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

, a heretic of the fourth century, and by some surnamed The Atheist, as being tme of the first opposers of the doctrine of the Trinity, was born at Antioch, the son of a person reduced in his circumstances, and was consequently obliged to work at the trade of goldsmith for a livelihood. He afterwards studied, and with considerable success, at Alexandria, whence he returned to Antiech, and was ordained deacon by Leontius, then bishop of that city. What his principles were is not very clear. Theodoret says, he improved upon the bJasphemies of Arius; and for that reason was banished by the emperor Constantius into a remote part of Phrygia. The emperor Julian recalled him, and enriched him with an estate Others insinuate that he was a defender of faith in opposition to works, and leaned to the Antinomian extreme. The displeasure of the orthodox, however, was such that he had the surname of Atheist. Athanasius gives him the same appellation, and Cave says, justly. Epiphanius has preserved a small book, containing forty-seven erroneous propositions of Ætius, which he answered. His followers were called, from his name, ætians. Their distinguishing principle was, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are in all things unlike the Father.

After an absence of nearly twenty years, Alasco returned to his native country, where he was protected from the hostility of the ecclesiastics, by the king, who employed him in various important affairs; and when addressed by the popish clergy to remove him, answered that “he had indeed heard, that the bishops had pronounced him a heretic, but the senate of the kingdom had determined no such matter; that John Alasco was ready to prove himself untainted with heretical pravity, and sound in the Catholic faith.” This answer, however, so unfavourable to their remonstrances, did not prevent their more secret efforts to injure him; but we do not find that these were effectual, and he died in peace at Franckfort, Jan. 13, 1560, after a short illness. His piety, extensive learning, liberality, and benevolence, have been celebrated by all his contemporaries, and the bigoted part of the Lutherans were his only enemies; and even of these some could not bring any other accusation against him than that he differed from their opinion respecting the corporal presence in the sacrament; a subject which unfortunately split the early reformers into parties, when they should have united against the common enemy. We have already quoted Erasmus’s opinion of him when a very young man; and it may be added (from ep. iii. lib. 28.) that he pronounced him “young, but grave beyond his years; and that himself was huppy in his conversation and society, and even became better by it; having before him, in Alasco, a striking example of sobriety, moderation, modesty, and integrity.” In another letter he calls him, “a man of so amiable a disposition, that he should have thought himself sufficiently happy in his single friendship.” Nor was Melanchthon less warm in his praise. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, although he did not return to England, he corresponded with her on affairs of the church; and according to Zanchius, had much influence both with her, and the leading ministers of her court. It may here be noticed that the congregation he had settled in Austin Friars were tolerated again under her reign, and that bishop Grindall was appointed superintendant of this foreign church, the last of whom we have any account as holding that office. The church is to this day vested in a congregation of Dutch Calvinistic protestants, and the library belonging to it contains a vast collection of the manuscript letters and memorials of the reformers, and particularly of Alasco, whose portrait was there before the fire of London.

, the younger, is mentioned by Jerom, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, as bishop of Laodicea in Syria. Jerom adds that he employed his younger days chiefly in grammatical studies, and afterwards published innumerable volumes upon the holy scriptures, and died in the time of the emperor Theodosius; he mentions his thirty books against Porphyry, as being then extant, and esteemed the most valuable of his works. Apollinarius is placed by Cave as flourishing about the year 370, but Tillemont thinks he was bishop of Luodicea in the year 362, at the latest. Lardner thinks it certain tnat he flourished in the time of the emperor Julian, and afterwards; and it seems probable that he died about the year 382. He %vrote commentaries upon almost all the books of holy scripture, none of which have descended to our time except a “Paraphrase on the Psalms,” which has been often reprinted in Greek and Latin, and of which an account may be seen in Fabricius. In his early days, he wrote and preached the orthodox faith, but afterwards swerved so far from it, as to be deemed a heretic, and thus became the founder of a sect called the Apollinarians. This sect denied the proper humanity of Christ, and maintained that the body which he assumed was endowed with a sensitive and not a rational soul; but that the divine nature supplied the place of the intellectual principle in man. Their doctrine was first condemned by a council at Alexandria in the year 362, and afterwards in a more formal manner by a council at Rome in the year 375, and by another council in the year 378, which deposed Apollinarius from his bishopric. He is said to have held the doctrine of the Millenium, or the personal reigh of Christ on earth for a thousand years. The reader may find a very elaborate account of him and of his writings in Dr. Lardner’s works, vol. IV. p. 380—397.

, bishop of Ancyra in the year 336, was ordained to that office by the bishops of Eusebius’s party, in room of Marcellus, whom they had deposed: but Basil was excommunicated, and his ordination declared void in the council of Sardica, although he continued still in the possession of his see. He disputed against Photinus in the council of Sirmium, in the year 351, and there confounded that heretic. He was one of the greatest enemies to the Arians, or Anomseans, i. e. those who openly vindicated the opinion of Arius, and maintained that the Word was not like to the Father. But he was, notwithstanding, considered as the head of the Semi-Arians, who maintained that the Son was similar to the Father in his essence, not by nature, but by a peculiar privilege. Basil maintained this opinion and procured it to be established by the authority of a council, which was held at Ancyra in the year 358, and defended it at Seleucia and Constantinople, against the Eudoxians and Acacians, who deposed him in the year 360, after charging him with many crimes. St. Jerome informs us, that Basil wrote a book against Marcellus, his predecessor; a treatise of Virginity; and some other lesser pieces, of which no remains are extant, but he had the reputation of a man of learning and eloquence. Although he is placed by some at the head of the Semi-Arians, yet it is not quite certain that he was deemed a heretic. St. Basil speaks of him as a Catholic bishop, and Athanasius confesses, in his book of Synods, that Basil of Ancyra and those of his party, did not differ from them that professed the consubstantiality, but only in words, and therefore Hilary and Philastrius call the bishops of the council of Sirmium, held against Photinus, of which Basil of Ancyra was the chief, orthodox bishops.

Beaton, though at this time only coadjutor of St. Andrew’s, yet had all the power and authority of the archbishop; and in order to strengthen the catholic interest in Scotland, pope Paul III. raised him to a cardinalship, by the title of St. Stephen in Monte Ccelo, Dec. 20, 1538. King Henry VIII. having intelligence of the ends proposed! by the pope in creating him a cardinal, sent a very able ^minister to king James, with particular instructions for a deep scheme to procure the cardinal’s disgrace; but it did not take effect. A few months after, the old archbishop flying, the cardinal succeeded: and it was upon this promotion that he began to shew his warm and persecuting zeal for the church of Rome. Soon after his instalment, Jie got together, in the cathedral of St. Andrew’s, a great confluence of persons of the first rank, both clergy and laity; to whom, from a throne erected for the purpose, he made a speech, representing to them the danger wherewith tha church was threatened by the increase of heretics, who had the boldness to profess their opinions even in the king’scourt; where, said he, they find but too great countenance: and he mentioned by name sir John Borthwicl:, whom he had caused to be cited to that diet, for dispersing heretical books, ^nd holding several opinions contrary to the doctrine of the Roman church. Then the articles of accusation were read against him, and sir John appearing neither in person nor by proxy, was declared a heretic, his goodsconfiscated, and himself burnt in effigy. Sir John retired to England, where he was kindly received by king Henry, who seat him into Germany, in his name, to conclude a treaty with the protestant princes of the empire. Sir John Borthwick was not the^only person proceeded against for heresy; several others were also prosecuted, and among the rest, George Buchanan, the celebrated poet and historian: and as the king left all to the management of the cardinal, it is difficult to say to what lengths such a furious zealot might have gone, had not the king’s death put a stop to his arbitrary proceedings.

, a French divine of the sixteenth century, principal of the college of Montaigu in 1507, and syndic of the faculty of theology at Paris, was born in Picardy. He published a violent attack on the paraphrases of Erasmus. That illustrious scholar condescended to take the trouble to refute it with great minuteness, averring that he had convicted his censurer of having advanced 181 lies, 210 calumnies, and 47 blasphemies. The doctor, having no reasonable answer to make, took extracts from the works of Erasmus, denounced him as a heretic to the faculty, and succeeded in getting him censured. It was he who prevented the Soroonne from deciding in favour of the divorce of Henry VIII. of England, an opinion not discreditable to him, although he is said to have carried it by his vehemence. “As Beda (says pere Berthier) could neither bridle his pen nor his tongue, he dared to preach against the king himself, under pretext, perhaps, that the court did not prosecute heretics with as much vigour as his bold and extravagant temper would have wished. His intolerant spirit drew upon him twice successively a sentence of banishment. Recalled for the third time, and continuing incorrigible, he was condemned by the parliament of Paris, in 1536, to make the amende-honorable before the church of Notre-Dame, for having spoken against the king, and against truth.” He was afterwards ex led to the abbey of Mont St. Michel, where he died Feb. 8, 15^7, with the reputation (adds pere Berthier) of being a violent declaimer and a vexatious adversary. Beda wrote, l.“A treatise” De unica Magdalena, Paris," 1519, 4to, against the publications of Faber Stapulensis. 2. Twelve books against the Commentary of Faber. 3. One against the Paraphrases of Erasmus, 1526, folio; and several other works, which are all marked with barbarism and rancour. His Latin is neither pure nor correct. Henry Stephens has preserved a circumstance of him, which sufficiently marks his character. He undertook to dissuade Francis I. from employing professors of languages in the university of Paris, and maintained before that prince, in the presence of Budaeus, that the Greek tongue was the cause of heresies.

, advocate general of the parliament of Toulouse, of the sixteenth century, was born at Montauban, and descended from a gentleman’s family originally of Brittany. At the age of twenty-one he was appointed regent in the university of Toulouse, and after having pleaded four or five years at the bar, he was made a counsellor, or member of the presidiai court of Toulouse. Notwithstanding his being a Roman catholic, his regard for his king and country brought him into danger. His declaring against the league made the heads of that party his enemies, and king Henry III. to gratify the Guises, ordered him to be imprisoned. This happened in 1587. They charged him with being a heretic, and an incendiary, and the year before they had prevailed with the bishop to prefer an information against him, as the author of a book which Thuanus says was written by one Breton, who was hanged for it. Belloy’s work against the league, entitled “Apologie Catholique conti'e les libelles, &c. publiées par les Liguez,” was published in 1585, and afterwards translated into Latin. Belloy at length escaped from prison, and reached St. Dennis, where the governor for the king gave him a friendly reception, and presented him to his majesty, who being now convinced of his loyalty and merit, made him advocate-general of the parliament of Toulouse. The time of his death is not recorded, but he was living in 1605, and probably much later. His other works are, 1. “Declaration du droit de légitime Succession sur le royaume de Portugal apartenant a la reine mere du roi très Christien,” à Anvers et à Paris, 1582, 8vo. 2. “Panégyric ou Remonstrance pour les Sénéchal, Juges mage et criminel de Tolose, contre les Notaires et Sécrétaires du Roi de la dite Ville,” Paris, 1582, 4to. 3. “Requeste verbale pour susdits Seigneurs et Officiers de Tolose, contenantune Apologie et Defence a PAdvertissement, public” au nom des Docteurs Regents de l'Universite de Tolose,“Paris, 1583, 8vo. 4.” Brieve Explication de Tan courant 1583, selon de Calendier Gregorien,“Paris, 1583, 8vo. 5.” Supputation des temps depuis la Creation du Monde jusqu'en 1582, separee en deux colomnes diverses,“Paris, 1584. 6.” Petri Beloii Variorum Juris Civilis Libri IV, et Disputatio de Successione ab intestato,“&c. Paris, 1583. 7.” La Conference des Edits de Pacification et Explication des Edits,“Paris, 1600, 8vo. 3.” Exposition de la Prophetic de l'Ange Gabriel touchant les septante semaines descrites par le Prophetc Daniel au Chap. iy. de ses Prophecies,“Tolose, 1605, 8vo. 9.” De l'Origine et Institution de divers Ordres de Chevalerie, taut EccleViastiques que Profanes, dédié a Monsigneur le Dauphin de Viennois, Due de Bretagne,“Montauban, 1604, 8vo. 10. Arrest de ia Cour de Parlemeul de Tolos6 prononce” en TAppellation comme d‘Abus rolevée par frere Jean Journé, religieux ue l’ordre de St. Dominique, et provincial du dit ordre en la Province de Tolose, sur la procedure contre lui ordonnce par les sieurs Evesques de Condon et d'Aure, contenarit le Plaidoye sur ce fait, par Mr. Pierre de Beloy, conseiller et avocat general du roi au dit Parlemenr, Tolose, 1612, 8vo.

, a Scottish historian, and Latin poet, of great eminence, and uncommon abilities and learning, was descended from an ancient family, and was born at Killairn, in the shire of Lenox, in Scotland, in the month of February 1506. His father died of the stone in the prime of life, whilst his grandfather was yet living; by whose extravagance the family, which before was but in low circumstances, was now nearly reduced to the extremity of want. He had, however, the happiness of a very prudent mother, Agnes, the daughter of James Heriot of Trabrown, who, though she, was left a widow with five sons and three daughters, brought them all up in a decent manner, by judicious management. She had a brother, Mr. James Heriot, who, observing the marks of genius which young George Buchanan discovered when at school, sent him to Paris in 1520 for his education. There he closely applied himself to his studies, and particularly cultivated his poetical talents but before he had been there quite two years, the death of his uncle, and his own ill state of health, and want of money, obliged him to return home. Having arrived in his native country, he spent almost a year in endeavouring to re-escablish his health; and in 1523, in order to acquire some knowledge of military affairs, he made a campaign with the French auxiliaries, who came over into Scotland with John duke of Albany. But in this new course of life he encountered so many hardships, that he was confined to his bed by sickness all the ensuing winter. He had probably much more propensity to his books, than to the sword; for early in the following spring he went to St. Andrews, and attended the lectures on logic, or rather, as he says, on sophistry, which were read in that university by John Major, or Mair, a professor in St. Saviour’s college, and assessor to the dean, of Arts, whom he soon after accompanied to Paris. After struggling for about two years with indigence and ill fortune, he was admitted, in 1526, being then not more than twenty years of age, in the college of St. Barbe, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1527, and M. A. in 1528, and in 1529 was chosen procurator nationis, and began then to teach grammar, which he continued for about three years. But Gilbert Kennedy, earl of Cassils, a young Scottish nobleman, being then in France, and happening to fall into the company of Buchanan, was so delighted with his wit, and the agreeableness of his manners, that he prevailed upon him to continue with him five years. According to Mackenzie, he acted as a kind of tutor to this young nobleman; and, during his stay with him, translated Linacre’s Rudiments of grammar out of English into Latin; which was printed at Paris, by Robert Stephens, in 1533, and dedicated to the earl of Cassils. He returned to Scotland with that nobleman, whose death happened about two years after; and Buchanan had then an inclination to return to France: but James V. king of Scotland prevented him, by appointing him preceptor to his natural son, James, afterwards the abbot of Kelso, who died in 1548, and not, as some say, the earl of Murray, regent of that kingdom. About this time, he wrote a satirical poem against the Franciscan friars, entitled, “Somnium;” which irritated them to exclaim against him as a heretic. Their clamours, however, only increased the dislike which he hud conceived against them on account of their disorderly and licentious lives; and inclined him the more towards Lutheranism, to which he seems to have had before no inconsiderable propensity. About the year 1538, the king having discovered a conspiracy against himself, in which he suspected that some of the Franciscans were concerned, commanded Buchanan to write a poem against that order. But he had probably already experienced the inconveniency of exasperating so formidable a body; for he only wrote a few verses which were susceptible of a double interpretation, and he pleased neither party. The king was dissatisfied, that the satire was not more poignant; and the friars considered it as a heinous offence, to mention them in any way that was not honourable. But the king gave Buchanan a second command, to write against them with more seventy; which he accordingly did in the poem, entitled, “Franciscanus;” by which he pleased the king, and rendered the friars his irreconcileable enemies. He soon found, that the animosity of these ecclesiastics was of a more durable nature than royal favour: for the king had the meanness to suffer him to feel the weight of their resentment, though it had been chiefly excited by obedience to his commands. It was not the Franciscans only, but the clergy in general, who were incensed against Buchanan: they appear to have made a common cause of it, and they left no stone unturned till they had prevailed with the king that he should be tried for heresy. He was accordingly imprisoned at the beginning of 1539, but found means to make his escape, as he says himself, out of his chamber-window, while his guards were asleep. He fled into England, where he found king Henry the Eighth persecuting both protestants and papists. Not thinking that kingdom, therefore, a place of safety, he again went over into France, to which he was the more inclined because he had there some literary friends, and was pleased with the politeness of French manners. But when he came to Paris, he had the mortification to find there cardinal Beaton, who was his great enemy, and who appeared there as ambassador from Scotland. Expecting, therefore, to receive some ill offices from him, if he continued at Paris, he withdrew himself privately to Bourdeaux, at the invitation of Andrew Govea, a learned Portuguese, who was principal of a new college in that city. Buchanan taught in the public schools there three years; in which time he composed two tragedies, the one entitled, “Baptistes, sive Calurania,” and the other “Jephthes, Votum;” and also translated the Medea and Alcestig of Euripides. These were all afterwards published;-but they were originally written in compliance with the rules of the school, which every year required some new dramatic exhibition; and his view in choosing these subjects was, to draw off the youth of France as much as possible from the allegories, which were then greatly in vogue, to a just imitation of the ancients; in which he succeeded beyond his hopes. During his residence at Bourdeaux, the emperor Charles V. passed through that city; upon which Buchanan presented his imperial majesty with an elegant Latin poem, in which the emperor was highly complimented, and at which he expressed great satisfaction. But the animosity of cardinal Beaton still pursued our poet: for that haughty prelate wrote letters to the archbishop of Bourdeaux, in which he informed him, that Buchanan had fled his country for heresy; that he had lampooned the church in most virulent satires; and that if he would put him to the trial, he would find him a most pestilentious heretic. Fortunately for Buchanan, these letters fell into the hands of some of his friends, who found means to prevent their effects: and the state of public affairs in Scotland, in consequence of the death of king James V. gave the cardinal so much employment, as to prevent any farther prosecution of his rancour against Buchanan.

, a celebrated French philosopher, was a native of Mesnil-Hubert, near Argenton, in the diocese of Seez. About 165.5, he studied philosophy at Caen, and afterwards divinity at Paris, but philosophy was his favourite pursuit, and the foundation of his fame. In 1660 he taught in the college du Bois, in Caen, and became there acquainted with Huet, afterwards bishop of Avranches, who acknowledged the assistance he derived from Cally in his studies. Their intimacy, however, was interrupted by Cally’s avowal of adherence to ttie Cartesian system. CaJly was the first in France who had the courage to profess himself a Cartesian, in defiance of the prejudices and numbers of those who adhered to the ancient philosophy. He first broached his Cartesianism in the way of hypothesis, but afterwards taught it more openly, which procured him many enemies. Huet, although then very young, ventured to censure him; and father Valois, the Jesuit, who was a contemporary professor of philosophy, attacked both Cally and his opinions in a work which he published under the name of Louis de la Ville, in 1680, entitled “Sentimens de M. Descartes, touchant Pessence et les proprietes des corps, opposes a la doctrine de Peglise, et conformesaux erreurs de Calvin sur I'eucharistie.” Cally, not thinking there was much in this, did not answer it until pressed by his friends, when he wrote an answer in Latin, which, however, was not at this time published. When the duke de Montausier was appointed by Louis XIV. to provide eminent classical scholars to write notes on the classics published for the use of the Dauphin, Cally was selected for the edition of “Boethius de Consolatione,” which he published, accordingly, in 1680, in 4to, now one of the scarce quarto Delphin editions. In 1674 he published a short introduction to philosophy, “Institutio philosophica,” 4to, which he afterwards greatly enlarged, and published in 1695 under the title “Universae philosophise institutio,” Caen, 4 vols. 4to. In 1675 he was appointed principal of the college of arts in Caen, on which he began a new course of philosophical lectures, and laid out ten or twelve thousand francs on rebuilding a part of the college which had fallen into ruin. In 1684 he was appointed curate of the parish of St. Martin, in Caen, and the Protestants who were then very numerous in that city, flocked to his sermons, and he held conferences once or twice a week in his vestry, which they attended with much pleasure, and we are told he 'made many converts to the Popish religion. But this success, for which every Catholic ought to have been thankful, excited the envy of those who had quarrelled with him before on account of his Cartesianism, and by false accusations, they procured him to be exiled to Moulins in 1686, where he remained for two years. Finding on his return that the Protestants were still numerous in Caen, and that they entertained the same respect for him as before, he wrote for their use a work entitled “Durand cornmente, ou Paccord de la philosophie avec la theologie, tonchaut la transubstantialion.” In this, which contained part of his answer to father Valois, mentioned above, he revives the opinion of the celebrated Durand, who said, if the church decided that there was a transubstantiation in the eucharist, there must remain something of what was bread, to make a difference between the creation and production of a thing which was not, and annihilation or a thing reduced to nothing. Cally sent this work in ms. to M. Basnage, who had been one of his scholars, but received no answer. la the mean time, unwilling to delay a work which he hoped would contribute to the conversion of the Protestants, “he engaged with a bookseller at Caen to print only sixty copies, which he purposed to send to his friends at Paris, and obtain their opinion as to a more extended publication. The bookseller, however, having an eye only to his own interest, undertook to assure Cally that the work would be approved by the doctors of the Sorbonne, and he therefore would print eight hundred. Cally unfortunately consented, and the work no sooner appeared, than he who fondly hoped it would convert heretics, was himself treated as a heretic. M. de Nesmond, then bishop of Bayeux, condemned the work in a pastoral letter March 30, 1701, and Cally in April following made his retractation, which he not only read in his own church, but it was read in all other churches; and he also destroyed the impression, so that it is now classed among rare books. It was a small vol. 12mo, 1700, printed at Cologne, under the name of Pierre Marteau. Cally also published some of his sermons, but they were too philosophical and dry for the closet, although he had contrived to give them a popular effect in the pulpit. A work entitled” Doctrine heretique, &c. touchant la primauté du pape, enseignee par les Jesuites dans leur college de Caen," is attributed to him, but as it bears date 1644, he must have then been too young. He died Dec. 31, 1709.

In 1547, an offer was made to him of the honourable post of physician to the king of Denmark, with an annual salary of eight hundred crowns, and a free table, which he refused on account of the climate and the religion of the country. This offer, which was made by the advice of Vesalius, is a proof that his medical reputation was considerably high; and we find that it was likewise very extensive, for in 1552, he was invited into Scotland by Hamilton, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, who had consulted the most eminent physicians in Europe without effect. Of his disease, which was of the asthmatic kind, he began to recover from the time that Cardan prescribed for him; and in less than two months Cardan left him with fair prospects of recovery, and gave him some prescriptions, which in two years effected a complete cure. For this he was amply rewarded by his patient, and great offers were made to persuade him to reside in Scotland. These, however, he rejected, and took an opportunity to visit France and Germany, from which he passed into England, and' at London he exercised his astrological knowledge in calculating the nativity of Edward VI. The most remarkable part of it was, that the young monarch should die a violent death; for which reason, he says, he left the kingdom for fear of further danger which might follow on it. He drew a very favourable character of Edward, which was probably just and sincere, because it was afterwards published in one of his works, in Italy, where Edward was detested as a heretic, and where Cardan could have no motive for flattering his memory. While at the English court Edward was solicitous to retain him in England, and appears to have honoured him with frequent conferences; but Cardan refused sril his offers, and returned to Milan, after an absence, in all, of only ten months, and resided there until 1559, practising physic and teaching the mathematics. He then went to Pavia, where he filled the chair of professor of medicine until 1562, when he removed to Bologna, and there likewise became professor of medicine until 1570. About this time he was, for some reason with which we are unacquainted, thrown into prison, which was exchanged soon after for a milder confinement in his own house. On his release, he was invited to Rome, and admitted into the college of physicians there, with a pension from the pope. Here he died Sept. 21, 1576, “more,” says Brucker, “like a maniac than a philosopher.” Thuanus and Scaliger both are of opinion that he starved himself, in order to verify his own prediction of his death.

Besides the many pictures which the grand duke and the Pecori family possess of this master, a few are dispersed through private collections at Florence. Excellent are his “Trinity” in the church of St. Croce, his “St. Albert” in that of S. Maria Maggiore, and the “Martyrdom of Stephen” at the Sisters of Monte Domini, which Pietro da Cortona ranked with the principal pictures of Florence. *' St. Anthony converting a Heretic,“at Cortona, is considered as superior to any other pencil at Cortona. His” St. Peter healing the Cripple,“in the Vatican at Rome, Andrea Sacchi placed next the” Transfiguration“of Raphael, and the” St. Jerom“of Domenichino; but this master-piece, by the humidity of the place, the bad priming, and the brutality of the cleaner, is entirely destroyed. Its merit procured him the-” title of Cavaliere. Another work of his, the fresco of the dome in S. Maria Maggiore, still remains: in this, by some error in perspective, he appeared inferior to himself; it displeased, and he was not suffered to correct it, notwithstanding his eager supplications; but had this perished, and the picture in the Vatican survived, the fame of Cigoli would rest on a firmer basis, and the assertions of Baldinucci deserve more credit. It is supposed that chagrin at not succeeding in painting the dome, hastened his death, which happened in 1613. He also engraved a few plates in a slight, neat stylej which, however, evinces the hand of the master. Strutt mentions his engraving of “Mary Magdalen washing the feet of Christ,” as containing heads of great beauty.

, a Dominican, born in 1504 at Miranda in Navarre, appeared with great distinction at the council of Trent, where he composed a treatise on trie residence of bishops, which he held to be of divine right, treating the contrary opinion as diabolical. Philip II. king of Spain, having married queen Mary in 1554, took Carranza with him into England, who laboured to restore the Catholic religion there, and pleased Philip so much, that he appointed him archbishop of Toledo 1557. This illustrious prelate was, however, accused before the Inquisition, 1559, and carried as a heretic to Rome, where he was thrown into prison, and suffered greatly during ten years, notwithstanding the solicitations of his friend Navarre, who openly undertook his defence. At length the Inquisition declared by a sentence passed 1576, that there was not any certain proof that Carranza was a heretic. They condemned him nevertheless to abjure the errors which had been imputed to him, and confined him to la Minerve, a monastery of his order, where he died the same year, aged 72. His principal works are, 1. “Summary of the Councils” in Latin, 1681, 4to, which is valued. 2. “A Treatise on the residence of Bishops,” 1547, 4to. 3. “A Catechism” in Spanish, 1558, fol.; censured by the Inquisition in Spain, but justified at the council of Trent in 1563.

, earl of Essex, an eminent statesman in the sixteenth century, was the son of Walter Cromwell, a blacksmith, at Putney, near London, and in his latter days a brewer; after whose decease, his mother was married to a sheerman in London. What education he had, was In a private school: and all the learning he attained to, was (according to the standard of those times), only reading and writing, and a little Latin. When he grew up, having a very great inclination for travelling, he went into foreign countries, though at whose expence is not known; and by that means he had an opportunity of seeing the world, of gaining experience, and of learning several languages, which proved of great service to him afterwards. Coming to Antwerp, where was then a very considerable English factory, he was by them retained to be their clerk, or secretary. But that office being too great a confinement, he embraced an opportunity that offered in 1510, of taking a journey to Rome. Whilst he remained in Italy he served for some time as a soldier under the duke of Bourbon, and was at the sacking of Rome: and at Bologna he assisted John Russel, esq. afterwards earl of Bedford, in making his escape, when he had like to be betrayed into the hands of the French, being secretly in those parts about our king’s affairs. It is also much to his credit, as an early convert to the reformation, that, in his journey to and from Rome, he learned by heart Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament. After his return from his travels he was taken into the family and service of cardinal Wolsey, who is said to have first discovered him in France, and who made him his solicitor, and often employed him in business of great importance. Among other things, he had the chief hand in the foundation of the two colleges begun at Oxford and Ipswich by that magnificent prelate; and upon the cardinal’s disgrace in 1529, he used his utmost endeavours and interest to have him restored to the king’s favour: even when articles of high-treason against him were sent down to the house of commons, of which Cromwell was then a member, he defended his master with so much wit and eloquence, that no treason cauld be laid to his charge: which honest beginning procured Cromwell great reputation, and made his parts and abilities to be much taken notice of. After the cardinal’s household was dissolved, Cromwell was taken into the king’s service (upon the recommendation of sir Christopher Hales, afterwards master of the rolls, and sir John Russel, knt. above-mentioned) as the fittest person to manage the disputes the king then had with the pope; though some endeavoured to hinder his promotion, and to prejudice his majesty against him, on account of his defacing the small monasteries that were dissolved for endowing Wolsey’s colleges. But he discovering to the king some particulars that were very acceptable to him respecting the submission of the clergy to the pope, in derogation of his majesty’s authority, he took him into the highest degree of favour, and soon after he was sent to the convocation, then sitting, to acquaint the clergy, that they were all fallen into a praemunire on the above account, and the provinces of Canterbury and York were glad to compromise by a present to the king of above 100,000l. In 1531 he was knighted; made master of the king’s jewel-house, with a salary of 50l. per annum; and constituted a privy-counsellor. The next year he was made clerk of the Hanaper, an office of profit and repute in chancery; and, before the end of the same year, chancellor of the exchequer, and in 1534, principal secretary of state, and master of the rolls. About the same time he was chosen chancellor of the university of Cambridge; soon after which followed a general visitation of that university, when the several colleges delivered up their charters, and other instruments, to sir Thomas Cromwell. The year before, he assessed the fines laid upon those who having 40l. per annum estate, refused to take the order of knighthood. In 1535 he was appointed visitor-general of the monasteries throughout England, in order for their suppression; and in that office is accused of having acted with much violence, although in other cases promises and pensions were employed to obtain the compliance of the monks and nuns. But the mode, whatever it might be, gave satisfaction to the king and his courtiers, and Cromwell was, on July 2, 1536, constituted lord keeper of the privy seal, when he resigned his mastership of the rolls . On the 9th of the same month he was advanced to the dignity of a baron of this realm, by the title of lord Cromwell of Okeham in Rutlandshire; and, six days after, took his place in the house of lords. The pope’s supremacy being now abolished in England, lord Cromwell was made, on the 18th of July, vicar-general, and vicegerent, over all the spirituality, under the king, who was declared supreme head of the church. In that quality his lordship satin the convocation holden this year, above the archbishops, as the king’s representative. Being-invested with such extensive power, he employed it in discouraging popery, and promoting the reformation. For that purpose he caused certain articles to be enjoined by the king’s authority, differing in many essential points from the established system of the Roman-catholic religion; and in September, this same year, he published some injunctions to the clergy, in which they were ordered to preach up the king’s supremacy; not to lay out their rhetoric in extolling images, relics, miracle*, or pilgrimages, but rather to exhort their people to serve God, and make provision for their families: to put parents and other directors of youth in mind to teach their children the Lord’s-prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments in their mother-tongue, and to provide a Bible in Latin and English, to be laid in the churches for every one to read at their pleasure. He likewise encouraged the translation of the Bible into English; and, when finished, enjoined that one of the largest volume should be provided for every parish church, at the joint charge of the parson and parishioners. These alterations, with the dissolution of the monasteries, and (notwithstanding the immense riches gotten from thence) his demanding at the same time for the king subsidies both from the clergy and laity, occasioned very great murmurs against him, and indeed with some reason. All this, however, rather served to establish him in the king’s esteem, who was as prodigal of money as he was rapacious and in 1537 his majesty constituted him chief justice itinerant of all the forests beyond Trent and on the 26th of August, the same year, he was elected knight of the garter, and dean of the cathedral church of Weils. The year following he obtained a grant of the castle and lordship of Okeham in the county of Rutland; and was also made constable of Carisbrook-castle in the Isle of Wight. In September he published new injunctions, directed to all bishops and curates, in which he ordered that a Bible, in English, should be set up in some convenient place in every church, where the parishioners might most commodiously resort to read the same: that the clergy should, every Sunday and holiday, openly and plainly recite to their parishioners, twice or thrice together, one article of the Lord’s Prayer, or Creed, in English, that they might learn the same by heart: that they should make, or cause to be made, in their churches, one sermon every quarter of a year at least, in which they should purely and sincerely declare the very gospel of Christ, and exhort their hearers to the works of charity, mercy, and faith not to pilgrimages, images, &c. that they should forthwith take clown all images to which pilgrimages or offerings were wont to be made: that in all such benefices upon which they were not themselves resident, they should appoint able curates: that they, and every parson, vicar, or curate, should for every church keep one book of register, wherein they should write the day and year of every wedding, christening, and burying, within their parish; and therein set every person’s name that shall be so wedded, christened, or buried, &c. Having been thus highly instrumental in promoting the reformation, and in dissolving the monasteries, he was amply rewarded by the king in 1539, with many noble manors and large estates that had belonged to those dissolved houses. On the 17th of April, the same year, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Essex; and soon after constituted lord high chamberlain of England. The same day he was created earl of Essex he procured Gregory his son to be made baron Cromwell of Okeham. On the 12th of March 1540, he was put in commission, with others, to sell the abbey-lands, at twenty years’ purchase: which was a thing he had advised the king to do, in order to stop the clamours of the people, to attach them to his interest, and to reconcile them to the dissolution of the monasteries. But as, like his old master Wolsey, he had risen rapidly, he was now doomed, like him, to exhibit as striking an example of the instability of human grandeur; and au unhappy precaution to secure (as he imagined) his greatness, proved his ruin. Observing that some of his most inveterate enemies, particularly Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, began to be more in favour at court than himself, he used his utmost endeavours to procure a marriage between king Henry and Anne of Cleves, expecting great support from a queen of his own making; and as her friends were Lutherans, he imagined it would bring down the popish party at court, and again recover the ground he and Cranmer had now lost. But this led immodiaieiy to his destruction; for the king, not liking the queen, began to hate Cromwell, the great promoter of the marriage, and soon found an opportunity to sacrifice him; nor was this difficult. Cromwell was odious to all the nobility by reason of his low binh: hated particularly by Gardiner, and the Roman catholics, for having been so busy in the dissolution of the abbies: the reformers themselves found he could not protect them from persecution; and the nation in general was highly incensed against him for his having lately obtained a subsidy of four shillings in the pound from the clergy, and one tenth and one fifteenth from the laity; notwithstanding the immense sums that had flowed into the treasury out of the monasteries. Henry, with his usual caprice, and without ever considering that Cromwell’s faults were his own, and committed, if we may use the expression, for his own gratification, caused him to be arrested at the council table, by the duke of Norfolk, on the 10th of June, when he least suspected it. Being committed to the Tower, he wrote a letter to the king, to vindicate himself from the guilt of treason; and another concerning his majesty’s marriage with Anne of Cleves; but we do not find that any notice was taken of these: yet, as his enemies knew if he were brought to the bar he would justify himself by producing the king’s orders and warrants for what he had done, they resolved to prosecute him by attainder; and the bill being brought into the house of lords the 17th of June, and read the first time, on the 19th was read the second and third times, and sent down to the commons. Here, however, it stuck ten days, and at last a new bill of attainder was sent up to the lords, framed in the house of commons: and they sent back at the same time the bill the lords had sent to them. The grounds of his condemnation were chieHy treason and heresy; the former very confusedly expressed. Like other falling favourites, he was deserted by most of his friends, except archbishop Cranmer, who wrote to the king in his behalf with great boldness and spirit. But the duke of Norfolk, and the rest of the popish party, prevailed; and, accordingly, in pursuance of his attainder, the lord Cromwell was brought to a scaffold erected on Tower-hill, where, after having made a speech, and prayed, he was beheaded, July 28, 1540. His death is solely to be attributed to the ingratitude and caprice of Henry, whom he had served with great faithfulness, courage, and resolution, in the most hazardous, difficult, and important undertakings. As for the lord Cromwell’s character, he is represented by popish historians as a crafty, cruel, ambitious, and covetous man, and a heretic; but their opponents, on better grounds, assert that he was a person of great wit, and excellent parts, joined to extraordinary diligence and industry; that his apprehension was quick and clear; his judgment methodical and solid; his memory strong and rational; his tongue fluent and pertinent; his presence stately and obliging; his heart large and noble; his temper patient and cautious; his correspondence well laid and constant; his conversation insinuating and close: none more dextrous in finding out the designs of men and courts; and none more reserved in keeping a secret. Though he was raised from the meanest condition to a high pitch of honour, he carried his greatness with wonderful temper; being noted in the exercise of his places of judicature, to have used much moderation, and in his greatest pomp to have taken notice of, and been thankful to mean persons of his old acquaintance. In his whole behaviour he was courteous and affable to all; a favourer in particular of the poor in their suits; and ready to relieve such as were in danger of being oppressed by powerful adversaries; and so very hospitable and bountiful, that about two hundred persons were served at the gate of his house in Throgmorton-strcet, London, twice every day, with bread, meat, and drink sufficient. He must be regarded as one of the chief instruments in the reformation; and though he could not prevent the promulgation, he stopped the execution, as far as he could, of the bloody act of the six articles. But when the king’s command pressed him close, he was not firm enough to refuse his concurrence to the condemnation and burning of John Lambert. In his domestic concerns he was very regular; calling upon his servants yearly, to give him an account of what they had got under him, and what they desired of him; warning them to improve their opportunities, because, he said, he was too great to stand long; providing for them as carefully, as for his own son, by his purse and credit, that they might live as handsomely when he was dead, as they did when he was alive. In a word, we are assured, that for piety towards God, fidelity to his king, prudence in the management of affairs, gratitude to his benefactors, dutifulness, charity, and benevolence, there was not any one then superior to him in England.

After residing for some time at Lyons, Dolet came to Paris in October 1534, and published some new works; and was about to have returned to Lyons in 1536, but was obliged to abscond for a time, having killed a person who had attacked him. He then came to Paris, and presented himself to Francis L who received him graciously, and granted him a pardon, by which he was enabled to return to Lyons. All these incidents he has introduced in his poems. It appears to have been on his return to Lyons at this time that he commenced the business of printer, and the first work which came from his press in 1538, was the four books of his Latin poems. He also married about the same time, and had a son, Claude, born to him in 1539. whose birth he celebrates in a Latin poem printed the same year. From some parts of his poems in his “Second Enfer,” it would appear that the imprisonment we have mentioned, was not all he suffered, and that he was imprisoned twice at Lyons, and once at Paris, before that final imprisonment which ended in his death. For all these we are unable to account; his being confined at Paris appears to have been for his religious opinions, but after fifteen months he was released by the interest of Peter Castellanus, or Du Chatel, then bishop of Tulles. He was not, however, long at large, being arrested at Lyons, Jan. 1, 1544, from which he contrived to make his escape, and took refuge in Piemont, when he wrote the nine epistles which form his “Deuxieme Enfer.” We are not told whether he ever returned to Lyons publicly, but only that he was again apprehended in 1545, and condemned to be burnt as a heretic, or rather as an atheist, which sentence was executed at Paris, Aug. 3, 1516. On this occasion it is said by some that he made profession of the catholic faith by invoking the saints but others doubt this fact. Whether pursuant to his sentence, or as a remission of the most horrible part of it, we know not, but he was first strangled, and then burnt. Authors diii'er much as to the real cause of his death; some attributing it to the frequent attacks he had made on the superstitions and licentious lives of the ecclesiastics; others to his being a heretic, or Lutheran; and others to his impiety, or atheism. Jortin, in his Life of Erasmus, and in his “Tracts,” contends for the latter, and seems disinclined to do justice to Dolec in any respect. Dolet certainly had the art of making enemies; he was presumptuous, indiscreet, and violent in his resentments, but we have no direct proof of the cause for which he suffered. On one occasion a solemn censure was pronounced against him by the assembly of divines at Paris, for having inserted the following words in a translation of Plato VAxiochus, from the Latin version into I'Yench “Apres la mort tu tie seras rien clu tout,” and this is said to have produced his condemnation but, barbarous as the times then were, we should be inclined to doubt whether the persecutors would have condemned a man of acknowledged learning and genius for a single expression, and that merely a translation. On the other hand, we know not how to admit Dolet among the protestant martyrs, as Calvin, and others who lived at the time, and must have known his character, represent him as a man of no religion. Dolet contributed not a little to the restoration of classical literature in France, and particularly to the reformation of the Latin style, to which he, had applied most of his attention. He appears to have known little of Greek literature but through the medium of translations, and his own Latin style is by some thought very laboured, and composed of expressions and half sentences, a sort of cento, borrowed from his favourite Cicero and otber authors. He wrote much, considering that his life was short, and much of it spent in vexatious removals and in active employments. His works are: l.“S. Doleti orationes diue in Tholosam; ejusdem epistolarum hbri duo; ejusdem canninum libri duo; ad eundem epistolarum amicorum liber,” 8vo, without date, but most probably in 1534, when he had been driven from Toulouse and was at Lyons, as mentioned above. 2. “Dialogus de imitutione Ciceroniana, adversus Desiderium Erasmum pro Christophoro Longolio,” Lyons, 1535, 4to. This was an attack on Erasmus in defence of Longolius, in which he had been partly anticipated by Scaliger in his “O ratio pro Cicerone contra Erasmum.” 3. “Commentariorum linguce Latinse tomi duo,” Lyons, 1536 and 1588, fol. This is a kind of Latin dictionary, in the manner of a common-place book, and evidently a work of great labour. He began it in his sixteenth year. An abridgment of it was published at Basil in 1537, 8vo. 4. “De re navali liber ad Lazarum Bayfium,” Lyons, 1537, 4to, and inserted by Gronovius in vol. XL of his Greek antiquities. 5. “S. Doleti Galli Aurelii Carminum libri quatuor,” printed by himself at Lyons, 1538, 4to. Dolet’s Latin verses have been too much undervalued by Jortin and others. 6. “Genethliacon Claudii Doleti, Stephani Doleti nlii; liber vitae communi in primis utilis et necessarius; autore patre, Lugduni, apud eundem Doletum,” 1539, 4to. A French translation was printed by the author in the same year. 7. “Formulas Latinarum locutionum illustriorum in tres partes divisae,” Lyons, 1539, folio, and with additions by Sturmius and Susannasus, Strasburgh, 1596, 4to. 8. “Francisci Valesii, Gallorum regis, fata, ubi rein omnem celebriorem a Gallis gestam noscas, ab anno 1513 ad annum 1539,” Lyons, 1539, 4to. This which is in Latin verse, was translated by the author into French prose, and printed in 1540, 4to, 1543, 8vo, and Paris, 1546, 8vo. 9. “Observationes in Terentii Andriam et Eunuchum,” Lyons, 1540, 8vo. 10. “La maniere de bien traduire d'une langue en une autre de la ponctuation Francoise, &c.” Lyons, 1540, 8vo. 11. “Liber de imitatione Ciceroniana adversus Floridum Sabinum Responsio ad convitia ejusdem Sabini; Epigrammata in eundem,” Lyons, 1540, 4to. Dolet was unfortunately not content with arguing with his antagonists, but more frequently exasperated them by his sarcastic attacks. 12. “Libri tres de legato, de immunitate legatorum, et de Joannis Langiachi Lemovicensis episcopi Legationibus,” Lyons, 1541, 4to. 13. “Les epitres et evangiles des cinquante-deux dimanches, &,c. avec brieve exposition,” Lyons, 1541, 8vo. 14. A translation of Erasmus’s “Miles Christianus,” Lyons, 1542, 16mo. 15, “Claudii Cotersei Turonensis de jure et privilegiismilitum libri tres, et de officio imperatoris liber unus,” Lyons, 1539, folio. 16. “On Confession,” translated from Erasmus, ibid. 1542, 16mo. 17. “Discotirs contenant le seul et vrai moyen, par lequel un serviteur favorise et constitue” au service d'un prince, peut conserver sa felicite eternelle et temporelle, &c.“Lyons, 1542, 8vo. 18.” Exhortation, a la lecture des saintes lettres,“ibid. 1542, 16rno. 19.” La paraphrase de Jean Campensis sur les psalmes de David, &c. faite Frangoise,“ibid. 1542. 20.” Bref discours de la republique Fran^oise, desirant la lecture des livres de la sainte ecriture lui etre loisible en sa langue vulgaire,“in verse, Lyons, 1544, 16mo. 21. A translation of Plato’s Axiochus and Hipparchus, Lyons, 1544, I6mo. This was addressed to Francis I. in a prose epistle, in which the author promises a translation of all the works of Plato, accuses his country of ingratitude, and supplicates the king to permit him to return to Lyons, being now imprisoned. 22.” Second Enfer d'Etienne Dolet,“in French verse, Lyons, 1544, 8vo. This consists of nine poetical letters addressed to Francis I. the duke of Orleans, the duchess d'Estampes, the queen of Navarre, the cardinal Lorraine, cardinal Tournon, the parliament of Paris, the judges of Lyons, and his friends. The whole is a defence of the conduct for which he was imprisoned at Lyons in the beginning of 1544. He had written a first” Enfer," consisting of memorials respecting his imprisonment at Paris, and was about to have published it when he was arrested at Lyons, but it never appeared. Besides these, he published translations into French of Cicero’s Tusculan Questions and his Familiar Epistles, which went through several editions. Almost all Dolet’s works are scarce, owing to

, one of the martyrs to the cause of the protestant religion in France, in the sixteenth century, was a native of Auvergne, sou to Stephen du Bourg, comptroller general of the customs in Languedoc, and brother to Anthony du Bourg, president of the parliament of Paris, and afterwards chancellor of France. He was born in 1521, designed for the church, and ordained priest; but embracing the protestant religion, was honoured with the crown of martyrdom. He was a man of great learning, especially in the law, which he taught at Orleans with much reputation, and was appointed counsellor-clerk to the parliament of Paris in October 1557. In this high station, he declared himself the protector of the protestants, and endeavoured either to prevent or soften the punishments inflicted upon them. This alarmed some of Henry II.'s counsellors, who advised that monarch to get rid of the protestants, and told him that he should begin by punishing those judges who secretly favoured them, or others who employed their credit and recommendations to screen them from punishment. They likewise suggested that the king should make his appearance unexpectedly in the parliament which was to be assembled on the subject of the Mercurials, or Checks, a kind of board of censure against the magistrates instituted by Charles VIII. and called Mercurials from the day on which they were to be held (Wednesday). The king accordingly came to parliament in June 1559, when Du Bourg spoke with great freedom in his defence, and went so far as to attack the licentious manners of the court; on which the king ordered him to be arrested. On the 19th he was tried, and declared a heretic by the bishop of Paris, ordered to be degraded from the character of priest, and to be delivered into the hand of the secular power; but the king’s death, in July, delayed the execution until December, *vhen he was again condemned by the bishop of Paris, and the archbishop of Lyons, his appeals being rejected by the parliament. Frederick, elector Palatine, and other protestant princes of Germany, solicited his pardon, and probably might have succeeded, had it not been for the assassination, at this time, of the president M in art, whom Du Bourg had challenged on his trial; and it was not therefore difficult, however unjust, to persuade his persecutors that he had a hand in this assassination. He was accordingly hanged, and his body burnt Dec. 2O, 1559; leaving behind him the character of a pious and learned man, an upright magistrate, and a steady friend. At his execution he avowed his principles with great spirit; and the popish biographers are forced to allow that the firmness and constancy shown by him and others, about the same time, tended only to “make new heretics, instead of intimidating the old.”

The most capital work of Scotus was his treatise “On the division of nature, or the natures of things;” which, after long lying in manuscript, was published at Oxford, in 1681, by Dr. Thomas Gale. In various respects this was the most curious literary production of the age in which Erigena flourished, being written with a metaphysical subtlety and acuteness then unknown in Europe. This acuteness he acquired by reading the writings of the Greek philosophers: and by applying the refinement of logic to the discussion of theological subjects, he became the father of that scholastic divinity, which made so distinguished a figure in the middle ages, and so long resisted the progress of genuine science. The remarks of one of our ancient historians [Hoveden] on Scotus’s work are not unjust. “His book, entitled, `The Division of Nature,' is of great use in solving many intricate and perplexing questions; if we can forgive him for deviating from the path of the Latin philosophers and divines, and pursuing that of the Greeks. It was this that made him appear a heretic to many; and it must be confessed that there are many things in it which, at first sight at least, seem to be contrary to the catholic faith.” Of this kind are his opinions of God and the universe, which bear a considerable resemblance to the pantheism of Spinoza. At the entrance of his work, Erigena divides nature into that which creates, and is not created that which is created, and creates that which is created, and does not create and that which neither creates nor is created. As a farther proof of the singularity of John Scotus’s genius, we shall produce his argument for the eternity of the world “Nothing can be an accident with respect to God consequently, it was not an accident with respect to him to frame the world therefore God did not exist before he created the world for, if he had, it would have happened to him to create that is, creation would have been an accident of the jdivine nature. God therefore precedes the world, not in the order of time, but of causality. The cause always was, and is, and will be; and therefore the effect always has subsisted, doth subsist, and will subsist; that is, the universe is eternal in its cause.” Hence Erigena taught that God is all things, and that all things are God by which he might only mean the same with the oriental, cabbalistic, and Alexandrian philosophers and, after these, with the followers of Origen, Synesius, and the supposed Dionysius, that all things have eternally proceeded by emanation from God, and will at length return into him as streams to their source. Accordingly he says, that “after the resurrection nature itself will return to God; God will be all in all, and there will remain nothing but God alone.” From these brief specimens it appears, that the philosophy of Scotus was founded in the enthusiastic notions of Universal deification; and consequently, that he is rather to be ranked among the fanatical than among the atheistical philosophers. The monastic life, which then so generally prevailed, afforded so much leisure for indulging the flights of imagination, and so many opportunities for an ostentatious display of piety, that it was peculiarly favourable to the propagation of enthusiasm. To this it may be added, that the ignorance of the times made it perfectly easy for those, who were inclined to practise upon vulgar credulity, to execute their design. It is not, therefore, surprising, that the dreams of mysticism should be extensively propagated, under the authority of a supposed apostolical name.

, a heretic of the second century, was the founder of the sect of Ophites or Serpentarians, one of whose dogmas was, “that the serpent by which our first parents were deceived, was either Christ himself or Sophia (wisdom) concealed under that form,” for which reason they paid a kind of divine honours to certain serpents kept for that purpose. In most points he adhered to the Oriental or Gnostic philosophy, of two opposite principles with the Æons, and other dreams of those sects. Origen did not consider the disciples of Euphrates as Christians, but as calumniators of Jesus Christ; but Dr. Lardner, in their defence, has proved that they believed in Jesus, as an excellent man, and the true Messiah.

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

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

In his defence he maintained the first seven of these articles to be undoubtedly true, and sound doctrine, and as such they appear to have been afterwards adopted by Calvin, and, in substance, make part of that system known by his name, and incorporated in the national creed of Scotland. The rest of the articles, Mr. Hamilton allowed, were disputable points, but such as he could not condemn, unless he saw better reasons than had been offered. They were all condemned, however, as heretical, and on the 1st of March, 1527, sentence was pronounced against him, declaring him a heretic, and giving him over to the secular power, to suffer the punishment due to heretics, which was burning alive. On the same day the secular power pronounced its sentence, which was immediately executed with every circumstance of savage barbarity, which, all historians agree, he bore with firmness and invincible constancy to the principles he had professed. The place of execution was the gate of St. Salvador’s college.

Hoffman and Beza wrote against each other upon the subject of the Holy Eucharist. Hoffman accused Hunnius, an eminent Lutheran minister, for having misrepresented the book of the Concord; for here, says Hoffman, the cause of election is not made to depend upon the qualifications of the person elected but Hunnius, says he, and Mylius assert, that the decree of election is founded upon the foresight of faith. Hunnius and Mylius caused Hoffman to be condemned at a meeting of their divines in 1593, and threatened him with excommunication, if he did not comply. The year following, Hoffman published an apology against their censure. Hospinian gives the detail of this controversy: he observes, that some divines of Leipsic, Jena, and Wittemburg, would have had Hoffman publicly censured as a Calvinist, and such a heretic as was not fit to be conversed with; others who were more moderate, were for admonishing him by way of letter before they came to extremities: this latter expedient was approved, and Hunnius wrote to him in the name of all his brethren. Hoffman’s apology was an answer to this letter, in which he gives the reasons for refusing to comply with the divines of Wittemburg, and pretends to shew that they were grossly mistaken in several articles of faith. At last he was permitted to keep school at Helmstadt, where he died in 1611. He must not be confounded with Melchior Hoffman, a fanatic of the sixteenth century, who died in prison at Strasburgh. There was also a Gasper Hoffman (the name being common), a celebrated professor of medicine at Altdorf, who was born at Golha in 1572, and died in 1649; and who left behind him many medical works.

, 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,”

The empire being now in the full enjoyment of profound peace and tranquillity, Justinian made the best use of it, by collecting the immense variety and number of the Roman laws into one body. To this end, he selected ten of the most able lawyers in the empire; who, revising the Gregorian, Theodosian, and Hermogenian codes, compiled out of them one body, called “The Code,” to which the emperorgave his own name. This may be called the statute law, as consisting of the rescripts of the emperors: but the compilation of the other part was a much more difficult task. It was made up of the decisions of the judges and other magistrates, together with the authoritative opinions of the most eminent lawyers; all which lay scattered, without any order, in above 2000 volumes. These, however, after the labour of ten years, chiefly by Tribonian, an eminent lawyer, were reduced to the number of 50; and the whole design was completed in the year 533, and the name of “Digests,” or “Pandects,” given to it. Besides these, for the use chiefly of young students in the law, Justinian ordered four books of “Institutes” to be drawn up, by Tribonian, Dorotheus, and Theophilus, containing an abstract or abridgement of the text of all the laws: and, lastly, the laws of modern date, posterior to that of the former, were thrown into one volume in the year 541, called the “Noveilx,” or “New Code.” This most important transaction in the state has rendered Justinian’s name immortal. His conduct in ecclesiastical affairs was rash and inconsiderate. On one occasion, when Theodotus, king of Italy, had obliged pope Agapetus to go to Constantinople, in order to submit and make peace with the emperor, Justinian received him very graciously, but enjoined him to communicate with Anthenius, patriarch of Constantinople. That patriarch being deemed a heretic at Rome, the pontiff refused to obey the command; and, when the emperor threatened to punish his disobedience with banishment, he answered, without any emotion, “I thought I was come before a Christian prince, but I find a Diocletian.” The result was, that the hardiness and resolution of the pope brought the emperor to a submission. Accordingly Anthenius was deprived, and an orthodox prelate put into his place.

On his arrival at Paris, his mind was occupied with higher objects, and he now presented to the comptrollergeneral of the finances under Louis XIV. a plan which was approved by that minister, but is said to have been rejected by the king because “he would have nothing to do with a heretic.” After, however, a short residence in Sardinia, where he in vain wanted to persuade Victor Amadeus to adopt one of his plans for aggrandizing his territories, he returned to Paris on the death of Louis XIV. and was more favourably received. He gained the confidence of the regent to such a degree, that he not only admitted him to all his convivial parties, but nominated him one of his counsellors of state. France was at this time burthened with an immense debt, which Law proposed to liquidate, by establishing a bank for issuing notes secured on landed property, and on all the royal revenues, unalienably engaged for that purpose. This scheme was approved of, but the conjuncture being thought unfavourable, he could only obtain letters patent, dated May 30, 1716, for establishing a private bank at Paris, along with his brother and some other associates. This scheme promised success, and the bank had acquired great credit, when it was dissolved in December 1718, by an arbitrary arret of the regent, who, observing the great advantages arising from it, and perceiving also that the people were growing fond of paper money, resolved to take it into the hands of government.

While he was in England he received an account of the death of the elector of Mentz, by which he lost his pension. He then returned to France, whence be wrote to the duke of Brunswick Lunenburg, to inform him of his circumstances. That prince sent him a very gracious answer, assuring him of his favour, and, for the present, appointed him counsellor of his court, with a salary; but gave him leave to stay at Paris, in order to complete his arithmetical machine, which, however, was not completed until after his death. In 1674 be went again to England, whence he passed, through Holland, to Hanover, and from his first arrival there made it his business to enrich the library of that prince with the best books of all kinds. That duke dying in 1679, his successor, Ernest Augustus, then bishop of Osnabrug, afterwards George I. extended the same patronage to Leibnitz, and directed him to write the history of the house of Brunswick. Leibnitz undertook the task; and, travelling through Germany and Italy to collect materials, returned to Hanover in 1690, with an ample store. While he was in Italy he met with a singular instance of bigotry, which, but for his happy presence of mind, might have proved fatal. Passing in a small bark from Venice to Mesola, a storm arose, during which the pilot, imagining he was not understood by a German, whom being a heretic he looked on as the cause of the tempest, proposed to strip him of his cloaths and money, and throw him overboard. Leibnitz hearing this, without discovering the least emotion, pulled out a set of beads, and turned them over with a seeming devotion. The artifice succeeded; one of the sailors observing to the pilot, that, since the man was no heretic, it would be of no use to drown him. In 1700 he was admitted a member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris. The same year the elector of Brandenburg, afterwards king of Prussia, founded an academy at Berlin, by the advice of Leibnitz, who was appointed perpetual president of it; and, though his other affairs did not permit him to reside constantly upon the spot, yet he made ample amends by the treasures with which he enriched their memoirs, in several dissertations upon geometry, polite learning, natural philosophy, and physic. He also projected to establish at Dresden another academy like that at Berlin. He communicated his design to the king of Poland in 1703, who was inclined to promote it; but the troubles which arose shortly after in that kingdom, hindered it from being carried into execution.

, a celebrated Capuchin, born at Milan in 1586, descended from the earls of Magni, acquired great reputation in the seventeenth century by his controversial writings against the protestants, and philosophical ones in favour of Descartes against Aristotle. He passed through the highest offices in his order, and was apostolical missionary to the northern kingdoms. It was by his advice that pope Urban VIII. abolished the Jesuitesses in 1631. Uladislaus king of Poland, solicited a cardinal’s hat for Magni; but the Jesuits are said to have opposed it. They certainly informed against him as a heretic, because he had said that the pope’s primacy and infallibility were not founded on scripture, and he was imprisoned at Vienna; but regained his liberty by favour of the emperor Ferdinand III. after having written very warmly against the Jesuits in his defence. He retired at last to Saltzburg, and died there, 1661, aged seventyfive. Mention is made of Magni in the sixteenth Provincial Letter and one of his Apologetical Letters may be found in the collection entitled “Tuba magna,” tom. II.

The works of Maimonides are very numerous. Some of them were written in Arabic originally, but are now extant in Hebrew translations only. The most considerable are his Jad, which is likewise called “Mischne Terah,” his “More Nevochim,” and his “Peruschim, or Commentaries upon the Misna.” His “Commentaries upon the Misna” he began at the age of three-and-twenty, and finished in Egypt, when he was about thirty. They were translated from the Arabic by rabbi Samuel Aben Tybbon. His “Jad” was published about twelve years after, written in Hebrew, in a very plain and easy style. This has always been esteemed a great and useful work, being a complete code, or pandect of Jewish law, digested into a clear and regular form, and illustrated throughout with an intelligible commentary of his own. “Those,” says Collier, “that desire to learn the doctrine and the canon law contained in the Talmud, may read Maimonides’s compendium, of it in good Hebrew, in his book entitled Jad; wherein they will find a great part of the fables and impertinences in the Talmud entirely discarded.” But of all his productions, the “More Nevochim” has been thought the most important, and valued the most, not only by others, but also by himself. This was written by him in Arabic, when he was about fifty years old; and afterwards translated into Hebrew, under his own inspection, by rabbi Samuel Aben Tybbon. The design of it was to explain the meaning of several difficult and obscure words, phrases, metaphors, parables, allegories, &c. in scripture which, when interpreted literally, seemed to have no meaning at all, or at least a very absurd and irrational one. Hence the work, as Buxtorf says, took its title of “More Nevochim,” that is, “Doctor perplexorum;” as being written for the use and benefit of those who were in doubt whether they should interpret such passages according to the letter, or rather figuratively and metaphorically. Jt was asserted by many at that time, but very rashly, that the Mosaic rites and statutes had no foundation in reason, but were the effects of mere will, and ordained by God upon a principle purely arbitrary. Against these Maimonides argues, shews the dispensation in general to be instituted with a wisdom worthy of its divine author, and explains the causes and reasons of each particular branch of it. This procedure, however, gave offence to many of the Jews; those especially who had long been attached to the fables of the Talmud. They could not conceive that the revelations of God were to be explained upon the principles of reason; but thought that every institution must cease to be divine the moment it was discovered to have any thing in it rational. Hence, when the “More Nevochim” was translated into Hebrew, and dispersed among the Jews of every country, great outcries were raised, and great disturbances occasioned about it. They reputed the author to be a heretic of the worst kind, one who had contaminated the religion of the Bible, or rather the religion of the Talmud, with the vile allay of human reason; and would gladly have burnt both him and his book. In the mean time, the wiser part of both Jews and Christians have always considered the work in a very different light, as formed upon a most excellent and noble plan, and calculated in the best manner to procure the reverence due to the Bible, by shewing the dispensation it sets forth to be perfectly conformable to all our notions of the greatest wisdom, justice, and goodness: for, as the learned Spencer, who has pursued the same plan, and executed it happily, observes very truly, “nothing contributes more to make men atheists, and unbelievers of the Bible, than their considering the rites and ceremonies of the law as the effects only of caprice and arbitrary humour in the Deity: yet thus they will always be apt to consider them while they remain ignorant of the causes and reasons of their institution.”

, a heretic, who lived in the second century of the church, was born at Sinope, a city of Paphlagonia, upon the Euxine sea, and had for his father the bishop of that city. Eusebius calls him 5 votumg, the mariner; and Tertullian, more than once, Ponticus Nauclerus. Whether he acquired this name from having learned the art of sailing in his youth, or from being born in a sea-port town, ecclesiastical antiquity has not told us. At first he professed continency, and betook himself to an ascetic life; but, having so far forgotten himself as to debauch a young lady, he was excommunicated by his father, who was so rigid an observer of the discipline of the church, that he could never be induced, by all his prayers and vows of repentance, to re-admithim into the communion of the faithful. This exposed him so much to the scoffs and insults of his countrymen, that he privily withdrew himself, and went to Rome, hoping to gain admittance there. But his case being known, he was again unsuccessful, which so irritated him, that he became a disciple of Cerdo, and espoused the opinions of that famous heretic. The most accurate chronologers have not agreed as to the precise time when Marcion went to Rome; but the learned Cave, after considering their reasons, determines it, and with the greatest appearance of probability, to the year 127; and supposes further, that he began to appear at the head of his sect, and to propagate his doctrines publicly, about the year 130. Indeed it could not well be later, because his opinions were dispersed far and wide in the reign of Adrian; and Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of the heretics who lived under that emperor, mentions Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion, who, he says, “conversed along with them, as a junior among seniors:” and Basilides died in the year 134.

We have mentioned that Peter Martyr’s wife died at Oxford, in 1551, and was buried in the cathedral of Christ church. Here her remains quietly reposed until 1556, when cardinal Pole appointed a set of commissioners to reform the university of Oxford, from all remains of the new religion, or heresy, as it was called. In the discharge of their functions, they were ordered to take into their consideration the manners and life “of one Catherine Cathie, or Dampmartin, the late wife of Dr. Peter Martyr, who died about four years ago, and was buried in the cathedral of Christ church, near to the reliques of St. Frideswyde.” They accordingly summoned several persons of her acquaintance, “to the end that if they could find any thing of her, favouring of heresy, they might take up her body and commit it to the fire” but, as these witnesses pretended they did not understand her language, and therefore could not tell what religion she professed, they informed the cardinal of their progress, who immediately wrote to Dr. Marshall, the dean, a letter, which by no means exhibits Pole as a man possessed of that greatness of mind which his late biographers have attributed to him. He tells the dean that “forasmuch as Catherine Cathie, of detestable memory, who had professed herself the legitimate wife of Peter Martyr, a heretic, though he and she had before marriage entered into solemn vows of religion, and that she had lived with him in Oxford in cursed fornication, when he denied the truth of the Sacrament, and that also after her death she was buried near the sepulchre of that religious virgin St. Frideswyde; he should according to his discretion deal so with her carcass that it should be far enough cast from ecclesiastical sepulture.” Melchior Adam imputes this conduct on the part of the cardinal, to a motive of resentment, which he had conceived against Peter Martyr. The cardinal had formerly been his most intimate friend, and even continued to appear so, after Martyr had expressed his disgust at the errors and superstitions of Rome; but when Martyr left Italy, he became his most inveterate enemy, and exercised that indignity, and even cruelty upon the wife, which it was not in his power to shew to the husband.

, called the good lord Cobham, the first author, as well as the first martyr, among our nobility, was born in the fourteenth century, in the reign of Edward III. He obtained his peerage by marrying the heiress of that lord Cobham, who, with so much virtue and patriotism opposed the tyranny of Richard IL and, with the estate and title of his father-in-law, seems also to have taken possession of his virtue and independent spirit. The famous statute against provisors was by his means revived, and guarded by severer penalties. He was one of the leaders in the reforming party, who drew up a number of articles against the corruptions which then prevailed among churchmen, and presented them, in the form of a remonstrance, to the Commons. He was at great expence in collecting and transcribing the works of Wickliff, which he dispersed among the people; and he maintained a great number of his disciples as itinerant preachers in many parts of the country. These things naturally awakened the resentment of the clergy against him. In the reign of Henry IV. he had the command of an English army in France, which was at that time a scene of great confusion, through the competition of the Orleanand Burgundian factions; and obliged the duke of Orleans to raise the siege of Paris. In the reign of Henry V. he was accused of heresy, and the growth of it was particularly attributed to his influence. The king, with whom lord Cobham was a domestic in his court, delayed the prosecution against him; and undertook to reason with him himself, and to reduce him from his errors. Lord Cobham’s answer is upon record. “I ever was,” said he, “a dutiful subject to your majesty, and ever will be. Next to God, I profess obedience to my king; but as to the spiritual dominion of the pope, I never could see on what foundation it is claimed, nor can I pay him any obedience. It is sure as God’s word is true, he is the great antichrist foretold in holy writ.” This answer so exceedingly shocked the king, that, turning away in visible displeasure, he withdrew his favour from him, and left him to the censures of the church. He was summoned to appear before the archbishop; and, not appearing, was pronounced contumacious, and excommunicated. In hopes to avoid the impending storm, he waited upon the king with a confession of nis faith in writing, in his hand; and, while he was in his presence, a person entered the chamber, cited him to appear before the archbishop, and he was immediately hurried to the Tower. He was soon after brought before the archbishop, and read his opinion of these articles, on which he supposed he was called in question, viz. the Lord’s supper, penance, images, and pilgrimages. Hewas told, that in some parts he had not been sufficiently explicit that on all these points holy church had determined by which determinations all Christians ought to abide and that these determinations should be given him as a direction of his faith; and in a few days he must appear again and give his opinion. At the time, he said among other things, “that he knew none holier than Christ and the apostles and that these determinations were surely none of theirs, as they were against scripture.” In conclusion, he was condemned as an heretic, and remanded to the Tower, from which place he escaped, and lay concealed in Wales. The clergy, with great zeal for the royal person, informed the king, then at Eltham, that 20,000 Lollards were assembled at St. Giles’s for his destruction, with lord Cobham at their head. This pretended conspiracy, though there were not above 100 persons found, and those poor Lollards assembled for devotion, was entirely credited by the king, and fully answered the designs of the clergy; but there is not the smallest authority for it, in any author of reputation. A bill of attainder passed against lord Cobham; a price of a thousand marks was set upon his head; and a perpetual exemption from taxes promised to any town that should secure him. After he had been four years in Wales, he was taken at last by the vigilance of his enemies, brought to London in triumph, and dragged to execution in St. Giles’s-fields. As a traitor, and a heretic, he was hung up in chains alive upon a gallows; and, fire being put under him, was burnt to death, in December, 1417.

But his career was disturbed by a quarrel he had with one of his colleagues, who was enraged to see his own reputation eclipsed by the superior lustre of Palearius. We are not told the particular point upon which the contest commenced; but it is certain that our professor was defended by Peter Aretin, who, perhaps more to revenge his own cause, or gratify a detracting humour, than from any respect for Palearius, composed, against his envious rival, an Italian comedy or farce, which was acted upon the stage at Venice; and so poignant was the ridicule, that the subject of it thought proper to quit Sienna, and retire to Lucca. Hither he was followed some time after, though with much reluctance, by Palearius, concerning which we have the following account: Anthony Bellantes, a nobleman of Sienna, being impeached of several misdemeanors, employed Palearius to plead his cause, who made so excellent a speech before the senate of that city in his defence, that he was acquitted and dismissed; but, the same nobleman having some time after accused certain monks of robbing his grandmother, employed his advocate again to support the charge. The monks accused, making oath of their innocence, were cleared by the court, but were incensed at the prosecution, and aspersed Palearius both in their sermons, and on all other occasions, as an impious wretch, unfit to be harboured in a Christian country. They also declared him a heretic, because he disapproved several superstitious practices; neither did they approve of the book he had written on the “Death of Christ.” Palearius, however, defended himself with so much strength of reason and eloquence, that the accusations were dropped. Yet finding himself still exposed to vexatious persecutions, he thought proper to accept of an invitation to teach polite literature at Lucca.

, a heretic of the fourth century, well known in ecclesiastical history for having revived the errors of the Gnostics and Manicheans, was a Spaniard, of high birth, and great fortune, with considerable talents and eloquence. His opinions first became known in the year 379, and were rapidly diffused in Spain. But in the ensuing year a council was held by the bishops of Aquitaine at Saragossa, in which the Prisciliianists were solemnly condemned. He was then but a layman, but soon after he was ordained bishop of Labina, or Lavila, supposed to be Avila, one of the cities of Galicia, by two bishops of his own party. In the year 384, or, as Baronius in his Annals writes, 387, the ringleaders of this sect were put to death by the emperor Maximus, having been convicted before the magistrates of the grossest immoralities. These were, Priscillian himself, Felicissimus, and Armenus, two ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his doctrine; Asarinus and Aurelius, two deacons Latronianus, or, as Jerome calls him, Matronianus, a layman and Eucrocia, the widow of the orator Delphidius, who had professed eloquence in the city of Bourdeaux a few years before. These were all beheaded at Treves. The rest of Priscillian’s followers, whom they could discover or apprehend, were either banished or confined. The bodies of Priscillian, and those who suffered with him, were conveyed by the friends and adherents into Spain, and there interred with great pomp and solemnity; their names were added to those of other saints and martyrs, their firmness extolled, and their doctrine embraced by such numbers of proselytes that it spread in a short time over all the provinces between the Pyrenees and the ocean. The author of the notes upon Sulpitius Severus tells us that he saw the name of Priscillian in some not very ancient martyrologies. In practice they did not much differ from the Manichees the same, or nearly the same, infamous mysteries being ascribed to both: for, in the trial of Priscillian, before the emperor Maximus, it was alledged that he had countenanced all manner of debauchery, that he had held nocturnal assemblies of lewd women, and that he used to pray naked among them. Others, however, are of opinion that these charges had not much foundation, and that the execution of Priscillian and his followers was rather a disgrace than an advantage to the Christian cause.

As Waldo became more acquainted with the scriptures, he discovered that a multiplicity of doctrines, rites, and ceremonies, which had been introduced into the national religion, had not only no foundation, but were most pointedly condemned, in the Bible. On this ground he had no scruple to expose such errors, and to condemn the arrogance of the pope, and the reigning vices of the clergy, while at the same time he endeavoured to demonstrate the great difference there was between the Christianity of the Bible and that of the Church of Rome. Such bold opposition could not long be tolerated. The archbishop of Lyons accordingly prohibited the new reformer from teaching any more on pain of excommunication, and of being proceeded against as a heretic. Waldo replied, that though a layman, he could not be silent in a matter which concerned the salvation of his fellow-creatures. Attempts were next made to apprehend him; but the number and affection of his friends, the respectability and influence of his connections, many of whom were men of rank, the universal regard that was paid to his character for probity and religion, and the conviction that his presence was highly necessary among the people whom he had by this time gathered into a church, and of which he became the head, all operated so strongly in his favour, that he lived concealed at Lyons during the space of three whole years.

After the revolution, Mr. Williams was not only frer quentiy consulted by king William concerning Irish affairs, with which he was well acquainted, but often regarded at court on behalf of several who fled from Ireland, and were capable of doing service to government. He received great acknowledgments and thanks upon this account, when, in 1700, he went back to that country to visit his old friends, and to settle some affairs, relative to his estate in that kingdom. After preaching for some time occasionally in London, he became pastor of a numerous congregation at Hand-alley in Bishopsgate- street in 1688, and upon the death of the celebrated Richard Baxter in 1691, by whom Jhe was greatly esteemed, he ^succeeded him as one of those who preached the merchants’ -lecture, at Pinners’- hall, Broad-street. But it was not long before the frequent clashings in the discourses of these lecturers caused a division. Mr. Williams had preached warmly against some antinotnian tenets, which giving offence to many persons, a design was formed to exclude him from the lecture. Upon this he, with Dr. Bates, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Alsop, &c. retired and raised another lecture at Salter’s-hall on the same day and hour. This division was soon after increased by the publication of some of Dr. Crisp’s works, (See Crisp) and a controversy took place as to the more or less of antinomianism in these works, which lasted for some years, and was attended with much intemperance and personal animosity. What is rather remarkable, the contending parties appealed to bishop Stillingfleet, and Dr. Jonathan Edwards of Oxford, who both approved of jivhat Mr. Williams had done. Mr. Williams’ s chief publication on the subject was entitled “Gospel Truth stated and vindicated,” 1691, 12mo. The controversy by his friends was called the antinonpian, but by Dr. Crisp’s advocates the neonomian controversy. Mr. Williams was not only reckoned a heretic, but attempts were even made to injure his moral character, which, however, were defeated by the unanimous testimony of all who knew him, or took he trouble to inquire into the ground of such accusations^ In his congregation, it is said, he lost no friend. $H

Zuinglius made no less progress with the reformation in Switzerland than Luther did in Saxony, yet, though by four years preaching he had prepared the magistrates and people, and knew that they were disposed to cast off the doctrine and discipline of the church of Rome, and to receive his new opinions, he would not attempt to make any alterations in the external worship without the concurrence of the civil powers, and to that end caused an assembly to be called of the senate of Zurich in 1523, that the differences among- preachers in matters of religion might be composed. The senate, by their edict, invited all ecclesiastics of their canton, and gave the bishop of Constance notice of it, that he might either be present by himself or his deputies; and the assembly met at the day appointed. Here Zuinglius declared, “that the light of the gospel having been much obscured, and almost extiuguished by human traditions, several persons of late had endeavoured to restore it by preaching the word of God in its purity; that he himself was one of that number; and, though he had for five years past taught nothing but what was contained in holy scripture, yet he had been treated as a heretic and seducer; that it was for this reason he had desired to give an account of his doctrines before the senate of Zurich, and the bishop of Constance, or his deputies; and, that they might the more easily understand them, he had drawn them out into sixty-seven propositions.” The doctrine contained in these propositions may be reduced to the following articles: 1. “That the gospel is the only rule of faith.” 2. “That the church is the communion of saints.” 3. “That we ought to acknowledge no head of the church but Jesus Christ.” 4. “That all traditions are to be rejected.” 5. “That there is no other sacrifice but that of Jesus Christ.” 6. “That we have need of no other intercessor with God but Jesus Christ.” 7; “That all sorts of meat may be eaten at all times.” 8. 66 That the habits of monks partake of hypocrisy.“9.” That marriage is allowed to all the world, and no man obliged to make a vow of chastity and that priests are not at all debarred from the privilege of being married.“10.” That excommunication ought not to be inflicted by the bishop alone, but by the whole church and that only notorious offenders ought to be excommunicated.“11.” That the power which the pope and bishops assume to themselves, is errant pride, and hath no foundation in scripture.“12.” That none can forgive sins but God; and that confession of sins to a priest is only to beg his ghostly advice,“13,” That the scripture teaches no such place as purgatory.“14.” That the character which the sacraments are said to impress, is a modern invention.“15.” That the scripture acknowledges none for priests and bishops but such as preach the word of God."