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

, an English prelate, and the most learned ecclesiastic of his time, was born probably about 1175, of obscure parents at Stradbrook in Suffolk. He studied at Oxford, where he laid the foundation of his skill in the Greek tongue, and was thus enabled to make himself master of Aristotle, whose works had been hitherto read only in translations: at Oxford too he acquired a knowledge of the Hebrew. He afterwards went to Paris, where he prosecuted his studies of Greek and Hebrew, and made himself master of French. Here he also studied the divinity and philosophy of the age, his proficiency in which was so remarkable as to draw upon him the suspicion of being a magician. At Oxford, on his return, he became celebrated as a divine, and was the first lecturer in the Franciscan school in that university. In 1235 he was elected, by the dean and chapter, bishop of Lincoln, which see was then, and continues still, the largest in England, although Ely, Oxford, and Peterborough have been since taken from it. Grosseteste, who was of an ardent and active spirit, immediately undertook to reform abuses, exhorting 'both clergy and people to religious observances, and perhaps would have been in a considerable degree successful, had he not confided too much in the Dominican and Franciscan friars, as his helpers in the good work. But they being appointed by him to preach to the people, hear their confessions, and enjoin penance, abused these op-­portunities by exercising dominion over the superstitious minds of the laity, and enriched themselves at their expence. Although, however, the hypocrisy of the Dominicans and Franciscans in this instance escaped his penetration, he could not be deceived in the dissolute character and ignorance of the more ancient orders, and was very strict in his visitations, and very severe in his censures of their conduct. Partly through this sense of his duty, and his love of justice, and partly from his warmth of temper, he was frequently engaged in quarrels with convents, and other agents of the pope. At one time he was even excommunicated by the convent of Canterbury; but treating this with contempt, he continued to labour in promoting piety, and redressing abuses with his usual zeal, firmness, and perseverance. Although the friars continued to be his favourites, and he rebuked the rectors and vicars of his diocese, because they neglected to hear them preach, and be^ cause they discouraged the people from attending and confessing to them, in time he began to see more clearly into the character of those ecclesiastics. In 1247, two English Francisqans were sent into England with credentials to extort money for the pope; and when they applied, with some degree of insolence, to Grosseteste, for six thousand marks, as the contribution for the diocese of Lincoln, he answered them that (with submission to his holiness), the demand was as dishonourable as impracticable; that the whole body of the clergy and people were concerned in it as well as himself; and that for him to give a definitive answer in an instant to such a demand, before the sense of the kingdom was taken upon it, would be rash and absurd.

He continued afterwards to exert himself in promoting the good of the church as to doctrine and morals, with the most upright intentions, and to the best of his knowledge, although it must afford the present age but a poor opinion of his knowledge in such matters, when we find him translating, and illustrating with commentaries, such works as those of John Damascenus, and of the spurious Dionysius the Areopagite; and even ^ The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," which he thought a valuable monument of sacred antiquity, and equal in importance with the scriptures. But the ignorance of the times, and the difficulties of acquiring divine knowledge, were in that age greatly beyond what can now be conceived. In the case, however, of external morals, Grosseteste showed more discernment. In 1248 he obtained, at a great expence, from pope Innocent IV. letters to empower him to reform the religious orders, fortified by this authority, he first turned his attention to die waste of large revenues by the monastic orders, and determined to take into his own hand the rents of the religious houses, probably with a design to institute and ordain vicarages in his diocese, and to provide for the more general instruction of the peopled But the monks having appealed to the pope, Crosseteste, in his old age^ was obliged to travel to Lyons, where Innocent resided, and where he immediately decided against our bishop, and treated him with much harshness of language, to which Grosseteste replied with great spirit, and went so far as to insinuate the power of money at the court of Rome. All, however, that he could do was to leave a kind of remonstrance, in the shape of a long sermon, one copy of which he delivered to the pope, and others totwo of the cardinals, in which he sharply inveighed against the flagitious practices of the court of Rome, particularly the appropriation of churches to religious houses, the appeals of the religious to the pope, and the scandalous clause in the bulls of nan obstantd, which was the great engine of the pope’s dispensing power, anil enabled him to set aside all statutes and customs. He was for some time so dejected with the disappointment he had met with, that he intended to resign his bishopric, but upon more mature -reflection, thought it his duty to remain in his office, and do all the good which the bigotry and ignorance of the times would permit.

At home he still opposed the lazy Italians, who had procured the pope’s letters for provisions, and were the objects of Grosseteste 1 s greatest detestation, for he said “if he should commit the care of souls to them, he should be the friend of Satan.” Upon such principles he would often, with indignation, cast the bulls out of his hand, and absolutely refused to comply with them. He was suspended at one time for disobeying a papal mandate of this kind. Pope Innocent, persisting in his old courses, notwithstanding all the fair promises and assurances he had given to the contrary, commanded the bishop to admit un Italian, entirely ignorant of the English language, to a rich benefice in his diocese, and be refusing to comply, was suspended for it the Lent following. This sentence, however, seems to have been soon relaxed, as we find the bishop singing mass at Hales the same year. A more remarkable instance of Grosseteste’s spirited opposition to the papal usurpations occurred in 1253, when Innocent ordered his nephew, aa Italian youth, to be promoted to the first canonry that should be vacant in the cathedral of Lincoln, and declared that any other disposal of the canonry should be null and void; and that he would excommunicate every one who should dare to disobey his injunction. The pope also wrote to the archdeacon of Canterbury, and to one Mr. Innocent, both Italians, to see this business completed, with a clause of non obstante and to cite all coiuraveners to appear before him without any manner of plea or excuse and under another clause of non obstante^ in two months time.

Grosseteste wrote immediately to the pope, or to his agents, in the most resolute and spirited terms, almost retorting, as Brown in his “Fasciculus rerum expetendarum,” &c. observes, “excommunication for excommunication.” This epistle, of which we have many copies notv extant, both in manuscript and printed, is a most celebrated performance, and has immortalized the bishop’s memory, and endeared it to all generations. He insists, that the papal mandates cannot be repugnant to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles, and that, therefore, the tenor of his holifiess’s epistles was not consonant to toe sanctity of the holy see, on account of the accumulated clauses of non obstante. Then, that no sin can be more adverse to the doctrine of the apostles, more abominable to Jesus Christ, or more hurtful to mankind, than to defraud and rob those souls, which ought to be the objects of the pastoral care, of that instruction which by the scriptures they have a right to, &c. Hence he infers that the holy see, destined to edify and not to destroy, cannot possibly incur a sin of this kind; and that no one that is not an excommunicate, ought to obey any such absurd mandate, though an angj^l from heaven should command him, but rather to revolt and oppose them, &c.

The pope, on receiving this flat denial, which he little expected, written, as our readers may perceive, in a sarcastic styje implying much more than is expressed, fell into a furious passion, exclaiming, with a stern countenanc, and with all the pride of Lucifer, “Who is this old dotard, deaf, and absurd, that thus rashly presumes to judge of my actions? By Peter and Paul, if the goodness of my own heart did not restrain me, I should so chastise him, as to make him an example and a spectacle to all the world. Is not the king of England my vassal, my slave, and for a word speaking, would throw him into prison, and load him with infamy and disgrace?” And, when the cardinals interposed, they had much ado to mollify him, by telling him, “it was little for his interest to think of animadverting on the bishop; since, as they must all own, what he said was true, and they could not condemn or blame him, &c.” giving the bishop, at the same time, a most noble testimony, in respect of his piety, learning, and general character, as acknowledged by all the world: in all which, they confessed frankly, they were none of them to be compared to him. The pope, however, excommunicated the bishop, and even named a successor to his see; but the bishop, on his part, contented himself with appealing from the sentence to the tribunal of Christ, after which he troubled himself no more about it, and remained quietly in possession of his dignity.

He died at Buckden, Oct. 9, 1255, and the corpse was carried to Lincoln, where it was met by archbishop Boniface, who attended the funeral. He was interred in the upper south transept. For an account of his tomb, &c. we must refer to our principal authority. The pope, who rejoiced at his death, ordered a Letter to be written to king Henry, enjoining him to take up the bishop’s bones, cast them out of the church, and burn them, but this letter was not sent. As Grosseteste was a person of acknowledged piety and strictness of manners, he easily arrived at the beatitude, or title of Beatus, and even at sanctity 9 in the general estimation; but he could never obtain these jhonours from the church, though they were solicited for him in the strongest terms. Indeed, as l>r. Pegge observes, it would have been improper and absurd for the popes to repute and proclaim a person to be now an holy beatified saint in heaven, who in their opinion had so openly traduced, insulted, and vilified both the see and court of Rome, which were still pursuing the very same measures he condemned, and continued to be invariably the same depraved, venal, and corrupt body. It is, however, for the honour of bishop Grosseteste, that for his piety and integrity, his learning and abilities, he still lives valued and revered in the breasts of all sober and reasonable men. It is plain that he did not suffer the least in the esteem of the world, any more than he did in his own opinion, by the anathema which pope Innocent had denounced against him. Indeed the papal censures, of which our prelates stood so much in dread at Lyons, in 1245, had been of late so infamously prostituted, that they seem to have lost their efficacy. Grosseteste, in particular, paid no regard to that which was denounced against him, for he still continued to exercise his function; his clergy also made no scruple of obeying him when under the sentence; and his exequies were solemnized not only by the secular but even by the regular clergy of his diocese.

Few authors, ancient or modern, ever mention bishop Grosseteste without an eulogium, and from the many evidences brought by his biographer, he appears to have excelled all his contemporaries in learning, piety, judgment, and conscientious integrity in the discharge of his episcopal duties, and to have powerfully aided in producing what we may term the preliminaries of that reformation which was afterwards to take place in a church so corrupt, and so weak, that even at this time it was not able to support itself against the arguments of one English prelate, a point of religion, the papists are very desirous of having bishop Grosseteste for their own; and it must be acknowledged that he was much with them doctrinally, and at first entertained a high opinion of the power of the keys, and the personal authority of the pope; but at last, in a case manifestly unscriptural and injurious to the welfare of religion, he openly contemned it, and did not even regard dying in a state of excommunication. He had also at one time conceived a most elevated idea of the hierarchy in general, thinking it superior to the regal dignity. To this he was led, exceeding in this respect even Becket himself, by the authority of the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and this is the best excuse that can be made for him; the blindness of the times being sucb, that men of the best learning, and the greatest acuteness, had not critical skill sufficient, though this be the first and proper object of criticism, to distinguish a spurious composition from the true word of God. But, however, he afterwards changed his mind in regard to the hierarchy. Had he lived in more enlightened times, when points formerly taken fur granted as principles not to be controverted, were more maturely canvassed and considered, his ideas on many religious topics would have been greatly enlarged, and he would not have been at all averse to a separation from a church so venal and corrupt as that of Home, nor to a reformation both of her doctrines and discipline.

Bishop Grosseteste was a severe student to the very end of life. He was a master of languages, of some that were not jhen generally known, and also of every branch of learning, both human and divine, as they were then usually studied and professed; and he improved many of them by the productions of his own pen. His erudition was truly multifarious, so that he may justly be said, both in respect of himself and his own acquirements, and of that general patronage and encouragement which he afforded the literati of his time, to stand at the head in this country at least, of all the learning of the age. His forte seems to have been logic, philosophy, and theology, and his knowledge of the scriptures was very intimate.

The late bishop Kurd’s mode of accounting for the apparent inconsistencies in the religious principles of Grotius, is the most favourable we have yet seen, and not improbable. “Grotius,” says that learned prelate, " is justly esteemed among the ablest and most learned men of an age that abounded in ability and learning. Besides his other shining talents, his acquaintance with history was extensive; and his knowledge of Scripture profound. And yet with two such requisites for unlocking the true sense of the prophetic writings, this excellent man undertook to prove in form, that the pope was not antichrist. The account of this mischance is as extraordinary as the mischance itself. The moral qualities of Grotius were still more admirable than his intellectual; and its these qualities we shall find the true spring of his unhappy and misapplied pains on the subject before us. He was in his own nature just, candid, benevolent, to a supreme degree; and the experience of an active turbulent life had but fortified him the more in a love of those pacific virtues. He was, on principle, a sincere and zealous Christian; and consequently impressed With a clue sense of that exalted charity which is the characteristic of that religion but he had seen and felt much of the mischiefs which proceed from theological quarrels and thus every thing concurred to make him a friend to peace, and above all, to peace among Christians. An union of the catholic and protestant churches seemed necessary to this end; and the apparent candour, whether real or affected, of some learned persons, whom he had long known and valued in the church of Rome, drew him into the belief that such a project was not impracticable. Henceforth it became the ruling object of his life; and permitting himself too easily to conclude that the protestant doctrine of antichrist was the sole or principal obstruction to the union desired, he bent all the efforts of his wit and learning to discredit and overthrow that doctrine. Thus was this virtuous man betrayed by the wisdom and equity of his own character; and I know not if the observation of the moral poet can be so justly applied to any other:

In 1725 he lost his partner in the academy, the rev. Mr. James; and was now obliged to take the students in, divinity under his direction. In the execution of this, task he confined himself to no system in divinity, but directed his pupils to the best writers on natural and revealed religion, and an impartial consideration of the chief controversies. He likewise succeeded Mr. James in his pastoral charge at Fullwood^ near Taunton, in which he continued till his death. In 1730 he published “The Evidence of our Saviour’s Resurrection considered,” and the same year, “Some Thoughts concerning the Proof of a future State from Reason,” in answer to the rev. Mr. Hallet, junior, which drew him into a dispute on the point with that divine. In this controversy he was thought to disparage the necessity of revelation in regard to that proof. In 1732 he printed “A Discourse concerning the Nature and Design of the Lord’s Supper,” where he set that institution in the same light with bishop Hoadly. In 173-1he published, without his name, “Wisdom the first Spring of Action in the Deity,” which was animadverted on, as to some particulars, by Mr. Balguy, who, however, allowed the discourse in general to abound in solid remarks and sound reasonings. In 1736 he published “A Discourse on saving Faith.” The same year he met with a heavy affliction, in the death of his wife; and a little more than a year after this, he died himself; for, having preached on February 19, 1737-8, and with such an uncommon flow of spirits as he said he could hardly govern, he was violentlyseized at night with a fever, which carried him off upon the 27th. His friends erected a handsome monument over his grave, on which is a Latin inscription composed by the late Dr. Ward, rhetoric-professor at Gresham-college, who has also obliged the world with an English version of it. Besides the works already mentioned, he published many sermons upon several occasions, and also a volume of (i Miscellanies in prose and verse.“After his death came out by subscription his” Posthumous Works,“1740, in 4 vols. 8vo. Gruchius, or Grouciii (Nicholas), an eminent antiquary in the sixteenth century, descended from a noble family of Rouen, was the first who explained Aristotle in Greek. He taught with reputation at Paris, Bourdeaux, and Coimbra, and, on his return to France, went to Rochelle, where a college was intended to be established, and where he died in January 1572, leaving many works. The most known are, a translation of F. L. de Castagneda’s” History of the Indies,“Paris, 1554, 4to; a treatise” De Comitiis Romanorum," 1555, fol.; and some pieces against Sigonius, fol. which Sigonius did not answer till he heard of the author’s death.

, a learned French abbé, prior of St. George de Vigou, a member of the royal society of London (1742) and of the French academy of sciences, was born in Languedoc, in 1712, and was the son of John de Gua, baron of Halves, whose property was swallowed up in the unfortunate Missisippi Scheme. He was educated for the church, but appears to have had less ambition for promotion in that, than to render himself distinguished for scientific knowledge. When admitted into the academy of sciences in 1741, he gave a specimen of his skill in mathematics by publishing “Usages de l'analyse de Descartes,” and was the author of other papers on mathematical subjects in the Memoirs of the Academy, in one of which he endeavours to vindicate Descartes against our Wallis, who, in the abbe’s opinion, wrote his history of algebra for no other purpose than to bestow upon his coun ­tryman Hariot, the discoveries that belong to Viete and Descartes. (See Hariot.) The abbe* was, however, chiefly distinguished in France for having first given the plan of the Encyclopedic, although he wrote very little in it. In 1764 he presented a plan for exploring the mines of Languedoc, and was the author of some other projects whick bad little success. His necessities sometimes drove him to the business of translating for the booksellers. Amonothese publications we find bishop Berkeley’s “Hylas and Philonous,” “Locke’s Essay,” Anson’s Voyage, and Decker on trade. He died at Paris, June 2, 1735, leaving the character of a man of considerable learning and industry, but not very happy in his temper, and often pursuing trifling difficulties, which he made a great merit in surmounting, such as complicated anagrams; and on one occasion, in consequence of a sort of challenge, he perplexed himself in writing a very long poem, in which words only of one syllable were admitted.

, a Spanish writer, was born in the province of Alaba, towards the end of the fifteenth century, and was brought up at court. After the death of Isabella, queen of Castile, he turned Franciscan monk, but afterwards having made himself known at court, became preacher and historiographer to Charles V. He was much admired for his politeness, eloquence, and great parts, but his preaching and conversation proved very superior to his writing. His style was found to be extravagantly figurative, and full of antitheses, but this was trifling, compared with his notions of writing history, and the liberty he took to, falsify whatever he pleased, and to advance as matter of fact the inventions of his own brain, and when censured for it, alleged by way of excuse, that no history, excepting the Holy Scripture, is certain enough to be credited. Being in the emperor’s retinue he had an opportunity of visiting a great part of Europe, an4 was made bishop of Guadix, in the kingdom of Granada, and then bishop of Mondonedo, in Galicia. He died in 1544, or 1548. He was the author of several works in Spanish, the most famous of which is his “Dial of Princes, or Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,” which has been translated into all the languages of Europe. Vossius says it “has nothing in it of Antoninus, but is all a fiction, and the genuine offspring of Guevara himself, who scandalously imposes upon the reader, plainly against the duty of an honest man, but especially of a bishop. In the mean time he has many things not unuseful nor unpleasant, especially to a prince, whence it is entitled The Dial of Princes’.” Those who may be supposed to have spoken of Guevara in the most indulgent manner, have yet been forced to set him in a most scandalous light. “It deserves our pity rather than our censure,” says Nicolas Antonio, “that a writer of such fame should think himself at liberty to forge ancient facts, and to play with the history of the world, as with Æsop’s Fables or Lucian’s Monstrous Stories.” Among Guevara’s works must be ranked his “Epistles,” with which some have been so charmed, that they have not scrupled to call them Golden Epistles; but Montaigne says, “Whoever gave them this title, had a very different opinion of them from what I have, and perhaps saw more in them than I do.” Bayle had such a contempt for Guevara as an author, as to speak with surprize of “the eagerness of foreigners in translating some of his works into several languages.” Mr. Hay ley, however, remarks, that if we may judge of his personal character from his “Letters,” he appears to have been an amiable man. In one he reproves a female relation, with good nature, for intemperate sorrow on the death of a little dog and in another he draws the character of a true friend, with great energy of sentiment and expression. One of Guevara’s sayings, that heaven is filled with those that have done good works, and hell with those that have resolved to do them," has been, under a different form of expression, ascribed to other writers.

, the celebrated historian of Italy, was descended of an ancient and noble family at Florence, where he was born March 6, 1482. His father, Peter Guicciardini, an eminent lawyer, bred up his son in his own profession; in which design he sent him, in 1498, to attend the lectures of M. Jacobo Modesti, of Carmignano, who read upon Justinian’s Institutes at Florence, but his son submitted to this resolution with some reluctance. He had an uncle who was archdeacon of the metropolitan church of Florence, and bishop of Cortona; and the prospect of succeeding to these benefices, which yielded near 1500 ducats a year, had Bred the ambition of the nephew. He had hopes of rising from such a foundation through richer preferments by degrees to the highest, that of a cardinal; and the reversion of the uncle’s places might have been easily obtained. But, though his father had five sons, he could not think of placing any of them in the church, where he thought there was great neglect in the discipline. Francis proceeded therefore with vigour in the study of the law, and took his degrees at Pisa, in 1505; but, looking upon the canon law as of little importance, he chose to be doctor of the civil law only. The same year he was appointed a professor of the institutes at Florence, with a competent salary for those times. He was now no more than twenty-three years of age, yet soon established a reputation superior to all the lawyers his contemporaries, and had more business than any of them. In 1506 he married Maria, daughter of Everardo Salviati, by far the greatest man in Florence; and, in 1507, was chosen standing counsellor to several cities of the republic. Two years after he was appointed advocate of the Florentine chapter, a post of great honour and dignity, which had been always filled with the most learned counsellors in the city; and, in 1509, he was elected advocate of the order of Calmaldoli.

, an Italian poet, was born at Lucca in 1550. Having received an excellent education, he was introduced to the service of cardinal Alexander Farnese, afterwards pope Paul III. He became very intimate with Annibal Caro, and with many other men of letters at Rome. When his patron was elevated to the popedom, he was made governor of the city, and bishop of Fossombrone. In 1535 he was sent nuncio to the emperor Charles V. whom he accompanied in his expedition to Tunis, and on other journeys. He was, about 1539, made president of Romagna, and afterwards commissary-general of the pontifical army, and governor of the Marche. So well did he act his part in all these employments, that he would have been raised to the dignity of cardinal had he not been carried off by a disease in 1541. He was author of an oration to the republic of Lucca, of many letters, and of a number of poems which gave him a high reputation. His works ka*e been several times printed. The best edition is that of 1749—50, 2 vols. 4to.

, an eminent Scotch divine, the son of an opulent tradesman in Aberdeen, was born in that city in 1586, and received *a liberal education at Marischal college, then recently founded, with a view to the church. Before he took orders, however, he appeared as an autii:>r, by publishing, when only in his twentieth year, a treatise entitled “The New Sacrifice of Christian Incense,” London, 1608 and the same year, “The only way to Salvation,” printed also at London. Immediately after the publication of these, he appears to have taken orders, and was called to the pastoral charge of the parish of King EJward in the presbytery of Turriff and synod of Aberdeen. Here he passed some of the happiest years of his life, in high favour with Jiis parishioners and here in 1610 he married Katherine Rowen, daughter of Mr. Rowen or Rolland of Disblair, by whom he had no issue. In 1617, when king James I. visited Scotland, with a view to establish episcopacy, and brought bishop Andrews of Ely with him to assist in the management of that very delicate and ultimately unsuccessful attempt, Dr. Andrews, among other eminent men of the Scotch clergy whom he consulted, paid great regard to Mr. Guild; and the following year, when Andrews was promoted to the see of Winchester, Mr. Guild dedicated to him, one of his most useful works, entitled “Moses unveiled,” pointing out those fgures in the Old Testament which allude to the Messiah. Mr. Guild became, much about the same time, acquainted with Dr. Young, a countryman of his own, dean of Winchester, who introduced him to the king, by whom he was appointed one of the royal chaplains. This obligation he afterwards acknowledged in the dedication to his “Harmony of the Prophets,” a work which he published in the beginning of the reign of Charles I. It was afterwards printed with his “Moses unveiled,” in an edition now before us, dated Edinburgh, 1684.

When the commotions took place in consequence of king Charles’s endeavours to establish episcopacy in Scotland, the Perth articles, as they were called, were opposed by the Scotch covenant, which was subscribed by the majority of the clergy and people of Scotland, but not being so rigorously enforced as to prohibit all exercise of private judgment, Dr. Guild was permitted to subscribe it under such limitations as he was pleased to specify, which implied a loyal adherence to the king, but no condemnation of the articles of Perth, or of episcopal government. He was afterwards one of the commissioners in the general assembly of Scotland which met in 1638, and abolished the hierarchy of the church; and after his return from Glasgow, where this assembly met, officiated as formerly at Aberdeen in the pastoral function, and, with a view to beal the animosities then prevailing between the episcopal and presbyterian party, published “A friendly and faithful advice to the nobility, gentry, and others,” recommending that moderation which was then impossible, while the two great bodies who divided the sentiments of the two kingdoms, persisted in mutual encroachments. Yet notwithstanding an obvious leaning to the loyal side in Dr. Guild’s conduct, he was, on a vacancy, elected principal of King’s college, Aberdeen, in 1640, and preached his last sermon, as minister of Aberdeen, in June 1641. This was followed by a special mark of favour from his majesty, who bestowed upon Dr. Guild “a free gift of a house and garden, which had formerly been the residence of the bishop of Aberdeen.” He did'not, however, allow this to increase his private fortune, but wiih his usual liberality, devoted it to the service of the public, in benefactions to the college, the town, and the poor of the adjoining parish.

, a German prelate and naturalist, was born at Christiana, in Norway, in 1718. He was educated at the public school of Christiana, and in 1737 removed to Copenhagen, where he pursued his studies with great success. In 1742 he began the study of theology, philosophy, and mathematics in the university of Halle, and in 1754 was invited to be extraordinary professor of theology at Copenhagen, preacher at Herlufsholm, and lecturer in theology and the Hebrew language in the public school of that place. Shortly after this, he was ordained priest at Copenhagen, and in 1758 was appointed by his majesty Frederic V. bishop of Drontheim. He was the founder of the royal Norwegian society at Drontheim, of which he was elected vice-president, and in the Transactions of which, he published several curious and useful papers on subjects of natural history. He was a zealous student in botany, and so highly esteemed by Linnæus, that he gave the name of Gunnera to a plant in his system. He was enrolled among the members of the academies of Stockholm, Copenhagen, and other learned societies. He published “Flora Norvegica,” in two parts, fol. 1766, &c. containing 1118 species, to each of which are added the medical uses. The author died in 1773.

, bishop of Ely, was the son of Peter Gunning, vicar of Hoo, in Kent, and born there in 1613. He had his first education at the king’s school in Canterbury, where he commenced an acquaintance with Somner the antiquary, his school -fellow. At fifteen he was removed to Clare-hall, in Cambridge, was promoted to a fellowship in 1633, and became an eminent tutor in the college. Soon after he commenced M. A. and had taken orders, he had the cure of Little St. Mary’s from the master and fellows of Peter-house. He acquired much fame as a preacher, and was licensed as such by the university in 1641, when he distinguished himself by his zeal for the church and king, particularly by protesting publicly against the faction, when most formidable, and urging the university to publish a formal protestation against the rebellious league, in a sermon at St. Mary’s. About the same time, paying a visit to his mother at Tunbridge, he exhorted the people, in two sermons, to make a charitable contribution for the relief of the king’s forces there; which conduct rendered him obnoxious to the powers then in being, who imprisoned him for a short time, and, on his refusing to take the covenant, deprived him of his fellowship. This obliged him to leave the university, but not before he had drawn up a treatise against the covenant, with the assistance of some of his friends, who took care to publish it.

But these and other acts of munificence were not sufficient to protect his memory from being severely attacked. The part he took in the Savoy conference, and afterwards against the nonconformists, has been censured as unbecoming and intemperate. Bishop Burnet says, that at the conference all the arts of sophistry were used by him in as confident a manner as if they had been sound reasoning; that he was unweariedly active to very little purpose, and being very fond of the popish rituals and ceremonies, he was much set upon reconciling the church of England to Rome. Mr. Masters states the disputed points in his character to be whether his head was as good as his heart whether he was equally clear in his ideas and discernment, as lively in his imagination and expressions whether his judgment was as solid as his parts were quick whether there was more of scholastic learning, sophistry, or the art of logic, than of real truth and strength in his reasonings and disputations; whether his zeal or his knowledge were predominant, both in the forming and maintaining his opinions and schemes about civil and ecclesiastical polity; and whether he had more regard in his plan of Christian faith, doctrine, and discipline, to the traditions and authorities of the fathers, than to plain scriptural proofs and principles: and upon those points his biographers are divided.

In this disposition of mind she went first to Paris, where she became acquainted with M. d'Aranthon, bishop of Geneva, who persuaded her to go to his diocese, in order to perfect an establishment he had founded at Gex, for the reception of newly-converted catholics. She accordingly Went in 1681, and took her daughter with her. Some time afterwards, her parents desired her to resign the guardianship of her children to them, and all her fortune, which was 40,000 livres a-year. She readily complied with their request, reserving only a moderate pension for her own subsistence. On this the new community desired their bishop to request her to bestow this remainder upon their house, and become herself the superior; but she refused to comply with the proposal, not approving th^ir regulations; at which the bishop and his community took such offence, that he desired her to leave the house.

She then retired to the Ursulines at Thonon, and from thence to Turin, Grenoble, and at last to Verceil, by the invitation of that bishop, who had a great veneration for her piety. At length, after an absence of five years, her ill state of health made her return to Paris, in 1686, to have the best advice. During her perambulations abroad, she composed the “Moyen court et tres facile de faire Oraison;” and another piece, entitled “Le Cantique tie Cantiques tie Salomon interprete, selon le sens mystique,” which were printed at Lyons, with a licence of approbation; but as her irreproachable conduct and extraordinary virtues made many converts to her system, which was culled Quietism, she was confined, by an order from the king, in the convent des Filles de la Visitation, in 1688. Here she was strictly examined for the space of eight months, by order of M. Harlai, archbishop of Paris; but this served only to establish her innocence and virtue; and madame Miraniou, the superior of the convent, representing the injustice of her detention to madame Maintenon, the latter pleaded her cause so effectually to the king, that she obtained her discharge, and afterwards conceived a particular affection and esteem for her.

Not long after her deliverance, she was introduced to Fenelon, afterwards archbishop of Cambray, who became her disciple. She had besides acquaintance with the dukes de Chevreuse and Beauvilliers, and several other distinguished persons, who, however, could not protect her from the ecclesiastics, who made violent outcries on the danger of the church from her sect. In this exigence, she was persuaded to put her writings into the hands of the celebrated Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, and submit them to his judgment; who, after reading all her papers, both printed and Mss. including a life she had written of herself, had a conference with her, and was well satisfied with her principles; but her enemies among the churchmen bt-ing not equally satisfied, an order passed for the re-examination of her two books already mentioned. Bossuet was at the head of this examination, to whom the bishop of Chalons, afterwards cardinal de Noailles, was joined, at the request of madame Guyon; and to these two were added, M.Tronson, superior of the society of St. Sulpice, and Fenelon. During the examination, madame Guyon retired to a convent at Meaux, by the desire of Bossuet, who at the end of six months drew up thirty articles, sufficient as he thought to set the sound maxims of a spiritual and mystic life in a proper light, to which four more were added by way of qualification by M. Fenelon, and the whole were signed at Issy near Paris, by all the examiners, March 10, 1695. Madame Guyon having signed them by the advice of Bossuet, he prevailed with her likewise to subscribe a submission, in which, among other things, she said, “I declare nevertheless, without any prejudice to the present submission, that I never had any design to advance any thinw that is contrary to the mind of the catholic apostolic Iloman church, to which I have always been, and shall always continue, by the help of God, to be submissive even to the last breath of my life; which I do not say by way of excuse, but from a sense of my obligation to declare my sentiments in simplicity. I never held any of those errors which are mentioned in the pastoral letter of M. de Meaux; having always intended to write in a true catholic sense, and not then apprehending that any other sense could be put upon my words.” To this the bishop subjoined an attestation, dated July 16, 1695, signifying that “madam Guyon having lived in the house, by the order and permission of their bishop, for the space of six months, had never given the least trouble or pain, but great edification; that in her whole conduct, and all her words, there appeared strict regularity, simplicity, sincerity, humility, mortification, sweetness, and Christian patience, joined to a true devotion and esteem for all matters of faith, especially for the mystery of the incarnation, and the holy infancy of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that, if the said lady would choose to pass the rest of her life in their house, the community would esteem it a favour and happiness, &c.” In consequence of these submissions, and of this testimony, Bossuet declared himself satisfied with her conduct, and continued her in the participation of the holy sacrament, in which he found her; and added that he had not discovered her to be any wise involved in the abominations, as he was pleased to term them, of Molina (see Molina), or others elsewhere condemned; and that he never intended to comprehend her in what he had said of those abominations in his ordonnance of April 15th preceding.

, who is said to have first suggested the weekly meetings of the royal society, and was one of its first fellows when established after the restoration, was born in 1605, at Newhausen, near Worms in the Palatinate, and educated at home. In 1625 he came to Oxford, and studied there about half a year, whence he went for the same time to Cambridge. He then visited some of the universities abroad, but returned to Oxford in 1629, and became a commoner of Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college). Here he remained three years, but without taking a degree, and, as Wood says, was made a deacon by Dr. Joseph Hall, the celebrated bishop of Exeter. He does not, however, appear to have proceeded farther in ecclesiastical ordination, and both in his translation of the “Dutch Annotations,” and in the lists of the royal society, we find him afterwards styled “Theodore Haak, Esq.” In the time of the German wars he was appointed one of the procurators to receive the benevolence money, which was raised in several dioceses in England to be transmitted to Germany, which he used to say “was a deacon’s work.” When the rebellion broke out in this country, he appears to have favoured the interests of parliament. In 1657 he published in 2 vols, folio, what is called the “Dutch Annotations upon the whole Bible,” which is a translation of the Dutch Bible, ordered by the synod of Dort, and first published in 1637. Wood says that the Dutch translators were assisted in this undertaking by bishops Carleton, Davenant, Hall, and other English divines, who were members of the synod of Dort; but, according to the preface, the only assistance they gave was in laying before the synod an account of the manner in which king James’s translation had been performed by the co-operation of a number of the most eminent divines in England. The synod accordingly adopted the same plan; and their annotations being considered of great value to biblical students, the Westminster assembly of divines employed Haak in making this English translation, and the parliament granted him a sole right in it for fourteen years from the time of publication. Haak also translated into Dutch several English books of practical divinity, and one half of Milton’s “Paradise Lost.” He left nearly ready for the press, a translation of German proverbs, but it does not appear that this was published. He was in 1645 one of several ingenious men (Dr. Wilkins, Dr. Wallis, Dr. Goddard, &c.) who agreed to meet once a week to discourse upon subjects connected with mathematics and natural philosophy, and it was he who first suggested this humble plan on which, the royal society was afterwards formed. Mr. Haak died at the house of his kinsman Dr. Slare, a physician near Fetter-lane, London, May 9, 1690, and was buried in St. Andrew’s church, Holborn. Dr. Horneck preached his funeral sermon. He appears to have been the friend and correspondent of the most learned men of his time, and has some observations and letters in the “Philosophical Collections,” published in May 1682. There is a portrait of him in the picture gallery at Oxford, which has never been engraved.

, was a learned and celebrated doctor of the society of the Sorbonne, canon and theologal of Paris, and made bishop of Vabres, in 1645. He died January 11, 1668. He distinguished himself by his preaching, and by several works on Grace, in which he forcibly refutes Jansenius, though he defends the doctrine of efficacious Grace, but in another sense. He also left a Latin translation of the “Pontifical of the Greek Church,” with learned notes, 1643, fol. some Latin Poems, Paris, 1623, 4to “Hymns for the Feast of St. Louis,” in the Paris Breviary; “De Consensu Hierarchies et Monarchies,” Paris, 1640, 4to; and many other works. Susannah Habert, his aunt, married Charles du Jardin, an officer under Henry III. and became a widow at twenty-four. This lady was considered as a prodigy of genius; she understood Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, philosophy, and even divinity, which gained her a great reputation among the learned. She died 1633, in the convent of Notre Dame de Grace, at Paris, where she had lived rffear twenty years, leaving several works in ms. in the hands of her nephew.

On the detection of the gunpowder plot, he again fell under the displeasure of government, by concealing some of the agents in that affair in his house, and was condemned to die, but pardoned by the intercession of his brother-in-law, lord Morley, who discovered the plot by the famous letter of warning, which Mrs. Habington is reported to have written. The condition of his pardon was, that he should never stir out of Worcestershire. With this he appears to have complied, and devoted his time, among other pursuits, to the history and antiquities of that county, of which he left three folio volumes of parochial antiquities, two of miscellaneous collections, and one relating to the cathedral. These received additions from his son and from Dr. Thomas, of whom bishop Lyttelton purchased them, and presented them to the society of antiquaries. They have since formed the foundation of Dr. Nash’s elaborate history. Wood says he had a hand in the “History of Edward IV.” published afterwards under the name of his son, the poet, whom he survived dying in 1647, at the advanced age of eighty -seven.

, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, descended from an ancient family in Scotland, was born near Exeter-house in the Strand, London, September 1, 1592. He was admitted very young into Westminsterschool, where, on account of his proficiency, he was much noticed by Dr. (afterwards bishop) Andrews, but then dean of Westminster. In 1608, along with Herbert the poet, he was elected to Trinity-college, Cambridge. His uncommon parts and learning recommended him to particular notice; so that, after taking the proper degrees, he was chosen fellow of his college, and became a tutor of great repute. One month in the long vacation, retiring with his pupil, afterwards lord Byron, to Newstede abbey, Nottinghamshire, he composed a Latin comedy entitled “Loyola,” which was twice acted before James I. and printed in 1648. He took orders in 1618, and was collated to the rectory of Stoke Hamon, in Buckinghamshire, and had singular kindness shewn him by bishop Andrews and several great men. But above all others, he was regarded by Dr. Williams, dean of Westminster and bishop of Lincoln, who, being appointed lord-keeper of the great seal in 1621, chose Hacket for his chaplain, and ever preserved a high esteem for him. In 1623, he was made chaplain to Jame$ I. with whom he became a favourite preacher, and was also made a prebendary of Lincoln; and the year following, upon the lord-keeper’s recommendation, rector of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, in London. His patron also procured him the same year the rectory of Cheam, in. Surrey; telling him that he intended Holborn for wealth, and Cheam for health.

When rector of St. Andrew’s, having soon after the restoration, received notice of the interment of a dissenter belonging to his parish, he got the burial-office by heart. As he was a great master of elocution, and was himself always affected with the propriety and excellence of the composition of that service, he delivered it with such emphasis and grace as touched the hearts of every one present, and especially of the friends of the deceased, who unanimously declared they had never heard a finer discourse. But their astonishment was great, when they were told that it was taken from our liturgy, a book which, though they had never read, they had been taught to regard with contempt and detestation. This story, but without the name of Dr. Hacket, for which we are indebted to Mr. Granger, is circumstantially told in bishop Sprat’s excellent “Discourse to his Clergy,” 1695. The worthy bishop Bull, when a parish priest, is known to have practised the same honest art with like success, in using other offices of the liturgy.

After the restoration of Charles II. he recovered all his preferments, and was offered the bishopric of Gloucester, which he refused; but he accepted shortly after that of Lichfield and Coventry, and was consecrated December 22, 1661. The spring following he repaired to Lichfield, where, finding the cathedral almost battered to the ground, he rebuilt it in eight years, in a very magnificent style, at the expence of 20,000l. of which he had 1000l. from the dean and chapter; and the rest was of his own charge, or procuring from benefactors. He laid out lOOOl. upon a prebendal house, which he was forced to live in, his palaces at Lichfield and Ecclestiall having been demolished during the civil war. He added to Trinity college, in Cambridge, a building called Bishop’s hostel, which cost him 1200l. ordering that the rents of the chambers should be laid out in books for the college library. Besides these acts of munificence, he left several benefactions by will; as 50l. to Clare-hall, 50l. to St. John’s college, and all his books, which cost him about 1500l. to the university library. He died at Lichfield, October 21, 1670, and was buried in the cathedral, under a handsome tomb, erected by his eldest son sir Andrew Hacket, a muster in chancery: he was twice married, and had several children by both his wives.

He published only the comedy of “Loyola” above-mentioned, and “A Sermon preached before the king, March 22, 1660;” but, after his decease, “A Century of Sermons upon several remarkable subjects” was published by Thomas Plume, D. D. in 1675, folio, with his life. His sermons are rather too much in the quaint style of bishop Andrews. In 1693 appeared his “Life of archbishop Williams,” folio, of which an abridgement was published in 1700, 8vo, by Ambrose Philips. He intended to have written the life of James I. and for that purpose the lordkeeper Williams had given him Camden’s ms notes or annals of that king’s reign; but, these being lost in the confusion of the times, he was disabled from doing it. According to his biographer, Dr. Plume, he was zealous against popery, and all separation from the church of England. In the dispute between the Calvinists and the Arzmuians he was ever very moderate; but being bred under bishop Davenant and Dr. Samuel Ward in Cambridge, adhered to their sentiments. He was exemplary in his behaviour, chearful in conversation, hospitable, humble, and affable, though subject to great eruptions of anger, but at the same time very placable and ready to be appeased, and of too generous a nature to be vindictive. When he was a bishop he desired to hold nothing in commendam; he renewed all his leases for years, and not for lives, and upon very moderate fines, and spent a very considerable share thereof in the repair of his cathedrals and acts of charity. In his younger years he had been much addicted to School learning, which was then greatly studied in the university; but he afterwards grew weary of it, and professed " that he found more shadows and names than solid juice and substance in it, and would much dislike their horrid and barbarous terms, more proper for incantation than divinity; and became perfectly of Beatus Rhenanus’s mind, that the schoolmen were rather to be reckoned philosophers than divines; but if any pleased to account them such, he had much rather, with St. John Chrysostom, be styled a pious divine, than an invincible or irrefragable one with Thomas Aquinas, or our own countryman Alexander Hales. For knowledge in the tongues, he would confess he could never fix upon Arabian learning the place was siticulosa regio, a dry and barren land, where no water is and he being discouraged in his younger years, by such as had plodded most in it; and often quarrelled with his great friend Salmasius, for saying he accounted no man solidly learned without skill in Arabic and other eastern languages. Our bishop declared his mind otherwise, and bewailed that many good wits of late years prosecuted the eastern languages so much as to neglect the western learning and discretion too sometimes. Mr. Selden and bishop Creighton had both affirmed to him, that they should often read ten pages for one line of sense, and one word of moment; and did confess there was no learning like to what scholars may find in Greek authors, as Plato, Plutarch, &c. and himself could never discern but that many of their quotations and proofs from them were, in his own words, iucerta, et inexplorata.

, an eminent scholar, and one of the revivers of the learned languages in England, was descended from a good family in Buckinghamshire, and born in 1516. He was educated at Eton school, under Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely, and was thence elected to King’s college, in Cambridge; where he greatly distinguished himself by his parts and learning, and particularly by writing Latin in an elegant, but, as Mr. Warton thinks, not a very pure style. He studied also the civil law, of which he became doctor; and read public lectures in it in 1547, and the two years following, and was so much approved, that upon a vacancy in the professor’s chair in 1550, the university employed the celebrated Ascham to write to king Edward VI. in his favour. He was accordingly appointed professor, and was also for some time professor of rhetoric and orator of the university. During king Edward’s reign, he was one of the most illustrious promoters of the reformation; and therefore, upon the deprivation of Gardiner, was thought a proper person to succeed him in the mastership of Trinity-hall. In September 1552, through the earnest recommendation of the court, though not qualified according to the statutes, he was chosen president of Magdalen college in Oxford; but, in October 1553, upon the accession of queen Mary, he quitted the president’s place for fear of being expelled, or perhaps worse used, at Gardiner’s visitation of the said college. He is supposed to have lain concealed in England all this reign; but, on the accession of Elizabeth, was ordered by the privy council to repair to her majesty at Hatfield in Hertfordshire, and soon after was constituted by her one of the masters of the court of requests. Archbishop Parker also made him judge of his prerogative-­court. In the royal visitation of the university of Cambridge, performed in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, he was one of her majesty’s commissioners, as appears by the speech he then made, printed among his works. In 1566 he was one of the three agents sent to Bruges to restore commerce between England and the Netherlands upon the ancient terms. He died Jan. 21, 1571-2, and was buried in Christ Church, London, where a monument was erected to his memory, but was destroyed in the great fire of London. He was engaged, with sir John Cheke, in turning into Latin and drawing up that useful code of ecclesiastical law, published in 1571, by the learned John Fox, under this title, “Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum,” in 4to. He published, in 1563, a letter, or answer to an epistle, directed to queen Elizabeth, by Jerom Osorio, bishop of Silva in Portugal, and entitled “Admonitio ad Elizabetham reginam Angliæ,” in which the English nation, and the reformation of the church, were treated in a scurrilous manner. His other works were collected and published in 1567, 4to, under the title of “Lucubrationes.” This collection contains ten Latin orations, fourteen letters, besides the above-mentioned to Osorio; and also poems. Several of his original letters are in the Harleian collection; and his poems, “Poemata,” containing a great number of metrical epitaphs, were separately published with his life in 1576. Many of our writers speak in high terms of Haddon, and not without reason; for, through, every part of his writings, his piety appears equal to his learning. When queen Elizabeth was asked whether she preferred him or Buchanan? she replied, “Buchananum omnibus antepono, Haddonum nemini postpono.”

, a French historian, of an ancient family, was born at Bourdeaux about 1535. He went to court at twenty years of age, and in 1556 and 1557 was secretary to Francis de Noailles, bishop of Acqs, in his embassies to England and Venice. After that, his first appearance in the republic of letters was in the quality of a poet and translator. In 1559, he published a poem, entitled “The Union of the Princes, by the Marriages of Philip King of Spain and the Lady Elizabeth of France, and of Philibert Emanuel Duke of Savoy, and the Lady Margaret of France;” and another entitled “The Tomb of the most Christian King Henry II.” In 1560 he published an abridged translation of “Tully’s Offices, 7 ' and of” Eutropius’s Roman History;“and, in 1568, of” The Life of JEmilius Probus.“He applied himself afterwards to the writing of history, and succeeded so well, that by his first performances of this nature, he obtained of Charles IX. the title of Historiographer of France 1571. He had published the year before at Paris a book entitled” Of the State and Success of the Affairs of France;“which was reckoned very curious, and was often reprinted. He augmented it in several successive editions, and dedicated it to Henry IV. in 1594: the best editions of it are those of Paris 1609 and 1613, in 8vo. He had published also the same year a work entitled” Of the Fortune and Power of France, with a Summary Discourse on the Design of a History of France:“though Niceron suspects that this may be the same with” The Promise and Design of the History of France," which he published in 1571, in order to let Charles IX. see what he might expect from him in support of the great honour he had conferred of historiographer of France. In 1576, he published a history, which reaches from Phararnond to the death of Charles VII. and was the first who composed a body of the French history in French. Henry III. shewed his satisfaction with this by the advantageous and honourable gratifications he made the author. The reasons which induced de Haillan to conclude his work with Charles Vllth’s death were, that the event beingrecent, he must eitlier conceal the truth, or provoke the resentment of men in power, but he afterwards promised Henry IV. to continue this history to his time, as may be seen in his dedication to him of this work in 1594; nothing however of this kind was found among his papers after his death: the booksellers, who added a continuation to his work as far as to 1615, and afterwards as far as to 1627, took it from Paulus Æmilius, de Comines, Arnoul Ferron, du Bellay, &c.

He was the author of several things which were published by himself; namely, 1. “An Essay touching theGravitation or Non -gravitation of Fluid Bodies, and the Reasons thereof.” 2. “Difficiies Nugse, or observationstouching the Torricellian Experiment, and the various solutions of the same, especially touching the weight and elasticity of the air.” 3. “Observations touching the Principles of natural motion, and especially touching rarefaction and condensation.” 4. “Contemplations moral and divine.” 5. “An English Translation of the Life of Pomponius Atticus, written by Corn. Nepos; together with observations political and moral.” 6. “The Primitive Origination of Mankind considered and explained according to the Light of Nature, &c.” He left also at his decease other works, which were published namely, 1. His “Judgment of the Nature of true Religion, the Causes of its Corruption, and the Church’s Calamity by men’s addition and violences, with the desired Cure.” 2. “Several Tracts; as a f Discourse of Religion under three heads’,” &c. 3. “A Letter to his Children, advising them how to behave in their speech.” 4. “A Letter to one of his sons after his recovery from the small-pox/' 5.” Discourse of the Knowledge of God and of ourselves, first by the light of nature; secondly, by the sacred Scriptures.“All these, under the title of his” Moral and Religious Works,“were published by the rev. Thomas Thirlwall, 1805, 2 vols. 8vo, with his life by bishop and an appendix to it. Of his law tracts, one only was printed in his life-time, viz.:” London Liberty, or an argument of Law and Reason,“1650, which was reprinted in 1682, under the title of” London’s Liberties, or the opinions of those great lawyers, lord chief justice Hale, Mr. justice Wild, and serjeant Maynard, about the election of mayor, sheriffs, aldermen, and common councel of London, and concerning their charter.“In 1668 he wrote a preface to Rolle’s” Abridgment," which he published with the whole of that work.

, a learned Englishman, was the younger son of Thomas Hales, of Hales’-place, at Halden in Kent, and was liberally educated, although at no university. He became an excellent scholar in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues, and was well skilled in the municipal laws and antiquities. In the reign of Henry VIII. he was clerk of the ha,naper for several years^ and in 1548 was appointed a commissioner to inquire into inclosures, decayed houses, and the unlawful converting of arable land into pasture, for the counties of Oxfordj, Berks, &c. On this occasion he made an excellent charge, which is printed at length by Strype. He obtained a good estate in Warwickshire and elsewhere, upon the dissolution of the monasteries, and founded a free-school at Coventry. For the use of the scholars there, he wrote “Introductiones ad Grammaticam,” Latin and English. He was also the author of the “High way to Nobility,” Lond. 4to; and translated into English “Plutarch’s Precepts for the preservation of good health,” Lond. 1543, 8vo. Being a zealous protestant, he went abroad during queen Mary’s reign, and took every pains to compose the unhappy differences that took place among the English exiles at Francfort. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he distinguished his loyalty in “An Oration to Queen Elizabeth at her first entrance to her reign,” which was, however, not spoken, but delivered in manuscript to the queen. He also wrote a treatise in favour of the succession of the house of Suffolk to the crown on the demise of Elizabeth, who was so displeased with it, as to commit the author to the Tower. It was answered by Lesley, bishop of Ross. Mr. Hales, whose imprisonment was probably of no long duration, died Jan. 28, 1572, and was buried in the church of St. Peter le Poor, Broad-street, London. Some of his. Mss. are in the Harleian collection.

On May 24 of this year, Mr. Hales quitted his fellowship at Merton, and was admitted fellow of Eton college. He was then in orders, and had acquired fame as a preacher. In 1616 he held a correspondence with Mr. Oughtred, as appears by a letter of his to that excellent mathematician, printed in the General Dictionary, hi 1618 he accompanied sir Dudley Carlton, ambassador to the Hague, as his chaplain, by which means he procured admission into the synod of Dort, though he was not properly a member. This indeed seems to have been his principal view in accompanying sir Dudley, who, besides his brother the bishop of Llandaff, first English commissioner, recommended him to Bogerman, president of the synod, and some other leading men. Ail this afforded him a favourable opportunity of collecting that information respecting the proceedings of the synod, which was afterwards published in his “Golden Remains.” The effect of these proceedings on his own mind was, that he became a convert to Arminianism. His friend Mr. Faringdon. informs us that “in his younger days he was a Calvinist, but that some explanation given by Episcopius* of the text in St. John iii. 16, induced him, as he said, to” bid John Calvin good night.“It does not appear, however, from his sermons, that he became a decided anti-predestinarian, although he pleads strongly for a toleration between the two parties, and thinks they may remain in Christian charity with each other. It is more remarkable that he should be induced by the arguments advanced in this synod, to think with indifference of the divinity of Jesus Christ as a necessary article of faith. This, however, seems obvious from some passages in his” Tract on Schism;“and such was his free and open manner both of talking and writing on these subjects, that he soon incurred the suspicion of inclining to Socinianism. Dr. Heylin went so far as to attribute two works to him, published with fictitious names, which have been since printed in the” Phoenix;" but it has been proved that they were written by Socinian authors. His biographers, however, all allow that he may be classed among those divines who were afterwards called Latitudinarians. He returned from the synod Feb. 8, 1619.

supposed, to be Richard Bishop, who worth reviving. forms us that he was bursar about the time when the contest began between the king and parliament, and when both armies had sequestered the college rents, so that he could not get any to pay wages to the servants, or to buy victuals for the scholars. But after nine weeks hiding himself to preserve the college writings and keys, he was forced to appear. The old woman that concealed him demanded but six-pence a week for his brown bread and beer, which was all his meat, and he would give her twelve-pence. This concealment was so near the college or highway, that he used to say, “those who searched for him might have smelt him if he had eaten garlick.”

He continued in his fellowship at Eton, although he refused the covenant, but was ejected upon his refusal to take the engagement “to be faithful to the Common-wealth of England, as then established without a king, or a house of lords.” His successor, a Mr. Penwarn, or Penwarden, kindly offered him half the profits of his fellowship; but Mr. Hales refused to accept it, saying, if he had a right to any part, he had a right to the whole. Both Wood and Des Maizeaux have misrepresented this expression, which we give on the authority of Mr. Montague, one of his executors. About the same time he refused a liberal offer from a gentleman of the Sedley family, in Kent, of 100l. his board, and servants to attend him. In this spirit of independence he retired to the house of a Mrs. Salter, at Rickings, near Colebrook, accepting of a smaller salary of 50l. with his diet, to instruct her son. Here he also officiated as chaplain, performing the service according-to the liturgy of the church of England, in company with Dr. Henry King, the ejected bishop of Chichester, who was in the same house. But this retirement was soon disturbed by an order from the ruling powers, prohibiting all persons from harbouring malignants, or royalists; and although Mrs. Salter assured Mr. Hales that she was prepared to risk the consequences, he would not suffer her to incur any danger upon his account, but retired to the house of Hannah Dickenson, in Eton, whose husband had been his servant, and who administered the humble comforts she could afford with great care and respect. But being now destitute of every means of supporting himself, ne was obliged to sell (not the whole, as Wood says, but) a part of his valuable library to Cornelius Bee, a bookseller in London, for 700l. which, Walker informs us, and the fact seems to be confirmed by Dr. Pearson in his preface to the “Golden Remains,” he shared with several ejected clergymen, scholars, and others.

He died May 19, 1656, aged seventy-two, and was buried, according to his own desire, in Eton church-yard, where a monument was erected over his grave by Mr. Peter Curwen. In person, he was of an ingenuous and open countenance, sanguine, cheerful, and vivacious; his body was well proportioned, and his motion quick and sprightly. As to the excellence of his character, all writers seem agreed. Whatever his errors, he was esteemed a good man by those who knew him, and an able writer, as appears by the testimonies of lord Clarendon, lord Say and Sele, Dr. Pearson, bishop of Chester, Dr. Heylin, Andrew Marvel, Wood, Sailing-fleet, and others, quoted by sir David Dalrymple lord Hailes, in his fine edition of Hales’s works, and in the Biographia Britannica. “They,” says lord Hailes, “who are acquainted with the literary and political history of England, will perceive that the leading men of all parties, however different and discordant, have, with a wonderful unanimity, concurred in praise of the virtues and abilities of the ever memorable Mr. John Hales of Eton.”

We do not find that Hales ever suffered any thing to be published in his life-time, except his oration at the funeral of sir Thomas Bodley. Bishop Pearson says, that “while he lived, none was ever more solicited and urged to write, and thereby truly teach the world, than he; but that none was ever so resolved, pardon the expression, so obstinate against it.” In 1659, however, there appeared a collection of his works with this title, “Golden Remains of the ever-memorable Mr. John Hales of Eton college, &c.” which was enlarged with additional pieces in a second edition of 1673. This collection consists of sermons, miscellanies, and letters; all of them written upon particular occasions. In 1677 there appeared another collection of his works, entitled “Several Tracts by the ever-memorable Mr. John Hales, &c.” The 1st of which is, “Concerning the. Sin against the Holy Ghost;” 2. “Concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and whether the Church may err in Fundamentals;” 3. “A Paraphrase on the 12th chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew;” 4. “Concerning the power of the Keys, and auricular Confession;” 5. “Concerning Schism and Schismatics;” and some short pieces entitled “Miscellanies.” There is no preface nor advertisement to this volume, which seems to have been put out by the editor, who was thought to be sir Robert Filmer, with caution: but it is finely and correctly printed, with a portrait of Mr. Hales. To these volumes of posthumous works we must add the letter to archbishop Laud, mentioned before, which was printed in 1716. In 1765 lord Hailes edited a beautiful edition of his whole works, 3 vols. 12mo, with a very few alterations of obsolete words, and corrections in spelling, &c. Dr. Johnson blamed him for taking these liberties. We are more inclined to blame him for omitting bishop Pearson’s preface to the “Golden Remains,” with Faringdon’s Letter, which give a particular value to the edition of 1673. On the other hand, lord Hailes has added some letters and other articles which enhance the merit of his labours.

Dr. Hall, by his literary labours, deserved far more attention than he acquired. He had a quick apprehension, and his judgment was clear and penetrating; but it was his misfortune never to compare or revise the manuscripts he had once transcribed. His edition of “Leland de Scriptoribus” is very erroneously printed, and in some parts are great omissions, from his negligence. This was his first publication, and appeared in 2 vols. 8vo, Oxford, 1709. From a letter of bishop Tanner, we learn that he originally designed to publish Leland’s work only, and not what he afterwards completed in his “Bibliotheca;” and that he was at first somewhat concerned to find himself anticipated, although he allows Mr. Hall’s fitness for the task. Mr. Hail published also “N. Triveti Annales,” 1718, 3vo, the “Continuatio” of the same, 1722, 8vo; and drew up the account of Berkshire for the “Magna Britannia,” but was not, as reported, the author of the account of Cumberland in that work.

There are various characters given of this chronicle by antiquaries. Bishop Nicolson speaks of it with disrespect, as a record of the fashions of clothes; but Peck vindicates Hall with some warmth. The author of a fragment, supposed to be Stow, published by Hearne in the appendix to the chartulary of Worcester, also vindicates the merit of the work; and Hearne says it is written in a masculine and elegant style, and contains nothing but what is agreeable to the dignity and majesty of an historian. On the other hand Fox and Ascham object to the fidelity and style of our author. Hall has been accused of being no favourer of the clergy, and some instances of misrepresentation in that respect have been pointed out by Fiddes in his life of cardinal Wolsey (p. 50, &c.)

read bishop Hail’s Meditations and he was collated to the archdeaconry of

He now returned home, and resumed his professional duties, happy in having overcome his perplexities, an in the acquisition of a new patron, whom he valued so highly as to refuse the prince’s invitation to reside near his person, and in the road to higher preferment. He was afterwards made a prebendary of the collegiate church of Wolverhampton, a very small endowment, but acceptable to our author from the prospect it afforded of public usefulness; and after many law-suits he was the means of recovering some revenues belonging to the church which had been unjustly withheld. He is said by all his biographers to have retained the living of Waltham for twenty-two years, and this assertion is founded on his own words in his “Specialities;” but as he expressed the time in numerals, there may be a mistake in the printing, for if he remained at Waltham twenty -two years, he must have kept that living after he was bishop of Exeter, which is not very probable, especially as we find there were three incumbents on the living of Waltham before 1637.

In 16)6 he attended the embassy of James Hay, viscount Doncaster, into France, and during his absence king James performed a promise he had made before his setting out, of conferring upon him the deanery of Worcester. In the following year he accompanied his majesty into Scotland as one of his chaplains; but on his return it was insinuated to the king that Dr. Hall leaned too much to the presbyterian interpretation of the five points , the discussion of which at that time occupied the attention of the protestant world: on this he was required to give his opinion in writing, with which the king was so well satisfied, and found himself s* much of his way of thinking, that he commanded it to be read in the university of Edinburgh. In 1618 he was sent to the synod of Dort, which was summoned by the states-general, and consisted of the most eminent divines deputed from the United Provinces, and churches of England, Scotland, Switzerland, &c. and its objectwas to decide the controversy between the Calvinists and Arminians respecting the five points. Dr. Hairs companions on this mission were Dr. Carleton, bishop of Landaff, and afterwards of Chichester, Dr. Davenant, master of Queen’s college, Cambridge, and Dr. Ward, master of Sidney; but the state of his health requiring his return after about two months, his place was supplied by Dr. Goad. During his short residence, however, he preached a Latin sermon before the synod, and on his departure, among other honourable testimonies of their esteem, received from them, a rich gold medal which is painted suspended on his breast in the fine portrait now in Emanuel college. It appears by his treatise entitled “Via Media,” that he was not extremely rigid with respect to all the five points; but his was not an age for moderation, and no party sought a middle way.

It must be allowed that the religious principles which he inculcated from the pulpit and the press, were much more consonant to what the puritans maintained, than the lax Arminianism for which Laud contended, but at the same time bishop Hall’s zeal for episcopacy was not inferior to that of any supporter of the church. Few men, indeed, wrote more, or suffered more, in the cause. He published, even when publishing became hazardous, several able treatises in defence of the liturgy and church discipline; and was the powerful antagonist of Marshall, Calamy, Young, Newcomen, and Spurstow, who wrote a celebrated book called Smectymnuus (a title made up of their initials, Christian and surname), and all this he boldly ventured, when the republican party had possessed themselves of the fortresses of civil and ecclesiastical government, and were about to substitute power for argument; nor was it long before they made him experience the dangers of a high station in the church.

On the 15th of November, 1641, he was translated, by the little power now left to the king, to be bishop of Norwich; but on the 30th of December following, having joined with the archbishop of York, and eleven other prelates, in a protest against the validity of such laws as should be made during their compelled absence from parliament, he was ordered to be sent to the Tower with his brethren on the 30th of January, 1641-2. Shortly after, they were impeached by the commons of high treason, and on their appearance in parliament were treated with the utmost rudeness and contempt. The commons, however, did not think fit to prosecute the charge of high treason, having gained their immediate purpose by driving them from the house of lords, and he and his brethren were ordered to be dismissed; but upon another pretext they were again sent to the Tower, and it was not until June following that he was finally released on giving bail for 5000l. He immediately returned to Norwich, and being received with rather more respect than could be hoped for in the then state of popular opinion, he resumed his functions, frequently preaching, as was his custom, to crowded audiences, and enjoying the forbearance of the predominant party till the beginning of April, 1643, when the destruction of the church could no longer be delayed. About this time, the ordinance for sequestering notorious delinquents having passed, and our prelate being included by name, a distinction which his writings and his popularity had merited, all his rents were stopped, even the half-year then due; and a few days after, the sequestrators entered his palace, and began the work of devastation with unfeeling brutality, seizing at the same time all his property real and personal. Some notion of their proceedings may be formed from his own brief account.

This “poor pittance” had at first the appearance of liberality, for when he applied to the committee of sequestrators at Norwich, they were either so ashamed of what they had been compelled to do, or entertained so much respect for his character, as to agree that he should have 400l. a-year out of the revenues of the bishopric. But their employers at the seat of government disdained to vary their proceedings by such an act of generosity, and the Norwich committee were told that they had no power to allow any such thing, but if his wife needed a maintenance. upon her application to the lords and commons she might receive a fifth part. After long delays, this was granted; but the sequestrators produced such confused accounts, that the bishop could never ascertain what a fifth part meant, and was obliged to take what they offered. And that even this pittance might wear the appearance of insult and persecution, after they had cut off all his resources they demanded assessments and monthly payments for the very estates they had seized, and levied distresses upon him in spite of every assurance that he had given up all. They even commanded him to find the arms usually furnished by his predecessors, although they had deprived him of all power over his diocese.

While he remained in his palace, he was continually exposed to the insolence of the soldiery and mob, who were plundering and demolishing the windows and monuments of the cathedral. At length he was ordered to leave his house, and would have been exposed to the utmost extremity, had not a neighbour offered him the shelter of his humble roof. Some time after, but by what interest we are not told, the sequestration was taken off a small estate which he rented at Higham near Norwich, to which he retired. His sufferings had not damped his courage, as in 1644 we find him preaching in Norwich, wherever he could obtain the use of a pulpit, and, with yet more boldness, in the same year he sent “A modest offer of some meet considerations,” in favour of episcopacy, addressed to the assembly of divines. During the rest of his life he appears to have remained at Higham unmolested, performing the duties of a faithful pastor, and exercising such hospitality and charity as his scanty means permitted. He died Sept. 8, 1656, in the eighty-second year of his age, and was buried in the church-yard of Higham without any memorial. In his will he says, “I leave my body to be buried without any funeral pomp, at the discretion of my executors, with this only monition, that I do not hold God’s house a meet repository for the dead bodies of the greatest saints.” His wife died in 1647. He left a family behind, according to Lloyd, of whom Robert, the eldest son, was afterwards a clergyman and D. D. and archdeacon of Cornwall, and George was bishop of Chester.

, son of the preceding, was born at Waltham Holy Cross in 1612, while his father was rector there, and was admitted commoner of Exeter college, Oxford, in 1628. After taking his degrees and obtaining a fellowship, he was in 1639 collated to a prebend of Exeter. In 1641 he was made archdeacon of Cornwall on the resignation of his brother Robert, and had also the rectory of Minhinnet in that county, but was sequestered by the usurping powers, and although he would have kept a school for his subsistence, was not suffered even that resource. On the restoration, he was first made canon of Windsor, and afterwards bishop of Chester, with which he held Wigan in Lancashire, a living that was for several turns presented to the bishops of Chester. His death, on Aug. 23, 1668, was occasioned by a wound received by a knife, which happened to be in his pocket, when he fell from the mount in his garden at Wigan. He published some sermons, and a treatise entitled “The Triumphs of Rome over despised Protestancy,” Lond. 1655. He was a considerable benefactor to Exeter college.

, a Roman catholic writer, was educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge, which his principles obliged him to leave about 1572. He then went to Doway, and thence to Italy, where he resumed his studies and took his degree of D. D. Returning afterwards to Doway, he obtained a professorship and some preferment. He died in 1604-. He wrote some books of controversy; but is chiefly worthy of notice now, as the author of that “Life of bishop Fisher” which goes under the name of Bailey. He left it in manuscript at his death, and it was long preserved as a choice rarity in the library of the English Benedictines at Dieuward in Lorraine; but several transcripts getting abroad, one fell into the hands of Thomas Bailey, D. D. a son of Bailey, or Bayly, bishop of Bangor. This Dr. Bailey, who was a Roman catholic, sold it to a bookseller, by whom it was printed at London in 1655, under the editor’s name. In 1739 another edition was published at London, 12mo, edited by Coxeter. It is valued as a narrative of considerable interest and authenticity.

In 1685 he became clerk to the royal society, and seems, for several years about that period, to have been the principal person employed in drawing up the “Philosophical Transactions.” In 1687 he undertook to explain the cause of a natural phenomenon, which had till then baffled the researches of the ablest geographers. The Mediterranean Sea is observed not to swell in the least, although there is no visible discharge of the prodigious quantity of water which runs into it from nine large rivers, besides several small ones, and the constant setting-in of the current at the mouth of the Streights. His solution of this difficulty gave so much satisfaction to the society, that he received orders to prosecute these inquiries, in the course of which, having shewn by the most accurate experiments, how that great increase of water was actually carried off in vapours raised by the action of the sun and wind upon the surface, he proceeded with the like success to point out the method used by nature to return the said vapours into the sea. This circulation he supposes to be carried on by the winds driving these vapours to the mountains; where, being collected, they form springs, which uniting, becomte rivulets or brooks, and many of these again meeting in the valleys, grow into large rivers, emptying themselves at last into the sea; thus demonstrating in the most beautiful manner the way in which the equilibrium of receipt and expence is continually preserved in the universal ocean. In 1698 he was candidate for the Savilian professorship at Oxford, but lost it by the intervention of bishop Stillingtteet, who refused to recommend him, on account of his opinions, which were considered as unfavourable to Christianity. We shall find, however, that he was afterwards elected*.

* Whiston, in the Memoirs of his ley should talk with him about it, which own Life, tells us from Dr. Bentlev, he did. But Halley was so sincere in that Halley “being thought of for sue-his infidelity, that he would not so cessor to the mathematical chair at Ox-much as pretend to believe the Chrisford, bishop Stilling&eet was desired tiau religiou, though he thereby was to recommend him at courti; but, hear-likely to lose a professorship; which ing that he was a sceptic and a ban-he did accordingly, and it was the terer of religion, the bishop scrupled given to Dr. Gregory.” fco be concerned, till his chaplain Bent. which, though it was well received both at home and abroad, he found upon a review liable to great and insuperable objections. Yet the phenomena of the variation of the needle, upon which it is raised, being so many certain and indisputed facts, he spared no pains to possess himself of all the observations relating to it, he could possibly come at. To this end he procured an application to be made to king William, who appointed him commander of the Paramour Pink, August 19, 169S; with express orders to seek by observations the discovery of the rule of the variations, and, as the words of his commission run, “to call at his majesty’s settlements in America, and make such farther observations as are necessary for the better laying down the longitude and latitude of those places, and to attempt the discovery of what land lies to the south of the Western ocean.” He set out on this attempt November 24th following, and proceeded so far as to cross the line; but his men growing sickly and untractable, and his first lieutenant mutinying, he returned home in June 1699. After getting his lieutenant tried and cashiered, he sailed September following, a second time, having the same ship with another of less bulk, of which he had also the command. He traversed the vast Atlantic Ocean from one hemisphere to another, as far as the ice would permit him to go; and, in his way back touched at St. Helena, the coast of Brazil, Cape Verd, Barbadoes, Madeiras, the Canaries, the coast of Barbary, and many other latitudes, arriving in England in September 1700. Having thus furnished himself with a competent number of observations, he published in 1701, “A General Chart, shewing at one view the Variation of the Compass in all those seas where the English navigators were acquainted;” and was the first who laid a sure foundation for the discovery of the law or rule whereby the said variation changes all over the world. In 1775 the original journals of Dr. Halley’s two voyages were published by Mr. Alexander Dalrymple, in a thin quarto volume, but they are not of much value, and were obviously never intended for publication by Dr. Halley himself.

, a celebrated French bishop, was born in 1595. He rose to be doctor and professor of the Sorboune, archdeacon of Dinan, prebendary of Chartres, syndic of the faculty of divinity at Paris, and, at length, bishop of Cavaillon in 1656. He travelled into Greece, Italy, and England. Urban VIII. had so great a value for him, that he twice nominated him to the bishopric of Toul; and wishing to create two cardinals, one of which should be a Frenchman, the other a Spaniard, proposed him, with father de Lugo, for that dignity; but a strong faction, and some reasons of state, placed the hat designed for M. Hallier on the head of the commander of Valencey. M. Hallier appeared with great distinction, as proctor, at the assembly of the French clergy, 1645, in which the rules concerning the regulars were revived, which he explained by a learned “Commentary.” On his second visit to Kome in 1652, he solicited, both by personal application and by writing, the condemnation of the five famous propositions of Jansenius, and obtained the bull “Cum occasione” against them. He died in 1659, worn out with sickness and infirmities, aged sixty -four. His principal works are, “Defence of a censure of the faculty of theology at Paris respecting the Bishops of England against the Jesuits;” “Treatise on the Hierarchy;” and a “Treatise on Elections and Ordinations,” 1636, folio; by which he acquired great reputation, both at Rome and in France. He wrote also various pieces against the five propositions of Jansenius, which, in the estimation of his church, discover profound learning, and abound with very strong and solid reasoning. They are all in Latin.

, a learned English prelate, was born at Mansfield in Derbyshire, Jan. 18, 1733. He was the eldest son of Mr. Samuel Hallifax, apothecary, by Hannah, daughter of Mr. Jebb, of Mansfield, by which alliance our author became first cousin of the late sir Richard, and Dr. John Jebb. He was admitted of Jesus college, Cambridge, where he distinguished himself in his academical exercises, and he was in the list of wranglers, as they are called, and obtained the chancellor’s gold medal forclassical learning, and some prize dissertations. He proceeded A. B. in 1744, and A.M. in 1747, and afterwards removed to Trinity Hall (where are only two fellowships in divinity), and proceeded LL.D. in 1761. In Nov. 1765 he was presented to the rectory of Chaddington, in Buckinghamshire, and in 1768 was elected professor of Arabic in the university of Cambridge, which he resigned in 1770 on being made regius professor of civil law. In February 1774 he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; in 1775 was created D. D. by royal mandate, and on the death of Dr. Topham succeeded him as master of the faculties in Doctors Commons. From Mrs. Galley, relict of Dr. Galley, prebendary of Gloucester, he received, without any solicitation on his part, but merely as a reward for his eminent services in the cause of religion, the valuable rectory of Warsop, in Nottinghamshire, in 1778. In 1781 he was advanced to the see of Gloucester, and thence was translated to the see of St. Asaph in 1787, being the first English bishop that was translated to that see, and the second that was translated to a bishopric in North Wales. He died of the stone, March 4, 1790, when only fifty-seven years of age. He married one of the daughters of Dr. Cooke, provost of King’s college, Cambridge, who wrote the elegant epitaph on his monument in the church of Warsop, where bishop Hallifax was buried at his own desire, near a favourite son who was interred there. By his wife he left another son and six daughters.

Bishop Hallifax published at various times, fourteen sermons, preached on occasional subjects; an “Analysis of the Roman Civil Law compared with the Laws of England, being the heads of a course of lectures publicly read in the university of Cambridge,” 1774, 8vo; Twelve Sermons on the Prophecies concerning the Christian Religion, and in particular concerning the church of Papal Home, preached in Lincoln’s Inn chapel, at bishop Warburton’s lecture," 1776, 8vo. He published also an excellent analysis of bishop Butler’s Analogy annexed to a charge of that prelate and was the editor of Dr. Ogden’s Sermons. He was a man of great ability, an excellent civilian, and a very acute and elegant public speaker.

, bishop of Ossory, and an eminent mathematician, was born in the county of Dublin, March 26, 1729. He entered of Trinity-college, Dublin, Dublin, Nov. 17, 1742, and in 1751 was elected a fellow that college. In 1758 he published his treatise on conic ions, < De Sectionibus Conicis," and in 1759 was elected Erasmus Smith’s professor of natural philosophy. In 1764 he resigned his fellowship, having accepted a college living; and in 1767 obtained the living of St. Anne’s, Dublin, which in the following year he resigned at the proposal of the primate Robinson, for the deanery of Armagh. In 1772 he married an Irish lady of good family of the name of Wood. In 1796 he was consecrated 'bishop of Clonfert, having been recommended to that dignity without his solicitation or knowledge; and in 1799 was removed to the see of Ossory, where he continued till his death, Dec. 1, 1805.

, a learned English divine, was born at Chertsey in Surrey, August 18, 1605; and was the youngest son of Dr. John Hammond, physician to Henry prince of Wales, svho was his godfather, and gave him his own name. In his infancy he was remarkable for sweetness of temper, the love of privacy, and a devotional turn. He was educated at Eton-school, and sent to Magdalen-college, Oxford, in 1618; of which, after taking his degrees in a regular way, he was elected fellow in July 1625. During the whole of his residence here, he generally spent thirteen hours every day in study; in the course of which he not only went through the usual academic studies, but read almost all the classics, writing emendations, critical remarks, &c. as he proceeded. Having applied himself also with great diligence to the study of divinity, he was admitted to holy orders in 1629, and soon, after took the degree of bachelor of divinity. In 1633 he was presented to the rectory of Penshurst in Kent, by Robert Sidney earl of Leicester. That nobleman, happening to be one of his auditors while he was supplying a turn at court for Dr. Frewen, the president of his college, and one of his majesty’s chaplains, was-so deeply affected with the sermon, and conceived so high an opinion of the preacher’s merit, that he conferred on him this living, then void, and in his gift. Upon this he quitted his college, and went to his cure, where he resided as long as the times permitted him, punctually performing every branch of the ministerial function in the most diligent and exemplary manner. In 1639 he took the degree of D. D.; in 1640, was chosen one of the members of the convocation, called with the long parliament, which began that year; and, in. 1643, made archdeacon of Chichester by the unsolicited favour of Dr. Brian Duppa, then bishop of Chichester, and afterwards of Winchester. The same year also he was named one of the assembly of divines, but never sat amongst them.

Dr. Hammond was a man of great temperance; his diet was of the plainest kind, and he frequently practised fastng. He seldom went to bed until midnight, or remained in it beyond five or six o'clock. By these means he was enabled to endure cold and fatigue, and in the severest weather sat at a distance from a fire. His studious industry was unceasing. He not only avoided, but had a strong aversion to idleness. “To be always furnished with somewhat to do” he considered as the best expedient both for innocence and pleasure, saying, that no burthen was more heavy, or temptation more dangerous, than to have time lie on one’s hand.“His piety was fervent, and from his youth he spent much of his time in secret devotion. Bishop Burnet says of him, that” his death was an unspeakable loss to the church; for as he was a man of great learning, and of most eminent merit, he having been the person that during the bad times had maintained the cause of the church in a very singular manner; so he was a very moderate man in his temper, though with a high principle, and would probably have fallen into healing counsels. He was also much set on reforming abuses, and for raising the clergy to a due sense of the obligations they lay under."

, an English divine of a very mixed character, was son to Thomas Hanmer of Porkington, in Shropshire, where he was born in 1543, though Fuller says he was born in Flintshire. He became chaplain of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, where he took a degree in arts in April 1567. He afterwards was presented to the living of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, during his holding of which his conduct was such as to bring great odium on him. Out of avarice he tore away the brass plates from the gravestones and monuments, and sold them; and he also appears by Fleetwood’s Diary to have paid very little regard to his oath in a court of justice. In 1581 or 1582, betook his degrees in divinity, and in Nov. 4th, 1583, was presented to the vicarage of Islington, which he resigned in 1590. Two or three years afterwards he resigned Shoreditch, went to Ireland, and at length became treasurer to the church of the holy Trinity, in Dublin, which he kept until his death in 1604. Weever says he committed suicide; and there is still a tradition to this effect among the inhabitants of Shoreditch parish. Whatever his errors, he was esteemed an exact disputant, and a good preacher; an excellent Greek scholar, and well versed in ecclesiastical and civil history. Besides some tracts against the Jesuits, he published “A Chronography,” &c. Lond. 1585, folio, which Harris says was added to his translation of “The Ancient Ecclesiastical Histories of the first 600 years after Christ, originally written by Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius,” 1576, folio, reprinted 1585. With this were printed the lives of the prophets and apostles, &c. by Dorotheus, bishop of Tyre; the Ephemeris of the Saints of Ireland; and “The Chronicle of Ireland, in two parts,” the third part of which was published in 1633, at Dublin, fol. He published also, “A Sermon on the Baptising of a Turk,” preached in the collegiate church of St. Katherine, 1586, 8vo.

, a monk of St. Alban’s, and a Latin poet of the twelfth century, was a native of this country, and educated at Oxford, where he took a master’s degree. He is said to have travelled through a great part of Europe, and during a long residence at Paris, studied rhetoric, and was distinguished for his taste even among the numerous and polite scholars of that flourishing seminary. On his return to England, he became a Benedictine monk in the abbey of St. Alban’s, where he died about the beginning of the thirteenth century. He wrote a long Latin poem in nine books, dedicated to Walter bishop of Rouen, entitled “Architrenius,” which Warton, who has given a long specimen of it, pronounces a learned, ingenious, and very entertaining performance, containing a mixture of satire and panegyric on public vice and virtue, with some historical digressions, but not enough to justify Simlerus’s blunder in the epitome of Gesner’s Bibliotheca, where he says the subject is *' de antiquitatibus Britannise." This work was printed at Paris, 1517, 4to, and is scarce; but there are two manuscripts of it in the Bodleian library, with some epistles, epigrams, and other poems by the same hand.

, a popish divine of considerable note, and the antagonist of bishop Jewel, was born at Comb-Martin in Devonshire, 1512. His school education was first at Barhstaple, and afterwards at Winchester, whence he was removed to New-college, Oxford, and after two years’ probation, was chosen fellow there in 1536. In 1542, having completed his degrees in arts, he was chosen Hebrew professor of the university by Henry VIII. and, fcis religion probably kept pace with the king’s, but Edward no sooner ascended the throne, than Harding became a zealous protestant. He was afterwards chaplain to the duke of Suffolk, father of Jane Grey, and had the honour to instruct this young lady in the protestant religion; but, on the accession of queen Mary, he immediately became a confirmed papist, and was chaplain and confessor to Gardiner bishop of Winchester. There is a curious epistle preserved by Fox, said to be written by lady Jane to Harding on his apostacy, which, Burnet observes, “is full of Jife in the thought, and zeal in the expression.” In 1554, he proceeded D. D. at Oxford, and was the year after made treasurer of the cathedral of Salisbury, as he had been a little before prebendary of Winchester. When Elizabeth came to the crown, being deprived of his preferment, he left the kingdom; and, having fixed his abode at Louvain in Flanders, he became, says Wood, “the target of popery,” in a warm controversy with bishop Jewel, respecting ordination, against whom, between 1554 and 1567, he wrote seven pieces. He died at Louvain Sept. 16, 1572, and was buried in the church of St. Gertrude, with an epitaph, given at length by Pits. He was undoubtedly a man of parts and learning, and not an inelegant writer. Humphrey, in his “Life of Jewel,” comparing himwith his adversary, says, “in multis pares sunt, & arnbo doctrinae & eloquentiae gloria praecellentes.”

, an English bishop, was born in London, and educated at Eton, whence he was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, in 1688, and took his degree of A. B. in 1692, and of A. M. 1696. He afterwards became tutor in the college, and in that capacity superintended the education of the celebrated Anthony Collins, who was fellow-commoner there. He had also the tuition of the marquis of Blandford, only son of the illustrious duke of Marlborough, who appointed him chaplain-general to the army; but this promising young nobleman died in 1702, and was buried in King’s college chapel. The inscription on his monument is by our author. In 1708 Mr. Hare took his degree of D. D. obtained the deanery of Worcester, and in 1726 the deanery of St. Paul’s. In Dec. 1727, he was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph, where he sat about four years, and was translated, Nov. 25, 1731, to the bishopric of Chichester, which he held with the deanery of St. Paul’s to his death. He was dismissed from being chaplain to George I. in 1718, by the strength of party prejudices, in company with Dr. Moss and Dr. Sher-r lock, persons of distinguished rank for parts and learning. About the latter end of queen Anne’s reign he published a remarkable pamphlet, entitled “The difficulties and discouragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures, in the way of private judgment;” in order to shew, that since such a study of the scriptures is an indispensable duty, it concerns all Christian societies to remove, as much as possible, those discouragements. This work was thought to have such a direct tendency to promote scepticism, and a loose way of thinking in matters of religious concern, that the convocation judged it right to pass a severe censure on it; and Whiston says, that, finding this piece likely to hinder preferment, he aimed to conceal his being the author. The same writer charges him with being strongly inclined to scepticism that he talked ludicrously of sacred matters and that he would offer to lay wagers about the fulfilling of scripture prophecies. The principal ground for these invidious insinuations some suppose to be, that, though he never denied the genuineness of the apostolical constitutions (of which he procured for Whiston the collation of two Vienna Mss.), yet “he was not firm believer enough, nor serious enough in Christianity, to hazard any thing in this world for their reception.” He published many pieces against bishop Hoadly, in the Bangorian controversy; and also other learned works, which were collected after his death, and published in four volumes, 8yo. 2. An edition of “Terence,” with notes, in 4to. 3. “The Book of Psalms, in the Hebrew, put into the original poetical metre,” 4to. In this last work he pretends to have Discovered the Hebrew metre, which was supposed to be irretrievably lost. But his hypothesis, though defended by some, yet has been confuted by several learned men, particularly by Dr. Lowth in his “Metrics Hareaue brevis confutatio,” annexed to his lectures “De Sacra Poesi Hebreeorum.” He was yet more unfortunate in the abovementioned edition of Terence, which sunk under the reputation of that of Dr. Bentley, of whom he was once the warm admirer, and afterwards the equally warm opponent. During their friendship the emendations on Menander and Philemon were transmitted through Hare, who was then chaplain-general to the army, to Burman, in 1710; and Bentley’s “Remarks on the Essay on Freethinking” (supposed to be written by Collins) were inscribed to him in 1713. As soon as the first part of these were published, Hare formally thanked Dr. Bentley by name for them, in a most flattering letter called “The Clergyman’s Thanks to Phileleutherus,” printed the same year; but, in consequence of the rupture between them, not inserted in the collection of Hare’s works. This rupture took place soon after the above-mentioned date, and Bentley in the subsequent editions of his “Remarks” withdrew the inscription. Hare was excessively piqued at the utter annihilation of his Terence and Phoedrus, the one soon after its birth, the other before its birth, by Bentley’s edition of both together in 1726, who never once names Hare.

Bishop Hare, about the time of his death, was preparing an edition of Plautus. He died at his house at Chalfont St. Giles’s, Bucks, where he had bought an* estate and resided very much, April 26, 1740, and was buried in that parish church. He was twice married. His son, the rev. Robert Hare of Hurstmonceaux place, in Sussex, prebendary of Winchester, died in March 1797. He was the father of James Hare, esq. late member of parliament for Knaresborough.

, a learned dissenter, was born at Norwich in 1715. He received the elements of classical learning in the country, and discovering an inclination for the profession of a dissenting minister, was sent to London to study un'ler the tuition of Mr. Eames. When he had finished his studies, he settled with a small congregation at Wattsfield, in Suffolk, where he improved his acquaintance with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, in each of which he acquired much critical skill. The favourite object of his pursuit was oriental history, which he applied to the illustration of the sacred writings. Observing a striking conformity between the present customs of the eastern nations and those of the ancients, as mentioned or alluded to in various passages of scripture, he conceived a design at a very early period, of making extracts of such passages in books of travels and voyages, as appeared to him to furnish a key to many parts of holy writ. In 1764 he published a volume of “Observations on divers Passages of Scripture,” &c. The favourable reception which this work met with, encouraged Mr. Harmer to proceed in it, and in 1776 he gave the public an enlarged edition of it, in 2 vols. 8vo. By the preface to this impression we learn that Dr. Lowth bishop of London furnished him with some ms papers of sir John Chardin. In 17S7 Mr. Haroier published two other volumes. A new edition of the whole of this most useful work has lately been published by the rev. Adam Clarke. He was author also of the ' Outlines of a new Commentary on Solomon’s Song, drawn by the help of instructions from the East;“an” Account of the Jewish Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead," and some other tracts of less consequence. Mr. Harrner died without a struggle, in November 1788, having passed the preceding day in perfect health.

At the beginning of the revolution he professed himself an advocate for the new order of things; and most likely he continued in the same principles till the downfall of royalty, and till he himself fell a prey to the terrorism of Robespierre. It appears from the report of Gregoire to the national convention, that he was imprisoned from November 1793 to August 1794; and this confinement was the cause of M. La Harpe’s conversion, brought about by the advice of the bishop of St. Brieux, who happened to be his fellow-prisoner La Harpe soon after proved one of the greatest champions of the attempted counter-revolution; and from the latter part of 1794, he devoted almost his whole time to royalist publications, among which were his dissertation on the war declared by the republican tyranny against good sense and morals, his Fanaticism of the Revolutionary Language, his Confutation of Helvetius, and his journal Le Memorial, which he edited conjointly with his friend Fontanes. This Memorial, however, involved La Harpe in the directorial proscription of the 14th September 1797, and he narrowly escaped being transported to Cayenne; it was a twelvemonth before he was restored to his station in Paris. But confinement had injured his health, and he died in Feb. 1803, in the sixty-fifth year of his age. On the evening preceding his death, M. Fontanes called to see him; he was listening to the Prayers for the Sick; and as soon as they were concluded, he stretched his hand to M. Fontanes, and said, “I am grateful to divine mercy for having left me sufficient recollection to feel how consoling these prayers are to the dying.” His funeral was attended by his friends, and most of the distinguished literary characters in France. A deputation from the institute

, dean of Norwich, and one of the bitterest persecutors under the reign of queen Mary, was born in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Old Fishstreet, London, and educated at Winchester school, whence he was sent to New college, Oxford, of which he was admitted fellow in 1534. Having completed his degrees in arts, and taken orders, he became chaplain to bishop Bonner, whose whole spirit he imbibed. In 1554 he was collated to the church of St. Martin Ludgate, which he resigned on being presented to the living of Layndon in Essex in May 1558. He had other preferments, and was created doctor of divinity. A few months before the death of queen Mary, he was preferred to the deanery of Norwich; but was deprived of it in 1560, and committed to the Fleet prison He remained here about a year, and was then set at liberty on giving security for his peaceable behaviour. He died in London in 1578. Among his preferments was that of archdeacon of London, given to him because he would act with more cruelty to the martyrs than his predecessor. He appears, indeed, in every respect, a suitable assistant to Bonner. In learning, however, he does not appear to have been inferior to any of his contemporaries. His published works are, 1. “Concio ad clerum,” Lond. 1553, 8vo. 2. “Homilies,” 1554, 1555, ibid. Among Bonner’s Homilies, nine were written by Harpsfeld. 3. “Disputations and Epistles,” in Fox’s Acts and Monuments. 4. “Supputatio temporum a diluvio ad A.D. 1559,” Lond. 1560.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Oxford, or, as Anthony Wood expresses it, “turn-; bled out of his mother’s womb in the lap of the Oxonian Muses,” in 1560. Having been instructed in grammarlearning in that city, he became a commoner of St. Maryhall, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1579. He had then so distinguished himself, by his uncommon skill in mathematics, as to be recommended soon after to sir Walter Raleigh as a proper preceptor to him in that science. Accordingly, that noble knight became his first patron, took him into his family, and allowed him a handsome pension. In 1585 he was sent over by sir Walter with his first colony to Virginia; where, being settled, he was employed in discovering and surveying that country, in observing what commodities it produced, together with the manners and customs of its inhabitants. He published an account of it under this title, “A brief and true Report of the Newfoundland of Virginia;” which was reprinted in the third voyage of Hakluyt’s “Voyages.” Upon his return to England, he was introduced by his patron to the acquaintance of Henry earl of Northumberland who, “finding him,” says Wood, “to be a gentleman of an affable and peaceable nature, and well read in the obscure pan of learning,” allowed him a yearly pension of 120l. About the same time, Robert Hues, well known by his ' Treatise upon the Globes,“and Walter Warner, who is said to have communicated to the famous Harvey the first hint concerning the circulation of the blood, being both of them mathematicians, received pensions from him of less value, ^o that in 1606, when the earl was committed to the Tower for life, Harriot, Hues, and Warner, were his constant companions, and were usually called the earl of Northumberland’s Magi. They had a table at the earl’s charge, who did constantly converse with them, to divert the melancholy of his confinement; as did also sir Walter Raleigh, who was then in the Tower. Harriot lived for some time at Sion-college, and died in London, July 2, 1621, of a cancer in his lip. He was universally esteemed on account of his learning. When he was but a young man, he was styled by Mr. Hakluyt” Juvenis in disciplinis mathematicis excellens;“and by Camden,” Mathematicus insignis.“A ms. of his, entitled” Ephemeris Chryrometrica,“is preserved in Sion-college library and his” Artis Analytic* Praxis“was printed after his death, in a thin folio, and dedicated to Henry earl of Northumberland. Des Cartes is said to have been obliged to this book for a great many improvements in algebra, which he published to the world as his own, a fact that has been amply proved, in the astronomical ephemeris for 17vS8, by Dr. Zach, astronomer to the duke of Saxe Gotha, from manuscripts which he found in 1784 at the seat of the earl of Egremont at Petworth, a descendant of the above-mentioned earl of Northumberland. These papers also show that Mr. Harriot was an astronomer as well as an algebraist, As to his religion, Wood says, that,” notwithstanding his great skill in mathematics, he had strange thoughts of the Scripture, always undervalued the old story of the Creation of the World, and could never believe that trite position, * Ex nihilo nihil fit.‘ He made a Philosophical Theology, wherein he cast off the Old Testament, so that consequently the New would have uo foundation. He was a deist; and his doctrine he did impart to the earl, and to sir Walter Raleigh, when he was compiling the ’ History of the World,' and would controvert the matter with eminent divines of those times: who, therefore, having no good opinion of him, did look on the manner of his death, as a judgment upon him for those matters, and for nullify, ing the Scripture.“Wood borrowed all this from Aubrey, without mentioning his authority; and it has been answered, that Harriot assures us himself, that when he was with the first colony settled in Virginia, in every town where he came,” he explained to them the contents of the Bible, &c. And though I told them,“says he,” the book materially and of itself was not of such virtue as I thought they did conceive, but only the doctrine therein contained; yet would many be glad to touch it, to embrace it, to kiss it, to hold it to their breasts and heads, and stroke over all their bodies with it, to shew their hungry desires of that knowledge which was spoken of." To which we may add, that, if Harriot was reputed a deist, it is by no means probable that Dr. Corbet, an orthodox divine* and successively bishop of Oxford and Norwich, sending a poem, dated December 9, 1618, to sir Thomas Aylesbury, when the comet appeared, should speak of

, an English civilian, chancellor of the dioceses of Durham, Hereford, and Llandaff, and commissary of Essex, Herts, and Surrey, was the son of Dr. John Harris, bishop of Llandaff, who died in 1738. The time of his son’s birth we have not been able to ascertain. He was, however, a member of Oriel college, Oxford, where he took his degree of bachelor of laws in May 1745, and that of doctor in the same faculty in May 1750, in which last year he was admitted into the college of advocates. Here he proved himself an eminent pleader, although not a masterly orator, and enriched himself by very extensive practice. He died at his house in Doctors’ Commons, April 19, 1796, leaving his very extensive property mostly to charitable uses. Among the very munificent items in his will, were 40,000l. to St. George’s hospital; 20,000l. to Hetherington’s charity for the blind; 15,000l. to the Westminster lying-in hospital, and 5000l. to the Hereford infirmary. He also was in his life-time a benefactor to the funds of the society of advocates. In 1752 he published a pamphlet, entitled “Observations upon the English Language, in a letter to a friend,” 8vo, relating to the common mistakes in spelling, pronunciation, and accent. This was anonymous; but he afterwards published with his name, “D. Justiniani Institutionum, Libri quatuor; and a translation of them into English, with notes,” 1756, 4to, a work which did him great credit, and was thought peculiarly adapted for the improvement of young law students. A second edition appeared in 176 1.

In July 1745 he was married to miss Elizabeth Clarke, daughter and eventually heiress of John Clarke, esq of Sandford, near Bridgewater, in the county of Somerset, Five children were the issue of this marriage, of whom two daughters, and a son, the present lord Malmsbury, sur-> vived their father. This change in his state of life by no means withdrew his attention from those studies in which he had been used to take so great delight, and which he had cultivated with such advantage and reputation; for in 1751 he published another work, entitled “Hermes, or a philosophical inquiry concerning Universal Grammar,” 8vo. Of this work, Dr. Lowth, the late bishop of London, says, “Those who would enter deeply into the subject (of universal grammar) will find it fully and accurately handled, with the greatest acuteness of investigation, perspicuity of explication, and elegance of method, in a treatise entitled Hermes, by James Harris, esq. the most beautiful example of analysis that has been exhibited since the days of Aristotle.” What first led Mr. Harris to a deep and accurate consideration of the principles of universal grammar, was a book which he held in high estimation, and has frequently quoted in his Hermes, the “Minerva” of Sanciius. To that writer he confessed himself indebted for abundance of, valuable information, of which it appears that he knew well how to profit, and to push his researches on the subject of grammar to a much greater length, by the help of his various and extensive erudition. Mr. Harris’s system in this work still maintains its ground in the estimation of most men of taste, notwithstanding the coarse attack made on it by Home Tooke.

, president of Trinity-college, Oxford, was born at Broad Campden, in Gloucestershire, in 1578, and sent for education to the free-school of Chipping-Campden, where owing to irregular conduct of the masters and their frequent changes, he appears to have profited little. From thence he was removed to the city of Worcester, and lastly to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, which was preferred from his relationship to Mr. Robert Lyster, then principal, a man somewhat popishly inclined. Here, however, he had a tutor of a different stamp, a reputed puritan, under whom he studied with great assiduity. Although his parents designed him for the law, as soon as he took his bachelor’s degree, he determined to make trial of his talents for the pulpit, and went to Chipping-Campden, where he preached a sermon which gave satisfaction. He afterwards officiated for a clergyman in Oxfordshire, and in both cases without being ordained. At length he was examined by bishop Barlow, who found him a very accomplished Greek, and Latin scholar, and he had the living of Hanweli given him, near Ban bury, in Oxfordshire. During his residence here he was often invited to London, and preached at St. Paul’s cross, also before the parliament, and on other public occasions. He had also considerable offers of preferment in* London, but preserved his attachment to Hanweli, where he was extremely useful in confirming the people’s minds, then much unsettled, in the reformed religion, as well as in attachment to the church of England, although he afterwards concurred with those who overthrew it so far as to accept preferment under them. On the commencement of the civil war, tjie tranquillity of his part of the country was much disturbed by the march of armies, and himself obliged at last to repair to London, after his premises were destroyed by the soldiery. On his arrival in London, he became a member of the assembly, but appears to have taken no active part in their proceedings.or some time, Hanwell having now been taken from him, he officiated at the parish-church of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate-street, until the rilling powers ordered him to Oxford, as one of the reforming visitors. Here during the visitation of the earl of Pembroke, the chancellor of the university, he was admitted; D. D. and president of Trinity-college in April 1,648, in the room of Dr. Hannibal Potter, who was ejected by the visitors. This situation he retained until his death, Uec. 11, 1658,. in his eightieth year. He was buried in^ Trinity-college chapel, with an inscription from the ele-“gant pen of Dr. Bathurst, one of his successors, and contaming praises of his conduct as a president more than sufficient to answer the charges brought against him by others. The only words Dr. Bathurst is said to have struck out are these in Italics,” per decennium hujus collegii Præses æternum cdebrandus“nor was this alteration made in the epitaph itself, but in Wood’s ms. of the” Hist, et Antiquitates Univ. Oxon.“The only fault of which Dr. Harris can be accused, and which was very common with other heads of houses put in by the parliamentary visitors, was taking exorbitant fines for renewals of college leases, by which they almost sold out the whole interest of >the college in such estates. On the other hand he appears to have made some liberal grants of money to the posterity of the founder, sir Thomas Pope.” One is surprized,“says Warton,” at those donations, under the government of Dr. Robert Harris, Cromwell’s presbytenan president. But Harris was a man of candour, and I believe a majority of the old loyal fellows still remained.“Durham, the author of Harris’s life, gives him the character of” a man of admirable prudence, profound judgment, eminent gifts and graces, and furnished with all qualifications which might render him a complete man, a wise governor, a profitable preacher, and a good Christian." He appears to have very little relished some of the innovations of his time, particularly that easy and indiscriminate admission into the pulpits, which filled them with illiterate enthusiasts of every description. His works, consisting of sermons and pious treatises, were collected in 1 vol. fol. published in 1654.

, a learned English prelate, successively bishop of Chichester and Norwich, and archbishop of York, the son of William Harsnet, a baker at Colchester, was born in that town, and baptised June 20, 1561. He was probably sent to the free-school of Colchester, but was admitted Sept. 8, 1576, of King’s college, Cambridge, whence he removed to Pembroke-hall, of which he became a scholar, and was elected fellow Nov. 27, 1583. He took his degree of B.A. in 1580, and that of M. A. in 15'84. Three years after, in March 1586-7, he was elected master of the free-school in Colchester, but, preferring the prosecution of his studies at Cambridge, he resigned this office in November 1588, and returned to Pembrdke-hall, where he studied divinity, in which indeed he had made great progress before, and had been admitted into holy orders, as appears by a sermon preached by him at St. Paul’s cross, Oct. 27, 1584, on the subject of predestination. In 1592 he served the office of proctor, and five years after became chaplain to Dr. Bancroft, bishop of London, by whose favour he obtained the rectory of St. Margaret Fish-street, London, which he resigned in 1604; and the vicarage of Chigwell in Essex, which he resigned in 1605, but continued to reside at Chigwell, where he had purchased a house and estate, now the property and residence of his descendant Mrs. Fisher. In 1598 he was collated to the prebend of Mapesbury in St. Paul’s, and Jan. 1602 to the archdeaconry of Essex, all in bishop Bancroft’s disposal. In April 1604, sir Thomas Lucas of Colchester presented him to the rectory of Shenfield in that county. The year following, upon the resignation of bishop Andrews, he was chosen master of Pembroke-hall, which he held until 1616, when he resigned in consequence of the society having exhibited to the king an accusation branching into fifty-seven articles. Many of these, Le Neve says, were scandalous, and the proof evident; but, as Le Neve was iiot able to procure a sight of tHem, we are not enabled to judge. They do not, however, appear to have injured his interest at court. He had been consecrated bishop of Chichester in 1609, and was now, in 1619, three years after he quitted Pembroke-hall, translated to Norwich, on the death of Dr. Overall. In 1624 we find him again accused in the house of commons of “putting down preaching setting up images praying to the east;” and other articles which appear to have involved him with the puritans of his diocese, but which he answered to the satisfaction of the parliament as well as of the court. On the death of Dr. Montague, he was translated to the archbishopric of York in 1628, and in Nov. 1629, was sworn of the privy council. These dignities, however, he did not enjoy long, dying atMorton-on-the-marsh, Gloucestershire, while on a journey, May 25, 1631. He was buried at Chigwell church, agreeably to his own desire, where his effigies is still to be seen fixed on the north side of the chancel, against the wall. He left several charitable legacies and a year or two before his death founded and endowed a free school at Chigwell, and some alms-houses the history of his school may be seen in Lysons’s “Environs.” He bequeathed his library to the corporation of Colchester for the use of the clergy. Besides the sermon above noticed, the only other occasion on which Dr. Harsnet appeared as a writer, was in writing some pamphlets to expose the impostures of one John Darrell, who pretended to have the power of casting out devils. Bishop Harsnet’s character, from what we have related, appears to be equivocal it is said he was equally an enemy to puritanism and to popery and, according to Fuller, was the first who used the expression conformable puritans, i. e. those who conformed out of policy, and yet dissented in their judgments.

Dr. Hartley was industrious and indefatigable in the pursuit of all collateral branches of knowledge^ and lived in personal intimacy with the learned men of his age. The bishops Law, Butler, and Warburton, and Dr. Jortin, were his intimate friends, and he was much attached to bishop Hoadiy. Among his other friends or correspondents may be mentioned Dr. Hales, Mr. Hawkins Browne, Dr. Young, Dr. Byrom, and Mr. Hooke the Roman historian. Pope was also admired by him, not only as a man of genius, but as a moral poet; yet he soon saw the hand of Bolingbroke in the “Essay on Man.” Dr. Hartley’s genius was penetrating and active his industry indefatigable his philosophical observations and attentions unremitting. From his earliest youth he was devoted to the sciences, particularly to logic and mathematics. He studied mathematics, together with natural and experimental philosophy, under the celebrated professor Saunderson. He was an enthusiastic admirer and disciple of sir Isaac Newton in every branch of literature and philosophy, natural and experimental, mathematical, historical, and religious. His first principles of logic and metaphysics he derived from Locke. He took the first rudiments of his own work, the “Observations on Man,' 7 from Newton and Locke; the doctrine of vibrations, as instrumental to sensation and motion, from the former, and the principle of association originally from the latter, further explained in a dissertation by the rev. Mr. Gay. He began this work when about twenty-five years of age, and published it in 1749, when about forty-three years of age, under the title of” Observations on Man, his frame, his duty, and his expectations,“2 vols. 8vo. His biographer informs us that” he did not expect that it would meet with any general or immediate reception in the philosophical world, or even that it would be much read or understood; neither did it happen otherwise than as he had expected. But at the same time he did entertain an expectation that at some distant period it would become the adopted system of future philosophers.“In this, however, he appears to have been mistaken. We know of no” future“philosophers of any name, who have adopted his system. Dr. Priestley, indeed, published in 1775” Hartley’s Theory, &c. with Essays on the subject of it," but all he has done in this is to convince us of his own belief in materialism, and his earnest desire to prove Hartley a materialist, who dreaded nothing so much, although it must be confessed that hie doctrines have an apparent tendency to that conclusion. Since that time, Hartley’s work was nearly forgotten, until 1791, when an edition was published by his Son, in a handsome 4to volume, with notes and additions, from the German of the rev. Herman Andrew Pistorius, rector of Poseritz, in the island of Rugen; and a sketch of the life and character of Dr. Hartley. The doctrine of vibrations, upon which he attempts to explain the origin and propagation of sensation, although supported by much ingenious reasoning, isnot only built upon a gratuitous assumption, but as Haller has shewn, it attributes properties to the medullary substance of the brain and nerves, which are totally incompatible with their nature.

, bishop of Durham. Of this great prelate we meet with few accounts previous to his promotion to the see of Durham, except his being a prebendary of Lincoln and York, and secretary to Edward III. by whom he appears to have been much esteemed. Before this time the popes had for many years taken upon them the authority of bestowing all the bishoprics in England, without even consulting the king: this greatly offended the nobility and parliament, who enacted several statutes against it, and restored to the churches and convents their ancient privilege of election. Richard de Bury, bishop of Durham, dying April 24, 1345, king Edward was very desirous of obtaining this see for his secretary Hatfield; but, fearing the convent should not elect, and the pope disapprove him, he applied to his holiness to bestow the bishopric upon him, and thereby gave him an opportunity of resuming his former usurpations. Glad of this, and of obliging the king, and showing his power at the same time, the pope immediately accepted him; objections, however, were made against him by some of the cardinals, as a man of light behaviour, and no way fit for the place; to this the pope answered, that if the king of England had requested him for an ass, he would not at that time have denied him: he was therefore elected the 8th of May, and consecrated bishop of Durham, 10th of July, 1345.

What his former behaviour, on which the cardinals grounded their objections, may have been, is uncertain; but it is scarce to be imagined, that a king of Edward’s judgment and constant inclination to promote merit, would have raised him to such a dignity had he been so undeserving; nor would he have employed him in so many affairs of consequence as he appears to have done had he not been capable of executing them. In 1346, David king of Scotland, at the head of 50,000 men, invaded England, and after plundering and destroying the country wherever he came, encamped his army in Bear-park, near Stanhope, 141 the county of Durham, from which he detached parties to ravage the neighbouring country; to repel these invaders, a great number of the northern noblemen armed all their vassals, and came to join the king, who was then at Durham; from thence they marched against the Scots in four separate bodies, the first of which was commanded by lord Percy and bishop Hatfield, who on this occasion assumed the warrior, as well as several other prelates. The Scots were defeated, and their king taken prisoner. In 13 54 the bishop of Durham and lords Percy and Ralph Nevill were appointed commissioners to treat with the Scots for the ransom of their captive monarch. In 1355, when king Edward went into France at the head of a large army, he was attended by our prelate; to whom, however, It is more important to mention, that Trinity college, in Oxford, owed its foundation; it was at first called Durham college, and was originally intended for such monks of Durham as should chuse to study there, more particulars of which may be seen in Warton’s Anglia Sacra. Wood, in his Annals, relates the matter somewhat differently. At the dissolution it was granted, in 1552, to Dr. Owen, who sold it to sir Thomas Pope, by whom it was refounded^ endowed, and called Trinity college. Before Hatfield’s time, the bishops of Durham had no house in London to repair to when summoned to parliament; to remedy this, this munificent prelate built a most elegant palace in the Strand, and called it Durham-house (lately Durham-yard), and by his will bequeathed it for ever to his successors in the bishopric. This palace continued in possession of the bishops till the reformation, when it was, in the fifth of Edward VI. demised to the princess Elizabeth. In the fourth of Mary it was again granted to bishop Tunstall and his successors, and afterwards let out on a building lease, with the reservation of 200l. a year out-rent, which the bishop now receives. On this pfat of ground the Adelphi buildings are erected.

Bishop Hatfield was the principal benefactor, if not the founder, of the Friary at Northallerton, in Yorkshire, for Carmelites or white friars. The records of his time give large accounts of his charities to the poor, his great hospitality and good housekeeping^ and of the sums he expended in buildings and repairs during the time he held the bishopric. After a life spent in an uniform practice of munificence and charity, he died at his manor of Alfond, or Alford, near London, May 7, 1381, and by his will directed his body to be buried in his own cathedral. ' It is there entombed in the south aile under a monument of alabaster, prepared by himself in his life-time, which is now remaining very perfect, though without any inscription.

, or Atto Vercellensis, bishop of Vercelli, in Italy, of a noble family, was born in Piedmont iri the beginning of the tenth century, and was esteemed a learned divine and canonist. He was promoted to the bishopric of Vercelli in the year 945, and by knowledge and amiable manners proved himself worthy of this rank, It is not mentioned when he died. His works are, I. “Libeilus de pressuris Ecclesiasticis,” in three parts, inserted in D'Achery’s “Spicilegium.” This treatise on the sufferings and grievances of the church, Mosheim says, shews in their true colours the spirit and complexion of the times. 2. “Epistolae.” 3. “Canones statutaque Vercellensis Ecclesiae,” both in the same collection. In the Vatican, and among the archives of Vercelli, are many other productions of this author, all of which were collected by Baronzio, and published as the “Complete works of Hatto,” in. 1768, 2 vols. fol.

, an English historian, was educated at Cambridge, where he took the degree of LL. D. In 1599 he published, in 4to, The first Part of the Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV. extending to the end of the first yeare of his raigne,“dedicated to Robert earl of Essex; for which he suffered a tedious imprisonment, on account of having advanced something in defence of hereditary succession to the crown. We are informed, in lord Bacon’s” Apophthegms,“that queen Elizabeth, being highly incensed at this book, asked Bacon, who was then one of her council learned in the law,” whether there was any treason contained in it?“who answered,” No, madam for treason, I cannot deliver my opinion there is any but there is much felony.“The queen, apprehending it, gladly asked,” How and wherein“Bacon answered,” because he had stolen many of his sentences and conceits out of Cornelius Tacitus.“This discovery is thought to have prevented his being put to the rack. Carnden tells us, that the book being dedicated to the earl of Essex, when that nobleman and his friends were tried, the lawyers urged, that” it was written on purpose to encourage the deposing of the queen;“and they particularly insisted on these words in the dedication* in which our author styles the earl” Magnus & present! judicio, & futuri temporis expectatione.“In 1603 he published, in quarto,” An Answer to the first part of a certaine Conference concerning Succession, published not long since under the name of R. Doleman.“Tais R. Doleman was the Jesuit Parsons. In 1610 he was appointed by king James one of the historiographers of Chelsea college, near London, which, as we have often had occasion to notice, was never permanently established. In 1613, he published in 4to,” The Lives of the Three Normans, kings of England; William I; William II.; Henry I.“and dedicated them to Charles prince of Wales. In 1619, he received the honour of knighthood from his majesty, at Whitehall. In 1624, he published a discourse entitled” Of Supremacie in Affaires of Religion,“dedicated to prince Charles, and written in the manner of a conversation held at the table of Dr. Toby Matthews, bishop of Durham, in the time of the parliament, 1605. The proposition maintained is, that supreme power in ecciesiasticaJ affairs is a right of sovereignty. He wrote likewise,” The Life and Raigne of King Edward VI. with the beginning of the Raigne of queen Elizabeth,“1630, 4to, but this was posthumous; for he died June 27, 1627. He was the author of several works of piety, particularly” The Sr.nctuarie of a troubled soul,“Lond. 1616, 12mo;” David’s Tears, or an Exposition of the Penitential Psalms,“1622, 8vo. and te Christ’s Prayer on the Crosse for his Enemies,” 1623. Wood says that “he was accounted a learned and godly man, and one better read in theological authors, than in those belonging to his profession; and that with regard to his histories, the phrase and words in them were in their time esteemed very good; only some have wished that in his” History of Henry IV.“he had not called sir Hugh Lynne by so light a word as Mad-cap, though he were such; and that he had not changed his historical style into a dramatical, where he introduceth a mother uttering a woman’s passion in the case of her son.” Nicolson observes, that “he had the repute in his time, of a good clean pen and smooth style; though some have since blamed him for being a little too dramatical,” Strype recommends that our author “be read with caution that his style and language is good, and so is his fancy but that he uses it too much for an historian, which puts him sometimes on making speeches for others, which they never spake, and relating matters which perhaps they never thought on.” In confirmation of which censure, Kennet has since affirmed him to be “a professed speech-maker through all his little history of Henry IV.”

, an English historian, was born 1629, in London, where his father, who was the king’s cutler, lived. He was educated at Westminster-school, and was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1646. In 1648 he was ejected thence by the parliament-visitors, for his adherence to the royal cause lived upon his patrimony till it was almost spent and then married, which prevented his return to Christ Church at the restoration, where he might have qualified himself for one of the learned professions. To maintain his family he now commenced author, and corrector of the press. He died of a consumption and dropsy, at London, in August 1664, and left several children to the parish. He published, 1. “A brief Chronicle of the late intestine War in the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, &c.” 1661, 8vo, afterwards enlarged by the author, and completed from 1637 to 1663, in four parts, 1663, in a thick 8vo; a work which, on account of the numerous portraits, rather than its intrinsic value, bears a very high price. To this edition was again added a continuation from 1663 to 1675 by John Philips, nephew by the mother to Milton, 1676, folio. 2. “Elegy upon Dr. Thomas Fuller,” 1661. 3. “The glories and magnificent triumphs of the blessed Restoration of king Charles II. &c. 1662,” 8vo. 4. “Flagellum or, the Life and Death, Birth and Burial, of Oliver Cromwell, the late usurper,” 1663, of which a third edition came out with additions in 1665, 8vo. 5. “Elegy on Dr. Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln,” 1662. 6. “A new book of loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, who have endured the pains and terrors of death, arraignment, &c. for the maintenance of the just and legal government of these kingdoms both in church and state,” 1663, 12mo. 7. “Brief but exact Survey of the Affairs of the United Netherlands, &.c.” 12mo. Heath, as a historian, is entitled to little praise on account of style or argument, but his works contain many lesser particulars illustrative of the characters and manners of the times, which are interesting to a curious inquirer. In the meanest historian there will always be found some facts, of which there will be no cause to doubt the truth, and which yet will not be found in the best; and Heath, who perhaps had nothing but pamphlets and newspapers to compile from, frequently relates facts that throw light upon the history of those times, which Clarendon, though he drew every thing from the most authentic records, has omitted.

On the appearance of lord Bolingbroke’s works, he published in 1755, “A Sketch of lord Bollngbroke’s philosophy,” the object of which was to vindicate the moral attributes of the Deity. In the latter end of the same year, came out, “The use of Reason asserted in matters of Religion, in answer to a Sermon preached by Dr Patten at Oxford, July 13, 1755,” whom he act used of being a Hutchinsonian; and, the year after, a Defence of this against Dr. Patten, who had replied. Dr. Home also, a friend to Dr. Patten, animadverted on Mr. Ht athcote’s pamphlet: but it seems not to have been long before all their sentiments concurred; at least, the Hutchinsonians could not blame Mr. Heathcote more than he blamed himself. “When,” says he, “the heat of controversy was over, I could not look into them (the pamphlets) myself, without disgust and pain. The spleen of Middleton, and the petulancy of Warburton, had too much infected me.” This candid acknowledgment, however, seems to justify Mr. Jones’s language in his life of bishop Home. “A Mr. Heathcote, a very intemperate and unmanly writer, published a pamphlet against Dr. Patten, laying himself open, both in the matter and the manner of it, to the criticisms of Dr. Patten, who will appear to have been greatly his superior as a scholar and a divine, to any candid reader who shall review that controversy. Dr. Patten could not with any propriety be said to have written on the Hutchinsonian plan; but Mr. Heathcote found it convenient to charge him with it, &c.” Warburton, too, who had complimented Mr. Heathcote to his face, speaks of him in a letter to Dr. Hurd (in 1757) as one whose “matter is rational, but superficial and thin spread.” He adds, “he will prove as great a scribbler as Comber. They are both sensible, and both have reading. The difference is, that the one has so much vivacity as to make him ridiculous; the other so little as to be unentertaining. Comber’s excessive vanity may be matched by H.'s pride; which I think is a much worse quality.” In this censure the reader may perceive somewhat that will recoil upon the writer, but Heathcote, we see, lived to acknowledge what was amiss, which Warburton did not.

, a learned and amiable English clergyman, the second son of Thomas Heber, &sq. of Marton-hall in the deanery of Craven, one of the oldest families in that district of Yorkshire, was born at Marton, Sept. 4, 1728, O. S. He had his school education under the rev. Mr. Wilkinson at Skipton, and the rev. Thomas Hunter at Blackburn, Lancashire, afterwards vicar of Weaverham, Cheshire, author of “Observations on Tacitus,” and other works of credit. From Blackburn he ‘removed to the freeschool at Manchester, and on March 4, 1746--7, was entered a commoner of Brazen-nose college; where his elder’ brother, Richard Heber, was at that time a gentleman commoner. In October 1752, his father died, and his mother in the month of March following. He was admitted to the degree of M. A. July 5, 1753, and chosen fellow of the college November 15 following, having previously in that year been ordained deacon by bishop Trevor, Match 18, and priest by bishop Hoadly, Nov. 1, to qualify himself for the fellowship founded in 1533 by William Clifton, subdean of York, for which he was a candidate. He had private pupils when he was only B. A. and was afterwards in much esteem as a public tutor, particularly of gentlemen commoners, having at one time more than twenty of that rank under his care. In July 1766, his brother died, and, as he left no male issue, Mr. Heber succeeded to a considerable estate at Hodnet in Shropshire, which was bequeathed in 1752 to his mother, Elizabeth Heber, by Henrietta, only surviving daughter and heiress of sir Thomas Vernon of Hodnet, bart. who chose for her heir the daughter, in preference to the son, of her niece Elizabeth wife of Richard Atherton, esq. ancestor of Henrietta wife of Thomas lord Liftbrd. Dec. 5, 1766, he was inducted into the rectory of Chelsea, the presentation to which had, several years before, been purchased for him by his brother and another kind relative. He resigned his fellowship July 1, 1767. Finding the rectorial house at Chelsea bad and unfinished, he in part rebuilt and greatly improved the whole, without asking for dilapidations, as the widow of his predecessor, Sloane Elsmere, D. D. was not left in affluent circumstances. In 1770, he exchanged Chelsea for the Upper Mediety of Malpas, Cheshire, into which he was inducted, July 25, on the presentation of William. Drake, esq. of Ainersham, Bucks; whose eldest son, the late William Drake, esq. had been one of his pupils in Brazen-nose college. In the long incumbency, and latterly non-residence, of his predecessor, the honourable and rev. Henry Moore, D. D. chaplain to queen Anue, and son of the earl of Drogheda, who was instituted to Malpas, Nov. 26, 1713, the parsonage was become ruinous. Mr. Heber therefore built an excellent new house, on a new site, which commands an extensive view of Flintshire and Denbighshire, and some other counties.

To this character, part of a sketch of his life prefixed to his “Commentaries, published in 1802, much might be added. No physician, indeed, was ever more highly or more deservedly respected. His various and extensive learning, his modesty in the use of it, his freedom from jealousy or envy, his independent spirit, his simple yet dignified manners, and his exemplary discharge of all the relative duties, are topics on which all who knew him delight to dwell. Mr. Cole, who bestows very high praise on him, an article in which that gentleman was in general penurious, gives us the following anecdote of Dr. Heberden, which corresponds with the above account of his reverence for religion.” Understanding that Dr. Con. Middleton had composed a book on the ‘ Inefficacy of Prayer,’ he called upon his widow soon after the Dr.‘s death, and asked her if she was not in possession of such a tract? She answered that she was; he then asked her, if any bookseller had been in treaty with her for it? She said that a bookseller had offered her 50l. for it. He then demanded, if there was a duplicate ’ No' upon that he requested to see it, and she immediately brgught it, and put it into his hands. The Dr. holding it in one hand, and giving it a slight perusal, threw it into the fire, and with the other hand gave her a 50l. note.“This anecdote Mr. Cole had from Dr. Newton, bishop of Bristol. It is certain that Dr. Middleton’s widow bequeathed her husband’s remaining Mss. to Dr. Heberden, from which, in, 1761, he obliged the learned world with a curious tract, entitled” Dissertations de servili Medicorum conditione Appendix,“&c. with a short but elegant advertisement of his own. In 1763, a most valuable edition of the” Supplices Mulieres“of Euripides, with the notes of Mr. Markland, was printed entirely at the expence of Dr. Heberden; and, in 1763, the same very learned commentator presented his notes on the two Jphigenix,” Doctissimo, & quod longe prastantius est, humanissimo viro Wilhelmo Heberden, M. D. arbitratu ejus vel cremandtE, vel in publicum emittendae post obiturn scriptoris,“&c. He wrote the epitaph in Dorking church on Mr. Markland, who had” bequeathed to him all his books and papers. One of these, a copy of Mill’s Greek Testament in folio, the margin filled with notes, was kindly lent by Dr. Heberden, “with that liberal attention to promote the cause of virtue and religion which was one of his many well-known excellences,” to the publisher of the last edition of Mr. Bowyer’s “Conjectures on the New Testament, 1782,” 4to. To Dr. Heberden Mr. Bowyer also bequeathed his “little, cabinet of coins, a few books specifically, and any others, which the doctor might chuse to accept.” To Dr. H.'s other publications, we may add his “Αντιθηριακα, an Essay on Mithridatium and Theriaca,” 1745, 3vo. He was also a writer in the “Athenian Letters,” and in his early life contributed some notes to Grey’s “Hudibras,” as acknowledged by that editor in his preface.

, one of the early reformers, was born in 14l>5, at Etlinggen, in the marquisate of Baden; and educated at Friburg, where he took his master of arts degree. Thence he went to Basil, studied divinity, and commenced doctor of philosophy and divinity about 1520. Having imbibed the principles of the reformed religion, he inculcated it with great success, as preacher in the church at Mentz, until the violence of persecution obliged him to go to Strasburgh in 1523, where, under the sanction of the senate, he co-operated with Capito and Bucer in the reformation. Here he married in 1533 In 1543 Herman, bishop of Cologn, wishing to promote the cause in his diocese, invited Bucer and Hedio, who were very successful, until driven away by the emperor and the Spaniards. Hedio made his escape with much difficulty, and returned to Strasburgh, where he composed most of his works, and where he died Oct. 17, 1552. His original works, enumerated by Melchior Adam, are theological, historical, and philological; besides which, he was editor of some parts of the Fathers.

, an ecclesiastical historian of the second century, lived before or near the time of Justin Martyr. He came to Home about the year 157, while Anicetus was bishop there, and continued in that capital till the year 185, in friendship and communion with Anicetus, and with Soter and Eleutherus, his two successors in office, and is accounted to have been sound in the orthodox faith respecting the divinity of Christ. He is thought to have died about the year 180. He wrote an ecclesiastical history from the commencement of the Christian aera to his own time, of which a few fragments only have been preserved by Eusebius. As to five books of the Jewish war which have been ascribed to him, and which are in the “Bibl. Patrum,” as well as separately printed at Cologn, in 1559, 8vo, they are generally allowed to have been the production of some later author.

, a native of Emesa in Phoenicia, and bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, flourished in the reigns of Theodosius and Arcaclius towards the end of the fourth century. In his youth he wrote a romance, by which he is now better known than by his subsequent bishopric of; Tricca. It is entitled “Ethiopics,” and relates the amours of Theagenes and Chariclea, in ten books. The learned Huetius is of opinion that HcUodorus was among the romance-writers what Homer was among the poets, the source and model of an infinite number of imitations, all inferior to their original. The first edition of the Ethiopics was printed at Basil, 1533, with a dedication to the senate of Nuremberg, prefixed by Vincentius Opsopseus, who informs us that a soldier preserved the ms. when the library of Buda was plundered. Bourdeiot’s learned notes upon this romance were printed at Paris in 1619, with Heliodorus’s Greek original, and a Latin translation, which had been published by Stanislaus Warszewicki, a Polish knight, (with the Greek) at Basil, in 1551. An excellent English translation of this romance was published by Mr. Payne in 2 vols. 12mo, in 1792. A notion has prevailed that a provincial synod, being sensible how dangerous the reading of Heliodorus’ s Ethiopics was, to which the author’s rank was supposed to add great authority, required of the bishop that he should either burn the book, or resign his dignity; and that the bishop chose the latter. But this story is thought to be entirely fabulous; as depending only upon the single testimony of Nicephorus, an ecclesiastical historian of great credulity and little judgment; and it is somewhat difficult to suppose that Socrates should omit so memorable a circumstance when speaking of Heliodorus as the author of “a love-tale in his youth, which he entitled Ethiopics.” Valesius, in his notes upon this passage, starts another difficulty, for while he rejects the account of Nicephorus as a mere fable, he seems inclined to think, that the romance itself was not written by Heliodorus bishop of Tricca; but in this opinion he has not been followed. Opsopaeus and Melancthon have supposed that this romance was in reality a true history; but Fabricius thinks this as incredible as that Heliodorus, according to others, wrote it originally in the Ethiopic tongue. Some again have asserted, that Heliodorus was not a Christian, from his saying at the end of his book, that he was a Phoenician, born in the city of Emesa, and of the race of the sun; since, they say, it would be madness in a Christian, and much more in a bishop, to declare that he was descended from that luminary; but such language, in a young man, can scarcely admit the inference.

Besides the Ethiopics, Cedrenus tells us of another book of Heliodorus, concerning the philosopher’s stone, or the art of transmuting metals into gold, which he presented to Theodosius the Great; and Fabricius has inserted in his “Bibliotheca Gra3ca,” a chemical Greek poem written in iambic verse, which he had from a ms. in the king of France’s library, and which carries the name of Heliodorus bishop of Tricca; but leaves it very justly questionable, whether it be not a spurious performance.

In June 1769 he set out on his return, and arrived safely at Copenhagen, where he was honoured with every mark of respect by the king, and he and his assistant were admitted members of the academies of Copenhagen, Drontheim, and Norway. During his residence at Copenhagen, which lasted seven months, he communicated, besides other things, to the academy of sciences, the observations he had made of the transit, which were published, and afterwards reprinted in the Ephemerides for 1771. In May 1770 he returned to Vienna, and collected and arranged the fruits of his journej', which he meant to publish under the title of “Expeditio literaria ad Polum Arcticum;” but the suppression of the order of the Jesuits, which gave him great concern, and the dispersion of some of his literary coadjutors, are supposed to have prevented him from completing this undertaking. He was also unsuccessful in endeavouring to establish an academy of sciences, which, according to his plan, was to be under the direction of the Jesuits. He superintended, however, the building of a new observatory at Erlau, in Hungary, at the expence of the bishop, count Charles of Esterhazy, and undertook two journeys thither to direct the operations, and to arrange a valuable collection of instruments which had been sent to him from England. In the month of March 1792, he was attacked by an inflammation of the lungs, which producing a suppuration, put an end to his lite in a few weeks. He is to be ranked with those who have rendered essential service to the science of astronomy. The “Ephemerides Astronomical ad meridianum Vindobonensem,” begun in 1767, aucl continued till his death, forms a valuable astronomical calendar, which contains a great many interesting papers. In other branches of knowledge, and particularly theology, he was a firm adherent to the principles he had been taught in his youth, and which he strenuously defended. He always entertained hopes of the revival of the order of the Jesuits. He possessed a benevolent heart, and was always ready to assist the distressed; in particular he endeavoured to relieve the sufferings of the poor, and with this noble view expended almost the whole of his property.

, or Malleolus, which has the same meaning as Hemmerlin in German, was born at Zurich in 1389, of a considerable family; and having entered the church, was made canon of Zurich in 1412. He afterwards took his doctor’s degree at Bologna, and in 1428 was appointed chanter of the church of Zurich. In 1454 the bishop of Constance put him in prison, on a suspicion of corresponding with the enemies of itts country; what became of him afterwards, or when he died, we have not been able to discover; but two works of his in folio, and in black letter, are much sought by collectors of curiosities: 1. “Opuscula varia scilicet de nobilitate et rusticitate dialogus,” &c. without date. 2, “Variae oblectationis oriuscula; nempe contra valido^ mend.icantes Beghardos et Beghinos,” &c. Basil, 1497, folio. They arc written with a coarse kind of humour.

After he had commenced bachelor of arts, he was first desired by the trustees of the school in Melton to assist in, and then to take the direction of, that school; which he increased and raised from a declining to a flourishing condition. He established here, he tells us, a practice of improving elocution, by the public speaking of passages in the classics, morning and afternoon, as well as orations, &c. Here he was invited by a letter from the rev. Mr. Newcome, to be a candidate for a fellowship in St. John’s; but as he had long been absent, and therefore lessened his personal interest, he declined appearing for it. Here likewise he began his “Universal Grammar,” and finished ten languages, with dissertations prefixed, as the most ready introduction to any tongue whatever. In the beginning of this interval he wrote a poem on “Esther,” which, was approved by the town, and well received, as indeed it amply deserved. It is preceded by a learned preface, in which he discovers an intimate knowledge of Oriental studies, and some learned etymologies from the Persic, Hebrew, and Greek, concerning the name and person of Abasuerus, whom he makes to be Xerxes. On the occasion of his “Grammars,” Dr. Hutchinson wrote him a complimentary letter. He was ordained a deacon by Dr. Wake, then bishop of Lincoln; and after having taken his degree of M. A. was admitted to priest’s orders by Dr. Gibson, his successor in that see. He did not long consent to rest in the country, but, impatient to obtain wealth and fame in London, resigned his offices of master and curate, and entered upon his new career.

, the bishop of Lisieux, so justly celebrated for his humanity at the time of the dreadful massacre of St. Bartholomew, was born at St. Quintin in Picardy, in 1497. He was confessor to Henry II. of France, and bishop of Lodeve. In the reign of Charles IX. when the royal lieutenant of his province communicated to him the order to massacre all the protestants in the diocese of Lisieux, he signed a formal and official opposition to the order; for which striking act of clemency, it is wonderful to say, he was not censured or persecuted by the bigotry of the court. The beauty of virtue exacted respect. He died in 1577, universally respected, having gained over more by his mildness than any bigot by his fury.

, an eminent and exemplary divine, younger brother to the preceding, was born April 3, 1593, at Montgomery castle. His father died when he was very young; and until the age of twelve, he was educated under private tutors in his mother’s house. He was then put under the care of Dr. Neale, dean of Westminster, and afterwards archbishop of York, who placed him at Westminster-school. At the age of fifteen, being then a king’s scholar, he was elerted to Trinity college, Cambridge, and went thither about 1608, during the mastership of that great benefactor to the college, Dr. Nevil, who, at his mother’s request, took particular notice of him. At college he was assiduous in his studies, and virtuous in his conduct. Here he took his bachelor’s degree in 1612, and that of master in 1616, before which he had obtained a fellowship. During his studies, his principal relaxation was music, for which he had a good taste, and in which, as Walton says, “he became a great master.” At this time, however, he betrayed a little of the vanity of youth and birth, by affecting great finery of dress, and maintaining a reserved behaviour towards his inferiors. In 1619, he was chosen university orator, which office he held for eight years, much to the satisfaction of his hearers, and particularly of those great personages whom he had occasionally to address. The terms of flattery he appears to have known how to use with great profusion; and in more than one instance, pleased king James very much with his liberal offerings of this kind. He gave no less satisfaction to his majesty also, by his apt and ingenious replies to Andrew Melville, a Scotch divine, at the Hampton-court conference. His talents recommended him to the notice of Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, and of the great lord Bacon, who is said to have entertained such a high opinion of Mr. Herbert, as to consult him in his writings, before they went to press, and dedicated to him his translation of some ef the Psalms into English verse, as the best judge of divine poetry. Nor was bishop Andrews less enraptured with his character; for Herbert, having, in consequence of a dispute between them on predestination and sanctity of life, written a letter to the bishop on the subject in Greek, Andrews used to show it to many scholars, and always carried it about him. Sir Henry Wotton and Dr. Donne may also be added to the number of those eminent men of his time whose friendship he shared.

It appears that when at college, about 1617, he had applied himself to the study of divinity, which his subsequent views at court probably interrupted. Having now obtained deacon’s orders, he was made prebendary of Leighton Bromswold, in the diocese of Lincoln, a piece of preferment given to him by bishop (afterwards archbishop) Williams. His first memorable act, when he entered on this, was to rebuild the parish church of Leighton, which he undertook at great risk of expence to himself, but by the aid of his friends, he was enabled to accomplish this, his favourite object,

, a learned and pious doctor of the Sorbonne, and a voluminous author, was born at Beauvais in 1617, and displayed early propensities for learning. Potier bishop and earl of Beauvais sent him to the various colleges of Paris for education. He obtained a canonry of Beauvais, was rector of the university of Paris in 1646, and died in 1690, after being excluded from his canonry and the Sorbonne for some ecclesiastical dispute. Hermant had the virtues and defects of a recluse student^ and was much esteemed for his talents and piety by Tillemont and others of the solitaries at Port Royal. His style was noble and majestic, but sometimes rather inflated. His works are numerous: 1. “Toe Life of St. Athanasius,” 2 vols. 4to. 2. Those of “St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen,” of the same extent. 3. The Life of St. Chrysostom,“written under the name of Menan. And, 4. That of” St. Ambrose,“both in 4to. 5. A translation, of some tracts from St. Chrysostom. 6. Another from St. Basil. 7. Several polemical writings against the Jesuits, who therefore became his mortal enemies, and contrived to interfere with his monumental honours after death, by preventing the inscription of a very commendatory epitaph. 8.” A Defence of the Church against Labadie.“9.” Index Universalis totius juris Ecclesiastici,“folio. 10.” Discours Chretien sur retablissement du Bureau des pauvres de Beauvais," 1653. A life of him has been published by Baillet.

, or Hermas commonly called the Shepherd, was an antient father of the church, and is generally supposed to have been the same whom St. Paul mentions in Rom. xvi. 14. He is ranked amongst those who are called Apostolical Fathers, from his having lived in the times of the apostles: but who he was, what he did, and what he suffered for the sake of Christianity, are all in a great measure, if not altogether, unknown to us. He seems to have belonged to the church at Rome, when Clement was bishop of it; that is, according to Dodwell, from the year 64 or 65 to the year 81. This circumstance we are able to collect from his “Second Vision,” of which, he tells us, he was commanded to communicate a copy to Clement. What his condition was before his conversion, we know not; but that he was a man of some consideration, we may conclude from what we read in his “Third Vision;” where he owns himself to have been formerly unprofitable to the Lord, upon the account of those riches which afterwards he seems to have dispensed in works of charity and beneficence. After his conversion he probably lived a very strict life, since he is said to have been employed in several messages to the church, both to correct their manners, and to warn them of the trials that were about to come upon them. His death, if we may believe the “Roman Marty rology,” was conformable to his life; where we read, that being “illustrious for his miracles, he at last offered himself a worthy sacrifice unto God.” Baronius says, that “having undergone many labours and troubles in the time of the persecution under Aurelius, he at last rested in the Lord July 26th, which is therefore observed in commemoration of him.” But Hermas being sometimes called by the title of “Pastor, or Shepherd,” the Roman martyrologist has divided the good man into two saints: and they observe the memorial of Hennas May the 9th, and of Pastor July the 26th.

In 1719 he was ordained priest, and was successively minister of the several pa ishes of Great Shelford, Stow cumqui, and Trinity, in Cambridge. In these stations he deservedly acquired the character of a celebrated preacher. His person was majestic; he had a gracefulness in his behaviour, and gravity in his countenance, that always procured him reverence. His pronunciation was so remarkably sweet, and his address so insinuating, that his audience, immediately on his beginning to speak, were prepossessed in his favour. Nor were these conspicuous talents suffered to remain long without being rewarded; for, in the year 1722, bishop Fleetwood made him his domestic chaplain, and, the same year, presented him to the rectory of Rettenden in Essex, and soon after to that of Barclay in Hertfordshire; which occasioned his fellowship to become vacant the year following.

Soon after this event, a coolness arose between captain Hervey and his wife, which increased till they both became desirous of a separation. In Jan. 1747, he was appointed to the command of the Princessa, and served in the Mediterranean under admirals Medley and Byng and after the peace, in Jan. 1752, he obtained the Phoenix of 22 guns. In the course of two wars, the courage, zeal, and activity of captain Hervey were distinguished in the Mediterranean, off Brest, at the Havannah, and in other places. During the same period he was gradually advanced to the command of a 74 gun ship; and at the peace in 1763 he was appointed one of the grooms of the bed-­chamber to the king. In 1771 he was created one of the lords of the admiralty; and in 1775, on the death of his brother without issue, he became earl of Bristol, after having represented the borough of Bury St. Edmund’s in four parliaments. He now resigned his places, and was created an admiral. In the beginning of the American war, captain Hervey was a strenuous advocate for the measures of the ministry; but, changing his politics in the year 1778, continued to the end of it as violent an opponent; not without very striking appearances of inconsistency on several occasions. He died in 1779, when his titles, and as much of his estate as he could not leave away, devolved to his brother the bishop of Derry, as he left no legitimate heir. The affair of his marriage, which attracted much public notice at the time, was briefly thus: After nine years of preparation, his wife, who had long lived with the Juke of Kingston, obtained her suit in the commons, in 1768, by which it was decided that their marriage never had been legal, and was void. She then was married to the duke of Kingston in 1769. But, it appearing afterwards that the decision had been fraudulently obtained, she was indicted in 1775 for bigamy, tried in the House of peers, and found guilty, but, as a peeress, was discharged from corporal punishment. She afterwards died abroad in 1788, The following well-drawn character of lord Bristol, written by a contemporary peer in the sea-service, lord Mulgrave, seems to justify the insertion of his name in this place; though it may be in some degree heightened by personal partiality.

, brother to the preceding, and fourth earl of Bristol, was born in August 1730. He was educated at Westminster school, and was admitted fellow commoner of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, Nov. 10, 1747, where his application to study was as remarkable as it was unusual in persons of his rank. He took his master’s degree, as nobleman, in 1754. While at college his good sense, good nature, and affability, gained him the love and esteem of all who knew him. At first he was designed for the bar, and, leaving Cambridge, went to one of the inns of court, but he afterwards turned his thoughts to the church, and went into holy orders. He was perhaps a singular instance of a man of his learning, family, and connexions, that never attained any ecclesiastical preferment until he was made a bishop, although he held a lay office under government, and in his father’s department, that of & principal clerk of the privy seal.

During his brother’s being lord lieutenant of Ireland, he was promoted to the see of Cloyne, in Feb. 1767, and translated to that of Derry in 1768. When appointed to the former, he refused to take an English chaplain over with him, but made choice of Mr. Skelton, with whom he was no otherwise acquainted than by his writings against deism and infidelity. 1 The rev. Philip Skelton, a very learned and pious divine, and author of many excellent works, is the person here intended; but Skelton, who had his oddities as well as his new patron, rendered this deSign abortive. Skelton’s principal work, “Deism revealed,” had been published some years, and was much admired by Dr. Hervey, who, before he got his bishopric, wrote to the author, informing him, that as he expected soon to be raised to a station of some eminence in the Irish church, he hoped then to be able to prove the high opinion he entertained'for the author of “Deism revealed.” Accordingly, on obtaining the bishopric of Cloyne, his lordship sent him another letter to this effect, that having some time before made a sort of an engagement with him, he begged leave now to fulfil it, aud therefore requested him to come up to Dublin (from Fintona in the county of Tyrone), and preach his consecration sermon, assuring him that, upon his compliance, he would promote him in the church as high as he was able. Skelton, in his answer, informed his lordship, he would comply with his request, though he was content with the living he had; and if he consented to go to the diocese of Cloyne, it would be only to be nearer the sun, and nearer his lordship. He then prepared a sermon for the occasion, but when the day approached, finding himself somewhat unwell, and the weather very cold, he thought he could not with safety go to Dublin, and of course the bishop was disappointed. However, he sent his lordship the sermon, who, though asta nished at the ability it displayed, was still offended with Mr. Skelton, as he imagined his excuse for his absence was not sufficient. Upon this, he informed him by letter, that the chain of their friendship was broken in two; to which Mr. Skelton replied, that if it were broken, it was of hte lordship’s own forging, not of his. Yet the bishop, after his promotion to the see of Derry, came to Fintona to pay him a visit, and Skelton happening to be abroad, left word that he had come fifteen miles out of his road to see him. Of this visit Mr. Skelton took no notice, a rudeness certainly unpardonable in the case of a gentleman who had sought him out purely for his merit’s sake.

Soon after his translation to Derry, he made a parochial visitation, by which the residence of his clergy, and the erection of their parsonage-houses, were settled and provided for. He also instituted a fund for the support of the superannuated curates of his diocese, regulations which made him extremely popular in his diocese. In 1770, the corporation of Londonderry presented him with the freedom of their city, in a gold box, a compliment never before paid to his predecessors, “because his lordship had effected, what none of his predecessors had before so much as considered, the two most important points in this town a bridge and a colliery.” In this same year, he had the liberality to offer the Roman catholic, or titular bishop of Derry, a considerable sum of money, in order to build a chapel, that he might not be obliged to officiate to his congregation in the open air; with only this condition, that he should pray for the king and royal family. But, although the titular bishop had never failed to do so, he thought proper not to accept the donation, lest it should be said that his motive for loyalty was his lordship’s benefaction.

In 1625 he went over to France, where he continued about six weeks, and took down in writing an account of his journey; the original manuscript of which he gave to his friend lord Danvers, but kept a copy for himself, which was published about thirty years after. Jn April 1627, he answered, pro forma, upon these two questions: 1. <* An ecclesia unquam fuerit invisibles“” Whether the church was ever invisible?“2.” An ecclesia possit errare“”Whether the church can err“both which determining in the affirmative, a great clamour was raised against him as a papist, or at least a favourer of popery. Wood says, that Prideaux, the divinity-professor,” fell foul upon him for it, calling him Bellarminian, Pontifician, and I know not what." Heylin was not easy under the charge of being popishly affected; for which reason, to clear himself from that imputation, he took an opportunity, in preaching before the king on John iv. 20, of declaring vehemently against some of the errors and corruptions of the Romish church. In 1628, lord Danvers, then earl of Danby, recommended him to Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells; by whose interest also, in 1629, he was made one of the chaplains in ordinary to his majesty. On Act-Sunday 1630, he preached before the university of Oxford at St. Mary’s on Matth. xiii. 25, whence he took occasion to deliver his sentiments very freely in regard to an affair which at first sight had a specious appearance of promoting the honour and emolument of the ecclesiastical state, but was in reality a most iniquitous scheme, injurious to the laity, and of no service where it was pretended to avail. This was a feoffment, that some designing persons had obtained, for the buying in of impropriations; but Heylin, seeing through the disguise, exposed very clearly the knavery of the designers. About this time he resigned his fellowship, having been married near two years; in concealing which marriage he acted very unstatutably, not to say dishonestly, nor did his friends attempt to justify him for it. What rendered it more irregular was, that he was married in Magdalen-college chapel.

In 1631 he published his “History of that most famous Saint and Soldier of Jesus Christ, St. George of Cappadocia,” &c. to which he subjoined, “the institution of the most noble order of St. George, named the garter” &c. which work he presented to his majesty, to whom he was introduced by Laud, then raised to the see of London. It was graciously received by the king, and Heylin soon after reaped the fruits of it: for in Oct. 1631 he was presented to the rectory of Hemmingford in Huntingdonshire, to a prebend of Westminster in November following, and shortly after to the rectory of Houghton in the bishopric of Durham, worth near 400l. per annum. In April 1633 he was created D. D. and gave fresh offence to the divinity-professor Prideaux by the questions he put up; which were, 1. “Whether the church hath authority in determining controversies of faith” 2. “Whether the church hath authority of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures” 3. “Whether the church hath authority of appointing rites and ceremonies” Of all which he maintained the affirmative. Prideaux, however, in the course of this dispute, is said to have laid down some tenets, which gave as much offence to Laud, who was chancellor of Oxford, and to the king, whom Laud informed of them, as Heylin’s had given to him as, “That the church was a mere chimera” “That it did not teach nor determine any thing.” “That controversies had better be referred to universities than to the church, and might be decided by the literari there, even though bishops were laid aside.” Heylin afterwards found an opportunity of revenging himself on Prideaux, for the rough treatment he had received from him. This divine, we are told, had delivered a lecture on the sabbath, somewhat freer than suited the rigid orthodoxy of the times; of which, however, not much notice was taken. But shortly after, when the king, by publishing the book of sports on Sundays, had raised a violent outcry throughout the nation against himself and Laud, Heyliu translated this lecture into English, and published it with a preface in 1633-4, to the great vexation of Prideaux, who suffered much in the esteem and affetion of the puritans. Williams, bishop of Lincoln and clean of Westminster, having incurred the king’s and Laud’s displeasure, and being suspended and imprisoned, Heylin was made treasurer of the church of Westminster in 1637; and was also presented by the prebendaries, his brethren, to the rectory of Islip near Oxford. This he exchanged in 1638, for that of South-Warnborough in Hampshire; and the same year was made one of the justices of the peace for that county. In 1639 he was employed by Laud to translate the Scotch liturgy into Latin; and was chosen by the college of Westminster their clerk, to represent them in convocation. But a cloud was gathering, which threatened to overwhelm all who, like him, had distinguished themselves as champions for royal or ecclesiastical prerogative. To shelter himself therefore from the impending storm, he withdrew from the metropolis, where he had long basked in the sun-shine of a court, to his parsonage; but not thinking himself secure there, retreated soon after to Oxford, then garrisoned by the king, and the seat of his residence. On this the parliament voted him a delinquent, and dispatched an order to their committee at Portsmouth, to sequester his whole estate, and seize upon his goods. In consequence of this severe decree, he was deprived of his most curious and valuable library, which was carried with his household furniture to that town. He was employed by the king at Oxford to write a periodical paper, published weekly in that city, entitled “Mercurius Aulicus;” but in 1645, when the king’s affairs became desperate, and the “Mercurius Aulicus” could be no longer supported, he quitted Oxford, and wandered from place to place, himself and his family reduced to the utmost straits. At Winchester he stayed for a while with his wife, &c. but that city being at length delivered up to the parliament, he was forced to remove again. In 1648 he went to Minster-Love! in Oxfordshire, the seat of his elder brother, which he farmed for the six or seven years following of his nephew colonel Heylin, and spent much of his time in writing. On quitting this farm, he went to Abingdon in Berkshire, where he also employed himself in composing treatises, which he published from time to time. Upon the restoration of Charles II. he was restored to all his spiritualities, and undoubtedly expected from that prince some very eminent dignity in the church, as he had heroically exerted himself in behalf of it, -as well as of the? crown; and endured so much on that account, during their suffering condition. Here, however, he was utterly disappointed, being never raised above the sub-deanery of Westminster, One day when bishop Cosin came to see him, he said “I wonder, brother Heylin, thou art not a bishop, for we all know thou hast deserved it.” To which he answered, “I do not envy them, but wish they may do more than I have done.” He died May 8, 1662, and was interred before his own stall, within the choir of the abbey, leaving by his wife, Lretitia, daughter of Thomas Highgate, of Hayes in Middlesex, esq. four children.

, a half-crazy kind of writer, whose works may probably excite some curiosity respecting the author, was born in 1630, in Essex, where there was a considerable family of that name. He was first a pensioner in St. John’s college, Cambridge; then, in 1650, junior bachelor of Gonvill and Caius college. He was soon after a lieutenant in the English army in Scotland, then a captain in general Fleetwood’s regiment, when he was Swedish ambassador in England for Carolus Gustavus. He afterwards went to Jamaica in some capacity, and on his return, in 1660, published an account of it, called “Jamaica viewed,” 4to. two editions of which were printed in 1661, dedicated to Charles II. who in return appointed the author secretary to the earl of Windsor, then going out as governor of Jamaica. This post, however, he did not accept, but took orders, and first obtained the vicarage of Boxted in Essex, Oct. 22, 1662, and, about the same time, the rectory of All Saints, Colchester. The former he resigned in 1664, but retained the latter the whole of his life, notwithstanding he gave much offence to his brethren by his wild and often scurrilous attacks on the church in a variety of pamphlets. “He was a man,” says Newcourt, “though episcopally ordained (by bishop Sanderson), yet publicly bade defiance to the prelacy, and that of his own diocesan in particular: an impudent, violent, ignorant fellow, very troublesome, as far as he could, to his right reverend diocesan, and to all that lived near him.” He died Nov. 30, 1708, and was interred in the church of All Saints, Colchester, with a long Latin epitaph, part of which, “Reverendus admodum Dominus tarn Marte quain Mercurio clarus, quippe qui terra marique militavit non sine gloria, ingeniique vires scriptis multiplice argumento insignitis demonstravit, c.” was afterwards effaced, by order, as it was commonly reported at Colchester, of bishop Compton. His tracts, which in point of style and often of matter, are beneath criticism, were collected and published by himself in a quarto vol. 1707. They include his account of Jamaica the trial of the spiritual courts general history of priestcraft; a satyr upon poverty; a satyr against fame the survey of the earth and the writ de excommunicato capiendo unmasked receipts to cure the evil of this wicked world the art of contentment, a poem, &c. &c. Mr. Malone has introduced him in his life of Dryden, as the author of the “Mushroom, or a satyr against libelHng tories and preiatical-tantivies, &c.” He published also a few occasional sermons, which are reprinted in a Second edition of his works, 1716, 2 vols. 8vo.

In Sept. 1679 he married; and December following was created D. D. at Oxford. In March 1679-80 the king promoted him to a prebend of Worcester; and in August he was presented by Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, to the vicarage of Allhallows Barking, near the Tower of London. In Dec. 1681, he was made chaplain in ordinary to the king; and, in Aug. 1683, dean of Worcester. The bishopric of Bristol was vacant the next year, and Hickes, it is said, might have had it if he would; but, missing his opportunity, the king died, and he lost his prospect of advancement; for though his church principles were very high, yet he had distinguished himself too much by his zeal against popery to be any favourite with James 11. Iti May 1686 he left the vicarage of Barking, and went to settle on his deanery; the bishop of Worcester having offered him the rectory of All-church, not far from tha^ city, which he accepted.

Upon the Revolution in 1688, Dr. Hickes, with many others, refusing to take the oaths of allegiance, fell under suspension in August 1689, and was deprived the February following. He continued, however, in possession till the beginning of May; when reading in the Gazette that the deanery of Worcester was granted to Talbot, afterwards bishop of Oxford, Salisbury, and Durham, successively, he immediately drew up in his own hand-writing a claim of right to it, directed to all the members of that church and, in 1691, affixed it over the great entrance into the choir, that none of them might plead ignorance in that particular. The earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, called it “Dr. Hickes’ s Manifesto against Government;” and it has since been published by Dr. Francis Lee, in the appendix to his “Life of Mr. Kettlewell,” with this title, “The Protestation of Dr. George Hickes, and claim of right, fixed up in the cathedral church of Worcester.” Expecting on this account the resentment of the government, he privately withdrew to London, where he absconded for many years, till May 1699, when lord Somers, then chancellor, out of regard to his uncommon abilities, procured an act of council, by which the attorneygeneral was ordered to cause a. noli prosequi to be entered to all proceedings against him.

Soon after their deprivation, archbishop San croft and his colleagues began to consider about maintaining and continuing the episcopal succession among those who adhered to them; and, having resolved upon it, they sent Dr. Hickes over, with a list of the deprived clergy, to confer with king James about that matter. The doctor set out in May 1693, and had several audiences of the king, who complied with all he askedj Dr. Hickes, after being detained some months by an ague and fever, returned to England in February, and on the eve of St. Matthias the consecrations were performed by Dr. Lloyd bishop of Norwich, Dr. Turner bishop of Ely, and Dr. White bishop of Peterborough, at the bishop of Peterborough’s lodgings in the Rev. Mr. Giffard’s house, Southgate. Hickes was consecrated suffragan bishop of Thetford, and Wagstaffe suffragan of Ipswich; at which solemnity Henry earl of Clarendon is aid to have been present. It has indeed been averred, that Hickes was once disposed to take the oaths, in order to save his preferments; but this is not probable: he was a man very strict in his principles, and what he was convinced was his duty he closely adhered to, choosing to suffer any thing rather than violate his conscience. Some years before he died he was grievously tormented with the stone; and at length his constitution, though naturally strong, gave way to that distemper, Dec. 15, 1715, in his 74th year.

Dr. Uickes was a man of universal learning; but his temper, situation, and connexions were such, as to suffer him to leave us but few monuments of it that are worth remembering; for though he wrote a great deal, the greatest part consists of controversial pieces on politics and religion, which, however, we shall enumerate, as they throw considerable light on his character and opinions. In his controversies with the Romanists he is a sound and acute reasoner, and confirms his arguments with exact and elaborate proofs. The late bishop Home had a high opinion of him in this respect. He was particularly skilful in the old Northern languages, and in antiquities, and has given us some works on these subjects, which will be valued when all his other writings are forgotten. He was deeply read in the primitive fathers of the church, whom he considered as the best expositors of Scripture; and as no one better understood the doctrine, worship, constitution, and discipline of the catholic church in the first ages of Christianity, it was his utmost ambition and endeavour to prove the church of England perfectly conformable to them.

The principal works of Dr. Hickes are the three following: 1. “Institutiones Grammaticse Anglo-Saxonicae & Maeso-Gothicae. Grammatica Islandica Runolphi Jonas. Catalogus librorum Septentrionalium. Accedit Edwardi Bernardi Etymologicum Britannicum,” Oxon. 1689, 4to. inscribed to archbishop Sancroft. While the dean was writing the preface to this book, there were great disputes in the house of commons, and throughout the kingdom, about the original contract; which occasioned him to insert the ancient coronation oath of our Saxon kings, to shew, what was not very necessary, that there is not the least footstep of any such contract. 2. “Antiquae literature Septentrionalis libri duo: quorum primus G. Hickesu S. T. P. Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium thesaurum grammatico-criticum & Archaeologicum, ejusdem de antique literatures Septentrionalis militate dissertationem epistolarum, & Andreas Fountaine equitis aurati numismata Saxonica& Dano-Saxonica, complectitur alter contn Humfredi Wanleii librorum Veterum Septentnonaliiim, qui in Ano-liae Bibiiothecis extant, c.ialogum histonco-cr im, necmTn multorum veteruni codicum Septentrionalium alibi extantiuro notitiam, cum totius operis sex mdicibus, Oxon. 1705, 2 or sometimes 3 vols. folio. Foreigners as well as Englishmen, who had any relish for antiquities, have justly admired this splendid and laborious work, which is now scarce and dear. It was originally published at 3l. 3s. the small, and 5l. 5s the large paper. The latter now rarely appears, and the former is worth 15l. The great duke of Tuscany' s envoy sent a copy of it to his master, which his highness looking into, and finding full of strange characters, called a council of the Dotti, and commanded them to peruse and give him an account of. They did so, and reported it to be an excellent work, and that they believed the author to be a man of a particular head; for this was the envoy’s compliment to Hirkes, when he went to him with a present from his master. 3. Two volumes of Sermons, most of which were never before printed, with a preface by Mr. Spinckes, 1713, 8vo. After his death was published another volume of his Sermons, with some pieces relating to schism, separation, &c. 4.” A Letter sent from beyond the seas to one of the chief ministers of the ndnconforming party, &c. 1674“which was afterwards reprinted in 1684, under the title of” The judgment of an anonymous writer concerning these following particulars first, a law for disabling a papist to inherit the crown secondly, the execution of penal laws against protestant dissenters; thirdly, a bill of comprehension all briefly discussed in a letter sent from beyond the seas to a dissenter ten years ago.“This letter was in reality an answer to his elder brother, Mr. John Hickes, a dissenting minister, bred up in Cromwell’s time at the college of Dublin; whom the doctor always endeavoured to convince of his errors, but without success. John persisted in them to his death, and at last suffered for his adherence to the duke of Monrnouth; though, upon the doctor’s unwearied application, the king would have granted him his.life,^ but that he had been falsely informed that this Mr. Hickes was the person who advised the duke of Monmouth to take upon him the title of king. 5.” Ravillac Redivivus, being a narrative of the late trial of Mr. James Mitchel, a conventicle preacher, who was executed Jan. 18, 1677, for an attempt on the person of the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, &c.“6.” The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the mouths of fanatical Protestants; or, the last speeches of Mr. John Kid and Mr. John King, two presbyterian ministers, who were executed for high treason at Edinburgh, 'ten Aug. 14, 1679.“These pieces were published in 1630, and they were occasioned by his attendance on the duke of Lauderdale in quality of chaplain. The spirit of faction made them much read, and did the author considerable service with several great personages, and even with the king. 7.” Jovian; or, an answer to Julian the apostate;“printed twice in 1683, 8vo. This is an ingenious and learned tract in defence of passive obedience and nonresistance, against the celebrated Samuel Johnson, the author of” Julian.“8.” The case of Infant Baptism, 1683;“printed in the second vol. of the” London Cases, 168.5,“4to. 9.” Speculum beatae Virginis, a discourse on Luke i. 28. of the due praise and honour of the Virgin Mary, by a true Catholic of the Church of England, 1686.“10.” An apologetical Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to her adversaries, who reproach her with the English heresies and schisms, 1686,“4to; reprinted, with many additions, a large preface, and an appendix of” Papers relating to the Schisms of the Church of Rome,“1706, 8vo. 11.” The celebrated story of the Thebati Legion no fable: in answer to the objections of Dr. Gilbert Burners Preface to his Translation of Lactantius de mortibus persecutorum, with some remarks on his Discourse of Persecution;“written in 1687, but not published till 1714, for reasons given in the preface. 12.” Reflections upon a Letter out of the country to a member of this present parliament, occasioned by a Letter to a member of the house of commons, concerning the Bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension, 1689.“The author of the letter to which these reflections are an answer, was generally presumed to be Dr. Bumet, though that notion was afterwards contradicted, 13.” A Letter to the author of a late paper entitled A Vindication of the Divines of the Church of England, &c. in defence of the history of passive obedience, 16S9.“The author of the” Vindication,“was Dr. Fowler, bishop of Gloucester, though his name was not to it. 14.” A Word to the Wavering, in answer to Dr. Gilbert Burnet’s Inquiry into the present state of aflairs, 1689.“15.” An Apology for the new Separation, in a letter to Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, &c. 1691.“16.” A Vindication of some among ourselves against the false principles of Dr. Sherlock, &c. 1692.“17.” Some Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr.Tillotson, occasioned by the lute funeral sermon of the former upon the latter, 1695.“It is remarkable, that in this piece Hickes has not scrupled to call Tiilotson an atheist. 18.” The Pretences of the Prince of Wales examined and rejected, &c. 1701.“19. A letter in the” Philosophical Transactions,* entitled, “Epistola viri Rev. D G. Hickesii S. T. P ad D. Hans Sloane, M. D. & S. R. Seer, de varia lectione inscriptions, quse in statua Tagis exaratur per quatuor alphabeta Hetrusca” 20. “Several Letters which passed between Dr. G. Hickes and a Popish priest, &c. 1705.” The person on whose account this book was published, was the lady Theophila Nelson, wife of Robert Nelson, esq. 21. “A second collection of controversial Letters relating to the church of England and the church of Rome, as they passed between Dr. G. Hickes and an honourable lady, 1710.” This lady was the lady Gratiana Carew, of Hadcomb in Devonshire. 22. “Two Treatises; one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the dignity of the episcopal order, against a book entitled, The Rights of the Christian Church.” Trie third edition in 1711, enlarged into two volumes, 8vo. 23. “A seasonable ana 1 modest apology in behalf of the Rev. Dr. Hickes and other nonjurors, in a letter to Thomas Wise, D. D. 1710.” 24. “AVindication of Dr. Hickes, and the author of the seasonable and modest apology, from the reflections of Dr. Wise, &c. 1712.” 25. “Two Letters to Robert Nelson, esq. relating to bishop Bull,” published in Bull’s life. 26. “Some Queries proposed to civil, canon, and common lawyers, 1712;” printed, after several editions, in 1714, with another title, “Seasonable Queries relating to the birth and birthright of a certain person.” Besides the works enumerated here, there are many prefaces and recommendations written by him, at the earnest request of others, either authors or editors.

It is reported by Eusebius, that the martyr Ædesms, transported with an holy zeal, ventured to approach Hierocles while he was presiding at the trial of some Christians of Alexandria, and to give him a box on the ear; upbraiding him at the same time with his infamous cruelty. Th6 remains of Hierocles were collected into one volume 8vo, by bishop Pearson, and published at London in 1654, with a learned dissertation upon him and his writings prefixed.

, a polite writer in the seventeenth century, was born in 1580, at or near Alderton, Gloucestershire, and became a gentleman commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, in 1595. He was soon, however, removed to Corpus Christi, where his father William Higford, esq. and his grandfather sir John Higford, had both studied, the latter under the celebrated bishop Jewell, and both, as well as the subject of the present article, became zealous puritans. At Corpus Christi, Mr. Higford was placed under the tuition of Seb. Benefield, and was accounted an accomplished scholar and gentleman. After taking a degree in arts, he went home, was admitted into the commission of the peace, and was much respected by the lord Chandois, and other persons of quality in his country. He died at his house at Dixton, near Alderton, April 6, 1657. He left behind him some things fit for the press, but which were lost. A manuscript, however, was preserved, entitled “Institution, or Advice to his Grandson,” of which an abridgment was published by Barksdale, 1660, 12mo. This sensible volume is amply described in the “Censura Literaria.” A descendant of the author’s, the rev. Henry Higford, died at Dixton, aged eighty-six, March 25, 1795.

, younger son of sir Thomas (and first cousin to the late earl of Granville), by Bridget his second wife, was born in 1670, and became a commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford, in Lent term 1686; and went afterwards to Cambridge, and then to the Middle Temple. Wood enumerates five of his poems. He wrote some others and was the author of a tragedy, entitled “The Generous Conqueror, or the Timely Discovery,” acted at Drury-lane, and printed in 1702, 4to. He was a steady adherent to the cause of the exiled family; and accompanied king James into France, where he mairrtained his wit and good-humour undepressed by his misfortunes. He died in March 1735. He published a poem “on the Peace of Utrecht;” and on the publication of bishop Burnet’s “History of his own Times,” he wrote some strictures on it, in a volume entitled “Historical and Critical Remarks,” the second edition of which was printed in 1727, 8vo; and, in the same year, published “A short View of the English History, with Reflections, political, historical, civil, physical, and moral on the reigns of the kings their characters, and manners their successions to the throne, and other remarkable incidents to the Revolution 1688. Drawn from authentic Memoirs and Mss.” “These papers,” he tells us in his preface, “lay covered with dust 36 years, till every person concerned in the transactions mentioned were removed from the stage.”

, or Hilary, an ancient father of the Christian church, who flourished in the fourth century, was born, as St. Jerom tells us, at Poictiers in France; but in what year, is not known. His parents, persons of rank and substance, had him liberally educated in the pagan religion, which they themselves professed, and which Hilary did not forsake till many years after he was grown-up; when reflecting upon the gross errors of paganism, he was gradually led to the truth, and confirmed in it by reading the holy Scriptures. He was then baptized, together with his wife and daughter, who were also converted with bin). He was advanced to the bishopric of Poictiers in the year 3 5 5, according to Baronius though Cave thinks he was bishop of that place some years before. As soon however as he was raised to this dignity, he became a most zealous champion of the orthodox faith, and distinguished himself particularly against the Arians, whose doctrines were at that time gaining ground in France. In 356, he was sent by Constantinus to support the party of Athanasius at the synod of Beterra, or Beziers, against Saturninusbishop of'Arles, who had just before been excommunicated by the bishops of France but Saturninus had so much influence with the emperor, who was then at Milan, as to induce that monarch to order him to be banished to Phrygia, where Hilary continued continued four years, and applied himself during that time to the composing of several works. He wrote his twelve books upon the Trinity, which Cave calls “a noble work,” and which has been much admired in all ages. He wrote also “A Treatise Concerning Synods,” addressed to the bishops of France in which he explains to them the sense of the Eastern churches upon the doctrine of the Trinity, and their man tier of holding councils. This was drawn up by Hilary, ‘after the council of Ancyra in 358, whose canons are contained in it; and before the councils of Rimini and Seleucia, which were called in the beginning of 359. ’ Some time after he was sent to the council of Seleucia, where he defended the Galiican bishops from the imputation of Sabellianism, which the Arians had fixed upun them; and boldly asserted the sound and orthodox faith of the Western bishops. He was so favourably received, and so much respected by this council, that they admitted him as one who should give in his opinion, and assist in a determination among their bishops. Hilary, however, finding the greater part of them to be Arian, would not act, although he continued at Seleucia till the council was over; and thinking the orthodox faith in the Utmost peril, followed the deputies of the council to Constantinople, when he petitioned the emperor for leave to dispute publicly with the Arians. The Arians, from a dread of his talents, contrived to have him sent to France, in which he arrived in 360, and after the catholic bishops had recovered their usual liberty and authority under Julian the Apostate, Hilary assembled several councils to reestablish the ancient orthodox faith, and to condemn the determinations of the synods of Rimini and Seleucia. He condemned Saturninus bishop of Aries, but pardoned those who acknowledged their error; and, in every respect, exerted himself so zealously, that France was in a great measure freed from Arianism by his single influence and endeavours. He extended a similar care over Italy and some foreign churches, and was particularly qualified to recover men from the error of their ways, being a man of a mild candid turn, very learned, and accomplished in the arts of persuasion, and in these respects, says the candid Dupin, “affords a very proper lesson of instruction to all who are employed in the conversion of heretics.”

About 367 Hilary had another opportunity of distinguishing his zeal against Arianism. The emperor Valentinian coming to Milan, issued an edict, obliging all to acknowledge Auxentius for their bishop. Hilary, persuaded that Auxentius was in his heart an Ariao, presented a petition to the emperor, in which he declared Auxentius to be a man whose opinions were opposite to those of the church. Upon this the emperor ordered Hilary and Auxentius to dispute publicly; and Auxentius, after many subtleties and evasive shifts to save his bishopric, was forced to own, that Jesus Christ “was indeed God, of the same substance and divinity with the Father.” The emperor, believing this profession sincere, embraced his communion; but Hilary still insisted that he prevaricated, on which account he was ordered to depart from Milan, as one who disturbed the peace of the church. Hilary died the latter end of this year, after many struggles and endeavours to support the catholic faith. His works have been published several times: but the best edition of them was given by the Benedictines in 1693 at Paris, fol. That of the marquis de Maffei, published at Verona in 1730, 2 vols. folio, although it contains some additions, is less esteemed. There has since appeared an edition in 4 vols. 8vo, by-Oberthur, at Wurtzberg, 1785 1788. The principal articles are: the twelve books on the Trinity; the Treatise on Synods, three pieces addressed to the emperor Constantius; Commentaries on St. Matthew, and part of the Psalms. Cave has enumerated several articles improperly attributed to him. He was a man of great piety as well as abilities and learning, of which the ancient author of his life, attributed to Fortunatus, has given us some instances, mixed with superstitious prodigies and fictions. It appears that Hilary was married, and had by his wife a daughter called Abra, whose education he carefully superintended. To him the great church at Poictiers is dedicated, and in the midst of the city is a column erected to him, with an inscription expressive of their admiration of his virtues, but partaking a little of the superstitious.

, another Romish saint of that name, bishop of Aries, was born in the year 401, of rich and noble parents, and educated under St. Honoratus, abbot of Lerins. When Honoratus was promoted to the see of Aries, Hilarius, afterwards his successor, attended him, and when he was himself promoted to that dignity, beheld several councils, and presided in that at Rome in 441. In consequence of some false accusations, he was partly degraded by pope Leo, but his merit was afterwards fully perceived by that prelate. He died at the age of 48, May 5, 449, and although so young, was yet worn out by his ecclesiastical labours. In sentiments he was a Semi-Pelagian, yet he bore the highest character for piety, and all virtues. His works are, 1. “Homilies,” under the name of Eusebius of Emesa, which are in the library of the fathers. 2. “The Life of St. Honpratus,” his predecessor, Paris, 1578, 8vo; 3. Various smaller works, but no collection has been made of them.

, a very eminent and learned puritan divine, was descended from the royal family of England. He was the son of Thomas Hildersham, a gentleman of an ancient family, by Anne Pole (or Poole), his second wife, daughter to sir JefTery Pole, fourth son of sir Richard Pole, cousin-german to Henry VII. This sir Richard Pole’s wife was Margaret countess of Salisbury, daughter to George duke of Clarence, second brother to king Edward IV. by Isabella, eldest daughter and co-heiress of Richard earl of Warwick and Salisbury. All this will appear from the pedigree of cardinal Pole (who was Mr. Hildersham’s great uncle), as given from* the Heralds office, by the cardinal’s biographer, Mr. Phillips, but we might perhaps have passed it over, unless for a remarkable coincidence of descent which we shall soon have to notice in our account of bishop Hildesley.

, a worthy prelate, appears by his pedigree given by his biographer, compared with that of the preceding Mr. Hildersham, to have been descended in the same line from the royal family of England, but as this circumstance seems to have escaped Mr. Butler’s notice, we are unable to say whether the name Hildersham and Hildesley were originally the same. It is certain that Hildersham occurs in t:ie descents in cardinal Pole’s pedigree, and that Hildesley does not. The subject of this article was the eldest surviving son of the rev. Mark Hildesley, rector of the valuable living of Houghton, held with the chapel of Witton, or Wyton All Saints, in the county of Huntingdon, who died in 1729. He was born Dec. 9, 1698, at Murston, near Sittingbourne, in Kent, of which his father was at that time rector. He was educated at the Charter-house, and at the age of nineteen was sent to Trinity-college, Cambridge, where he to >k his degree of A. B. in 1720, and of A. M. in 1724-, having been elected a fellow the year preceding. He was ordained deacon in 1722 and in 172.1 was appointed domestic chaplain to lord Cobham. In 1725 he was nominated a preacher at Whitehall, by Dr. Gibson, bishop of London; and from 1725 to 1729 held the curacy of Yelling in Huntingdonshire. In Feb. 1731 he was presented by his college to the vicarage of Hitchin in Hertfordshire, and the same year married miss Elizabeth Stoker, with whom he lived in the utmost conjugal airection for upwards of thirty years, but by whom it does not appear that he had any issue.

At Hitchin, the value of which would not admit the expence of a curate, he began that attention to the duties of his function which predominated through his life, and having advanced considerably to repair the vicarage-house, he was obliged to add to his labours by undertaking the education of from four to six select pupils, as boarders. It was his general custom at this time to preach either from memory, or short notes; and at a visitation at Baldock he delivered a discourse to the clergy from memory alone, with very singular and agreeable address. In Oct. 1735, he succeeded to the neighbouring-rectory of Holwell, in the county of Bedford, upon the presentation of Ralph Radcliffe, esq. This living he held about thirty-two years, and during the twenty years of his residence, executed all the duties of his important function with a truly primitive fidelity, not only by frequent public preaching, but by private visiting, exhortation, and catechising, distributing good books, &c. At length his exemplary conduct became known to the duke of Athol, lord and patron of the bishopric of Sodor and Mann, who justly considered him as a proper person to succeed the excellent and venerable bishop Wilson, who died in 1755. He was accordingly consecrated in Whitehall chapel in April of that year, after being created D. D. by archbishop Herring; and on Aug. 6, was installed in the cathedral of St. German on Peel, in the Isle of Mann.

His removal took place, as he terms it in one of his letters, at a critical juncture, when the double charge of his pupils, and a large parochial cure together, began to be too heavy for his “weak shoulders.” He added, that he had “in his new province, as much care, but not quite so much labour” For some time after his promotion to the diocese, he had been obliged to retain by commendam the rectory of Holwell, o'n account of the smallness of his episcopal income, which was too slender to support the dignity of his station. Indeed it appears that the expences, fees, and other charges attendant or consequent on his acceptance of the bishopric, amounted to no less than 92&1. a sum which must have greatly embarrassed him. As soon, however, as was possible, he resigned Holwell, and the same year, 1767, was presented, by the bishop of Durham, Dr. Trevor, to the mastership of Siierburn hospital; and he had also a prebend of Lincoln given him, but at what time does not appear.

Having thus succeeded bishop Wilson, he made it the invariable rule of his conduct to tread as nearly as possible in the steps of his truly excellent predecessor, of whom, both in his letters and conversation, he always spoke with a kind of filial respect and veneration. He accordingly devoted himself to the various duties of his charge with a generous assiduity, and amongst the very chief of those duties, undertook to execute the arduous task of getting the Holy Scriptures translated into the Manks language, and printed for the use of the native inhabitants. This had been already begun by bishop Wilson, who, at his own expence, proceeded so far as to print the gospel of St. Matthew; and had also prepared for the press a manuscript version of the other evangelists, and the Acts of the Apostles, which afterwards underwent a very careful revision. Impressed, therefore, with deep solicitude and concern for the spiritual welfare of a flock, which providence had so unexpectedly entrusted to his care, bishop Hildesley could have no rest till he had accomplished this glorious design. It lay, indeed, so much at his heart, that he was often heard to say, “he only wished to live tosee it finished and he then should be happy, die when he would” and his wish was accomplished. He lived to see the work completed, by the divine blessing on his own endeavours, and on those of his clergy, in consequence of a successful application made to the society for promoting Christian knowledge who, immediately, and in the most liberal manner, espoused the cause together with the aid of many persons of eminence and distinction, who were pleased to honour themselves by patronizing the undertaking.

At first, with the sanction and support of the society, Dn Hildesley printed only the New Testament; the “Book of Common Prayer” translated, untler his direction, by the clergy of his diocese; “The Christian Monitor;” Mr. Lewis’s “Exposition of the Catechism,” and bishop Wilson’s “Form of Prayer” for the use of the Herring-fishery. But the benefactions came in so far beyond their expectation, that about 1766 they were encouraged to set on foot a Manks version of the Old Testament, which had scarcely, been accomplished, when the good prelate’s health, which was always delicate, showed alarming symptoms of approaching dissolution, and although he had alternations of apparent recovery, and in June 1772 had gained firmness enough to visit his hospital near Durham, yet his usual vivacity was visibly much reduced, and application to business of any kind proved rather irksome. This continued till about the middle of November following, when he was ao-ain enabled to dispatch common affairs without apparent fatio-ue. and performed the duties of his ministerial office with ereat alacrity. On Saturday, Nov. 28, he received the last part of the translation of the Bible, so long the sbject of his ardent prayers upon which occasion, accord in'g to his own repeated promise, he very emphatically sang Nunc, Dentine, Dimtitis, in the presence of his congratulating family. Next Sunday he officiated in his own chapel, and preached “on the uncertainty of human life,” which subject he repeated in private exhortation to his family in the evening. On the Monday following, Nov. 30, after dining and cheerfully conversing in his palace, with his family and one of the neighbouring clergy around him, he was seized with a stroke of apoplexy on the left side, which in a moment deprived him of his intellectual powers, and in that situation he remained, until Dec. 7, when he calmly expired, deeply regretted by the clergy and inhabitants of his diocese, to whom his amiable manners and active benevolence had endeared him. In the work to which we are indebted for the particulars of this sketch, may be found many proofs of his piety, liberality, and anxiety for the best concerns of his flock. A narrative, indeed, like that of Mr. Butler’s, strengthened by so much authentic and minute information, and interesting correspondence, cannot be too frequently consulted by the junior clergy. Bishop Hildesley is known as an author, only by a small tract which he published without his name, entitled “Plain Instructions for young persons in the principles of the Christian religion in six conferences, between a minister and his disciple designed for the use of the isle and diocese of Mann. By a resident clergyman,” in two parts, 1762 and 1767.

, is recorded as a celebrated abbot of St. Denys in France, in the ninth century, in the reigns of Louis le Debonnaire, and Lothaire his son. He became despicable by his attachment to the latter, and by frequently violating the oath of fidelity which he swore to the emperor Louis, whenever he was reconciled to his children. As a writer he was the first who confounded St. Denys, or Dionysius, bishop of Paris, with Dionysius the Areopagite, in his life of St. Dionysius entitled " Areopagitica, n Paris, 1565, 8vo, which is replete with fabulous absurdities.

In consequence of this, Dr. Hinchliffe was appointed tutor and domestic chaplain to the duke of Devonshire, with whom he continued at Devonshire-house till his grace went abroad; and, by the joint interest of his two noble patrons he was presented to the vicarage of Greenwich, in 1766. About this time, Miss Elizabeth, the sister of his pupil Mr. Crewe, a young lady about twenty-one years of age, was courted by an officer of the guards, who not being favoured with the approbation of Mr. Crewe, this latter gentleman applied to Dr. Hinchliffe, requesting him to dissuade his sister from encouraging the addresses of her suitor. This he did so effectually, that the lady not only gratified her brother’s wishes, but her own, by giving both her heart and hand to the doctor. Mr. Crewe acquiesced immediately in his sister’s choice, encreasing her fortune from five thousand^ the sum originally bequeathed to her, to fifteen thousand pounds; but at the same time withdrawing the three hundred per annum before mentioned. Dr. Hinchliffe, it is said, was offered the tuition of the prince of Wales, which important trust he declined, from his predilection, as it is supposed, to what were called Whig principles. On the death of Dr. Smith, in 1768, his lordship was elected, through the recommendation of the duke of Grafton, master of Trinity college, Cambridge; and scarce a year had elapsed, when he was raised to the bishopric of Peterborough on the death of Dr. Lamb, in. 1769, by the interest of the duke of Grafton, then prime minister. It is probable his lordship might have obtained other preferment, had he not uniformly joined the party in parliament who opposed the principle and conduct of the American war. The only other change he experienced was that of being appointed dean of Durham, by which he was removed from the mastership of Trinity college. He died at his palace at Peterborough Jan. 11, 1794, after a long illness, which terminated in a paralytic stroke. His lordship, although a man of ^considerable learning, published three sermons, preached on public occasions. He was a graceful orator in parliament, and much admired in the pulpit. Mr. Jones, in his Life of bishop Home, says that “he spake with the accent of a man of sense (such as he really was in a superior degree), but it was remarkable, and, to those who did not know the cause, mysterious, that there was not a corner of the church, in which he could not be heard distinctly.” The reason Mr. Jones assigns, was, that he made it an invariable rule, “to do justice to every consonant, knovxing that the vowels will be sure to speak for themselves. And thus he became the surest and clearest of speakers: his elocution was perfect, and never disappointed his audience.” Two years after his death, a volume of bishop Hinchliffe’s “Sermons” were published, but, probably from a want of judgment in the selection, did not answer the expectations of those who had been accustomed to admire him in the pulpit.

, a celebrated archbishop of Rheims, and one of the most learned men of his time, was originally a monk of St. Denys in France. He was elected archbishop in the year 845, and shewed great zeal for the rights of the Gallican church. He also acquired much influence at court,. and among the clergy, but made a tyrannical use of it to accomplish his de&igiis. He condemned Gotescalc, and deposed Hincmar bishop of Laon his nephew. He died in 882, at Epernay, to which place he had escaped from the Normans in a litter. Several of his works remain, the best edition of which is by Sirmond, 1645, 2 vols. foL useful as to ecclesiastical history, and learned in theology and jurisprudence, but the style is harsh and barbarous. What Hincmar wrote concerning St. Remi of Rheims, and St. Dionysius of Paris, is not in thi* edition, but may be found in Surius. There is also something more of his in Labbe’s Councils, and in the Council of Douzi, 1658, 4to.

, nephew of the preceding on the mother’s side, was made bishop of Laon before the age prescribed by the canons. His irregular conduct, injustice, and violent proceedings against his clergy, occasioned the council of Verberie, in which he was accused by Charles the Bald; but the proceeding was suspended by an apneal to the pope. Hincmar was less fortunate in the council of Douzi in 871, where being accused of sedition, calumny, and disobedience to the king by open force, his uncle pronounced sentence against him, and he was banished, confined in irons, and his eyes put out. Another bishop was appointed in his room;however in 878 he was reinstated; but died soon after. His vindications may be found in the History of the Council of Douzi, 1658, 4to.

, was an eminent bishop and martyr, who, after becoming very distinguished in the church by his writings, shed his blood for the Christian faith about the year 230, in the reign of Alexander Severus. It is certain that he was author of many works much esteemed by the ancients, but it is by no means certain that what remain under his name, and are ascribed to him, were really written by him. Fabricius has published an elegant edition of them in Greek and Latin, 1716 and 1718, 2 vols. fol. Some may be also found in the library of the Fathers.

, a prelate celebrated for his controversial talents, was the son of the rev. Samuel Hoadly, who kept a private school many years, and was afterwards master of the public grammar-school at Norwich. He was born at Westerham in Kent, Nov. 14, 1676. In 1691 he was admitted a pensioner of Catherine hall, Cambridge, and after taking his bachelor’s degree, was chosen fellow; and when M. A. became tutor. He took orders under Dr. Compton, bishop of London, and next year quitting his fellowship (vacated most probably by his marriage) he was chosen lecturer of St. Mildred in the Poultry, London, which he held ten years, but does not appear to have been very popular, as he informs us himself that he preached it down to 30l. a-year, and then thought it high time to resign it. This was not, however, his only employment, as in 1702 he officiated at St. Swithin’s in the absence of the rector, and in 1704-was presented to the rectory of St. Peter-le-Poor, Broad-street. By this time he had begun to distinguish himself as a controversial, anthor, and his first contest was;vith Mr. Calamy, the biographer of the non-conformists. Several tracts passed between them, in which Hoadly endeavoured to prove the reasonableness of conformity to the Church of England. How well he was qualified to produce that influence on the non-conformists appears, among other instances, from what the celebrated commentator Matthew Henry says of the eftect of his writings on his own mind-: “I have had much satisfaction this year (1703) in my non-conformity, especially by reading Mr. Hoadly’s books, in which I see a manifest spirit of Christianity unhappily leavened by the spirit of conformity.” In 1705, Hoadly produced his opinions on the subject of civil government, in a sermon before the lord-mayor, and from this time, as he says, “a torrent of angry zeal began to pour itself out upon him.” His attention to this subject was, however, diverted for some time by another controversy into which he entered with Dr. Atterbury. In 1706 he published “Some Remarks on Dr. Atterbury’s Sermon at the Funeral of Mr. Bennet” and two years afterwards c< Exceptions“against another Sermon by the same author, on the power of” Charity to cover Sin.“In 1709, a dispute arose between these combatants, concerning the doctrine of non-resistance, occasioned by the sermon we just mentioned before the lord-mayor, and Hoadly’s defence of it, entitled” The Measures of Obedience;“some positions in which Atterbury endeavoured to confute in a Latin Sermon, preached that year before the London clergy. Hoadly’s politics were at this time so acceptable to the ruling powers, that the house of commons gave him a particular mark of their regard, by representing in an address to the queen, the signal services he had done to the cause of civil and religious liberty. At this time, when his principles were unpopular, (which was indeed the case the greater part of his life), Mrs. Rowland spontaneously presented him to the rectory of Streatham in Surrey. Soon after the accession of George I. his influence at court became so considerable, that he was made bishop of Bangor in 1715, which see, however, from an apprehension of party fury, as was said, he never visited, but still remained in town, preaching against what he considered as the inveterate errors of the clergy. Among other discourses he made at this crisis, one was upon these words,” My kingdom is not of this world:“which, producing the famous Bangoriau controversy, as it was called, employed the press for many years. The manner in which he explained the text was, that the clergy had no pretensions to any temporal jurisdictions; but this was answered by Dr. Snipe; and, in the course of the debate, the argument insensibly changed, from the rights of the clergy to that of princes, in the government of the church. Bishop Hoadly strenuously maintained, that temporal princes had a right to govern in ecclesiastical polities. His most able opponent was the celebrated William Law, who, in some material points, may be said to have gained a complete victory. He was afterwards involved in another dispute with Dr. Hare, upon the nature of prayer: he maintained, that a calm, rational, and dispassionate manner of offering up our prayers to heaven, was the most acceptable method of address. Hare, on the contrary, insisted, that the fervour of zeal was what added merit to the sacrifice; and that prayer, without warmth, and without coining from the heart, was of n > avail. This dispute, like the former, for a time excited many opponents, but has long subsided. From the bishopric of Bangor, he was translated successively to those of Hereford, Salisbury, and Winchester, of which last see he continued bishop more than 26 years. His latter days were in some measure disturbed by a fraud attempted to be practised on him by one Bernard Fournier, a popish convert, who pretended to have received a notc-of-hand from the bishop for the sum of 8800l.; but this was proved in court to be a forgery. It produced the last, and one of the best written of the bishop’s tracts,” A Letter to Clement Chevallier, esq." a gentleman who had too much countenanced F\>urnier in his imposture. This appeared in 1758, when our prelate had completed his eighty-first year. He died April 17, 1761, aged eighty-five, and was buried in Winchester cathedral, where there is an elegant monument to his memory. His first wife was Sarah Curtis, by whom he had two sons, Benjamin, M. D. and John, LL. I) chancellor of Winchester. His second wife was Mary Newey, daughter of the rev. Dr. John Newey, dean of Chichester.

, M. D. eldest son of the bishop of Winchester, was born Feb. 10, 1705-6, in Broad-street, and educated, as was his younger brother, at Dr. Newcomers at Hackney, and Benet-college, Cambridge; being admitted pensioner April 8, 1722, under archbishop Herring, then tutor there. Here he took a degree in physic in 1727; and, particularly applying to mathematical and philosophical studies, was well known (along with the learned and ingenious doctors David Hartley and Davies, both late of Bath, who with him composed the whole class) to jnake a greater progress under the blind professor Saunderson than any student then in the university. When his late majesty was at Cambridge in April 1728, he was upon

* Archbishop Seeker one day, at be Christians, replied, “If they were, his table, when the Monthly Reviewers it was certainly ‘secundum usum Winwt-re said, by one of the company, to ton’.” the list of persons to be created doctors of physic: but either by chance or management, his name was not found in the last list; and he had not his degree of M. D, till about a month after, by a particular mandamus. He was elected F. R. S. in 1726, when he was very young, and had the honour of being made known to the learned world as a philosopher, by “A Letter from the rev. Dr. Samuel Clarke to Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, F. R. S. occasioned by the present controversy among the mathematicians concerning the proportion of Velocity and Force in bodies in motion.” He was made registrar of Hereford while his father filled that see; and was appointed physician to his majesty’s household so early as June 9, 1742. Jt is remarkable, that he was for some years physician to both the royal households; having been appointed to that of the prince of Wales, Jan. 4, 1745-6, in the place of Dr. Lamotte, a Scotch physician, whom the prince had himself ordered to be struck out of the list, on some imprudent behaviour at the Smyrna coffee-house at the time of the rebellion in 1745. The appointment was attended with some circumstances of particular honour to Dr. Hoadly. The prince himself, before the warrant could be finished, ordered the style to be altered; and that he should be called physician to the household, and not extraordinary, as the other had been: observing, that this would secure that place to him in case of a demise, and be a bar against any one getting over him. Nay, not content with this, his royal highness voluntarily wrote a letter to the bishop with his own hand “that he was glad of this opportunity of giving him a token of his gratitude for his services formerly to his family; and that he was his affectionate Frederic, P.” Dr. Hoadly is said to have filled these posts with singular honour. He married, 1. Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Betts, esq. of Suffolk, counsellor at law, by whom he had one son, Benjamin, that died an infant. 2 Anne, daughter and co-heiress of the honourable general Armstrong, by whom he left no issue. He died in the lifetime of his father, Aug. 10, 1757, athishouM it Chelsea, which he had built ten years before. He published, 1. “Three Letters on the Organs of Respiration, read at the royal college of physicians, London, A. D. 1737, being the Gulstonian lectures for that year. To which is added, an Appendix, containing remarks on some experiments of Dr. Houston, published in the Transactions of the Royal Society for the year 1736, by Benjamin Hoadly, M. B. fellow of the college of physicians, and of the royal society, London,” 1740, 4to. 2. “Oratio anniversaria in Theatro Coll. Medicor. Londinensium, ex Harveii instttuto habita die 18 Oct. A. D. 1742, a Benj. Hoadly, M. D. Coll. Med. & S. R. S.” 1742, esteemed a very elegant piece of Latin. 3. “The Suspicious Husband, a Comedy.” 4. “Observations on a Series of Electrical experiments, by Dr. Hoadly and Mr. Wilson, F. R. S.” 1756, 4to. The doctor was, in his private character, an amiable humane man, and an agreeable sprightly companion. In his profession he was learned and judicious; and, as a writer, has been long known in the theatrical world as the author of a comedy, “The Suspicious Husband,” which appeared first in 1747, and has kept its place on every stage since with undiminished attractions.

, LL. D. the youngest son of Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Winchester, was born in Broad-street, Oct. 8, 1711, and educated at Mr. Newcome’s school in Hackney, where he gained great applause by performing the part of Phocyas in “The Siege of Damascus.” In June 1730 he was admitted at Corpus Christi college in Cambridge, and about the same time at the Temple, intending to study the law. This design, however, he soon abandoned; for in the next year we find he had relinquished all thoughts of the law as a profession. He took the degree of LL. B. in 1735; and, on the 29th of November following was appointed chancellor of Win-, chester, ordained deacon by nis father Dec. 7, and priest the 21st of the same month. He was immediately received into the prince of Wales’s household as his chaplain, as he afterwards was in that of the princess dowager, May 6, 1751.

Among many illustrious persons who upon the shipwreck of the royal cause retired to France for safety, was sir Charles Cavendish, brother to the duke of Newcastle, who, being skilled in every branch of mathematics, proved a constant friend and patron to Hobbes: and Hobbes himself, by embarking, in 1645, in a controversy about the quadrature of the circle, became so celebrated, although certainly undeservedly as a mathematician, that, in 1647, he was recommended to instruct Charles prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II. in that branch of study. His care in the discharge of this office gained him the esteem of that prince in a very great degree: and though he afterwards withdrew his public favour from Hobbes on account of his writings, yet he always retained a sense of the services he had done him, shewed him various marks of his favour after he was restored to his dominions, and, as some say, had his picture hanging in his closet. This year also was printed in Holland, by the care of M. Sorbiere, a second and more complete edition of his book “De Cive,” to which are prefixed two Latin letters to the editor, one by Gassendi, the other by Mersenne, in commendation of it. While Hobbes was thus employed at Paris, he was attacked by a violent fit of illness, which brought him so low that his friends began to despair of his recovery. Among those who visited him in this weak condition was his friend Mersenne, who, taking this for a favourable opportunity, began, after a few general compliments of condolence, to mention the power of the church of Rome to forgive sins; but Hobbes immediately replied, “Father, all these matters I have debated with myself long ago. Such kind of business would be troublesome to me now; and you can entertain me on subjects more agreeable; when did you see Mr. Gassendi?” Mersenne easily understood his meaning, and, without troubling him any farther, suffered the conversation to turn upon general topics. Yet some days afterwards, when Dr. Cosin, afterwards bishop of Durham, came to pray with him, he very readily accepted the proposal, and received the sacrament at his hands, according to the forms appointed by the church of England.

* This copy appears to he now in How it came there has not been dis­' the library of the late earl of Macart-covered. The library is now in the ney, at Lissanoure in Ireland, if the possession of a lady, the late earl’s reone very accurately described by the presentative, who probably knew little Rev. W. H. Pratt, in the Gentleman’s of its history. Magazine for January 1813, p. 30. winters in town; where he had for his intimate friends some of the greatest men of the age; such as Dr. Harvey, Selden, Cowley, &c. In 1654, he published his “Letter upon Liberty and Necessity,” which occasioned a long controversy between him and Bramhall, bishop of Londonderry. About this time he began the controversy with Wallis, the mathematical professor at Oxford, which lasted as long as Hobbes lived, and in which he had the misfortune to have all the mathematicians against him. It is indeed said, that he came too late to this study to excel in it; and that though for a time he maintained his credit, while he was content to proceed in the same track with others, and to reason in the accustomed manner from the established principles of the science, yet when he began to.digress into new paths, and set up for a reformer, inventor, and improver of geometry, he lost himself extremely. But notwithstanding these debates took up much of his time, yet he published several philosophical treatises in Latin.

Such were his occupations till 1660, when upon the king’s restoration he quitted the country, and came up to London. He was at Salisbury-house with his patron, when the king passing by one day accidentally saw him. He sent for him, gave Kim his hand to kiss, inquired kindly after his health and circumstances; and some time after directed Cooper, the celebrated miniature-painter, to take his portrait. His majesty likewise afforded him another private audience, spoke to him very kindly, assured him of his protection, and settled a pension upon him of lOOl. per annum out of his privy purse. Yet this did not render him entirely safe; for, in 1666, his “Leviathan,” and treatise “De Give,” were censured by parliament, which alarmed him much; as did also the bringing of a bill into the Hou^e of commons to punish atheism and profaneness. When this-stonn was a little blown over, he began to think of procuring a beautiful edition of his pieces that were in Latin; but finding this impracticable in England, he caused it to be undertaken abroad, where they were published in 1668, 4to, from the press of John Bleau. In 1669, he was visited by Cosmo de Medicis, then prince, afterwards duke of Tuscany, who gave him ample marks of his esteem; and having received his picture, and a complete collection of his writings, caused them to be deposited, the former among his curiosities, the latter in his library at Florence. Similar visits he received from several foreign ambassadors, and other strangers of distinction; who were curious to see a person, whose singular opinions and numerous writings had made so much noise all over Europe. In 1672, he wrote his own Life in Latin verse, when, as he observes, he had completed his eighty-fourth year: and, in 1674, he published in English verse four books of Homer’s “Odyssey,” which were so well received, that it encouraged him to undertake the whole “Iliad” and “Odyssey,” which he likewise performed, and published in 1675. These were not the first specimens of his poetic genius which he had given to the public: he had published many years before, about 1637, a Latin poem, entitled “De Mirabilibus Pecci, or, Of the Wonders of the Peak.” But his poetry is below criticism, and has been long exploded. In 1674, he took his leave of London, and went to spend the remainder of his days in Derbyshire; where, however, he did not remain inactive, notwithstanding his advanced age, but published from time to time several pieces to be found in the collection of his works, namely, in 1676, his “Dispute with Laney bishop of Ely, concerning Liberty and. Necessity;” in 1678, his “Decameron Physiologicum, or, Ten Dialogues of Natural Philosophy;” to which he added a book, entitled “A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law of England.” June 1679, he eent another book, entitled “Behemoth, or, A History of the Civil Wars from 1640 to 1660,” to an eminent bookseller, with a letter setting forth the reasons for his communication of it, as well as for the request he then made, that he would not publish it till a proper occasion offered. The book, however, was published as soon as he was dead, and the letter along with it; of which we shall give a curious extract: “I would fain have published my Dialogue of the Civil Wars of England long ago, and to that end I presented it to his majesty; and some days after, vrhen I thought he had read it, I humbly besought him to let me print it. But his majesty, though he heard me graciously, yet he flatly refused to have it published: therefore I brought away the book, and gave you leave to take a copy of it; which when you had done, I gave the original to an honourable and learned friend, who about a. year after died. The king knows better, and is more concerned in publishing of books than lam; and therefore I dare not venture to appear in the business, lest I should offend him. Therefore I pray you not to meddle in the business. Rather than to be thought any way to further or countenance the printing, I would be content to lose twenty times the value of what you can expect to gain by it. I pray do not take it ill; it may be I may live to send you somewhat else as vendible as that, and without offence. J am, &c.” However he did not live to send his bookseller any thing more, this being his last piece. It is in dialogue, and full of paradoxes, like all his other writings. More philosophical, political, says Warburton, or any thing rather than historical, yet full of shrewd observations. In October following, he was afflicted with a suppression of urine; and his physician plainly told him, that he had little hopes of curing him. In November, the earl of Devonshire removing from Chatsvvorth to another seat called Hardwick, Hobbes obstinately persisted in desiring that he might be carried too, though this could no way be done but by laying him upon a feather-bed. He was not much discomposed with his journey, yet within a week after lost, by a stroke of the palsy, the use of his speech, and of his right side entirely; in which condition he remained for some days, taking little nourishment, and sleeping much, sometimes endeavouring to speak, but not being able. He died Dec. 4, 1679, in his ninety-second year. Wood tells us, that after his physician gave him no hopes of a cure, he said, “Then I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at.” He observes also, that his not desiring a minister, to receive the sacrament before he died, ought in charity to be imputed to his being so suddenly seized, and afterwards deprived of his senses; the rather, because the earl of Devonshire’s chaplain declared, that within the two last years of his life he had often received the sacrament from his hands with seeming devotion. His character and manners are thus described by Dr. White Kennet, in his “Memoirs of the Cavendish Family;” “The earl of Devonshire,” says he, “for his whole life entertained Mr. Hobbes in his family, as his old tutor rather than as his friend or confidant. He let him live under his roof in ease and plenty, and in his own way, without making use of him in any public, or so much as domestic affairs. He would often express an abhorrence of some of his principles in policy and religion; and both he and his lady would frequently put off the mention of his name, and say, ‘ he was a humourist, and nobody could account for him.’ There is a tradition in the family of the manners and customs of Mr. Hobbes somewhat observable. His professed rule of health was to dedicate the morning to his exercise, and the afternoon to his studies. At his first rising, therefore, he walked out, and climbed any hill within his reach; or, if the weather was not dry, he fatigued himself within doors by some exercise or other, to be in a sweat: recommending that practice tfpon this opinion, that an old man had more moisture than heat, and therefore by such motion heat was to be acquired, and moisture expelled. After this he took a comfortable breakfast; and then went round the lodgings to wait upon the earl, the countess, and the children, and any considerable strangers, paying some short addresses to all of them. He kept these rounds till about twelve o‘clock, when he had a little dinner provided for him, which he eat always by himself without ceremony. Soon after dinner he retired to his study, and had his candle with ten or twelve pipes of tobacco laid by him; then shutting his door, he fell to smoaking, thinking, and writing for several hours. He retained a friend or two at court, and especially the lord Arlington, to protect him if occasion should require. He used to say, that it was lawful to make use of ill instruments to do ourselves good: * If I were cast,’ says he, ‘ into a deep pit, and the devil should put down his cloven foot, I would take hold of it to be drawn out by it.’ Towards the end of his life he had very few books, and those he read but very little; thinking he was now able only to digest what he had formerly fed upon. If company came to visit him, he would be free in discourse till he was pressed or contradicted; and then he had the infirmities of being short and peevish, and referring to his writings for better satisfaction. His friends, who had the liberty of introducing strangers to him, made these terms with them before their admission, that they should not dispute with the old man, nor contradict him.” After mentioning the apprehensions Hobbes was under, when the parliament censured his book, and the methods he took to escape persecution, Dr. Kennet adds, “It isnot much to be doubted, that upon this occasion he began to make a more open shew of religion and church communion. He now frequented the chapel, joined in the service, and was generally a partaker of the holy sacrament: and whenever any strangers in conversation with him seemed to question his belief, he would always appeal to his conformity in divine services, and referred them to the chaplain for a testimony of it. Others thought it a mere compliance to the orders of the family, and observed, that in city and country he never went to any parish church; and even in the chapel upon Sundays, he went out after prayers, and turned his back upon the sermon; and when any friend asked the reason of it, he gave no other but this, ‘ they could teach him nothing, but what he knew.’ He did not cone‘al his hatred to the clergy but it was visible that the hatred was owing to his fear of their civil interest and power. He had often a jealousy, that the bishops would burn him: and of all the bench he was most afraid of the bishop of Sarum, because he had most offended him; thinking every man’s spirit to be remembrance and revenge. After the Restoration, he watched all opportunities to ingratiate himself with the king and his prime ministers; and looked upon his pension to be more valqable, as an earnest of favour and protection, than upon any other account. His following course of life was to be free from danger. He could not endure to be left in an empty house. Whenever the earl removed, he would go along with him, even to his last stage, from Chatsworth to Hardwick. When he was in a very weak condition, he dared not to be left behind, but made his way upon a feather-bed in a coach, though he survived the journey but a few days. He could not bear any discourse of death, and seemed to cast off all thoughts of it: he delighted to reckon upon longer life. The winter before he died, he made a warm coat, which he said must last him three years, and then he would have such another. In his last sickness his frequent questions were, Whether his disease was curable? and when intimations were given that he might have ease, but no remedy, he used this expression, ’ I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at;' which are reported to have been his last sensible words; and his lying. some days following in a silent stupefaction, did seem owing to his mind more than to his body. The only thought of death that he appeared to entertain in time of health, was to take care of some inscription on his grave. He would suffer some friends to dictate an epitaph, among which he was best pleased with this humour, * This is the philosopher’s stone'.” A pun very probably from the hand which wrote for Dr. Fuller, “Here lies Fuller’s earth.”

There is one peculiarity related of Hobbes, which we have not yet mentioned in the course of our account of him his dread of apparitions and spirits. His friends indeed have called this a fable. “He was falsely accused,” say they, “by some, of being afraid to be alone, because he was afraid of spectres and apparitions; vain bugbears of fools, which he had chased away by the light of his philosophy.” They do not, however, deny, that he was afraid of being alone; they only insinuate, that it was for fear of being assassinated; but the fact probably was, that he had that tenacity of life which is observable in men whose religious principles are unsettled. Upon the whole, we may conclude, with the intelligent Brucker, that Hobbes was certainly possessed of vigorous faculties, and had he been sufficiently careful to form and improve his judgment, and to preserve his mind free from the bias of prejudice and passion, would undoubtedly have deserved a place in the first class of philosophers. The mathematical method Sf reasoning which he adopted, greatly assisted him in his researches; but he was often led into error, by assuming false or uncertain principles or axioms. The vehemence with which he engaged in -political contests biassed his judgment on questions of policy, and led him to frame such maxims and rules of government, as would be destructive of the peace and happiness of mankind. An arrogant contempt of the opinions of others, an impatience of contradiction, and a restless ambition to be distinguished as an innovator in philosophy, were qualities which appear to have contributed in no small degree to the perversion of his judgment. It is also to be remarked, that though he had the precept and example of lord Bacon to guide him, he neglected the new and fertile path of experimental philosophy. So little was he aware of the value of this kind of knowledge, that he censured the royal society of London, at its first institution, for attending more to minute experiment than general principles, and said, that if the name of a philosopher was to be obtained by relating a multifarious farrago of experiments, we might expect to see apothecaries, gardeners, and perfumers rank among philosophers. of publication, seems not unnecessary to close our account of him, 1. His “Translation of Thucydides,” Lond. 1628, and 1676, fol. reprinted in 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “De Mirabilibus Pecci,” a Latin poem, Lond. 1636, 8vo, 1666, 4to. 3. “Elementa philosophica seu politica de Give,” Paris, 1642, 4to, Amst. 1647, 12mo. 4. “An Answer to sir William Davenant’s Epistle or Preface to Gondibert,” Paris, 1650, 12mo, afterwards printed with Gondibert. 5. “Human Nature or the fundamental elements of policy,” Lond. 1650, 12mo. 6. “De Corpore Politico; or the Elements of the Law,” Lond. 1650, 12mo. 7. “Leviathan; or the matter, form, and power of a Commonwealth,” ibid. 1651, and 1680, fol. 8. “A Compendium of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, and Ilamus’s Logic.” y. “A Letter about Liberty and Necessity,” Lond. 1654, 12mo. This was answered by Dr. Laney and bishop Bramhali. 10. “The Questions concerning Liberty, and Necessity, and Chance, stated and debated between Mr. Hobbes and Dr. Bramhall, bishop of London-Derry,” Lond. 1656, 4to. 11. “Elementorum Philosophiae sectio prima de Corpore,” ibid. 1655, 8vo; in English, 1656, in 4to. “Sectio jsecunda,” London, 1657, 4to; Amsterdam, 1668, in 4-to. 12. “Six Lessons to the professors of mathematics of the institution of sir Henry Savile,” ibid. 1656, 4to, written against Mr. Seth Ward, and Dr. John Wallis. 13. “The Marks of the absurd Geometry, rural Language, &c. of Dr. John Wallis,” ibid. 1657, 8vo. 14. “Kxaminatio et emendatio Mathematicae hodiernae, sex Dialogis comprehensa,” ibid.

1661, 4to; Amsterdam, 1668, 4to. 17. “Problemata Physica, una cum magnitudine circuli,” Lond. 1662, 4to; Amsterdam, 1688, 4to. 18. “De principiis et ratiocinatione Geometrarum, contra fastuosum professorem,” Lond. 1666, 4toj Amsterdam, 1668, 4to. 19. “Quadratura Circuli, cubatio sphaerse, duplicatio cubi; una cum responsione ad objectiones geometriae professoris Saviliani Oxoniae editas anno 1669.” Lond. 1669, 4to. 20. “Rosetutn Geometricum, sive propositiones aliquoc frustra antehac tentatae, cum censura brevi doctrinae Wallisiamede motn,” London, 1671, 4to, of which an account is given in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 72, for the year 1671. 21. Three Papers presented to the royal society against Dr. Wallis, with considerations on Dr. Wallis’s Answer to them,“Loud. 1671, 4to. 22.” Lux Mathematica, &c. censura doctrinae Wallisianse de Libra: Rosetum Hobbesii,“Lond. 1672, 4io. 23.” Principia et Problemata, aliquot G&ometrica ante desperata, nunc breviter explicata et demonstrata,“London, 1674, 4to. 24.” Epistola ad Dom. Anton, a Wood, Authorem Historiae et Antiquitat. Universit. Oxon.:“dated April the 20th, 1674, printed in half a sheet on one side.” It was written to Mr. Wood,“says Wood himself,” upon his complaint made to Mr. Hobbes of several deletions and additions made in and to his life and character (which be had written of him in that book) by the publisher (Dr. Jo. Fell) of the said Hist, and Antiq, to the great dishonour and disparagement of the said Mr. Hobbes. Whereupon, when that history was finished, came out a scurrilous answer to the said epistle, written by Dr. Fell, which is at “the end of the said history.” In this Answer Dr. Fell styles Mr. Hobbes, “irritabile illud et vanissimum Malmsburiense animal-,” and tells us, that one Mr. J. A. had sent a magnificent eulogium of Mr. Hobbes drawn up by him, or more probably by Hobbes himself, in order to be inserted in the Hist, et Antiq. Univers. Oxon; but the editor finding in this eulogium a great many things foreign to the design of that work, and far from truth, he suppressed what he thought proper. 25. “A Letter to William duke of Newcastle, concerning the Controversy had with Dr. Laney, bishop of Ely, about Liberty and Necessity,” Lond. 1670, 12mo. 26. “Decameron Physiologicum; or ten dialogues of natural philosophy, &c.” London, 1678, 8vo. To this is added “The Proportion of a strait line to hold the Arch of a Quadrant.” 27. “His last words and dying Legacy:” printed on one side of a sheet of paper in December 1679, and published by Charles Blunt, esq. from the “Leviathan,” in order to expose Mr. Hobbes’s doctrine. 28. His “Memorable Sayings in his books and at the table;” printed on one side of a broad sheet of paper, with his picture before them. 29. “Behemoth: The History of the Civil Wars of England from 1640 to 1660,” Lond. 1679, 8vo. 30. “Vita Thomae Hobbes,” a Latin poem written by himself, and printed at London in 4to, in the latter end of December 1679; and a fortnight after that, viz. about the 10th of January, it'was published in English verse by another hand, at London 1680, in five sheets in folio. The Latin copy was reprinted and subjoined to “Vitae Hobbianae Auctarium.” 31. “Historical narration of Heresy, and the punishment thereof,” London, 1680, in four sheets and an half in folio; and in 1682 in 8vo. This is chiefly extracted out of the second chapter De Hseresi of his Appendix to fche Leviathan. 32. “Vita Thomse Hobbes,” written by himself in prose, and printed at Caropolis, i.e. London, and prefixed to “Vitae Hobbianae Auctarium,” 1681, 8vo, and 1682, 4to. 33. “A Brief of the art of Rhetoric, containing in substance all that Aristotle hath written in his three books of that subject,” 12mo, without a date. It was afterwards published in two books, London, 1681, in 8vo, the first bearing the title of “The Art of Rhetoric,” and the other of “The Art of Rhetoric plainly set forth; with pertinent examples for the more ready understanding and practice of the same.” To which is added, 34. “A Dialogue between a philosopher and a student of the Common Laws of England.” Mr. Barrington in his Observations on the Statute of Treasons, says it appears by this dialogue, that Hobbes had considered most of the fundamental principles of the English law with great care and attention. 35. “An Answer to archhishop Bramhall’s Book called The catching of the Leviathan,” London, 1682, 8vo. 36. “Seven philosophical Problems, and two Propositions of Geometry,” London, 1682, 8vo, dedicated to the king in 1662. 37. (< An Apology for himself and his Writings.“38.” Historia Ecclesiastica carmine elegiaco concinnata.“Aug. Trinob. i. e. London, 1688, 8vo. 39.” Tractatus Opticus,“inserted in Mersennus’s” Cojitata' PhysieoMathematica,“Paris, 1644, 4to. 40.” Observationes in Cartesii de prima Philosophia Meditationes.“These objections are published in all the editions of Des Cartes’s” Meditations.“41.” The Voyage of Ulysses; or Homer’s Odysses,“book 9, 10, 11, 12. London, 1674, in 8vo And 42.” Homer’s Iliads and Odysses," London, 1675 and 1677, 12mo.

In 1689, he wrote the “Prolegomena” to John Malela’s “Chronicle,” printed at Oxford; and the year after was made chaplain to Stillingfieet bishop of Worcester, being tutor to his son at Wadham college. The deprivation of the bishops, who had refused the oaths to king William and queen Mary, engaged him in a controversy with Dodwell, who had till now been his friend, and had spoken handsomely and affectionately of him, in his “Dissertations upon Irenams,” printed in 1689. The pieces Hody published on this occasion were, in 1691, “The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the new bishops: or, a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History, shewing, that although a bishop was unjustly deprived, neither he nor the church ever made a separation, if the successor was not an heretic. Translated out of an ancient manuscript in the public library at Oxford,” one of the Baroccian Mss. He translated it afterwards into Latin, and prefixed to it some pieces out of ecclesiastical antiquity, relating to the same subject. Dodwell publishing an answer to it, entitled “A Vindication of the deprived bishops,” &c. in 1692, Hody replied, in a treatise which he styled “The Case of Sees vacant by an unjust or uncanonical deprivation stated; in answer to a piece intituled, A Vindication of the deprived Bishops, &c. Together with the several pamphlets published as answers to the Baroccian Treatise, 1693.” The part he acted in this controversy recommended him so powerfully to Tillotson, who had succeeded Sancroft in the see of Canterbury, that he made him his domestic chaplain in May 1694. Here he drew up his dissertation “concerning the Resurrection of the same body,” which he dedicated to Stillingfleet, whose chaplain he had been from 1690. Tillotson dying November following, he was continued chaplain by Tenison his successor; who soon after gave him the rectory of Chart near Canterbury, vacant by the death of Wharton. This, before he was collated, he exchanged for the united parishes of St. Michael’s Royal and St. Martin’s Vintry, in London, being instituted to these in August 1695. In 1696, at the command of Tenison, he wrote “Animadversions on two pamphlets lately published by Mr. Collier, &c.” Whesi sir William Perkins and sir John Friend were executed that year for the assassination-plot, Collier, Cook, and Snatt, three nonjuring clergymen, formally pronounced upon them the absolution of the church, as it stands in the office for the visitation of the sick, and accompanied this ceremony with a solemn imposition of hands. For this imprudent action they were not only indicted, but also the archbishops and bishops published “A Declaration of their sense concerning those irregular and scandalous proceedings.” Snatt and Cook were cast into prison. Collier absconded, and from his privacy published two pamphlets to vindicate his own, and his brethren’s conduct; the one called, “A Defence of the Absolution given to sir William Perkins at the place of execution;” the other, “A Vindication thereof, occasioned by a paper, intituled, A Declaration of the sense of the archbishops and bishops, &c.”; in answer to which Hody published the “Animadversions” above-mentioned.

, a learned Englishman, memorable for having made an “Etymological Dictionary of Latin words,” was born at Nether Whitacre in Warwickshire, about 1567, and studied in the university of Oxford about 1582; but it does not appear that he ever took a degree. He taught school at Oxford, and in his own country; and became rector of Southam in Warwickshire, 1604. He was elected a member of the convocation of the clergy in the first year of Charles the First’s reign; and afterwards, in the civil wars, suffered extremely for his attachment to that king. He died Nov. 13, 1653, and was buried at Warwick. His “Dictionary” was first printed in 1606-7, 4to; and the fourth edition in 1633, augmented, was dedicated to Laud, then bishop of London. He subscribed himself in Latin, “Franciscus de sacra quercu.”

, son of the preceding, was born in 1616 at Stony-Thorp near Southam in Warwickshire, and educated in grammar learning under Mr. White at Coventry; from whence he was sent in Michaelmas term 1632, at the age of sixteen years, to Queen’s college in Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts July 5, 1636, and that of master, May 16, 1639, and became chaplain of the college. In the beginning of the civil wars, when Oxford became the seat of king Charles, and was garrisoned for his use, he was put into commission, for a captain of a foot company, consisting mostly of scholars. In this post he did great service, and had the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon him by the favour of his majesty, though no such matter occurs in the public register of the university, which was then sometimes neglected. After the surrender of the garrison of Oxford to the parliament, he, by the name of Thomas Holyoke, without the addition of master of arts, bachelor or doctor of divinity, obtained a licence from the university to practise physic, and settling in his own country, he practised with good success till the Restoration in 1660, in which year Thomas lord Leigh, baron of Stone Leigh in Warwickshire, presented him to the rectory of Whitnash near Warwick. He was soon after made prebendary of the collegiate church of Wolverhampton tn Staffordshire. In 1674 Robert lord Brook conferred upon him the donative of Breamour in Hampshire (which he had by the marriage of his lady), worth about two hundred pounds per annum; but, before he had enjoyed it a year, he died of a fever, June 10, 1675. His body was interred near that of his father in the church of St. Mary in Warwick. His Dictionary was published after his death in 1677, in fol. and, as Wood says, “is made upon the foundation laid by his father.” Before k are two epistles, one by the author’s son, Charles Holyoake of the Inner Temple, dedicating the work to lord Brooke, and another by Dr. Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, which contains many particulars of the work and its author. He had another son, the Rev. Henry Holyoake, who was for forty years master of Rugby school in Warwickshire, and died in 1731.

Mr. Home, in every period of his life, was fond of social intercourse, and with all his ardour of study, and variety of literary and professional occupations, a considerable portion of his time was devoted to the enjoyments of society in a numerous circle of acquaintance. Among his early friends or associates we find the names of colonel Forrester, Hamilton of Bangour, the earl of Findlater, Mr. Oswald, David Hume, and Dr. (afterwards bishop) Butler, with whom he had a correspondence. In 1741 be married miss Agatha Drummond, a younger daughter of James Drummond, esq. of Blair, in the county of Perth. His fortune being then comparatively small, ceconomy became a necessary virtue, but unfortunately, this lady, who had a taste for every thing that is elegant, was particularly fond of old china; and soon after her marriage had made such frequent purchases in that way as to impress her husband with some little apprehension of her extravagance. After some consideration, he devised an ingenious expedient to cure her of this propensity. He framed a will, bequeathing to his spouse the whole of the china that should be found in his possession at his death; and this deed he immediately put into her own hands. The success of the plot was complete; the lady was cured from, that moment of her passion for old china. This stratagem his biographer justly considers as a proof of the authors intimate knowledge of the human mind, and discernment of the power of the passions to balance and restrain each other. It is, indeed, in its contrivance and result, equally honourable to the husband and wife.

The editions of Homer are numerous beyond those of any other classic, and there are many excellent ones; perhaps the best are, that by Dr. Barnes with the Greek scholia, in two vols. 4to; that by Dr. Clarke published in 1729, 4to and that by the learned Heyne, 1802, 8 vols. 8vo. The most elaborate commentary is that by Eustathius, bishop of Thessalonica, and the best English translation is that by Pope: though Cowper’s, in blank verse, is thought to come nearer to the original. The French, and almost every nation, has its translation of Homer.

, bishop of Marseilles, flourished about the year 490. He was, according to Gennadius, who celebrates him, a man of ready and abundant eloquence. He published many homilies, some delivered in an extemporary manner, others regularly composed; in which his object was to confute the dreams of heretics, and exhort his hearers to piety. He wrote also lives of many eminent leaders of the church, of which no one is extant, except his life of St. Hilary of Aries.

, an eminent English divine, and author of an excellent work, entitled “The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, in eight books,” was born at Heavytree near Exeter, about the end of March 1554. His parents, not being rich, intended him for a trade; but his schoolmaster at Exeter prevailed with them to continue him at school, assuring them, that his natural endowments and learning were both so remarkable, that he must of necessity be taken notice of, and that God would provide him some patron who would free them from any future care or charge about him. Accordingly his uncle John Hooker, the subject of the preceding article, who was then chamberlain of the town, began to notice him; and being known to Jewell, made a visit to that prelate at Salisbury soon after, and “besought him for charity’s sake to look favourably upon a poor nephew of his, whom nature had fitted for a scholar; bill the estate of his parents was so narrow, that they were unable to give him the advantage of learning; and that the bishop therefore would become his patron, and prevent him from being a tradesman, for he was a boy of remarkable hopes.” The bishop examining into his merits, found him to be what the uncle had represented him, and took him immediately under his protection. He got him admitted, in 1567, one of the clerks of Corpus-Christi college in Oxford, and settled a pension on him; which, with the contributions of his uncle, afforded him a very comfortable subsistence. In 1571, Hooker had the misfortune to lose his patron, together with his pension. Providence, however, raised him up two other patrons, in Dr. Cole, then president of the college, and Dr. Edwyn Sandys, bishop of London, and afterwards archbishop of York. To the latter of these Jewell had recommended him so effectually before his death, that though of Cambridge himself, he immediately resolved to send his son Edwyn to Oxford, to be pupil to Hooker, who yet was not much older; for, said he, “I will have a tutor for my son, that shall teach him learning by instruction, and virtue by example.” Hooker had also another considerable pupil, namely, George Cranmer, grand nephew to Cranmer the archbishop and martyr; with whom, as well as with Sandys, he cultivated a strict and lasting friendship. In 1573, he was chosen scholar of Corpus, and in 1577, having taken his master’s degree, was elected fellow of his college; and about two years after, being well skilled in the Oriental languages, was appointed deputy-professor of Hebrew, in the room of Kingsmill, who was disordered in his senses. In 1581, he entered into orders; and soon after, being appointed to preach at St. Paul’s-cross in London, was so unhappy as to be drawn into a most unfortunate marriage; of which, as it is one of the most memorable circumstances of his life, we shall give the particulars as they are related by Walton. There was then belonging to the church of St. Paul’s, a house called the Shunamites house, set apart for the reception and entertainment of the preachers at St. Paul’s cross, two days before, and one day after the sermon. That house was then kept by Mr. John Churchman, formerly a substantial draper in Watluig-sti'eet, but now reduced to poverty. Walton says, that Churchman was a person of virtue, but that he cannot say quite so much of his wife. To this house Hooker came from Oxford so wet and weary, that he was afraid he should not be able to perform his duty the Sunday following: Mrs. Churchman, however, nursed him so well, mat he presently recovered from the ill effects of his journey. For this he was very thankful; so much indeed that, as Walton expresses it, be thought himself bound in conscience to believe all she said; so the good man came to be persuaded by her, “that he had a very tender constitution; and that it was best for him to have a wife, that might prove a nurse to him; such a one as might both prolong his life, and make it more comfortable; and such a one she could and would provide for him, if he thought fit to marry.” Hooker, not considering “that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light,” and fearing no guile, because he meant none, gave her a power to choose a wife for him; promising, upon a fair summons, to return to London, and accept of her choice, which he did in that or the year following. Now, says Walton, the wife provided for him was her daughter Joan, who brought him neither beauty nor portion; and for her conditions, they were too like that wife’s which Solomon compares to a dripping-house; that is, says Wood, she was “a clownish silly woman, and withal a mere Xantippe.”

Upon this application, he was presented in 1591 to the rectory of Boscomb, in Wiltshire and July the same year, to the prebend of Nether- Haven, in the church of Sarum, of which he was also made sub-dean. At Boscomb he finished four books, which were entered into the register-book at Stationers’-hall, in March 1592, but not printed till 1594. In 1595 he quitted Boscomb, and was presented by queen Elizabeth to the rectory of Bishop’sBourne, in Kent, where he spent the remainder of his life. In this place he composed the fifth book of his “Ecclesiastical Polity,” which was dedicated to the archbishop, and published by itself in 1597. He finished there the th, 7th, and 8th books of that learned work; but whether we have them genuine, and as left by himself, has been a matter of much dispute. Dr. Zouch, however, seems to have advanced almost unanswerable arguments against their being directly from the pen of Hooker. Some time after, he caught cold in a passage by water between London and Gravesend, which drew upon him an illness that put an end to his life when he was only in his fortyseventh year. He died Nov. 2, 1600. His illness was severe and lingering; he continued, notwithstanding, his studies to the last. He strove particularly to finish his “Ecclesiastical Polity,” and said often to a friend who visited him daily, that “he did not beg a long life of God for any other reason, but to live to finish the three remaiuing books of Polity; and then, Lord, let thy servant depart in peace,” which was his usual expression. A few days before his death, his house was robbed; of which having notice, he asked, “are my books and written papers safe?” And being answered that they were, “then,” said he, “it matters not, for no other loss can trouble me.”

Dr. Gauden published Hooker’s “Works,” 1662, fol. with a life, in which there are some inaccuracies. A second edition, with Hooker’s Life by Walton, appeared in 1666, fol. reprinted in 1676, 1682, and 1723, which last some call “the best edition.” A more commodious one for use was printed at Qxford, 1793, 3 vols. 8vo. It is needless to add how much Walton’s Life of Hooker has been improved in Zouch’s edition of those valuable memorials. Hooker’s other works, published separately, were, 1. “Answer to the Supplication that Mr. Travers made to the Council,” Oxon. 1612, 4to. 2. “A learned discourse of Justification, Works, and how the foundation of Faith is overthrown, on Habak. i. 4.” ibid. 1612, 4to. 3. “A learned Sermon on the nature of Pride, on Habak, ii. 4.” ibid. 1612, 4to. 4. “A Remedy against Sorrow and Fear, delivered in a funeral sermon on John xiv. 27.” ibid. 1612, 4to. 5. “A learned and comfortable Sermon of the certainty and perpetuity of Faith in the elect; especially of the prophet Habakkuk’s faith,” ibid. 1612, 4to. 6. “Two Sermons upon part of Jude’s Epistles,” ibid. 1613, 4to. These Sermons were originally published by Mr. Henry Jackson, with “Wickliff’s Wicket,” and afterwards reprinted without that tract, and met with a very welcome reception from the public. 7. “A Discovery of the causes of these Contentions touching Church-government, out of the fragments of Richard Hooker,” published in 1641, along with a work entitled “A Summarie View of the government both of the Old and New Testament; whereby the episcopal government of Christ’s church is vindicated,” out of the rude draughts of Launcelot Andrews, late bishop of Winchester. 8. “Three treatises inserted in a work edited by bishop Sanderson, and entitled” Clavi Trabales,“on the king’s power in matters of religion, in the advancement of bishops, &c. Dr. Zouch mentions as a publication of great merit, f” A faithful abridgment of the Works of Hooker, with an account of his life: by a Divine of the Church of England," London, 1705.

, a celebrated divine of New England, whose works frequently occur in our public libraries, and may render their author the object of curiosity, was born at MarHeld, in Leicestershire, in 1586, and was educated at Emanuel-college, Cambridge, of which he became fellow. On his leaving the university, he preached occasionally for some time in London, but in 1626 was chosen lectuier and assistant to a clergyman at Chelmsford, where he officiated with great reputation, until silenced for non-conformity by Laud, then bishop of London. On this occasion forty-seven of the neighbouring clergy sent a petition to the bishop, attesting his orthodoxy and peaceable disposition. But this had no effect; and even when Mr. Hooker set up a grammar-school in the neighbourhood of Chelmsford, he was cited to appear before the high commission court, which determined him to go to Holland, where he preached for two or three years, and in 1633 went to New-England, and became pastor of the church of Hertford, in the colony of Connecticut, and from his pious services and usefulness, was called the father of that colony. He died July 7, 1647. Among his works are, 1. “An exposition of the Lord’s Prayer,” Lond. 1645, 4to. 2. “The Saint’s Guide,” ibid. 1645, 12mo. 3. “A Survey of the Summe of Church Discipline, wherein the way of the churches of New England is warranted,” ibid. 164-8, 4to. 4. “The Covenant of Grace opened in several Sermons,” ibid. 1649, 4to. 5. “The Saints’ Dignity and Duty,” ibid. 1651, 4to.

, a schoolmaster of very considerable note in his day, and the publisher of some schoolbooks not yet out of use, was born at Wakefield, in Yorkshire, in 1610, and educated at the free-school there. At the age of eighteen years, by the advice of his kinsman Dr. Robert Sanderson, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, he was sent to Lincoln-college, Oxford, where he became a proficient in the Greek and Hebrew tongues, and in philosophy. After he had taken one degree in arts, he entered into orders, retired to Lincolnshire for a time, and was appointed master of the free-school at Rotheram, in Yorkshire. In the beginning of the civil war he went to London, and by the invitation of some of the citizens, he taught a private school, first near Red-cross street, and afterwards in Token-house garden, in Lothbury. About the restoration, he was invited into Monmouthshire; but the promises made to induce him to go there not being answered, he returned to London, and was taken under the protection of his relation bishop Sanderson, who gave him a prebend in the church of Lincoln. About that time he became rector of Stock, near Billericay, in Essex, where he died on the 7th of March, 1666. He published, “Pueriles confabulatiunculse;” “Aditus facilis ad linguam Latinam;” “Corderius’s Colloquies;” “Rudiments of the Latin Grammar;” “Examination of the Common Accidence,” and in all, above twenty little books of this kind, many of which were adopted in schools, and reprinted again and again for the remainder of the seventeenth and part of the eighteenth century.

In 1773, the first volume of his “Orlando Furioso” appeared, and was favourably received, but the farther prosecution of the work was interrupted by his appointment to the office of auditor of Indian accounts to the East India company, which occupied much of his time and attention. Ilein ruing again, however, to his task, he completed the “Orlando Furioso” in 1783, in 5 vols. 8vo. In 1785 he wrote fhe life of his friend Mr. Scott, the poet of Amvvell, with whom he had become acquainted in 1757, by marrying a quaker lady, Susannah Smith, of Bishop Stortford. About the end of 1783 he resigned his employment in the India- house, after a service of nearly forty-two years and in April 1786 retired with his wife and son, the rev. Samuel Hoole, to the parsonage-house of Abinger, near Dorking. Here, adverting to the objections which had been made to the length and perplexity of Ariosto’s poem, he published “The Orlando, reduced to twenty-four books, the narrative connected, and the stories disposed in a regular series,” 1791, 2 vols. 8vo; but this has not prevented the republication of his former edition, which, with all its imperfections, conveys the truest idea of the tedious and extravagant original. In 1792 he gave to the English public Tasso’s juvenile poem of “llinaldo.” His last production was a more complete collection of Metastasio-'s “Dramas and other Poems” in 3 vols. 8vo. In this, if we mistake not, Mr. Hoole has displayed more poetical energy and variety than in his translations of Tasso and Ariosto, in whicjti his chief merit is smooth versification, and his chief defect a want of variety in his harmony. Mr. Hoole died at Dorking, Aug. 2, 1803, leaving the reputation of an amiable and estimable man in his private character; a man of taste, and a good scholar. He lived much in habits of friendship with Dr. Johnson, and attended that eminent man in his last illness, of which he left an interesting diary.

, an eminent English divine, son of George Hooper, gent, was born at Grimley, in Worcestershire, Nov. 18, 1640, and educated in grammar and classical learning first at St. Paul’s, and afterwards at Westminster-school, where he was a king’s scholar. From thence he was elected to Christ-church in Oxford, in 1657, where he took his degrees at the regular times and distinguished himself above his contemporaries by his superior knowledge in philosophy, mathematics, Greek and Roman antiquities, and the oriental languages, in which last he was assisted by Dr. Pocock. In 1672 he became chaplain to Morley, bishop of Winchester, who collated him to the rectory of Havant, in Hampshire, which, the situation being unhealthy, he resigned for the rectory of East Woodhay, in the same county. In July 1673 he took the degree of B. D. and not long afterwards became chaplain to archbishop Sheldon, who begged that favour of the bishop of Winchester, and who in 1675 gave him the rectory of Lambeth, and afterwards the precentorship of Exeter. In 1677 he commenced D. D. and the same year, being made almoner to the princess of Orange, he went over to Holland, where, at the request of her royal highness, he regulated her chapel according to the usage of the church of England. After one year’s attendance, he repassed the sea, in order to complete his marriage to Abigail, daughter of Richard Guildford, gent, the treaty for which had been set on foot before his departure. He then went back to her highness, who had obtained a promise from him to that purpose; but, after a stay of about eight months, she consented to let him return home. In 1680 he is said to have been offered the divinity-professorship at Oxford, but the succession to that chair had been secured to Dr. Jane. About the same time, however, Dr. Hooper was made king’s chaplain. In 1685, by the king’s command, he attended the duke of Monmouth, and had much free conversation with him in the Tower, both the evening before, and the day of his execution, on which, that unhappy nobleman assured him “be had made his peace with God,” the nature of which persuasion Dr. Hooper solemnly entreated him to consider well, and then waited on him in his last moments. The following year he took a share in the popish controversy, and wrote a treatise, which will be mentioned presently with his works. In 1691, he succeeded Dr. Sharp in the deanery of Canterbury. As he never made tae least application for preferment, queen Mary surprised him vvitn this offer, when the king her husband was absent in Holland. With a disinterestedness not very common, he now proposed to resign either of his livings, but the queen observed that though the king and she never gave two livings to one man, yet they never took them away,“and ordered him to keep both. However, he resigned the rectory of Woodhay. He was made chaplain to their majesties the same year. In 1698, when a preceptor was chosen forttie duke of Gloucester, though both the royal parents of that prince pressed earnestly to have Hooper, and no objection was ever made against him, yet the king named bishop Burnet for that service. In 1701, he was chosen prolocutor to the lower house of convocation and the same year was offered the primacy cf Ireland by the earl of Rochester, then lord-lieutenant, which he declined. In May 1703, he was nominated to the bishopric of St. Asaph. This he accepted, though against his inclination on this occasion be resigned Lambeth, but retained his other preferments with this bishopric, in which, indeed, he continued but a few months, and on that account he generously refused the usual mortuaries or pensions, then so great a burthen to the clergy of Wales, saying” They should never pay so dear for the sight of him." In March following, being translated to the bishopric of Bath and Wells, he earnestly requested her majesty to dispense with the order, not only on account of the sudden charge of such a translation, as well as a reluctance to remove, but aiso in regard to his friend Dr. Ken, the deprived bishop of that place, for whom he begged the bishopric. The queen, readily complied vvitb Hooper’s request; but the offer being declined by Ken, Hooper at his importunity yielded to become his successor. He now relinquished the deanery of Canterbury, but wished to have retained the precentorship of Exeter in commendam, solely for the use of Dr. Ken. But this was not agreeable to Dr. Trelauney, bishop of Exeter. His intention, however, was supplied by the bounty of the queen, who conferred an annual pension of 200l. on the deprived prelate. In 1705, bishop Hooper distinguished himself in the debate on the danger of the church, which, with many other persons, he apprehended to be more than imaginary. His observation was candid; he complained with justice of that invidious distinction which the terms high church and low church occasioned, and of that enmity which they tended to produce. In the debate in 1706, he spoke against the union between England and Scotland, but grounded his arguments on 'fears which have not been realized. In 1709-10, when the articles of Sachevereli’s impeachment were debated, he endeavoured to excuse that divine, and entered his protest against the vote, which he could not prevent.

Having presided over the see of Bath and Wells twentythree years and six months, and having nearly attained to the great age of eighty seven, he died at Barkley, in Somersetshire, whither he sometimes retired, Sept. 6, 1727. His remains were interred, at his own request, in the cathedral of Wells, under a marble monument with a Latin inscription, and adjoining to it is a monument with an inscription to the memory of his wife, who died the year before him. By this lady he had nine children, one of whom only, a daughter, survived him, then the widow of Prowse, esq. It had been observed of this prelate by the celebrated Dr. Busby, “that he was the best scholar, the finest gentleman, and would make the completest bishop that ever was educated at Westminster-school;” and Dr. Coney, who knew the bishop well, has proved this testimony to have been just in every respect. Bishops Burnet and Atterbury are the only writers of any note who have spoken, evidently from prejudice, against him, as an ambitious man, a charge which the history of his promotions amply refutes.

Besides eight sermons, he published several books in his life-time, and left several Mss. behind him, some of which he permitted to be printed. The following is a catalogue of both: 1. “The Church of England free from the imputation of Popery,” 1682. 2. “A fair and methodical Discussion of the first and great Controversy between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, concerning the Infallible Guide: in three Discourses.” The first two of these were licensed by Dr. Morrice, in 1687, but the last was never printed. 3. “The Parson’s case under the present Land-Tax, recommended in a Letter to a member of the House of Commons,” 1689. 4. “A Discourse concerning Lent, in two Parts. The first, an historical account of its observation: the second, an essay concerning its original. This subdivided into two repartitions, whereof the first is preparatory, and shews that most of our Christian ordinances are derived from the Jews; and the second conjectures, that Lent is of the same original,” 1694. 5. A paper in the “Philosophical Transactions” for Oct. 1699, entitled “A Calculation of the Credibility of Human Testimony.” 6. “New Danger of Presbytery,” 1737. 7. fl Marks of a defenceless Cause.“8.” A Narrative of the Proceedings of the lower House of Convocation from Feb. 10, 1700, to June 25, 1701, vindicated.“9.” De Valentinianorum Hseresi conjecturae, quibus illius origo ex ^gyptiaca theologia deducitur,“1711. 10.” An Inquiry into the state of the ancient Measures, the Attic, the Roman, and especially the Jewish. With an Appendix concerning our old English money and measures of content,“1721. 11.” De Patriarchs Jacobi Benedictione Gen. 49, conjecturae,“published by the rev. Dr. Hunt, afterwards the Hebrew professor, with a preface and notes, according to the bishop’s directions to the editor, a little before his death. The Mss. before mentioned are the two following: 1.” A Latin Sermon, preached in 1672, when he took the degree of B. D.; and, 2. “A Latin Tract on Divorce.” A beautiful edition of his whole works was printed at Oxford, 1757, folio, by the above Dr. Hunt.

On the accession of king Edwar.d in 1547, Hooper was enabled to return to England, and settled in London, where he frequently preached the doctrines of the reformation; but had imbibed abroad such notions on the subject of church government, and the habits, as rendered his principles somewhat suspected by archbishop Cranmer, and Kidley, and prevented his co-operating with them so cordially as could have been wished in that critical time. In doctrinal matters, however, he was an able assistant, being a man of learning,. and a good philosopher and critic. When Bonner was to be deprived of his bishopric, he was one of his accusers; which, no doubt, would recommend him as an acceptable sacrifice in the following bloody reign. By the interest of trie earl of Warwick, he was nominated and elected bishop of Gloucester; but, when he came to be consecrated or invested by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, he refused to wear a canonical habit; and it was not until these ceremonies were dispensed with by the king’s authority, that he was consecrated bishop, in 1550; and about two years after, he had the bishopric of Worcester given to him, to keep in commendam with the former. He now preached often, visited his dioceses, kept great hospitality for the poor, and was beloved by many. But in the persecution under Mary, being then near sixty years of age, and refusing to recant his opinions, he was burned in the city of Gloucester, Feb. 9, 1554, and suffered death with admirable constancy.

, a learned and worthy prelate, whojxperienced a fate extremely singular, was born in 1633, at Sandford in Devonshire, where his father was curate; became chorister of Magdalen college, Oxford, ia 1649; at the age of about sixteen, he was usher of the school adjoining, being already B. A.; he was chaplain of the college when M. A.; and would have been fellow, had his county qualified him. All this time he lived and was educated under presbyterian and independent discipline; and about the time of the restoration became assistant to Dr. Spurstow of Hackney. He was afterwards elected preacher at one of the city churches; the bishop of London, however, refused to admit him, as he was a popular preacher among the fanatics; but after some time he was settled in the parish church of St. Mary Wolnoth. Having retired to Exeter on account of the plague, he obtained the living of St. Mary’s church at Exeter, was countenanced by bishop Ward, and much admired for the comeliness of his person and elegance of preaching. The lord Robartes in particular (afterwards earl of Truro) w*as so pleased with him, that he gave him his daughter Araminta in marriage, took him as his chaplain to Ireland in 1669, gave him the deanery of llaphoe, and recommended him so effectually to his successor lord Berkeley, that he was consecrated bishop of Raphoe, Oct. 27, 1671, and translated to Londonderry in 1681. Driven thence by the forces under the earl of Tyrconnel, in 1688, he retired into England, and was elected minister of Aldermanbury in Sept. 1689, where he died, June 22, 1690. He published five single sermons, afterwards incorporated in two volumes; “An Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 1692, 4to, with his portrait; and an” Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer," 1691, all printed in one volume, 171O, folio. An edition of his works has very recently appeared in 4 vols. 8vo.

, another son of the bishop of Londonderry, who deviated likewise from his father’s character, was born January 1, 1675. Like his elder brother, his poetry turned principally on’subjects of love; like him too, his prospects in lite appear to have terminated unfortunately. He published, in 1693, “The Triumphs of Peace, or the Glories of Nassau; a Pindaric poem occasioned by the conclusion of the peace between the Confederacy and France; written at the time of his grace the duke of Ormond’s entrance into Dublin.” “The design of this poem,” the author says in his preface, “begins, after the method of Pindar, to one great man, and rises to another; first touches the duke, then celebrates the actions of the king, and so returns to the praises of the duke again.” In the same year he published “The Victory of Death; or the Fall of Beauty; a visionary Pindaric poem, occasioned by the ever to-be-deplored death of the right honourable the lady Cutts,” 8vo. But the principal performance of J. Hopkins was “Amasia, or the works of the Muses, a collection of Poems,” 1700, in 3 vols. Each of these little volumes is divided into three books, and each book is inscribed to some beautiful patroness, among whom the tKichess of Grafton stands foremost. The last Ijook is inscribed “To the memory of Amasia,” whom he addresses throughout these volumes in the character of Sylvius. There is a vein of seriousness, if not of poetry, runs through the whole performance. Many of Ovid’s stories are very decently imitated “most of them,” he says, “have been very well performed by my brother, and published some years since mine were written in another kingdom before I knew of his.” In one of his dedications he tells the lady Olympia Robartes, “Your ladyship’s father, the late earl of Radnor, when governor of Ireland, was the kind patron to mine: he raised him to the first steps by which v he afterwards ascended to the dignities he bore; to those, which rendered his labours more conspicuous, and set in a more advantageous light those living merits, which now make his memory beloved. These, and yet greater temporal honours, your family heaped on him, by making even me in some sort related and allied to you, by his inter-marriage with your sister the lady Araminta. How imprudent a vanity is it in me to boast a father so meritorious! how may 1 be ashamed to prove myself his son, by poetry, the only qualification he so much excelled in, but yet esteemed no excellence. I bring but a bad proof of birth, laying my claim in that only thing he would not own. These are, however, madam, but the products of immature years; and riper age, may, I hope, bring forth more solid works.” We have never seen any other of his writings: nor hare been able to collect any farther particulars of his life: but there is a portrait of him, under his poetical name of Sylvius.

, a learned divine of the church of England, was born at Evesham, in Worcestershire, in August 1647, and was the son of the rev. George Hopkins, whom Hickes terms a pious and learned divine, and who was ejected for non- conformity. At school his son was so great a proficient, that at twelve years of age he translated an English poem into Latin verse, which was printed some time before the restoration. At thirteen he was admitted commoner of Trinity-college, Oxford, under the learned Mr. Stratford, afterwards bishop of Chester. He proceeded M. A. in 1668, sometime before which he removed from Trinity-college to St. Mary-hall. He was much noticed by Dr. Fell, dean of Christ-church, who, it is supposed, recommended him to the Hon. Henry Coventry, as his chaplain and companion in his embassy to Sweden; on which he set out in Sept. 1671. While in Sweden, Mr. Hopkins applied himself to the study of northern antiquities, having previously studied the Saxon. After his return in 1675, by Mr. Coventry’s recommendation, he was preferred to a prebend in Worcester cathedral; and from his installation, began to collect materials for a history of this church, some of which fell afterwards into the hands of Wharton and other antiquaries. In June 1678 he was made curate of Mortlake in Surrey, and about 1680 was chosen Sunday lecturer of the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, and in 1686 was preferred to the vicarage of Lindridge in Worcestershire. In 1697 he was chosen master of St. Oswald’s hospital in “Worcester, of the profits of which he made a fund for the use of the hospital, and the benefit of his poor brethren there. He had proceeded D. D. at Oxford in 1692. He died of a violent fever May 18, 1700, and was interred in Worcester cathedral. Hickes, who prefixed his Life to a volume of his Sermons, published in 1708, 8vo, gives him a high character for piety, learning, and benevolence. He was a great benefactor to the library of Worcester cathedral. Although a man of extensive reading and study, he published only, 1.” Bertram or Ratram, concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, &c. wherein M. Boileau’s version and notes upon Bertram are considered, and his unfair dealings in both detected.“Of this a second edition appeared in 1688. 2.” Animadversions on Mr. Johnson’s answer to Jovian, in three letters to a country friend;“and a Latin translation, with notes, of a small tract, written in the Saxon tongue, on the burialplaces of the Saxon saints, which Dr. Hickes published in his” Septentrional Grammar,“Oxford, 1705. Dr. Hopkins also assisted Gibson in correcting his Latin version of the Saxon Chronicle; and made a new translation, with notes and additions, of the article” Worcestershire" in Camden’s Britannia, published by Gibson.

, a learned English divine, was born at Haxay in Lincolnshire, in 1707. His father was vicar of Haxay, but both he and his wife died when their son was very young. The provision made for him was 400l. which barely defrayed the expence of his education, first at Epworth, and then at Gainsborough. He was then entered of Lincoln college, Oxford, where he obtained a small exhibition, but afterwards was elected to a fellowship of Magdalen, which extricated him from many difficulties, his poor inheritance having been long before expended. He took his master’s degree at Lincoln previous to this, in 1733, and when admitted into orders preached before the university with great approbation; and becoming known as a young man of much learning and personal merit, Dr. Smallbroke, bishop of Lichfield, who had appointed him his chaplain, collated him successively to the vicarage of Eccleshall, and the curacy of Gnosall, to which were afterwards added a canonry of Lichfield and the vicarage of Hanbury, on which last promotion he resigned Gnosall. The whole, however, of these preferments, even with the addition of his fellowship, were scarcely equal to his expences, for he had very little notion of accounts, or care about worldly things. He was afterwards promoted by his college to the rectory of Stanlake, and then quitted Eccleshall, preferring Stanlake from its retired situation, where he might indulge his favourite propensity to reading and meditation, and have easy access to his beloved Oxford. He took his degree of B. D. in 1743, and that of D. D. in 1745, and died at Stanlake, Jan. 22, 1773.

In early life he was a coadjutor of Dr. Waterland in his celebrated controversy on the Trinity; and wrote, in 1735, “Animadversions upon a late Pamphlet, entitled ‘ Christian Liberty asserted,’ &c.” The author of this pamphlet was John Jackson, whom he charges with having misrepresented bishops Pearson and Bull, and particularly Dr. Wateiiand, with whom he had then no personal acquaintance. About this time bishop Hoadly made some advances to him, to which he paid no attention, as he greatly disapproved his notions. By desire he published occasional sermons, but his principal work was his treatise on the “Eternity of Hell Torments,” which appeared in 1744, and was written at the solicitation of bishop Smallbroke. After his death a volume of his “Sermons” was published by his wife’s nephew.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1747, Dr. Hunt was appointed regius professor of Hebrew, and consequently canon of the sixth stall in Christ church. He had in 1740 been elected a fellow of the royal society, and was also a fellow of that of antiquaries. In 1757, as we have noticed in the life of bishop Hooper, he published the works of that prelate, in the preface to which he represents himself as “one who had received many obligations from his lordship, was acquainted with his family, and had been formerly intrusted by him with the care of publishing one of his learned works,” viz. “De Benedictione patriarchs Jacobi, conjecturae,” Oxon. 1728, 4to, by the preface to which it appears that bishop Hooper was one of his early patrons. Of this only 100 copies were printed as presents to friends, but it is included in the bishop’s works.

, an ancient English historian, was the son of one Nicholas, a married priest, and was born about the beginning of the twelfth century, or end of the eleventh, for he informs us that he was made an archdeacon by Robert Bloet, bishop of Lincoln, who died in 1123. He was educated by Albinus of Anjou, a learned canon of the chqrch of Lincoln, and in his youth discovered a great taste for poetry, by writing eight books of epigrams, as many of love verses, with three long didactic poems, one of herbs, another of spices, and a third of precious stones. In his more advanced years he applied to the study of history; and at the request of Alexander bishop of Lincoln, who was his great friend and patron, he composed a general History of England, from the earliest accounts to the death of king Stephen, 1154, in eight books, published by sir Henry Savile. In the dedication of this work to bishop Alexander, he tells us, that in the ancient part of his history he had followed the venerable Bede, adding a few things from some other writers: that he had compiled the sequel from several chronicles he had found in different libraries, and from what he had heard and seen. Towards the conclusion be very honestly acknowledges that it was only an abridgment, and that to compose a complete history of England, many more books were necessary than he could procure. Mr. Wharton has published a long letter of this author to his friend Walter, abbot of Ramsay, on-the contempt of the world, which contains many curious anecdotes of the kings, nobles, prelates, and other great men who were his contemporaries. In the Bodleian library is a ms Latin poem by Henry, on the death of king Stephen, and the arrival of Henry II. in England, which is by no means contemptible, and in Trinity college library, Oxford, is a fine ms. of his book “De imagine mundi.” When he died is uncertain.

In 1682 he embarked, and landed in Italy; and having visited Rome, Naples, and other places, taking Paris in his way, where he stayed a few weeks, he arrived, after many dangers and difficulties, safe in his own country. He retired immediately to his fellowship at Merton college; and in 1683 took the degrees in divinity. About the same time, through the recommendation of bishop Fell, he was appointed master of Trinity college in Dublin, and went over thither, though against his will; but the troubles that happened in Ireland at the Revolution forced him back for a time into England; and though he returned after the reduction of that kingdom, yet he resigned his mastership in 1691, and came home, with an intention to quit it no more. In the mean time he sold for 700l. his fine collection of Mss. to the curators of the Bodleian library having before made a present of thirty- five. In 1692 he was presented by sir Edward Tumor to the rectory of Great Hallingbury in Essex, and the same year he married. He was offered about that time the bishopric of Kilmore in Ireland, but refused it; in 1701, however, he accepted that of Raphoe, and was consecrated in Christ-church, Dublin, Aug. 20. He survived his consecration but twelve days, for he died Sept. 2, in his 66th year, and was buried in Trinity college chapel.

In this college he had the happiness of being encouraged by, and hearing the lectures of, that excellent tutor, Mr. Henry Hubbard, although he had been admitted under another person. He took the degree of B. A. in 1739, proceeded M. A. and was elected fellow in 1742. In June of that year he was ordained deacon in St. Paul’s cathedral, London, by Dr. Joseph Butler, bishop of Bristol and dean of St. Paul’s, on letters diruissory from Dr. Gooch, bishop of Norwich; and was ordained priest May 20, 1744, in the chapel of Gonvile ar.d Caius college, Cambridge, by the same Dr. Gooch.

In May 1750, by Warburton’s recommendation to Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London, Mr. Kurd was appointed one of the Whitehall preachers. At this period the university of Cambridge was disturbed by internal divisions, occasioned by an exercise of discipline against some of its members, who had been wanting in respect to those who were entrusted with its authority. A punishment having been inflicted on some delinquents, they refused to submit to it, and appealed from the vice-chancellor’s jurisdiction. The right of the university, and those to whom their power was delegated, becoming by this means the subject of debate, several pamphlets appeared, and among others who signalised themselves upon this occasion, Mr. Kurd was generally supposed to have written “The Academic, or, a disputation on the state of the university of Cambridge, and the propriety of the regulations made in it on the 1 Ith day of May and the 26th day of June 1750, 8vo” but this was, as we have already remarked, the production of Dr. Green: Mr. Hurd, however, wrote “The opinion of an eminent lawyer (the earl of Hardwicke) concerning the right of appeal from the vice-chancellor of Cambridge to the senate; supported by a short historical account of the jurisdiction of the university; in answer to a late pamphlet, intituled * An Inquiry into the right of appeal from the vice-chancellor, &c.' By a fellow of a college,” 1751, 8vo. This passed through three editions; and being answered, was defended in “A Letter to the Author of a Further Inquiry,” 1752, 8vo. It is also preserved in the bishop’s works.

Although Mr. Kurd’s reputation as a polite scholar and critic had been now fully established, his merit had not attracted the notice of the great. He still continued to reside at Cambridge, in learned and unostentatious retirement, till, in Dec. 1756, he became, on the death of Dr. Arnald, entitled to the rectory of Thurcaston, as senior fellow of Emanuel college, and was instituted Feb. 16, 1757. At this place he accordingly entered into residence, and, perfectly satisfied with his situation, continued his studies, which were still principally employed on subjects of polite literature. It was in this year that he published “A Letter to Mr. Mason on the Marks of Imitation,” one of his most agreeable pieces of this class, which was afterwards added to the third edition of the “Epistles of Horace.” This obtained for him the return of an elegy inscribed to him by the poet, in 1759, in which Mason terms him “the friend of his youth,” and speaks of him as seated in “low Thurcaston’s sequester' d bower, distant from promotion’s view.” The same year appeared Mr. Kurd’s “Remarks on Hume’s Essay on the Natural History of Religion.” Warburton appears to have been so much concerned in this tract, that we find it republished by Hurd in the quarto edition of that prelate’s works, and enumerated by him in his list of his own works. It appears to have given Hume some uneasiness, and he notices it in his account of his life with much acrimony. In 1759, he published a volume of “Dialogues on sincerity, retirement, the golden age of Elizabeth, and the constitution of the English government,” in 8vo, without his name. In this work he was thought to rank among those writers who, in party language, are called constitutional; but it is said that he made considerable alterations in the subsequent editions. This was followed by his very entertaining “Letters on Chivalry and Romance,” which with his yet more useful “Dialogues on foreign Travel” were republished in 1765, with the author’s name, and an excellent preface on the manner of writing dialogue, under the general title of“Dialogues moral and political.” In the year preceding, he wrote another of those zealous tracts in vindication of Warburton, which, with the highest respect for Mr. Kurd’s talents, we may be permitted to say, have added least to his fame, as a liberal and courteous polemic. This was entitled “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Thomas Leland, in which his late ‘ Dissertation on the principles of Human Eloquence’ is criticized, and the bishop of Gloucester’s idea of the nature and character of an inspired language, as delivered in his lordship’s Doctrine of Grace, is vindicated from all the objections of the learned author of the dissertation.” This, with Mr. Kurd’s other controversial tracts, is republished in vol. VIII. of the late authorized edition of his works, with the following lines, by way of advertisement, written not long before his death "The controversial tracts, which make up this volume, were written and published by the author at different times, as opportunity invited, or occasion required. Some sharpness of style may be objected to them; in regard to which he apologizes for himself in the words of the poet:

With this apology, we return to his well-earned promotions. In 1762, he had the sine-cure rectory of Folkton, near Bridlington, Yorkshire, given him by the lord chancellor (earl of Northington), on the recommendation of Mr. Allen of Prior-Park and in 1765, on the recommendation of bishop Warburton and Mr. Charles Yorke, he was chosen preacher of Lincoln’s-inn; and was collated to the archdeaconry of Gloucester, on the death of Dr. Geekie, by bishop Warburton, in August 1767. On Commencement Sunday, July 5, 1768, he was admitted D. D. at Cambridge; and on the same day was appointed to open the lecture founded by his friend bishop Warburton, for the illustration of the prophecies, in which he exhibited a model worthy of the imitation of his successors. His “Twelve Discourses” on that occasion, which had been delivered before the most polite and crowded audiences that ever frequented the chapel, were published in 1772, under the title of “An Introduction to the Study of the Prophecies concerning the Christian Church, and in particular concerning the Church of Papal Rome;” and raised his character as a divine, learned and ingenious, to an eminence almost equal to that which he possessed as a man of letters; but his notion of a double sense in prophecy, which he in general supposes, has not passed without animadversion. This volume produced a private letter to the author from Gibbon the historian, under a fictitious name, respecting the book of Daniel, which Dr. Hurd answered; and the editor of Gibbon’s Miscellaneous Works having printed the answer, Dr. Hurd thought proper to include both in the edition of his works published since his death (in 1811). It was not, however, until the appearance of Gibbon’s “Miscellaneous Works,” that he discovered the real name of his correspondent.

In 1775, by the recommendation of lord Mansfield, who had for some time cultivated his acquaintance, and had a high esteem for his talents, he was promoted to the bishopric of Lichneld and Coventry, and consecrated Feb. 12, of that year. On this occasion he received an elegant and affectionate letter of congratulation from the members of Emanuel college, to which he returned an equally elegant and respectful letter of thanks. In this year he edited ft republication of bishop Jeremy Taylor’s “Moral Demonstration of the Truth of the Christian Religion,” 8vo; and early in 1776, published a volume of “Sermons preached at Lincoln’s-inn,” which was followed afterwards by a second and third. These added very greatly to the reputation he had derived from his sermons on prophecy, and are equally distinguished by elegant simplicity of style, perspicuity of method, and acuteness of elucidation. On June 5th of this year, he was appointed preceptor to their royal highnesses the prince of Wales, and prince Frederick, now duke of York. Very soon after entering into the episcopal office, appeared an excellent “Charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Lichneld and Coventry, at the bishop’s primary visitation in 1775 and 1776,” and soon after, his “Fast Sermon” for the “American rebellion,” preached before the House of Lords. In 1781 he* was elected a member of the royal society of Gottingen. It is somewhat remarkable that he did not belong to that of London.

On the death of the bishop of Winchester, Dr. Thomas, in May 1781, bishop Hurd received a gracious message from his majesty, with the offer of the see of Worcester (vacant by the promotion of bishop North to Winchester), and of the clerkship of the closet, in the room of Dr. Thomas, both which he accepted. On his arrival at Hartlebury castle, one of the episcopal seats of Worcester, he resolved to put the castle into complete order, and to build a library, which was much wanted. The library was accordingly finished in 1782, and furnished with a collection of books, the property of his lately deceased friend bishop Warburton, which he purchased. To these he afterwards made several considerable additions, and bequeathed the whole of his own collection. On the death of Dr. Cornwallis, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1783, bishop Hurd had the offer of the archbishopric from his majesty, with many gracious expressions, and vvas pressed to accept it: but he humbly begged leave to decline it, “as a charge not suited to his temper and talents, and much too heavy for him to sustain, especially in these times,” alluding to the political distractions arising from a violent conflict between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, and their respective supporters. The king was pleased not to take offence at this freedom, and then to enter with Dr. Hurd into some confidential conversation on the subject. “I took the liberty,” said the good bishop to Mr. Nichols, when relating this affair, “of telling his majesty, that several much greater men than myself had been contented to die bishops of Worcester; and that I wished for no higher preferment.”

In the end of February 1788, was published in 7 vols. 4to, a complete edition of the Works of bishop Warburton, prepared by our prelate, but who did not publish the “Life” until 1795. In March 1788, a fine gold medal was given to him by his majesty at the queen’s house; the king’s head on one side; the reverse was taken from the bishop’s seal (a cross with the initials on a label, 1. N. R. I. a glory above, and the motto below sx irurleus), which his majesty chanced to see and approved. The die was cut by Mr. Burch, and the medal designed for the annual prize-dissertation on theological subjects, in the university of Gottingen. In the summer of the same year he was honoured with a visit from their majesties at Hartlebury castle.

In 1795 the life of bishop Warburton appeared under the title of “A Discourse, by way of general preface to the quarto edition of bishop Warburton’s works; containing some account of the life, writings, and character of the author.” Of this work, which excited no common portion of curiosity/ the style is peculiarly elegant and pure, but the whole is too uniform in panegyric not to render the author liable to the suspicion of long-confirmed prejudices. Even the admirers both of Warburton and Hurd would have been content with less effort to magnify the former at the expence of all his contemporaries; and conscious that imperfection is the lot of all, expected that age and reflection would have abated, if not wholly extinguished, the unscholarlike animosities of former times. But in this all were disappointed; and it was with regret they saw the worst characteristics of Warburton, his inveterate dislikes, his strong contempt, and sneering rancour, still employed to perpetuate his personal antipathies; and employed, too, against such men as Lowth and Seeker. If these were the feelings of the friends who venerated Warburton, and who loved Hurd, others who never had much attachment to Warburton, or his school, found little difficulty in accumulating charges of gross partiality, and illiberal language, against his biographer. This much may be sufficient in noticing this life as the production of Dr. Hurd. It will come hereafter to be more particularly noticed as regarding Warburton. The remainder of bishop Kurd’s life appears to have been spent in the discharge of his episcopal duties, as far as his increasing infirmities would permit; in studious retirement; and often in lamenting the loss of old and tried friends. So late as the first Sunday in February before his death, though then declining in health and strength, he was able to attend his parish church, and to receive the sacrament. Free from any painful or acute disorder, he gradually became weaker, but his faculties continued perfect. After a few days’ confinement to his bed, he expired in his sleep, on Saturday morning, May 28, 1808, having completed four months beyond his eighty-eighth year. He was buried in Hartlebury church-yard, according to his own directions. As a writer, Dr. Hurd’s taste, learning, and genius, have been universally acknowledged, and although a full acquiescence has not been given in all his opinions, he must be allowed to be every where shrewd, ingenious, and original. Even in his sermons and charges, while he is sound in the doctrines of the church, his arguments and elucidations have many features of novelty, and are conveyed in that simple, yet elegant style, which renders them easily intelligible to common capacities. Dr. Hurd’s private character was in all respects amiable. With his friends and connexions he obtained the best eulogium, their constant and warm attachment; and with the world in general, a kind of veneration, which could neither be acquired nor preserved, but by the exercise of great virtues. One of his last employments was to draw up a series of the dates of his progress through life. It is to be lamented he did not fill up this sketch. Few men were more deeply acquainted with the literary history of his time, or could have furnished a more interesting narrative. Much of him, however, may be seen in his Life of Warburton, and perhaps more in the collection of Warburton’s “Letters” to himself, which he ordered to be published after his death, for the benefit of the Worcester Infirmary. Of this only 250 copies were printed, to correspond with the 4to edition of Warburton’s works, but it has since been reprinted in 8vo.

Dr. Hurd was early an admirer of Addison, and although afterwards seduced into the love of a style more flighty and energetic, maturer judgment led him back to the favourite of his youth. “His taste is so pure,” Dr. Hurd says in a letter to Mason, “and his Virgiliau prose (as Dr. Young styles it) so exquisite, that I have but now found out, at the close of a critical life, the full value of his writings.” This letter is dated 1770; and the author, whose life was then far from its close, employed his leisure hours in preparing an edition of Addison’s works, which he left quite ready for the press! It was published accordingly in six handsome volumes, 8vo, with philological notes. These are accounted for in a very short address prefixed in these words: “Mr. Addison is generally allowed to be the most correct and elegant of all our writers; yet some inaccuracies of style have escaped him, which it is the chief design, of the following notes to point out. A work of this sort, well executed, wouldbe of use to foreigners who study our language and even to such of our countrymen as wish to write it in perfect purity.” This is followed by an elegant Latin inscription to Addison, written in 1805, by which we learn that he intended this edition as a monument to Addison “Hoc monumentum sacrum esto.” In the same year, 1810, a new edition of the works of bishop Warburton appeared, according to Dr. Kurd’s directions; and, for the first time, an edition of his own works, in 8 vols. 8vo, consisting of his critical works, moral and political dialogues, his sermons, and controversial tracts.

In 1780 he was entered a commoner of St. Mary-hall, Oxford; and at the election in 1782, was chosen a demy of St. Mary Magdalen college. Here his studies, which were close and uninterrupted, were encouraged, and his amiable character highly respected, by Dr. Home, president of Magdalen, and his successor Dr. Routh, by Dr. Sheppard, Dr. Rathbone, and others. About 1784 he went to Stanmer in Sussex, where he resided for some considerable time as tutor to the late earl of Chichester’s youngest son, the hon. George Pelham, now bishop of Exeter. In May 1785, having taken his bachelor’s degree, he retired to the curacy of Burwash in Sussex, which he held for six years, but in the interim, in 1786, was elected probationer fellow of Magdalen, and the following year took his master’s degree. Finding himself now sufficiently enabled to assist his mother in the support of her family, he hired a small house, and took three of his sisters to reside with him. In 1788, he first appeared before the public as a poet, in “The Village Curate,” the reception of which far exceeded his expectations, a second edition being called for the following year. This poem, although perhaps not highly finished, contained so many passages of genuine poetry, and evinced so much elegance, taste, and sense, as to pass through the ordeal of criticism with great applause, and to be considered as the earnest of future and superior excellence. Such encouragement induced the author to publish in 1790, his “Adriano, or the first of June,” which was followed in a short time by his “Panthea,” “Elmer and Ophelia,” and the “Orphan Twins,” all which were allowed to confirm the expectations of the public, and place the author in an enviable rank among living poets. These were followed by two publications, connected with his profession; “A short critical Disquisition ou the true Meaning of the word tO*OiJin, found in Gen. i. 21, 1790,” and “Select critical Remarks upon the English version of the first ten chapters of Genesis.” In 1791, through the interest of the earl of Chichester, he was appointed to the living of Bishopstone; and about the same time wrote his tragedy of “Sir Thomas More,” a poem of considerable merit, but not intended for the stage. In 1792, he was deprived by death of his favourite sister Catherine, whose elegant mind he frequently pourtrayed in his works, under the different appellations of Margaret and Isabel. On this affliction he quitted his curacy, and returned with his two sisters to Bishopstone. Here the trouble of his mind was considerably alleviated by an affectionate invitation from his much- esteemed friend Mr. Hayley to visit Eartham, where he had the pleasing satisfaction of becoming personally known to Cowper, the celebrated poet, with whom he had maintained a confidential correspondence for some years.

He then returned to Ireland; and, entering into the ministry, was just about to be settled in a small congregation of dissenters in the north of Ireland, when some gentlemen about Dublin, who knew his great abilities and virtues, invited him to set up a private academy in that city, with which he complied, and met with much success. He had been fixed but a short time in Dublin, when his singular merits and accomplishments made him generally known; and his acquaintance was sought by men of all ranks, who had any taste for literature, or any regard for learned men. Lord Molesworth is said to have taken great pleasure in his conversation, and to have assisted him with his criticisms and observations upon his “Enquiry intp the Ideas of Beauty and Virtue,” before it came abroad. He received the same favour from Dr. Synge, bishop of Elphin, with whom he also lived in great friendship. The first edition of this performance came abroad without the author’s name, but the merit of it would npt suffer him to be Long concealed. Such was the reputation of the work, and the ideas it had raised of the author, that lord Granville, who was then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, sent his private secretary to inquire at the bookseller’s for the author; and when he could not learn his name, he left a letter to be cpnveyed to him: in consequence of which Mr. Hutcheson soon became acquainted with his excellency, and was treated by him, all the time he continued in his government, with distinguished marks of familiarity and esteem.

From this time he began to be still more courted by men of distinction, either for rank or literature, in, Ireland. Abp. King held him in great esteem; and the friendship of that prelate was of great use to him in screening him from two attempts made to prosecute him, for taking upon him the education of youth, without having qualified himself by subscribing the ecclesiastical canons, and obtaining a license from the bishop. He had also a large share in the esteem of the primate Boulter, who, through his influence, made a donation to the university of Glasgow of a yearly fund for an exhibitioner, to be bred to any of the learned professions. A few years after his Inquiry into the Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, his “Treatise on the Passions” was published: these works have been often reprinted, and always admired both for the sentiment and language, even by those who have not assented to the philosophy of them, nor allowed it to have any foundation in nature. About this time he wrote some philosophical papers, accounting for laughter in a different way from Hobbes, and more honourable to human nature, which were published in the collection called “Hibernicus’s Letters.” Some letters in the “London Journal,” 1728, subscribed Philaretus, containing objections to some parts of the doctrine in “The Enquiry,” &c. occasioned his giving answers to them in those public papers. Both the letters and answers were afterwards published in a separate pamphlet.