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

, the greatest musical composer of his time, or perhaps of any time or country, was born at Halle, in the duchy of Magdeburgh, February 4, 1684, by a second wife of his father, who was an eminent physician and surgeon of the same place, and then above sixty years of age. From his very childhood he discovered such a propensity to music, that his father, who always intended him for the civil law, took every method to oppose this inclination, by keeping him out of the way of, and strictly forbidding him to meddle with, musical instruments of any kind. The son, however, found means to get a little clavicord privately conveyed to a room at the top of the house; and with this he used to amuse himself when the family was asleep. While he was yet under seven years of age, he went with his father to the duke of Saxe Weisenfels, where it was impossible to keep him from harpsichords, and other musical instruments. One morning, while he was playing on the organ, after the service was over, the duke was in the church; and something in his manner of playing affected his highness so strongly, that he asked his valet-de-chambre (who was Handel’s brother-in-law) who it was that he heard at the organ? The valet replied, that it was his brother. The duke demanded to see him; and after making proper inquiries about him, expostulated very seriously with his father, who still retained his prepossessions in favour of the civil law. He allowed that every father had certainly a right to dispose of his children as he should think most expedient; but that in the present instance he could not but consider it as a sort of crime against the public and posterity to rob the world of such a rising genius. The issue of this conversation was, not only a toleration for music, but consent also that a master should be called in to forward and assist him.

Handel was now settled in England, and well provided for. The first three years he was chiefly, if not constantly, at the earl of Burlington’s, where he frequently met Pope. The poet one day asked his friend Arbuthnot, of whose knowledge'in music he had an high idea, what was his real opinion of Handel, as a master of that science? who re-, plied, “Conceive the highest you can of his abilities, and they are much beyond any thing that you can conceive.” Pope nevertheless declared, that Handel’s finest things, so untoward were his ears, gave him no more pleasure than the airs of a common ballad. The two next years Handel spent at Cannons, then in its glory, and composed music for the chapel there. About this time a project was formed by the nobility for erecting an academy in the Haymarket; the intention of which was to secure a constant supply of operas, to be composed by Handel, and to be performed under his direction. For this purpose the sum of 50,000^. was subscribed, the king subscribing lOOOl. and a society was formed called “the Royal Academy.” Handel immediately was commissioned to go to Dresden in quest of singers, whence he brought Senesino and Duristanti. At this time Buononcini and Attilto, whom we have mentioned before, composed for the opera, and had a strong party in their favour, which produced a violent opposition, ridiculed by Swift and the other wits of the time, although of great importance to the fashionable world; but at last the rival composers and performers were all united, and each was to have his particular part.

, a Carthaginian general, who was employed to sail round Africa, entered the ocean by what is now called the Strait of Gibraltar; discovered several countries, and would have continued his voyage, had he not been in want of provisions. The “Periplus of Hanno,” ascribed to him, was published in Greek by Gelenius, 1533, and there is a good edition of it in Greek and Latin, with notes, Leyden, 1674, 12mo. It is also inserted in the “Geographi Veteres,” Oxford, 4 vols. 8vo, but some suppose this work is of much later date than the time of Hanno, there being reason to suppose he was the famous Carthaginian general who carried on the war against Agathocles, when Carthage was in its most flourishing state. It has been translated into Italian by Romusio, into Spanish by Campomanes, into French by Bougainville, and in I7U7 into English by the learned Mr. Falconer of Corpus college, Oxford, who has ably defended the authenticity of the work against Dodwell and other writers.

, a learned Dutch catholic divine, and called in that language Van der Haer, was born at Utrecht in 1550, and after the usual course of academical instruction, taught rhetoric at Douay, and travelled afterwards into Germany, Italy, and Muscovy. He accompanied father Pousse vin, who was sent there by the pope as nuncio. On his return, he was made canon of Bois-Ie-duc, then of Namur, and Louvain, at which last place he died, January 12, 1632. His principal works are, “Biblia sacra expositionibus priscorum Patrum litteralibus *t mysticis illustrata,” Antwerp, 1630, folio; “Catena aurea in IV Evangelia,” 1625, 8vo; “Annales Ducum Brabantiae, ac tumultuum Belgicorum” an abridgment of the “Lives of the Saints,” taken chiefly from Surius, 8vo and “A Chronology,” Antwerp, 1614, 4to, &c.

, a polite and ingenious scholar, was the younger son of the rev. Gideon Hardinge, and grandson of sir Robert Hardinge, of King’s Newton, a small hamlet in the parish of Melbourne in Derbyshire, who was knighted in the civil wars. He was born in 1700, and educated at Eton school, which he left in 17 Is for King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1722, and that of M. A. in 1726. When he left the university, he studied law, and was called to the bar; but obtained in 1731 the office of chief clerk of the house of commons, which he held until 1752, when he was appointed joint secretary of the treasury, in which post he died April 9, 1758.

At Eton and Cambridge, he had the fame of the most eminent scholar of his time, and wrote Latin verse with great elegance. When at Cambridge he was at the head of the whig party, which happened to prevail in a contest respecting the expulsion of a student, who, in one of the college exercises had offended the tories. In this contest he made himself master of the law and custom of visitatorial power, which he discussed in a very masterly essay; but this, although intended for publication, has not yet appeared. He was a very profound and judicious antiquary, particularly in what concerned English law and history. At the request of William duke of Cumberland (to whom he had been appointed, in Dec. 1732, law-reader, and was afterwards his attorney-general), he wrote a very learned memorial upon the regency (when that subject was agitated in the last reign), which lord Hardwicke called “an invaluable work.” It was by Mr. Hardinge' s advice and encouragement that Mr. Stuart undertook his journey to Athens, with a view of illustrating the history of that city. His diligence, accuracy, knowledge, and skill, in the office of clerk to the House of commons, were never exceeded. He put the “Journals” into their present form; and drew up a very able report of the condition in which he found them. In his office of secretary he was laborious, able, and zealous; and so honest, that he had many enemies. He was chosen representative for the borough of Eye in parliament in 1748 and 1754, and was a very useful member; but had no talents or courage for eloquence, though his taste in estimating it was exquisite.

In 1693, he printed at Paris, in 2 vols, 4to, “Chronologize ex nummis antiquis restitute prolusio, de nummis Herodiadum:” in which he opened more fully that strange paradoxical system, of which he had yet done little more than give hints. He undertakes to prove from medals, that the greater part of those writings which are considered as ancient, were forged by monks of the thirteenth century, who gave to them the several names of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, &c. Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Augustin, &c. He excepts only out of this monkish manufacture the works of Cicero, Pliny’s “Natural History,” Virgil’s “Georgics,” and Horace’s “Satires and Epistles/' These he supposes the only genuine monuments of antiquity remaining, except some few inscriptions and fasti: and with the assistance of these, he is of opinion that these monks drew np and published all the other ancient writings, as Terence’s” Plays,“Livy’s and Tacitus’s” Histories,“Virgil’s” Eneid,“Horace’s” Odes,“&c. Nay, he carried this whim so far, that he fancied he could see plainly enough that Æneas in Virgil was designed for Jesus Christ, and Horace’s mistress Lalage for the Christian religion. Absurd as all this may seem, he appears to have seriously believed k himself, and was persuaded that his reasons for it were clear and evident; though he would not publish them to the world, nor explain his system, which he was frequently called upon to do. This work was suppressed by public authority at Paris. He afterwards published” A Letter upon three Samaritan Medals;“” An Essay towards the restoring Chronology by Medals of Constantino’s age,' 7 and “A Chronology of the Old Testament, conformable to the vulgar translation, illustrated by ancient Medals;” all which were likewise suppressed, on account of the paradoxes contained in them.

, 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.

, third and last baron of that name and family, descended from John, younger brother to sir Nicholas Hare, baronet, master of the rolls, and privy-counsellor to Henry VIII. (both sons to Nicholas Hare of Homersfield, in the county of Suffolk, the elder branch being seated at Stow Bardolph, in Norfolk) was born at Blechingley, in Surrey, May 10, 1693; educated at Enfield, under Dr. Uvedale, who had also the honour of educating, among many other eminent men, the late earl of Huntingdon, and sir Jeremy Sambrooke, bart. After the death of his grandfather, Hugh lord Colerane, in 1708, he succeeded to the title, and was admitted a gentleman commoner of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, under the tuition of Dr. Rogers, who afterwards married Lydia, one of his lordship’s sisters . A lyric poem by lord Colerane appeared in the “Academiae Oxoniensis Comitia Philologica, 1713,” and in the “Musaj Anglicanae,” vol. III. p. 303, under the title of “Musaruin oblatio ad reginam.” Dr. Basil Kennet, who succeeded Dr. Turner in the presidency of that society, inscribed to his lordship an epistolary poem on his predecessor’s death. He was a great proficient in the learned languages, particularly the Greek; and eminently versed in history, both civil and ecclesiastical. He was grand master of the society of free-masons, and had made the tour of Italy three times; the second time with Dr. Con yers Middle ton, about 1723, in which he made a noble collection of prints and drawings of all the antiquities, buildings, and pictures in Italy; given after his decease to Corpus Christi college. The esteem in which he was held by the literati procured him admittance into the Republica Literaria di Arcadia, and the particular intimacy of the marquis Scipio Maffei; who afterwards visited him at his ancient manor and seat at Tottenham, in Middlesex. His lordship died at Bath, Aug. 4, 1749; and was buried in the family vault at Tottenham, built, with the vestrv, by his grandfather. His very valuable collection of prints relative to English antiquities, with a portrait of him when a young man, by Richardson, were obtained after his death by Mr. Henry Baker for the Society of Antiquaries. His books were sold to T. Osborne, who detained some of the family papers, which were with difficulty recovered from him. The pictures, bronzes, marble, tables, urns, vases, and other antiquities, were sold by auction, March 13 and 14, 1754, for 904l. 135. 6d. The coins, it is supposed, were disposed of privately. His lordship married in 1717, Anne, only daughter of John Hanger, esq. by whom he had a fortune of 100,000l. but she, having unaccountably left him within three years, and resisted every effort of his to recall her, after twenty more years he formed a connexion with a foreign lady, Miss Duplessis, by whom he had a natural daughter, Henrietta Rosa Pevegrina, born in Italy, and afterwards naturalized. She was married in 1764 to James Townsend, esq. alderman of Bishopsgate ward, who in her right -enjoyed the extensive manor of Tottenham, and repaired the family seat, commonly called Bruce-castle, from having anciently belonged to theBruces earls of Huntingdon, which had been considerably modernized in the close of the seventeenth century. It is now the property of William Curtis, esq. son to sir William Curtis, bart.

, afterwards earl of Oxford and earl Mortimer, and lord high treasurer in the reign of queen Anne, was eldest son of sir Edward Harley, and born at London, in Bow-street, Covent Garden, December 5, 1661. He was educated under the rev. Mr. Birch, at Shilton, near Burford, Oxfordshire, which, though a private school, was remarkable for producing at the same time, a lord high treasurer, viz. lord Oxford a lord high chancellor, viz. lord Harcourt a lord chief justice of the common pleas, viz. lord Trevor and ten members of the house of commops, who were all contemporaries, as well at school as in parliament. Here he laid the foundation of that extensive knowledge and learning, which rendered him afterwards so conspicuous in the world. At the revolution, sir Edward Harley, and this his eldest son, raised a troop of horse at their own expence; and, after the accession of king William and queen Mary, he was first chosen member of parliament for Tregony in Cornwall, and afterwards served for the town of Radnor till he was called to the house of lords. In 1690 he was chosen by ballot one of the nine members of the house of commons, commissioners for stating the public accounts; and also one of the arbitrators for uniting the two India companies. In 1694 the house of commons ordered Mr. Harley, November 19, to prepare and bring in a bill “For the frequent meeting and calling of parliaments;” which he accordingly did upon the 22d, and it was received and agreed to by both houses, without any alteration or amendment. On February 11, 1701-2, he was chosen speaker of the house of commons; and that parliament being dissolved the same year by king William, and a new one called, he was again chosen speaker, December 31st following, as he was in the first parliament called by queen Anne.

, a learned Greek scholar and teacher, was the son of a father of the same name, who was warden of Winchester, and died in 1613. He was also an able Greek scholar, was employed on the translation of the Bible, and published some of Chrysostom’s homilies from Mss. in the library of New-college, Oxford. His son was born about 1594, at Churchdowne, near Gloucester, and educated at Winchester-school. In 1611 he entered as a demy of Magdalen-college, Oxford, and completed his master’s degree in 1617, the highest Wood says he took, “although he was in his latter days called Dr. Harmar.” His first employment as a teacher was in Magdalen school, about which time he took orders. He was afterwards in succession chief master of the free-school at St. Alban’s, and under-master of Westminster-school. In 1650, when the committee for reforming the university had ejected all the old professors, he was appointed by their authority, Greek professor, and in 1659 was presented to the rectory of Ewhurst, in Hampshire. On account of his connexions with the usurping powers, he was deprived of his professorship and rectory at the restoration, and retired to Steventon, in Hampshire,where he subsisted on his wife’s jointure. He died there Nov. 1, 1670. As a nonconformist Calamy has nothing to say for him, and Neal says “he was an honest, weak man.” He wrote Latin and Greek panegyrics on the leading men of all parties, and complimented Charles II. with as much sincerity as he had Cromwell, and Richard his successor. In the facility of Greek composition he appears to have excelled, and he translated some part of Butler’s Hudibras into Latin, retaining much of the spirit of the original. While engaged as a teacher, he published a “Praxis Grammatica,” Lond. 1622, 1623, 8vo, and a “Janua Linguarum,” of which there were six or seven editions before J 63 1 He published also a “Lexicon Etymologicon Graccum,” which Wood says is “junctim cum Scapula,” Lond. 1637, fol. His other principal works are, 1. “Eclogse sententiarum et similitudinum, e D. Chrysostomo decerptae,” Gr. & Lah with notes, Lond. 1622, 8vo. 2. “Protomartyr Britannus; seu Elogia sacra in conversionem et rnartyrium S. Albani,” ibid. 1630, 4to. 3. “Epistola ad D. Lambertum Osbaldestonum, cui intexitur Apologia pro honoratissimo &c. D. Johanne Williams Arch. Eborac.” ibid. 1649, 8vo. 4. “M. T. Ciceronis vita, ex optimis quibusque scriptoribus delibata,” Ox. 1662, 8vo. He translated from Latin into English, Daniel Heinsius’s “Mirror of Humility;” from English into Greek and Latin, the Assembly’s “Shorter Catechism,” ibid. 1659, 8vo; and from English into Latin, Howell’s “Treatise concerning Ambassadors.”

, a great astronomer, who flourished about 480 years before Christ, corrected the cycle of eight years invented by Cleostratus, and in its stead proposed a new one of nine years, in which he supposed that the sun and moon returned to the same point; but this cycle of Harpalus was afterwards altered by Meton, about the year 444 B. C. who added ten years to it, which cycle is still in use, and called “The Golden Number.”

, one of the ablest French writers of the last century, was born at Paris, Nov. 20, 1739. His father, an officer of the artillery, died when he was very young, and left him in poverty. He obtained, however, the patronage of M. Asselin, principal of the college of Harcourt, who conceived an affection for him, received him among his pupils, and soon after obtained a pension for him. During his education he displayed a turn for poetry and satire, and was accused of writing a satirical poem on his benefactor. He protested his innocence and his reverence for M. Asselin; but this not appearing satisfactory, he was confined for some months in a house of correction. One of his biographers says in the Bastille; but, wherever it was, we are told that it made a deep impression on him. His first poetical productions after this affair, were of a species then very fashionable, and called Heroides, in which Colordeau, Ranee, and Dorat had distinguished themselves, and La Harpe was thought little inferior to Dorat. In 1763, when only in his twenty-fourth year, he wrote his tragedy of “Warwick,” which met with deserved success, and still preserves its popularity on the stage. “Timoleon,” which he produced in 1764, and “Pharmond,” in 1765, were much less applauded. They showed a laudable ambition to excel, but it was too much to expect three such tragedies as “Warwick” within so short a space of time.

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

This work was no sooner published, than many undertook a refutation of it. This occasioned him to reply, and to explain his scheme, in several successive pieces, which may be easily seen in the collection of his works. In the mean time, he not only endeavoured to propagate his republican' notions by writing, but, for the more effectually advancing a cause, of which he was enthusiastically enamoured, he formed a society of gentlemen, agreeing with him in principles, who met nightly at Miles’s coffee-house, in New Palace-yard, Westminster, and were called the Rota. Wood has given a very particular account of this association, or gang, as he calls them. “Their discourses about government,” says he, “and of ordering a commonwealth, were the most ingenious and smart that ever were heard; for the arguments in the parliament-house were but flat to those. This gang had a balloting-box, and balloted how things should be carried by way of essay, which not being used, or known in England before on this account, the room was every evening very full. The doctrine there inculcated was very taking; and the more, because as to human foresight there was no possibility of the king’s return. The greatest part of the parliament-men hated this rotation and balloting, as being against their power: eight or ten were for it, who proposed it to the house, and made it out to the members, that, except they embraced that sort of government, they must be ruined. The model of it was, that the third part of the senate or house should rote out by ballot every year, not capable of being elected again for three years to come; so that every ninth year the senate would be wholly altered. No magistrate was to continue above three years, and all to be chosen by the ballot, than which nothing could be invented more fair and impartial, as it was then thought, though opposed by many for several reasons. This club of commonwealthsmen, which began about Michaelmas 1659, lasted till about Feb. 21 following; at which time, the secluded members being restored by general Monk, all their models vanished .”

, 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

The first fruit which appeared to the world of so many years spent in the pursuit of knowledge, was a volume published in 1744, containing “Three Treatises. The first concerning Art. The second concerning Music, Painting, and Poetry. The third concerning Happiness.” These treatises, in addition to their merit as original compositions, are illustrated by a variety of learned notes and observations, elucidating many difficult passages of ancient writers, the study and examination of whom it was his earnest wish to promote and to facilitate. Lord Monboddo, speaking >fr the dialogue upon Art, praises it, as containing “the best specimen of the dividing, or diaeretic manner, as the ancients called it, that is to be found in any modern book with which he is acquainted.”

Harte’s poems, in general are entitled to considerable praise, although it may probably be thought that he was a better critic than a poet, and exhibited more taste than genius. His attachment to Pope led him to an imitation of that writer’s manner, particularly in the “Essay on Rear son,” and that on “Satire.” His “Essay on Reason” has been somewhere called a fine philosophical poem. It might with more propriety be called a fine Christian poem, as it has more of religion than philosophy, and might be aptly entitled An Essay on Revelation. The “Essay on Satire” has some elegant passages, but is desultory, and appears to have been written as a compliment to the “Dunciad” of Pope, whose opinions he followed as far as they respected the merits of the dunces whom Pope libelled.

He was consulted in a book called “Chemical, Medicinal, and Chirurgical Addresses to Samuel Hartlib.” Lond. 1655, 8vo, and again in a pamphlet “On Motion by Engines,” 1651. There were also “Letters to Hartlib from Flanders,” 1650, 4to. Dury, Hartlib’s friend, whom Whitlock calls a “German by birth, a good scholar, and a great traveller,” was appointed in 1649 deputylibrarian, under Whitlock, of what had been the royal library. Dury was Milton’s friend and correspondent. On the restoration, all Hartlib’s public services were forgotten. In Dec. 1662, his pension was 700l. in arrears; and in a letter to lord Herbert, he complains “he had nothing to keep him alive, with two relations more, a daughter and a nephew, who were attending his sickly condition.” About the same time he presented a petition to the house of commons, by the name of Samuel Hartlib, sen. setting forth his services, and praying relief; in which, among other things, he says, that for thirty years and upwards he had exerted himself in procuring “rare collections of Mss. in all the parts of learning, which he had freely imported, transcribed, and printed, and sent to such as were most capable of making use of them; also the best experiments in husbandry and manufactures, which by printing he hath published for the benefit of this age and posterity.” The event of these applications, and the time of the death of this ingenious man, is unknown. Sprat, in his history of the royal society, says nothing of Hartlib, who seems to have been an active promoter of that institution. Nor is it less remarkable, that he never mentions Milton’s “Tractate of Education,” although he discusses the plan of Cowley’s philosophical college. Harte intended to republish Hartlib’s tracts, and those with which he was concerned; and Warton had seen his collection.

From time to time, in the course of his travels, he had written to LinnaBtis, and had sent home various natural curiosities, as well as several dissertations, which were printed in the Transactions of the Upsal and Stockholm academies. His letters to various friends were occasionally printed, in a periodical publication called Literary News, at Stockholm; and in return for the entertainment and information he gave his countrymen, they contributed some necessary supplies towards his expensive undertakings. Unfortunately he had, in the meanwhile, sacrificed, instead of restoring his health. He flattered himself, as all in his condition do, and thought that a winter’s repose at Smyrna might restore him. He tried the country air and a milk diet, but he wasted away daily, like a lamp whose oil is spent, and departed this life, Feb. 9, 1752, at six in the evening, to the inexpressible grief o f all who knew him, in the 31st year of his age.

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.

, an ingenious mechanic, born at Orleans, March 20, 1647, made a great progress in mechanics in general, but had a particular taste for clockwork, and made several discoveries in it that were of singular use. He found out the secret of moderating the vibration of the balance by means of a small steelspring, which has since been made use of. This discovery he laid before the members of the academy of sciences in 1694 and these watches are, by way of eminence, called pendulum-watches not that they have real pendulums, but because they nearly approach to the justness of pendulums. M. Huygens perfected this happy invention; but having declared himself the inventor, and obtained a patent for making watches with spiral springs, the abbe* Feuille opposed the registering of it, and published a piece on the subject against Huygens. He died in 1724. Besides the above, he wrote a great many other pieces, most of which are small pamphlets, but very curious; as, 1. His “Perpetual Pendulum.” 2. “New Inventions.” 3. “The Art of Breathing under Water, and the means of preserving a Flame shut up in a small place.” 4. “Reflections on Machines for raising water.” 5. His opinion on the different sentiments of Mallebranche and Regis, relating to the appearance of the Moon when seen in the horizon. 6. “The Magnetic Balance.” 7. “A Placet to the king on the Longitude.” 8. “Letter on the secret of the Longitude.” 9. “A New System on the Flux and Reflux of the Sea.” 10. “The means of making sensible experiments that prove the Motion of the Earth;” and many other pieces.

From a very early period of his life he had entertained a strong love for the amusement of angling; and being long acquainted with Walton’s. “Complete Angler,” had, by observation and experience, himself become a very able proficient in the art. Hearing, about this time, that Mr. Moses Browne proposed to publish a new edition of that work, and being himself in possession of some material particulars respecting Walton, he, by letter, made Mr. Browne an offer of writing, for his intended edition,-Walton’s Life. To this proposal no answer was returned, at least for some time, from which circumstance Mr. Hawkins concluded, as any one reasonably would, that his offer was not accepted; and, therefore, having also learnt in the mean time that Mr. B. meant not to publish the text as the author left it, but to modernize it in order to file off die rust, as he called it, wrote again to tell Mr. Browne that he so understood it; and that, as Mr. B.'s intention was to sophisticate the text in the manner above mentioned, he, Mr. Hawkins, would himself publish a correct edition. Such an edition, in 1760, he accordingly published in octavo with notes, adding to it a “Life of Walton” by himself, a “Life of Cotton,” the author of the second part, by the well-known Mr. Oldys; and ‘a set’ of cuts designed by Wale, and engraved by Ryland.

On occasion of actual tumults or expected disturbances, he had more than once been called into service of great personal danger. When the riots at Brentford had arisen, during the time of the Middlesex election in 1768, he and some of his brethren attended to suppress them; and, in consequence of an expected riotous assembly of the journeymen Spitalfields weavers in Moorfields, in 1769, -the magistrates of Middlesex and he at their head, with a party of guards, attended to oppose them, but the mob, on seeing them prepared, thought it prudent to disperse. In these and other instances, and particularly in his conduct as chairman, having given sufficient proof of his activity, resolution, abilities, integrity, and loyalty, he, on the 23d of October, 1772, received from his present majesty the honour of knighthood.

When this circumstance became known to sir J. H. he represented this act to him (as it really was) as a mere nullity; and Johnson was prevailed upon, on the 27th of November, 1784, at Mr. Strahan’s, at Islington, to give him the necessary instructions, which he, sir J. on the spot converted into proper legal form, by dictating, conformably to. them, a will to Mr. Hoole, who, with some other friends, had there called in upon Johnson, and which being coinpleted, was executed by Johnson and properly attested. In the codicil, which Johnson afterwards made, sir J. assisted in the same manner, as to legal phraseology, and directing the proper mode of execution and attestation.

Upon the conclusion of the peace between the English and French by the treaty of Bretigni 1360, sir John, finding his estate too small to support his title and dignity, associated himself with certain companies called, by Froissart, “Les Tard Venus;” by Walsingham, “Magna Comitiva.” These were formed by persons of various nations, who, having hitherto found employment in the wars between England and France, and having held governments, or built and fortified ho.uses in the latter kingdom which, they were now obliged to give up, found themselves reduced to this desperate method of supporting themselves and their soldiers by marauding and pillaging, or by en-, gaging in the service of less states, which happened to be at war with each other. Villani, indeed, charges Edward III. with secretly authorizing these ravages in France, while outwardly he affected a strict observance of the peace. At this time, in the summer, continues this historian, ah English tailor, named John della Guglea, that is, John of the needle, who had distinguished himself iri the war, began to form a company of marauders, and collected a number of English, who delighted in mischief, and hoped to live by plunder, surprizing and pillaging first one town, and then another. This company increased so much that they became the terror of the whole country. All who had not fortified places to defend them were forced to treat with him, and furnish him with provision and money, for which he promised them his protection. The effect of this was, that in a few months he acquired great wealth. Having also received an accession of followers and power, he roved from one country to another, till at length he came to the Po. There he made all who came in his way prisoners. The clergy he pillaged, but let the laity go without injury. The court of Rome was greatly alarmed at these proceedings, and made preparations to oppose these banditti. Upon the arrival of certain Englishmen on the banks of the Po, Hawkwood resigned his command to them, and professed submission to the king of England, to whose servants he presented a large share of his ill-gotten wealth.

Peace being now re-established abroad, the city of Florence was, in 1393, distracted with civil feuds, which were not terminated by the execution and exile of some principal citizens. But at the close of this year they sustained a greater loss in sir John Hawkwood, who died March 6, advanced in years, at his house in the street called PulveYosa, near Florence. His funeral was celebrated with -reat magnificence, and the general lamentation of the whole city. His bier, adorned with gold and jewels, was supported by the first persons of the republic, followed by horses in gilded trappings, banners, and other military ensigns, and the whole body of the citizens. His remains were deposited in the church of St. Repar.ita, where a statue (as Poggio and Rossi call it, though it is well known to be a portrait) of him on horseback was put np by a public decree. If the Florentine historians did not distinguish between a statue and a portrait, no wonder our countryman Stowe talks of an “image as great as a mighty pillar,” erecteci to the memory of sir John Hawkwood at Florence or that Weever, copying him, calls it “a statue.”

, an English lawyer, the son of Thomas Hawles, gent, was born at Salisbury in 1645, and educated at Winchester school, whence he entered as a commoner of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1662, but, like most men intended for the study of the law, left the university without taking a degree. He removed to Lincoln’s Inn, and after studying the usual period, was admitted to the bar, and, as Wood says, became “a person of note for his profession.” On the accession of king William, he more openly avowed revolution-principles, and published “Remarks upon the Trials of Edward Fitzharris, Stephen Coiledge, count Coningsmarke, the lord Russel, &c.” Lond. 1689, foho; and a shorter tract called “The Magistracy and Government of England vindicated; or a justification of the English method of proceedings against criminals, by way of answer to the Defence of the late lord Russel’s innocence,” ibid. 1689, fol. In 1691 he stood candidate for the recordership of London against sir Bartholomew Shower, but was unsuccessful. In 1695, however, he was appointed solicitor general, which office he held until 1702. He was one of the managers against Dr. Sacheverel in his memorable trial. He died Aug. 2, 1716.

When lord Hardwicke was called up to the house of lords in 1734, he was chosen to succeed him in representing the borough of Seatbrd in the Commons; and he represented this borough for the remainder of his life. He defended the measures of sir Robert Walpole in general, but was far from being subservient or indiscriminate in his approbation of public measures. In 1728 he published his 1 Essay on Civil Government;“in 1730 his poem entitled” Mount Caburn,“dedicated to the duchess of Newcastle, in which he celebrates the beauties of his native country, and the virtues of his friends. In 1735 he published” Remarks on the Laws relative to the Poor, with proposals for their better relief and employment; and at the same time brought in a bill for the purpose. He made another attempt of this kind, but without effect. In May 1738, he was appointed a commissioner of the victualling-office. In 1753 appeared “Religio Philosophi; or, the principles of morality and Christianity, illustrated from a view of che universe, and of man’s situation in it.” This was followed, in 1754, by his “Essay on Deformity;” in which he rallies his own imperfection in this respect with much liveliness and good humour. “Bodily deformity,” says he, “is very rare. Among 558 gentlemen in the House of commons, I am the only one that is so. Thanks to my worthy constituents, who never objected to my person, and I hope never to give them cause to object to my behaviour.” The same year he translated Hawkins Browne “De Immortalitati Animse.” In 1755 he translated and modernized some “Epigrams of Martial;” but survived this publication only a short time, dying June 22, the same year. A little time before, he had been appointed keeper of the records in the Tower; and it is said that his attention and assiduity, during the few months he held that office, were eminently serviceable to his successors.

, an English artist, much celebrated in his day, was born in 1708, at Exeter, and was the scholar of Brown. He appears to have come to London in the early part of his life, and was much employed by Fleetwood, the proprietor of Drury-lane theatre, for whom he painted many scenes. In the pursuit of his profession, he was not extremely assiduous, being more convivial than studious; yet he acquired a very considerable degree of power in his art, and was the best historical painter in the kingdom, before the arrival of Cipriani. It was this superiority of talent that introduced him to the notice of Mr. Jonathan Tyers, the founder and proprietor of Vauxhall, by whom he was employed in decorating those well-known gardens, and where some of his best historical pictures are still to be seen. He also painted four pictures from subjects taken from Sbakspeare, for what is called the prince’s pavilion in Vauxhall, but Mr. Tyers had such an high opinion of them, as to remove them to his own residence, and place copies in their room. His reputation procured him much employment from the booksellers, whom he furnished with drawings for their editions of Moore’s Fables, Congreve’s Works, Newton’s Milton, Hammer’s Shakspeare, Smcllet’s Don Quixote, Pope’s Works, &c. These drawings have in general great merit.

, 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.”

, a lawyer of eminence of the last century, and recorder of Exeter, was a celebrated scholar and an author. He wrote, 1. “An Essay towards a demonstrative proof of the Divine Existence, Unity, and Attributes; to which is premised, a short defence of the argument commonly called a priori,” 17iO. This pamphlet was dedicated to Dr. Oliver of Bath, and is to be ranked amongst the ablest defences of Dr. Clarke’s, or rather Mr. Howe’s, hypothesis; for it appears to be taken from Howe’s “Living Temple.” 2. “The case of the county of Devon with respect to the consequences of the new Excise Duty on Cyder and Perry. Published by the direction of the committee appointed at a general meeting of that county to superintend the application for the repeal of that duty,” 1763, 4to. To this representation of the circumstances peculiar to Devonshire, the repeal of the act is greatly to be ascribed; and very honourable notice was taken of it at a general meeting or the county. 3. “Notre sive Lectiones ad Tragicorum Graecorum veterum, JEschyli, &c.” 1752, 4to a work which places the author’s learning and critical skill in a very conspicuous light a principal object of which was to restore the metre of the Greek tragic poets. It is highly valued by all sound critics of our own and foreign countries. He also furnished the notes on the Eton Greek tragedies. The same solidity of judgment distinguished the author’s last production, 4. “A Revisal of Shakspeare’s Text, wherein the alterations introduced into it by the more modern editors and critics are particularly considered,” 1765, 8vo. It appears from the list of Oxford graduates, that he was created D. C. L. by diploma, March 31, 1762. He died Sept. 13, 1766. The brother of this author, Mr. Thomas Heath, an alderman of Exeter, published “An Essay towards a new Version of Job,” &c. in 1755. This gentleman was father to John Heath, esq. one of the judges of the common pleas.

To the preceding list of Dr. Heathcote’s works, we may add that, at the request of Mr. Whiston, he wrote the life of Dr. Thomas Burnet, the learned master of the Charterhouse, prefixed to the edition of his works printed in 175y and in 1761, on the recommendation of Dr. Jortin, was engaged as one of the writers in the ftrst edition of this Dictionary, and contributed also some articles for the second, printed in 1784. In 1767 he published “A Letter to the hon. Horace Walpole, concerning the dispute between Mr. Hume and Mr, Rousseau,” 12mo, which in some of the Reviews wu*> supposed to be by Mr. Walpole himself. He also published an te Assize Sermon,*' and a pamphlet called “Memoirs of the late contested election for the county of Leicester,” 1775. His “Irenarch,” and the dedication and notes, he scattered up and down, but without alteration, in a miscellaneous work, published in 1786, entitled “Sylva, or the Wood;' 1 an entertaining collection of anecdotes, &c. which was reprinted in 1783; and in 1789, he had begun anothervolume of miscellanies, including some of his separate pieces, and memoirs of himself, of which last we have availed ourselves in the preceding sketch, from Mr. Nichols’s” Literary Anecdotes."

In 1766 he recommended to the college of physicians the first design of the “Medical Transactions,” in which he proposed to collect together such observations as might have occurred to any of their body, and were likely to illustrate the history or cure of diseases. The plan was soon adopted, and three volumes have successively been laid before the public, in 1768, 1772, and 1785. Among the useful communications contained in these volumes, the papers of Dr. Heberden himself are most prominent in number and value. His account of a fatal disorder of the chest, which he denominated Angim pectoris, first called the attention of physicians to it, as an idiopathic disease: and the numerous cases of it, which have since been promulgated, evince its frequency and importance. In this work, also, Dr. Heberden first gave an accurate descrip*. tion of the chicken-pox, pointing out its diagnostic symptoms with precision, chieHy with a view to prevent the very easy mistake of confounding it with a mild small-pox. Dr. Heberden communicated some other papers to the royal society, which were printed in its Transactions.

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.

, a French physician of singular merit and skill, hut a strong partizan of the use of warm water and of Weeding, for which reason he was ridiculed by Le Sage in his Gil Bias, under the name of Dr. Sangrado, was born at Abbeville, in 1661, and practised first in that city, then at Port-royal, and lastly at Paris. He was not properly san grado, for he took the degree of doctor in 1697; and in 1698 had more business than he could attend. Though attached to the most simple mode of life, he was obliged to keep his carriage, in which he studied with as much attention as in his closet. In 1712, he was appointed dean of the faculty of medicine, and superintended the publication of a sort of dispensary, called, “The New Code of Pharmacy,” which was published some time afterwards. Hecquet was no less zealous in religious matters than studious in his own profession, and is said never to have prescribed in doubtful cases, without having a previous recourse to prayer. He lived in the most abstemious manner, and in 1727 retired to a convent of Carmelites in Paris, where he continued accessible only to the poor, to whom he was a friend, a comforter, and a father. He died April 11, 1737, at the age of seventy-six. He was interred in the church of the Carmelites, where is a monument with a Latin inscription by Rollin. This able physician published several works, nene of them devoid of merit. They are thus enumerated: 1. “On the indecency of men-midwives, and the obligation of women to nurse their own children,” 1728, 12mo. The reasons he adduces on these subjects are both moral and physical. 2. “A Treatise on the Dispensations allowed in Lent,” 1705, and 1715, 2 vols. 12mo. His own abstemious system inclined him very little to allow the necessity of any indulgence; and it is said that when he visited any of his wealthy patients, he went into the kitchen, and embraced the cooks and officers of that department, acknowledging that they were the best friends the faculty had. 3. “On Digestion, and the Disorders of the Stomach,” in 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Treatise on the Plague,” 12mo. 5. “Novus Medicine conspectus,” 2 vols. 12mo. 6. “Theological Medicine,” 7 vols, 12mo. 7. “Natural Medicine,” ditto. 8. “De purganda Mediciftl a curarum sordibus,” 12mo. 9. “Observations on Bleeding in the Foot,” 12mo. 10. “The Virtues of common Water,” 2 vols. 12mo. This is the work in which he chiefly supports the doctrines ridiculed by Lft Sage. 1 I. “The abuse of Purgatives,” 12mo. 12. “The roguery of Medicine),” in tlm-e parts, 12:no. 13. “The Medicine, Surgery, and Pharmacy of the Poor,” 3 vols. 12mo; the best edition is in 1742. 1 *. “The Natural History of Convulsions,” in which he very sagaciously referred the origin of those disorders to roguery in some, a depraved imagination in others, or the consequence of some secret malady. The life of this illustrious physician has been written at large by M. le Fevre de St. Marc, and is no less edifying to Christians than instructive to medical students.

The late facetious duke of Montagu (the memorable contriver of the bottle-conjuror at the theatre in the Haymarket) gave an entertainment at the Devfl tavern, Templebar, to several of the nobility and gentry, to whom he imparted his plot. Heidegger was invited, and a few hours after dinner was made drunk, and laid insensible upon a bed. A profound sleep ensued; when the late Mrs. Salmon’s daughter was introduced, who took a mould from his face in plaster of Paris. From this a. mask was made, and a few days before the next masquerade (at which the king promised to be present, with the countess of Yarmouth) the duke made application to Heidegger’s valet de chambre, to know what suit of clothes he was likely to wear; and then procuring a similar dress, and a person of the same staturehe gave him his instructions. On the evening of the masquerade, as soon as his majesty was seated (who was always known by the conductor of the entertainment and the officers of the court, though concealed by his dress from the company), Heidegger, as usual, ordered the music to play “God save the King;” but his back was no sooner turned, than the false Heidegger ordered them to strike up “Charly over the Water.” The whole company were instantly thunderstruck, and all the courtiers not in the plot were thrown into a stupid consternation. Heidegger flew to the music-gallery, stamped and raved, and accused the mumusicians of drunkenness, or of being set on by some secret enemy to ruin him. The king and the countess laughed so immoderately, that they hazarded a discovery. While Heidegger stayed in the gallery, “God save the King” was the tune; but when, after setting matters to rights, he retired to one of the dancing-rooms, to observe if decorum was kept by the company, the counterfeit stepping forward, and placing himself upon the floor of the theatre, just in front of the music gallery, called out in a most audible voice, imitating Heidegger, and asked them if he had not just told them to play “Charly over the Water?” A pause ensued; the musicians, who knew his character, in their turn thought him either drunk or mad; but, as he continued his vociferation, “Charly” was played again. At this repetition of the supposed affront, some of the officers of the guards, who always attended upon these occasions, were for ascending the gallery, and kicking the musicians out; but the late duke of Cumberland, who could hardly contain himself, interposed. The company were thrown into great confusion. “Shame! Shame!” resounded from all parts, and Heidegger once more flew in a violent rage to that part of the theatre facing the gallery. Here the duke of Montagu, artfully addressing himself to him, told him “the king was in a violent passion; that his best way was to go instantly and make an apology, for certainly the musicians were mad, and afterwards to discharge them.” Almost at the same instant hq ordered the false Heidegger to do the same. The scene now became truly comic in the circle before the king. Heidegger had no sooner made a genteel apology for the insolence of his musicians, but the false Heidegger advanced, and in a plaintive tone cried out, “Indeed, Sire, it was not my fault, but that devil’s in my likeness.” Poor Heidegger turned round, stared, staggered, grew pale, and could not utter a word. The duke then humanely whispered in his ear the sum of his plot, and the counterfeit was ordered to take off his mask. Here ended the frolic; but Heidegger swore he would never attend any public amusement, if that witch the wax-work woman did not break the mould, and melt down the mask before his face.

Being once at supper with a large company, when a question was debated, which nation of Europe had the greatest ingenuity; to the surprise of all present, he claimed that character for the Swiss, and appealed to himself for the truth of it. “I was born a Swiss,” said he, “and came to England without a farthing, where I have found means to gain 5000l. a year, and to spend it. Now I defy the most able Englishman to go to Switzerland, and, either to gain that income, or to spend it there.” He died Sept. 4, 1749, at the advanced age of ninety years, at his house a: Richmond, in Surrey, where he was buried. He left behind him one natural daughter, miss Pappet, who was married Sept. 2, 1750, to captain (afterwards admiral sir Peter) Denis. Part of this lady’s fortune was a house at the north-west corner of Queen -square, Ormond -street, which sir Peter afterwards sold to the late Dr. Campbell, and purchased a seat in Kent, pleasantly situated near Westram, then called Valence, but now (by its present proprietor, the earl of Hillsborough) Hill Park.

, a celebrated scholar and critic, professor of politics and history at Leyden, and librarian of the university there, was born at Ghent, in Flanders, May 1SO, of an illustrious family, who had possessed the first places in the magistracy of that town. He was frequently removed in the younger part of his life. He began his studies at the Hague, and afterwards went with his parents into Zealand, where he was instructed in polite literature and philosophy. He soon learned the outlines of morality and politics, but did not relish logic, and had an unconquerable aversion to the niceties of grammar. He discovered early a strong propensity to poetry, and began to make verses before he knew any thing of prosody or the rules of art. He composed a regular elegy at ten years of age, upon the death of a play-fellow; and there are several epigrams and little poems of his, written when he was not above twelve, which shew a great deal of genius and facility. He is represented, however, as having been somewhat indolent, and not likely to make any progress in Greek Und Latin learning; on which account his father sent him, at fourteen years of age, to study the law in the university of Franeker. But from that time, as if he had been influenced by a spirit of contradK*:on, nothing would please him but classics; and he applies inmself there to Greek and Latin authors, as obstinately as he had rejected them in Zealand. He afterwards removed to Leyden, where he became a pupil of Joseph Scaliger; and was obliged to the encouragement and care of that great man for the perfection to which he afterwards arrived in literature, and which at the beginning of his life there was so little reason to expect. He published an edition of “Silius Italicus,” in 1600, professedly taken from an ancient ms. and added notes of his own, which he called “Crepundia Siliana,” to shew that they were written when he was extremely young. This edition was reprinted at Cambridge, 1646, 12mo. Heinsius was made Greek professor at eighteen, and afterwards succeeded Scaliger in the professorship of politics and history. When he was chosen librarian to the university, he pronounced a Latin oration, afterwards published, in which he described the duties of a librarian, and the good order and condition in which a library should be kept. Being a great admirer of the moral doctrine of the stoics, he wrote an elegant oration in praise of the stoic philosophy. He died Feb. 25, 1655, after having distinguished himself as a critic by his labours upon Silius Italicus, Theocritus, Hesiod, Seneca, Homer, Hesychius, Theophrastus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ovid, Livy, Terence, Horace, Prudentius, Maximus Tyrius, &c. He published two treatises “De Satira Horatiana,” which Balzac affirms to be masterpieces. He also wrote poems in various languages, which, have been often printed, and always admired. He was the author of several prose works, some of which were of the humourous and satirical cast; as “Laus Asini,” “Laus Pediculi,” &c.

His poems, which are much admired, have been several times printed: but the best edition is that of Amsterdam, 1666. Some think him worthy to be called “The Swan bf Holland.” He wrote notes upon, and gave editions of Virgil, Ovid, Valerius Flaccus, Claudian, Prudentius, &c. Bentley, in a note upon Horace, 2 Sat. vi. 108. calls his edition of Virgil, “editio castigatissima.” His Claurlian is dedicated, in a Latin poem, to Christina queen of Sweden and his Ovid to Thuanus, At his death, it is said, that he capriciously disowned all his works and expressed the utmost regret at having left behind him so many “monuments of his vanity,” as he called them.

, commonly called Van Helmont, from a borough and castle of that name in Brabant, was a person of quality, and a man of great learning, especially in physic and natural philosophy; and born at Brussels in 1577. The particulars of his life, as given in the two introductory chapters to his works, give a just notion of the man.

“In the year 1580,” says he, " a most miserable one to the Low Countries, my father died. I, the youngest and least esteemed of all my brothers and sisters, was bred a scholar; and in the year 1594, which was to me the 17th, had finished the course of philosophy. Upon seeing none admitted to examinations at Louvain, but in a gown, and masked with a hood, as though the garment did promise learning, I began to perceive, that the taking degrees in arts was a piece of mere mockery; and wondered at the simplicity of young men, in fancying that they had learned any thing from their doting professors. I entered, therefore, into a serious and honest examination of myself, that I might know by my own judgment, how much I was a philosopher, and whether I had really acquired truth and knowledge: but found myself altogether destitute, save that I had learned to wrangle artificially. Then came I first to perceive, that I knew nothing, or at least that which was not worth knowing. Natural philosophy seemed to promise something of knowledge, to which therefore I joined the study of astronomy. I applied myself also to logic and the mathematics, by way of recreation, when I was wearied with other studies; and made myself a master of Euclid’s Elements, as I did also of Copernicus’s theory ‘ De revolutionibus orbium ccelestium:’ but all these things were of no account with me, because they contained Jittle truth and certainty, little but a parade of science falsely so called. Finding after all, therefore, that nothing was sound, nothing true, I refused the title of master of arts, though I had finished my course; unwilling, that professors should play the fool with me, in declaring me a master of the seven arts, when I was conscious to myself that I knew nothing.

From this curious account, given in the preceding editions of this Dictionary, and which we are unwilling to displace, it will be seen that Van Helmont had a strong portion of enthusiasm; but he was not the madman which some of his contemporaries imagined. For a period of thirty years he pursued his researches into the products of nature, with such perseverance, as to leave few of the known animal, vegetable, and mineral bodies unexamined. In the course of these investigations, he necessarily fell upon the discovery of several of the products of decomposition, and of new combination, which chemistry affords: among these he seems to have been the first to notice the spirit of hartshorn, the spirit of sulphur per campanam, as it was called, and the aerial part of the spa-waters, which he first denominated gas (from the German geist, ghost, or spirit), and several other substances. Among these were many articles possessing considerable influence upon the living body, which, being contrasted with the inertness of the simples of the Galenical practice, roused and confirmed his former opinions against the doctrines of that school; which he now attacked with great ardour and strength of argument, and which he contributed to overthrow. But partly in imitation of Paracelsus, whom he greatly admired, and partly from an attempt to generalize the confused mass of new facts, which he had acquired, he attempted to reduce the whole system of medicine to the principles of chemistry, and substituted a jargon as unintelligible, and hypotheses as gratuitous, as those which he had attempted to refute. He published from time to time a variety of works, by which he obtained considerable reputation. The elector of Cologne, who was himself attached to chemical inquiries, held him in great esteem; and he received from the emperor Rodolph II. and uis two successors, invitations to the court of Vienna; but he preferred his laboratory and cabinet to these proffered honours. He died on the 30th of December, 1644, in the sixty-eighth year of his age.

, the most remarkable of this family, was born at Paris in 1715, and was son of the preceding Helvetius. He studied under the famous father Pon'e in the college of Louis the Great, and his tutor, discovering in his compositions remarkable proofs of genius, was particularly attentive to his education. An early association with the wits of his time gave him the desire to become an author, but his principles unfortunately became tainted with false philosophy. He did not publish any thing till 1758, when he produced his celebrated book “DeTEsprit,” which appeared first in one volume 4to, and afterwards in three volumes, 12mo. This work was very justly condemned by the parliament of Paris, as confining the faculties of man to animal sensibility, and removing at once the restraints of vice and the encouragements to virtue. Attacked in various ways at home, on account of these principles, he visited England in 1764, and the next year went into Prussia, where he was received with honourable attention by the king. When he returned into France, he led a retired and domestic life on his estate at Vore. Attached to his wife and family, and strongly inclined to benevolence, he lived there more happily than at Paris, where, as he said, he “was obliged to encounter the mortifying spectacle of misery that he could not relieve.” To Marivaux, and M. Saurin, of the French academy, he allowed pensions, that, for a private benefactor, were considerable, merely on the score of merit; which he was anxious to search out and to assist. Yet, with all this benevolence of disposition, he was strict in the care of his game, and in the exaction of his feudal rights. He was maltre-d'hotel to the queen, and, for a time, a farmer-general, but quitted that lucrative post to enjoy his studies. When he found that he had bestowed his bounty upon unworthy persons, or was reproached with it, he said, “If I was king, I would correct them; but I am only rich, and they are poor, my business therefore is to aid them.” Nature had been kind to Helvetius; she had given him a fine person, genius, and a constitution which promised long life. This last, however, he did not attain, for he was attacked by the gout in his head and stomach, under which complaint he languished some little time, and died in December 1771. His works were, 1. the treatise “De l'Esprit,” “on the Mind,” already mentioned: of* which various opinions have been entertained, It certainly is one of those which endeavour to degrade the nature of man too nearly to that of mere animals; and even Voltaire, who called the author at one time a true philosopher, has said that it is filled with common-place truths, delivered with great parade, but without method, and disgraced by stories very unworthy of a philosophical production. The ideas of virtue and vice, according to this book, depend chiefly upon climate. 2. “Le Bonheur,” or “Happiness,” a poem in six cantos; published after his death, in 1772, with some fragments of epistles. His poetical style is still more affected than his prose, and though he produces some fine verses, he is more frequently stiff and forced. His poem on happiness is a declamation, in which he makes that great object depend, not on virtue, but on the cultivation of letters and the arts. 3. “De l'Homme,” 2 vols. 8vo, another philosophical work, not less bold than the first. A favourite paradox, produced in this book, under a variety of different forms, is, “that all men are born with equal talents, and owe their genius solely to education.” This book is even more dangerous than that on the mind, because the style is clearer, and the author writes with less reserve. He* speaks sometimes of the enemies of what he called philosophy, with an asperity that ill accords with the general mildness of his character.

, a very learned man, born at the Hague, was a fine poet and orator; and to be compared, says Gronovius, in his “Orat. funeb. J. Golii,” with the Roman Atticus for his probity, tranquillity of life, and absolute disregard of honours and public employments. He went to Rome, and spent six years in the palace of cardinal Cesi. He wrote there' a panegyric on pope Clement VIII. which was so graciously received, that he was offered the post of librarian to the Vatican, or a very good benefice; and preferring the latter, was made a canon in the cathedral at Antwerp. Lipsius had a great esteem for him, as appears from his letters. He was Grotius’s friend also, and published verses to congratulate him on his deliverance from confinement. He was uncle by the mother’s side to James Golius, the learned professor at Leyden, who gained so vast a reputation by his profound knowledge in the Oriental languages: but Golius, who was a zealous protestant, could never forgive his having converted his brother Peter to popery. Hemelar applied himself much more to the study of polite literature and to the science of medals, than to theology. “He published,” says Gronovius, " extremely useful commentaries upon the medals of the Roman emperors, from the time of Julius Caesar down to Justinian, taken from the cabinets of Charles Arschot and Nicholas Rocoxius; wherein he concisely and accurately explains by marks, figures, &c. whatever is exquisite, elegant, and suitable or agreeable to the history of those times, and the genius of the monarchs, whether the medals in question be of gold, silver, or brass, whether cast or struck in that immortal city. It is a kind of storehouse of medals; and nevertheless in this work, from which any other person would have expected prodigious reputation, our author has been so modest as to conceal his name.' 7 This work of Hemelar’s, which is in Latin, is not easily to be met with, yet it has been twice printed iirst at Antwerp, in 1615, at the en.I of a work of James De Bie and secondly, in 1627, 4to which Clement has described as a very rare edition Bayle mentions a third edition of 1654, folio, but the work which he mistakes for a third edition, was only a collection of engravings of Roman coins described by Gevartius, in which are some from Hemelar’s work. The other works of this canon are some Latin poems and orations. He died in 1640. He is sometimes called Hamelar.

, another painter, perhaps c-f the family with the former, exhibited much fancy in the subjects he chose for his pencil, but with vigour of execution. He was born at Haerlem in 1645, and was a disciple of Peter Grebber, whose manner he left for that of Brouwer. In his own time his compositions were much esteemed, because of their gross humour, and the whimsical imagination that reigned in them; but they are not now so much prized. His delight was in painting fanciful, wild, and uncommon scenes of his own composing; such as the nocturnal intercourse of witches, devils, and spectres; enchantments, temptations of St. Anthony, interiors of alehouses with drunken men, monldes in the actions of men and women, &c. &c. all which he wrought with great freedom of touch and intelligence of drawing. His colour likewise, though not always pure, was in general rich and agreeable. He quitted his own country to settle in London, where he died in 1704. It was customary with him to paint his own portrait in his drolls, and which was not of the most engaging kind; and he wrought by means of a looking-glass his characters from his own face. There was another Egbert Hemskirk, called by distinction the Old, who painted subjects of the like kind with more success.

, or Hemsterhusius, one of the most famous critics of his country, the son of Francis Hemsterhuis, a physician, was born at Groningen, Feb. 1, 1635. After obtaining the rudiments of literature from proper masters, and from his father, he became a member of his native university in his fourteenth year, 1698. He there studied for some years, and then removed to Leyden, for the sake of attending the lectures of the famous James Perizonius on ancient history. He was here so much noticed by the governors of the university, that it was expected he would succeed James Gronovius as professor of Greek. Havercamp, however, on the vacancy, was appointed, through the intrigues, as Ruhnkenius asserts, of some who feared they might be eclipsed by young Hemsterhuis; who in 1705, at the age of nineteen, was called to Amsterdam, and appointed professor of mathematics and philosophy. In the former of these branches he had been a favourite scholar of the famous John Bernouilli. In 1717, he removed to Franeker, on being chosen to succeed Lambert Bos as professor of Greek; to which place, in 1738, was added the professorship of history. In 1740 he removed to Leyden to accept the same two professorships in that university. It appears that he was married, because his father-in-law, J. Wild, is mentioned; he died April 7, 1766, having enjoyed to the last the use of all his faculties. He published, 1. “The three last books of Julius Pollux’s Onomasticon,” to complete the edition of which, seven books had been finished by Lederlin. This was published at Amsterdam in 1706. On the appearance of this work, he received a letter from Bentley, highly praising him for the service he had there rendered to his author. But this very letter was nearly the cause of driving him entirely from the study of Greek criticism: for in it Bentley transmitted his own conjectures on the true readings of the passages cited by Pollux from comic writers, with particular view to the restoration of the metre. Hemsterhuis had himself attempted the same, but, when he read the criticisms of Bentley, and saw their astonishing justness and acuteness, he was so hurt at the inferiority of his own, that he resolved, for the time, never again to open a Greek book. In a month or two this timidity went off, and he returned to these studies with redoubled vigour, determined to take Bentley for his model, and to' qualify himself, if possible, to rival one whom he so greatly admired. 2. “Select Colloquies of Lucian, and his Timon,” Amst. 1708. 3. “The Plutus of Aristophanes, with the Scholia,” various readings and notes, Harlingen, 1744, 8vo. 4. “Part of an edition of Lucian,” as far as the 521st page of the first volume; it appeared in 1743 in four volumes quarto, the remaining parts being edited by J. M. Gesner and Reitzius. The extreme slowness of his proceeding is much complained of by Gesner and others, and was the reason why he made no further progress. 5. % “Notes and emendations on Xenophon Ephesius,” inserted in the 36 volumes of the te Miscellanea Critica“of Amsterdam, with the signature T. S. H. S. 6.” Some observations upon Chrysostom’s Homily on the Epistle to Philemon,“subjoined to Raphelius’s Annotations on the New Testament. 7.” Inaugural Speeches on various occasions.“8. There are also letters from him to J. Matth. Gesner and others; and he gave considerable aid to J. St. Bernard, in publishing the ' Eclogae Thomae Magistri,” at Leyden, in 1757. His “Philosophical Works” were published at Paris in 1792, 2 vols. 8vo, but he was a better critic -than philosopher. Ruhnkenius holds up Hemsterhusius as a model of a perfect critic, and indeed, according to his account, the extent and variety of his knowledge, and the acuteness of his judgment, were very extraordinary.

, an eminent French writer, and president in parliament, was born at Paris, Feb. 8, 1685. His great grandfather, Remi Henault, used to be of Lewis XIII.' s party at tennis, and that prince called him “The Baron,” because of a fief which he possessed near Triel. He had three sons, officers of horse, who were all killed at the siege of Casal. John Remi, his father, an esquire, and lord of Moussy, counsellor to the king, and secretary to the council, kept up the honour of the family, and becoming farmer-general, made his fortune. He was honoured with the confidence of the count de Pontchartrain; and, being of a poetical turn, had some share in the criticisms which appeared against Racine’s tragedies. He married the daughter of a rich merchant at Calais, and one of her brothers being president of that town, entertained the queen of England on her landing there in 1689. Another brother, counsellor in the parliament of Metz, and secretary to the duke of Berry, was associated with Mr. Crozat in the armaments, and, dying unmarried, left a great fortune to his sister. Young Renault early discovered a sprightly, benevolent disposition, and his penetration and aptness soon distinguished itself by the success of his studies. Claude de Lisle, father of the celebrated geographer, gave him the same lessons in geography and history which he had before given to the duke of Orleans, afterwards regent. These instructions have been printed in seven volumes, under the title of “Abridgment of Universal History.”

In 1763 Henault drew near his end. One morning, after a quiet night, he felt an oppression, which the faculty pronounced a suffocating cough. His confessor being sent to him, he formed his resolution without alarm. He mentioned afterwards, that he recollected having then said to himself, “What do I regret” and called to mind that saying of madame de Sevigne, “I leave here only dying creatures.” He received the sacraments. It was believed the next night would be his last; but by noon the next day he was out of danger. “Now,” said he, “I know what death is. It will not be new to me any more.” He never forgot it during the following seven years of his life, which, like all the rest, were gentle and calm. Full of gratitude for the favours of Providence, resigned to its decrees, offering to the Author of his being a pure and sincere devotion; he felt his infirmities without complaining, and perceived a gradual decay with unabated firmness. He died Dec. 24, 1771, in his 86th year. He married, in 1714, a daughter of M. le Bas de Montargis, keeper of the royal treasure, &c. who died in 1728, without leaving any issue. He treated as his own children, those of his sister, who had married, in 1713, the count de Jonsac, and by him had three sons and two daughters. The two younger sons were killed, one at Brussels, the other at Lafelt, both at the head of the regiments of which they were colonels; the eldest long survived, and was lieutenant-general and governor of Collioure and Port Vendre in Roussillon. The elder daughter married M. le Veneur, count de Tillieres, and died in 1757; the second married the marquis d'Aubeterre, ambassador to Vienna, Madrid, and Rome. In 1800 a very able posthumous work of the president’s was published at Paris, entitled “Histoire Critique de l'Etablissement des Francois dans les Gaules,” 2 vols. 8vo.

, an English gentleman of parts and learning, was the son of sir R ->bert Henley, of the Grange in Hampshire, descended from the Henleys of Henley in Somersetshire; of whom sir Andrew Henley was created a baronet in 1660. This sir Andrew had a son of the same name, famous for his frolics and profusion. His seat, called Bramesley, near Hartley-row, in the county of Southampton, was very large and magnifirent. He had a great estate in that and the other western counties, which was reduced by him to a very small one, or to nothing. Sir Robert Henley of the Grange, his uncle, was a man of good sense and osconomy. He held the master’s place of the King’s-bench court, on the pleas side, many years; and by the profits of it, and good management, left his son, Anthony Henley, of the Grange, of whom we now treat, possessed of a very fine fortune, above 3000l. a-year, part of which arose from the ground-rents of LincolnVinnfields. Anthony Henley was bred at Oxford, where he distinguished himself by an early relish for polite learning. He made a great proficiency in the study of the classics, and particularly the ancient poets, by which he formed a good taste for poetry, and wrote verses with success. Upon his coming to London, he was presently received into the friendship and familiarity of persons of the first rank for quality and wit, particularly the earls of Dorset and Sunclerland. The latter had especially a great esteem and affection for him; and as every one knew what a secret influence he had on affairs in king William’s court, it was thought strange that Mr. Henley, who had a genius for any thing great, as well as any thing gay, did not rise in the state, where he would have shone as a politician, no Jess than he did at Will’s and Tom’s as a wit. But the Muses and pleasure had engaged him. He had something of the character of Tibullus, and, except his extravagance, was possessed of all his other qualities; his indolence, his gallantry, his wit, his humanity, his. generosity, his learning, his taste for letters. There was hardly a contemporary author, who did not experience his bounty. They soon found him out, and attacked him with their dedications; which, though he knew how to value as they deserved, were always received as well as the addressers could wish; and his returns were made so handsomely, that the manner was as grateful as the present.

This strange man struck medals, which he dispersed as tickets to his subscribers: a star rising to the meridian, with this motto, “ad summa;” and below, *' Inveniam viam, aut faciam.“Each audkor paid Is. His audience was generally composed of the lowest ranks; and it is well known, that he once collected a vast number of shoemakers, by announcing that he could teach them a speedy mode of operation in their business, which proved only to be, the making of shoes bv cutting off the tops of readymade boots. His motto on this occasion was,” Onine majus continet in se minus.“He was author of a weekly paper of unintelligible nonsense, called” The Hyp Doctor,“for which secret service he had 100l. a year given him, and which was intended to counteract the effect of the” Craftsman,“a proof how little his patron sir Robert Walpole knew of literary assistance. Henley used, every Saturday, to print an advertisement in” The Daily Advertiser," containing an account of the subjects on which he intended to discourse in the ensuing evening, at his Oratory near Lincoln’s-inn-fields. The advertisement had a sort of motto before it, which was generally a sneer at some public transaction of the preceding week . Henley died Oct. 14, 1756. In his account of himself he assumes the credit of considerable learning, and a strong zeal for knowledge, which at one time certainly was the case, but his talents became miserably perverted, if we may judge from the specimens we have seen of his compositions. Both his style and his thoughts are low; vanity and censoriousness are the most conspicuous qualities, and his manners, become gross and ferocious, corresponded with his writings.

Orator Henley is a principal figure in two very humorous plates of Hogarth; in one of which he is “christening a child;” in the other, called “The Oratory,” he is represented on a scaffold, a monkey (over whom is written Amen) by his side a box of pills, and “The Hyp Doctor,” lying beside him. Over his head “The Oratory Inveniam viam, aut faciam.” Over the door, “Ingredere ut proficias.” A parson receiving the money for admission. Under him, “The Treasury.” A butcher stands as porter. On the left hand, Modesty in a cloud; Folly in a coach; and a gibbet prepared for Merit; people laughing. One marked “The Scout,” introducing a puritan divine.

, a learned Dominican, a native of France, was born about 1499, and went into Portugal in his infancy, and was there educated. He afterwards entered into the Dominican order at Louvain, where he died in 1566. He published some of the works of Euthymius Zigubenus, QScumenius, and Arethras, but is best known for the aid he contributed in publishing a beautiful edition of the Vulgate Bible, printed by Plantin in 1565, 5 vols, 12mo, and the Louvain Bible of 1547, reprinted 1583. The faculty of Louvain, who had engaged his assistance in these editions, employed him also on a less honourable commission, to collect from the works of Erasmus all erroneous and scandalous propositions, as they were called, that they might be laid before the council of Trent. This commission he executed in the true spirit of expurgatorial bigotry.

, a miscellaneous writer, and an imitator of the periodical essays of queen Anne’s reign, was born in Scotland in 1690, and in 1711 began a periodical paper called The Tatler, by Donald Macstaff of the North,“which extended to thirty numbers. They are evidently the production of a man of vigorous native powers, and of a, mind not meanly stored with ancient learning, and familiar with the best writings of the moderns; but they gave much offence, by the description of known characters, and by the personal satire which the author employed, with no gentle or delicate hand, on some men of note, both in the ecclesiastical and civil departments, among his countrymen. Mr. Hepburn, who had studied the civil law in Holland, became a member of the faculty of advocates at Edinburgh in 1712, and died soon after very young. Lord Hailes justly termed him” ingenii praecocis etpraefervidi.“In the concluding paper of his” Tatler“he announced, as then in the press, a translation of sir George Mackenzie’s” Idea eloquentia? Forensis;“and in the Advocates’ library is a small volume containing two treatises of his writing; the one entitled” Demonstratio quod Deus sit,“and the ether, Dissertatio de Scriptis Pitcarnianis.” The former of these is neatly and methodically written; the latter is somewhat jejune in point of matter, and too lavish of general panegyric.

, French, Didier Herault, a counsellor of the parliament of Paris, has given good proofs of uncommon learning by very different works. His “Adversaria” appeared in 1599; which little book, if the “Scaligerana” may be credited, he repented having published. His notes on Tertullian’s “Apology,” on “Minutius Fe&­lix,” and on “Arnobius,” have been esteemed. He also wrote notes on Martial’s “Epigrams.” He disguised himself under the name of David Leidhresserus, to write a political dissertation on the independence of kings, some time after the death of Henry IV. He had a controversy with Salmasius “de jure Attico ac Romano;” but did not live to finish what he had written on that subject. What he he had done, however, was printed in 1650. He died in June 1649. Guy Patin says, that “he was looked upon as a very learned man, both in the civil law and in polite literature, and wrote with great facility on any subject he pitched on.” Daille, speaking of such protestant writers as condemned the execution of Charles I. king of England, quotes the “Pacifique Royal en deuil,” by Heranlt. This author, son to our Desiderius Heraldus, was a minister in Normandy, when he was called to the service of the Walloon-church of London under Charles I. but was so zealous a royalist, that he was forced to fly to France, to escape the fury of the commonwealth’s-men. He returned to England after the restoration, and resumed his ancient employment in the Walloon-church at London: some time after which he obtained a canonry in the cathedral of Canterbury, and enjoyed it till his death.

, lord Herbert, of Cherbury in Shropshire, an eminent English writer, was descended from a very ancient family, and born 1581, at Montgomery-­castle in Wales. At the age of fourteen he was entered as a gentleman-commoner at University college, in Oxford, where he laid, says Wood, the foundation of that admirable learning, of which he was afterwards a complete master. In 1600 he came to London, and shortly after the accession of James I. was created knight of the hath. He served the office of high sheriff for the county of Montgomery, and divided his time between the country and the court. In 1608, feeling wearied with the sameness of domestic scenes, he visited the continent, carrying with him some romantic notions on the point of honour, which, in. such an age, were likely to involve him in perpetual quarrels. His advantageous person and manners, and the reputation for courage which he acquired, gained him many friends, among whom was the constable Montmorenci. As a seat of this nobleman he passed several months practising horsemanship, and other manly exercises, in which he became singularly expert. He returned to England in 1609, and in the following, year he quitted it again, in. order that he might have the opportunity of serving with the English forces sent to assist the prince of Orange at the siege of Juliers. Here he signalised himself by his valour, which, in some instances, was carried to the extreme of rashness. After the siege he visited Antwerp and Brussels, and returned to London, where he was looked now upon as one of the most conspicuous characters of the time. An attempt was made to assassinate him, in revenge for some liberties which he took, or was supposed to have taken, with a married lady. In 1614 he went into the Low. Countries to serve under the prince of Orange; after this he engaged with the duke of Savoy, to conduct from France a body of protestants to Piedmont for his service. In 1616 he was sent ambassador to Louis XIII. of France, to mediate for the relief of the protestants of that realm, but was recalled in July 1621, on account of a dispute between him and the constable de Luines. Camden says that he had treated the constable irreverently; but Walton tells us that “he could not subject himself to a compliance with the humours of the duke de Luines, who was then the great and powerful favourite at court: so that, upon a complaint to our king, he was called back into England in some displeasure; but at his return gave such an honourable account of his employment, and so justified his comportment to the duke and all the court, that he was suddenly sent back upon the same embassy.”

His most useful work, the “History of the Life and Reign of Henry VIII.” was published in 1649, a year after his death, and has always been much admired. Nicolson says, that lord Herbert “acquitted himself in this history with the like reputation, as the lord chancellor Bacon gained by that of Henry Vllth. For in the public and martial part this honourable author has been admirably particular and exact from the best records that were extant; though as to the ecclesiastical, he seems to have looked upon it as a thing out of his province, and an undertaking more proper for men of another profession.” Although it has been considered as a very valuable piece of history, there is not, perhaps, so much candour displayed in every part as could be wished. In 1663, appeared his book “De Religione Gentilium, errorumque apud eos causis.” The first part was printed at London, in 1645; and that year he sent the ms. of it to Gerard Vossius, as appears from a letter of his lordship’s, and Vossius’s answer. An English translation of this work was published in 1705, under this title: “The ancient Religion of the Gentiles, and causes of their errors considered. The mistakes and failures of the Heathen Priests and wise men, in their notions of the Deity and matters of Divine Worship, are examined with regard to their being destitute of Divine Revelation.” Lord Herbert wrote also in 1630, “Expeditio Buckingham! ducis in Ream insulam,” which was published in 1656; and “Occasional Verses,” published in 1665, by his son Henry Herbert, and dedicated to Edward lord Herbert, his grandson; hut they form no claim to the poetical character. Christian Kortholt, on account of his book “De Veritate,” has ranked him with Hobbes and Spinosa, in his dissertation entitled “De tribus impostoribus magnis, Edvardo Herbert, Thoma Hobbes, & Benedicto Spinosa, Liber,” printed at Kilon m 1680. Granger has very aptly described him as a man who was at once wise and capricious: who redressed wrongs, and quarrelled for punctilios; hated bigotry in religion, and was himself a bigot to philosophy; exposed himself to suoh dangers as other men of courage would have carefully declined and called in question the fundamentals of religion, which none had the hardiness to dispute besides himself. The life of lord Herbert, written by himself, was recovered by the family, after having been long missing, and printed at Strawberry -hill, by lord OrItbrd, in 1764, for private distribution; but was reprinted for sale by Dodsley in 1770, 4to. Lord Orford observes, that it is, perhaps, the most extraordinary account that ever was seriously given by a wise man of himself.

, earl of Pembroke, was born at Wilton in Wiltshire, April 8, 1580, and admitted of Newcollege in Oxford in 1592, where he continued about two years. In 1601, he succeeded to his father’s honours and estate; was made knight of the garter in 1604; and governor of Portsmouth six years after. In 1626 he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, and about the same time made lord steward of the king’s houshold. He died suddenly at his house called Baynard’s-castle, in London, April 10, 1630; according, as Wood foolishly says, to the calculation of his nativity, made several years before by Mr. Thomas Allen, of Gloucester-hall. Clarendon, however, seriously relates, concerning this calculation, that some considerable persons connected with lord Pembroke being met at Maidenhead, one of them at supper drank a health to the lord steward: upon which another said, that he believed his lordship was at that time very merry; for he had now outlived the day, which it had been prognosticated upon his nativity he would not outlive; but he had done it now, for that was his birth-day, which had completed his age to fifty years. The next morning, however, they received the news of his death. Mr. Park remarks that had his lordship possessed a credulous mind, it might have been suspected that this astrological prediction had worked upon his feelings, and occasioned a temporary suspension of the animal faculties, which was too hastily concluded to be dissolution; for Mr. Granger states it as an accredited fact in the Pembroke family, that when his lordship’s body was opened in order to be embalmed, he was observed, immediately after the incision was made, to lift up his hand. This remarkable circumstance, adds Granger, compared with lord Clarendon’s account of his sudden death, affords a strong presumptive proof that his distemper was an apoplexy. Lord Pembroke was not only a great favourer of learned and ingenious men, but was himself learned, and endued with a considerable share of poetic genius. All that are extant of his productions in this way, were published with this title: “Poems written by William earl of Pembroke, &c. many of which are answered by way pf repartee by sir Benjamin Rudyard, with other poems written by them occasionally and apart,” 1660," 8vo.

, an eminent practical and theoretical German musician, was born at Nuremberg. In 1628 he was appointed chapel-master at Francfort on the Maine, and continued in that station till 1641, when he was called to the same office at Nuremberg. However, in 1650 he thought fit to return to Francfort, at the solicitation of the magistrates and others his friends; and being by them re-instated in his former dignity, he continued in that station till the time of his death, in 1660. He was excellently skilled in the theory of music, and in the art of practical composition, and was a sound and judicious organist. In 1643 he published, in the German language, a book entitled “Musica Poetica” and, ten years after, a translation, either from the Latin or the Italian, for it is extant in both languages, of the “Arte prattica e poetica of Giov. Chiodino,” in ten books. Herbst was also the author of a tract entitled “Musica njoderna prattica, overo maniere del buon canto,” printed at Francfort in 1658, in which he recommends the Italian manner of singing. His other works are, a small tract on Thoroughbass, and a discourse on counterpoint, containing directions for composing “a mente non a penna.” Of his musical compositions, all that are extant in print are, “Meletemata sacra Davidis,” and “Suspiria S. Gregorii ad Christum,” for three voices. These were printed in 1619, as was also a nameless composition by him for six voices.

, a German philosopher of the new school, was born in 1741, in a small town of Prussia, and was originally intended for the profession of a surgeon, but afterwards studied divinity, and was invited to Buckeburg, to officiate as minister, and to be a member of the consistory of the ecclesiastical council, In 1774 he was promoted by the duke of Saxe Weimar, to be first preacher to the court, and ecclesiastical counsellor, to which was afterwards added the dignity of vice-president cjf the consistory of Weimar, which he held until his death, Pec. 18, 1803. Some of his ficst works gained him great^ praise, both as a critic antj philosopher; such as his, 1. “Three fragments on the new German Literature,” Riga, 1776. 2. “On the Writings of Thomas Abbt,” Berlin, 1768; and “On the origin of Language,” ibid. 1772. But he afterwards fell into mysticism, and that obscure mode of reasoning which has too frequently been dignified, with the name of philosophy. The first specimen he gave of this was in his “Oldest Notices of the Origin of Mankind,” Riga, 1774; after which his system, if it may be so called, was more fully developed in his “Outlines of a philosophy of the history of Man,” of which an English translation was published in 1800, 4to, but without attracting much public notice. It was not indeed to be supposed that such extravagant opinions, conveyed in an obscure jargon, made up of new and fanciful terms, and frequently at variance with revealed religion, could be very acceptable to an English public.

, 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.

Hennas’s book, “The Shepherd,” is the only remains of this father, and has been highly extolled by some of the ancients, while its authenticity has been called in question by others; and most of the fathers, who have spoken of it well themselves, plainly enough insinuate, that there were others who did not put the same value upon it. The moderns in general have not esteemed it so highly; and indeed, as Dupin observes, “whether we consider the manner it is written in, or the matter it contains, it does not appear to merit much regard.” The first part, for it is divided into three, is called “Visions,” and contains many visions, which are explained to Hermas by a woman, who represents the church. These visions regard the state of the church, and the manners of the Christians. The second, which is the most useful, is called “Commands,' 1 and comprehends many moral and pious instructions, delivered to Hernias by an angel and the third is called” Similitudes." Many useful lessons are taught in these books, but the visions, allegories., and similitudes, have little to recommend them.

This philosopher has stood exceedingly high in the opinion of mankind, ancients as well as moderns. Plato tells us, that he was the inventor of letters, of ordinary writing, and hieroglyphics. Cicero says, that he was governor of Egypt, and invented letters, as well as delivered the first laws to the people of that country; and Suidas asserts, that he flourished before Pharoah, and acquired the surname of Trismegistus, because he gave out something oracular concerning the Trinity. Gyraldus thinks he was called Thrice Great, because he was the greatest philosopher, the greatest priest, and the greatest king. When the great lord chancellor Bacon endeavoured to do justice to the merits of our James I. he could think of no better means for this purpose, than by comparing him to Hermes Trismegistus, who was at once distinguished by the glory of a king, the illuminations of a priest, and the learning of a philosopher."

, an heretic of the second century, was a native of Africa, a painter, and stoic philosopher, and was alive in the days of Tertullian, according to Fleury. Tillemont makes him flourish in the year 200; but Du Fresnoy says he did not preach his erroneous opinions concerning the origin of the world, and the nature of the soul, till the year 208. He established matter as the first principle, and made Idea the mother of all the elements; for which reason his followers were commonly called Mattriarians. By his assertion of the self-existence and improduction of matter, he endeavoured to give an account (as stoic philosophers had done before him) of the original of evils; and to free God from the imputation of them, he argued thus: God made all things either out of himself, or out of nothing, or out of pre-existent matter. He could not make all things out of himself, because, himself being always unmade, he should then really have been the maker of nothing: and he did not make all out of nothing, because, being essentially good, he would have made every thing in the best manner, and so there could have been no evil in the world: but since there are evils, and these could not proceed from the will of God, they must needs rise from the fault of something, and therefore of the matter out of which things were made. His followers denied the resurrection, rejected water-baptism, asserted that angels were composed of fire and spirit, and were the creators of the soul of man; and that Christ, as he ascended, diveste'd himself of human nature, and left his body in the sun. Tertullian has written against him.

, so called rather from his power and talents than his goodness, was a native of Ascalon in Judea, and thence sometimes called the Ascalonite. He was born seventy years before the Christian osra, the son of Antipater an Idumean, who appointed him to the government of Galilee. He at first embraced the party of Brutus and Cassius, but, after their death, that of Antony. By him he was named tetrarch, and afterwards, by his interest, king of Judea in the year 40 A. C. After the battle of Actium, he so successfully paid his court to Augustus, that he was by him confirmed in his kingdom. On all occasions he proved himself an able politician and a good soldier. But he was far from being master of his passions, and his rage very frequently was. directed against his own family. Aristobiilus, brother to his beloved wife Mariamne, her venerable grandfather Hyrcanus, and finally she herself, fell victims to his jealousy and fury. His keen remorse fojp her death rendered him afterwards yet more cruel. He put to death her mother Alexandra, and many others of his family. His own sons Alexander and Aristobulus having excited his suspicions, he destroyed them also, which made Augustus say, that it was better to be Herod’s hog than his son. Among his good actions svas *he rebuilding qf the temple at Jernsalenj, which be performed in nine years, with great magnificence; and in the time of a famine he sold many valuable and curious articles he had collected, to relieve the sufferers. To Augustus he paid the utmost adulation, and even divine honours. At the birth of our Saviour, his jealousy was so much excited by the prophetic intimations of his greatness, that he slaughtered all the infants in Bethlehem, in hopes of destroying him among the number. But his tyranny was now nearly at an end, and two or three years after the birth of Christ he died of a miserable disease at the age of more than seventy. He had nine or ten wives, of which number Mariamiie was the second. A little before his death, soured yet more by his acute sufferings, he attempted a greater act of cruelty than any he had performed in his former life. He sent for all the most considerable persons in Judea, and ordered that as soon as he was dead, they should all be massacred, that every great family in the country might weep for him. But this savage order was not executed. Some have supposed that he assumed the character of the Messiah, and that the persons who admitted that claim were those called in the gospel Herodians. But this is by no means certain. Herod was the first who shook the foundations of the Jewish government. He appointed the high-priests, and removed them at his pleasure, without regard to the laws of succession; and he destroyed the authority of the national council. But by his credit with Augustus, by his power, and the very magnificent buildings he erected, he gave a temporary splendour to that nation. His son, Herod Antipas, (by his fifth wife Cleopatra) was tetrarch of Galilee after his death.

, a Greek historian, flourished at Rome from the reign of Commodus to the beginning of the reign of Gordian III. We know little of his life, except that he was engaged in many public employments. He is supposed to have died at Rome about the year 240. The history, which he has left us, is comprized in eight books;, at the beginning of the first of which he declares, that he will only write of the affairs of his own time, such as he had either known himself, or received information of from creditable persons. Like many historians who have related the events of their own times, Herodian forgets sometimes that he is writing for posterity, and omits the necessary dates; nor is he very correct as to matters of fact, and points of geography. His impartiality has been called in question by some critics, as far as respects his characters of Alexander Severus and Maximinian, but others seem inclined to defend him. His style is neat, perspicuous, and pleasing, and occasionally eloquent, particularly in the speeches he inserts. Herodian was translated into Latin by Angelus Politianus, and may therefore be read, according to professor Whear, either in Greek or Latin “for,” says he, “I don't know which of the two deserves the greater praise Herodian, for writing so well in his own language, or Politian, for translating him so happily, as to make him appear like an original in a foreign one.” This, however, has more of compliment than of sober criticism, although it may be allowed that Politian has been uncommonly successful. Though we have considered Herodian hitherto as an historian only, yet Suidas informs us, that he wrote many other books, which have not been preserved from the ruins of time. The first edition of Herodian is among the “Res Gestae” of Xenophun, published by Aldus, 1503, folio; but the translation by Politian appeared first at Home in June 1493. folio, and again in September of that year at Bologna, a magnificent book, printed by Plato de Benedictis, and accurately described in the <c Bibliotheca Spenceriana." There was a third edition of Politian’s translation, at the same place and in the same year, in 4to, printed by Bazalerius de Bazaleriis. The best editions of Herodian in Greek are those of Louvaine, 1525, 4to; Stephens, Paris, 1581, 4to Boeder, Strasburgh, 1644—62—72, 8vo; Ox-ford, 1678—99, 1704—8, 8vo; Ruddiman, Edinburgh, 1724, 8vo; Irsmich, Leipsic, 1789, 5 vols. 8vo, by far the most erudite and elaborate. All these have Politian’s translation.

, an ancient Greek historian of Halicarnassus in Caria, was born in the first year of the 74th olympiad; about 484 years before Christ. This time of his birth is fixed by a passage in Aulus Gellius, Book xv. chap 23. which makes Helianicus 65, Herodotus 53, and Thucydides 40 years old, at the commencement of the Peloponnesian war. The name of his father was Lyxes; of his mother, Dryo. The city of Halicarnassus being at that time under the tyranny of Lygdamis, grandson of Artemisia queen of Caria, Herodotus quitted his country, and retired to Samos; whence he travelled over Egypt, Greece, Italy, &c. and in his travels acquired the knowledge of the history and origin of many nations. He then began to digest the materials he had collected into order, and composed that history which has preserved his name ever since. He wrote it in the isle of Samos, according to the general opinion; but the elder Pliny affirms it to have been written at Thurium, a town in that part of Italy then called Magna Graecia, whither Herodotus had retired with an Athenian colony, and where he is supposed to have died, not however before he had returned into his own country, and by his influence expelled the tyrant Lygdamis. At Samos he studied the Ionic dialect, in which he wrote, his native dialect being Doric. Lucian informs us, that when Herodotus left Caria to go into Greece, he began to consider with himself, what he should do to obtain celebrity and lasting fame, in the most expeditious way, and with as little trouble as possible. His history, he presumed, would easily procure him fame, and raise his name among the Grecians, in whose favour it was written; but then he foresaw, that it would be very tedious, if not endless, to go through the several cities of Greece, and recite it to each respective city; to the Athenians, Corinthians, Argives, Lacedaemonians, &c. He thought it most proper, therefore, to take the opportunity of their assembling all together; and accordingly recited his work at the Olympic games, which rendered him more famous than even those who had obtained the prizes. None were ignorant of his name, nor was there a single person in Greece, who had not either seen him at the Olympic games, or heard those speak of him who had seen him there; so that wherever he came, the people pointed to him with their ringers, saying, “This is that Herodotus, who has written the Persian wars in the Ionic dialect; this is he who has celebrated our victories.”

His work is divided into nine books, which, according to the computation of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, contain the most remarkable occurrences within a period of 240 years; from the reign of Cyrus the first king of Persia, to that of Xerxes, when the historian was living. These nine books are called after the nine Muses, each of which is distinguished by the name of a Muse and this has given birth to two disquisitions among the learned first, whether they were so called by Herodotus himself; and secondly, for what reason they were so called. As to the first, it is generally agreed that Herodotus did not impose these names himself; but it is not agreed why they were imposed by others. Lucian, in the place referred to above, tells us, that those names were given them by the Grecians at the Olympic games, when they were first recited, as the best compliment that could be paid the man who had taken pains to do them so much honour. Others have thought, that the name of Muses have been fixed upon them by way of reproach, and were designed to intimate, that Herodotus, instead of true history, had written a great deal of fable, for which, it must be owned, he has been censured by Thucydides, Strabo, and Juvenal, and particularly Plutarch, who conceived a warm resentment against him, for casting an odium upon his countrymen the Thebans, and therefore wrote that little treatise, to be found in his works, “Of the Malignity of Herodotus.” Herodotus, however, has not wanted defenders in Aldus Manutius, Joachim Camerarius, and Henry Stephens, who have very justly observed, that he seldom relates any thing of doubtful credit, without producing his authority, or using terms of caution; and some events, narrated by him, which were once thought wonders, have been confirmed by modern voyages and discoveries.

, a learned Frenchman, was born at Olivet, near Orleans, in 1499. He learned Greek and Latin from his childhood, and was made tutor to Claudius de l‘Aubespine, who was afterwards secretary of state. Hervet going then to Paris, assisted Edward Lupset, an Englishman, in an edition of Galen, and, following Lupset into England, was entrusted with the education of Arthur Pole; from thence he was called to Rome by cardinal Pole, to translate the Greek authors into Latin. He gained the friendship of this cardinal, and of all the illustrious men in Italy; distinguished himself at the council of Trent; was grand-vicar of No}’on and Orleans, and afterwards canon of Kheims, in which last city he passed the remainder of his life, wholly devoted to study. He died September 12, 1584. He left many works in Latin and in French: the principal are, Latin translations from several works of the Fathers; two discourses delivered at the council of Trent, 4 to, one to prove the clergy should not be ordained without a title; the other, that marriages contracted by gentlemen’s children, without consent of parents, are null: several controversial tracts in French; a French translation of the Council of Trent, &c. Hervet has been mentioned by Wood in his “Athenae,” but it does not appear that he was a member of the university of Oxford, although he might reside there while in England. He acquired such knowledge of the English language, as to translate into it; 1. Xenophon’s Treatise of Householde," 1532, 8vo; and

, a political and poetical writer of considerable fame, was the eldest son of John first earl of Bristol, by his second wife, Elizabeth, sole daughter and heir to sir Thomas Felton of Playford in the county of Suffolk, bart. He was born Oct. 15, 1696, and educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1715, previously to which, on Nov. 7, 1714, he had been made gentleman of the bed-chamber to the Prince of Wales. He came into parliament soon after the accession of George I. and was appointed vice-chamberlain to the king in 1730, and a privy counsellor. In 1733 he was called up by writ to the house of peers, as lord Hervey of Ickworth; and in 1740 was constituted lord privy seal, from which post he was removed in 1742. He died Aug. 5, 1743, in the forty-seventh year of his age, a short period, but to which his life had been protracted with the greatest care and difficulty. Having early in life felt some attacks of the epilepsy, he entered upon and persisted in a very strict regimen, which stopped the progress of that dreadful disease, but prevented his acquiring, or at least long enjoying, the blessing of sound health. It is to this rigid abstemiousness that Pope malignantly alludes in the character he has given of lord Hervey, under the name of Sporus, in the line “the mere white curd of asses milk.” But lord Hervey affords a memorable instance of the caution with which we ou^ht to read the characters drawn by Pope and his associates; nor can too much praise be given to his late editors for the pains they have taken to rescue some of them from the imputations which proceeded from the irritable temper and malignity of that admired satirist. In the character of Sporus, Dr. Warton has justly observed, that language cannot afford more glowing or more forcible terms to express the utmost bitterness of contempt. Pope and his lordship were once friends; but they quarrelled at a time when the poetical world seemed to be up in arms, and perpetually contending in a manner disgraceful to their characters. In the quarrel between Pope and lord Hervey, it appears that Pope was the aggressor, and that lord Hervey wrote some severe lines in reply, and An Epistle from a Nobleman to a Doctor of Divinity.“1733. (Dr. Sherwin). In answer to this, Pope wrote the” Letter to a Noble Lord, on occasion of some libels written and propagated at court in the year 1732-3,“which is printed in his Works, and, as Warburton says,” is conducive to what he had most at heart, his moral character,“to which, after all, it conduced very little, as he Violated every rule of truth and decency in his subsequent attack on lord Hervey in the” Prologue to the Satires,“under the character of Sporus, whic,h, we agree with Mr. Coxe,” cannot be read without disgust and horror disgust at the indelicacy of the allusions, and horror at the malignity of the poet, in laying the foundation of his abuse on the lowest species of satire, personal invective; and what is still worse, on sickness and debility."

In 1779, on the death of his elder brother, he became earl of Bristol, with a noble estate, the produce of which he expended in acts of munificence and liberality. One of his first donations, after this accession of fortune, was 1000l. towards an augmentation of an endowment for the widows and clergy of his diocese. He became, however, about this time, rather eccentric in his political conduct, and was among the leaders of the Irish patriots, as they were called, during the A'merican war, and a member of the famous convention of delegates from the volunteers, held in Dublin in 1782; on which occasion he was escorted from Derry to Dublin by a regiment of volunteer cavalry, and received military honours in every town through which he passed in that long journey. As an amateur, connoissieur, and indefatigable protector of the fine arts, he was generally surrounded by artists, whose talents his judgment directed, and whose wants his liberality relieved. His love of the sciences was only surpassed by his Jove to his country, and by his generosity to the unfortunate of every country; neither rank nor power escaped his resentment when any illiberal opinion was thrown out against England. At a dinner with the late king of Prussia and the prince royal of Denmark, at Pynnont, in 1797, he boldly said, after the conversation about the active ambition of England had been changed into inquiries about the delicacy of a roasted capon, that he did not like neutral animals, let them be ever so delicate. In 1798 he was arrested by the Frencb in Italy, and confined in the castle of Milan; was plundered by the republicans of a valuable and well-chosen collection of antiquities, which he had purchased with a view of transmitting to his native country; and was betrayed and cheated by many Italians, whose benefactor he had been. But neither the injustice nor the ingratitude of mankind changed his liberal disposition, he no sooner recovered his liberty, than new benefactions forced even the ungrateful to repent, and the unjust to acknowledge his elevated mind. The earl of Bristol was one of the greatest English travellers (a capacity in which his merits have been duly appreciated by the celebrated Martin Sherlock); and there is not a country in Europe where the distressed have not obtained his succour, and the oppressed his protection. He may truly be said to have clothed the naked, and fed the hungry; and, as ostentation never constituted real charity, his left hand did not know what, his right hand distributed. The tears and lamentations of widows and orphans discovered his philanthropy when he was no more; and letters from Swiss patriots and French emigrants, from Kalian catholics and German protestants, proved the noble use his lordship made of his fortune, indiscriminately, to the poor, destitute, and unprotected of all countries, of all parties, and of all religions. But, as no man is without his enemies, and envy is most busy about the most deserving, some of his lordship’s singularities have been the object of calumny and ridicule. He certainly did retain that peculiarity of character for which his family were formerly distinguished, and which induced the mother of the late marquis Townsbend, a woman of uncommon wit and humour, to say that there were three sorts of people in the world, “men, women, and /fewys.”His lordship died at Aibano, near Rome, July 8, 1803, and his remains, being brought to England, were interred in the family vault at Ickworth, near Bury, where, at the time of his death, he was building a magnificent viila on the Italian model. His lordship married, in early life, Elizabeth, daughter of sir Jenny n Davers, bart. by whom he had several children. He was succeeded in titles and estate by Frederic-William, his second son, now fifth earl of Bristol.

, a very ancient Greek poet, is thought by some to have been contemporary with Homer, but there is more re.ason to think he was at least thirty years older. His father, as he tells us, was an inhabitant of Cuma, in one of the Æolian isles, now called Taio Nova and removed from thence to Ascra, a village of Bceotia at the foot of mount Helicon, where Hesiod was probably born, and called, as he often is, Ascraeus from it. Of what quality his father was, is no where said; but that he was driven by misfortunes from Cuma to Ascra, Hesiod himself informs us. His father seems to have prospered better at Ascra, than he did in his own country; yet his son could arrive at no higher fortune, than that of keeping sheep at the top of Helicon, where the Muses met with iiim, and received him into their service.

Hesiod, having entered into the service of the Muses, discontinued the pastoral life, and applied himself to the study of arts and learning. When he was grown old, for it is agreed by all that he lived to a very great age, he removed to Locris, a town about the same distance from, Parnassus as Ascra was from Helicon. The story of his death, as told by Solon in Plutarch’s “Banquet,” is very remarkable. The man with whom Hesiod lived at Locris, a Milesian born, ravished a maid in the same house; and though Hesiod was entirely ignorant of the fact, yet being maliciously accused to her brothers as an accomplice, he was injuriously slain with the ravisher, and thrown with him into the sea. It is added, that when the inhabitants of the place heard of the crime, they drowned the perpetrators, and burned their houses. We have the knowledge of some few monuments, which were framed in honour of this poet. Pausanias, in his Boeotics, informs us, that his countrymen, the Boeotians, erected to him an image with a harp in his hand; and relates in another place, that there was likewise a statue of Hesiod in the temple of Jupiter Olympicus. Ursinus and Boissard have exhibited a breast with a head, a trunk without a head, and a gem of him; and Ursinus says, that there is a statue of brass of him in the public college at Constantinople. The “Theogony,” and “Works and Days,” are the only undoubted pieces of this poet now extant: though it is supposed, that these poems are not perfect. The “Theogohy, or Generation of the Gods,” Fabricius makes indisputably the work of Hesiod; “nor is it to be doubted,” adds he, “that Pythagoras took it for his, who feigned that he saw in hell the soul of Hesiod tied in chains to a brass pillar, for what he had written concerning the nature of the gods.” This doubtless was the poem which gave Herodotus occasion to say, that Hesiod and Homer were the first who introduced a Theogony among the Grecians; the first who gave names to the gods, ascribed to them honours and arts, and gave particular descriptions of their persons. The “Works and Days” of Hesiod, Plutarch assures us, were used to be sung to the harp. Virgil has shewn great respect to this poet, and proposed him as his pattern in his Georgics, though in truth he has greatly excelled him. There is also in the works of Hesiod a large fragment of another poem, called the “Shield of Hercules,” which some have ascribed to him, and some have rejected. Manilins has given a high character of this poet and his works. Heinsi is in the preface to his edition of Hesiod remarks, that among all the poets, he scarce knew any but Homer and Hesiod, who could represent nature in her true native dress; and tells us, that nature had begun and perfected at the same time her work in these two poets, whom for that very reason he makes no scruple to call Divine. In general, the merit of Hesiod has not been estimated so highly; and it is certain that, when compared with Homer, he must pass for a very moderate poet: though in defining their different degrees of merit, it may perhaps be but reasonable to consider the different subjects on which the genius of each was employed. But his “Works and Days” is certainly an interesting and valuable monument of antiquity, as written so near what may be termed the origin of Greek poetry. The first edition of the “Opera et Dies” is supposed to have been printed at Milan in 1493, folio, and the first edition of Hesiod’s entire works, from the Aidine press, appeared at Venice, 1495, folio. Both are described in the Bibl. Spenceriana. The best editions since are those of Gra^vius, Amst. 1667, Gr. and Lat. Le Clerc, Amst. 1701, 8vo Robinson, Oxford, 1737, 4to; and Loesner, Leipsic, 1778, 8vo. All these are Gr. and Lat. We have English translations of the “Works and Days” by Chapman, 1618, 4to> and by Cooke, 1729 and 1740.

In 1679, Hevelius had published the second part of his “Machina Ccelestis;” but the same year, while he was in the country, he had the misfortune to have his house at Dantzic burnt down. By this calamity he is said to have sustained several thousand pounds damage; having not only his observatory and all his valuable instruments and astronomical apparatus destroyed, but also a great number of copies of his “Machina Ccelestis;” which accident has made this second part very scarce, and dear. In 1690, were published a description of the heavens, called, “Firmamentum Sobiescianum,” in honour of John III. king of Poland; and “Prodromus astronomix, & novae tabula; solares, uua cum catalogo fixarum,” in which he lays down the necessary preliminaries for taking an exact catalogue df the stars. Both these works, however, were posthumous; for Hevelius died January 28, 1687, which was the day of his birth, on which he entered upon his 77th year. He was a man greatly esteemed by his countrymen, not only on account of his skill in astronomy, but as an excellent and worthy magistrate. He was made a burgomaster of Dantzic; which olHce he is said to have executed with the utmost integrity and applause. He was also very highly esteemed by foreigners; and not only by foreigners skilled in astronomy and the sciences, but by foreign princes and potentates: as appears abundantly evident from a collection of their letters, which were printed at Dantzic in 1683.

He was a very voluminous writer, and although few of his works can be recommended to general perusal, there are none perhaps of the whole series which may not be consulted with advantage, by those who have leisure and inclination to study the history of parties, in the distracted period in which he lived. Many of his lesser pieces were published together in 1681, in a folio volume, with a life of the author by the rev. George Vernon, which having given offence to his relations, a new life was published by his son-in-law Dr. Barnard, 1682, 12mo. It is from a comparison of both (Vernon’s has since been published in 12mo) that a proper judgment can be formed of Dr. Heylin. His other works of most note are, 1. “An Help to English History,” &c. 1641, 8vo, published under the name of Robert Hall, gent, republished with the additions of Christopher Wilkinson a bookseller, but with Heylin’s name in 1670, 8vo. It was again republished, and brought down to 1709 and in 1773 an improved edition was published by Paul Wright, D. D. in 1773, a lar^e 8vo. Capt. Beatson’s “Political Index” may be considered as a continuation of this work. 2. “History of the Sabbath,” 3636, 4to, intended to reconcile the public to that dreadful error in the conduct of the court, the “Book of Sports,” which did incalculable injury to the royal cause. 3. “Theologia Veterum; the Sum of the Christian Theology contained in the creed, according to the Greeks and Latins, &c. Lond. 1654, fol. reprinted 1673. 4. Ecclesia Vindicata; or the Church of England justified, 1. In the way and manner of her Reformation, &c. 2. In officiating by a public Liturgy. 3. In prescribing a set form of Prayer to be used by preachers before their sermons. 4. In her right and patrimony of tithes. 5. In retaining the episcopal government, and therewithal the canonical ordination of priests and deacons,” London 1657, in 4to, dedicated to Mr. Edward Davys, vicar of Shilton in Berkshire, formerly his master in the free-school of Burford in Oxfordshire. 5. “Short View of the Life and Reign of King Charles (the second monarch of Great Britain) from his birth to his burial,” London, 1658, in 8vo. This Life Wood supposes to be the same with that which was printed with and prefixed to “Reliquiae sacrae Carolina,” printed at the Hague, 1649, in 8vo. 6. “Examen Historicum or a discovery and examination of the mistakes and defects in some modern histories, viz. 1. In the Church History of Britain, by Tho. Fuller. To which is added, an Apology of Dr. Jo. Cosin, dean of Peterborough, in answer to some passages in the Church History of Britain, in which he finds himself concerned. 2. In the History of Mary Queen of Scots, and of her son King James VI,; the History of King James I. of Great Britain; and the History of King Charles I. from his cradle to his grave, by Will. Sanderson, esq. London, 1658, in a large 8vo. To this is ndded, An Appendix in an answer to some passages in a scurrilous pamphlet called A Post-haste Reply, &c. by Will. Sanderson, esq.” Soon after Dr. Thomas Fuller published a thin folio, entitled “The Appeal for injured Innocence,” which was commonly bound up with the remaining copies of his Church History in quires; and Mr. Sanderson wrote. a pamphlet, entitled “Peter pursued; or Dr. Heylin overtaken, arrested, and arraigned upon his three Appendixes: 1. Respondet Petrus. 2. Answer to Post-Haste Reply. 3. Advertisements on three Histories. viz. of Mary Queen of Scots, King James, and King Charles,” 1658, in 8 sheets in 4to. 7. “Historia QuinquArticularis: or a declaration of the Judgment of the Western Churches, and more particularly of the Church of England, in the five controverted points, reproached in these last times by the name of Arminianism. Collected in the way of an Historicall Narration out of the public acts and monuments, and most approved authors of those scverall churches,” London, 1660, in 4to. This involved him in a controversy with some able writers. 8. “History of the Reformation of the Church of England from the first preparations to it made by King Henry VIII. until the legal settling and establishing of it underQueen Elizabeth,*' &c. London, 1661, 1670, and 1674, in folio. 9.” Cyprianus Anglicus r or the History of the Life and Death of William (Laud) Archbishop of Canterbury,“&c. London, 1668 and 1671, fol. 10.” Aerius Redivivus: or the History of the Presbyterians. Containing the beginning, progress, and successes of that sect. Their oppositions to monarchical and episcopal government. Their innovations in the church; and their inbroylments of the kingdoms and estates of Christendom in the pursuit of their designes. From the year 1536 to the year 1647," London, 1670 and 1672, in folio.

His other works are, a dialogue composed of all the proverbs in the English language; and three quarto pamphlets, containing six hundred epigrams. Of both of these there were numerous editions before the year 1598. None of his dramatic works, which are six in number, have extended beyond the limits of an interlude. The titles of them are as follow: 1. “A Play between Johan the husband, Tyb the wife, and sir Johan the priest,” 1533, 4to. 2. “A merry Play between the Pardoner and the Friar, the Curate and Neighbour Prat,” 1533, 4to. 3. “The Play called the Four Pp. A newe and a very merry Interlude of a Palmer, a Pardoner, a Potycary, a Pedlar,” N. D. D. C. 4to. 4. “A Play of Genteelness and Nobility,” N. D. Int. 4to. 5. “A Play of Love,” Int. 1533, 4to. 6. “A Play of the Weather, called, A new and a very merry Interlude of Weathers,” 1553, 4to, amply described in Cens. Lit. vol. III. Phillips and Winstanley have attributed two other pieces to him, viz. “The Pindar of Wakefield,” and “Philotas, Scotch.” But Langbaine rejects their authority, with very good reason, as both those pieces are printed anonymous, and both of them not published till upwards of thirty years after this author’s death. A poem of his, however, entitled “A Description of a most noble Lady,” princess Mary, occurs among the Harleian Mss. and some of his “witty sayings,” among the Cotton Mss. in the British Museum. He left two sons, both eminent men the eldest of whom, Ellis Heywood, was born in London, and educated at All Souls’ college in Oxford, of which he was elected fellow in 1547. Afterwards he travelled into France and Italy continued some time at Florence, under the patronage of cardinal Pole and became such an exact master of the Italian tongue, that he wrote a book in that language, entitled “II Moro,” Firenz. 1556, 8vo. He then went to Antwerp, and thence to Louvain, where he died in the twelfth year after his entrance into

the society of the Jesuits; which was about 1572.—The youngest, Jasper, was born in London about 1535, and educated at Merton college in Oxford of which he was chosen fellow, but obliged to resign, for fear of expulsion, on account of his immoralities, in 1558. He was then elected fellow of All Souls, but left the university, and soon after England. In 1561, he became a popish priest and the year after, being at Rome, was entered among the Jesuits. After he had passed two years in the study of divinity, he was sent to Diling in Switzerland; whence being called away by pope Gregory XIII. in 1581, he was sent into England, where he was appointed provincial of the Jesuits. After many peregrinations, he died at Naples Jan. 9, 1598. Before he left England the first time, he translated three tragedies of Seneca and wrote “Various Poems and Devices” some of which are printed in “The Paradise of Dainty Devices,” 1573," 4to.

, a nonconformist divine, the son of Richard Heywood, was born at Little Lever, in Bolton parish, Lancashire, in March 1629. In 1647 he was admitted pensioner in Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. B. but was afterwards called home, his father not being able to support him there. He lived retiredly for some time at home, but at length became a preacher, by the advice and solicitation of the neighbouring ministers, and having preached some time about the country occasionally, he was invited to Coley chapel, in the parish of Halifax, Yorkshire; soon after which, Aug. 4, 1652, he was ordained in Bury church, Lancashire, according to the forms used after the established church was overthrown. He married to his first wife Elizabeth, daughter of the rev. Mr. Angier of Denton in Lancashire, in 1655, by whom he had several children. He had occasional disputes with part of his congregation, who after abolishing what they called ecclesiastical tyranny, became themselves the most capricious tyrants. Some were displeased with him, because he would not admit all comers promiscuously to the Lord’s table without distinction; others, because he would not thank God for killing the Scots. Once he was carried before cornet Denham, by some of colonel Lilburne’s soldiers, and the cornet told him, that he was one of the Cheshire rebels; but by the mediation of friends he was dismissed.

, 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.

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.

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.

. Wood gives two authors of these names, of which some brief notice may be taken. The first, the son of Nicholas Hicks, a Cornish gentleman, was born in 1620, and was for some time a commoner of Wadham college, but removed thence by his relations to join the parliamentary forces. He was a captain of the train bands, and an enthusiast and fifth monarchy man in which spirit he wrote a folio entitled “Revelation revealed being a practical exposition on the Revelation of St. John,” Lond. 1659 but this not succeeding, a new title page and a portrait of the author were added in 1661. He died iti 1659. The other William Hicks became also a captain, apparently in the recruiting service, in the beginning of Charles Il.'s reign. With some it may be thought an honour, that he was the first compiler of & jest-book, under the title of “Oxford Jests,” which was followed by others called Oxford Drollery,“and” Coffee-house Jests,“and these by” Cambridge Jests,“” London Jests,“&c. down to our own times. Anthony Wood, who thought it no honour that Oxford should be suspected of first inventing these vulgar collections, or of educating men to compile jest-books, takes care to inform us that capt. Hicks, as he was called, owed nothing to his education there, being born in St. Thomas’s parish, of poor and dissolute parents, afterwards bred a tapster at the Star inn, then a clerk to a woodmonger at Deptford, where he was living in 1669 as capt. Hicks, but while at Oxford” was a sharking and indigent fellow,“who wrote” little trivial matters merely to get bread, and make the pot walk."

, was a Spanish artist, but although he wrote his own life, the year and place of his birth remain uncertain. He was probably born about 1656, and was living in 1711. At Valencia, he tells us, he was called a Castilian; perhaps he was a Murcian, for in Mtircia he applied first to the art under Villacis and Gilarte: he then travelled to Rome, and under the direction of Giacinto Brand i was making considerable progress, when declining health hastened his return to the milder climate of Valencia, from whence, after a studious residence of some years, he advanced to Madrid, and in 1674 received the commission of decorating the cloisters of S. Felipe el Real with a series of paintings; a labour often interrupted by other numerous avocations, and protracted to 1711: in the twenty-four subjects of this extensive work, he shewed himself master of composition. Garcia was made painter to the court, and knight of S. Miguel, by Philip V.; and by the tribunal of the inquisition appointed censor of public paintings. His exertions in art were chiefly directed to the improvement of style and the acquisition of a classic taste in Spain; with this view he published, in 1691, his “Principios para estudiar el Nobilissimo Arte de la Pintura.”

, a minor author of the last century, much patronized and befriended by Garrick, was born in the county of Dublin in 1719, and educated for a popish priest, first in Ireland, and afterwards for many years in France. Yet after all, he took his degree of bachelor in physic, and returned to Dublin that he might practise. Indolence, however, prevented his application jto that or any profession, and he came to London about 1753, where he subsisted very scantily and idly, as an author, for the remainder of his life; producing several works, but none of any great merit. He was principally employed by the booksellers in various works of translation, compilement, &c. In short, with no principles, and slender abilities, he was perpetually disgracing literature, which he was doomed to follow for bread, by such a conduct as was even unworthy of the lowest and most contemptible of the vulgar. His conversation was highly offensive to decency and good manners, and his whole behaviour discovered a mind over which the opinions of mankind had no influence. He associated, however, occasionally with some of the most celebrated men of his time, Foote, Garrick, Murphy, Goldsmith, Kelly, Sec. who tolerated his faults, and occasionally supplied his necessities, although when he thought their liberality insufficient, he made no scruple of writing the grossest libels on their character. One of his peculiar fancies was to keep the place of his lodging a secret, which he did so completely, that he refused to disclose it even when dying, to a friend who supported him, and actually received his last contributions through the channel of the Bedford coffee-house. When he died, which was in June 1777, it was discovered that he had lodged in one of the obscure courts near St. Martin’s-lane. Dr. Hiffernan, as he was usually called, was author of the folio wing works: 1.“The Ticklers,” a set of periodical and political papers, published in Dublin about 1750. 2. “The Tuner,” a set of periodical papers, published in London in 1753. 3. “Miscellanies in prose and verse,” 1754. 4. “The Ladies’ Choice,” a dramatic petite piece, acted at Coventgarden in 1759. 5. “The Wishes of a free People,” a dramatic poem, 1761. 6. “The New Hippocratrs,” a farce, acted at Drury-lane in 1761, but not published, 7. “The Earl of Warwick,” a tragedy, from the French of La Harpe, 1764. 8. “Dramatic Genius,” an essay, ia five books, 1770. 9. “The Philosophic Whim,” a farce, 1774. 10. “The Heroine of the Cave,” a tragedy, loft unfinished by Henry Jones, author of the “Earl of Essex,” completed by Hiffernan, and acted at Drury-lane in 1774. He also issued proposals for a quarto volume of additional Miscellanies in prose and verse, which we believe never appeared.

, 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.

It is probable, however, that neither pride, nor any harboured resentment, were the motives of this refusal, but that spirit of projecting new schemes which seems to hare more or less animated him throughout life, however unfortunate he might be in indulging it. Among the Harleian Mss. 7524, is a letter from him to the lord-treasurer, dated April 12, 1714, on a subject by which “the nation might gain a million annually.” In 17 15, he undertook to. make an oil, as sweet as that from olives, of the beech-nuts, and obtained a patent for the purpose: but, after having formed a joint-stock company to be called the “Beech Oil Company,” who were to act in concert with the patentee, disputes arose among them, and the whole design was overthrown, without any benefit having accrued either to the patentee, or the sharers. He was next concerned with sir Robert Montgomery in a design for establishing a plantation of a vast tract of land in the south of Carolina, for which purpose a grant had been purchased from the lords proprietors of that province; but here again the want of a larger fortune than he was master of, stood as a bar in his way; for, though it has many years since been extensively cultivated under the name of Georgia, yet it never proved of any advantage to him.

, a learned English gentleman, fellow and treasurer of the royal society, one of the lords of trade, and comptroller to the archbishop of Canterbury, was descended of an ancient and honourable family of that name, seated at Shilston, in Devonshire, and was the son of Richard Hill, of Shilston, esq. His father was bred to mercantile business, which he pursued with great success, was chosen an alderman of London, and v.as much in the confidence of the Long-parliament, and of Cromwell and his statesmen. Abraham, his eldest son, was born April 18, 1633, at his father’s house, in St. Botolph’s parish by Billingsgate, and after a proper education, was introduced into his business. He was also an accomplished scholar in the Greek, Latin, French, Dutch, and Italian languages, and was considered as one of very superior literary attainments. On his father’s death in 1659, he became possessed of an ample fortune, and that he might, with more ease, prosecute his studies, he hired chambers in Gresham college, where he had an opportunity of conversing with learned men, and of pursuing natural philosophy, to which he was much attached. He was one of the first eucouragers of the royal society, and on its first institution became a fellow, and in 1663 their treasurer, which office he held for two years. His reputation, in the mean time, was not confined to his native country, but by means of the correspondence of his learned friends, was known over most part of Europe. Having, like his father, been biassed in favour of the republican party from which he recovered by time and reflection, his merit was in consequence overlooked during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. but on the accession of king William, he was called to a seat at the board of trade, where his knowledge of the subject made his services of great importance; and when Dr. Tillotson was promoted to the see of Canterbury in 1691, he prevailed on Mr. Hill to take on him the office of his comptroller, which he accordingly accepted, and lived in Jiigh favour with that distinguished prelate, who would frequently term him “his learned friend and his instructing philosopher.” On the accession of queen Anne, Mr. Hill resigned his office in the Board of Trade, and retired to his seat of St. John’s in Sutton, at Hone in the county of Kent, which he had purchased in 1665, and which was always his favourite residence. Here he died Feb. 5, 1721. In 1767 a volume of his “Familiar Letters” was published, which gives us a very favourable idea of his learning, public spirit, and character; and although the information these letters contain is not of such importance now as when written, there is always an acknowledged charm in unreserved epistolary correspondence, which makes the perusal of this and all such collections interesting.

, the elder, surnamed Hassaken, was born at Babylon, of poor parents, but of the royal stock of David, in the year 112 B. C. After residing forty years in Babylon, where he married, and had a son, he removed with his family to Jerusalem, for the purpose of studying the law. Shemaiah and Abdalion were at that time eminent doctors in Jerusalem. Hillel, unable on account of his poverty to gain a regular admission to their lectures, spent a considerable part of the profits of his daily labour in bribing the attendants to allow him a place at the door of the public hall, where he might gather up the doctrine of these eminent masters by stealth; and when this expedient failed him, he found means to place himself at the top of the building near one of the windows. By such unwearied perseverance he acquired a profound knowledge of the most difficult points of the law; in consequence of which his reputation gradually rose to such an heignt, that he became the master of the chief school in Jerusalem. In this station he was universally regarded as an oracle of wisdom scarcely inferior to Solomon, and had many thousand followers. He had such command of his temper, that no one ever saw him angry. The name of Hillel is in the highest esteem among the Jews for the pains which he took to perpetuate the knowledge of the traditionary law. He arranged its precepts under six general classes; and thus laid the foundation of that digest of the Jewish law which is called the Talmud. Hillel is said to have lived to the great age of one hundred and twenty years. Shammai, one of the disciples of Hillel, deserted his school, and formed a college of his own, in which he taught dogmas contrary to those of his master. He rejected die oral law, and followed the written law only, in its literal sense. Hence he has been ranked among the Karaites. The schools of Hillel and Shammai long disturbed the peace of the Jewish church by violent contests, in which, however, the party of Hillel was at last victorious. Hillel, we have yet to mention, laboured much to give a correct edition of the sacred text, and there is an ancient ms Bible which bears his name ascribed to him, part of which is among the Mss. of the Sorbonne.

, an English artist, the son of Nicholas Hilliard of Exeter, was born in that city in 1547 and for want of a proper instructor, studied the works of Hans Holbein, which to him seemed preferable to all others, but he was incapable of acquiring the force and nature which that great master impressed on all his smaller performances. He could never arrive at any strength of colouring his carnations were always pale, and void of any variety of tints yet his penciling was exceedingly neat, the jewels and ornaments of his portraits were expressed with lines incredibly slender, and even the hairs of the head and of the beard were almost distinctly to be counted. He was exact in describing the dress of the times, but he rarely attempted more than a head; and yet his works were much admired and highly prized. He painted the portrait of the queen of Scots, which gained bina universal applause; and queen Elizabeth sat to him for her portrait several times. He was this queen’s goldsmith, carver, and portrait-painter. He was very much employed by the nobility and gentry, and was admired and highly prized in his time. Enjoying his reputation to the age of seventy-two, he died in 1619. Donne has celebrated him in a poem called “The Storm;” where he says,

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.

, usually called the father of physic, was born in the island of Cos, about 460 B. C. He is said to have descended from Æsculapius, through a line of physicians who had all promoted the fame of the Coan school, and by his mother’s side he was the eighteenth lineal descendant from Hercules. He appears to have devoted himself to the medical art that he might perpetuate the honours of his family, and he has eclipsed them. Besides the empirical practice which was hereditary among them, he studied under Herodicus, who had invented the gymnastic medicine, and was instructed in philosophy and eloquence by Gorgias, a celebrated sophist and brother of Herodicus. He is also said to have been a pupil of Democritus, which appears improbable, and a follower of the doctrines of Heraclitus. In whatever study, however, he engaged, he appears to have pursued a rational plan, upon actual expedience, discarding the theories of those who never had practised the art, and hence is said to have been the first who separated the science of medicine from philosophy, or rather from mere speculation, which then assumed that name. Of the events of his life little is known with cer T tainty. He spent a great part of his time in travelling: during which he resided for a considerable period, at varipus places, in which he was occupied in the practise of his art. His chief abode was in the provinces of Thessaly and Thrace, especially at Larissa, the capital of Thessaly, where he composed several books. According to Soranus, he spent some time at the court of Macedon, where he signalized himself, in consultation with Kuryphon, a senior physician, by detecting the origin of the malady of the young Perdiccas. His observation of the emotion of the prince on the appearance of Phila, a mistress of his father, led him to pronounce that love alone was capable of curing the disease which it had occasioned. His fame caused him to receive invitations from diiFerent cities of Greece. He is said to have been requested by the inhabitants of Abciera to go and cure their celebrated fellowcitizen, Democritus, of the madness under which they supposed him to labour, whom he pronounced not mad; but, the wisest man in their city. In a speech ascribed to his son Thessalus, still extant, we are told that Illyria and Paeonia being ravaged by the plague, the inhabitants of those countries offered large sums of money to induce Hippocrates to come to their relief; but forseeing that the pestilence was likely to penetrate into Greece, he refused to quit his own country, but sent his two sons, and his sonin-law, through the diiFerent provinces, to convey the proper instructions for avoiding the infection; he himself went to Thessaly, and thence to Athens, where he conferred such eminent services on the citizens, that they issued a decree honouring him with a crown of gold, and initiating him and his family in the sacred mysteries of Ceres and Proserpine. Hippocrates is likewise reported to have refused an invitation from Artaxerxes, king of Persia, accompanied by a promise of every reward and honour which he might desire, to repair to his dominions during a season of pestilence, which he refused; and that when the enraged king ordered the inhabitants of Cos to deliver up Hippocrates, they declared their resolution to defend the life and liberty of their valued countryman at all hazards, and nothing was attempted by the Persian. Most of these stories, however, are deemed fictitious by the most intelligent critics. The cure of the young Perdiccas probably originated from the report of a similar cure ascribed to Erasistratus; and the interview with Deraocntus is not supported by any satisfactory evidence. The relation of the services of Hippocrates, during the plague at Atbeps, is altogether irreconcileable with the accounts of Galen and of Thucydides: besides, that plague commenced during the Peioponnesiin war, in the second year of the 87th olympiad, at which time Hippocrates was about thirty" years old, and therefore could not have had two sons or a son-in-law in a condition to practise. Dr. Ackerman justly conjectures, that these fables were all invented after the death of Hippocrates, and ascribed to him by the followers of the dogmatic sect, of which he was regarded as the founder. The letters and other pieces, which are preserved with the works of Hippocrates, and on the authority of which these anecdotes are related, are generally deemed spurious.

, 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.

* 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.

In 1631, the countess dowager of Devonshire was desirous of placing the young earl under his care, who was then about the age of thirteen; a trust very suitable to his inclinations, and which he discharged with great fidelity and diligence. In 1634 he republished his translation of Thucydides, and prefixed to it a dedication to that young nobleman, in which he gives a nigh character of his father, and represents in the strongest terms his obligations to that illustrious family. The same year he accompanied his noble pupil to Paris, where he applied his vacant hours to natural philosophy, especially mechanism, and the causes of animal motion. He had frequent conversations upon these subjects with father Mersenne, a man deservedly famous, who kept up a correspondence with almost all the learned in Europe. From Paris he attended his pupil into Italy, and at Pisa became known to Galileo, who communicated to him his notions very freely. After having seen all that was remarkable in that country, he returned in 1637 with the earl of Devonshire into England. The troubles in Scotland now grew high, and began to spread themselves southward, and to threaten disturbance.throughout the kingdom. Hobbes, seeing this, thought he might do good service by composing something by way of antidote to the pestilential opinions which then prevailed. This engaged him to commit to paper certain principles, observations, and remarks, out of which he composed his book “De Give,” and which grew up afterwards into that system which he called his “Leviathan.”

In 1650 was published at London a small treatise by Hobbes entitled “Human Nature,” and another, “De corpore politico, or, of the Elements of the Law.” The latter was presented to Gassendi, and read by him a few months before his death; who is said first to have kissed it, and then to have delivered his opinion of it in these words: tl This treatise is indeed small in bulk, but in my judgment the very marrow of science.“All this time Hobbes had been digesting with great pains his religious, political, and moral principles into a complete system, which he called the” Leviathan,“and which was printed in English at London in that and the year following. He caused a copy of it, very fairly written on vellum *, to be presented to Charles II.; but after that monarch was informed that the English divines considered it as a book tending to subvert both religion and civil government, he is said to have withdrawn his countenance from the author, and by the marquis of Ormond to have forbidden him to come into his presence. After the publication of his” Leviathan," Hobbes returned to England, and passed the summer commonly at his patron the earl of Devonshire’s seat in Derbyshire, -and his

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.”

After this account of Hobbes, which, though undoubtedly true in the main, may be thought too strongly coloured, it will be but justice to subjoin what lord Clarendon has said of him. This noble person, during his banishment, wrote a book in 1670, which was printed six years after at Oxford with this title, “A brief View of the dangerous and pernicious Errors to Church and State in Mr. Hobbes’s book entitled Leviathan.” In the introduction the earl observes, that Mr. Hobbes’s *' Leviathan“” cohtains in it good learning of all kinds, politely extracted, and very wittily and cunningly digested in a very commendable, and in a vigorous and pleasant style: and that Mr. Hobbes himself was a man of excellent parts, of great wit, some reading, and somewhat more thinking; one who has spent many years in foreign parts and observations; understands the learned as well as the modern languages; hath long had the reputation of a great philosopher and mathematician; and in his age hath had conversation with very many worthy and extraordinary men: to which it may be, if he had been more indulgent in the more vigorous part of his life, it might have had greater influence upon the temper of his mind; whereas age seldom submits to those questions, inquiries, and contradictions, which the laws and liberty of conversation require. And it hath been always a lamentation among Mr. Hobbes’s friends, that he spent too much time in thinking, and too little in exercising those thoughts in the company of other men of the same, or of as good faculties; for want whereof his natural constitution, with age, contracted such a morosity, that doubting-and contradicting men were never grateful to him. In a word, Mr. Hobbes is one of the most ancient acquaintance I have in the world; and of whom I have always had a great esteem, as a man, who, besides his eminent parts, learning, and knowledge, hath been always looked upon as a man of probity, and of a life free from scandal.“There have been few persons, whose writings have had a more pernicious influence in spreading irreligion and infidelity than those of Hobbes; and yet none of his treatises are directly levelled against revealed religion. He sometimes affects to speak with veneration of the sacred writings, and expressly declares, that though the laws of nature are not laws as they proceed from nature, yet” as they are given by God in Holy Scripture, they are properly called laws; for the Holy Scripture is the voice of God, ruling all things by the greatest right.“But though ha, seems here to make the laws of Scripture the Jaws of God, and to derive their force from his supreme authority, yet elsewhere he supposes them to have no authority, but what they derive from the prince or civil power. He sometimes seems to acknowledge inspiration to be a supernatural gift, and the immediate hand of God: at other times he treats the pretence to it as a sign of madness, and represents God’s speaking to the prophets in a dream, to be no more than the prophets dreaming that God spake unto them. He asserts, that we have no assurance of the certainty of Scripture but the authority of the church f, and this he resolves into the authority of the commonwealth; and declares, that till the sovereign ruler had prescribed them,” the precepts of Scripture were not obligatory laws, but only counsel or advice, which he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe, and being contrary to the laws could not without injustice observe;“that the word of the interpreter of Scripture is the word of God, and that the sovereign magistrate is the interpreter of Scripture, and of all doctrines, to whose authority we must stand. Nay, he carries it so far as to pronounce that Christians are bound in conscience to obey the laws of an infidel king in matters of religion; that” thought is free, but when it comes to confession of faith, the private reason must submit to the public, that is to say, to God’s lieutenant.“Accordingly he allows the subject, being commanded by the sovereign, to deny Christ in words, holding the faith of him firmly in his heart; it being in this” not he, that denieth Christ before men, but his governor and the laws of his country.“In the mean time he acknowledges the existence of God, and that we must of necessity ascribe the effects we behold to the eternal power of all powers, and cause of all causes; and he reproaches those as absurd, who call the world, or the soul of the world, God. But then he denies that we know any thing more of him than, that he exists, and seems plainly to make him corporeal; for he affirms, that whatever is not body is nothing at all. And though he sometimes seems to acknowledge religion and its obligations, and that there is an honour and worship due to God; prayer, thanksgivings, oblations, &c. yet he advances principles, which evidently tend to subvert all religion. The account he gives of it is this, that” from the fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind, or imagined from tales, publicly allowed, ariseth religion; not allowed, superstition:“and he resolves religion into things which he himself derides, namely,” opinions of ghosts, ignorance of second causes, devotion to what men fear, and taking of things casual for prognostics.“He takes pains in many places to prove man a necessary agent, and openly derides the doctrine of a future state: for he says, that the belief of a future state after death,” is a belief grounded upon other men’s saying, that they knew it supernaturally; or, that they knew those, that knew them, that knew others that knew it supernaturally.“But it is not revealed religion only, of which Hobbes makes light; he goes farther, as will appear by running over a few more of his maxims. He asserts,” that, by the law of nature, every man hath a right to all things, and over all persons; and that the natural condition of man is a state of war, a war of all men against all men: that there is no way so reasonable for any man, as by force or wiles to gain a mastery over all other persons that he can, till he sees no other power strong enough to endanger him: that the civtt laws are the only rules of good and evil, just and unjust, honest and dishonest; and that, antecedently to such laws, every action is in its own nature indifferent; that there is nothing good or evil in itself, nor any common laws constituting what is naturally just and unjust: that all things are measured by what every man judgeth fit, where there is no civil government, and by the laws of society, where there is: that the power of the sovereign is absolute, and that he is not bound by any compacts with his subjects: that nothing the sovereign can do to the subject, can properly be called injurious or wrong; and that the, king’s word is sufficient to take any thing from the subject if need be, and that the king is judge of that need." This scheme evidently strikes at the foundation of all religion, natural and revealed. It tends not only to subvert the authority of Scripture, but to destroy God’s moral government of the world. It confounds the natural differences of good and evil, virtue and vice. It destroys the best principles of the human nature; and instead of that innate benevolence and social disposition which should unite men together, supposes all men to be naturally in a state of war with one another. It erects an absolute tyranny in the state and church, which it confounds, and maKes the will of the prince or governing power the sole standard of right and wrong.

Such principles in religion and politics would, as it may be imagined, raise adversaries. Hobbes accordingly was attacked by many considerable persons, and, what may seem more strange, by such as wrote against each other. Harrington, in his “Oceana,” very often attacks Hobbes; and so does sir Robert Filmer in his “Observations concerning the Original of Government.” We have already mentioned Bramhall and Clarendon; the former argued with great acuteness against that part of his system which relates to liberty and necessity, and afterwards attacked the whole in a piece, called “The Catching of the Leviathan,” published in 1685; in which he undertakes to demonstrate out of Hobbes’s own works, that no man, who is thoroughly an Hobbist, can be “a good Christian, or a good commonwealth’s man, or reconcile himself to himself.” Tenison, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, gave a summary view of Hobbes’s principles, in a book called “The Creed of Mr. Hobbes examined, 1670;” to which, we may add the two dialogues of Dr. Eachard between Timothy and Phiiautus, and Dr. Parker’s book, entitled “Disputationes de Deo &, Divina Providentia.” Dr. Henry More has also in different parts of his works canvassed and refuted several positions of Hobbes; and the philosopher of Malmesbury is said to have been so ingenuous as to own, that “whenever he discovered his own philosophy to be unsustainable, he would embrace the opinions of Dr. More.” But the two greatest works against him were, Cumberland’s book “De legibus Naturae,” and Cudworth’s “Intellectual System” for these authors do not employ themselves about his peculiar whimsies, or in vindicating revealed religion from his exceptions and cavils, but endeavour to establish the great principles of all religion and morality, which his scheme tended to subvert, and to shew that they have a real foundation in reason and nature.

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.

, an eminent English divine, was born Jan. 1, 1659, atOcicombe in the county of Somerset, of which place his father was rector. He discovered while a boy, a great propensity to learning; and, in 1676, was admitted into Wadham-college, Oxford, of which he was chosen fellow in 1684. When he was only in his twenty-first year he published his “Dissertation against Aristeas’ s History of the Seventy-two Interpreters.” The substance of that history of Aristeas, concerning the seventy-two Greek interpreters of the Bible, is this: Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and founder of the noble library at Alexandria, being desirous of enriching that library with all sorts of books, committed the care of it to Demetrius Phalereus, a noble Athenian then living in his court. Demetrius being informed, in the course of his inquiries, of the Law of Moses among the Jews, acquainted the king with it; who signified his pleasure, that a copy of that book, which was then only in Hebrew, should be sent for from Jerusalem, with interpreters from the same place to translate it into Greek. A deputation was accordingly sent to Eleazar the high-priest of the Jews at Jerusalem; who sent a copy of the Hebrew original, and seventy-two interpreters, six out of each of the twelve tribes, to translate it into Greek. When they were come to Egypt the king caused them to be conducted into the island of Pharos near Alexandria, in apartments prepared for them, where they completed their translation in seventy-two days. Such is the story told by Aristeas, who is said to be one of king Ptolemy’s court. Hody shews that it is the invention of some Hellenist Jew; that it is full of anachronisms and gross blunders; and, in short, was written on purpose to recommend and give greater authority to the Greek version of the Old Testament, which from this story has received the name of the Septuagint. This dissertation was received with the highest applause by all the learned, except Isaac Vossius. Charles du Fresne spoke highly of it in his observations on the “Chrouicon Paschale,” published in 1688; and Menage, in his notes upon the second edition of “Diogenes Laertius,” gave Hody the titles of “eruditissimus, doctissimus, elegantissimus, &c.” but Vossius alone was greatly dissatisfied with it. He had espoused the contrary opinion, and could not bear that such a boy as Hody should presume to contend with one of his age and reputation for letters. He published therefore an appendix to his “Observations on Pomponius Mela,” and subjoined an answer to this dissertation of Hody’s; in which, however, he did not enter much into the argument, but contents himself with treating Hody very contemptuously, vouchsafing him no better title than Juvenis Oxoniensis, and sometimes using worse language. When Vossius was asked afterwards, what induced him to treat a young man of promising hopes, and who had certainly deserved well of the republic of letters, so very harshly, he answered, that he had received some time before a rude Latin epistle from Oxford, of which he suspected Hody to be the author; and that this had made him deal more severely with him than he should otherwise have done. Vossius had indeed received such a letter; but it was written, according to the assertion of Creech, the translator of Lucretius, without Hody’s knowledge or approbation. When Hody published his “Dissertation, &c.” he told the reader in his preface, that he had three other books preparing upon the Hebrew text, and Greek version but he was now so entirely drawn away from these studies by other engagements, that he could not find time to complete his work, and to answer the objections of Vossius, till more than twenty years after. In 1704, he published it altogether, with this title, “De Bibliorum textibns originalibus, versionibus Grsecis, et Latina Vulgata, libri IV. &c.” The first book contains his dissertation against Aristeas’s history, which is here reprinted with improvements, and an answer to Vossius’s objections. In the second he treats of the true authors of the Greek version called the Septuagint; of the time when, and the reasons why, it was undertaken, and of the manner in which it was performed. The third is a history of the Hebrew text, the Septuagint version, and of the Latin Vulgate; shewing the authority of each in different ages, and that the Hebrew text has been always most esteemed and valued. In the fourth he gives an account of the rest of the Greek versions, namely, those of Symmachus, Aquila. and Theodotion; of Origen’s “Hexapla,” and other ancient editions; and subjoins lists of the books of the Bible at different times, which exhibit a concise, but full and clear view of the canon of Holy Scripture. Upon the whole, he thinks it probable, that the Greek version, called the Septuagint, was done in the time of the two Ptolemies, Lagus and Philadelphus; and that it was not done by order of king Ptolemy, or under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, in order to be deposited in the Alexandrine library, but by Hellenist Jews for the use of their own countrymen.

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 Lutheran minister, superintendant and professor at Helmstad, was the author of an idle controversy towards the end of the sixteenth century. He started some difficulties about subscribing the concord, and refused to concur with Dr. Andreas in defence of this confession. He would not acknowledge the ubiquity, but only that the body of Jesus Christ was present in a great many places; this dispute, though laid asleep soon after, left a spirit of curiosity and contradiction upon people’s minds, so that in a little time they began to disagree and argue veiy warmly upon' several other points, Hoffman being always at th.e head of the party. Among other things in an academical disputation, he maintained that the light of reason, even as it appears in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, is averse to religion; and the more the human understanding i s cultivated by philosophical study, the more perfectly is the enemy supplied with weapons of defence. The partiality wh;ch at this time universally prevailed in favour of the Aristotelian philosophy was such, that an opinion of this kind could not be advanced publicly, without exciting general dissatisfaction and alarm. A numerous band of professors, though they differed in opinion among themselves, united to take up arms against the common enemy. At the bead of this body was John Cassel; whence the advocates for philosophy were called the Casseiian party. They at first challenged Hoffman to a private conference, in expectation of leading him to a sounder judgment concerning philosophy; but their hopes were frustrated. Hoffman, persuaJed that interest and envy had armed the philosophers against him, in his reply to his opponents inveighed with great bitterness against philosophers, and acknowledged, that he meant to oppose not only the abuse of philosophy, but the most prudent and legitimate use of it, as necessarily destructive of theology. This extravagant assertion, accompanied with many contumelious censures of philosophers, produced reciprocal vehemence; and Albert Graver published a book “De Unica Veritate,” which maintained “the Simplicity of Truth;” a doctrine from which the Casseiian party were called Simplicists, whilst the followers of Hoffman (for he found means to engage several persons, particularly among the Tbeosophists, in his interest) opposing this doctrine, were called, on the other hand, Duplicists. John Angel Werdenhagen, a Boehmeiu'te, who possessed some poetical talents, wrote several poems against the philosophers. In short, the disputes ran so high, and produced so much personal abuse, that the court thought it necessary to interpose its authority, and appointed arbitrators to examine the merits of the controversy. The decision was against Hoffman, and he was obliged to make a public recantation of his errors, acknowledging the utility and excellence of philosophy, and declaring that his invectives had been only directed against its abuses.

, son of the former by his first wife, was born at Altdorf in 1653; and sent to school at Herszpi uck, where having acquired a competent knowledge of the Greek and Latin tongues, he returned to his father at Altdorf at the age of sixteen, and studied first philosophy, and then physic. He went afterwards to Francfort upon the Oder, and proposed to visit the United Provinces and England; but being prevented by the wars, he went to Padua, where he studied two years. Then making a tour of part of Italy, he returned to Altdorf, in 1674, and was admitted to the degree of M. D. He spent two years in adding to the knowledge he had acquired; and then, in 1677, was made professor extraordinary in physic, which title, in 1681, was changed to that of professor in ordinary. He how applied himself earnestly to the practice of physic; and in time his fame was spread so far, that he was sought by persons of the first rank. George Frederic, marquis of Anspach, of the house of Brandenbourg, chose him in 1695 for his physician; and about the latter end of the year, Hoffman attended this prince into Italy, and renewed his acquaintance with the learned there. Upon the death of his father in 1698, he was chosen to succeed him in his places of botanic professor and director of the physic garden. He was elected also the same year rector of the university of Altdorf; a post which he had occupied in 1686. He lost his great friend and patron, the marquis of Apspach, in 1703; but found the same kindness from his successor William Frederic, who pressed him so earnestly to come nearer him, and made him such advantageous otFers, that Hoffman in 1713 removed from Altdorf to Anspach, where he died in 1727. He had married a wife in 16I, by whom he bad 6ve cbildren. He left several works of repute: viz. two dissertations on anatomy and physiology; one on what has since been called morbid anatomy, entitled “Disquisitio corporis human! Anatomico-Pathologica;” ibid. 1713. “Acta Laboratorii chemici Altdorffini,” 1719. “Syntagma Pathologico-therapeuticum,” 1728, in 2 vols. 4to, and “Sciagraphia Institutionum Medicarum,” a posthumous publication. He also continued his father’s “Florre Altdorffinae.”

, the most eminent physician of his name, was born at Halle, in Saxony, Feb. 19, 1660. He received his early education in his native town, and had made great progress in philosophy and the mathematics, when, at the age of fifteen, he lost his father and mother during the prevalence of an epidemic disease. In 1679 he commenced the study of medicine at Jena, and in the following year attended the chemical lectures of Gaspar Cramer, at Erfurth; and, on his return to Jena, received the degree of M. D. in February 168!. In 1682 he published an excellent tract “De Cinnabari Antimonii,” which gained him great applause, and a crowd of pupils to the chemical lectures, which he delivered there. He was then induced to visit Minden, in Westphalia, op the invitation of a relation, and practised there for two years with considerable success. He then travelled into Holland and thence to England, where he was received with distinction by men of science, and particularly by Paul Herman, the botanist, in the former, and Robert Boyle in the latter. On his return to Minden, in 1685, he was made physician to the garrison there, and in the following year was honoured by Frederic William, elector of Brandenburg, with the appointments of physician to his own person, and to the whole principality of Minden. Yet he quitted that city in 1688, in consequence of an invitation to settle at Halberstadt, in Lower Saxony, as public physician. Here he published a treatise “De uisufficientia acidi ct viscidi,” by which he overthrew the system of Cornelius Bontekce. In 1689 he married the only daughter of Andrew Herstel, an eminent apothecary, with whom he had lived forty-eight years in perfect iniion, when she died. About this time, Frederic III., afterwards first king of Prussia, founded the university of Halle; and in Hoffmann was appointed primary professor of medicine, composed the statutes of that institution, and extended its fame and elevated its character, while his own reputation procured him admission into the scientific societies at Berlin, Petershurgh, and London, as well as the honour of being consulted by persons of the highest rank. He was called upon to visit many of the German courts in his capacity of physician, and received honours from several princes; from whom some say that he received ample remuneration in proportion to the rank of his patients; while others have asserted that he took no fees, but contented himself with his stipends. Haller asserts that he acquired great wealth by various chemical nostrums which he vended. In 1704 he accompanied some of the Prussian ministers to the Caroline warm baths in Bohemia, on which occasion he examined their nature, and published a dissertation concerning them. On subsequent visits, he became acquainted with the Sedlitz purging waters, which he first introduced to public notice, having published a treatise on them in 1717: and he afterwards extended his inquiries to the other mineral waters of Germany. In 1 708 he was called to Berlin to take care of the declining health of Frederic, and was honoured with the titles of archiater and aulic counsellor, together with a liberal salary. After three years residence at this court he returned to Halle, and gladly resumed his academical functions. He continued also to labour in the composition of his writings; and in 1718, at the age of 60, he began the publication of his “Medicina Rationalis Systematica,” which was reoeived with great applause by the faculty in various parts of Europe, and the completion of which occupied him nearly twenty years. He likewise published two volumes of “Consultations,” in which he distributed into three “centuries,” the most remarkable cases which had occurred to him; and also “Observationum Physico-Chemicarum Libri tres,” 1722. In 1727 he attended the prince of Schwartzemburg through a dangerous disease; in recompence for which his noble patient created him count palatine. He quitted Halle in 1734, in order to pay a short visit to his daughter and son-in-law at BerJin, and was detained five months by the king of Prussia, Frederic William, in order to attend him during a dangerous illness, by whom he was treated with great honour, elevated to the rank of privy counsellor, and presented with a portrait of the king, set in diamonds. Hoffmann declined a pressing invitation to settle at Berlin, on account of his advanced age, and returned to Halle in April 1735. The illness and death of his heloved wife, in 1737, turned his thoughts to the consolations of religion, and he drew up in Latin a summary of Christian doctrine, which, at the king’s desire, was translated into German. He continued to perform his academical duties until 174!?, when he died in the month of November, aged eighty-two. Frederick Hoffmann was an industrious and copious writer. Haller has occupied thirty-eight quarto pages in the enumeration of his works in detail. The principal of these were collected, during the life of the author, by two Genevese booksellers, and published with his approbation, and with a preface from his pen, in 1740, in six vols. folio. It was reprinted by the same booksellers, the freres de Tournes, in 1748; and in the following year, having raked together every thing which his pen had touched, they published a supplement in three additional volumes folio, which was also reprinted in 1753-4. The writings of Hoffmann contain a great mass of practical matter of considerable value, partly compiled from preceding writers, and partly the result of his own observation; but they contain also many trifling remarks, and not a little hypothetical conjecture, which was indeed a common fault of the times; and in the detail there is considerable prolixity and repetition. Asa theorist his suggestions were of great value, ad contributed to introduce that revolution in the science of pathology, which subsequent observation has extended and confirmed. His doctrine of atony and spasm in the living solid, by which he referred all internal disorders to some “preternatural affection of the nervous system,” rather than to the morbid derangements and qualities of the fluids, first turned the attention of physicians from the mere mechanical and chemical operations of the animal body to those of the primary moving powers of the living system. To Hoffmann Dr. Cullen acknowledges the obligations we are under for having first put us into the proper train of investigation; although he himself did not apply his fundamental doctrine so extensively as he might have done, and every where mixed with it a humoral pathology as incorrect and hypothetical as any other. Hoffmann pursued the study of practical chemistry with considerable ardour, and improved the department of pharmacy by the addition of some mineral preparations; but on the whole, and especially in his latter years, his practice was cautious, and even inert, and he trusted much to vegetable simples.

In 1732 he ventured to attack Mr. Pope, in a plate called “The Man of Taste,” containing a view of the gate of Burlington-house, with Pope white-washing it, and bespattering the duke of Chandos’s coach. This plate was intended as a satire on the translator of Homer, Mr. Kent tUe architect, and the earl of Burlington. It was fortunate for Hogarth that he escaped the lash of the first. Either Hogarth’s obscurity at that time was his protection, or the bard was too prudent to exasperate a painter who had already given such proof of his abilities for satire. What must he have felt who could complain of the “pictured shape” prefixed to “Gulliveriana,” “Pope Alexander’s Supremacy and Infallibility examined,” &c. by Ducket, and other pieces, had such an artist as Hogarth undertaken, to express a certain transaction recorded by Gibber?

In the same year he acquired additional reputation by the six prints of “Marriage a la Mode,” which may be regarded as the ground-work of a novel called “The Marriage Act,” by Dr. Shebbeare, and of “The Clandestine Marriage.”

In the “Miser’s Feast,” Mr. Hogarth thought proper to pillory sir Isaac Shard, a gentleman proverbially avaricious. Hearing this, the son of sir Isaac, the late Isaac Pacatus Shard, esq a young man of spirit, just returned from his travels, called at the painter’s to see the picture; and among the rest, asking the Cicerone “whether that odd figure was intended for any particular person;” on his replying, “that it was thought to be very like one sir Isaac Shard,” he immediately drew his sword, and slashed the canvas. Hogarth appeared instantly in great wrath; to whom Mr. Shard calmly justified what he had done, saying, “that this was a very unwarrantable licence; that he was the injured party’s son, and that he was ready to defend any suit at law;” which, however, was never instituted.

Hogarth made one essay in sculpture. He wanted a sign to distinguish his house in Leicester-fields; and thinking none more proper than the Golden Head, he out of a mass of cork made up of several thicknesses compacted together, carved a bust of Vandyck, which he gilt and placed over his door. It decayed, and was succeeded by a head in plaster, which in its turn was supplied by a head of sir Isaac Newton. Hogarth also modelled another resemblance of Vandyck in clay; which has also perished. His works, as his elegant biographer has well observed, are his history; and the curious are highly indebted to Mr. Walpole for a catalogue of his prints, drawn up from his own valuable collection, in 1771. But as neither that catalogue, nor his appendix to it in 1780, have given the whole of Mr. Hogarth’s labours, Mr. Nichols, including Mr. Walpole’s catalogue, has endeavoured, from later discoveries of our artist’s prints in other collections, to arrange them in chronological order. There are three large pictures by Hogarth, over the altar in the church of St. Mary Redcliff at Bristol. Mr. Forrest, of York-buildings, was in possession of a sketch in oil of our Saviour (designed as a pattern for painted glass); and several drawings, descriptive of the incidents that happened during a five days’ tour by land and water. The parties were Messrs. Hogarth, Thornhill (son of the late sir James), Scott (an ingenious landscape-painter of that name), Tothall, and Forrest. They set out at midnight, at a moment’s warning, from the Bedford-Arms tavern, with each a shirt in his pocket. They had all their particular departments. Hogarth and Scott made the drawings; Thornhill the map; Tothall faithfully discharged the joint offices of treasurer and caterer; and Forrest wrote the journal. They were out five days only; and on the second night after their return, the book was produced, bound, gilt, and lettered, and read at the same tavern to the above parties then present. Mr. Forrest had also drawings of two of the members, remarkably fat men, in ludicrous situations. Etchings from all these have been made, and the journal has been printed. A very entertaining work, by Mr. John Ireland, entitled “Hogarth illustrated,” was published by Messrs. Boydell, in 1792, and has since been reprinted. It contains the small plates originally engraved for a paltry work, called “Hogarth moralized,” and an exact account of all his prints. Since that, have appeared “Graphic illustrations of Hogarth, from pictures, drawings, and scarce prints, in the possession of Samuel Ireland.” Some curious articles were contained in this volume. A supplementary volume to “Hogarth illustrated,” has more recently appeared, containing the original manuscript of the Analysis, with the first sketches of the figures. 2. A Supplement to the Analysis, never published. 3. Original Memoranda. 4. Materials for his own Life, &c. But the most ample Memoirs of Hogarth are contained in Mr. Nichols’s splendid publication of his life and works, 2 vols. 4to, with copies of all his plates accurately reduced.

It is observed by most authors, that Holbein always painted with his left hand; though Walpole objects against that tradition, (what he considers as a proof), that in a portrait of Holbein painted by himself, which was in the Arundelian collection, he is represented holding the pencil in the right hand. But that evidence cannot be sufficient to set aside so general a testimony of the most authentic writers on this subject; because, although habit and practice might enable him to handle the pencil familiarly with his left hand, yet, as it is so unusual, it must have had but an unseemly and awkward appearance in a picture; which probably might have been his real inducement for representing himself without such a particularity. Besides, the writer of Holbein’s life, at the end of the treatise by De Piles, mentions a print by Hollar, still extant, which describes Holbein drawing with his left hand. Nor is it so extraordinary or incredible a circumstance; for other artists, mentioned in this volume, are remarked for the very same habit; particularly Mozzo of Antwerp, who worked with the left; and Amico Aspertino, as well as Ludovico Cangiagio, who worked equally well with both hands. This great artist died of the plague at London in 1554; some think at his lodgings in Whitehall, where he had lived from the time that the king became his patron,' but Vertue rather thought at the duke of Norfolk’s house, in. the priory of Christ church near Aldgate, then called Uuke’s-place. Strype says that he was buried in St. Catherine Cree church; but this seems doubtful.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer and translator, was born in Orange-court, Leicesterfields, Dec. 22, 1744. His father was in the humble occupation of a shoe-maker, and does not appear to have given his son any education. The first employment mentioned, in which the latter was concerned, was as servant to the hon. Mr. Vernon, of whose race-horses he had the care, and became very expert in the art of horsemanship. He is said also to have worked for many years at his father’s trade. He possessed, however, good natural abilities, and a thirst for knowledge, of which he accumulated a considerable fund, and learned with facility and success the French, German, and Italian languages. When about his twenty-fifth year, he conceived a passion for the stage, and his first performance was in Ireland. He had afterwards an engagement of the same kind in London, but never attained any eminence as an actor, although he always might be seen to understand his part better than those to whom nature was more liberal. He quitted the stage in 1781, after the performance of his first play, “Duplicity,” which was successful enough to encourage his perseverance as a dramatic writer. From this time he contributed upwards of thirty pieces, which were either acted on the London stages, or printed without having been performed. Scarcely any of them, however, have obtained a permanent situation on the boards. He published also the following novels “Alwyn,” 1780; “Anna St. Ives,” 1792; “Hugh Trevor,” 1794; and “Brian Perdue,” 1807. His translations were, “The private Life of Voltaire,” 12mo; “Memoirs of Baron Trenck,” 3 vols. 12mo; Mirabeau f $ “Secret History of the Court of Berlin,” 2 vols. 8vo; madame de Genlis’s “Tales of the Castle,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The posthumous Works of Frederick II. of Prussia,” 13 vols. 8vo; “An abridgment of Lavater’s Physiognomy,” 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Holcroft having imbibed the revolutionary principles of France, had joined some societies in this country, which brought him under suspicion of being concerned with Hardy, Tooke, and Thelwall, who were tried for high treason in 1794, but they being acquitted, Mr. Holcroft was discharged without being put upon his trial. His last work was his “Travels,” in Germany and France, 2 vols. 4to, which, like some other of his speculations, was less advantageous to his bookseller than to himself. Iri 1782 he published a poem called “Huntan happiness, or the Sceptic,” which attracted little notice on the score of poetical merit, but contained many of those loose sentiments on religion, which he was accustomed to deliver with more dogmatism than became a man so little acquainted with the subject. In these, however, he persisted almost to the last, when, on his death-bed, he is said to have acknowledged his error. He died March 23, 1809.

, a learned English philosopher, was born in Nottinghamshire, educated in Pembroke hall, Cambridge, and, in 1642, became rector of Blechingdon, Oxfordshire. In 1660 he proceeded D. D. was afterwards canon of Ely, fellow of the royal society, canon of St. Paul’s, sub-dean of the royal chapel, and sub-almoner to his majesty. He gained particular celebrky by teaching a young gentleman of distinction, who was born deaf and dumb, to speak, an attempt at that time unprecedented. This gentleman’s name was Alexander Popham, son of colonel Edward Popham, uho was some time an admiral in the service of the long parliament. The cure was performed by him in his house at Blechingdon, in 1659; but Popham, losing what he had been taught by Holder, after he was called home to his friends, was sent to Dr. Wallis, who brought him to his speech again. On this subject Holder published a book entitled “The Elements of Speech; an essay of inquiry into the natural production of letters: with an appendix concerning persons that are deaf and dumb,” 1669, 8vo. In the appendix he relates how soon, and by what methods, he brought Popham to speak. In this essay he has analysed, dissected, and classed the letters of our alphabet so minutely and clearly, that it is well worthy the attentive perusal of every lover of philology, but particularly, says Dr. Burney, of lyric poets and composers of vocal music; to whom it will point out such harsh and untunable combinations of letters and syllables as from their difficult utterance impede and corrupt the voice in its passage. In 1678 he published, in 4to, “A Supplement to the Philosophical Transactions of July 1670, with some Reflections on Dr. Wailis’s Letter there inserted.” This was written to claim the glory of having taught Popham to speak, which Wallis in the letter there mentioned had claimed to himself: upon which the doctor soon after published, “A Defence of the Royal Society and the Philosophical Transactions, particularly those of July 1670, in answer to the cavils of Dr. William Holder,” 1678,“4to. Holder was skilled in the theory and practice of music, and composed some anthems, three or four of which are preserved in Dr. Tud way’s collection in the British museum. In 1694 he published” A Discourse concerning Time,“in which, among other things, the deficiency of the Julian Calendar was explained, and the method of reforming it demonstrated, which was afterwards adopted in the change of style. It is to be lamented that in treating this subject with so much clearness and ability, so good a musician did not extend his reflections on the artificial parts of time, to its divisions and proportions in musical measures; a subject upon which the abbate Sacchi has written in Italian,” Del Tempo nella Musica;" but which rhythmically, or metrically considered in common with poetry, has not yet been sufficiently discussed in our own language.

, sometimes written Oldsworth, and Oldisworth, a learned and loyal English divine, the youngest son of Richard Holdsworth, a celebrated preacher at Newcastlerupon-Tyne, was born in 1590, and after the death of his father was committed to the care of the rev. William Pearson, a clergyman of the same place, who had married his sister. He was first educated at Newcastle, and in July 1607 admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge. Jn 1610 he took his bachelor’s degree, in 1613 was chosen fellow of his college, in 1614 was made master of arts, and incorporated at Oxford in the same degree in 1617, and in. 1620 was chosen one of the twelve university preachers at Cambridge. While at college he was tutor, among others, to the famous sir Symond D'Ewes. After this he was for some time chaplain to sir Henry Hobart, lord chief justice of the common pleas, and then, had a living given him in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which he exchanged for the rectory of St. Peter the Poor, Broad-street, London. He settled there a little before the great sickness in 1625, during which he continued to do the duties of his office, became a very popular preacher, and was much followed by the puritans. In 1629 he was chosen professor of divinity at Gresham college, and in his lectures, afterwards published, he discovered an unusual extent and variety of learning. They were frequented by a great concourse of divines and young scholars. About 1631 he was made a prebendary of Lincoln, and in 1633 archdeacon of Huntingdon. In the same year he stood candidate for the mastership of St. John’s college, but neither he nor his competitor, Dr. Lane, being acceptable at court, the king, by mandate, ordered Dr. Beale to be chosen. In 1637, however, Mr. Holdsworth was elected master of Emanuel college, and created doctor of divinity. In the same year he kept the act at Cambridge, and in 1639 was elected president of Sion college by the London clergy. In 1641 he resigned his professorship at Gresham college, and the rebellion having now begun, he was marked out as one of the sacrifices to popular prejudice, although he had before suffered somewhat from the court. While vice-chancellor Dr. Holdsworth had supplied the king with money contributed by the university, a crime not easily to be forgiven. When, however, the assembly of divines was called, Dr. Holdsworth was nominated one of the number, but never sat among them. Soon after in obedience to the king’s mandate, he caused such of his majesty’s declarations to be printed at Cambridge as were formerly published at York, for which, and, as Dr. Fuller says, a sermon preached then by him, he was forced to leave the university before the expiration of his office as vice-chancellor. After some concealment he was apprehended near London, and imprisoned, first in Ely house, and then in the Tower. Such was the regard, however, in which he was held at Cambridge, that while under confinement he was elected Margaret professor of divinity, which he held until his death, although he could Meither attend the duties of it nor receive the profits; but his rectory of St. Peter the Poor, and the mastership of Emanuel, were both taken from him. It seems uncertain when he was released. We find him attending the king at Hampton Court in 1647; and in January following, when the parliament voted that no more addresses should be made to the king, he preached a bold sermon against that resolution, for which he was again imprisoned, but being released, assisted, on the king’s part, at the treaty in the Isle of Wight. The catastrophe that soon after befell his royal master is thought to have shortened his life, which terminated Aug. 29, 1649. He lived unmarried, and left his property to charitable uses, except his books, part of, which went to Emanuel college, and part to the public library at Cambridge. He was buried in the chnrch of St. Peter the Poor, where is a monument to his memory. He was of a comely appearance and venerable aspect; warm in his temper, but soon pacified; a great advocate for the king, and zealous in the cause of episcopacy. He was devout, charitable, and an excellent scholar. In his “Preelectiones” he shows not only an intimate acquaintance with the fathers and schoolmen, but likewise most of the eminent divines of later ages, popish as well as protestant, and his style is good. His works are, 1. “A Sermon preached in St. Mary’s, Cambridge, on his majesty’s inauguration,” 1642, 4to, the only thing he ever published. 2. “The Valley of Vision; or a clear sight of sundry sacred truths; delivered in twenty-one sermons,” Lond. 1651, 4to. These were taken in short hand, and Dr. Pearson says they are very defective. 3. “Praelectiones theologicae,” Lond. 1661, fol. published by his nephew, Dr. William Pearson, with a life of the author.

, an English historian, and famous for the Chronicles that go under his name, was descended from a family which lived at Bosely, in Cheshire: but neither the place nor time of his birth, nor scarcely any other circumstances of his life, are known. Some say he had an university education, and was a clergyman; while others, denying this, affirm that he was steward to Thomas Burdett, of Bromcote in the county of Warwick, esq. Be this as it will, he appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and to have had a particular turn for history. His “Chronicles” were first published in 1577, in 2 vols. folio; and then in 1587, in three, the two first of which are commonly bound together. In this second edition several sheets were castrated in the second and third volumes, because there were passages in them disagreeable to queen Elizabeth and her ministry: but the castrations were reprinted apart in 1723. Holinshed was not the sole author or compiler of this work, but was assisted in it by several other writers. The first volume opens with “An historical Description of the Island of Britaine, in three books,” by William Harrison; and then, “The Hislorie of England, from the time that it was first inhabited, until the time that it was last conquered,” by R. Holinshed. The second volume contains, “The description, conquest, inhabitation, and troublesome estate of Ireland; particularly the description of that kingdom:” by Richard Stanihurst. “The Conquest of Ireland, translated from the Latin of Giraldus Cambrensis,” by John Hooker, alias Vowell, of Exeter, gent. “The Chronicles of Ireland, beginning where Giraldus did end, continued untill the year 1509, from Philip Flatsburie, Henrie of Marleborow, Edmund Campian,” &c. by R. Holinshed; and from thence to 1586, by R. Stanihurst and J. Hooker. “The Description of Scotland, translated from the Latin of Hector Boethius,” by R. H. or W. H. “The Historie of Scotland, conteining the beginning, increase, proceedings, continuance, acts and government of the Scottish nation, from the original thereof unto the yeere 1571,” gathered by Raphael Holinshed, and continued from 1571 to 1586, by Francis Boteville, alias Thin, and others. The third volume begins at “Duke William the Norman, commonly called the Conqueror; and descends by degrees of yeeres to all the kings and queenes of England.” First compiled by R. Holinshed, and by him extended to 1577; augmented and continued to 1586, by John Stow, Fr. Thin, Abraham Fleming, and others. The time of this historian’s death is unknown; but it appears from his will, which Hearne prefixed to his edition of Camden’s “Annals,” that it happened between 1578 and 1582.

If Mr. Hollis had any relations, his private affections were not as eminent as his public spirit, for he left the whole of his fortune to his friend T. Brand, esq. who, on that account, took the name of Hollis, and was as violent a 2ealot for liberty as his patron, although less pure in his practice. In 1764, Mr. HolSis sent to Sidney-college, Cambridge, where Cromwell was educated, an original portrait of him by Cooper; and, a fire happening at his lodgings in Bed ford -street, in 1761, he calmly walked out, taking an original picture of Milton only in his hand. A new edition of “Toland’s Life of Milton” was published under his direction, in 1761; and, in 1763, he gave a'n accurate edition of “Algernon Sydney’s Discourses on Government,” on which the pains and expence he bestowed are almost incredible. He meditated also an edition of Andrew Marvell; but did not complete it. In order to preserve the memory of those patriotic heroes whom he most admired, he called many of the farms and fields in his estate at Corscombe by their names; and, in the middle of one of these fields, not far from his house, he ordered his corpse to be deposited in a grave ten feet deep, and the field to be immediately ploughed over, that no trace of his burial place might remain. His religious principles have been suspected, as he joined no denomination of Christians. Another of his singularities was, to observe his nominal birth-day always, without any regard to the change of style. He never took it amiss that he was charged with singularities; he owned that he affected them: “the idea of singularity,” says he, “by way of shield, I try by all means to hold out,” and in this way got rid of those who would otherwise break in upon his time, customs, and way of living. Mr. Brand Hollis, his heir, died in Sept. 1804, and bequeathed his estates in, Dorsetshire and Essex to his friend Dr. Disney. This Brand Hollis did not exactly inherit the independent principles of his benefactor; for whereas Mr. Hollis would not accept of a seat in parliament, for fear of being led into corrupt practices, Mr. Brand had no scruple to apply his fortune to acquire a seat for Hindon, and was convicted of the most scandalous bribery, and imprisoned in the King’s Bench. It is not unuseful t know of what stuff clamorous patriots are made.

, knight, lord chief justice of the court of King’s-bench in the reign of king William, was son of sir Thomas Holt, knight, serjeant at law; and born at Thame in Oxfordshire, 1642. He was educated at Abingdon-school, while his father was recorder of that town; and afterwards became a gentleman -commoner of Orielcollege, Oxford. In 1658 he entered himself of Gray’sinn, before he took a degree; some time after which he was called to the bar, where he attended constantly, and soon became a very eminent barrister. In the reign of James II. he was made recorder of London, which office he discharged with much applause for about a year and a half; but refusing to give his hand towards abolishing the test, and to expound the law according to the king’s design, he was removed from his place. In 1686 he was called to the degree of a serjeant at law, with many others. On the arrival of the prince of Orange, he was chosen a member of the convention parliament; and appointed one of the managers for the commons at the conferences held with the lords, about the abdication and the vacancy of the throne. He had here an opportunity of displaying his abilities; and as soon as the government was settled, he was made lord chief justice of the court of King’s-bench, and admitted into the king’s privy-council.

, a learned English gentleman, well known in the history of British India, was the son of Zephaniah Holwell, timber-merchant and citizen of London, and grandson of John Holwell, a mathematical writer of much fame in the seventeenth century. The father and grandfather of this John Holwell both fell in support of the royal cause during the usurpation, and the family estate of Holwell-hall, in Devonshire, was lost to their descendants for ever; for although Mr. Holwell applied to king Charles at the restoration, the only recompense he obtained was to be appointed royal astronomer and surveyor of the crown lands, and the advancement of his wife to a place of some honour, but of little emolument, about the person of the queen. Some years after he was appointed mathematical preceptor to the duke of Monmouth, for whom he conceived a warm attachment, and, believing him to be the legitimate sou of the king, was induced to take a very active and imprudent part against the succession of the duke of York, which in the end proved his ruin. Having published in 1683 a small Latin tract called “Catastrophe Mundi,” which was soon after translated, and is a severe attack on the popish party, he was marked for destruction as soon as the duke of York came to the throne. Accordingly, in 1685, it was contrived that, in quality of surveyor to the crown, he should be sent to America, to survey and lay down a chart of the town of New York; and at the same time secret orders were sent to the government agents there, to take some effectual means to prevent his return. In consequence of this, it is said, that he had no sooner executed his commission, than he died suddenly, and his death was attributed, at the time and on the spot, to the application of poison administered to him in a dish of coffee. His son was father to the subject of the present article.

In 1756 he rose to be seventh in council, and in the month of June in that year, Surajah Dowlah, nabob of Bengal, attacked Calcutta. The governor and seniors in council having deserted the place, the remaining members of the board, with the inhabitants and troops, elected Mr. Holwell governor and commander in chief of the fort and presidency; who, supported by a few gallant friends, and the remains of a feeble garrison, bravely held out the fort to the last extremity; but a noble defence could not preserve an untenable place, or affect an ungenerous enemy. The opposition he had met with so incensed the nabob, that although on the surrender he had given Mr. Holwell his word that no harm should come to him, he ordered him and his unfortunate companions in arms, 146 persons in number, to be thrust into a close prison called the Black Hole, not eighteen feet square, into which no supply of air could come but by two small windows in one end. Here for one whole night they were confined, and in the morning only twenty-three were found alive, one of whom was Mr. Holwell, whose affecting and highly interesting “Narrative” of the event was published at London in 1758 . On his delivery from this place he was carried in irons to Muxadabad, but was released on July 31st following, by the intercession of the Begum, Surajah Dowlah’s grandmother, who was influenced to this act of compassion by the reports of his upright and lenient conduct to the natives during the time he presided in the Zemindar and Cutcherry courts. He soon after joined the wretched remains of the colony at Fultah. In December following the presidency was retaken by vice-admiral Watson and colonel Clive, and the governor and council re-established by them.

, usually called Lord Kames, an eminent Scotch lawyer, philosopher, and critic, the son of George Home of Kames, in the county of Berwick, was born at Kames in 1696. He was descended from an ancient and honourable family; being on his father’s side, the great grandson of sir John Home of Renton, whose ancestor was a cadet of the family of the earls of Home, who held the office of lord justice-clerk in the reign of king Charles II. His mother was a daughter of Mr. Walkinshaw of Barrowfield, and grand-daughter of Mr. Robert Baillie, principal of the university of Glasgow, of whom an account is given in our third volume. His father having lived beyond his income, and embarrassed his affairs, Henry, on entering the world, had nothing to trust to but his own abilities and exertions, a circumstance which although apparently unfavourable, was always most justly regarded by him as the primary cause of his success in life. The only education he had was from private instructions at home from a tutor of the name of Wingate, of whom he never spoke in commendation.

With no other stock of learning than what he had acquired from this Mr. Wingate, he was, about 1712, bound by indenture to attend the office of a writer of the signet in Edinburgh, as preparatory to the profession of a writer or solicitor before the supreme court; but circumstances inspired him with the ambition of becoming an advocate; and now being sensible of his defective education, he resumed the study of the Greek and Latin languages, to which he added French and Italian, and likewise applied himself to the study of mathematics, natural philosophy, logic, ethics, and metaphysics. These pursuits, which he followed at the same time with the study of the law, afforded, independently of their own value, a most agreeable variety of employment to his active mind. His attention appears to have been much turned to metaphysical investigation, for which he all his life entertained a strong predilection. About 1723, he carried on a correspondence with the celebrated Andrew Baxter, and Dr. Clarke, upon subjects of that kind. In January 1724, he was called to the bar, at a time when bath the bench and bar were filled by men of uncommon eminence. As he did not possess in any great degree the powers of an orator, he engaged for some time but a moderate share of practice as a barrister. In 1728, he published a folio volume of “Remarkable Decisions of the Court of Session,” executed with so much judgment, that he began to be regarded as a young man of talents, who had his profession at heart, and would spare no pains to acquit himself, with honour, in the most intricate causes in which he might be employed. His practice was quickly increased; and after 1732, when he published a small volume, entitled “Essays upon several subjects in Law,” he was justly considered as a profound and scientific lawyer. These essays afford an excellent example of the mode of reasoning which he afterwards pursued in most of his jurisprudential writings, and, in the opinion of his biographer, furnish an useful model for that species of investigation.

In 1763 he was appointed one of the lords of justiciary, the supreme criminal tribunal in Scotland. The mere fact of his appointment is stated by his biographer, but we have seen a letter from him in which he applied for it to a nobleman in power. Tins important duty he continued to discharge with equal diligence and ability, and with the strictest rectitude of moral feeling. In 1766 he received a very large addition to his income by succession to an. estate called Blair-Drummond, which devolved on his wife by the death of her brother, and which furnished him with opportunities of displaying his taste and skill in embellishing his pleasure-grounds and improving his lands. His ideas as a land-holder do him much honour: “In point of morality,” he says in a letter to the late duchess of Gordon, “I consider, that the people upon our estates are trusted by Providence to our care, and that we are accountable for our management of them to the great God, their Creator as well as ours.” Before this accession to his fortune he had published, in 1765, a small pamphlet on the progress of flax-husbandry in Scotland, with the patriotic design of stimulating his countrymen to continue their exertions in a most valuable branch of national industry. He was also very active in promoting the project of the canal between the Forth and Clyde, now completed, and which has been beneficially followed by other undertakings of a similar kind. In 1766 he published “Remarkable decisions of the Court of Session, from 1730 to 1752,” fol. a period which includes that of his own practice at the bar. These reports afford the strongest evidence of the great ability and legal knowledge of their compiler, but his biographer allows that the author’s own argument is generally stated with greater amplitude, and is more strenuously enforced than that which opposes his side of the question.

The subject of education had always been regarded by lord Kames in a most important point of view, and furnished the matter of that work with which he closed his literary labours. In 1781 he published, when in his eightyfifth year, an octavo volume entitled “Loose hints on Education, chiefly concerning the Culture of the Heart.” A work composed at such an advanced age ought not to be subjected to rigorous criticism, yet there are many shrewd and useful remarks in the book, although mixed with others in which the decay of mental powers is visible. In the following year his constitution began to give way, principally from old age, for he had very little that could be called disease. In November he left his seat at BlairDrummoiid for Edinburgh, and the court of session meeting soon after, for the winter, he went thither on the first day of the term, and took his seat with the rest of the judges. He continued for some little time to attend the meetings of the court, and to take his share in its usual business, but soon became sensible that his strength was not equal to the effort. On the last day of his attendance he took a separate and affectionate farewell of each of his brethren. He survived that period only about eight days. He died December 27, 1782, in the eighty-seventh year of his age.

, the most ancient of the Greek poets extant, has been called the Father of poetry; but, however celebrated by others, he has been so very modest about himself, that we do not find the least mention of him throughout his poems: Where he was born, who were his parents, at what exact period he lived, and ulmost every circumstance of his life, remain at this day in a great measure, if not altogether unknown. The Arundel marbles say that he flourished in the tenth century before Christ, and other authorities say the eighth. The most copious account we have of the life of Homer is that which goes under the name of Herodotus, and is usually printed with his history: and though it is generally supposed to be spurious, yet as it is ancient, was made use of by Strabo, and exhibits that idea which the later Greeks, and the Romans in the age of Augustus, entertained of Homer, an abstract of it cannot be unnecessary.

A man of Magnesia, whose name was Menalippus, went to settle at Cumae, where he married the daughter of a citizen called Homyres, and had by her a daughter called Critheis. The father and mother dying, Critheis was left under the tuition of Cleonax her father’s friend; and, suffering herself to be deluded, became pregnant. The guardian, though his care had not prevented the misfortune, was however willing to conceal it; and therefore sent Critheis to Smyrna. Critheis being near her time, went one day to a festival, which the town of Smyrna was celebrating on the banks of the river Meles; where she was delivered of Homer, whom she called Melesigenes, because he was born on the banks of that river. Having nothing to maintain her, she was forced to spin: and a man of Smyrna called Phemius, who taught literature and music, having often seen Critheis, who lodged near him, and being pleased with her housewifery, took her into his house to spin the wool he received from his scholars for their schooling. Here she behaved herself so modestly and discreetly, that Phemius married her, and adopted her son, in whom he discovered a wonderful genius, and an excellent natural disposition. After the death of Phemius and Critheis, Homer succeeded to his father-in-law’s fortune and school; and was admired not only by the inhabitants of Smyrna, but by strangers, who resorted from all parts to that place of trade. A ship-master called Mentes, who was a man of wit, very learned, and a lover of poetry, was so pleased with Homer, that he persuaded him to leave his school, and to travel with him. Homer, whose mind was then employed upon his “Iliad,” and who thought it of great consequence to see the places of which he should have occasion to treat, embraced the opportunity, and during their several voyages, never failed carefully to note down what he thought worth observing. He travelled into Egypt, whence he brought into Greece the names of their gods, and the chief ceremonies of their worship. He visited Africa and Spain, in his return from which places he touched at Ithaca, and was there much troubled with a rheum falling upon his eyes. Mentes being in haste to visit Leucadia his native country, left Homer well recommeMcled to Mentor, one of the chief men of the island of Ithaca, and there he was informed of many things relating to Ulysses, which he afterwards made use of in composing his “Odyssey,” Mentes returning to Ithaca, found Homer cured. They embarked together; and after much time spent in visiting* the coasts of Peloponnesus and the Islands, they arrived at Colophon, where Homer was again troubled with the defluxion upon his eyes, which proved so violent, that he is said to have lost his sight . This misfortune made him resolve to return to Smyrna, where he finished his “Iliad.” Some time after, the baJ state of his affairs obliged him to go to Cumae, where he hoped to have found some relief. Stopping by the way at a place called the New Wall, which was the residence of a colony from Cumae, he lodged in the house of an armourer called Tichius, and recited some hymns he had made in honour of the Gods, and his poem of Amphiaraus’s expedition against Thebes. After staying here some time and being greatly admired, he went to Cumae; and passing through Larissa, he wrote the epitaph of Midas, king of Phrygia, then newly dead. At Cumas he was received with extraordinary joy, and his poems highly applauded; but when he proposed to immortalize their town, if they would allovr him a salary, he was answered, that “there would be no end of maintaining all the 'O^oi or Blind Men,” and hence got the name of Homer. From Cumae he went to Phocasa, where he recited his verses in public assemblies. Here one Thestoricles, a schoolmaster, offered to maintain him, if he would suffer him to transcribe his verses: which Homer complying with through mere necessity, the schoolmaster privily withdrew to Chios, and there grew rich with Homer’s poems, while Homer at Phocaea hardly earned his bread by repeating them.

Homer had the most sublime and universal genius that the world has ever seen; and though it is an extravagance of enthusiasm to say, as some of the Greeks did, that all knowledge may be found in his writings, no man penetrated deeper into the feelings and passions of humaa nature. He represents great things with such sublimity, and inferior objects with such propriety, that he always makes the one admirable, and the other pleasing. Strabo, whose authority in geography is indisputable, assures us, that Homer has described the places and countries, of which he gives an account, with such accuracy, that no man can imagine who has not seen them, and no man can observe without admiration and astonishment. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, than the attempts of some critics, who have possessed more learning and science than taste, to rest the merit of Homer upon the extent of his knowledge. An ancient encomiast upon Homer proves him to have possessed a perfect knowledge of nature, and to have been the author of the doctrine of Thales and Xenophanes, that water is the first principle of all things, from his having called Oceanus the parent of nature; and infers, that he was acquainted with Empedocles’ doctrine of friendship end discord, from the visit which Juno pays to Oceanus and Thetis to settle their dispute: because Homer represents Neptune as shaking the earth, he concludes him to have been well acquainted with the causes of earthquakes; and because he speaks of the great bear as never touching the horizon, he makes him an eminent astronomer. The truth is, the knowledge of nature, which poetry describes, is very different from that which belongs to the philosopher. It would be easy to prove, from the beautiful similes of Homer, that he was an accurate observer of natural appearances; and to show from his delineation of characters, that he was intimately acquainted with human nature. But he is not, on this account, to be ranked with natural philosophers or moralists. Much pains have been taken to prove, that Homer expresses just and sublime conceptions of the divine nature. And it will be acknowledged, that, in some passages, he speaks of Jupiter in language which may not improperly be applied to the Supreme Deity. But, if the whole fable of Jupiter, as it is represented in Homer, be fairly examined, it will be very evident, either that he had not just conceptions of the divine nature, or that he did not mean to express them in the portrait which he has drawn of the son of Saturn, the husband of Juno, and the president of the council of Olympus. It would surely have been too great a monopoly of perfection, if the first poet in the world had also been the first philosopher. Homer has had his enemies; and it is certain, that Plato banished his writings from his commonwealth; but lest this should be thought a blemish upon the memory of the poet, we are told that the true reason was, because he did not esteem the common people to be capable readers of them. They would be apt to pervert his meaning, and have wrong notions of God and religion, by taking his bold and beautiful allegories in a literal sense. Plato frequently declares, that he loves and admires him as the best, the most pleasant, and divine of all poets, and studiously imitates his figurative and mystical way of writing: and though he forbad his works to be read in public, yet he would never be without them in his closet. But the most memorable enemy to the merits of Homer was Zoilus, a snarling critic, who frequented the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and wrote ill-natured notes upon his poems, but received no encouragement from that prince; on the contrary, he became universally despised for his pains, and was at length put, as some say, to a most miserable death. It is said that though Homer’s poems were at first published all in one piece, and not divided into books, yet every one not being able to purchase them entire, they were circulated in separate pieces; and each of those pieces took its name from the contents, as, “The Battle of the Ships;” “The Death of Dolon;” “The Valour of Agamemnon;” “The Grot of Calypso;” “The Slaughter of the Wooers,” &c. nor were these entitled books, but rhapsodies, as they were afterwards called, when they were divided into books. Homer’s poems were not known entire in Greece before the time of Lycurgus; whither that law-giver being in Ionia carried them, after he had taken the pains to transcribe them from perfect copies with his own hands. This may be called the first edition of Homer that appeared in Greece, and the time of its appearing there was about 120 years before Rome was built, that is, about 200 years after the time of Homer. It has been said, that the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” were not composed by Homer in their present form, but only in separate little poems, which being put together and connected afterwards by some other person, make the entire works they now appear; but this is so extravagant a conceit that it scarceJy deserves to be mentioned.

, a celebrated artist, called also Gerardo Dalle Notti, from his principal subjects, was born at Utrecht in 1592, and was a disciple of Abraham Bloemavt; but completed his studies at Home, where he continued several years, employed there by persons of the first rank, and particularly by prince Justiniani. He imitated the style of Caravaggio, with whose vivid tone and powerful masses of light and shade, he attempted to combine correctness of outline, refinement of forms, graceful attitudes, and that dignity which ought to be the characteristic of sacred subjects. In this he often succeeded. His subjects are generally night-pieces as large as life, and illuminated by torch or candle-light. Among his numerous pictures, that of our Saviour before the Tribunal of Pilate, in the gallery Justiniani, for energy, dignity, and contrast, is the most celebrated. Soon after his return to his own country he visited London, and obtained the favour of king Charles I. by several grand performances and portraits; especially by one allegorical picture, in which he represented the portraits of the king and queen, in the characters of two deities, and the portrait of the. duke of Buckingham in the character of Mercury, introducing the liberal arts to that monarch and his consort. For that composition, which was well drawn and extremely well coloured, the king presented him with three thousand florins, a service of plate for twelve persons, and a beautiful horse; and he had afterwards the honour to instruct the queen of Bohemia, and the princesses her children, in drawing.

His papers being put by his friends into the hands of Richard Waller, esq. secretary to the Royal Society, that gentleman collected such as he thought worthy of the press, and published them under the tide of his “Posthumous Works,” in 1705, to which he prefixed an account of his life, in folio.- It is thought, that this gentleman would have published more of Hooke’s manuscripts, had he lived. Mr. Professor Robison of Edinburgh, who ascribes the invention of spring watches to Hooke, had an opportunity of seeing some of Hooke’s Mss. that had been rescued from the fire at the burning of Gresham-college, and says that they are full of systematic views many of them, it must be acknowledged, hasty, inaccurate, and futile, but still systematical. Hooke called them algebras, and considered thein as having a sort of inventive power, or rather as means of discovering things unknown by a process somewhat similar to that art He valued himself highly on account of this view of science, which he thought peculiar to himself: and he frequently speaks of others, even the most eminent, as childishly contenting themselves with partial views of the corners of things. He was likewise very apt to consider other inventors as encroacbers on his systems, which he held as a kind of property, being seriously determined to prosecute them all in their turn, and never recollecting that any new object immediately called him off, and engaged him for a while in the most eager pursuit. His algebras had given him many signal helps, and he had no doubt of carrying them through in every investigation. Stimulated by this overfond expectation, when a discovery was mentioned to him he was too apt to think and to say, that he had long ago invented the same thing, when the truth probably was, that the course of his systematic thoughts on the subjects with which it was connected had really suggested it to him, with such vivacity, or with such notions of its importance, as to make him set it down in his register in its own systematic place, which was his constant practice: but it was put out of his mind by some new object of pursuit. These remarks are part of a series, by the same learned professor, on the merits and inventions of Dr. Hooke, which are new, and highly necessary to enable the reader to form a just estimate of Hooke as a benefactor to science. They are to be found in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” under the article Watch, and in Dr. Gleig’s supplement to that work, under Hooke. No English biographer appears to have done so much justice to our philosopher. 1 >

, 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.”

Hooker, having now lost his fellowship by this marriage, remained without preferment, and supported himself as well as he could, till the latter end of 1584, when he was presented by John Cheny, esq. to the rectory of DraytonBeauchamp, in Buckinghamshire, where he led an uncomfortable life with his wife Joan for about a year. In this situation he received a visit from his friends and pupils Sandys and Cranmer, who found him with a Horace in his hand, tending a small allotment of sheep in a common field; which he told them he was forced to do, because his servant was gone home to dine, and assist his wife in the household business. When the servant returned and released him, his pupils attended him to his house, where their best entertainment was his quiet company, which was presently denied them, for Richard was called to rock the cradle, and the rest of their welcome being equally repulsive, they stayed but till the next morning, which was long enough to discover and pity their tutor’s condition. At their return to London, Sandys acquainted his father with Hooker’s deplorable state, who entered so heartily into his concerns, that he procured him to be made master of the Temple in 1585. This, though a valuable piece of preferment, was not so suitable to Hooker’s temper, as the retirement of a living in the country, where he might be free from noise; nor did he accept it without reluctance. At the time when Hooker was chosen master of the Temple, one Walter Truvers was afternoon-lecturer there; a man of learning and good manners, it is said, but ordained by the presbytery of Antwerp, and warmly attached to the Geneva church discipline and doctrines. Travers had some hopes of establishing these principles in the Temple, and for that purpose endeavoured to be master of it; but not succeeding, gave Hooker all the opposition he couid in his sermons, many of which were about me doctrine, discipline, and ceremonies of the church; insomuch that they constantly withstood each other to the face; for, as somebody said pleasantly, “The forenoon sermon spake Canterbury, and the afternoon Geneva.” The opposition became so visible, and the consequences so dangerous, especially in that place, that archbishop Whitgift caused Travers to be silenced by the high commission court. Upon that, Travers presented his supplication to the privycouncil, which being without effect, he made it public. This obliged Hooker to publish an answer, which wa.s inscribed to the archbishop, and procured him as much reverence and respect from some, as it did neglect and hatred from others. In order therefore to undeceive and win these, he entered upon his famous work “Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity ;” and laid the foundation and plan of ir, while he was at the Temple. But he found the Temple no fit place to finish what he had there designed; and therefore intreated the archbishop to remove him to some quieter situation in the following letter:

, 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.

, son of the preceding, was born at Exeter, in 1664; but his father being taken chaplain to Ireland, he received the early part of his education at Trinity college, Dublin; and afterwards was a student at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1688. The rebellion breaking out in Ireland in that year, he returned thither, and exerted his early valour in the cause of his country, religion, and liberty. When public tranquillity was restored, he came again into Elngland, and formed an acquaintance with gentlemen of wit, whose age and genius were most agreeable to his own. In 1694 he published some “Epistolary Poems and Translations,” which may be seen in Nichols’s “Select Collec-' tion;” and in 1695 he shewed his genius as a dramatic writer, by “Pyrrhus king of Egypt,” a tragedy, to which Congreve wrote the epilogue. He published also in that year, “The History of Love,” a connection of select fables from. “Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” 1695; which, by the sweetness of his numbers and easiness of his thoughts, procured him considerable reputation. With Dryden in particular he became a great favourite. He afterwards published the “Art of Love,” which, Jacob says, “added to his fame, and happily brought him acquainted with the earl of Dorset, and other persons of distinction, who were fond of his company, through the agreeableness of his temper, and the pleasantry of his conversation. It was in his power to have made his fortune in any scene of life; but he was always more ready to serve others than mindful of his own affairs; and by the excesses of hard drinking, and too passionate an addiction to women, he died a martyr to the cause in the thirty-sixth year of his age.” Mr. Nichols has preserved in his collection an admirable hymn, “written about an hour before his death, when in great pain.” His “Court-Prospect,” in which many of the principal nobility are very handsomely complimented, is called by Jacob “an excellent piece;” and of his other poems he adds, “that they are all remarkable for the purity of their diction, and the harmony of their numbers.” Mr. Hopkins was also the author of two other tragedies; “Boadicea Queen of Britain,” 1697; and “Friendship improved, or the Female Warrior,” with a humourous prologue, comparing a poet to a merchant, a comparison which will hold in most particulars except that of accumulating wealth. The author, who was at Londonderry when this tragedy came out, inscribed it to Edward Coke of Norfolk, esq. in a dedication remarkably modest and pathetic. It is dated Nov. 1, 1699, and concludes, “I now begin to experience how much the mind may be influenced by the body. My Muse is confined, at present, to a weak and sickly tenement; and the winter season will go near to overbear her, together with her household. There are storms and tempests to beat tier down, or frosts to bind her up and kill her; and she has no friend on her side but youth to hear her through; If that can sustain the attack, and hold out till spring comes to relieve me, one use I shall make of fa<ther life shall be to shew how much I am, sir, your most devoted humble servant, C. Hopkins.”

, an Arian writer, although belonging to the Church of England, was born at Monmouth in 1706. He received the elements of a learned education at his native town, whence he was sent to All-Souls, Oxford, in 1724. He was admitted to deacon’s orders in 1728, and in the following year undertook the curacy of Waldron, in Sussex. In 1731 he was presented to the vicarage of Bolney, in the same county. In 1753 he published anonymously, “An Appeal to the common sense of all Christian people, more particularly the members of the Church of England, with regard to an important point of faith and practice, imposed upon their consciences.” This excited a controversy which was carried on many years. In 1756 he was elected master of the grammar school of Cuckfield; and in 1766, undertook the curacy of Slaugham, and continued to officiate there many years, and in his own parish of Bolney, making what alterations he pleased in the service, at which the churchwardens were pleased to connive. He supported the famous petition to parliament for relief, in the matter of subscription to the liturgy and thirty-nine articles of the church; and wrote some pamphlets on the subject, but all anonymously. His last work, in 1784, was “Exodus, a corrected translation, with notes critical and explanatory,” in which notes there is little that can gratify the taste of curious and critical readers, but so many severe reflections on the articles and liturgy of the Church of England, that the Monthly Reviewer took for granted he had quitted it, although in the title he called himself the vicar of Bolney. Immediately after this publication, his health began to decline; and his mental faculties were greatly impaired before his decease, which happened in 1786, when he had attained to his eightieth year.

His love for retirement seems to have increased with his age, and for some years he was only at Rome in the spring, passing the summer in the country, and the winter at Tarentum. He never could be prevailed on to undertake any great work, though he was strongly solicited to it; yet his gratitude to Augustus called upon him sometimes to sing his triumphs over Pompey and Antony, or the victorious exploits of Tiberius and Drusus. His “Carmen saeculare” be composed at the express command of Augustus; and to oblige him, wrote also the first epistle of the second book. That prince had kindly reproached him with having said so little of him in his writings; and asked him in a letter written on this occasion, “whether he thought it would disgrace him with posterity, if he should seem to have been intimate with him r” upon which he addressed the epistle just mentioned to him.

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

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.

, 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.

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

, 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.

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

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

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

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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, 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.

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

, an eminent anatomist and physician, was born May 23, 1718, at Kilbride in the county of Lanark. He was the seventh of ten children of John and Agnes Hunter, who resided on a small estate in that parish, called Long Calderwood, which had long been in the possession of his family. His great grandfather, by iiis fatner’s side, was a youoger son of Hunter of Hunterston, chief of the family of that name. At the age of fourteen, his father sent him to the college of Glasgow; where he passed five years, and by nis prudent behaviour and diligence acquired the esteem of the professors, and the reputation of being a good scholar. His father had designed him for the church, but the necessity of subscribing to articles of faith was to him a strong objection. In this state of mind he happened to become acquainted with Dr Cullen, who was then just established in practice at Hamilton, under the patronage of the duke of Hamilton. By the conversation of Dr. Cullen, ha was soon determined to devote himself to th^ profession of pbysic. His father’s consent having been previously obtained, he went, in 1737. to reside with Dr. Cullen. In the family of this excellent friend and preceptor he passed nearly three years, and these, as he has been often heard to acknowledge, were the happiest years of his life. It was then agreed, that he should prosecute his medical studies at Edinburgh and London, and afterwards return to settle at Hamilton, in partnership with Dr. Cullen.

As the family of Mr. Hunter increased, his practice and character also advanced; but the expence of his collection absorbed a very considerable part of his profits. The best % rooms in his house were filled with his preparations; and his mornings, from sun-rise to eight o'clock, were constantly employed in anatomical and philosophical pursuits. The knowledge which he thus obtained, he applied most successfully to the improvement of the art of surgery; was particularly studious to examine morbid bodies, and to investigate the cause of failure when operations had not been productive of their due effect. It was thus that he perfected the mode of operation for the hydrocele, and made several other improvements of different kinds. At the same time the volumes of the Philosophical Transactions bear testimony to his success in comparative anatomy, which was his favourite, and may be called almost his principal pursuit. When he met with natural appearances which could not be preserved in actual preparations, he employed able draughtsmen to represent them on paper; and for several years he even kept one in his family expressly for this purpose. In Jan. 1776, Mr. Hunter was appointed surgeon -extraordinary to his majesty. In the autumn of the same year, he had an illness of so severe a nature, as to turn his mind to the care of a provision for his family in case of his decease; when, considering that the chief part of his property was vested in his collection, he determined immediately to put it into such a state of arrangement as might make it capable of being disposed of to advantage at his death. In this he happily lived to succeed in a great measure, and finally left his museum so classed as to be fit for a public situation.

Mr. Hunter in 1781 was elected into the royal society of sciences and belles lettres at Gottenburg; and in 1783, into the royal society of medicine, and the royal academy of surgery at Paris. In the same year he removed from Jermyn-street to a larger house in Leicester-square, and, with more spirit than consideration, expended a very great sum in buildings adapted to the objects of his pursuits. He was in 1785 at the height of his career as a surgeon, and performec 1 some operations with complete success, which were thought by the profession to be beyond the reach of any skill. His faculties were now in their fullest vigour, and his body sufficiently so to keep pace with the activity of his mind. He was engaged in a very extensive practice, he was surgeon to St. George’s hospital, he gave a very long course of lectures in the winter, had a school of practical anatomy in his house, was continually engaged in experiments concerning the animal osconomy, and was from time to time producing very important publications. At the same time he instituted a medical society called “Lyceum Medicum Londinense,” which met at his lecture-rooms, and soon rose to considerable reputation. On the death of Mr. Middleton, surgeon-general, in 1786, Mr. Hunter obtained the appointment of deputy surgeon-general to the army; but in the spring of the year he had a violent attack of illness, which left him for the rest of his life subject to peculiar and violent spasmodic affections of the heart. In July 1787, he was chosen a member of the American philosophical society. In 1790, finding that his lectures occupied too much of his time, he relinquished them to his brother-in-law Mr. Home; and in this year, on the death of Mr. Adair, he was appointed inspector-general of hospitals, and surgeon-general of the army. He was also elected a member of the royal college of surgeons in Ireland.

, author of the celebrated “Letter on Enthusiasm,” and, if Coxeter be right in his ms conjecture in his title-page of the only copy extant, of a farce called “Androboros.” He was appointed lieutenant-governor of Virginia in 1708, but was taken by the French in his voyage thither. Two excellent letters, addressed to colonel Hunter while a prisoner at Paris, which reflect equal honour on Hunter and Swift, are printed in the 12th volume of the Dean’s works, by one of which it appears, that the “Letter on Enthusiasm” had been ascribed to Swift, as it has still more commonly been to the earl of Shaftesbury. In 1710 he was appointed governor of New York, and sent with 2700 Palatines to settle there. From Mr. Cough’s “History of Croyland Abbey,” we learn, that Mr. Hunter was a major-general, and that, during his government of New-York, he was directed by her majesty to provide subsistence for about 3000 Palatine? (the number stated in the alienating act) sent from Great Britain to be employed in raising and manufacturing naval stores; and by an account stated in 1734, it appears that the governor had disbursed 20,000l. and upwards in that undertaking, no part of which was ever repaid. He returned to England in 1719; and on the accession of George II. was continued governor of New York and the Jerseys. On account of his health he obtained the government of Jamaica, where he arrived in February 1728; died March 31, 1734; and was buried in that island.

Mr. Kurd’s first literary performance, as far as can be ascertained, was “Remarks on a late book entitled ‘An Enquiry into the rejection of the Christian miracles by the Heathens, by William Weston, B. D.’” 1746. On the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, he contributed some verses to the university collection of 1749. In the same year he took the degree of B. D. and published his “Commentary on Horace’s Ars Poetica,” in the preface to which he took occasion to compliment Mr. Warburton in a manner which procured him the acquaintance of that author, who soon after returned the eulogium, in his edition of Pope’s works, in which he speaks of Mr. Kurd’s Commentary in terms of the highest approbation. Hence arose an intimacy which remained unbroken during the whole of their lives, and is supposed to have had a considerable effect on the opinions of Mr. Hurd, who was long considered as the first scholar in what has been called the Warburtonian school. His Commentary was reprinted in 1757, with the addition of two Dissertations, one on the Province of the Drama, the other on Poetical Imitation, and a letter to Mr. Mason, on the “Marks of Imitation.” A fourth edition, corrected and enlarged, was published in 3 vols. 8vo. in 1765, with the addition of another Dissertation on the idea of universal Poetry; and the whole were again reprinted in 1776. It is needless to add that they fully established Mr. Kurd’s character as an elegant, acute, and judicious critic.

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:

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.

, a celebrated divine and martyr, was born at a town in Bohemia, called Hussenitz, about 1376, and liberally educated in the university of Prague. Here he took the degree of B. A. in 1393, and that of master in 1395; and we find him, in 1400, in orders, and a minister of a church in that city. About this time the writings of our countryman Wickliffe had spread themselves among the Bohemians, which was owing to the following circumstance: Queen Anne, the wife of Richard II. of England, was daughter to the emperor Charles IV. and sister to Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, and Sigismund emperor of Germany. She was a princess of great piety, virtue, and knowledge, nor could she endure the implicit service and devotion of the Romish church. Her death happened in 1394, and her funeral was attended by all the nobility of England. She had patronized Wickliffe, and after her death, several of Wickliffe’s books were carried by her attendants into Bohemia, and were the means of promoting the reformation there. They had also been carried into the same country by Peter Payne, an Englishman, one of his disciples, and principal of Edmund-hall. Fox mentions another person, a young nobleman of Bohemia, who had studied some time at Oxford, and carried home with him several of Wickliffe’s tracts. They were particularly read by the students at Prague, among the chief of whom was Huss; who, being much taken with Wickliffe’s notions, began to preach and write with great zeal against the superstitions and errors of the church of Rome. He succeeded so far, that the sale of indulgences gradually decreased among the Bohemians; and the pope’s party declared, that there would soon be an end of religion, if measures were not taken to oppose the restless endeavours of the Hussites. With a view, therefore, of preventing this danger, Subinco, the archbishop of Prague, issued forth two mandates in 1408; one, addressed to the members of the university, by which they were ordered to bring together all Wickliffe’s writings, that such as were found no contain any thing erroneous or heretical might be burnt; the other, to all curates and ministers, commanding them to teach the people, that, after the consecration of the elements in the holy Sacrament, there remained nothing but the real body and blood of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. Hjiss, whose credit and authority in the university were very great, as well for his piety and learning, as on account of considerable services he had done, found no difficulty in persuading many of its members of the unreasonableness and absurdity of these mandates: the first being, as he said, a plain encroachment upon the liberties and privileges of the university, whose members had an indisputable right to possess, and to read all sorts of books; the second, inculcating a most abominable error. Upon this foundation they appealed to Gregory XII. and the archbishop Subinco was summoned to Rome. But, on acquainting the pope that the heretical notions of WicklifTe were gaining ground apace in Bohemia, through the zeal of some preachers who had read his books, a bull was granted him for the suppression of all such notions in his province. By virtue of this bull, Subinco condemned the writings of Wickliffe, and proceeded against four doctors, who bad not complied with his mandate in bringing in their copies. Huss and others, who were involved in this sentence, protested against this projcedure of the archbishop, and appealed from him a second time, in June 1410. The matter was then brought before John XXIII. who ordered Huss, accused of many errors and heresies, to appear in person at the court of Rome, and gave a special commission to cardinal Colonna to cite him. Huss, however, under the protection and countenance of Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, did riot appear, but sent three deputies to excuse his absence, and to answe'r all which should be alledged against him. Colonna paid no regard to the deputies, nor to any defence they could make; but. declared Huss guilty of contumacy to the court of Rome, and excommunicated him for it. Upon this the deputies appealed from the cardinal to the pope, who commissioned four other cardinals to examine into the affair. These commissaries not only confirmed all that Colonna had done, but extended the excommunication, which was limited to Huss, to his friends and followers: they also declared him an Heresiarch, and pronounced an interdict against him.

Matters were in this state at Prague and in Bohemia, till the council of Constance was called where it was agreed between the pope and the emperor, that Huss should appear and give an account of himself and his doctrine. The emperor promised him security against any danger, and that nothing should be attempted against his person; upon which he set out, after declaring publicly, that he was going to the council of Constance, to answer the accusations that were formed against him and challenging all people who had any thing to except to his life and convey sation, to do it without delay. He made the same declaration in all the towns through which he passed, and arrived at Constance, Nov. 3, 1414. Here he was accused in form, and a list of his heretical tenets laid before the pope and the prelates of the council. He was summoned to appear the twenty-sixth day after his arrival; and declared himself ready to be examined, and to be corrected by them, if he should be found to have taught any doctrine worthy of censure. The cardinals soon after withdrew to deliberate upon the most proper method of proceeding against Huss; and the result of their deliberations was, that he should be imprisoned. This accordingly was done, notwithstanding the emperor’s parole for his security; nor were all his prince’s endeavours afterwards sufficient to release him, though he exerted himself to the utmost. Huss was removed from prison to prison for six; months, suffering great hardships from those who had the care of him; and at last was condemned of heresy by the council in his absence, and without a hearing, for maintaining that the Eucharist ought to be administered to the people in both kinds. The emperor, in the mean time, complained heavily of the contempt that was shewn to himself, and of the usage that w is employed towards Huss; insisting, that Huss ought to be allowed a fair and public hearing. In pretended compliance with this, he was on the 5th and 7th of June 1415, brought before the council, and permitted to say what he could in behalf of himself and his doctrines; but every thing was carried on with noise and tumult, and Huss soon given to understand that they were not disposed to hear any thing from him but a recantation of his errors; which, however, he absolutely refused, and was ordered back to prison. On July 6, he was brought again before the council, where he was condemned of heresy, and ordered to be burnt. The ceremony of his execution was this he was first stripped of hi& iacerdotal vestments by bishops nominated for that purpose; next he was formally deprived of his university-degrees; then he had a paper-crown put upon his head, painted round with devils, and the word heresiarch inscribed in great letters; then he was delivered over to the magistrate, who burnt him alive, after having first burnt his books at the door of the church. He died with great firmness and resolution; and his ashes were afterwards gathered up and thrown into the Rhine. His writings, which are very numerous and learned, were collected into a body and published, 1558, in two volumes folio, under this title, “Joannis Hussi Opera, quse extant.” To preserve his memory, it is said that the 7th of July was, for many years, held sacred among the Bohemians. In some places large fires were lighted in the evening of that day upon the mountains, to preserve the memory of his sufferings; round which the country people would assemble and sing hymns. Huss, although a martyr for the opinions of Wickliffe, did not imbibe the whole of them. He was in most points a strenuous Calvinist, if we may anticipate the epithet, but neither he nor Jerora of Prague denied the real presence in the eucharist, and transubstantiation. It is said that at his execution he asked the excutioner, “Are you going to burn a goose?” (the meaning of Huss in the Bohemian language) “In one century you will have a swan you can neither roast nor boil.” This was afterwards interpreted to mean Luther, who had a swan for his arms. Much of Huss’s writings are in Fox, Gilpin, and other ecclesiastical writers.

The great merit of Mr. Hussey’s pencil drawings from life was, that he has preserved the best characteristic likenesses of any artist whatever. And, with respect to those of mere fancy, no man ever equalled him in accuracy, elegance, simplicity, and beauty. The academical drawings he left at Bologna, notwithstanding the school has been often purged, as it is called, by removing old drawings to make room for those of superior merit, are still shewn on account of their superior merit.

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.

After he had taught in a private academy at Dublin for seven or eight years with great reputation and success, he was called in 1729 to Scotland, to be professor of philosophy at Glasgow. Several young gentlemen came along with him from the academy, and his high reputation drew many more thither both from England and Ireland. After his settlement in the college, the profession of moral philosophy was the province assigned to him; so that now -he had full leisure to turn all his attention to his favourite study, human nature. Here he spent the remainder of his life in a manner highly honourable to himself, and ornamental to the university of which he was a member. His whole time was divided between his studies and the duties of his office; except what he allotted to friendship and society. A firm constitution, and a pretty uniform state of good health, except some few slight attacks of the gout, seemed to promise a longer life; yet he did not exceed his 53d year, dying in 1747. He was married soon after his settlement in Dublin, to Mrs. Mary Wilson, a gentleman’s daughter in the county of Longford; by whom he left behind him one son, Francis Hutcheson, M. D. By this gentleman was published, from the original ms. of his father, “A System of Moral Philosophy,” in three books, Glasgow, 1755, 2 vols. 4to. To which is prefixed, “Some account of the Life, Writings, and Character of the Author,” by Dr. Leechman, professor of divinity in the same university. Dr. Hutcheson’s system of morals is, in its foundation, very nearly the same with that of lord Shaftesbury. He agrees with the noble author in asserting a distinct class of the human affections, which, while they have no relation to our own interest, propose for their end the welfare of others; but he makes out his position rather more clearly than Shaftesbury, who cannot exclude somewhat of the selfish as the spring of our benevolent emotions. Hutcheson maintains, that the pleasure arising from the performance of a benevolent action, is not the ruling principle in prompting to such actions; but that, independently of the selfish enjoyment, which is allowed in part to exist, there is in the human mind a calm desire of the happiness of all rational beings, which is not only consistent with, but of superior influence in regulating our conduct, to the desire of our own happiness; insomuch that, whenever these principles come into opposition, the moral sense decides in favour of the former against the latter. Dr. Hutcheson deduced all moral ideas from what he calls a moral sense t implanted in our natures, or an instinct like that of self-preservation, which, independently of any arguments taken from the reasonableness and advantages of any action, leads us to perform it ourselves, or to approve it when performed by others; and this moral sense he maintained to be the very foundation of virtue. His hypothesis was new, but whether much better than other theories of the same kind, may be questioned. His fame, in the opinion of an eminfent author, rests now chiefly on the traditionary history of his academical lectures, which appear to have contributed very powerfully to diffuse, in Scotland, that taste for analytical discussion, and that spirit of liberal inquiry, to which the world is indebted for some of the most valuable productions of the eighteenth century."

, an English autnor, whose writings have been much discussed, and who is considered as the founder of a party, if not of a sect, was born at Spenny thorn in Yorkshire in 1674. His father was possessed of about 40l. per ann. and determined to qualify his son for a stewardship to some gentleman or nobleman. He had given him such school- learning as the place afforded-, and the remaining part of his education was finished by a gentleman that boarded with his father. This friend is said to have instructed him, not only in such parts of the mathematics as were more immediately connected with his destined employment, but in every branch of that science, and at the same time to have furnished him with a competent knowledge of the writings of antiquity. At the age of nineteen, he went to be steward to Mr. Rathurst of Skutterskelf in Yorkshire, and from thence to the earl of Scarborough, who would gladly have engaged him in his service; but his ambition to serve the duke of Somerset would not suffer him to continue there, and accordingly he removed soon after into this nobleman’s service. About 1700 he was called to London, to manage a law-suit of consequence between the duke and another nobleman; and during his attendance in town, contracted an acquaintance with Dr. Woodward, who was physician to the duke his master. Between 1702 and 1706, his business carried him into several parts of England and Wales, where he made many observations, which he published in a little pamphlet, entitled, “Observations made by J. H. mostly in the year 1706.”

Hutchinson had been accustomed to make an excursion for a month or so into the country for his health: but to neglecting this in pursuit of his studies, he is supposed have brought himself into a bad habit of body, which prepared the way for his death. The immediate cause is said to have been an overflowing of the gall, occssioned by the irregular sallies of an high-kept unruly horse, and the sudden jerks given to his body by them. On the Monday before his death, Dr. Mead was with him, and urged him to be bled; saying at the same time in a pleasant way, “I will soon send you to Moses.” Dr. Mead meant to his studies, two of his books being entitled “Moses’s Principia:” but Hutchinson, taking it in the other sense, answered in a muttering tone, “I believe, doctor, you will;” and was so displeased with Mead, that he afterwards dismissed him for another physician. He died August 28, 1737, aged 63. He seems to have been in many respects a singular man. He certainly jjad eminent abilities, with much knowledge and learning; but many people have thought it very questionable, whether he did not want judgment to apply them properly, and many more have inveighed against his principles without previously making themselves acquainted with them. They were, however, in some measure, adopted by many pious and learned divines of the last century, by Home, Parkhurst, Homaine, and the late Rev. William Jones, who, of all others, has exhibited the ablest analysis and defence of Mr. Hutchinson’s sentiments, or what is called Hutchinsonianism, in the “Preface to the second edition” of his life of bishop Home.

It was now that he devoted himself wholly to the Lutheran party, to advance which he laboured incessantly both by his writings and actions. We do not know the exact time when he quitted the castle of Ebernberg; but it appears, that in January 1523, he left Basil, where he had flattered himself with the hopes of finding an asylum, and had only been exposed to great daggers. Erasmus, though his old acquaintance and friend, had here refused a visit from him, for fear, as he pretended, of heightening the suspicions which were entertained against him but his true reason, as he aftersvards declared, in a letter to Melancthon, was, “that he should then have been under a necessity of taking into his house that proud boaster, oppressed with poverty and disease, who only sought for a nest to lay himself in, and to borrow money of every one he met.” This refusal of P>asmus provoked Hutten to attack him severely, and accordingly he published an “Expostulatio” in 1523, which Erasmus answered the same year, in _a very lively piece, entitled, “Spongia Erasmi adversus adspergines Ilutteni.” Hutten probably intended to reply, had he not been snatched away by death; but he died in an island of the lake Zurich, where he had liimself for security, August 1523. tie was a man of little stature; of a weak and sickly Constitution; extremely brave, but passionate: for he was mot satisfied with attacking the Roman Catholics with his pen, he attacked them also with his sword. He acquainted Luther with the double war which he carried on against the clergy. “I received a letter from Hutten,” says Luther, “filled with rage against the Roman pontiff, declaring he would attack the tyranny of the clergy both with his pen and sword: he being exasperated against the pope for threatening him with daggers and poison, and commanding the bishop of Mentz to send him bound to Rome.” Camerarius says, that Hutten was impatient, that his aif and discourse shewed him to be of a cruel disposition and applied to him what was said o Demosthenes, namely, that “he would have turned the world upside down, had his power been equal to his will.” His works are numerous, though he died young. A collection of his “Latin Poems” was published at Francfort in 1538, 12mo; all which, except two poemsj were reprinted in the third part of the “Deliciae Poetarum Germanorum.” He was the author of a great many works, chiefly satirical, in the way of dialogue; and Thuanus has not scrupled to compare him to Lucian. Of this cast were his Latin Dialogues on Lutheranism, published in 4to, in 1520, and now very scarce. He had also a considerable share in the celebrated work called “Epistolae virorum obscurorum,” which Meiners, in his “Liv$s of Illustrious Men,” says, was the joint work of Ulrick and Crotus Rubianus, alias John Jaeger, of Dornheim,in Thuringia. The produc“­tions of each, according to Meiners, may easily be distinguished. Wherever we are struck with the” peculiar levity, rapidity, and force of the style with a certain sol- ­dier-like boldness and unclerical humour, in obscene jests and pictures, and comical representations of saints, reliques, &c. with no small degree of keenness in the relation of laughable anecdotes, with a knowledge of Italy, to be obtained only by experience, with a pleasant explanation and derivation of words in the style of the monkish schools; 'in all these places, the hand of Ulrick Hutten may be traced.“That these letters were the work of different hands, says an acute critic, is not improbable; but we are not certain that Crotus Rubianus had any share in them; nor can we tell from what authority it is sq affirmed. Goethe, who wrote his” Tribute to the memory of Ulrick of Hutten," translated into English by Antony Aufrtre, esq. 1789, and who wrote that some years before the appearance of Meiners’ Biography, seems to have led the latter into this opinion. With much more probability might Reuchlin have been mentioned, who, indeed, by some has been supposed the sole author. Upon the whole, however, there is most reason to think them Hutten' s.

, a Silesian of the sixteenth century, was the founder of the sect called the Bohemian or Moravian brethren, a sect of Anabaptists. Hutten purchased a territory of some extent in Moravia, and there established his society. They are considered as descended from the better sort of Hussites, and were distinguished by several religious institutions of a singular nature, but well adapted to guard their community against the reigning vices of the times. When they heard of Luther’s attempts to reform the church, they sent a deputation to him, and he, examining their tenets, though he could not in every particular approve, looked upon them as worthy of toleration and indulgence. Hutten brought persecution upon himself and his brethren by violent declamations against the magistrates, and the attempt to introduce a perfect equality among men. It has been said that he was burnt as a heretic at Inspruck, but this is by no means certain. By degrees these sectaries, banished from their own country, entered into communion with the Swiss church; though, for some time, with separate institutions. But in the synods held at Astrog in 162O and 1627, all dissensions were removed, and the two congregations were formed into one, under the title of the Church of the United Brethren. The sect of Herrenhutters or Moravians, formed by count JZinzendorff in the beginning of the present century, pretend to be descended from these brethren, ad take the same title of unitas Jratrum but Mosheina observes that “they may with more propriety be said to imitate the example of that famous community, than to descend from, those who composed it, since it is well known that there are very few Bohemians and Moravians in the fraternity of the Herrenhutters; and it is extremely doubtful whether vcn this smaJl number are to be considered as the posterity of the ancient Bohemian brethren, who distinguished themselves so early by their zeal for the reformation,”

In the parliament which began at Westminster April 10, 1640, he served as burgess for Wotton-Basset in Wiltshire; and distinguished himself upon the following occasion. His majesty having acquainted the house of commons, that he would release the ship-money, if they would grant him twelve subsidies, to be paid in three years, great debates arose in the house that day and the next; when Hampden, seeing the matter ripe for the question, desired it might be put, “whether the house should comply with the proposition made by the king, as it was contained in the message?” Serjeant Glanvile, the speaker, for the house was then in a committee, endeavoured in a pathetic speech to persuade them to comply with the king, and so reconcile him to parliaments for ever. No speech ever united the inclination of a popular council more to th speaker than this did and if the question had been immediately put, it was believed that few would have opposed it. But, after a short silence, the other side recovering new courage, called again with some earnestness, thai Hampden’s question should be put; which being like to meet with a concurrence, Hyde, who was desirous to preserve a due medium, after expressing his dislike of Hampden’s question, proposed, that “to the end every man might freely give his yea or no, the question might be put only upon giving the king a supply; and if this was carried, another might be put upon the manner and proportion: if not, it would have the same effect with the other proposed by Mr. Hampden.” This, after it had been some time opposed and diverted by other propositions, which were answered by Hyde, would, as it is generally believed, have been carried in the affirmative, though positively opposed by Herbert the solicitor-general, if sir Henry Vane the secretary had not assured them as from his majesty, that if they should pass a vote for a supply, and not in the proportion proposed in his -majesty’s message, it would not be accepted by him, and therefore desired that the question might be laid aside. This being again urged by the solicitor-general, and it being near five in the afternoon, a very late hour in those days, it was readily consented to, that the house should adjourn till the reXt morning, at which time they were suddenly dissolvea. And within an hour after Hyde met St. John, who was seldom known to smile, but then had a most cheerful aspect; and observing Hyde melancholy, asked him, “what troubled him r” who answered, “The same he believed that troubled most good men, that, in a time of so much confusion, so wise a parliament should be so imprudently dissolved.” St. John replied somewhat warmly, “that all was well: that things must grow worse, before they would grow better; and that that parliament would never have done what was requisite.”

Besides the post of lord chancellor, in which he was continued, he was chosen chancellor of the university of Oxford in Oct. 1660 and, in November following, created a peer by the title of baron Hyde of Hindon in Wiltshire; to which were added, in April 1661, the titles of viscount Cornbury in Oxfordshire, and earl of Clarendon in Wiltshire. These honours, great as they were, were, however, by no means beyond his merit. He had, upon the Restoration, shewn great prudence, justice, and moderation, in settling the just boundaries between the prerogative of the crown and the liberties of the people. He had reduced much confusion into order, and adjusted many clashing interests, where property was concerned. He had endeavoured to make things easy to the Presbyterians and malcontents by the act of indemnity, and to satisfy the Royalists by the act of uniformity. But it is not possible to stand many years in a situation so much distinguished, without becoming the object of envy; which created him such enemies as both wished and attempted his ruin, and at last effected it. Doubtless nothing more contributed to inflame this passion against him, than the circumstance of his eldest daughter being married to the duke of York, which became known in a few months after the king’s return. She had been one of the maids of honour to the princess royal Henrietta, some time during the exile, when the duke fell in love with her; and being disappointed by the defeat of sir George Booth, in a design he had formed of coming with some forces to England in 1659, he went to Breda, where his sister then resided. Passing some weeks there, he took this opportunity, as Burnet tells us, of soliciting miss Hyde to indulge his desires without marriage; but she managed the matter with such address, that in the conclusion he married her, Nov. 4 that year, with all possible secrecy, and unknown to her father. After their arrival in England, being pregnant, she called upon the duke to own his marriage; and though he endeavoured to divert her from this object, both by great promises and great threatenings, yet she had the spirit and wisdom to tell him, “She would have it known that she was his wife, let him use her afterwards as he pleased.” The king ordered some bishops and judges to peruse the proofs of her marriage; and they reporting that it had been solemnized according to the doctrine of gospel and the law of England, he told his brother, that he must live with her whom he had made his wife, and at the same time generously preserved the honour of an excellent servant, who had not been privy to it; assuring him, that “this accident should not lessen the esteem and favour he had for him.”

A charge urged with so much anger and inconsistency as this was, it is easy to imagine, could not much affect him on the contrary we find, that the prosecution ended greatly to the honour of the chancellor; notwithstanding which, his enemies advanced very considerably by it in their design, to make him less in favour with his master, less respected in parliament, and less beloved by the people. The building of a magnificent house, which was begun in the following year, 1664, furnished fresh matter for obloquy. “The king,” says Burnet, “had granted him a large piece of ground, near St. James’s palace, to build upon. He intended a good ordinary house; but not understanding these matters himself, he put the management of it into the hands of others, who run him to a vast expence of above 50,000l. three times as much as he had designed to lay out upon it. During the war, and in the year of the plague, he had about 300 men at work, which he thought would have been an acceptable thing, when so many men were kept at work, and so much money as was daily paid circulated about; but it had a contrary effect; it raised a great outcry against him. Some called it Dunkirk-house, intimating that it was built by his share of the price of Dunkirk: others called it Holland-house, because he was believed to be no friend to the war; so it was given out he had the money from the Dutch. It was visible that, in a time of public calamity, he was building a very noble palace. Another accident was, that before the war there were some designs on foot for the repairing of St. Paul’s, and many stones were brought thither for the purpose. That project was laid aside; upon which he bought the stones, and made use of them in building his own house. This, how slight soever it may seem to be, had a great effect by the management of his enemies.” To this remark it may be added, that this stately pile was not finished till 1667; so that it stood a growing monument for the popular odium to feed upon, almost the whole interval between his first and his last impeachment; and to aggravate and spread that odium, there was published a most virulent satirical song, entitled “Clarendon’s House-warming,” to irritate the minds of the populace.

Being now about to quit the kingdom in exile, before he departed he drew up an apology, in a petition to the house of lords, in which he vindicated himself from any way contributing to the late miscarriages, in such a manner as laid the blame at the same time upon others. The lords received it Dec. 3, and sent two of the judges to acquaint the commons with it, desiring a conference. The duke of Buckingham, who was plainly aimed at in the petition, delivered it to the commons; and said, “The lords have commanded me to deliver to you this scandalous and seditious paper sent from the earl of Clarendon. They bid me present it to you, and desire you in a convenient time to send it to them again; for it has a style which they are in love with, and therefore desire to keep it.” Upon the reading of it in that house, it was voted to be “scandalous, malicious, and a reproach to the justice of the nation;” and they moved the lords, that it might be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, which was ordered and executed accordingly. The chancellor retired to Rouen in Normandy; and, the year following, his life was attempted at Evreux near that city by a body of seamen, in such an outrageous manner, that he with great difficulty escaped. In the Bodleian library at Oxford, there is an original letter from Mr. Oliver Long, dated from Evreux, April 26, 1668, to sir William Cromwell, secretary of state, in which the following account is given of this assault. “As I was travelling from Rouen towards Orleans, it was my fortune, April 23, to overtake the earl of Clarendon, then in his unhappy and unmerited exile, who was going towards Bourbon, but took up his lodgings at a private hotel in a small walled town called Evreux, some leagues from Rouen. I, as most English gentlemen did to so valuable a patriot, went to pay him a visit near supper-time; when he was, as usual, very civil to me. Before supper was done, twenty or thirty English seamen and more came and demanded entrance at the great gate; which, being strongly barred, kept them out for some time. But in a short space they broke it, and presently drove all they found, by their advantage of numbers, into the earl’s chamber; whence, by the assistance of only three swords and pistols, we kept them out for half an hour, in which dispute many of us were wounded by their swords and pistols, whereof they had many. To conclude, they broke the windows and the doors, and under the conduct of one Howard, an Irishman, who has three brothers, as I am told, in the king of England’s service, and an ensign in the company of cannoneers, they quickly found the earl in his bed, not able to stand by the violence of the gout; whence, after they had given him many blows with the;r swords and staves, mixed with horrible curses and oaths, they dragged him on the ground in the middle of the yard, where they encompassed him around with their swords, and after they had told him in their own language, how he had sold the kingdom, and robbed them of their pay, Howard commanded them all, as one man, to run their swords through his body. But what difference arose among themselves before they could agree, God above, who alone sent this spirit of dissention, only knows. In this interval their lieutenant, one Svvaine, came and disarmed them. Sixteen of the ringleaders were put into prison; and many of those things they had rifled from him, found again, which were restored, and of great value. Mons. la Fonde, a great man belonging to the king of France’s bed-chamber, sent to conduct the earl on his way thither, was so desperately wounded in the head, that there were little hopes of his life. Many of these assassins were grievously wounded; and this action is so much resented by all here, that many of these criminals will meet with an usage equal to their merit. Had we been sufficiently provided with fire-arms, we had infallibly done ourselves justice on them; however, we fear not but the law will supply our defect.”

, Lord Hyde and Cornbury, eldest son to Henry earl of Clarendon and Rochester, was the author of a few pamphlets published without his name: of some tragedies still in manuscript, and of a comedy called “The Mistakes or, The Happy Resentment,” printed in 1758 at Strawberry Hill, with a preface by lord Orford. This was a juvenile performance, of no great merit, never acted, and printed for the benefit of an actress. His lordship was killed by a fall from his horse, in France, May 2, 1753. Pope has neatly complimented the virtuous taste of lord Cornbury, by making it a criterion of merit to “disdain whatever Cornbury disdained.” “He was,” says lord Orford, “upright, calm, steady his virtues were of the gentlest complexion, yet of the firmest texture vice could not bend him, nor party warp him even his own talents could not mislead him. Though a master of eloquence, he preferred justice and the love of his country to all the applause which the violence of the times in which, he lived was so prodigal of bestowing on orators who distinguish themselves in any faction; but the tinsel of popularity and the intrinsic of corruption were equally his contempt. He spoke, nor wrote, nor acted, for fame.” He wrote the paper dated Feb. 12, 1737, in the periodical paper entitled “Common Sense,” and “A Letter to the vice-chancellor of Oxford.” 1751. His lordship had represented the university in parliament, and in this letter announces his resignation, in consequence of being called up to his father’s barony in the house of peers. This was followed by a “Letter to his Lordship,” from several members of the university, acknowledging his merits. He was succeeded by sir Roger Newdigate. But of all his compositions, that which did his lordship most credit, was his “Letter to David Mallet, on the intended publication of lord Bolingbroke’s Manuscripts,” which was printed in Dr. Havvkes worth’s edition of Swift’s works; and it is a monument, says that editor, that will do more honour to the writer’s memory than all that mere wit or valour has achieved since the word began. Mallet, it is well known, did not profit as he ought to have done by this advice. Pope’s allusion of “disdain,” &c. is said, by Ruffhead, to have arisen from the following circumstance: when lord Cornbury returned from his travels, the earl of Essex, his brother-in-law, told him he had got a handsome pension for him; to which lord Cornbury answered with a composed dignity, “How could you tell, my lord, that I was to be sold; or, at least, how came you to know my price so exactly?”

In 1658 he went to Oxford, and was admitted of Queen’s college, where he was soon after made Hebrew rea ler. The year after, Richard Cromwell, then chancellor of that university, directed his letters to the delegates, signifying, that “Mr. Hyde was of full standing, since his admission, into the university of Cambridge, for the degree of master of arts, and that he had given public testimony of his more than ordinary abilities and learning in the Oriental languages;” on which they made an order that he should accumulate that degree by reading only a lecture in one of the Oriental languages in the schools; and having ac-. cordingly read upon the Persian tongue, he was created M. A. in April 1659. Soon after he was made underkeeper of the Bodleian library, upon the ejection of Mr,. Henry Stubbe; and behaved himself so well in this employment, that, when the office of head -keeper became vacant, he was elected into it with the unanimous approbation of the university. In 1665 he published a Latin translation from the Persian of Uiugh Beig’s “Observations concerning the Longitude and Latitude of the fixed Stars,” with notes. This Ulugh Beig was a great Tartajr monarch, the son of Shahrokn, and the grandson of Timur Beig, or, as he is usually called, Tamerlane. In the pre/ace he informs us, “that the great occupations of government hindered him from performing in person, so much as he would have done towards the completing this useful work: but that he relied chiefly on his minister Salaheddin, and t.iat he dying before the work was finished, his colleague Gaiatheddin Giamshed and his son Ali al Cousin were afterwards employed, who put the last hand to it.” It was written originally in the Arabic tongue, but afterwards translated twice into the Persian.

Hyginus wrote many books, which are mentioned by ancient writers. Gellius quotes a work “of the Lives and Actions of illustrious Men.” Servius, in his “Commentary upon the Æneid,” tells us, that he wrote upon “the Origin and Situation of the Italian Cities” which same work is also mentioned by Macrobius. Gellius again mentions his “Commentaries upon Virgil;” as does Macrobius a book “Concerning the Gods.” He wrote also “about Bees and Agriculture;” and lastly, a book of “Genealogies,” of which he himself has made mention in the only undoubted work of his remaining, that is, in his “Poeticon Astronomicon, de mundi & sphaerae ac utriusque partium declaratione, libris quatuor, ad M. Fabium couscrip-f, turn.” The first book treats of the world and of the doctrine of the sphere; the second of the signs in the zodiac; the third gives a description and history of the constellations; and the fourth treats of several things relating to the planets. Here, while Hyginus describes the constellations in the heavens, and notes the stars which belong to each, he takes occasion to explain the fables of the poets from which the constellations were supposed originally to have taken their rise and name; and hence his work seems to have been called “Poeticun Astronomicon.” It has come down to us, however, very imperfect; and all that part of it, -which, as he tells us, treated of the month, the year, and the reasons of intercalating the months, is entirely lost. To this is joined a book of fables, in which the heathen mythology is reduced into a compendium: but this is imperfect, and suspected to be spurious. There are many editions of these books, but the best is that which Munker published, together with some other pieces of antiquity upon the same or a similar subject, under the title of “Mythographi Latini,” Amst. 16*1, 2 vols. 8vo. The third book of the Astronomies, is illustrated with several copper-plates of the constellations elegantly engraved, which Grotius had published from the Susian ms. but which, Schetter tells us, he had omitted in his edition of 1674, because he knew those ancient delineations to be very erroneous, and very ill done.

While Hypatia thus reigned the brightest ornament of Alexandria, Orestes was governor of the same place for the emperor Theodosius, and Cyril bishop or patriarch. Orestes, having had a liberal education, admired Hypatia, and frequently consulted her. This created an intimacy between them that was highly displeasing to Cyril, who had a great aversion to Orestes: which intimacy, as it is supposed, had like to have proved fatal to Orestes, as we may collect from the following account of Socrates. “Certain of the Monks,” says he, “living in the Nitrian mountains, leaving their monasteries to the number of about five hundred, flocked to the city, and spied the governor going abroad in his chariot: whereupon approaching, they called him by the names of Sacrificer and Heathen, using many other scandalous expressions. The governor, suspecting that this was a trick played him by Cyril, cried out that he was a Christian; and that he had been baptized at Constantinople by bishop Atticus. But the monks giving no heed to what he said, one of them, called Ammonius, threw a stone at Orestes, which struck him on the head; and being all covered with blood from his wounds, his guards, a few excepted, fled, some one way and some another, hiding themselves in the crowd, lest they should be stoned to death. In the mean while, the people of Alexandria ran to defend their governor against the monks, and putting the rest to flight, brought Ammonius, whom they apprehended, to Orestes; who, as the laws prescribed, put him publicly to the torture, and racked him till he expired.”

But though Orestes escaped with his life, Hypatia afterwards fell a sacrifice. This lady, as we have observed, was profoundly respected by Orestes, who much frequented and consulted her “for which reason,” says Socrates, “she was not a little traduced among the Christian multitude, as if she obstructed a reconciliation between Cyril and Orestes. This occasioned certain enthusiasts, headed by one Peter a lecturer, to enter into a conspiracy against her; who watching an opportunity, when she was returning home from some place, first dragged her out of her chair; then hurried her to the church called Cæsars; and, stripping her naked, killed her with tiles. After this, they tore her to pieces; and, carrying her limbs to a place called Cinaron, there burnt them to ashes.” Cave endeavours to remove the imputation of this horrid murder from Cyril, thinking him too honest a man to have had any hand in it; and lays it upon the Alexandrian mob in general, whom he calls “levissimum hominum genus,” “a very trifling inconstant people.” But though Cyril should be allowed to have been neither the perpetrator, nor even the contriver of it, others have thought that he did not discountenance it in the manner he ought to have done: and was so farfrom blaming theoutrage committed by the Nitrian monks upon the governor Orestes, that “he afterwards received the dead body of Ammonius, whom Orestes had punished with the rack; made a panegyric upon him, in the church where he was laid, in which he extolled his courage and constancy, as one that had contended for the truth; and, changing his name to Thaumasius, or the Admirable, ordered him to be considered as a martyr. However, continues Socrates, the wiser sort of Christians did not approve the zeal which Cyril shewed on this man’s behalf; being convinced, that Ammonius had justly suffered for his desperate attempt.” We learn from the same historian, that the death of Hypatia happened in March, in the 10th year of Honorius’s, and the 6th of Theodosius’s, consulship that is, about A. D. 415.

, of Alexandria, a disciple of Isidorus, flourished under M. Aurelius, and Lucius Verus, in the second century. He has been supposed to be the author of a certain work called “Anaphoricus,” or a book of ascensions, which was written in opposition to the doctrines of some astronomer. It was published in Greek, with the Latin version of Mentelius, and in conjunction with the Optics of Heliodorus, at Paris, in 1680, 4to. Vossius, in his book “de Scientiis Mathematicis,” has erroneously supposed him to have lived at a much earlier period.

, a nonconformist divine, was born at Little Waldingfield in Suffolk in 1593; his father, who was a Spanish merchant in London, died when he was young. He was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, where he appears to have taken his degrees in arts, and in 1617 was incorporated M. A. at Oxford. While at college he commenced the habit of rising every morning at three or four o'clock, both summer and winter, and studied from fourteen to sixteen hours every day. He continued at Cambridge until his marriage in 1519, soon after which.he was chosen by the inhabitants of St. Michael, Wood-street, London, to be their lecturer, and on the death of Mr. Brogden, their pastor. During the plague in 1624, he was one of those who remained at his post, and administered such aid to the sick and dying as he could, and was in other respects scrupulously diligent in preaching, catechizing, &c. When the reading of the “Book of Sports” was enjoined, he refused that foolish and imprudent mandate; yet such was his character, that when complained of to archbishop Laud for this omission, that prelate said, “Mr. Jackson is a quiet and peaceable man, and therefore I will not have him meddled with.” He was not less respected by archbishop Sheldon, notwithstanding his very different opinion on church-government and ceremonies. He afterwards accepted the living of St. Faith’s under St. Paul’s, whence he was ejected in 1662. He was no friend to the tyranny of Cromwell, and was imprisoned above four months for refusing to give evidence against Mr. Love, before what was called the high court of justice, and was also fined 500l. On the restoration, when Charles II. made his entry into London, Mr. Jackson was appointed by the London clergy to present to him a Bible, as his majesty passed through St. Paul’s churchyard. After his ejection, he employed his leisure in pursuing his annotations on the Bible, during the short remainder of his life. He died Aug. 5, 1666. His “Annotations on the Bible,” as far as the book of Isaiah, were published in 4 vols. 4to, the last by his son, who prefixed ta it some memoirs of the author.

He also published several poems: “A Journey to Bath and Bristol,” “The Lover’s Miscellany,” “Essays relating to the conduct of Life,” and “An Essay on Criticism, &c.” But as a law-writer, few men have left more ample testimonies of industry, and one at least of his productions still preserves his name. He published, 1. “The Accomplished Conveyancer,” 1714, reprinted in 1736 and 1750, 3 vols. 8vo. 2. “The Clerk’s Remembrancer.” 1714, reprinted 1730. 3. “The Grand Precedent,” 1716, 8vo. 4. “A Catalogue of all Writs and Processes of the Courts at Westminster,” 1717, 8vo. 5. “Lex Mercatoria, or the merchants’ companion,” 1718, 8vo, reprinted 1729. 6. “The Laws of Appeals and Murder,” from the Mss. of Mr. Gale, an eminent practiser, 1719, 8vo. 7. “Lex Constitutions, or the gentleman’s law,” 1719, 8vo, reprinted 1737. 8. “The Modern- Justice, containing the business of a justice of peace, with precedents,” 1720, reprinted in 1726 and 1729. 9. “Review of the Statutes,” 3720, and again the same year. 10. “A Treatise of the Laws, or a general introduction to the common, civil, and canon law,” 1721, 8vo. 11. “The complete Court Keeper, or lord steward’s assistant,” 1724, 8vo, reprinted 1740, 1752, 1764, and 1781, which last edition, much improved, is called the seventh. 12. “The Student’s Companion, or reason of the law,” 1725, again in 1734 and 1743. 13. “The Common Law common-placed/' 1726, 8vo, reprinted in fol. 1733. 14.” The new Law Dictionary,“1729, reprinted in 1733, and often since, with the valuable improvements of Ruffhead, Morgan, and lastly of Sir Thomas Edlyne Tomlyns, in 1797: an abridgment of it was published in 1743. 15.” The complete Chancery Practitioner,“1730, 2 vols. 8vo. 16.” Tables to the Law,“1736, fol. 17.” The complete. Attorney’s Practice,“1737, 2 vols. 8vo. 18.” City Libertie,“1732, and with a new title only, 1737. 19.” General Law of Estates,“1740, 8vo. 20.” Game Law,“1740, 12mo. the seventh edition. 21.” New complete Conveyancer,“1744, 8vo. 22.” The Statute Law common-placed,“1748, 8vo, fifth edition, 23. Law Grammar,” 1749 and 1754, 12mo. and again in folio, to bind up with the author’s Law Dictionary.

, the founder of the first independent or congregational church in England, was a native of Kent, and received his academical education at St. Mary’s hall, Oxford. Having entered into holy orders, he was made precentor of Corpus Christi college, and afterwards obtained the benefice of Cheriton in Kent. In the year 1604 he published “Reasons taken out of God’s word, and the best of human testimonies, proving the necessity of reforming our churches of England.” The publication of this, and of another work against what was falsely called “learned preaching,” would have brought him under ecclesiastical censure if he had not fled to Holland. At Leyden he became a convert to the Brownist principles, since known by the name of Independency. In Holland he published several treatises, and upon his return he avowed a design of setting up a separate congregation upon the model of those in Holland. This, in a short time, he carried into effect, and thus laid the foundation of the first independent congregational chinch in England. He was elected pastor of the church, and continued with his people till the year 1624, when he went to Virginia, where he soon afterwards died. He was author of many publications which were highly esteemed in his day, particularly, 1. “A treatise of the Sufferings and Victory of Christ in the work of our Redemption, &c. written against certain errors in those points publicly preached in London, 1597,” Lond. 1598, 8vo. The points which he endeavours to confute were, 1. That Christ suffered for us the wrath of God, which we may well term the pains of hell. 2. That Christ, after his death on the cross, went not into hell in his soul. 2. “Of the Church and Ministry of England, written in two treatises against the reasons and objections of Mr. Francis Johnson,” Middleburg, 1599, 4to. Our author and Mr. Johnson, who was a Brownist, and lived in Holland, had several disputes at Amsterdam about the church of England’s being a true church. 3. “Defence of a treatise touching the Sufferings and Victory of Christ in the work of our Redemption,” 1600, 4to. 4. “Reasons taken out of God’s word,” &c. already merrtioned, 16CH, 4to. 5. “A Position against vain-glorious> and that which is falsely called learned preactiing,” 1604, 8vo. 6. “The divine beginning and institution of Christ’s true, visible, and material Church,” Leyden, 1610, 8vo. 7. “Plain and clear Exposition of the Second Commandment,” 1610, 8vo. 8. “Declaration and opening of certain points, with a sound confirmation of some others, in a treatise entitled * The divine beginning,' &c.” Middleburg, 1611. He wrote and published likewise several pieces, as the “Counter- Poison,” &c. which being printed privately, or on the continent, are rarely to be met with.

Mr. Jacob’s other works, which have never found their way to the press, excepting the “Delphi Phrenicizantes,” of the credit of which he is said to have been robbed by Dr. Dickinson , were as follows: “Etymotechnia Catholica,” containing four diatribes concerning the original of letters. The first, “De Ordine Alphabet;” the second, “De Transitu Alphabet;” the third, “De Numero, Figura, Potentate et Divisione Literarum;” and the fourth called “Geographistor Etymotechnicus.” “Grammatica Ebraea.” “Σβω, vel Osiris inventus; de Coptiatis Originibus Commentatio.—Geographumena,” in wliich are many Assyriac and Egyptic antiquities discovered. “Pancarpia, opus ex artibus et linguis miscellan.” imperfect. “Magnetologia, in lib. 3, agentibus de triplici Motu Magnetico, Lapidali, Cœlesti et Animali,” &c. “De Mari rubro,” and another, “De Historia Beli et Draconis.” “Libri Ebraeo Rabbinici in Bib. Bodleiana recensiti,” an. 1629.

, commonly called Lucas Van Leyden, and by the Italians, Luca d'Ollanda, was born at Leyden, 1494. He was the disciple of his father Hugh Jacobs, and after him of Cornelius Engelbrecht, and distinguished himself in very early life as a painter and engraver. With fewer faults than his contemporaries, he possessed qualities to them unknown, more freshness and mellowness of colour, more aerial perspective, and equal dexterity in oil, distemper, and on glass. He delighted in subjects of extensive composition, though he was ignorant of light and shade in masses. His forms, like those of Albert Durer, are implicit copies of the model, but with less variety and less intelligence, lank, meagre, ignoble. Of expression he had little more than the vulgar grimace. Though he was without attention or knowledge of the costume in the general attire of his figures, his drapery is often ample and broad, but rather snapt than folded. Many pictures of this master in oil and distemper still exist in public places and private collections, at Leyden, Amsterdam, Paris, Vienna, and elsewhere. His name, however, chiefly survives in the numerous prints which he engraved with equal diligence and facility of touch. He died in 1533.

Whether James was the real inventor of the powder, may admit of a doubt. “The calcination of antimony and bone-ashes produces,” says Dr. Pearson, “a powder called Lile’s and Scbawanberg’s fever powder; a preparation described by Schroeder and other chemists 150 vears ago.”

According to the receipt in the possession of Mr. Bromfield, by which this powder was prepared forty-five years ago, and before any medicine was known by the name of James’s powder, two pounds of hartshorn shavings must be boiled, to dissolve all the mucilage, and then, being dried, be calcined with one pound of crude antimony, till the smell of sulphur ceases, and a light grey powder is produced. The same prescription was given to Mr. Willis above forty years ago, by Dr. John Eaton of the college of physicians, with the material addition, however, of ordering the calcined mixture to be exposed to a given beat in a close vessel, to render it white.“” Schroeder prescribes equal weights of antimony and calcined hartshorn; and Poterius and Michaelis, as quoted by Frederic Hoffman, merely order the calcination of these two substances together (assigning no proportion) in a reverberatory fire for several days." It has been alleged, that Dr. James obtained the receipt for his powder of a German baron named Schwanberg, or one Baker, to whom Schwanberg had sold it. This account we have not been able to verify, but if it- be true, baron Schwanberg, as he is called, was probably the descendant of the Schawanberg mentioned so long ago. Be it as it may, Dr. James was able to give that credit and currency to the medicine which otherwise it would not have had, and the public are therefore indebted to him for publishing, if not for inventing, a preparation of most admirable effect.

On the Malabar coast, soon after this, he fell in with a French ship from Mauritius, very much his superior in men and guns; she was called L'lndienne: after a smart action she struck, and he carried her in triumph to Bombay. Captain James, in an eminent manner, displayed his nautical abilities by shewing, that in despightof a contrary monsoon, a communication between Bombay and the Coromandel coast may be effected in cases of exigency. This passage was attempted by him in the first instance, and he accomplished it in nearly as short a time as it usually was done in the favourable monsoon. It was of the utmost moment that he succeeded at the time he did, for by it he confirmed to admiral Watson (then in the Ganges) the intelligence of the war with France, and brought to his assistance five hundred troops, by which the admiral and colonel Clive were enabled, in March 1757, to take Chandenagore, the chief of the French settlements in Bengal. In effecting this passage James crossed the equator in the meridian of Bombay, and continued his course to the southward as far as the tenth degree, and then was enabled to go as far to the eastward as the meridian of Atcheen head, the north-west extremity of Sumatra, from whence, with the north-east monsoon, which then prevailed in the bay of Bengal, he could with ease gain the entrance of the Ganges, or any port on the Coromandel coast.

, a celebrated Dominican, so called from the place of his birth in the state of Genoa, was born about 1230. He was provincial and counsellor of his order, and afterwards appointed archbishop of Genoa, by pope Nicholas IV. 1292. He ruled his church with great wisdom and prudence, held a provincial council in 1293, and died July 14, 1298. He left a “Chronicle of Genoa,” published in tom. XXVI. of the collection of Italian authors by Muratori; a great number of “Sermons,” 1589, and 1602, 2 vols. 8vo, and other works; among the most celebrated is a collection of legends of the saints, known by the name of “The Golden Legend;” the first edition is Cologna, 1470, fol. scarce; the Italian translation, Venice, 1476, fol. is also very scarce, as is the first edition of the French translation by John Batallier, Lyons, 1476, folio. This work contains so many puerile and ridiculous fables, that Melchior Cano said, “the author had a mouth of iron, a heart of lead, and but little wisdom, or soundness of judgment.”

, a celebrated cardinal in the thirteenth century, born at Vitry, a village near Paris, was canon of Ognies, then pastor of Argenteuil, attended the crusades, staid a long time in the Levant, and was made bishop of Acre, otherwise called Ptolemais. Gregory IX. created him cardinal in 1230, and gave him the bishopric of Frescati. He was afterwards legate in France, Brabant, and the Holy Land; in all which offices his zeal and prudence were remarkable. He died April 30, 1244, at Rome. He left many works, the most curious and most sought after among which, is an “Eastern and Western History,” ^in Latin, in “Gesta Dei per Francos,” by Canisius. The third book has been published, with some alterations, in the third volume of P. Martenne’s “Thesaurus Anecdotorum.”

, bishop of Ypres, principal of the sect called Jansenists, was born in a village called Akoy, near Leerdam in Holland, of Roman Catholic parents, John Ottie and Lyntze Gisberts and, having had his grammar-learning at Utrecht, went to Louvain in 1602, and from that to Paris, where he met with John du Verger de Hauranne, afterwards abbot of Saint Cyran, with whom he had contracted a very strict friendship. Some time after, du Verger removing to Bayonne, he followed him thither; where, pursuing their studies with unabated ardour, they were noticed by the bishop of that province, who, conceiving a great esteem for them, procured du Verger a canonry in his cathedral, and set Jan sen at the head of a college or school. He spent five or six years in Bayonne, applying himself with the same vigour to the study of the fathers, St. Austin in particular; and, as he did not appear to be of a strong constitution, du Verger’s mother used sometimes to tell her son, that he would prove the death of lhat worthy young Fleming, by making him overstudy himself.

But Jansen had another war to maintain, which may be called a Protestant one; for Theodore Simonis, a wavering Roman Catholic, who wanted a master, waited upon him at Louvain, desiring him to clear up some doubts he had about the pope’s infallibility, the worship of the eucharist, and some other points. Jansen, being puzzled with this man’s objections, told him one day, that he would not dispute with him by word of mouth, but in writing; and that he saw plainly he had to do with a Roman Protestant Catholic, who would soon go to Holland, and there boast he had overcome him. Simonis, with some difficulty, complied with the proposal; but after both had written twice on the subject in question, his lodgings were surrounded with soldiers, and himself threatened with the punishment due to heretics. The duke d'Archot’s secretary exclaimed aloud against him, and said, that there was wood enough in his master’s forests to burn that heretic. But as the person who examined Simonis, in the name of the archbishop of Malines, declared that he had found him a good Catholic, and fully resolved to persevere in the Romish communion, the prisoner was set at liberty, and Jansen obliged to pay the expences of the soldiers. Yet this Simonis, two years after, turned Protestant, and published a book, entitled “De statu et religione propria Papatus adversus Jansenium.” He appears to have been a man of no stability, for he tirst quitted the Lutheran communion to go over to that of Home, then turned Lutheran again, and at last Socinian. He was principal of the Socinian college of Kisselin in Lithuania, was well versed in the Greek tongue, and translated Comenius’s “Janua linguarum” into that language.

Jansen was no sooner possessed of the bishopric of Ypres, than he undertook to reform the diocese; but before he had completed this good work, he fell a sacrifice to the plague, May 16, 1638. He was buried in his cathedral, where a monument was erected to his memory; but in 1665, his successor, Francis de Robes, caused it to be taken down privately in the night; there being engraved on it an eulogium of his virtue and erudition, and particularly on his book entitled “Augustinus;” declaring, that this faithful interpreter of the most secret thoughts of St. Austin, had employed in that work a divine genius, an indefatigable labour, and his whole life-time; and that the church would receive the benefit of it upon earth, as he did the reward of it in heaven; words that were highly injurious to the bulls of Urban VIII. and Innocent X. who then had censured that work. The bishop destroyed this monument by the express orders of pope Alexander VII. and with -the consent of the archduke Leopold, governor of the Netherlands, in spite of the resistance of the chapter, which went such lengths that one of the principal canons had the courage to say, “it was not in the pope’s nor the king’s power to suppress that epitaph;” so dear was Jansen to this canon and his colleagues. He wrote several other books besides those already mentioned: 1. “Oratio de interioris hominis reformatione.” 2. “Tetrateuchus sive commentarius in 4 evangelica.” 3. “Pentateuchus sive commentarius in 5 libros Mosis.” 4. The Answer of the Divines of Louvain, “de vi obligandi conscientias quam habent edicta regia super re monetaria.” 5. Answer of the Divines and Civilians, “De juramento quod publica auctoritate magistratui designate imponi solet.” But his “Augustinus” was his principal work, and he was employed upon it above twenty years. He left it finished at his death, and submitted it, by his last will, in the completes! manner, to the judgment of the holy see. His executors, Fromond and Calen, printed it at Louvain, in 1640, but suppressed his submission. The subject is divine grace, freewill, and predestination. “In this book,” says Mosheim, “which even the Jesuits acknowledge to be the production of a man of learning and piety, the doctrine of Augustine, concerning man’s natural corruption, and the nature and efficacy of that divine grace which alone can efface this unhappy stain, is unfolded at large, and illustrated, for the most part, in Augustine’s own words. For the end which Jansenius proposed to himself in this work, was not to give his own private sentiments concerning these important points; but to shew in what manner they had been understood and explained by that celebrated father of the church, whose name and authority were universally revered in all parts of the Roman Catholic world. No incident could be more unfavourable to the Jesuits, and the progress of their religious system, than the publication of this book; for as the doctrine of Augustine differed but very little from that of the Dominicans; as it was held sacred, nay almost respected as divine, in the church of Rome, on account of the extraordinary merit and authority of that illustrious bishop; and at the same time was almost diametrically opposed to the sentiments generally received among the Jesuits; these latter could scarcely consider the book of Jansenius in any other light, than as a tacit but formidable refutation of their opinions concerning human liberty and divine grace; and accordingly they not only drew their pens against this famous book, but also used their most strenuous endeavours to obtain, a public condemnation of it from Rome.” In Louvain, where it was first published, it excited prodigious contests. It obtained several violent advocates, and was by others opposed with no less violence, and several theological theses were written against it. At length they who wished to obtain the suppression of it by papal authority, were successful; the Roman inquisitors began by prohibiting the perusal of it, in Ihe year 1641; and, in the following year, Urban VIII. condemned it as infected with several errors that had been long banished from the church.This bull, which was published at Louvain, instead of pacifying, inflamed matters more; and the disputes soon passed into France, where they were carried on with equal warmth. At length the bishops of France drew up the doctrine, as they called it, of Jansen, in five propositions, and applied to the pope to condemn them. This was done by Innocent X. by a bull published May 31, 1653; and he drew up a formulary for that purpose, which was received by the assembly of the French clergy. These propositions contained the following doctrines: 1. That there are divine precepts, which good men, notwithstanding their desire to observe them, are nevertheless absolutely unable to obey; nor has God given them that measure of grace which is essentially necessary to render them capable of such obedience. 2. That no person, in this corrupt state of nature, can resist the influence of divine grace, when it operates upon the mind. 3. That in order to render human actions meritorious, it is not requisite that they be exempt from necessity, but only that they be free from constraint. 4. That the Semipelagians err grievously in maintaining that the human will is endowed with the power of either receiving or resisting the aids and influences of preventing grace. 5. That whoever affirms that Jesus Christ made expiation by his sufferings and death, for the sins of all mankind, is a Semipelagian.

, called also Johnson, a portrait-painter of very extraordinary merit, was born at Amsterdam; when, is not exactly ascertained. It appears that he painted in England as early as the year 1618, in the reign of James I. Here he continued with very great and deserved success till the arrival of Vandyke, whose transcendent talents and taste Janssens was not quite equal to cope with. On the breaking out of the civil war he returned to his own country in 1648; leaving behind him a number of excellent characteristic portraits in the great families of this island. He retired first to Middleburg, and afterwards to Amsterdam, where he died in 1665. His style of design was formal and void of taste, but his features are justly marked, and the faces of his portraits have great character, and an air of nature, possessing much sweetness of tone in the colouring, and finished very highly; too much so, indeed. His pictures are generally on wood, and with black draperies an arrangement adopted frequently by Rubens and Vandyke.

, a French lady, famous for her writings, was born about 1640, at Alençon in Normandy, where her father was provost. Her passions as well as her genius came forward very early. Being obliged to quit Alençon, in consequence of an intrigue with one of her cousins, she went to Paris, where she undertook to support herself by her genius, studied the drama, and published at the same time some little novels, by which she acquired a name. She had, by her own description, a lively and pleasing countenance, though not amounting to beauty, nor entirely spared by the small-pox. Her attractions, however, soon furnished her with lovers, and among them she distinguished M. Villedieu, a young captain of infantry, of an elegant person and lively genius. He had been already married about a year, but she persuaded him to endeavour to dissolve his marriage. This proved impracticable; nor was it likely from the first to be effected; but the attempt served her as a pretext for her attachment. She followed her lover to camp, and returned to Paris by the name of madame de Villedieu. This irregular union was not long happy; and their disagreements had arisen to a considerable height, when Villedieu was ordered to the army, where soon after he lost his life. The pretended widow comforted herself by living among professed wits and dramatic writers, and leading such a life as is common in dissipated societies. A fit of devotion, brought on by the sudden death of one of her female friends, sent her for a time to a convent, where she lived with much propriety, till her former adventures being known in the society, she could no longer remain in it. Restored to the world, in the house of madame de St. Ramaine, her sister, she soon exchanged devotion again for gallantry. She now a second time married a man who was only parted from, his wife this was the marquis de la Chasse, by whom she had a son, who died when only a year old, and the father not long after. The inconsolable widow was soon after united to one of her cousins, who allowed her to resume the name of Villedieu. After living a few years longer in society, she retired to a little village called Clinchemare in the province of Maine, where she died in 1683. Her works were printed in 1702, and form ten volumes 12mo, to which two more were added in 1721, consisting chiefly of pieces by other writers. Her compositions are of various kinds: 1. Dramas. 2. Miscellaneous poems, fables, &c. 3. Romances; among which are, “Les Disordres de l'Amour;” “Portraits des Foiblesses Humaines;” “Les Exilés de la Cour d'Auguste;” which are reckoned her best productions in this styje: also, “Cleonice,” “Carmente,” “Les Galanteries Grenadines,” “Les Amours des Grands Hommes,” “Lysandre,” “Les Memoirs du Serail,” &c. 4. Other works of an amusing kind, such as, “Les Annales Galantes,” “Le Journal Amoreux,” &c.

, a native of Burgundy, born in 1540, and bred as an advocate in the parliament of Dijon, rose by his talents and probity to the highest situations in his profession. The states of Burgundy employed him to administer the affairs oi that province, and had every reason to felicitate themselves upon their choice. When the orders for the massacre of St. Bartholomew were received at Dijon, he opposed the execution of them with all his influence; and a few days after arrived a courier to forbid the murders. The appointments of counsellor, president, and finally chief president, in the parliament of Dijon, were the rewards of his merit. Seduced by the pretences of the leaguers to zeal for religion and for the state, Jeanniu for a time united himself with that faction; but he soon perceived their perfidy and wickedness, as well as the completely interested views of the Spaniards, and repented of the step. After the battle of Fontaine Francoise, -in which the final blow was given to the league, Henry IV. called him to his council, and retained him in his court. From this time he became the adviser, and almost the friend of the king^ who admired him equally for his frankness and his sagacity. Jeannin was employed in the negotiation between the Dutch and the court of Spain, the most difficult that could be undertaken. It was concluded in 1609. After the death of Henry IV. the queen-mother confided to him the greatest affairs of the state, and the administration of the finances, and he managed them with Unparalleled fidelity; of which his poverty at his death afforded an undoubted proof. He died in 1622, at the age of eighty-two, having seen seven successive kings on the throne of France. He was the author of a folio collection of negociations and memoirs, printed in 1656, and reprinted in a beautiful edition, 2 vols. 12mo, in the year 1659, which Were long held in the bighest estimation. The regard which Henry IV. felt for him was very great. Complaining one day to his ministers that some among them had revealed a state secret of importance, he took the president by the hand, saying, “As for this good man, I will answer for him.” Yet, though he entertained such sentiments of him, he did little for him; and, being conscious that he had been remiss in this respect, said sometimes, “Many of my subjects I load with wealth, to prevent them from exerting their malice; but for the president Jeannin, I always say much, and do little.”