Tractatus in Epist. ad Philippenses,” and in the same place gratefully acknowledges his obligations to Dr. Tudor, rector of Tewing in Hertfordshire, to whom probably he was indebted for the living of Welwyn. He died in Oct. 1697, and was interred at Welwyn. Dr. Stanhope preached his funeral sermon at St. Andrew Undershaft, and gave him a very high character for piety, humility, and learning. His works are, 1. a pamphlet, entitled “A brief account of some expressions in St. Athanasius’s creed,” Oxon, 1663, '. 2. “An Explication of the Decalogue, or Ten Cornmandments,” and “Explication of the Catechism of the church of England,” in three parts or volumes, London, 1676—1680, fol. 3. “Of the sacraments in general, in pursuance of an explication of the catechism of the church of England,” Lond. 1686, 8vo. 4. “Of the sacrament of Baptism in particular; of the right of baptism among the heathen and Jews and of the institution of Christian baptism,” &c. ibid. 1687, 8vo.

, a protestant dissenting divine of considerable eminence, was born at Axminster, in Devonshire, Dec. 6, 1700. His father was a physician of the same place, and the son of Mr. Matthew Towgood, one of the ministers ejected by the act of uniformity in 1662. He had his grammar learning under the rev. Mr. Chadwick of Taunton: and in 1717 entered upon a course of academical studies in the same place, under the direction of Mr. Stephen James and Mr. Grove. Soon after he had commenced a preacher, he settled with a congregation of dissenters at Moreton-Hampsted in Devonshire, and was ordained there in August 1722, and the following year married the daughter of James Hawker, esq. of Luppit. He removed to Creditor], in the same county, in 1735, and soon after published, without his name, a pious tract entitled “Recovery from Sickness.” He likewise published without his name, a pamphlet entitled “High flown episcopal and priestly claims freely examined, in a dialogue between a country gentleman and a country vicar,” 1737. Dr. Warren, rector of St. Mary Stratford, Bow, a zealous champion of the church of England, having in a volume of posthumous sermons, compared the schism of the dissenters to that of the Samaritans, Mr. Towgood wrote “The Dissenters Apology,” 1739, in which he endeavours to vindicate a separation from the church. In 1741, when the nation was engaged in a war with Spain, he assumed a different character, by publishing “Spanish cruelty and injustice, a justifiable plea for a vigorous war with Spain.” 1 In this pamphlet, he encourages Britons to hope for success from the justice of the war on our part: the cruelty of our enemies towards Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, and Christians: and from their trusting in false protectors. He published afterwards several occasional sermons; and during the rebellion in 1754, a pamphlet against the legitimate birth of the Pretender. The work, however, by which he is held in highest esteem among his party, is “The Dissenting Gentleman’s answer to Mr. White,” a clergyman of the diocese of Norwich, who had written against the principles of the dissenters with -so much ability as to demand the exertions of their best writers. Mr. Towgood’s letters to him appeared separately from 174 to 1748, and have passed through six editions; the last, in 1787, is accompanied by a portrait of the author, from a painting by Opie. In 1748 he published a pamphlet intended to diminish the respect paid to the memory of king Charles I. It consists principally of extracts from historians, but is deficient in impartial investigation. He was more successful in 1750, when settled at Exeter, in some pamphlets in defence of infant baptism. In 1761 he became a teacher in an academy at Exeter for the education of dissenting ministers. His office was to lecture on the New Testament, which he continued till 1769. In 1784 the infirmities of age obliged him to resign his public ministry; he enjoyed, however, a moderate share of health and spirits until Jan. 31, 179-2, when he died at Exeter, in the ninety-second year of his age. His private character is represented as highly amiable, and his learning had a very extensive range. His public character may be collected from the contents of his publications. “His religious sentiments,” we are told, “were such as were deemed highly heretical when he first entered upon public life; on which account he found some difficulty in procuring ordination, and experienced the resentment of bigots long after: but they would be esteemed what is termed orthodox, by many in the present day, as he attributed to Christ a high degree of pre-existent dignity, and considered him as a proper object of religious worship.” It appears by this account that, in departing from the creed of his forefathers, Mr. Towgood went farther than his contemporaries, and not so far as his successors.

Mr. Townley also (with Dr. Morell) materially assisted his friend Hogarth in his “Analysis of Beauty,” as. Mr. Hogarth’s erudition was wholly of the pencil. Although bestowing so much attention on the business of the stage, he is said to have been much admired as a divine. “His manner of delivery was graceful, impressive, and energetic. The style of his discourses was correct, yet unstudied, and (what is the highest praise of sacred oratory) adapted to the understanding of a general auditory. Some single sermons only are in print.” When chosen head master of Merchant Taylors* school, the first improvement which he suggested in the system of education, was the introduction of mathematical learning, for which he had acquired a taste at Christ’s hospital, but this he was not able to accomplish. He was more successful, however, in substituting, instead of the old practice of declaiming, repetitions, every three or four months, of select passages in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English, which first took place in February 1761. In the following year, his partiality to theatrical representations induced him to request permission from the company of Merchant Taylors for the boys to perform a Latin play. This was at first granted, and plays were performed for two seasons, but the company finally disapproved of them, and we cannot help thinking, very justly, as likely to draw the attention of the scholars from more useful pursuits, and more important acquirements. In other respects, he appears occasionally to have di tiered from the guardians of the school, but was upon the whole a diligent master, and many of his pupils are now filling the highest stations in the three professions of divinity, law, and medicine.

, a late very learned divine, was the eldest son of the rev. John Townson, M. A. rector of Much Lees, in Essex. He was born in 1715; and, having been instructed a-while by his father, was placed under the rev. Henry Nott, vicar of the neighbouring parish of Terling, where he was soon distinguished for quickness of apprehension and a most retentive memory. From Terling he was removed to the free-school at Felstod, then under the direction of the rev. Mr. Wyatt. On March 13, 1733, he was entered a commoner of Christ Church, Oxford, where he had for his tutor the rev. John Whitfield, M. A. afterwards poetry professor. In July 1735, he was elected demy of Magdalen college, and two years afterwards fellow of that society, having in the intermediate year (Oct. 20) been admitted to the degree of B. A. He commenced M.A, June 20, 1739; and was ordained deacon, Dec. 20, 1741, and priest Sept. 19, 1742, by Dr. Seeker, bishop of Oxford.

, a learned divine who deserves to be recorded as a rare specimen of a doctrinal puritan, who retained his loyalty to the king and attachment to the church with equal firmness, was born at North-Tawton in Devonshire, in 1602. He was educated at Exeter- college, Oxford, where he took his degrees, and was chosen fellow in 1623. Having afterwards taken orders, he was, according to Wood, useful in moderating, reading to novices, and lecturing in the chapel. He was alsp an able and laborious preacher, had much, Wood says, of the -primitive religion in his sermons, and “seemed to be a most precise puritan in his looks and life, on which account his sermons and expositions in the churches of St. Giles’s and St. Martin at Oxford, were much frequented by the puritanical party.” He appears however to have been decidedly averse to the proceedings of those who were intent on overturning the establishment of the church; and although, in 1643, he was, from his general character, nominated one of the assembly of divines, he declined attending them, and preferred remaining at Oxford, where he preached at Christ Church before the king, and at St. Mary’s before the parliament. In both instances he was so much approved that he was appointed by the chancellor of the university, in 1646, to take his doctor’s degree, but this he declined. Adhering to his loyalty, and to the use of the Common Prayer, after it had been abolished, he was soon denounced by the usurping party. Dr. Hakewell, the rector, having left the college, the government devolved on Mr. Tozer, as sub-rector, who manfully opposed the illegality of the parliamentary visitation, and maintained the rights and privileges of the college, although the university was at that time in complete possession of the parliamentary forces, and every man was to be expelled who did not obey their orders as given from the mouth of the visitors. In March 1647-8, he was cited before these visitors, who kept their judgment-hall in Merton-college, and was accused of “continuing the Common Prayer in the college, after the ordinance for the Directory (the new form) came in force: also of having sent for and admonished one of the house, for refusing to attend the chapel-prayers on that account.” It was among his crimes, likewise, that he had constantly shown the utmost dislike to the parliamentary faction, and always countenanced and patronized the loyalists of his college. And although the visitors had thought proper to put off the term, yet as Dr. Fell, the vice-chancellor, had proceeded to open it at the usual time in the university, without any regard to the visitors’ pleasure, Mr. Tozer did the same in Exeter college. In answer to all this, Mr. Tozer did what at the close of the same century conferred immortal honour on the fellows of Magdalen college, he disowned their authority; and told them, that “the things about which he was questioned, concerned the discipline of the college; and that he had some time before answered in the name of the whole college, that they could not, withr out perjury, submit to any other visitors than those to whom their statutes directed them,” meaning the bishop of Exeter, a title sufficiently obnoxious. This answer being, as may be expected, unsatisfactory to the visitors, they ordered him to be ejected, aad committed the execution of the sentence to the soldiers of the garrison. Mr. Tozer however contrived to keep possession of the college for some time; in consequence of which, in June 1648, the visitors again sent for him, and with equal contempt for the statutes of the house, peremptorily forbade him to proceed to an election the day following; and as it is probable he refused to comply, they expelled him both from the college and the university. But he was not to be terrified from what he thought his duty even by this sentence, and refused to deliver up the keys of the college, there being no rector to whom he could legally give them, and then they imprisoned him. Even when he was, in the same month, preaching at St. Martin’s church, he was dragged out of it by the soldiers, and forbidden to officiate there any more, because he seduced the people. By what means the visitors were afterwards induced to show any degree of lenity to Mr. Tozer, we are not told; but it is certain that after all their harsh treatment of him, and his spirited opposition to their authority, he was allowed to remain in his rooms in the college, and they even gave him the profits of a travelling fellowship for three years. On the strength of this, he went to Holland, and became minister to the English merchants at Rotterdam, where he died Sept. 11, 1650, in the forty-eighth year of his age, and was interred in the English church in that place. Mr. Tozer published a few occasional sermons; “Directions for a godly life, especially for communicating at the Lord’s Tahle,” 1628, 8vo. of which a tenth edition appeared in 1680; and “Dicta et facta Christi ex quatuor evangelistis collecta,” 1634, 8vo.

, a learned divine at the period of the reformation, was supposed by Wood to have been born in Cornwall, or originally descended from an ancient family of his name in that county. This supposition seems to have been suggested to Wood by Fuller, who in his “Worthies” of Cornwall says, “The first syllable of his name, and what is added thereto by my author (Bale) parentum stemmatc clarus, and the sameness of his name with an ancient family in this country, are a three-fold cable to draw my belief that he was this countryman.” He was educated at Oxford, either in Exeter college, or Hart hall, where he attained some eminence in the Latin and Greek tongues. He afterwards, as was usual with scholars desirous of extensive improvement, travelled into Germany and Italy, and heard the lectures of the eminent men of that time. On his return to England he entered into holy orders, and was made keeper of the king’s library, which Leland’s researches had greatly enriched in the time of Henry VIII. King Edward VI. who gave Traheron this appointment with a salary of twenty marks, finding him otherwise a man of great merit, conferred on him the deanery of Chichester in 1551, as Wood says, but according to Le Neve, in 1553. This, on the accession of queen Mary in the same year, he lost, as well as his other preferments, and joined the other English exiles in Germany, where, at Francfort, he became their divinity-reader, particularly on the beginning of the Gospel of St. John, against the Arians, or, as Strype says, “against the wicked enterprises of the new start-up Arians in England.” While here he appears to have written all his works; 1. “Paraeresis, lib. 1.” addressed to his brother Thomas, persuading him to embrace the reformed religion. 2. “Carmina in mortem Henrici Dudlaei.” 3. “Analysis Scoparum Johannis Cochlaei.” 4. “Exposition of a part of St. John’s Gospel made in sundry readings in the English congregation against the Arians,” 1558, 8vo, 2d edition. 5. “Exposition on the fourth chapter of St. John’s Revelations, which treateth of the providence of God, made before his countrymen in Germany,” 1557, 8vo, reprinted 1577 and 1583. 6. “An answer made by Bar. Traheron to a private Papist,” &c. 1558, 8vo. 7. “Treatise of Repentance,” &c. Wood says he also published a translation of Vigo’s “Surgery,” and Vigo’s “Little practice.” When he died is uncertain. Wood, in his first edition, says he returned after queen Mary’s death, and was restored to all he had lost, and was living in 1662; but in his second edition he omits this, and quotes Holinshed, who gives it as a report that he died abroad in the latter end of Mary’s reign.

, an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was descended of an ancient family that had been in possession of the estate of Blebo, in the county of Fife, from the time of Walter Traill, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, 1385, who, as some say, purchased it; but Keith calls him “a son of the laird of Blebo,” by which it would appear that the estate had been in the family before the archbishop’s time. This prelate had been a canon of St. Andrew’s, and pursued his studies on the continent, where he was honoured with the degree of doctor both of civil and canon law, and when at Rome became referendary to pope Clement VIL This pontiff had a very high opinion of him, and when the see of St. Andrew’s became vacant, preferred him to it by his authority, without any election. So excellent indeed was his character in that comparatively dark age, that even Buchanan speaks in his praise. He built the castle of St. Andrew’s, the scene afterwards of many remarkable transactions in the history of the church of Scotland, and died in 14-01. He was buried in the cathedral, near to the high altar, with an inscription characteristic of the encomiastic genius of the times:

, an English divine, and voluminous translator, was the grandson of the rev. John Trapp, vicar of Weston-upon-Avon, and schoolmaster at Stratford in Warwickshire, who wrote large commentaries upon almost all the books of the Old and New Testament, published in several quarto volumes, 1646, &c. and other tracts on subjects of divinity. He never had, nor wished to have, any preferment besides his vicarage, which lay at the convenient distance of two miles from his school. His character, as a man and as a preacher, would have recommended him to higher promotion; but he always refused to accept it, as his condition was equal to his wishes. He died Oct. 17, 1669, aged sixty-eight.

, a protestant divine of great learning, and the editor of a Latin translation of the Bible, was born at Ferrara in 1510. He was the son of a Jew, and was educated with such care as to become a great master in the Hebrew tongue; but was converted to Christianity, first as a Roman catholic, by cardinal Pole, and secondly as a protetant by the celebrated Peter Martyr, and went with him to Lucca. Afterwards, leaving Italy altogether, he went into Germany, and settled at Strasburgh; whence he proceeded to England in the reign of Edward VI. where he lived in intimacy with the archbishops Cranmer and Parker, particularly the latter, and also taught Hebrew at Cambridge; but after the death of the king, he returned to Germany, and taught Hebrew in the school of Hornbach. Thence he was invited to Heidelberg, under the elector palatine Frederic III. where he was professor of the Hebrew tongue, and translated the Syriac Testament into Latin. There also he undertook a Latin translation of the Bible out of Hebrew, and associated Francis Junius to him in that work. His next remove was to Sedan, at the request of the duke of Builloin, to be the Hebrew professor in his new university, where he died, 1580, in his seventieth year.

, a learned divine, was born May 8, 1652, at Harlem. He acquired great skill in the Oriental languages, and the Holy Scriptures, of which he was professor at Leyden, in the place of Anthony Hulsius, and died in that' city, September 22, 1705, aged fifty-four, after having been twice rector of the university there. He left several works and “Dissertations on the sect of the Caraites,” and other curious and important subjects. He also published the “Tribus Judaeorum” of Serarius, Drusius, and Scaliger, or a dissertation on the three remarkable sects, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, Delphis, 1703, 2 vols. 4to.

The following, we believe, is a correct list of her various publications, although we are not certain if in strict chronological order. 1. “A little Spelling-book for young Children;” 2. “Easy Lessons; a Sequel to the above;” 3. “LXIV Prints taken from the Old Testament; with a Description, in a Set of easy Lessons;” 4. “LXIV Prints from the New Testament, and Description;” 5. “LXIV Prints of Roman History, with Description;” 6. “LXIV Prints of English History, with Description;” 7. “A Comment on Dr. Watts’s Divine Songs for Children;” 8. “An easy Introduction to the Knowledge of Nature, and Reading the Holy Scriptures;” 9. “An Abridgment of Scripture History; consisting of Lessons from the Old Testament;” 10. “An Abridgment of the New Testament consisting of Lessons composed chiefly from the Gospels;” 11. “A Scripture Catechism; containing an Explanation of the above Lessons in the Style of Familiar Conversation,” in 2 vols. The four last articles were written originally for children in the lower classes of life; but they have been adopted into many schools and families, for the instruction of those of superior condition. 12. “An Attempt to familiarise the Catechism of the Church of England;” 13. “An Explanation of the Office of Baptism, and of the Order of Confirmation in the Common Prayer-book;” 14. The same, with “Questions for the Use of Teachers” 15. “A Companion to the Book of Common Prayer containing a Practical Comment on the Liturgy, Epistles, and Gospels.” This work, though principally intended for young persons, has proved satisfactory to persons of maturer years. 16. The same in 2 vols. with “Questions for the Use of Teachers;” 17. “Sacred History, selected from the Scriptures, with Annotations and Reflections.” This work is executed upon a peculiar plan, and was composed with a view of exciting in young minds an early taste for divine subjects, and of furnishing persons of maturer years, who have not leisure for the works of more voluminous commentators, with assistance in the study of the Scriptures. The historical events are collected from the various books of which the Sacred Volume is composed, and arranged in a regular series; many passages of the Prophetic writings, and of the Psalms, are interwoven with the respective parts of the history to which they relate; and the whole illustrated by annotations and reflections, founded on the best authorities. 18. “Fabulous Histories; designed to teach the proper Treatment of Animals;” 19. “The Guardian of Education;” in 5 vols. 20. “Sermons for Familyreading, abridged from the works of eminent divines;” 21. “The Family Magazine,” 3 vols. 12ino. Her character, her train of study and occupations, and her sentiments on many interesting topics, are amply illustrated in a work published since her death, and to Wi; we are indebted for the above particulars, entitled “fe ie Account of the Life and Writings of Mrs. Trimmer, with Original Letters, and Meditations and Prayers, selected from her Journal,” 2 vols. 1814.

, a learned protestant divine, was born at Groningen in 1633, and studied the classics, belles lettres, philosophy, and theology in that university, under Desmarets, Alting, and other eminent professors. He travelled afterwards through Germany and Switzerland, and studied Hebrew under Buxtorf. He then visited France and England, and on his return was appointed curate or minister, in the village of Haren, where he remained until 1671, when he was invited to be pastor at Groningen. In this office he continued forty-eight years, and died in 1719, aged eighty-six. In his eightieth year he was created doctor in theology at Groningen, as a testimony of respect on the part of the university. John Martinius, of Dantzick, having begun a Concordance of the Old Testament, in Flemish, Trommius completed it, and published it at Amsterdam, 1685 — 1692, 2 vols, folio. He also published a Greek Concordance of the Septusgint. He had made preparations and corrections for a second edition of the Flemish Concordance, but did not, we presume, finish it, as it has never been printed.

, a learned English divine, but more celebrated as a political writer, was born at Laugharn, in Carmarthenshire, in 1712. His father was a farmer, and having a small estate left him near Aberystwith, in Cardiganshire, he removed thither; and perceiving that his son had a turn for learning, he sent him to Ruthin school in Denbighshire, where he made so great progress in the classics that he obtained an exhibition at St. John’s college, Oxford. The journey from his native place to the university was long, and at that time very tedious, on account of the badness of the roads. He travelled therefore for some time on foot, until old Mr. Tucker, feeling for his son’s reputation, as well as for his ease, gave him his own horse. But upon his return, young Josiah, with true filial affection, considered that it was better for him to walk to Oxford than for his father to repair on foot to the neighbouring markets and fairs, which had been the case, owing to this new regulation. The horse was accordingly returned; and our student, for the remainder of the time he continued at the university, travelled on foot backward and forward with his baggage at his back.

, a learned divine of the sixteenth century, was the third son of Mr. William Tooker of Exeter, where he was born. He was educated at Winchester school, whence he went to New college, Oxford, and was admitted perpetual fellow in 1577. He completed his master’s degree in 1583, about which time he distinguished himself as a disputant before some illustrious visitors of the university. In 1585 he gave up his fellowship on being promoted to the archdeaconry of Barnstaple in Devonshire. He was afterwards made chaplain to queen Elizabeth, which, Prince says, was occasioned by his writing and dedicating a book to her majesty on the king’s evil, which we shall presently notice. He became afterwards prebendary of Salisbury, and took his degree of D. D. in 1594. He then became canon of the church of Exeter, and dean of Lichfield, but did not attain the latter preferment in consequence of the death of Dr. Boleyne, as Wood and Prince say, for he succeeded Dr. Montague, and was installed Fei>. 21, 1604. These biographers inform us that king James designed him for the bishopric of Gloucester, and that the conge d'elire was actually issued, but for some reason the king was pleased to revoke it. Dr. Tucker died at Salisbury March 19, 1620, and was buried in the cathedral there.

Dr. Tucker was esteemed an excellent Greek and Latin scholar. “The purity of his Latin pen,” says Fuller, “procured his preferment. He was an able divine, a person of great gravity and piety, and well read in curious and critical authors.” His publications are, 1. “Charisma, sive Donum Sanationis, seu Explicatio totius qusestionis de mirabilium sanitatum gratia, &c.” Lond. 1597, 4to. This is the work which, Prince says, introduced him to the favour of queen Elizabeth. It is a historical defence of the power of our kings in curing what is called the king’s evil. Deirio, the Jesuit, answered it, and “with him,” say Wood and Prince, “are said to agree most fanaticks,” and we may add, most persons of common sense. Tucker was, if we mistake not, the first who wrote in defence of the royal touch, and Carte, the historian, the last, or perhaps the celebrated Whiston, who has a long digression on the subject in his life. 2. “Of the Fabrick of the Church and Church-men’s Living,” Lond. 1604, 8vo. This appears’ to have been written to obviate the scruples of some of the puritan party. The subjects treated are: I. “Of parity and imparity of gifts; of competency and incompetency of men’s livings; and of the reward of men’s gifts or maintenance, so called; of parity and imparity of men’s livings, which ariseth out of the equality or inequality of men’s gifts, and of preferments so called; of singularity and plurality of beneh'ces, and of the cause thereof, viz. dispensations; of the friends and enemies of pluralities; and of supportance and keeping of the fabrick of the church upright, in which he vindicates the hierarchy and constitution of the church of England against the enemies thereof, who are for reducing all to a parity and equality.” 3. “Singulare Certamen cum Martino Becano Jesuita,” Lond. 1611, 8vo, in defence of James I. against Becan and Bellarmin.

, a learned divine, usually, but perhaps not very strictly, classed among nonconformists, was born in September 1599, at Kirton, near Boston in Lincolnshire, where his father was minister. He was, at fourteen years of age, matriculated of the university of Cambridge, being admitted of Emmanuel college there. His biographer, Dr. Salter, remarks that this circumstance “shews that he had been educated hitherto in a dislike to the church establishment; for that college, though it abounded for many years in most excellent scholars, and might therefore very justly be esteemed and flourish on their account, yet was much resorted to for another reason about this time; viz. its being generally look'd on, from its first foundation, (which Tuckney himself acknowledges) as a seminary of Puritans.” To this class Dr. Tuckney certainly belonged; he was a Calvinist, and so far a doctrinal puritan, but we find fewer symptoms of nonconformity about him than in the case of any man of his time.

, a learned English divine and controversial writer, was born in St. Martin’s parish in the city of Carlisle, July 22, 1620, and was educated partly at the free-school there, and afterwards at Barton-kirk in Westmoreland. He was entered of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1634, where Gerard Langbaine was his tutor, and attained a fellowship. In 1642 he was created M. A. and became master of the grammar-school at Tetbury in Gloucestershire; but this he seems to have accepted rather as a retreat, while Oxford was garrisoned during the rebellion, for after the surrender of the garrison, he returned to his college, and became a noted tutor and preacher, and in 1657 was admitted bachelor of divinity. He was soon after made principal of Edmund-hall, which he found almost empty, but raised it, as Wood informs us, to a state as flourishing as that of any hall in Oxford. After the restoration, he was created D. D. and was made chaplain to his majesty. He was also presented to the rectory of Griggleton, or Grittleton, near Malmsbury in Wiltshire, by Thomas Gore of Alderton, esq. who had been one of his pupils, and in 1675 the king conferred upon him the deanery of Rippon, which he did not long enjoy, as he died on January 14 following, 1675-6, at the parsonage house at Griggleton, and was interred in the chancel of that church.

, a very learned, and in many respects a very excellent prelate of the church of Rome, was born at Hatchford, near Richmond, Yorkshire, about 1474. He was a natural son of a gentleman named Tunstall or Tonstal, by a lady of the Conyers family. He became a student at Baliol college, Oxford, about 1491, but, on the plague breaking out, went to Cambridge, where he became a fellow of King’s hall, now part of Trinity college. After having for some time prosecuted his studies there, he went to the university of Padua, which was then in high reputation, studied along with Latimer, and took the degree of doctor of laws. According to Godwin, he was by this time a man of extensive learning, a good Hebrew and Greek scholar, an able lawyer and divine, a good rhetorician, and skilled in various branches of the mathematics. These accomplishments, on his return, recommended him to the patronage of archbishop Warham, who constituted him vicar-general or chancellor, in August 1511. The archbishop also recommended him to Henry VIII. and in December of the same year, collated him to the rectory of Harrow-on-the hill, Middlesex; which he held till 1522.

, a learned and amiable divine, was born about 1710, and educated at St. John’s college in Cambridge, of which he became fellow and a principal tutor. He was instituted to the rectory of Sturmer in Essex, in 1739, and, in 1741, elected public orator of the university. He afterwards became chaplain to Potter, abp. of Canterbury; and was there a person of such uniform meekness and humility as to make it said, after he left Lambeth, that “many a man came there, as chaplain, humble, but that none ever departed so except Dr. Tunstall.” He was created D. D. at Cambridge in 1714; was collated by the archbishop to the rectory of Great Chart in Kent, and to the vicarage of Minster in the Isle of Thanet, both which he resigned in 1757, for the valuable vicarage of Rochdale in Lancashire, given him by abp. Hutton, who married his wife’s aunt; but the exchange, from many circumstances, di i not answer his expectation; he wished for a prebend of Canterbury. It is supposed that either family uneasinesses, or the above disappointment, hastened his death, which took place March 28, 1772.

, dean of Canterbury, was the son of Thomas Turner of Heckfield in Hampshire, alderman and mayor of Reading in Berkshire; and was born in the parish of St. Giles’s in that borough, in 1591. In 1610 he was admitted on the foundation at St. John’s college, Oxford, and had for his tutor Mr. Juxon, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. His application to learning was assiduous and successful, and having entered into holy orders, he immediately distinguished himself as a divine of merit. Ira 1623 he was presented by his college to the vicarage of St. Giles’s in Oxford, which he held with his. fellowship, but relinquished it in 1628. Laud, when bishop of London, made him his chaplain, and in 1629, at which time Mr. Turner was B. D. collated him to the prebend of Newington in the church of St. Paul, and in October following to the chancellorship of the same church, in which also he was appointed by Charles I. a canon-residentiary. The king likewise made him one of his chaplains in ordinary, and gave him the rectory of St. Olave, Southwark, with which he held the rectory of Fetcham in the county of Surrey. In 1633, when Charle> I. resolved on a progress to Scotland for his coronation, Turner was commanded to attend his majesty; previous to which he was, April 1, 1633-4, created D D. by the university of Oxford. In 1641 he was preferred to the deanery of Rochester, and on the death of Ur. Eglionby to that of Canterbury, but of this last he could not obtain possession until the restoration. After the death of the king, to whom he had adhered with inflexible loyalty and attachment, he shared the fate of the other loyal clergymen in being stript of his preferments, and treated with much indignity and cruelty. On the restoration, in August 1660, he entered into full possession of the deanery of Canterbury, and might have been rewarded with a mitre, but he declined it, “preferring to set out too little rather than too much sail.” Instead of seeking further promotion, he soon resigned the rectory of Fetcham, “desiring to ease his aged shoulders of the burthen of cure of souls; and caused it to be bestowed upon a person altogether unacquainted with him, but recommended very justly under the character of a pious man, and a sufferer for righteousness.”

13. mentioned by Wood. Prynne censures him as an Arnrinian, yet Du Moulin, who enters so fully and so affectionately into his character, in all respects both as a man and as a divine, was a zealous Calvinist.

, a very eminent naturalist and divine, was born at Morpeth, in Northumberland, and was educated under the patronage of sir Thomas Wentworth, at the university of Cambridge, where he was chosen a fellow of Pembroke Hall, about 1531. He acquired great reputation for his learning, and about 1536 was admitted to deacon’s orders, at which time he was master of arts. He applied himself also to philosophy and physic, and early discovered an inclination to the study of plants, and a wish to be well acquainted with the materia medico, of the ancients. He complains of the little assistance he could receive in these pursuits. “Being yet a student of Pembroke Hall, where I could learn never one Greke, neither Latin, nor English name, even amongst the physicians, of any herhe or tree such was the ignorance of that time; and as yet there was no English herbal, but one all full of unlearned cacographies and falsely naming of herbes.”

At Cambridge, Turner imbibed the principles of the reformers, and afterwards, agreeably to the practice of many others, united the character of the divine to that of the physician. He became a preacher, travelling into many parts of England, and propagated, with so much zeal, the cause of the reformation, that he excited persecution from bishop Gardiner. He was thrown into prison, and detained for a considerable time; and on his enlargement submitted to voluntary exile during the remainder of the reign of Henry VIII. This banishment proved favourable to his advancement in medical and botanical studies; he resided at Basil, Strasburgb, and at Bonn, but principally at Cologn, with many other English refugees. He dwelt for some time at Weissenburgh; and travelled also into Italy, and took the degree of doctor of physic at Ferrara. As at this period the learned were applying with great assiduity to the illustration of the ancients, it was a fortunate circumstance for Dr. Turner, that he had an opportunity of attending the lectures of Lucas Ghinus, at Bologna, of whom he speaks in his “Herbal” with great satisfaction; and frequently cites his authority against other commen* tators. Turner resided a considerable time at Basil, whence he dates the dedication of his book “On the Baths of England and Germany.” During his residence in Switzerland he contracted a friendship with Gesner, and afterwards kept up a correspondence with him. Gesner had a high opinion of Turner, as a physician and man of general learning, whose equal, he says, he scarcely remembered. This encomium occurs in Gesner’s book “De Herb;s Lunariis.”

On the accession of Edward VI. he returned o England, was incorporated M. D. at Oxford, appointed physician to Edward, duke of Somerset, and, as a divine, was rewarded with a prebend of York, a canonry of Windsor, and the deanery of Wells. In 1552 he was ordained priest by bishop Ridley. He speaks of himself in the third part of his “Herbal,” as having been physician to the “erle of Embden, lord of East Friesland.” In 1551 he published the first part of his History of Plants, which he dedicated to the duke of Somerset his patron. But on the accession of queen Mary, his zeal in the cause of the reformation, which he had amply testified, not only in preaching, but in various publications, rendered it necessary for him to retire again to the continent, where he remained at Basil, or Strasburgh, with others of the English exiles, until queen Elizabeth came to the throne. He then returned, and was reinstated in his preferments. He had, however, while abroad, caught some of the prejudices which divided the early protestants into two irreconcilable parties, and spoke and acted with such contempt for the English discipline and ceremonies, as to incur censure, but certainly was not deprived, as some of those writers who are hostile to the church have asserted, for he died possessed of the deanery of Wells. It would appear, indeed, that he had given sufficient provocation, but found a friend in the queen on such occasions. In the dedication of the complete edition of his “Herbal” to her in 1568, he acknowledges with gratitude, her favours in restoring him to his benefices, and in other ways protecting him from troubles, having, at four several times, granted him the great seal for that purpose.

, a pious English divine, was a native of Flintshire, and born near Broadoak, in that county, but in what year we have not discovered. Our particulars indeed of this gentleman are extremely scanty, he having been omitted by Wood. Previously to his going to Oxford, he was for some time an inmate in the house of the celebrated Philip Henry, partly as a pupil, and partly as an assistant in the education of Mr. Henry’s children, one of whom, Matthew, the commentator, was first initiated in grammar-learning by Mr. Turner. This was in 1668, after which Mr. Turner entered of Edmund hall, Oxford, where he took his degree of M.A.June 8, 1675. He became afterwards vicar of Walberton, in Sussex, and resided there in 1697, at the time he published his principal work, but the date of his death we have not been able to ascertain. In 1695 he published a “History of all Religions,” Lond. 8vo; but the work by which he is best known is his “Cornpleat history of the most remarkable Providences, both of Judgment and Mercy, &c. to which is added, whatever, is curious in the works of nature and art. The whole digested into one volume, under proper heads; being a work set on foot thirty years ago, by the rev. Mr. Pool, author of the ‘ Synopsis Criticorum;’ and since undertaken and finished by William Turner,” &c. 1697, fol. This curious collection ranks with the similar performances of Clark, and Wanley in his “History of the Little World,” but is superior, perhaps, to both in selection and conciseness. Dunton, in his “Life,” gives Mr. Turner the character of “a man of wonderful moderation, and of, great piety,” and adds, what it is very natural for a, bookseller to praise, that “he was very generous, and would not receive a farthing for his copy till the success was known.”

, the first of a celebrated family of protestant divines, was the son of Francis Turretin, descended from an ancient family at Lucca, who was obliged to fly his country for the cause of religion, and resided partly at Antwerp and Geneva, and lastly at Zurich, where he died. His son Benedict was born Nov. 9, 1588, and in his thirty-third year (1621) was appointed pastor, and professor of theology at Geneva. The same year the republic of Geneva being alarmed at the hostile preparations making by the duke of Savoy, sent Mr. Turretin to the States General of the United Provinces and to the prince of Orange, and he prevailed on their high mightinesses to advance the sum of 30,000 livres, and 10,000 livres per month, for three months, in case of a siege. He also obtained other pecuniary aid from the churches of Hamburgh, Embden, and Bremen. During his being in Holland, he had interviews with the French and English ambassadors, and had an audience of the king of Bohemia, to whom he communicated the sympathy which the state of Geneva felt on his reverse of fortune. In 1622 he returned to Geneva, and was received with all the respect due to his services. He died at Geneva, March 4, 1631, with the character of a very learned divine, and a man of great moderation and judgment. His works are, 1. A defence of the Geneva translation of the Bible, against the attack of father Colon in his “Geneve Plagiaire.” This extended to three parts, or volumes, printed from 1618 to 1626. 2. “Sermons,” in French, “sur rutilite” des chatiments.“3.” Sermons," in Italian, &c.