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

In what manner Heloise received the tidings of Abelard’s death is uncertain. She requested, however, that his body might be sent for interment to the Paraclete, and this was said to have been in consequence of a wish formerly expressed to her by Abelard. Her request was complied with, and the remains of her lover deposited in the church with much solemnity. For one-and-twenty years after we hear no more of her, only that she was held in the highest estimation; that she was a pattern of every monastic and Christian virtue; and that, ever retaining the tenderest affection of a wife, she prayed unceasingly at her husband’s tomb. In 1163, she fell sick. History does not inform us what her disorder was, nor does it relate the circumstances of her death. She expired, however, on Sunday, May 17th, in the sixty-third year of her age, and her body was deposited, by her own orders, in the tomb by the side of Abelard. Their bones have lain, in the abbey of the Paraclete, in the diocese of Troyes, in France, ever since 1142 and 1163. They have been at several times, and in different centuries, moved to other parts of the church. The last transposition was made by order of the present abbess madame de Roucy, in the year 1779, with the following ceremonies. The relics of this fond pair were taken up out of the vault, and laid by a priest in a leaden coffin separated into two divisions, in order that they might not be mixed, which was exposed to view for a quarter of an hour, and then soldered up. After which the coffin was borne, attended by the ladies of the convent singing anthems, first into the choir, and then to the place of its destination under the altar; where, after prayers had been said over it, it was solemnly interred. The abbess has caused a monument of black marble to be erected on the spot, with the following inscription:

, of Vincenza, was a priest of the Carmelite order, and a professor at Genoa, Verona, Padua, and Vincenza. In 1654, he was obliged, we are not told why, to quit the religious habit; and died at Venice, 1699, in the 92d year of his age. He publisned 1. Academical Discourses, entitled “Funghi” because theygrew, as he said, like mushrooms in his uncultivated mind. 2. “II Vaglio,” or the Sieve, answers to the remarks of Veglia on the Godfrey of Tasso, Venice, 1662 and 1687. 3. “Poetry, Sonnets, &c.” Venice, 1663 and 1664, 12.rao. 4. “L‘Arte Poetica d’Horatio, tradotta in versi sciolti,” Venice, 1663, 12mo. 5. “Ode di Orazio tradotte,” Venice, 1630, 12mo. This, and the translation of the Ars Poetica, have been often re-printed. 6. “A translation of Lucan,” Venice, 1668, 8vo.

With respect to the miracles ascribed to Aidan, they will not now bear a serious discussion. It is said that he prescribed oil to calm a turbulent sea; and Dr. Kippis, in the new edition of the Biographia Britannica, supposes from this that the good bishop might have some acquaintance with the property (lately brought to light by Dr. Franklin) which oil has of stilling waves. But in the bishop’s case, we must have a miracle or nothing; for the quantity he prescribed was contained in a phial, which could not have calmed the sea; and Dr. Franklin’s discovery has never been of the smallest use in any respect. Of the excellence of his character, as an ecclesiastic, much may be believed. His speech to a priest who employed harsh measures in converting the English, is a great proof of his good sense. “Your want of success, brother,” said he, “seems to me to be owing to your want of condescension to the weakness of your unlearned hearers; whom, according to the apostolic rule, you should first have fed with the milk of a milder and less rigid doctrine, till, being nourished by degrees with the word of God, they were become capable of relishing the more perfect and sublime precepts of the Gospel.” The reason he gave for foretelling Oswin’s death is also very striking. “I forsaw that Oswin’s life was but short; for in my life, I never saw so humble a prince before. His temper is too heavenly to dwell long among us; and indeed the nation does not deserve the blessing of snch a governor.”

, a priest of the oratory, was born at Brescia, of a noble family, Nov. 2, 1714, and studied theology, and the Greek and Hebrew languages, in both which he became an excellent scholar. He applied himself chiefly to an investigation of the text of the sacred scriptures, and read with great care the Greek and Latin fathers. His studies were also diversified by an acquaintance with chronology, history both sacred and profane, antiquities, criticism, and whatever belongs to the character of a general scholar. In his own country, he obtained such fame that his advice was thought to be oracular. He died Dec. 30, 1779, in his sixty-fifth year. He published “Critical Reflexions” on Febronius’s work, entitled “De Statu Ecclesiae, et legitima potestate Romani Pontificis;” some dissertations and other works, particularly one on the “manner of writing the lives of illustrious characters,” with an appendix on that peculiar species of biography, writing one’s own life. He left also some unpublished works, and among them “a comparison between the Italians and French,” and “Thoughts on the life and writings of father Paul Sarpi.”

, an English nonconformist of considerable note, was a native of Northamptonshire, and educated at St. John’s 'college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of master of arts. He afterwards received deacon’s orders from a bishop, and settled at Oakham in Rutlandshire, as assistant to the master of the free school. Being a man who possessed a lively pleasant wit, he fell into gay company, but was reclaimed by the admonition of the rev. Mr. King, a Puritan minister at or near Oakham, whose daughter he afterwards married; and becoming a convert to his principles, he received ordination in the presbyterian way, not being satisfied with that of the bishop, which extended only to deacon’s orders, and he was no longer willing to conform to the church by applying for those of a priest. He settled at Wilby, in the county of Northampton, whence he was ejected in 1662, for nonconformity. After which he ventured to preach sometimes at Oakham and at Wellingborough, where he lived; and was once committed to prison for six months, for praying with a sick person. The book he wrote against Dr. Sherlock, in a humorous style, made him first known to the world, and induced Mr. Cawton, an eminent nonconformist in Westminster, to recommend him to his congregation, as his successor. On receiving this invitation, he quitted Northampton, and came to London, where he preached constantly, and wrote several pieces, which were extremely well received by the public. His living in the neighbourhood of the court exposed him to many inconveniences, but he had the good fortune to escape imprisonment and fines, by the ignorance of the informers, who did not know his Christian name, which he studiously concealed; and even Anthony Wood, who calls him Benjamin, did not know it. His sufferings, however, ended with the reign of Charles II. at least in the beginning of the next reign, when his son, engaging in treasonable practices, was frequently pardoned by king James. After this, Mr. Alsop went frequently to court, and is generally supposed to have been the person who drew up the Preshy terians’ very fulsome address to that prince, for his general indulgence; a measure, however, which was condemned by the majority of nonconformists. After the revolution, Mr. Alsop gave very public testimonies of his affection for the government, but on all occasions spoke in the highest terms of respect and gratitude of king James, and retained a VI.Tv high sense of his clemency, in sparing his only son. The remainder of his life he spent in the exercise of the ministry, preaching once every Lord’s clay; besides which he had a Thursday lecture, and was one of the lecturers at Pinner’s hall. He lived to he a very old man, preserved his spirits to the last, and died May 8, 1703. On grave subjects he wrote with a becoming; seriousness but where wit might be shewn, he displayed it to considerable advantage. His funeral sermon was preached by Mr. Slater, and his memory will always be remembered by his own learned and elegant writings; the most remarkable of which are: 1. “Antisozzo,” in vindication of some great truths opposed by Dr. Sherlock, in whose treatise “Concerning the knowledge of Jesus Christ,” he thought he discovered a tendency towards Socinianism, and therefore entitled this work, which was published in 1675, “Antisozzo,” from the Italian name of Socinus. Sherlock and he had been pupils under the same tutor in the university. Dr. South allowed Alsop’s merit in this contest of wit, but Wood undervalues his talent. 2. “Melius Inquirendum,” in answer to Dr. Goodman’s Compassionate Inquiry, 1679, 8vo. 3. “The Mischief of Impositions;” in answer to Dr. Stillingfleet’s Mischief of Separation, 1680. 4. “Duty and interest united in praise and prayer for Kings.” 5. “Practical godliness the ornament of Religion,” 1696; and several sermons.

, son of the above Henry, was born at Heidelberg the 27th of September 1618, at which time his father was deputy at the synod of Dort. He went through his studies at Groningen with great success; and being desirous to acquire knowledge in the Oriental languages, removed to Embden in 1638, to improve himself under the rabbi Gamprecht Ben Abraham. He came over to England in 1640, where he became acquainted with many persons of the greatest note; he preached here, and was ordained a priest of the church of England by Dr. Prideaux, bishop of Worcester. He had once resolved to pass his life in England, but afterwards accepted the Hebrew professorship at Groningen, offered him upon the death of Goraarus. He entered upon this office the 13th of January 1643, the very day that Samuel des Marets was installed in the professorship of divinity, which had been held by the same Gomarus. Alting was admitted doctor of philosophy the 21st of October 1645, preacher to the academy in 1647, and doctor and professor of divinity in 1667. He had visited Heidelberg in 1662, where he received many marks of esteem from the elector Palatine, Charles Lewis, who often solicited him to accept of the professorship of divinity, but he declined this offer. In a little time a misunderstanding arose betwixt him and Samuel des Marets, his colleague, owing to a difference in their method of teaching, and in many points in their principles. Alting kept to the scriptures, without meddling with scholastic divinity: the first lectures which he read at his house upon the catechism, drew such vast crowds of hearers, that, for want of room in his own chamber, he was obliged to make use of the university hall. His colleague was accustomed to the method and logical distinctions of the schoolmen; had been a long time in great esteem, had published several books, and to a sprightly genius had added a good stock of learning; the students who were of that country adhered to him, as the surest way to obtain church preferment, for the parishes were generally supplied with such as had studied according to his method. This was sufficient to raise and keep up a misunderstanding betwixt the two professors. Alting had great obstacles to surmount: a majority df voices and the authority of age were on his adversary’s side. Des Marets gave out that Alting was an innovator, and one who endeavoured to root up the boundaries which our wise forefathers had made between truth and falsehood; he accordingly became his accuser, and charged him with one-and-thirty erroneous propositions. The curators of the university, without acquainting the parties, sent the information and the answers to the divines of Leyden, desiring their opinion. The judgment they gave is remarkable: Alting was acquitted of all heresy, but his imprudence was blamed in broaching new hypotheses; on the other hand, Des Marets was censured for acting contrary to the laws of charity and moderation. The latter would not submit to this judgment, nor accept of the silence which was proposed. He insisted on the cause being heard before the consistories, the classes, and the synods; but the heads would not consent to this, forbidding all writings, either for or against the judgment of the divines of Leyden; and thus the work of Des Marets, entitled “Audi et alteram partem,” was suppressed. This contest excited much attention, and might have been attended with bad consequences, when Des Marets was called to Leyden, but he died at Groningen before he could take possession of that employment. There was a kind of reconciliation effected betwixt him and Alting before his death: a clergyman of Groningen, seeing Des Marets past all hopes of recovery, proposed it to him; and having his consent, made the same proposal to Alting, who answered, that the silence he had observed, notwithstanding the clamours and writings of his adversary, shewed his peaceable disposition; that he was ready to come to an agreement upon reasonable terms, but that he required satisfaction for the injurious reports disseminated against his honour and reputation; and that he could not conceive how any one should desire his friendship, whilst he thought him such a man as he had represented him to be. The person, who acted as mediator, some time after returned, with another clergyman, to Alting, and obtained from him a formulary of the satisfaction he desired. This formulary was not liked by Des Marets, who drew up another, but this did not please Alting: at last, however, after some alterations, the reconciliation was effected; the parties only retracted the personal injuries, and as to the accusations in point of doctrine, the accuser left them to the judgment of the church. Alting, however, thought he had reason to complain, even after he was delivered from so formidable an adversary. His complaint was occasioned by the last edition of Des Marets’s system, in which he was very ill treated: he said, his adversary should have left no monuments of the quarrel; and that his reconciliation had not been sincere, since he had not suppressed such an injurious book. The clergy were continually murmuring against what they called innovations; but the secular power wisely calmed those storms, which the convocations and synods would have raised, threatening to interdict those who should revive what had obtained the name of the Maresio-Altingian controversy. Alting enjoyed but little health the last three years of his life; and being at length seized with a violent fever, was carried off in nine days, at Groningen, August 20, 1679. His works, which consist of dissertations on various points of Hebrew and Oriental antiquities; commentaries on many of the books of the Bible; a Syro-Chaldaic Grammar; a treatise on Hebrew punctuation, &c. &c. were collected in 5 vols. fol. and published by Balthasar Boeker, Amst. 1687, with a life by the same editor.

, an Italian poet of the fifteenth century, whose writings do not justify that honourable name, was according to Crescimbini, a native of Florence, his name Christopher; but on account of his merit, he received a poetic crown, and the surname of Aitissimo. Le Quadrio, however, thinks that this was his family name, s that his Christian name was Angel, and that he was a priest. He was one of the most admired improvisatori of his time, and his verses are said to have been often collected and published. He was living in 1514. Of his poems we have only a translation of the first book of the famous romance, “I Riali di Francia,” Venice, 1534, 4to, enough to prove that he was a very indifferent poet.

, a French ecclesiastic, born at Paris about 1629, for a few years practised at the bar, but from some disgust with the world, entered the congregation of the oratory in April 1660, and having repaired to the university of Saumur to study divinity, became there intimately acquainted with father Malebranche. He was ordained a priest in 1663, and about the same time was appointed grand chantor of the church of Paris; but this situation affording no scope for his zeal, he exchanged it for that of grand archdeacon, an office which placed under his inspection the greater part of the curates of the diocese. He published, 1. “Traite de la volont6,” Paris, 1684, 12mo, the fruit of his intimacy with Malebranche, but Avhich Bayle has erroneously attributed to M. Nicole. 2. “Traite de l'amour desouverain bien, &c.” Paris, 1699, 12mo, against the Quietists. Some also think he wrote “L'art de vivre heureux,” Paris, 1690, which others give to Louis Pascal.

, one of our early confessors in the third century, of whom all the accounts we have seen appear doubtful, is said to have converted our British proto-martyr St. Alban to the Christian faith, and both suffered in the tenth persecution under the emperor Dioclesian, some think about the latter end of his reign, but Cressy, on better authority, fixes it in the third year of that emperor’s reign, or 286. Boethius, with other Scotch historians, make Amphibalus to be bishop of the Isle of Man; but Gyraldus Cambrensis, with many of the writers of our church history, say he was by birth a Welchman, and bishop of the Isle of Anglesea; and that, after converting Alban he fled from Verulam into Wales to escape the execution of the severe edict made by Dioclesian against the Christians, and was there seized and brought back to Redburn in Hertfordshire, where he was put to death in the most cruel manner. Archbishop Usher, however, explodes this story as a piece of monkish fiction, and says his name no where occurs till Jeffery of Monmouth’s time, who is the first author that mentions it. Fuller, in his usual quaint manner, wonders how this compounded Greek word came to wander into Wales, and thinks it might take its rise from the cloak in which he was wrapped, or from changing vestments with his disciple Alban, the better to disguise his escape. It is certain that the venerable Bede, who was a Saxon, and to whom most of our monkish historians are indebted for the history of St. Alban,' makes no mention of his name, only calling him presbyter^ a. priest, or clerk. He is said to have written several homilies, and a work “ad instituendam vitam Christianam,” afld to have been indefatigable in promoting Christianity, but authentic particulars of his life are now beyond our reach.

, was born a Mahometan, at Xativa, in the kingdom of Valencia, and succeeded his father in the dignity of alfaqui of that city. He embraced Christianity on being present at a sermon in the great church of Valencia the day of the assumption of the blessed Virgin, in 1487. Upon this he desired to be baptised, and in memory of the calling of St. John and St. Andrew, he took the name of John Andreas. “Having received holy orders,” says he, “and from an alfaqui and a slave of Lucifer become a priest and minister of Christ, I began, like St. Paul, to preach and publish the contrary of what I had erroneously believed and asserted; and, with the assistance of almighty God, I converted at first a great many souls of the Moors, who were in danger of hell, and under the dominion of Lucifer, and conducted them into the way of salvation. After this, I was sent for by the most catholic princes king Fex-dinand and queen Isabella, in order to preach in Grenada to the Moors of that kingdom, which their majesties had conquered; and by God’s blessing on my preaching, an infinite number of Moors were brought to abjure Mahommed, and to turn to Christ. A little after this, I was made a canon by their graces; and sent for again by the most Christian queen Isabella to Arragon, that I might be employed in the conversion of the Moors of those kingdoms, who still persisted in their errors, to the great contempt and dishonour of our crucified Saviour, and the prodigious loss and danger of all Christian princes. But this excellent and pious design of her majesty was rendered ineffectual by her death.” At the desire of Martin Garcia, bishop of Barcelona, he undertook to translate from the Arabic, into the language of Arragon, the whole law of the Moors; and after having finished this undertaking, he composed his famous work of “The Confusion of the Sect of Mahommed;” it contains twelve chapters, wherein he has collected the fabulous stories, impostures, forgeries, brutalities, follies, absurdities, and contradictions, which Mahommed, in order to deceive the simple people, has dispersed in the writings of that sect, and especially in the Koran. Andreas tells us, he wrote this work, that not only the learned among Christians, but even the common people, might know the different belief and doctrine of the Moors; and on the one hand might laugh at and ridicule such insolent and brutal notions, and on the other might lament their blindness and dangerous condition. This book, which was published at first in Spanish at Seville, 1537, 4to, has been translated into several languages, and is frequently quoted as authority in writings against the Mahometan religion.

After the retirement of the prince, the people, finding themselves without a head, called out for Massaniello to be their leader and conductor, which charge he accepted. They appointed Genoino, a priest of approved knowledge, temper, and abilities, to attend his person; and to him they added for a companion the famous Bandito Perrone. Massaniello, by his spirit, good sense, and bravery, won the hearts of all the people, insomuch that they became willing to transfer unto him solemnly the supreme command, and to obey him accordingly. A stage was erected in the middle of the market-place, where, clothed in white like a mariner, he with his counsellors gave public audience, received petitions, and gave sentence in all causes both civil and criminal. He had no less than 150,000 men under his command. An incredible multitude of women also appeared with arms of various sorts, like so many Amazons. A list was made of above 60 persons, who had farmed the taxes, or been some way concerned in the custom-houses; and, as it was said they had enriched themselves with the blood of the people, and ought to be made examples to future ages, an order was issued, that their houses and goods should be burnt; which was executed accordingly, and with so much regularity, that no one was suffered to carry away the smallest article. Many, for stealing mere trifles from the flames, were hanged by the public executioner in the market-place, by the command of Massaniello.

, a celebrated Athenian painter, flourished about the year 408 before the Christian aera. He applied the essential principles of his predecessor Polygnotus to the delineation of the species, by investigating the leading forms that discriminate the various classes of human qualities and passions. The acuteness of his taste led him to discover that as all men were connected by one general form, so they were separated each by some predominant power, which fixed character, and bound them to a class: that in proportion as this specific power partook of individual peculiarities, the farther it was removed from a share in that harmonious system which constitutes nature, and consists in a due balance of all its parts: thence he drew his line of imitation, and personified the central form of the class, to which his object belonged; and to which the rest of its qualities administered without being absorbed: agility was not suffered to destroy firmness, solidity, or weight; nor strength and weight agility: elegance did not degenerate to effeminacy, or grandeur swell to hugeness. Such were his principles of style; his expression extended them to the mind, if we may judge from the two subjects mentioned by Pliny, in which he seems to have personified the characters of devotion and impiety: the former, in the adoring figure of a priest, perhaps of Chryses, expanding his gratitude at the shrine of the God whose arrows avenged his wrongs and restored his daughter: and the latter, in the figure of Ajax wrecked, and from the sea-swept rock hurling defiance unto the murky sky. As neither of these subjects can present themselves to a painter’s mind without a contrast of the most awful and the most terrific tones of colour, magic of light and shade, and unlimited command over the tools of art, we may with Pliny and with Plutarch consider Apollodorus as the first assertor of the pencil’s honours, as the first colourist of his age, and the man who opened the gates of art which Zeuxis entered.

, brother of the preceding, and a priest of the Oratory, was born at Marseilles in 1689, gained several academical prizes for his poetical essays, and became superior of the college of his congregation. The delicacy of his health rendering retirement necessary, he went to the chateau d'Ardenne, near Sisteron, where he passed the remainder of his days in study, and rendered himself dear to the poor of the neighbourhood by many acts of charity. He died Dec. 5, 1769. Botany was his favourite pursuit in this retirement, where he formed a garden that was eagerly visited by persons curious in rare plants and flowers; and the result of his studies appeared in the following publications, 1. “Traite de Renoncules,” Paris, 1746, 8vo. 2. “Traite des Tulipes,” 1760, 12mo. 3. “Traite des Oeillets,” 1762, 12mo. 4. “Traite des lacinthes,” 12mo. 5. “Traite de l‘Oreille d’ours,” 8vo. 6. “Lettres interessantes pour les medicins de profession, utiles aux ecclesiastiques,” Avignon, 1759, 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Annee champetre,” Florence (really Lyons), 1769, 3 vols. 12mo. He was also editor of his brother’s posthumous works.

Aristotle continued his school in the Lyceum twelve years; for, although the superiority of his abilities, and the novelty of his doctrines, created him many rivals and enemies, during the life of Alexander, the friendship of that prince, unbroken in this respect, protected him from insult. But after Alexander’s death, in 324 B. C. his adversaries and rivals instigated Eurymedon, a priest, to accuse him of holding and propagating impious tenets. What these were we are not expressly informed; but such was the vigour of their prosecution, that he thought proper to retire from Athens. Alluding to the fate of Socrates, of which he appears to have been apprehensive, he told his friends that he was not willing to give the Athenians an opportunity of committing a second offence against philosophy. He retired, accordingly, with a few of his disciples, to Chalcis, where he remained till his death in 322 B. C. in the sixty-third year of his age. Many idle tales are related concerning the manner of his death. It is most likely that it was the effect of premature decay, in consequence of excessive watchfulness and application to study. His body was conveyed to Stagyra, where his memory was honoured with an altar and a tomb.

, doctor of the Sorbonne, and brother of the preceding, was born at Paris the 6th of February 1612. He studied philosophy in the college of Calvi, on the ruins of which the Sorbonne was built, and began to study the law; but, at the persuasion of his mother and the abbot of St. Cyran, he resolved to apply himself to divinity. He accordingly studied in the college of the Sorbonne, under Mr. l‘Escot. This professor gave lectures concerning grace; but Arnauld, not approving of his sentiments upon this subject, read St. Augustin, whose system of grace he greatly preferred to that of Mr. l’Escot: and publicly testified his opinion in his thesis, when he was examined in 1636, for his bachelor’s degree. After he had spent two years more in study, which, according to the laws of the faculty of Paris, must be between the first examination and the license, he began the acts of his license at Easter 1638, and continued them to Lent, 1640. He maintained the act of vespers the 18th of December 1641, and the following day put on the doctor’s cap. He had begun his license without being entered in form at the Sorbonne, and was thereby rendered incapable of being admitted, according to the ordinary rules. The society, however, on account of his extraordinary merit, requested of cardinal Richelieu, their provisor, that he might be admitted, though contrary to form; which was refused by that cardinal, but, the year after his death, he obtained this honour. In 1643, he published his treatise on Frequent Communion, which highly displeased the Jesuits. They refuted it both from the pulpit and the press, representing it as containing a most pernicious doctrine: and the disputes upon grace, which broke out at this time in the university of Paris, helped to increase the animosity between the Jesuits and Mr. Arnauld, who took part with the Jansenists, and supported their tenets with great zeal. But nothing raised so great a clamour against him, as the two letters which he wrote upon absolution having been refused by a priest to the duke of Liancour, a great friend of the Port Royal. This duke educated his grand-daughter at Port Royal, and kept in his house the abbé de Bourzays. It happened in 1655, that the duke offered himself for confession to a priest of St. Sulpice, who refused to give him absolution, unless he would take his daughter from Port Royal, and break off all commerce with that society, and discard the abbé. Mr. Arnauld therefore was prevailed upon to write a letter in defence of Liancour. A great number of pamphlets were written against this letter, and Mr. Arnauld thought himself obliged to confute the falsities and calumnies with which they were filled, by printing a second letter, which contains an answer to nine of those pieces. But in this second letter the faculty of divinity found two propositions which theycondemned, and Mr. Arnauld was excluded from that society. Upon this he retired, and it was during this retreat, which lasted near 25 years, that he composed that variety of works which are extant of his, on grammar, geometry, logic, metaphysics, and theology. He continued in this retired life till the controversy of the Jansenists was eaded; in 1668. Arnauld now came forth from, his retreat, and was presented to the king, kindly received by the pope’s nuncio, and by the public esteemed a father of the church. From this time he resolved to enter the lists only against the Calvinists, and he published his book entitled “La perpetuite de la Foi,” in which he was assisted by M. Nicole: and which gave rise to that grand controversy between them and Claude the minister.

, patriarch of Constantinople in the beginning of the fifth century, was born at Sebastia, now Soustia, a city of Armenia. He was first educated by the Macedonian monks in the principles of their sect, but when arrived at riper years, he embraced the faith of the Catholic church. In the year 406, being then a priest, he was chosen to succeed St. Chrysostom, who had been deprived of the see of Constantinople, but met with much obstruction from the friends of Chrysostom, and from all the bishops of the East, who considered Chrysostom as unjustly deprived, and refused to communicate with the new patriarch. Atticus, upon this, procured an edict from the emperor to compel them, but finding this produced no other effect than schism and confusion, after the death of Chrysostom he ordered his name to be put in the Diptychs, or ecclesiastical tables, in which were inserted the names of persons who had died in the peace and communion of the church, and those names were read at the altar during divine service. He also wrote to St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, earnestly intreating him to do the same, but Cyril answered that he should by that step appear to condemn those who had deposed Chrysostom. Both these letters are extant in Nicephorus Calixtus’s Ecclesiastical History. There is another letter of his extant to Calliopius, by which he appears to have been a man of moderate principles towards those who differed from him in opinion. There are likewise some fragments of a homily on the birth of Christ, in the general collection of the Councils, and a fragment of a letter of his to Eupsychius, quoted by Theodoret. Writers differ much in their estimate of his general character and learning.

, an eminent father of the church, was born at'Tagasta, Nov. 13, in the year 354, of his father Patricius, a citizen of that place, and his mother Monica, a lady of distinguished piety. He first applied to his studies in his native place, and afterwards at Madora and Carthage. In this latter city his morals became corrupted, and he had a son born to him, named Adeodat, the fruit of a criminal connexion. He then became a proselyte to the sect of the Manichaeans, and an able defender of their opinions. The perusal of some part of Cicero’s philosophy is said first to have detached him from his immoral conduct; but one thing, Baillet says, gave him uneasiness in this work, and that was his not finding the name of Jesus, which had been familiar to him from his infancy in the writings of the celebrated Roman. He resolved, therefore, to read the holy scriptures, but the pride of his heart, and his incapacity to taste the simple beauties of these, made him still give the preference to Cicero. In the mean time he acquired considerable fame in the schools of eloquence, and was a professor of it successively at Tagasta, at Carthage, at Rome, and at Milan, whither he had been sent by the prefect Symmachus. St. Ambrose was at this time bishop of Milan, and Augustin, affected by his sermons, and by the tears of his mother Monica, began to think seriously of forsaking his irregularities and his Manichasism. He was accordingly baptised at Milan in the year 387, in the thirty-second year of his age, and renouncing his rhetorical pursuits, studied only the gospel. On his return to Tagasta, he betook himself to fasting and prayer, gave his property to the poor, and formed a society ainorrg some of his friends. Some time after, being at Hippo, Valerius, then bishop of that diocese, ordained him a priest abaut the commencement of the year 391. Next year we find him disputing with great success against the Manichees, and in the year 392 he gave so learned an exposition of the symbol of faith, in the council of Hippo, that the bishops were unanimously of opinion he ought to be chosen one of their number. In the year 395, another council appointed him coadjutor to Valerius, in the see of Hippo, and it was in this situation that the spirit and virtues of Augustin began to display themselves. He established in the espiscopal mansion a society of clerks, with whom he lived, and became more active in his opposition to heresies, particularly the Manichuean, converting one Felix, a very celebrated character among them. Nor did he less prove his judgment and eloquence in a conference between the Catholic 1 bishops and the Donatists at Carthage in the year 411, where he bent his endeavours to procure unity in the church. His great work “On the city of God,” now made its appearance.

, commonly known by the name of Richard de Bury, was born at St. Edmundsbury, in Suffolk, in 1281. His father, sir Richard Aungervyle, knt. dying when he was young, his uncle John de Willowby, a priest, took particular care of his education and when he was fit sent him to Oxford, where he studied philosophy and divinity, and distinguished himself by his learning, and regular and exemplary life. When he had finished his studies there, he became a Benedictine monk at Durham. Soon after he was made tutor to prince Edward, afterwards king Edward III. Being treasurer of Guienne in 1325, he supplied queen Isobel, when she was plotting against her husband king Edward II. with a large sum of money out of that exchequer, for which being questioned by the king’s party, be narrowly escaped to Paris, where he was forced to hide himself seven days in the tower of a church. When king Edward III. came to the crown, he loaded his tutor Aungervyle with honours and preferments, making him, first, his cofferer, then treasurer of the wardrobe, archdeacon of Northampton, prebendary of Lincoln, Sarum, and Lichfield, and afterwards keeper of the privy seal. This last place he enjoyed five years, and was in that time sent twice ambassador to the pope. In 1333 he was promoted to the deanery of Wells, and before the end of the same year, being chosen bishop of Durham, he was consecrated about the end of December, in the abbey of the black canons of Chertsey in Surrey. He was soon afterwards enthroned at Durham, on which occasion he made a grand festival, and entertained in the hall of his palace at Durham, the king and queen of England, the queen-dowager of England, the king of Scotland, the two archbishops, and five bishops, seven earls with their ladies, all the nobility north of Trent, with a Tast concourse of knights, esquires, and other persons of distinction. The next year he was appointed high-chancellor, and in 1336, treasurer of England. In 1338 he was twice sent with other commissioners to treat -of a peace with the king of France, though to no purpose.

, a French Latin poet, was born at Chatillon in the Lower Maine, and became a priest of the Oratory at Paris, in 1659. He had considerable genius, and was much addicted to study, so that he soon became one of the best scholars and best poets of his order. When M. Fouquet, superintendant of finances, was arrested, he published a Latin poem, entitled “Fuquetius in vinculis,” which was much applauded. He published another poem at Troyes in 1668, the title of which was, “In tabellas excellentissiim pictoris du Wernier, ad nobilem et eximium virum Eustachium Quinot, apud quern illae visuntur Trecis, carmen.” Father Bahier translated this production afterwards into French verse, under the title of “Peinture poctique des tableaux de mignature de M. Quinot, faits par Joseph de Werner.” At the time he taught rhetoric at Marseilles, in 1670, he delivered and published an oration on Henrietta of England, duchess of Orleans, and the same year printed a Latin poem of six hundred verses in praise of Toussaint Fourbin de Janson, bishop of Marseilles. He wrote some other pieces, which were less known; such was Uis reputation, however, that he was chosen secretary of the Oratory, an office which he filled with great credit for thirty years his latter days were distinguished by many acts of ciiarity, and it was during his attendance on a dying friend that he caught a disorder, which proved fatal in the month of April 1707.

, a learned divine of the seventeenth century, was born in 1607, in the island of Jersey, according to Wood, which an annotator on the Biog. Britannica contradicts without informing us of the place of his nativity. Grey, in his ms notes, says he was born at Rouen, in Normandy, but quotes no authority, nor do we know in what school or university he received his education. For some time, he was master of the college or free-school at Guernsey, and became chaplain to Thomas Morton bishop of Durham, who gave him the rectory of Stanhope, and the vicarage of EgglesclifF, b.oth in the county of Durham. In July 1640, he had the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon him at Cambridge, by mandate; and was incorporated in the same at Oxford, the November following, about which time he was made chaplain in ordinary to king Charles I.; Dec. 12, 1643, he was installed into the seventh prebend of Durham, to which he was collated by his generous patron bishop Morton. The next year, August 24, he was also collated to the archdeaconry of Northumberland, with the rectory of Howiek annexed. But he did not long enjoy these great preferments, as in the beginning of the civil wars, being sequestered and plundered, he repaired to king Charles at Oxford, before whom, and his parliament, he frequently preached. In 1646, he had a licence granted him under the public seal of the university, to preach the word of God throughout England. Upon the surrender of the Oxford garrison to the parliament, he resolved with all the zeal of a missionary to propagate the doctrine of the EngJish church in the East, among the Greeks, Arabians, &c. Leaving therefore his family in England, he went first to Zante, an island near the Morea, where he made some stay; and had good success in spreading among the Greek inhabitants the doctrine of the English church, the substance of which he imparted to several of them, in a vulgar Greek translation of our church-catechism. The success of this attempt was so remarkable, that it drew persecution upon him from the Latins, as they are called, or those members of the Romish church, throughout the East, who perform their service in Latin. On this he went into the Morea, where the metropolitan of Achaia prevailed upon him to preach twice in Greek, at a meeting of some of his bishops and clergy, which was well received. At his departure, he left with him a copy of the catechism above mentioned. From thence, after he had passed through Apulia, Naples, and Sicily again (in which last, at Messina, he officiated for some weeks on board a ship) he embarked for Syria; and, after some months stay at Aleppo, where he had frequent conversation with the patriarch of Antioch, then resident there, he left a copy of our church-catechism, translated into Arabic, the native language of that place. From Aleppo he went in 1652 to Jerusalem, and so travelled over all Palestine. At Jerusalem he received much honour, both from the Greek Christians and Latins. The Greek patriarch (the better to express his desire of communion with the church of England, declared by the doctor to him) gave him his bull, or patriarchal seal, in a blank, which is their way of credence, and shewed him other instances of respect, while the Latins received him courteously into their convent, though he did openly profess himself a priest of the church of England. After some disputes about the validity of our English ordinations, they procured him entrance into the temple of the sepulchre, at the rate of a priest, that is half of the sum paid by a layman; and, at his departure from Jerusalem, the pope’s vicar gave him his diploma in parchment, under his own hand and public seal, styling him, a priest of the church of England, and doctor of divinity, which title occasioned some surprise, especially to the French ambassador at Constantinople. Returning to Aleppo, he passed over the Euphrates and went into Mesopotamia, where he intended to send the church-catechism in Turkish, to some of their bishops, who were mostly Armenians. This Turkish translation was procured by the care of sir Thomas Bendyshe, the English ambassador at Constantinople. After his return from Mesopotamia, he wintered at Aleppo, where he received several courtesies from the consul, Mr. Henry Riley. In the beginning of 1653, he departed from Aleppo, and came to Constantinople by land, being six hundred miles, without any person with him, that could speak any of the European languages. Yet, by the help of some Arabic he had picked up at Aleppo, he performed that journey in the company of twenty Turks, who used him courteously, because he acted as physician to them and their friends: a study (as he says) to which the iniquity of the times and the opportunity of Padua drove him. After his arrival at Constantinople, the French Protestants there desired him to be their minister, and though he declared to them his resolution to officiate according to the English liturgy (a translation whereof, for want of a printed copy, cost him no little labour) yet they orderly submitted to it, and promised to settle on him, in three responsible men’s hands, a competent stipend: and all this, as they told him, with the express consent of the French ambassador, but still under the roof and protection of the English ambassador. Before he quitted the Eastern parts, he intended to pass into Egypt, in order to take a survey of the churches of the Cophties, and confer with the patriarch of Alexandria, as he had done already with the other three patriarchs, partly to acquire the knowledge of those churches, and partly to publish and give them a true notion of the church of England; but whether he accomplished his design, is not certain. He went next into Transilvania, where he was entertained for seven years by George Ragotzi the Second, prince of that country; who honoured him with the divinity-chair in his new founded university of Alba Julia (or Weissenburg) and endowed him, though a mere stranger to him, with a very ample salary. During his travels he collated the several confessions of faith of the different sorts of Christians, Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites, Maronites, &c. which he kept by him in their own languages. His constant design and endeavour, whilst he remained in the East, was, to persuade the Christians of the several denominations there, to a canonical reformation of some errors; and to dispose and incline them to a communion or unity with the church of England, but his pious intentions were afterwards defeated by the artifices of court of France. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. Dr. Easier was recalled by his majesty to England, in a letter written to prince Ragotzi. But this unfortunate prince dying 'soon after, of the wounds he received in a battle with the Turks at Gyala, the care of his solemn obsequies was committed to the doctor by his relict, princess Sophia, and he was detained a year longer from England. At length returning in 1661 9 he was restored to his preferments and dignities; and made chaplain in ordinary to king Charles II. After quietly enjoying his large revenues for several years, he died on the 12th of Oct. 1676, in the 69th year of his age-, and was buried in the yard belonging to the cathedral of Durham, where a tomb was erected over his grave, with an inscription. His character appears to have been that of a learned, active, and industrious man; a zealous supporter of the church of England; and a loyal subject. His son, John Basire, esq. who had been receiver general for the four western counties, died ou the 2d of June 1722, in the 77th year of his age.

, a French writer who once made a great figure in the literary world, was born Nov. 18, 1647, at Carla, a small town in the county of Foix, the son of John Bayle, a Protestant minister. Peter gave early proofs of genius, which his father cultivated with the utmost care; he himself taught him the Latin and Greek languages, and sent him to the Protestant academy at Puylaurens in 1666. The same year, when upon a visit to his father, he applied so closely to his studies, that it brought upon him an illness which kept him at Carla above eighteen, months. On his recovery he returned to Puylaurens to prosecute his studies, and afterwards he went to Toulouse in 1669, where he attended the lectures in the Jesuits’ college. The controversial books which he read at Puylaurens raised several scruples in his mind in regard to the Protestant religion, and his doubts were increased by some disputes he had with a priest, who lodged in the same house with him at Toulouse. He thought the Protestant tenets were false, because he could not answer all the arguments raised against them; so that about a month after his arrival at Toulouse, he embraced the Roman catholic religion. This gave much uneasiness to all his relations, and Mr. Bertier, bishop of Rieux, rightly judging, that after this step young Bayle had no reason to expect any assistance from them, took upon him the charge of his maintenance. They piqued themselves much, at Toulouse, upon the acquisition of so promising a young man. When it came to his turn to defend theses publicly, the most distinguished persons of the clergy, parliament, and city, were present; so that there had hardly ever been seen in the university a more splendid and numerous audience. The theses were dedicated to the Virgin, and adorned with her picture, which was ornamented with several emblematical figures, representing the conversion of the respondent.

Having laid their plan, they left the court at different times, and took different routes, to prevent suspicion; but being conducted by the devil, as some monkish historians tell us, they all arrived at the castle of Ranulph de Broc, about six miles from Canterbury, on the same day, Dec. 28, 1170, and almost at the same hour. Here they settled the whole scheme of their proceedings, and next morning early set out for Canterbury, accompanied by a body of resolute men, with arms concealed under their clothes. These men they placed in different parts of the city, to prevent any interruption from the citizens. The four barons above-named then went unarmed with twelve of their company, to the archiepiscopal palace, about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and were admitted into the apartment where the arehbishop sat conversing with some of his clergy. After their admission a long silence ensued, which was at length broken by Reginald Fitz-Urse, who told the archbishop that they were sent by the king to command him to absolve the prelates, and others, whom he had excommunicated; and then to go to Winchester, and make satisfaction to the young king, whom he had endeavoured to dethrone. On this a very long and violent altercation followed, in the course of which they gave several hints, that his life was in danger if he did not comply. Bat he remained undaunted in his refusal. At their departure they charged his servants not to allow him to flee; on which he cried out with great vehemence, “Flee! I will never flee from any man living; I am not come to flee, but to defy the rage of impious assassins.” When they were gone, his friends blamed him for the roughness of his answers, which had inflamed the fury of his enemies, and earnestly pressed him to make his escape but he only answered, “I have no need of your advice I know what I ought to do.” The barons, with their accomplices, finding their threats were ineffectual, put on their coats of mail; and taking each a sword in his right hand, and an axe in his left, returned to the palace, but found the gate shut. When they were preparing to break it open, Robert de Broc conducted them up a back stair-case, and let them in at a window. A cry then arose, “they are armed! they are armed!” on which the clergy hurried the archbishop almost by force into the church, hoping that the sacredness of the place would protect him from violence. They would also have shut the door, but he cried out, “Begone, ye cowards! I charge you on your obedience, do not shut the door. What! will you make a castle of a church?” The conspirators having searched the palace, came to the church, and one of them crying, “Where is the traitor? where is the archbishop?” Becket advanced boldly and said, “Here I am, an archbishop, but no traitor.” “Flee,” cried the conspirator, “or you are a dead man.” “I will never flee,” replied Becket. William de Tracy then took hold of his robe, and said, “You are my prisoner; come along with me.” But Becket seizing him by the collar, shook him with so much force, that he almost threw him down. De Tracy, enraged at this resistance, aimed a blow with his sword, which almost cut off the arm of one Edward Grim, a priest, and slightly wounded the archbishop on the head. By three other blows given by the other conspirators, his skull was cloven almost in two, and his brains scattered about the pavement of the church.

, an Italian antiquary of the last century, was born of a noble family, at Mereto inthe Frioul, March 13, 1676, and after studying at Venice, was ordained a priest in 1700. The same year he became canon -coadjutor of the patriarchal church of Aquileia, and soon after titular. He had already acquired a decided taste for the study of antiquities, and was in a country abounding with objects to gratify it, most of which, however, had been greatly neglected, and even destroyed by the ignorant inhabitants, who converted every remains of antiquity in stone to the common purposes of building. To prevent this for the future, Bertoli formed a society of men of learning and similar taste, who began with purchasing every valuable relic they could find, and placed the collection in the portico of the canons’ house, where it soon became an object of curiosity, not only to travellers, but to the Aquileians themselves. At the same time he copied, or caused to be copied, all the monuments in the town, and in the whole province, and entered into an extensive correspondence with many eminent characters, particularly Fontanini, to whom he liberally communicated his discoveries, in hopes they might be useful to that learned prelate; but he having deceased in 1736, Bertoli resolved to take upon himself what he had expected from him, and was encouraged in this design by Muratori and Apostolo Zeno. Accordingly he began to publish a series of memoirs and dissertations on subjects of antiquity, which he wrote at his native place, Mereto, where he resided for such periods as his official duties at Aquileia permitted. In 1747 he was elected a member of the Columbarian society of Florence, and next year of that of Cortona, and died a few years afterwards, but the date is not ascertained in either of our authorities. His principal publication is entitled “Le Aritichita di Aquileja profane e sacre,” Venice 1739, fol. He had made preparations for a second and third volume, but did not live to complete them. Several of his letters and dissertations relative to this work, and to various subjects of antiquity, are printed in Calogera’s valuable collection, vols. XXVI. XXXIII. XLIII. XLVII. XLVIII. &c. others are inserted in the Memoirs of the Columbarian Society of Florence, and in similar collections.

, a priest, of the same family with the preceding, doctor of the Sorbonne, and dean of the church of Mans, was born in 1546 at Bernieresle-Patry, and studied at the college of Caen. He published in 1575 a “Bibliotheca patrum,” 3 vols. folio, which he re-published in 1589, 9 vols. being the first that undertook a work of that kind. The most copious edition we have of it is in 27 vols. folio, Lyons, 1677. There is also one in 16 vols. folio, of 1644, which is much esteemed, as containing the lesser Greek fathers. Another was published at Cologne in 1-694, and Pere Philip de St. Jacques gave an abridgment of it in 1719, 2 vols. fol. To the Bibiioth. pp. are generally added, “Index locorum scripture sacra,” Genoa, 1707, fol., and the “Apparatus of Nourri,” Paris, 1703, and 1715, 2 vols. fol. Such is the completest edition. La Bigne distinguished himself also by his harangues and his sermons. He gave a collection of synodal statutes in 1578, 8vo. and an edition of Isidore of Seville, in 1580, fol. He was a very studious man; and, having got into some disputes that were referred to the magistrates of Bayeux, he rather chose to give up his benefices than his literary pursuits. He retired to Paris, where it is supposed he died, about 1590.

, a priest of Rome, who in the year 634 obtained leave of pope Honorius to preach the gospel to the idolaters in Britain, at which the pope was so much pleased, that he caused him to be ordained bishop. This missionary landing in the kingdom of the West Saxons, with many others baptised king Cynegilsus, who began to reign in the year 6 11, and filled the throne thirty-one years. St. Birinus fixed his see at Dercis, now Dorchester, in Oxfordshire, in the windows of which beautiful church are still some remains of painting relative to the history of his mission. He built and consecrated many churches, and had great success in converting the natives, until his death, about the year 650. November 29 is his day in the calendar. He was first buried at Dorchester, but his remains were afterwards translated to Winchester.

, bishop of London, proverbial for his cruelty, was the son of an honest poor man, and born, at Hanley in Worcestershire, although some have very eagerly reported that he was the natural son of one George Savage, a priest, as if the circumstance of his birth could have had any effect on his future disposition. He was maintained at school by an ancestor of Nicholas Lechmere, esq. a baron of the exchequer in the reign of king William; and in 1512, he was entered at Broadgate-hall in Oxford, now Pembroke college. On June 12, 1519, he was admitted bachelor of the canon, and the day following bachelor of the civil law. He entered into orders about the same time, and had some employment in the diocese of Worcester; and on the 12th of July 1525, was created doctor of the canon law. He was a man of some, though not great learning, but distinguished himself chiefly by his skill and dexterity in the management of affairs, which made him be taken notice of by cardinal Wolsey, who appointed him his commissary for the faculties; and he was with this prelate at Cawood, when he was arrested for high treason. He enjoyed at once the livings of Blaydon and Cherry Burton in Yorkshire, Ripple in Worcestershire, East Dereham in Norfolk, and the prebend of Chiswick in the cathedral church of St. Paul: but the last he resigned in 1539, an of East Dereham in 1540. He was installed archdeacon of Leicester, October 17, 1535.

The expulsion of the Jesuits from the dominions of Spain prevented Boscovich from going to California, to observe the second transit of Venus, in 1769, and which expedition the royal society of London had strongly solicited him to undertake. And as his rivals began now to stir themselves again, he sought to dispel the chagrin, by a second journey into France and the Netherlands. At Brussels he met with a peasant, famous for curing the gout, and from whose singular skill he received most essential benefit. On his return to Italy in 1770, he was transferred from the university of Pavia to the Palatine schools at Milan, and resided with those of his order, at the college of Brera, where he furnished, mostly at his own expence, an observatory, of which he got the direction. But he was still doomed to experience mortification. Some young Jesuits, who acted as his assistants, formed a conspiracy, and, by their artful representations, prevailed with the government to exclude his favourite pupil and friend from holding a charge of trust. This intelligence was communicated to him at the baths of Albano, and filled him with grief and indignation. He complained to prince Kaunitz, but implored his protection in vain. To the governor of Milan he wrote, that he would not return, unless things were restored to their former footing. He retired to Venice, where, having staid ten months in fruitless expectation of obtaining redress, he meditated spending the remainder of his days in honourable retirement at his native city of Ragnsa. But while he waited for the opportunity of a vessel to convey him thither, he received the afflicting news of the suppression of his order in Italy. He now renounced his scheme, and seemed quite uncertain what step he should take. Having come into the Tuscan territory, he listened to the counsels and solicitation of Fabroni, who held forth the prospect of a handsome appointment in the Lyceum of Pisa. In the mean time he accepted the invitation of La Bord, chamberlain to Louis XV. accompanied him to Paris in 1773, and through his influence obtained the most liberal patronage from the French monarch; he was naturalized, received two pensions, amounting to 8000 livres, or 333l. and had an office expressly created for him, with the title of “Director of optics for the marine.” “Boscovich might now appear to have attained the pinnacle of fortune and glory; but Paris was no longer for him the theatre of applause, and his ardent temper became soured by the malign breath of jealousy and neglect. Such extraordinary favour bestowed on a foreigner could not fail to excite the envy of the sgavans, who considered him as rewarded greatly beyond his true merit The freedom of his language gave offence, his perpetual egotism became disgusting, and his repetition of barbarous Latin epigrams was most grating to Parisian ears. Besides, the name of a priest and a Jesuit did not now command respect; and the sentiments of austere devotion, which he publicly professed, had grown unfashionable, and were regarded as scarcely befitting the character of a philosopher”.

, and the inheritor of his property, was educated by him, studied law, and by his uncle’s interest was appointed agent to the order of Malta. He was a very little man, of a dark countenance, resembling that of his mother, who had been an African slave, whom his father married. In his youth he was very wild, but reformed, lest his uncle should disinherit him, and addicted himself to the study of antiquities, producing the “Roma Sottefanea,” Rome, 1632, fol. a description of the tombs and the epitaphs of the early Christians which are found in the catacombs at Rome. For this purpose he investigated them with great care, often remaining five or six days together under ground, but he did not live to put the finishing hand to the work, which was published by John Severani, a priest of the oratory. Father Aringhi, another of the oratory, translated and published it in Latin, 1651, 2 vols. fol. an edition in more request than the original, and more full and correct.

, a French biographer, descended from an honourable family in Provence, was a priest of the oratory, and born at Aix in 1680, where he was also educated. The love of a retired life induced him to become a member of the congregation of the oratory, where he taught the belles lettres with fame and success, and filled the several posts of his profession with great credit. Happening to be at Marseilles during the plague in 1719 and 1720, he risked his life in administering relief to the diseased. He appears to have been in that city also in 1726, but some time after came to Paris, where he passed his life in the house belonging to his order, in high esteem with all who knew him. He died of a stroke of apoplexy, March 19, 1753. Just before his death he had prepared for the press his lives of the illustrious men of Provence, which was to have formed four volume?, 4to, and was to be published by subscription, but we do not find that the scheme was carried into execution by his friends. During his life he published in the literary journals, various memoirs of eminent men, and, in separate publications, the Life of Gassendi, Paris, 1737, of John Peter Gibert, ibid. 1737, 12mo; and apart of his great work, under the title of “Memoires pour servir a l'histoire des homines illustres de Provence,” ibid. 1752, 12mo, containing fourteen lives.

“Brantome,” (says M. Anquetil) “is in the hands of every body. All the world pretends to have read him; but he ought particularly to be put into the hands of princes, that they may learn how impossible it is for them to hide themselves they they have an importance in the eyes of their courtiers, which draws attention to all their actions; and that, sooner or later, the most secret of them are revealed to posterity. The reflections that would occur, on seeing that Brantome has got together all the little transactions, all the idle words that have escaped them, all the actions pretended to be indifferent, which were thought to be neglected and lost, and which nevertheless mark the character, would render them more circumspect. In reading Brantome a problem forces itself on the mind, which it is difficult to solve. It is very common to see that author joining together the most discordant ideas in regard to morals. Sometimes he will represent a woman as addicted to the most infamous refinements of libertinism, and then will conclude by saying that she was prudent, and a good Christian. So likewise of a priest, of a monk, or any other ecclesiastic, he will relate anecdotes more than wanton; and will tell us very gravely at the end, that this man lived regularly according to his station. Almost all his memoirs are full of similar contradictions in a sort of epigram. On which 1 have this question to propose: Was Brantome a libertine; who, in order to sport more securely with religion and morals, affects in the expression a respect to which the very matter of the recital gives the lie? or, Was he one of those persons who generally go under the name of amiable fops; who, without principles as without design, confound virtue and vice, making no real difference between one character and another? Whatever judgment we may form of him, we must always blame him for omitting to observe a proper reverence for decorum in his writings, and for frequently putting modesty to the blush. We perceive in Brantome the character of those young men, who, making a part of the court by their birth, pass their lives in it without pretensions and without desires. They amuse themselves with every thing: if an action has a ridiculous side, they seize it; if it has not, they give it one. Brantome only skims along the surface of a subject; he knows nothing of diving into an action, and unfolding the motives that gave it birth. He gives a good picture of what he has seen, relates in simple terms what he has heard; but it is nothing uncommon to see him quit his main object, return to it, quit it a and conclude by thinking no more of it. With all this irregularity he pleases, because he amuses.”

About six months after he returned to Scotland, where he declined accepting the living of Saltoun, offered him by sir Robert Fletcher of that place, resolving to travel for some time on the continent, in 1664, he went over into Holland; where, after he had seen what was remarkable in the Seven Provinces, he resided for some time at Amsterdam, and afterwards at Paris. At Amsterdam, by the help of a learned Rabbi, he increased his knowledge in the Hebrew language, and likewise x became acquainted with the leading men of the different persuasions tolerated in that country: among each of whom, he used frequently to declare, he had met with men of such real piety and virtue, that he contracted a strong principle of universal charity. At Paris he conversed with the two famous ministers of Charenton, Dailie and Morus. His stay in France was the longer, on account of the great kindness with which he was treated by the lord Holies, then ambassador at the French court. Towards the end of the year he returned to Scotland, passing through Londo/rr, where he was introduced, by the president sir Robert Murray, to be a member of the royal society. In 1665, he was ordained a priest by the bishop of Edinburgh, and presented by sir Robert Fletcher to the living of Saitoun, which had been kept vacant during his absence. He soon gained the affections of his whole parish, not excepting the presbyterians, though he was the only clergyman in Scotland that made use of the prayers in the liturgy of the church of England. During the five years he remained at Saitoun, he preached twice every Sunday, and once on one of the week-days; he catechized three times a-week, so as to examine every parishioner, old or young, three times in the compass of a year: he went round the parish from house to house, instructing, reproving, or comforting them, as occasion required: the sick he visited twice a day: he administered the sacrament four times a year, and personally instructed all such as gave notice of their intention to receive it. All that remained above his own necessary subsistence (in which he was very frugal), he gave away in charity. A particular instance of his generosity is thus related: one of his parishioners had been in execution for debt, and applied to our author for some small relief; who inquired of him, how much would again set him up in his trade: the man named the sum, and he as readily called to his servant to pay it him: “Sir,” said he, “it is all we have in the house.” “Well,” said Mr. Burnet, “pay it this poor man: you do not know the pleasure there is in making a man glad.” This may be a proper place to mention our author’s practice of preaching extempore, in which he attained an ease chiefly by allotting many hours of the day to meditation upon all sorts of subjects, and by accustoming himself, at those times, to speak his thoughts aloud, studying always to render his expressions correct. His biographer gives us here two remarkable instances of his preaching without book. In 1691, when the sees, vacant by the deprivation of the nonjuring bishops, were filled up, bishop Williams was appointed to preach one of the consecration -sermons at Bow-church; but, being detained by some accident, the archbishop of Canterbury desired our author, then bishop of Sarum, to supply his place; which he readily did, to the general satisfaction of all present. In 1705, he was appointed to preach the thanksgiving-sermon before the queen at St. Paul’s; and as it was the only discourse he had ever written before-hand, it was the only time that he ever made a pause in preaching, which on that occasion lasted above a minute. The same year, he drew up a memorial of the abuses of the Scotch bishops, which exposed him to the resentments of that order: upon which, resolving to confine himself to study, and the duties of his function, he practised such a retired and abstemious course, as greatly impaired his health. About 1668, the government of Scotland being in the hands of moderate men, of whom the principal was sir Robert Murray, he was frequently consulted by them; and it was through his advice that some of the more moderate presbyterians were put into the vacant churches; a step which he himself has since condemned as indiscreet. In 1669, he was made professor of divinity at Glasgow; in which station he executed the following plan of study. On Mondays, he made each of the students, in their turn, explain a head of divinity in Latin, and propound such theses from it as he was to defend against the rest of the scholars; and this exercise concluded with our professor’s decision of the point in a Latin oration. On Tuesdays, he gave them a prelection in the same language, in which he proposed, in the course of eight years, to have gone through a complete system of divinity. On Wednesdays, he read them a lecture, for above an hour, by way of a critical commentary on St. Matthew’s Gospel;' which he finished before he quitted the chair. On Thursdays, the exercise was alternate; one Thursday, he expounded a Hebrew Psalm, comparing it with the Septuagint, the Vulgar, and the English version; and the next Thursday, he explained some portion of the ritual and constitution of the primitive church, making the apostolical canons his text, and reducing every article of practice under the head of one or other of those canons. On Fridays, he made each of his scholars, in course, preach a short sermon upon some text he assigned; and, when it was ended, he observed upon any thing that was defective or amiss in the handling of the subject. This was the labour of the mornings: in the evenings, after prayer, he every day read some parcel of scripture, on which he made a short discourse; and, when that was over, he examined into the progress of their several studies. Ail this he performed during the whole time the schools were open; and, in order to acquit himself with credit, he was obliged to study hard from four till ten in the morning; the rest of the day being of necessity allotted, either to the care of his pupils, or to hearing the complaints of the clergy, who, rinding he had an interest with men of power, were not sparing in their applications to him. In this situation he continued four years and a half, exposed, through his principles of moderation, to the censure both of the episcopal and presbyterian parties. The same year he published his “Modest and free Conference between a Conformist and a Nonconformist.” About this time he was entrusted, by the duchess of Hamilton, with the perusal and arrangement of all the papers relating to her father’s and uncle’s ministry; which induced him to compile “Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton,” and occasioned his being invited to London, to receive farther information, concerning the transactions of those times, by the earl of Lauderdale; between whom and the duke of Hamilton he brought about a reconciliation. During his stay in London, he was offered a Scotch bishopric, which he refused. Soon after his return to Glasgow, he married the lady Margaret Kennedy, daughter of the earl of Cassilis. In 1672, he published his “Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, and Laws, of the Church and State of Scotland,” against the principles of Buchanan and others; which was thought, at that juncture, such a public service, that he was again courted to accept of a bishopric, with a promise of the next vacant archbishopric, but he persisted in his refusal of that dignity. In 1673, he took another journey to London; where, at the express nomination of the king, after hearing him preach, he was sworn one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. He became likewise in high favour with his majesty and the duke of York . At his return to Edinburgh, finding the animosities between the dukes of Hamilton and Lauderdale revived, he retired to his station at Glasgow; but was obliged the next year to return to court, to justify himself against the accusations of the duke of Lauderdale, who had represented him as the cause and instrument of all the opposition the measures of the court had met with in the Scotch parliament. Thus he lost the favour of the court; and, to avoid putting himself into the hands of his enemies, he resigned the professor’s chair at Glasgow, and resolved to settle in London, being now about thirty years of age. Soon after, he was offered the living of St. Giles’s Cripplegate, which he declined accepting, because he heard that it was intended for Dr. Fowler, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. In 1675, our author, at the recommendation of lord Holies, and notwithstanding the interposition of the court against him, was appointed preacher at the Rolls chapel by sir Harbottle Grimstone, master of the Rolls. The same year he was examined before the house of commons in relation to the duke of Lauderdale, whose conduct the parliament was then inquiring into. He was soon after chosen lecturer of St. Clement’s, and became a very popular preacher. In 1676, he published his “Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton;” and the same year, “An account of a Conference between himself, Dr. Stillingfleet, and Coleman.” About this time, the apprehensions of popery increasing daily, he undertook to write the “History of the Reformation of the Church of England.” The rise and progress of this his greatest and 'most useful work, is an object of too great curiosity to require any apology on account of its length. His own account of it is as follows: “Some time after I had printed the ‘ Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton,’ which were favourably received, the reading of these got me the acquaintance and friendship of sir William Jones, then attorney-general. My way of writing history pleased him; and so he pressed me to undertake the History of England. But Sanders’s book, that was then translated into French, and cried up much in France, made all my friends press me to answer it, by writing the History of the Reformation. So now all my thoughts were turned that way. I laid out for manuscripts, and searched into all offices. I got for some days into the Cotton Library. But duke Lauderdale hearing of my design, and apprehending it might succeed in my hands, got Dolben, bishop of Rochester, to divert sir John Cotton from suffering me to search into his library. He told him, I was a great enemy to the prerogative, to which Cotton was devoted, even to slavery. So he said, I would certainly make an ill use of all 1 had found. This wrought so much on him, that I was no more admitted, till my first volume was published. And then, when he saw how I had composed it, he gave me free access to it.” The first volume of this work lay near a year after it was finished, for the perusal and correction of friends; so that it was not published tiii the year 1679, when the affair of the popish plot was in agitation. This book procured our author an honour never before or since paid to any writer: he had the thanks of both houses of parliament, with a desire that he would prosecute the undertaking, and complete that valuable work. Accordingly, in less than two years after, he printed the second volume, which met with the same general approbation as the first: and such was his readiness in composing, that he wrote the historical part in the compass of six weeks, after all his materials were laid in order. The third volume, containing a supplement to the two former, was published in 1714. “The defects of Peter Heylyn’s” History of the Reformation,“as bishop Kicolson observes,” are abundantly supplied in our author’s more complete history. He gives a punctual account of all the affairs of the reformation, from its beginning in the reign of Henry VIII. to its final establishment under queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1559. And the whole is penned in a masculine style, such as becomes an historian, and is the property of this author in all his writings. The collection of records^ which he gives at the end of each volume, are good vouchers of the truth of what he delivers in the body of the history, and are much more perfect than could reasonably be expected, after the pains taken, in queen Mary’s days, to suppress every thing that carried the marks of the reformation upon it.“Our author’s performance met with a very favourable, reception abroad, and was translated into most of the European languages; and even the keenest of his enemies, Henry Wharton, allows it to have” a reputation firmly and deservedly established.“The most eminent of the French writers who have attacked it, M. Varillas and M. Le Grand, have received satisfactory replies from -the author himself. At home it was attacked by Mr. S. Lowth, who censured the account Dr. Burnet had given of some of archbishop Cranmer’s opinions, asserting that both our historian and Dr. Stillingfleet had imposed upon the world in that particular, and had” unfaithfully joined together“in their endeavours to lessen episcopal ordination. Our author replied to Mr. Lowth, in some” letters. in answer“to his book. The next assailant was Henry Wharton, who, under the name of Anthony Harrner, published” A specimen of some Errors and Defects in the History of the Reformation,“1693, 8vo, a performance of no great candour; to which, however, our historian vouchsafed a short answer, in a” Letter to the Bishop of Lichfield.“A third attack on this History was made by Dr. Hickes in” Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson;“in which the whole charge amounts to no more than this, that,” in a matter of no great consequence, there was too little care had in copying or examining a letter writ in a very bad hand,“and that there was some probability that Dr. Burnet” was mistaken in one of his conjectures.“Our author answered this piece, in a” Vindication“of his History. The two first parts were translated into French by M. de Rosemond, and into Latin by Melchior Mittelhorzer. There is likewise a Dutch translation of it. In 1682, our author published” An abridgment of his History of the Reformation," in 8vo, in which he tells us, he had wholly waved every thing that belonged to the records, and the proof of what he relates, or to the confutation of the falsehoods that run through the popish historians; all which is to be found in the History at large. And therefore, in this abridgment, he says, every thing is to be taken upon trust; and those who desire a fuller satisfaction, are referred to the volumes he had before published.

, a Spanish artist, and styled the Michel Angelo of Spain, because he excelled in painting, sculpture, and architecture, was born in the city of Grenada in 1600, where his father, an eminent architect, educated him in his own profession, and when his instructions in this branch were completed, he applied himself to the study of sculpture, and made an uncommon progress in a very short time. He next went to Seville, and for eight months studied under Pacheco, and afterwards under Juan del Castillo, in whose academy he executed many noble paintings for the public edifices in Seville, and at the same time gave some specimens of his excellence in statuary, which were highly admired, particularly a “Madonna and Child,” in the great church of Nebriga, and two colossal figures of San Pedro and San Pablo. Count Olivarez was the means of his coming to Madrid, where he was made first royal architect, king’s painter, and preceptor to the prince, don Balthazar Carlos of Austria. Here, as architect, he projected several additional works to the palaces, some public gates to the city, and a triumphal arch erected on the entrance of Mariana, second queen to Philip IV. As a painter, he executed many celebrated compositions in the churches and palaces of Madrid. While in the height of his fame an event happened which involved him in much trouhle. Returning home one evening, he discovered his wife murdered, his house robbed, while an Italian journeyman, on whom the suspicion naturally fell, had escaped. The criminal judges held a court of inquiry, and having discovered that Cano had been jealous of this Italian, and also that he was known to be attached to another woman, they acquitted the fugitive gallant, and condemned the husband. On this he fled to Valencia, and being discovered there, took refuge in a Carthusian convent about three leagues from that city, where he seemed for a time determined upon taking the order, but afterwards was so imprudent as to return to Madrid, where he was apprehended, and ordered to be put to the torture, which he suffered without uttering 3r single word. On this the king received him again into favour, and as Cano saw there was no absolute safety but within the pale of the church, he solicited the king with that view, and was named residentiary of Grenada. The chapter objected to his nomination, but were obliged to submit, and their church profited by the appointment, many sculptures and paintings being of his donation. The last years of his life he spent in acts of devotion and charity. When he had no money to bestow in alms, which was frequently the case, he would call for paper, and give a beggar a drawing, directing him where to carry it for sale. To the Jews he bore an implacable antipathy. On his death-bed he would not receive the sacraments from a priest who attended him, because he had administered them to the converted Jews; and from another he would not accept the crucifix presented to him in his last moments, telling him it was so bungling a piece of work that he could not endure the sight of it. In this manner died Alonso Cano, at the age of seventy-six, in 1676; a circumstance, says his biographer, which shows that his ruling passion for the arts accompanied him in the article of death, superseding even religion itself in those moments when the great interests of salvation naturally must be supposed to occupy the mind to the exclusion of every other idea.

, M. D. a physician and philosopher of Oxford, was born at Woodstock in that county, and educated in New college, Oxford, where, as well as in Christ Church, he was some time chorister. In 1564 he was elected scholar of St. John’s college, proceeded M. A. was made fellow of the house, and was accounted one of the most acute disputants of his time. He forsook his fellowship, as supposed, on account of his inclination to the Koman catholic religion, but appears to have concealed this, as we find him in 1589 made prebendary of North Aulton, in the church of Salisbury. In the mean time he was reckoned so able an instructor, that he was permitted to keep a sort of private academy in St. Mary Magdalen’s parish, where he held declamations, disputations, and exercises, as in the other colleges and halls, and his auditors were numerous, particularly of young men of popish principles; and several men of eminence came from his school. His printed works were also held in considerable estimation. His learning was various, but he inclined most to medicine, and was admitted to his doctor’s degree in that faculty in 1589. In 1574 he married Elizabeth, the widow of one Dobsou, keeper of the Bocardo prison. By his lectures, and by his medical practice he acquired a considerable fortune, much of which he bestowed on pious uses. He was a man, says Wood, “of an innocent, meek, religious, and studious life, of a facete and affable conversation; a lover of scholars, beloved by them again, and had in high veneration.” Pits gives nearly the same character. Dodd only laments that he hurt his conscience by occasional conformity to the reformed religion, and says that he never made a candid confession of his faith till he lay in his last sickness, when he was assisted by a priest of the Roman catholic communion. He died at his house in Oxford, Jan. 23, 1600, and was interred in the chapel of St. John’s college, where a monument was afterwards erected to his memory. He was one of the benefactors to this college.

, a celebrated Italian general, was born at Lucca, in Tuscany, in 1284; where, it is said, he was taken up one morning accidentally in a vineyard, where he had been laid and covered with leaves; but others deduce him from an ancient and great family. The former account, however, goes on to inform us that he was found by Dianora, a wi.iow lady, and sister of Antonio, a canon ot rft Michael in Lucca, who was descended from the illustrious family of the Castracani. Antonio be ing priest, and Dianora having no children, they determined to bring him up, christened him Castruccio, by the name of their father, and educated him as carefully as if he had been their own. Antonio designed him for a priest, and accordingly trained him to letters; but Castruccio was scarcely fourteen years old when he began to neglect his books, and to devote himself to military exercises, to wrestling, running, and other athletic sports, which very well suited his great strength of body. At that time the two great factions, the Guelfs and Ghibilins, shared all Italy between them, divided the popes and the emperors, and engaged in their different interests, not only the members of the same town, but even the members of the same family. Francisco, a considerable man on the side of the Ghibilins, observing one day in the market-place, the uncommon spirit and qualities of Castruccio, prevailed with Antonio to let him turn soldier. As nothing could be more agreeable to the inclination of Castruccio, he presently became accomplished in every thing which could adorn his profession. He was eighteen years old when the faction of the Guelfs drove the Ghibilins out of Pavia, and was then made a lieutenant of a company of foot, by Francisco Guinigi, of whom the prince of Milan had solicited succours. The first campaign this new lieutenant made, he gave such proofs of his courage and conduct, as spread his fame all over Lombardy; and Guinigi conceived such an opinion of him, and had so much confidence in him, that, dying soon after, he committed the care of his son and the management of his estate to him. So great a trust and administration made Castruccio more considerable than before but at the same time created him many enemies, and lost him some friends for, knowing him to be of an high and enterprising spirit, many began to fancy his views were to empire, and to oppress the liberty of his country. He went on still, however, to distinguish himself by military exploits, and at last raised so much jealousy in his chief commander, that he was imprisoned by stratagem, with a view of being put to death; but the people of Lucca soon released him, and in a short time after, solemnly chose him their sovereign prince, and there were not then, either in Lombardy or Tuscany, any of the Ghibilins who did not look upon Castruccio as the true head of their faction. Those who were banished their country upon that account fled to him for protection, and promised unanimously, that if he could restore them to their estates, they would serve him so effectually, that the sovereignty of their country should be his reward. Flattered by these promises, and encouraged by the strength of his forces, he entertained a design of making himself master of Tuscany; and to give more reputation to his affairs, he entered into a league with the prince of Milan. He kept his army constantly on foot, and employed it as suited best with his own designs. For the services he did the pope he was made senator of Rome with more than ordinary ceremony. The day of his promotion, he came forth in a habit suitable to his dignity, but enriched with a delicate embroidery, and with two devices artificially wrought in, one before, the other behind. The former was in these words, “He is as it pleases God” the latter, “And shall be what God will have him.” While Castruccio was at Rome, news was brought him which obliged him to return in all haste to Lucca. The Florentines were making war upon him, and had already done him some damage; and conspiracies were forming against him as an usurper, at Pisa and in several places; but Castruccio surmounted all these difficulties, and the supreme authority of Tuscany was just falling into his hands, when a period was put to his progress and his life. An army of 30,000 foot and 10,000 horse appeared against him in May 1328. Of these he destroyed 22,000, with the loss of not quite 1600 of his own men, and was returning from the field of battle; but, happening to halt a little for the sake of thanking and caressing his soldiers as they passed fi,red with an action as fatiguing as glorious, and covered with sweat, a north wind blew upon him, and affected him so, that he fell immediately into a fit of ague. At first he neglected it, believing himself sufficiently hardened against such attacks; but the fit increasing, and with it the fever, his physicians gave him over, and he died in a few days. He was in his forty-fourth year; and from the time he came to appear first in the world, he always, as well in his good as bad fortune, expressed the same steadiness and equality of spirit. As he left several monuments of his good fortune behind him, so he was not ashamed to leave some memorials of his adversity. Thus, when he was delivered from the imprisonment above-mentioned, he caused the irons with which he was loaded, to be hung in the most public room of his palace, where they were to be seen many years after.

The Saxons had a species of writing which they called poetry, but it did not consist of regular verses, nor was it embellished by rhime. The Normans, it is generally thought, were the first who introduced rhime or metre, copied from the Latin rythmical verses, a bastard species, which belongs to the declining period of the Latin language. To deduce the history of versification from the earliest periods is impossible, for want of specimens. Two very trifling ones only are extant before the time of Henry II. namely, a few lines in the Saxon Chronicle upon the death of William the Conqueror, and a short canticle, which, according to Matthew Paris, the blessed virgin was pleased to dictate to Godric, an hermit near Durham. In the time of Henry II. Layamon, a priest, translated chiefly from the French of Wace, a fabulous history of the Britons, entitled Le Brut, which Wace himself, about 1155, had translated from the Latin of Geffry of Monmouth. In this there are a number of short verses, of unequal lengths, but exhibiting something like rhime. But so common was it to write whatever was written, in French or Latin, that another century must be passed over before we come to another specimen of English poetry, if we except the Ormulum, and a moral piece upon old age, &c. noticed by Mr. Tyrwhitt, and which he conjectures to have been written earlier than the reign of Henry III.

He was ordained deacon by Meletius, in the year 381, and now began to compose and publish many of his works. Five years after, he was ordained a priest by Flavian, in which office he acquitted himself with so much reputation, that, upon the death of Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, in the year 397, he was unanimously chosen to fill that see. The emperor Arcadius, however, was obliged to employ all his authority, and even to use some stratagem, before he could seduce Chrysostom from his native Antioch, where he was held in so much admiration and esteem. He sent in the mean time, a mandate to Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, to consecrate Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople; which was done in the year 398, notwithstanding the secret and envious attempts of Theophilus to prevent it. But Chrysostom was no sooner at the head of the church of Constantinople, than that zeal and ardour, for which he was afterwards famous, was employed in endeavouring to effect a general reformation of manners. With this disposition, he begun with the clergy, and next attacked the laity, but especially the courtiers, whom he soon made his enemies; and his preaching is said to have been eminently successful among the lower classes. Nor was his zeal confined altogether within the precincts of Constantinople; it extended to foreign parts, as appears from his causing to be demolished some temples and statues in Phoenicia; but all writers are agreed that his temper, even in his best duties, was violent, and afforde'd his enemies many advantages.

Augustus, however, now made him a priest or augur, as well as one of those magistrates who presided over the coinage of the public money: and no sooner became the sole master of Rome, than he took him for his partner in the consulship: and by these favours to the son, Augustus made some atonement for his treachery to the father. Soon after his consulship, he was made proconsul of Asia, or, as Appian says, of Syria, one of the most considerable provinces of the empire: from which time we find no farther mention of him in history. He died probably soon after; before a maturity of age and experience had given him an opportunity of retrieving the reproach of his intemperance, and distinguishing himself in the councils of the state. But from the honours already mentioned, it is evident that his life, though blemished by some scandal, yet was not void of dignity; and, amidst all the vices with which he is charged, he is allowed to have retained his father’s wit and politeness.

His residence in England has been overlooked by his biographers. It was in 1609 that he became a sojourner at Exeter college, Oxford, for the sake of Drs. Holland and Prideaux, whose fame attracted many foreigners to this college; and here he wrote his first work “De Tribus Rheni alveis et ostiis,” which was published at Leyden, in 1611, 4to. It appears also that after his return from Italy, he again visited Oxford, where Dr. Prideaux, probably, who had a high opinion of him, procured him offers of promotion; but his attachment to Leyden induced him to return thither, and the curators of the university there bestowed an annual stipend on him, to assist him in his pursuits. He left a son, John Sigismund Cluverius, who was born during his father’s residence in England, in St. Saviour’s parish, and was matriculated a member of Exeter college in 1633, as “a Londoner born, and the son of Philip Cluverius, a priest.”

The descriptions which are given of his person and character are much to his advantage. He was a tall, comely, graceful, well-bred man; and of uncommon learning and piety. In his writings his style was plain and unaffected; and for rhetoric he had rather a contempt, than a want of it. He could not bear that the standard of good writing should be taken from the exact rules of grammar; which, he often said, was apt to obstruct a purity of language, not to be obtained but by reading the best authors. This contempt of grammar, though making him sometimes inaccurate, and, as we have observed, laying him open to the critics, did not hinder him from attaining a very masterly style; so that his preaching, though popular, and adapted to mean capacities, was agreeable to men of wit and learning, and in particular was much admired by sir Thomas More. With regard to some of his notions, he was an eminent forerunner of the reformation; and he and Erasmus jointly promoted it, not only by pulling down those strong holds of ignorance and corruption, the scholastic divinity, and entirely routing both the Scotists and Thomists, who had divided the Christian world between them, but also by discovering the shameful abuses of monasteries, and the folly and danger of imposing celibacy upon the clergy; to which places he gave little or nothing while he lived, and left nothing when he died. Colet thought immorality in a priest more excusable than pride and avarice; and was with no sort of men more angry than with those bishops who, instead of shepherds, acted the part of wolves, and who, under the pretence of devotions, ceremonies, benedictions, and indulgences, recommended themselves to the veneration of the people, while in their hearts they were slaves to filthy lucre. He condemned auricular confession; and was content to say mass only upon Sundays and great festivals, or at least upon very few days besides. He had gathered up several authorities from the ancient fathers against the current tenets and customs of the church; and though he did not openly oppose the established religion, yet he shewed a particular kindness and favour to those who disliked the worshiping of images. As to his moral qualities, he was a man of exemplary temperance, and all other virtues: and is so represented by his intimate friend Erasmus, in an epistle to Jodocus Jonas, where the life, manners, and qualifications of Colet are professedly described.

, renowned in Scotch history as the founder of a monastery at Icolmkill, and the chief agent in converting the northern Picts, was a native of Ireland, where he was a priest and abbot, and is supposed to have been born at Gartan, in the county of Tyrconnel, in 521. From thence, about the year 565, he arrived in Scotland, and received from Bridius, the son of Meilochon, the then reigning king of the Picts, and his people, the island of Hij, or Hy, one of the Western Isles, which was afterwards called from him Icolmkill, and became the famous burial-place of the kings of Scotland. There he built a monastery, of which he was the abbot, and which for several ages continued to be the chief seminary of North Britain. Columba acquired here such influence, that neither king or people did any thing without his consent. Here he died June 9, 597, and his body was buried on the island; but, according to some Irish writers, was afterwards removed to Down in Ulster, and laid in the same vault with the remains of St. Patrick and St. Bridgit. From this monastery at iona, of which some remains may yet be traced, and another, which he had before founded in Ireland, sprang many other monasteries, and a great many eminent men; but such are the ravages of time and the revolutions of society, that this island, which was once “the luminary of the Caledonian regions, whence savage clans and roving barbarians derived the benefits of knowledge, and the blessings of religion,” had, when Dr, Johnson visited it in 1773, “no school for education, nor temple for worship, only two inhabitants that could speak English, and not one that could write or read.”

A late traveller observes, as not a little remarkable, that so sublime a discovery as Copernicus produced, should have originated in a part of Europe the most obscure, and hardly civilized, while it escaped the finer genius of Italy and of France. He also informs us, that at Thorn, though a part of the building has been destroyed by fire, the chamber is still religiously preserved in which Copernicus was born. His remains are buried under a flat stone, in one of the side ailes of the most ancient church of Thorn. Above is erected a small monument, on which is painted a half-length portrait of him. The face is that of a man declined in years, pale and thin; but there is, in the expression of the countenance, something which pleases, and conveys the idea of intelligence. His hair and eyes are black, his hands joined in prayer, and he is habited in the dress of a priest: before him is a crucifix, at his foot a skull, and behind appear a globe and compass. When expiring he is said to have confessed himself, as long and uniform tradition reports, in the following Latin verses, which are inscribed on the monument

He was well received in England: the marquis of Blandford made him a present of fifty pounds, and he obtained a pension of one hundred pounds a year from the court. In 1729 he published, at Amsterdam, in two vols. 12mo, “Relation Historique et Apologetique des sentimens et de la conduite du P. le Courayer, chanoine regulier de Ste. Genevieve: avec les preuves justificatives des faits avancez dans l'ouvrage.” In this work he entered into a farther justification of his sentiments and of his conduct, and shewed the necessity that he was under of quitting France, from the virulence and power of his enemies. In 1733 he was at Oxford, and was present in the theatre at the public act that year, and made a speech there upon the occasion, which was afterwards printed both in Latin and English. In 1726 he published at London, in two vols. folio, a translation, in French, of “Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent;” with notes critical, historical, and theological. He dedicated this work to queen Caroline, and speaks of it as having been undertaken by her command; and he expresses, in the strongest terms, his gratitude to her majesty for her patronage, and for the liberality which she liad manifested towards him. A list of subscribers is prefixed, in which are found the names of the prince of Wales, the duke of Cumberland, the prince and princess of Orange, the princesses Amelia and Caroline, the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord Chancellor, lord Hardwicke, then chief Justice of the King’s Bench, sir Robert Walpole, and many of the nobility, andother persons of distinction. By the sale of this work he is said to have gained fifteen hundred pounds, and the queen also raised his pension to two hundred pounds per annum. He gave sixteen hundred pounds to lord Feversham, for an annuity of one hundred pounds per annum, which he enjoyed forty years. By these means he came into very easy circumstances, which were rendered still more so by the reception which his agreeable and instructive conversation procured him, among persons of rank and fortune, with many of whom it was his custom to live for several months at a time. He wrote some other works in French, besides those that have been mentioned; and, in particular, he translated into that language Sleidan’s “History of the Reformation.” His exile from his own country was probably no diminution of his happiness upon the whole; for he appears to have passed his time in England very agreeably, and he lived to an uncommon age. Even in his latter years, he was distinguished for the cheerfulness of his temper and the sprightliness of his conversation. He died in Downingstreet, Westminster, after two days illness, on the 17th of October, 1776, at the age of ninety-five. Agreeably to his own desire, he was buried m the cloister of Westminsterabbey, by Dr. Bell, chaplain to the princess Amelia. In his will, which was dated Feb. 3, 1774,* he declared, “That he died a member of the Catholic church, but without approving of many of the opinions and superstitions which have been introduced into the Romish church, and taught in their schools and seminaries, and which they have insisted on as articles of faith, though to him they appeared to be not only not founded in truth, but also to be highly improbable.” It is said, that soon after he came to England, he went to a priest of the Romish church for confession, and acquainted him who he was. The priest would not venture to take his confession, because he was excommunicated, but advised him to consult his superior of Genevieve. Whether he made any such application, or what was the result, we are not informed bat it is certain that, when in London, he made it his practice to go to mass; and when in the country, at Ealing, he constantly attended the service of the parish-church, declaring, at all times, that he had great satisfaction in the prayers of the church of England. In discoursing on religious subjects he was reserved and cautious, avoiding controversy as much as possible. He left 500l. to the parish of St. Martin; and gave, in his life-time, his books to the library there, founded by archbishop Tenison. He bequeathed 200l. to the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, and a handsome sum of money to the poor of Vernon, in Normandy; and, after many legacies to his friends in England, the remainder to two nephews of his name at Vernon. During his lifetime, he was occasionally generous to some of his relations in France, and in England was very liberal to the poor. He had two sisters, who were nuns; and a brother at Paris, in the profession of the law, to whom he gave a handsome gold snuff-box, which had been presented to him by queen Caroline.

In the year 246 Cyprian was prevailed on to embrace Christianity, at Carthage, by Cæcilius, a priest of that church, whose name Cyprian afterwards took; and between whom there ever after subsisted so close a friendship, that Csecilius at his death committed to Cyprian the care of his family. Cyprian was also a married man himself; but as soon as he became a Christian, he resolved upon a state of continence, which was thought a high degree of piety, as being yet not become general. This we learn from his deacon Pontius, who has left us memoirs of his life, which are prefixed to his works, but are not so ample in information as might have been expected from one who knew him so well. It was now incumbent upon him to give the usual proof of the sincerity of his conversion, by writing against paganism, and in defence of Christianity. With this view he composed his piece “De gratia Dei, or, concerning the grace of God,” which he addressed to Donatus. It is a work of the same nature with the Apologetic of Tertullian, and the Octavius of Minutius Felix; and it is remarkable, that Cyprian has not only insisted upon the same arguments with those writers, but frequently transcribed their words, those of Minutius Felix especially. In the year 247, the year after his conversion, he composed another piece upon the subject, entitled “De idolorum vanitate, or, upon the vanity of idols” in which he has taken the same liberties with Tertulliau and Minutius Felix. His Oxford editor, bishop Fell, endeavours to excuse him from the charge of plagiarism upon this occasion; because, says he, having the same points to treat as all the apologists had before, namely, the truth and excellency of Christianity, and the falsehood and vanity of heathenism, he could not well avoid making use of the. same topics.

In the year 249, the emperor Decius began to issue out very severe edicts against the Christians, which particularly affected those living upon the coasts of Africa; and in the beginning of the year 250, the heathens, in the circus and amphitheatre at Carthage, loudly insisted upon Cyprian’s being thrown to the lions: a common method, as is well known, of destroying the primitive Christians. Cyprian upon this withdrew from his church at Carthage, and fled into retirement, to avoid the fury of the persecution; which step, how justifiable soever in itself, gave great scandal, and seems to have been considered by the clergy of Rome, in a public letter written upon the subject of it to the clergy of Carthage, as a desertion of his post and pastoral duty. It is no wonder, therefore, to find Cyprian himself, as well as his apologist, Pontius, the writer of his life, so solicitous to excuse it; which they both endeavour to do by affirming, in the true spirit of the times, “that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven; and that his flight was not the effect of any other fear but that of offending God.” It is remarkable, that this father was a great pretender to visions. For instance, in a letter to Caecilius, he declares, “that he had received a divine admonition, to mix water with wine in the sacrament of the eucharist, in order to render it effectual.” In another to the clergy, concerning certain priests, who had restored some lapsed Christians too hastily to the communion of the church, he threatens them to execute “what he was ordered to do against them, in a vision, if they did not desist.” He makes the same threat to one Pupianus, who had spoken ill of him, and withdrawn himself from his communion. In a letter likewise to the clergy and the people, he tells them, “how he had been admonished and directed by God to ordain one Numidicus a priest.” Dodwell, in his “Dissertationes Cyprianicae,” has made a large collection of these visions of Cyprian, which he treats with more reverence than they seem to deserve.

, of Jerusalem, was ordained a priest of that church by Maximus bishop of Jerusalem; and after Maximus’s death, which happened about the year 350, became his successor in that see, through the interest of Acacius bishop of Caesarea, and the bishops of his party. This made the orthodoxy of Cyril highly suspected, because Acacius was an Arian; aiul St. Jerome accuses Cyril, as if he was one too: but Theodoret assures us, that he was not. His connexions, however, with Acacius, were presently broken by a violent contest which arose between them about the prerogatives of their respective sees. The council of Nice had decreed to the bishop of Jerusalem the honour of precedency amongst the bishops of his province, without concerning himself at all with the right of the church of Cassarea, which was metropolitan to that of Jerusalem. This made Maximus, and after him Cyril, who were bishops of Jerusalem, to insist upon certain rights about consecrating bishops, and assembling councils, which Acacius considered as an encroachment upon the jurisdictions of his province. Hence a dispute ensued, and Acacius calling a synod, contrived to have Cyril deposed, under the pretence of a very great sin he had committed in the time of a late famine, by exposing to sale the treasures of the church, and applying the money to the support of the poor. This, however, might possibly have been passed over, as an offence at least of a pardonable nature, but for one circumstance that unluckily attended it; which was., that amongst these treasures that were sold there was a rich embroidered robe, which had been presented to the church by Constantine the Great; and this same robe was afterwards seen to have been worn by a common actress upon the stage: which, as soon as it was known, was considered as a horrible profanation of that sacred vestment.

It is remarkable that there were moments in which Diderot, notwithstanding his avowed impiety, seems to have been compelled by the force of truth, to pay homage to the New Testament. An acquaintance found him one day explaining it to his daughter, with all the apparent seriousness and energy of a believer. On expressing his surprize, Diderot replied, “I understand your meaning; but after all, where is it possible to find better lessons for her instruction?” This from him who had given so many lessons of a different kind, and had been a more zealous teacher of impiety and profligacy than perhaps any man in France, appears somewhat improbable; yet it may coincide with a report, which is more certain, that in his latter days he shewed some signs of contrition. In 1784 his health began visibly to decline; and one of his domestics, perceiving that his death was at no great distance, acquainted him with his apprehensions, and addressed him on the importance of preparing for another world. He heard the man with attention, thanked him kindly, acknowledged that his situation required seriousness, and promised to weigh well what he had said. Some time after this conversation he desired a priest might be brought, and the same domestic introduced one, whom Diderot saw several times, and was preparing to make a public recantation of his errors. Condorcet, and his other philosophic friends, now crowded about him, persuaded him that he was cheated, that his case was not so dangerous as it was said to be, and that he only wanted the country air to restore him to health. For some time he resisted their attempts to bring him back to atheism, but was at last prevailed upon to leave Paris; and his departure being kept secret, he was concealed in the country till July 2, when he died. His dead body was then secretly brought back to Paris, and his friends eagerly spread the report that he died suddenly on rising from the table, without the least sign of repentance. His character, from what has been said, is not very difficult to be understood. Some of his countrymen extol his frankness, his candour, his disinterestedness, his integrity while others represent him as artful, interested, and concealing iiis cunning- under a cheerful air, and sometimes >ven a rough behaviour which we confess appears more probable, as the genuine result of his principles. Towards the laiter part of uis life he hurt himself in th.: public opinion, by taking up too warmly the pretended ahVo-Ls he imagined to exist against him in the “Confessions” of his old friend J. J. Rousseau; and by this conduct left unfavourable impressions both of his heart and his understanding. This Rousseau, whom he so much decries, praises him in the second manuscript part of his Confessions; but says in one of his letters, that “though naturally kind, i of a generous disposition, Diderot had the unhappy ;>ensity to misinterpret the speeches and actions of his :ids; and that the most ingenuous explanations only furnished the subtilty of his invention with new interpretations against them.” The enthusiasm Diderot displays in some of his productions, appeared in the circle of his, friends, on every topic of discourse. He spoke with rapidity, with vehemence, and the turns of his phrases were often poignant and original. It has been said, that nature by mistake made him a metaphysician, and not a poet; but though he was often a poet in prose, he has left some verses which prove him to have had but little talent for poetry. The intrepid philosophy of which he boasted, affected always to brave the shafts of criticism; and his numerous censors were unable to cure him either of his taste for a system of metaphysics scarcely intelligible, or of his fondness for exclamations and apostrophes which prevailed in his conversation and in his writings. He married, and we are told by his friends, was in domestic life sensible and obliging; easily provoked, but as easily calmed; yielding to transient ebullitions of temper, but generally having it under command. The goodness or badness of his temper, however, as affecting his relatives, is a matter of little consequence, compared to the more extensive mischief which arose from his writings as an infidel, and his example as a profligate. Of the latter we need no more decided proof than the extract from one of his letters to Wilkes, published by lord Teignmouth in his “Life of Sir William Jones.” La Harpe, to whose “Lyceum” we may refer for an impartial account of Diderot, thinks very justly that the principal cause of the success of the French infidels, in gaining readers and followers, arose from their enlisting the passions on their side. Such, says he, is the basis of their system, the general spirit of their sect, and the principle of their success. The method is not very honourable, but with a little address it is almost sure to succeed, at least for a time, for nothing is more easy than to pass off as a theory, a corruption which already exists as a fashion.

, a learned English divine and magistrate, was born at Lincoln in 1677. At the grammar school in that city he received the early part of his education, and afterwards studied at a private academy among the dissenters, to whom his father was attached. He was next entered at the Middle Temple with a view of making himself so far acquainted with the law as to enable him to become respectable as a magistrate and an author. The former character he sustained with dignity and much reputation: he was diligent, disinterested, and impartial in his decistons: he took an active part with those who formed themselves into a society for the suppression of vice and immorality. His regard to duty gained him the respect of the wise and good, and on some occasions he was singled out as meriting the thanks of the judges of the circuit for services that he had rendered his country. As he advanced in life, and after he had acted as a magistrate more than twenty years, he conceived the design of becoming a minister in the church of England, with which he had communicated from the time that he had attained to manhood. He was accordingly first ordained a deacon, and afterwards, in 1719, a priest. In the same year he was presented with the vicarage of Croft, and to the rectory of Kirby-superBaine, both in his native county. In the year 1722, he was instituted to the vicarage of St. Mary in Nottingham, to which town he removed; and here he remained till his death, Feb. 3, 1729-30, in the 53d year of his age. He was buried, according to his own request, in the chancel of his church, near to the communion-table, having no other inscription over his grave than the initial letters of his name, and the year of his death. He left a widow, who afterwards lived at her own family-seat, Flintham-hall, in Nottinghamshire, and died there May 20, 1763, in the 86th year of her age, by whom he had five sons and three daughters.

, a Saint of the Romish calendar, founder of the order of the Dominicans, and as some say, of that horrible engine of tyranny, the Inquisition, was born in 1170, at Calarogo, in old Castille, in the diocese of Osma. He was of the family of the Guzmans, and educated at first under a priest, his uncle; but at fourteen years, was sent to the public schools of Palentia, where he became a great proficient in rhetoric, philosophy, and divinity, and was also distinguished by austere mortifications and charity to the poor. When he had finished his studies and taken his degrees, he explained the Holy Scriptures in the schools, and preached at Palentia. In 1198 he was made a canon of Osma. After five years he accompanied the bishop of Osma on an embassy to the earl of La Marche, and in his journey was grievously afflicted to behold the spread of what he called heresy among the Albigenses, and conceived the design of converting them, and at first appears to have used only argument, accompanied with the deception of pretended miracles; but finding these unsuccessful, joined the secular power in a bloody crusade against the Albigenses, which he encouraged by prayers and miracles. During these labours, he instituted the devotion of the Rosary, consisting of fifteen Pater Hosiers, and an hundred and fifty Ave Marias, in honour of the fifteen principal mysteries of the life and sufferings of Christ, and of the virgin Mary, which our saint thought the people might be made to honour by this foolish expedient. In 1206 he founded the nunnery of our lady of Prouille, near Faujaux, which he put under* the rule of St. Austin, and afterwards established an institute called his third order, some of the members of which live in monasteries, and are properly nuns; others live in their own houses, adding religious to civil duties, and serving the poor in hospitals and prisons.

He married in 1625, the only daughter of a rich merchant of Paris, by whom he had sixteen children. The first seven were sons the rest intermixed, six sons and three daughters. Laurence, the eldest of all, was at first minister at Rochelle but being obliged to leave that church by an edict, he went to Niort, where he died in 1680, having lost his sight about six months before. He was a very learned man, and a good preacher. He left several fine sermons, and likewise a collection of Christian sonnets, which are extremely elegant, and highly esteemed by those who have a taste for sacred poetry. They had gone through six editions in 1693. Henry, the second son, was also a minister, and published sermons. The third son was the famous Charles Drelincourt, professor of physic at Leyden, to whom we shall devote a separate article. Anthony, a fourth son, was a physician at Orbes, in Switzerland; and afterwards appointed physician extraordinary by the magistrates of Berlin. A fifth son died at Geneva, while he was studying divinity there. Peter Drelincourt, a sixth, was a priest of the church of England, and dean of Armagh.

His wife is supposed to have died in 1599. He had three children by her; a daughter born at Leyden in 1582, and married in 1604 to Abel Curiander, who wrote the life of his father-in-law, from which this account is taken. He had another daughter, born at Franeker in 1587, who died at Ghent, whither she had taken a journey about business. A priest, knowing her to be dangerously ill, went to confess her, and to give her extreme unction; but she immediately sent him away, and her husband (for she was married) threatened to resent his offer. It was with great cxpence and danger that her body was removed into Zealand, for at Ghent it would have been denied burial. He had also a son, John, who, if he had lived longer, would have been a prodigy of learning. He was born at Franeker in 3588, and began at five years old to learn the Latin and Hebrew tongues; at seven he explained the Hebrew psalter with great exactness; at nine he could read the Hebrew without points, and add the points where they were wanting, according to the rules of grammar. He spoke Latin as readily as his mother-tongue; and could make himself understood in English. At twelve he wrote extempore, in verse and prose, after the manner of the Jews. At seventeen he made a speech in Latin to our James I. in the midst of his court, and was admired by all that were present. He had a lively genius, a solid judgment, a strong memory, and an indefatigable ardour for study. He was likewise of an agreeable temper, which made him greatly beloved, and had a singular turn for piety. He died in 1609, of the stone, in England, at the house of Dr. William Thomas, dean of Chichester, who allowed him a very considerable salary. He left several works; a great many letters in Hebrew, verses in the same language, and notes on the Proverbs of Solomon. He had begun to translate into Latin the Itinerary of Benjamin Tudelensisj and the Chronicle of the second Temple; and digested into an alphabetical order the Nomenclature of Elias Levita; to which he added the Greek words which were not in the first edition.

, a French ecclesiastic of the eighteenth century, was a priest of the diocese of Rouen, and vicar of St. Lawrence in that city, where his talents and religious conduct being conspicuous, notwithstanding his modesty, he was appointed to the curacy of Trouville in Caux, which he would have declined, had not the lord of that parish, and the curate of St. Lawrence, represented to him the great need there was of a diligent and well-informed ecclesiastic in that situation, not only to recover the inhabitants from their extreme ignorance of religion, but to inspire the neighbouring curates with a disposition for employing their time to the advantage of their flocks. M. le Due succeeded in these respects beyond expectation; but, after having done all the good he could in his cure, which he called his mission, left it to the great regret of his parishioners, and went to Paris, where he was obliged to accept the vicarship of St. Paul, out of respect to M. Gueret, who succeeded M. Bourret, and had drawn him to that parish. In this situation he laboured with good success during fifteen years, but being interdicted by M. de Vintimelle, 1731, on account of his opposition to some of the decrees of the church, he retired to the parish of St. Severin, and there died, May 3, 1744. An abridgment of his life appeared in 1745, at Paris, 12mo, in which the following works are attributed to him: “L‘Anne’e Ecclesiastique,” 15 vols. 12mo; an “Imitation, with Reflexions, Exercises, and Prayers,” 12mo; a translation of cardinal Bona’s “Way to Heaven, and shortest Way to go to God,” 12mo; the translation of several hymns in the Paris Breviary and part of the translation of M. de Thou, 16 vols. 4to.

“Chronicle of Prussia” contains the history of that kingdom from 1226 to 1325, is written in Latin, und tinued by an anonymous hand, to 1426. Hartknock, a learned German, published an edition of it in 4to, in 1679, with nineteen dissertations, which throw considerable light on the early history of Prussia. About 1340, Nicolas Jeroschin, a chaplain of the Teutonic order, translated this Chronicle into German verse, which was continued in the same by Wigand of Marpur^, as far as 1394. Duisbourg himself was a priest of the Teutonic order in Prussia, but we have no farther account of his life.

Eccles had two brothers: Henry, a performer on the violin, said to have been in the king of France’s band, and to have been the author of twelve excellent solos for his own instrument, printed at Paris, 1720; and Thomas, who bad been taught the violin by Henry, and had the character of a very fine player, but preferred the life of a strolling fuller at taverns to that of a regular professor, and was more fond of drinking than either of good company or clean linen. He seems to have been one of the last vagrant bards, who used to inquire at taverns if there were any gentlemen in the house who wished to hear music Since smoking has been discontinued, few evenings are spent in taverns, which has diminished the number of modern minstrels, particularly such as are as well qualified to amuse good company and lovers of music as Tom Eccles, who used to regale his hearers with Corelli’s solos and Handel’s best opera songs, which he executed with precision and sweetness of tone, equal to the most eminent performers of the time. He survived his brother, John, more than twenty years; and continued to officiate as a priest of Bacchus to the last.

, a miscellaneous writer of some reputation in the last age, and well known to the scholars of that period, was the son of Mr. James Ellis, and was born in the parish of St. Clement Danes, March 22, 1698. His father was a man of an eccentric character, roving, and unsettled. At one time he was clerk to his uncle and guardian, serjeant Denn, recorder of Canterbury, and kept his chambers in Gray’s-inn, on a starving allowance, as Mr. Ellis used to declare, for board-wages. Leaving his penurious relation, who spent what his father left him in a litigious process, he obtained a place in the post-office at Deal in Kent, from whence he was advanced, to be searcher of the customs in the Downs, with a boat; but being imposed upon, as he thought, in some way by his patron, he quitted his employment and came to London. He was represented by his son as particularly skilful in the use of the sword, to which qualification he was indebted, through the means of a nobleman, for one of his places. He was also much famed for his agility, and could at one time jump the wall of Greenwich park, with the assistance of a staff. At the trial of Dr. Sacheverel he was employed to take down the evidence for the doctor’s use. His wife, Susannah Philpot, our author’s mother, was so strict a dissenter, that when Dr. Sacheverel presented her husband with his print, framed and glazed, she dashed it on the ground, and broke it to pieces, calling him at the same time a priest of Baal; and at a late period of our author’s life, it was remembered by him, that she caused him to undergo the discipline of the school, for only presuming to look at a top on a Sunday which had been given to him the day preceding. The qualifications which Mr. Ellis’s father possessed, it will be perceived, were not those which lead to riches; and indeed so narrow were his circumstances, that he was unable to give his son the advantages of a liberal education. He was first sent to a wretched day-school in Dogwell-court, White Fryars, with a brother and two sisters; and afterwards was removed to another, not much superior, in Wine-office-court, Fleet-street, where he learned the rudiments of grammar, more by his own application than by any assistance of his master. He used, however, to acknowledge the courtesy of the usher, who behaved well to him. While at this school he translated “Mars ton Moore; sive, de obsidione praelioque Eboracensi carmen. Lib. 6. 1650, 4to. Written by Payne Fisher;” which, as it has not been found among his papers, we suppose was afterwards destroyed. At what period, or in what capacity he was originally placed with Mr. John Taverner, an eminent scrivener in Threadneedlestreet, we have not learned; but in whatever manner the connexion began, he in due time became clerk or apprentice to him; and during his residence had an opportunity of improving himself in the Latin tongue, which he availed himself of with the utmost diligence. The son of his master, then at Merchant Taylors’ school, was assisted by his father in his daily school-exercises; which being conducted in the presence of the clerk, it was soon found that the advantage derived from the instructions, though missed by the person for whom it was intended, was not wholly lost. Mr. Ellis eagerly attended, and young Taverner being of an indolent disposition, frequently asked his assistance privately; which at length being discovered by the elder Taverner, was probably the means of his first introduction to the world, though it cannot be said much to his advantage, as old Taverner had the address to retain him in the capacity of his clerk during his life-time, and at his death incumbered him with his son as a partner, by whose imprudence Mr. Ellis was a considerable sufferer both in his peace of mind and his purse, and became involved in difficulties which hung over him a considerable number of years. His literary acquisitions soon, as it might be expected, introduced him to the acquaintance of those who had similar pursuits. In 1721, the rev. Mr. Fayting, afterwards of Merchant Taylors’ school, rector of St. Martin Outwich, and prebendary of Lincoln, being then about to go to Cambridge, solicited and obtained his correspondence, part of which was carried on in verse. With this gentleman, who died 22d Feb. 1789, in his eighty-sixth year, Mr. Ellis lived on terms of the most unreserved friendship, and on his death received a legacy of 100l. bequeathed to him by his will. At a period rather later, he became also known to the late Dr. King of Oxford. Young Taverner, who probably was not at first intended for a scrivener, was elected from Merchant Taylors’ school to St. John’s college, Oxford, and by his means Mr. Ellis was made acquainted with the tory orator. By Dr. King he was introduced to his pupil lord Orrery; and Mr. Ellis atone time spent fourteen days in their company at college, so much to the satisfaction of all parties, that neither the nobleman nor his tutor ever afterwards came to London without visiting, and inviting Mr. Ellis to visit them. In, the years 1742 and 1713, Dr. King published “Templum Libertatis,” in two books, which Mr. Ellis translated into verse with the entire approbation of the original author. This translation still remains in ms. Of his poetical friends, however, the late Moses Mendez, esq. appears to have been the most intimate with him. Several marks of that gentleman’s friendship are to be found scattered through his printed works; and about 1749 he addressed a beautiful epistle to him from Ham, never yet published. In 1744 Mr. Mendez went to Ireland, and on July 5 sent a poetical account of his journey to Mr. Ellis. This epistle was afterwards printed in 1767, in -a collection of poems, and in the same miscellany Mr. Ellis’s answer appeared. Soon after Mr. Mendez addressed a poetical epistle to his friend, Mr. S. Tucker, at Dulwich, printed in the sam collection.

The period in which Epicurus opened his school was peculiarly favourable to his design. In the room of the simplicity of the Socratic doctrine, nothing now remained but the subtlety and affectation of stoicism, the unnatural severity of the Cynics, or the debasing doctrine of indulgence taught and practised by the followers of Aristippns. The luxurious refinement which now prevailed in Athens, inclined the younger citizens to listen to a preceptor who smoothed the stern brow of philosophy, and, under the notion of pleasure, led them unawares to moderation and virtue. Hence his school became exceedingly popular, and disciples flocked into the garden, not only from different parts of Greece, but from Egypt and Asia. Those who were regularly admitted into this school lived upon such a footing of friendly attachment, that each individual cheerfully supplied the necessities of his brother. Cicero describes the friendship of the Epicurean fraternity as unequalled in the history of mankind. That he might prosecute his philosophical labours with the less interruption, Epicurus lived in a state of celibacy. In his own conduct he was exemplary for temperance and continence, and he inculcated upon his followers severity of manners, and the strict government of the passions, as the best means of passing a tranquil and happy life. Notwithstanding his regular manner of living, towards the close of his days, probably in consequence of intense application to study, his constitution became infirm, and he was afflicted with the stone. Perceiving from these marks of decay that his end was approaching, he wrote a will, in which he bequeathed his garden, and the buildings belonging to it, to Hermachus, and through him to the future professors of his philosophy. On the last day of his life he wrote to hi friend Hermachus, informing him that his disease had for fourteen days tormented him with anguish, which nothing could exceed; at the same time he adds, “All this is counterbalanced by the satisfaction of mind which I derive from the recollection of my discourses and discoveries.” The emperor Marcus Antoninus confirms this account, attesting that Epicurus in his sickness relied more upon the recollection of his excellent life than upon the aid of physicians, and instead of complaining of his pain, conversed with his friends upon those principles of philosophy which he had before maintained. At length, finding nature just exhausted, he ordered himself to be put into a warm bath, where, after refreshing himself with wine, and exhorting his friends not to forget his doctrines, he expired. His death happened in the second year of the 127th olympiad, or B.C. 271, and the seventy-third of hisage. He is said to have written a greater number of works from his own invention, than any other Grecian philosopher; but none are extant except a compendium of his doctrine, preserved by Laertius, and a few fragments dispersed among ancient authors. Not only did the immediate followers of Epicurus adorn the memory of their master with the highest honours, but many eminent writers, who have disapproved of his philosophy, have expressed great respect for his personal merit. Yet it cannot be denied that from the time when this philosopher appeared to the present day, an uninterrupted course of censure has fallen upon his memory; so that the name of his sect has almost become a proverbial expression for every thing corrupt in principle, and infamous in character. The charges brought against Epicurus are, that he superseded all religious principles, by dismissing the Gods from the care of the world; that if he acknowledged their existence, it was only in conformity to popular prejudice, since, according to his system, nothing exists in nature but material atoms; that he discovered great insolence and vanity in the disrespect with which he treated the memory of former philosdphers, and the characters and persons of his contemporaries; and that both the master and the whole fraternity were addicted to the vilest and most infamous vices. These accusations against the Epicurean school have been more or less confirmed by men distinguished for their wisdom and virtue, by Zeno, Cicero, Plutarch, Galen, and many of the Christian fathers. By what, therefore, are they to be repelled Brucker, who has examined this question with, his usual acuteness and erudition, observes, that with respect to the first charge, that of impiety, it certainly admits of no refutation. The doctrine of Epicurus concerning nature, not only militated against the superstitions of the Athenians, but against the agency of a supreme deity in the formation and government of the world; and his misconceptions with respect to mechanical motion, and the nature of divine happiness, ld him in his system to divest the Deity of some of his primary attributes. It does not indeed appear that he entirely denied the existence of superior powers. Cicero, who is unquestionably to be ranked among his opponents, relates, that Epicurus wrote books concerning piety, and the reverence due to the gods, expressed in terms which might have become a priest; and he charges him with inconsistency, in maintaining that the gods ought to be worshipped, whilst he asserted, that they had no concern in human affairs; herein admitting, that he revered the gods, but neither through hope nor fear, merely on account of the majesty and excellence of their nature. But if, with the utmost contempt for popular superstitions, Epicurus retained some belief in, and respect for, invisible natures, it is evident that his gods were destitute of many of the essential characters of divinity, and that his piety was of a kind very different from that which is inspired by just notions of Deity. Not to urge, that there is some reason to suspect, that what he taught concerning the gods might have been artfully designed to screen him from the odium and hazard which would have attended a direct avowal of atheism. The second charge against Epicurus, that of insolence and contempt towards other philosophers, seems scarcely compatible with the general air of gentleness and civility which appears in his character. If he claimed to himself the credit of his own system, he did no more than Zeno, Plato, and Aristotle, after availing themselves of every possible aid from former philosophers, had done before him. But, adds Brucker, calumny never appeared with greater effrontery, than in accusing Epicurus of intemperance and incontinence. That his character was distinguished by the contrary virtues appears not only from the numerous attestations brought by Laertius, but even from the confession of the most creditable opponents of his doctrine, particularly Cicero, Plutarch, and Seneca; and indeed this is sufficiently clear from the particulars which are related concerning his usual manner of living. But nothing can be a greater proof that his adversaries had little to allege against his innocence, than that they were obliged to have recourse to forgery. The infamous letters which Diotimus, or, according to Athcnucus, Theotimus, ascribed to him, were proved, in a public court, to have been fraudulently imposed upon the world, and the author of the imposition was punished. Whatever might be the case afterwards, therefore, there is little reason to doubt that, during the life of Epicurus, his garden was rather a school of temperance, than a scene of riot and debauchery.

, one of the most illustrious of the revivers of learning, was born at Rotterdam, October 28, 1467. His father Gerard, who was of Tergou, in that neighbourhood, fell in love with Margaret, the daughter of one Peter, a physician of Sevenbergen; and after promises of marriage, as Erasmus himself suggests, connected himself with her, though the nuptial ceremonies were not performed. From this intercourse Gerard had a son, whom Erasmus calls Anthony, in a letter to Lambert Grunnius, secretary to pope Julius II. and whose death, in another letter he tells us, he bore better than he did the death of his friend Frobenius. About two years after, Margaret proved with child again; and then Gerard’s father and brethren (for he was the youngest of ten children) beginning to be uneasy at this attachment, resolved to make him an ecclesiastic. Gerard, aware of this, secretly withdrew into Italy, and went to Rome; he left, however, a letter behind him, in which he bade his relations a final farewell; and assured them that they should never see his face more while they continued in those resolutions. At Rome he maintained himself decently by transcribing ancient authors, which, printing being not yet commonly used, was no unprofitable employment. In the mean time, Margaret, far advanced in her pregnancy, was conveyed to Rotterdam to lie in, privately; and was there delivered of Erasmus. He took his name from this city, and always called himself Roterodamus, though, as Dr. Jortin, the writer of his life, intimates, he should rather have said Roterodamius, or Roterodamensis. The city, however, was not in the least offended at the inaccuracy, but made proper returns of gratitude to a name by which she was so much ennobled; and perpetuated her acknowledgments by inscriptions, and medals, and by a statue erected and placed at first near the principal church, but afterwards removed to a Station on one of the bridges. Gerard’s relations, long ignorant what was become of him, at last discovered that he was at Rome and now resolved to attempt by stratagem what they could not effect by solicitation and importunity. They sent him word, therefore, that his beloved Margaret was dead; and he lamented the supposed misfortune with such extremity of grief, as to determine to leave the world, and become a priest. And even when upon his return to Tergou, which happened soon after, he found Margaret alive, he adhered to his ecclesiastical engagements; and though he always retained the tenderest affection for her, never more lived with her in any other manner than what was allowable by the laws of his profession. She also observed on her part the strictest celibacy ever after. During the absence of his father, Erasmus was under the care and management of his grandmother, Gerard’s mother, Catharine. He was called Gerard, after his father, and afterwards took the name of Desiderius, which in Latin, and the surname of Erasmus, which in Greek, signify much the same as Gerard among the Hollanders, that is, “amabilis,” or amiable. Afterwards he was sensible that he should in grammatical propriety have called himself Erasmius, and in fact, he gave this name to his godson, Joannes Erasmius Frobenius. As soon as Gerard was settled in his own country again, he applied himself with all imaginable care to the education of Erasmus, whom he was determined to bring up to letters, though in low repute at that time, because he discovered in him early a very uncommon capacity. There prevails indeed a notion in Holland, that Erasmus was at first of so heavy and sl9w an understanding, that it was many years before they could make him learn any thing; and this, they think, appears from a passage in the life written by himself, where he says, that “in his first years he made but little progress in those unpleasant studies, for which he was not born; in literis ill is inamoenis, quibus non natus erat.” When he was nine years old, he was sent to Dav enter, in Guelderland, at that time one of the best schools in the Netherlands, and the most free from the barbarism of the age; and here his parts very soon shone 'out. He apprehended in an instant whatever was taught him, and retained it so perfectly, that he infinitely surpassed all his companions. Rhenanus tells us that Zinthius, one of the best masters in the college of Daventer, was so well satisfied with Erasmus’s progress, and so thoroughly convinced of his great abilities, as to have foretold what afterwards came to pa>s, that “he would some time prove the envy and wonder of all Germany.” His memory is said to have b~?en so prodigious, that he was able to repeat all Terence and Horace by heart. We must nojt forget to observe, that pope Adrian VI. was his schoolfellow, and ever after his friend, and the encourager of his studies.

From Daventer, Erasmus was immediately removed to Tergou, the plague being in the house where he lodged; and now, about fourteen years o/ age, was left entirely to the care of guardians, who used him very ill; and although he was of an age to be sent to a university, they determined to force him into a monastery, that they might possess his patrimony; amd they feared that an university might create in him a disgust to that way of life. The chief in this plot was one Peter Winkell, a schoolmaster of Tergou, to whom there is a very ingenious epistle of Erasmus extant, in which he expostulates with him for his ill management and behaviour. They sent him first to a convent of friars at Bois-le-duc, in Brabant, where he lived, or rather, as he expresses it, lost three years of his life, having an utter aversion to the monastic state. Then he was sent to another religious house at Sion, near Delft; and afterwards, no effect towards changing his resolutions having been wrought upon him at Sion, to a third, namely, Stein, near Tergou. Here, unable to sustain the conflict any longer with his guardians and their agents, he entered among the regular canons there, in 1486. Though great civilities were shewn to him upon his entrance into this convent, and in compliance with his humour some laws and ceremonies were dispensed with, yet he had a design of leaving it before he made his profession; but the restless contrivances of his guardians, and particularly the ill state of his affairs, got the better of his inclinations, and he was at length induced to make it. A monastery, as monasteries then were, and such as Erasmus afterwards described them, devoid of all good learning and sound religion, must needs be an irksome place to one of his turn: at Stein, however, it was no small comfort to him to lind a young man of parts, who had the same taste for letters with himself, and who afterwards distinguished himself by a collection of elegant poems, which he published under the title of “Dearum Sylva.” This was William Hermann, of Tergou, with whom he contracted a very intimate friendship, which continued after his departure from Stein; and accordingly, we find among his letters some that were written to Hermann. The two earliest letters now extant, of Erasmus, were written from this monastery of Stein to Cornelius Aurotinus, a priest of Tergou; in which he defends with great zeal the celebrated Laurentius Valla against the contemptuous treatment of Aurotinus.

Erasmus, however, had no disposition for this way of life. “Convents,” he says, “were places of impiety rather than of religion, where every thing was done to which a depraved inclination could lead, under the sanction and mask of piety; and where it was hardly possible for any one to keep himself pure and unspotted.” This account he gives of them in a piece “De contemptu inundi,” which he drew up at Stein, when he was about twenty years of age; and which was the first thing he ever wrote. At length, the happy moment arrived when he was to quit the monastery of Stein. Henry a Bergis, bishop of Cambray, who was preparing at that time for Rome, with a view of obtaining a cardinal’s hat, wanted some person to accompany him who could speak and write Latin with accuracy and ease. Erasmus’s fame not being confined to the cloister, he applied to the bishop of Utrecht, as well as the prior of the convent, and they having given their consent, Erasmus went to Cambray, but soon found to his mortification that for certain reasons the bishop dropped his design. Still, as he was now loose from the convent, he went, with the leave and under the protection of the bishop, to study at the university of Paris. He was in orders when He went to Cambray; but was not made a priest till 1492, when he was ordained upon the 25th of February, by the bishop of Utrecht.

There was another Eustratius, a priest of Constantinople, whose time is not exactly known, but conjectured to be the sixth century. Photius has given a character of his writings, and an account of a work by him on the state of the dead, and a life of the patriarch Eutychius.

, a historian of Benevento, of the twelfth century, was notary and secretary to pope Innocent II. and was also a judge or magistrate of Benevento. He wrote a curious chronicle of events strikingly told, but in a bad style, which happened from 1102 to 1140. Mirseus says that Falco’s readers are as much impressed as if they had been present at what he relates. This chronicle was first printed by Ant. Caraccioli, a priest of the order of regular clerks, along with three other chroniclers, under the title “Antiqui chronologi quatuor,” Naples, 1626, 4to. It has since been reprinted in Muratori’s and other collections.

, an English monk of the fifth century, was created abbot of a monastery in the Lerin islands about the year 433, and afterwards bishop of Riez in Provence, about the year 466. The time of his death is uncertain. He wrote a homily on the life of his predecessor in the see, Maximus; which is extant among those attributed to Eusebius Emisenus. He governed his diocese unblamcably, led a holy life, and died regretted and esteemed by the church. In the grand controversy of the fifth century, he rather favoured the Semi-Pelagians, which a recent historian attributes to his fear of the abuses of predestination, and a misunderstanding of the consequences of Augustine’s doctrine. It is certain that in a treatise which he wrote on saving grace, he shewed that grace always allures, precedes, and resists the human will, and that all the reward of our lahour is the gift of God. In a disputation, likewise, with Lucidus, a priest, who was very tenacious of the sentiments of Augustine, Faustus endeavoured to correct his ideas by suggesting, that we must not separate grace and human industry; that we must abhor Pelagius, and yet detest those who believe, that a man may be of the number of the elect, without labouring for salvation.

, a priest of Riom, once well known by his singular opinions, entered the congregation of the oratory in 1662, but was obliged to quit it in 1671, being a friend to Cartesianism, which was then a heresy. He preached against the conduct of Innocent XI. towards France, and published a treatise on the Trinity 1696, in which appearing to favour tritheisnr, he was confined at St. Lazare in Paris, but afterwards received orders from the king to retire to his country, where he died 1709. He left “a life of St. Amable,” 12mo; “Remarks on Homer, Virgil, and the poetical style of Scripture,” 2 vols. 12mo; a collection in Latin verse, and French prose, entitled, “Tombeau de M. de Santeuil,” 12mo; '“La Telemacomanie, ou Critique du Telemaque de M. Fenelon,” 12mo, a foolish attack on Fenelon’s celebrated performance. All his works contain singular opinions, great reading and learning, but little taste or judgment. “Le Moines emprunte*s,” 2 vols. 12mo, have been attributed to him, but they are by Haitze.

, a native of Venice, who flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century, established a great reputation at that time by his translations from Greek authors, a task which few, comparatively, were then able to perform. He translated, among others, the sixth book of Paul ^gineta, 1533 Aristotle’s Ethics, Venice, 1541, fol.; “Alexandri Aphrodisiensis Commentarius in primum priorum Analyticbrum Aristotelis,” ibid. 1542, fol. “Ammonii Hermeae Comment, in Isagogen Porphyrii,” ibid. 1545, 8vo “Porphyrius de abstinentia animalium,” ibid. 1547, 4to and “Oecumenius in Acta et Epistolas Catholicas,” Basil, 1552, 8vo. We have no account of his life or death, but he appears to have been a priest of the Benedictine order, and esteemed for his learning.

, was a priest and canon of St. Cloud near Paris, whose preaching, those of his communion say, was zealous, and his doctrine sound. He had acquired a kind of licence to speak with the utmost freedom to persons of the first rank at court, and reprove their irregularities from whence this verse of the 119th Psalm was applied to him “I will speak of thy testimonies also, even before kings, and will not be ashamed.” Feuillet converted many sinners, which Boiieau alludes to when he says, “Laissez a Feuillet reformer Punivers;” and was the principal instrument in the conversion of M. de Chanteau, cou sin-german of M. de Caumartin, counsellor of state. The very instructive History he gave of this conversion was printed, with some of his other works, 1702, 12mo, and has been several times reprinted. Feuillet died at Paris, September 7, 1693, aged seventy-one. He left some “Letters,” and a “Funeral Oration” on Henrietta of England, duchess of Orleans.

, a learned Genoese, was born in that city in 1518, and descended from a noble family. Some writers have styled him a priest, but we do not find him in any of his writings assuming any other title than that of a Genoese noble. The troubles which agitated his country induced him to write a work by which they might be quieted, the subject of which was the distinction between noble and plebeian families; but he took so many liberties with the characters of the nobles, that they procured his banishment, a treatment which suggested to him as his future device, a lighted tiambeau with the inscription “Officio mihi officio.” Moreri says that he took an active part in the troubles at Genoa, which was the cause of his banishment, but this does not appear to have been the case. He submitted, however, to his sentence, like a philosopher, and applied his leisure to the cultivation of his mind. He chose Rome as the place of his retirement, and there acquired the patronage of Hippolyto cardinal d'Este, who received him into his house, where he died in 1581. His works were numerous, of which the following are the chief: 1. “Historia Genuensium, lib. 12.” L535, folio; diffuse, but faithful and elegant; translated into Italian by Francesco Sardonati. 2i “De ratione scribendae HistQrise.” 3. “Conjuratio Johannis Ludovici Flisci,” Neapoli, 1571, 4to, a very rare edition. 4. “Elogia clarorurn Ligurum,” 1574, 4to. 5. “De Linguae Latinae usu et prsestantia,” Romse, 1574, repubiished by Mosheim, 1723, with a life of the anthor. 6. “De causis magnitudinis Turcarum imperil.” 7. “Delia Republica di Genoa,” 8vo. 8. “Opuscula nonnulla,” 1574, 4to. Most of these works are scarce. His Latin style was peculiar, elegant, and pure, and his judgment at once accurate and sound.

, an eminent lexicographer, was born in a small village of Treviso in the Venetian territories, August 16, 1688. His family was obscure, and scarcely wealthy enough to afford him a literary education. He went through his studies in the seminary of Padua, where his principal instructor was the celebrated philologist Facciolati, then professor in that place, and only six years older than himself. Evincing an early predilection for the church, he was at a proper age ordained a priest, soon after which he was appointed spiritual director to the seminary in which he had been educated. After having filled that station for nine years, he removed, in 1724, to Ceneda, in the same capacity; but in 1731 he was recalled to Padua, and remained there till 1765, when be retired to his native place, with the design of passing his last years in the bosom of his family.

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

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

In the first attack he had been relieved by bleeding, which, however, so much enfeebled him, that he never recovered his former strength. Yet this, as the only remedy in his case, was judged necessary by his physicians. He had suffered this depletion for the ninth time, when, perceiving himself to be too much sunk, he modestly proposed to forbear a repetition, as thinking himself not able to undergo it; and two of his physicians had yielded to this suit, when a third, obstinately insisting on the contrary, drew his colleagues into his opinion. Gassendi submitted, and the operation was repeated even to the fourth time, at which, holding out his arm for the purpose, he said to Peter his amanuensis, who constantly attended him, “It is more eligible by this deprivation of strength to sleep quietly in Christ, than to be taken off with more pain by suffocation.” Having undergone the operation, he presently felt himself approaching to his last hour, and sent for a priest to administer the viaticum; which being given, he expired about four in the afternoon, on Sunday, Oct. 22, 1655, in the sixty-third year of his age. At his death, his hand was found upon the region of his heart, which place he had frequently desired his amanuensis to touch, in order to mark its motion, which when this attendant observed to be very faint and fluttering, he said, “You see what is man’s life” which were the last words he spoke.

His large and valuable library, together with his astronomical and philosophical apparatus, was purchased by the emperor Ferdinand III. and afterwards deposited, with other choice collections, in the imperial library at Vienna. The edition of his "works above mentioned contains the philosophy and life of Epicurus the author’s own philosophy; his astronomical works the lives of Peiresc, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Pnrbach, Regiomontanus, John Muller, &c. a refutation of the Meditations of Des Cartes; Epistles; and other treatises. Bernier, a celebrated Freuch physician, has given an accurate view of the philosophy of Gassendi in his abridgment of it, published in French at Lyons, in 1684, in eight volumes 12mo. The Life of Gassendi, accurately written by Bougerelle, a priest of the oratory, was published at Paris in 1737.

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

, or, as styled in his Latin works, Antonius Genuensis, an Italian writer of much reputation on subjects of political ceconomy in Italy, was born at Castelione, in November 1712. It not being probably the custom to educate the. eldest sons of Italian families for the church, his biographer, Fabroni, seems to complain of this as an act of severity on the part of Genovesi’s father. He received, however, a suitable education for this profession, and in due time was consecrated a priest; but his views of preferment being obstructed, he attempted the practice of the law, in which he was equally unsuccessful, and at length, when at Naples in 1741, was appointed professor of metaphysics. Some bold opinions delivered in the course of his lectures created a clamour against him, as advancing infidel principles, but he appears to have been befriended by Galiani, who was superintendant of the universities of Naples, and removed him to the professorship of ethics. In 1748 he was a candidate for the professorship of theology, but his notions had given such offence that he was rejected, which seems to have induced him to turn his mind to subjects of political oeconomy, particularly agriculture, in which there was less risk of offending either the principles or prejudices of his countrymen. A professorship was now founded for political ceconorny, and bestowed upon him with a handsome salary. This he continued to hold with the greatest reputation until his death in 1769. His private character appears to have been very amiable, and his works, although little known, and indeed little wanted in this country, were of essential service in the schools of Italy, and directed the attention of youth to subjects more connected with patriotism and public spirit than those they had been accustomed to study. They are, according to Fabroni, 1. “Disciplinarum metaphysicarum Elementa mathematicum in morem adornata,” 1744 1751, 4 vols. 8vo. 2. “Elementorum artis logico-criticte libri quinque,” Naples, 1745. 3. “Discorso sopra alcuni trattati d'Agricoitura,” ibid. 1753. 4. “Lettere Accademiche,” ibid. 1764. 5. A translation of Carey’s History of English Trade, under the title “Storia del Commercio della Gran Brettagna,” &c. 1757. 6. “Delle Lezioni di Commercio.” 7. “Discorso sopra rAgricoltura,” with a translation of Tull’s Husbandry. 8. “Discorso sul volgarizzamento del Saggio Francese’sulT Economia de‘ grain,’,' Naples, 1765. 9.” Meditazioni Filosoficbe sulla religione e sulla morale,“ibid. 1766, a work in which Fabroni says there is nothing new, or worthy of the author. 10.” Della Diceosina, o sia della filosofia del giusto e dell' onesto,“1766 1776, 3 rols. 11.” Universae Christiana Tbeologise elementa dogmatica, historica, critica," a posthumous work, Venice, 1771, 2 vols. 4to, on which the author had been employed from the year 1742, but leaving it imperfect, it was completed by the editor, with much trouble.

, in Latin Goveanus, a learned Portuguese, of the fourteenth century, was born at Beja, and appointed principal of the college of St. Barbe at Paris, where he educated three nephews, who became celebrated for their learning. Martial Govea, the eldest, was a good Latin poet, and published a “Latin Grammar” at Paris. Andrew, his next brother, a priest, born in 1498, succeeded his uncle as principal of St. Barbe, and gained so great a reputation there, that he was invited to accept the same office in the college of Guienne, at Bourdeaux. This invitation he accepted in 1534, and continued at Bourdeaux till 1547, when John III. king of Portugal, recalled him to his dominions, to establish a college at Coimbra, similar to that of Guienne; and Govea took with him into Portugal the celebrated Buchanan, Grouchi, Guerenti, Fabricius, la Costa, and other men of learning, well qualified to instruct youth. He died June 1S48, at Coimbra, leaving no printed work. Anthony Govea, the youngest of these three brothers, and the most eminent of all, wrote several pieces on philosophy and law, and is mentioned with great encomiums by Thuanus, Ronsard, and all the learned. He taught with reputation at Bourdeaux, afterwards at Cahors, and Valence in Dauphiny, and died in 1565, aged sixty, at Turin, to which place Philibert had invited him. His principal works are, an “Apologetical Discourse” against Calvin, who had accused him of atheism in his treatise on scandal; some works on law, fol.; “ Variarum lectionum Libri duo,” fol. editions of Virgil and Terence, with notes “Epigrammatum Libri duo,” and “Epistolee.” The whole was printed at Rotterdam, 1766, fol. Manfred Govea, his son, born at Turin, became distinguished for his knowledge of the belles lettres, civil and canon law, and was counsellor of state at the court of Turin. He died in 1613, leaving “Consilia;” “Notes on Julius Florus;” some “Poetry,” and a funeral oration on the death of Philip II. king of Spain.

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

* scarcely could skare away the kite;‘ can neither use plough or harrow, knows not * what land is good for what corn;’ unable to fill a cart or barrow from long use to writing; descants on the troubles and difficulties attending writing; says that ‘ hit is welle grett laboure,’ and contrasts very happily the life of an husbandman or artificer with that of a writer, adding that he has continued in writing twenty years and more. He ‘ whilom’ thought to have been a priest, but now is married, having long waited for a benefice; describes the corruption in his office, but that no share of the bribes come to the clerks. Name ‘ Okkleve’ acquainted with Chaucer has small knowledge of Latin and of French. He is advised to complain to the prince that he cannot get paid in the exchequer, and petition that his patent be removed into the haniper, but observes this cannot be done because of the ‘ ordinance,’ for

, a pious and learned translator of the Hebrew Scriptures, and commentator on them, was born at Paris in 168t>. In 1702 he became a priest of the congregation named the Oratory; and being-, by deafness, deprived of the chief comforts of society, addicted himself the more earnestly to books, in which he found his constant consolation. Of a disposition naturally benevolent, with great firmness of soul, goodness of temper, and politeness of manners, he was held in very general estimation, and received honours and rewards from the pope (Bened. XIV.) and from his countrymen, which he had never thought of soliciting. Though his income was’ but small, he dedicated a part of it to found a school near Chantilly; and the purity of his judgment, joined to the strength of his memory, enabled him to carry on his literary labours to a very advanced age. Even when his faculties had declined, and were further injured by the accident of a fall, the very sight of a book, that well-known gonsoler of all his cares, restored him to peace and rationality. He died Oct. 3 I, 1783, at the advanced age of ninetyeight. His works, for which he was no less esteemed in foreign countries than in his own, were chiefly these: 1. An edition of the Hebrew Bible, with a Latin version and notes, published at Paris in 1733, in 4 vols. folio. This is the most valuable and important work of the author, and contains the Hebrew text corrected by the soundest rules of criticism, a Latin version, and useful notes: and prefixed to each book is a very learned preface. Benedict XIV. who justly appreciated the value and difficulty of the work, honoured the author with a medal, and some other marks of approbation; and the clergy of his own country, unsolicited, conferred a pension on him. 2. A Latin translation of the Psalter, from the Hebrew, 1746, 12mo. 3. Another of the Old Testament at large, in 1753, in 8 vols. 8vo. 4. “Racines Hebraiques,” 1732, 8vo, against the points. 5. “Examen du Psautier des Capuchins,” 12mo, the mode of interpretation used in which, he thought too arbitrary. 6. A French translation of an English work by Forbes, entitled “Thoughts on Natural Religion.” 7. Most of the works of Charles Leslie translated, Paris, 1770, 8vo. Father Houhigant is said also to have left several works in manuscript, which, from the excellence of those he published, may be conjectured to be well deserving of the press. Among these are a “Traite des Etudes;” a translation of “Origen against Celsus;” a “Life of Cardinal Berulle;” and a complete translation of the Bible, according to his own corrections. The first of these was to have been published by father Dotteville, and the rest by Lalande, but we do not find that any of them have appeared.

, a celebrated French preacher, was born in 1640, and was contemporary with Bourdaloue, whom, indeed, he could not rival, but was skilful enough to please; being esteemed by him one of the first preachers of the time. He was a priest of the congregation of the Oratory, and no less remarkable for his gentle piety and profound humility, than for his eloquence. He excelled consequently rather in the touching style of the sacred, than the vivid manner of the temporal orator. He was used to say, that his brother Massillon was fit to preach to the masters, and himself to the servants. He died in. 1717, after displaying his powers in the provinces, in the capital, and at court. Eight years after his death, in 1725, his sermons were published at Paris, in 6 vols. 12mo, and were much approved by all persons of piety and taste. “His manner of reasoning,” says his editor, father Monteuil, “had not that dryness which frequently destroys the effect of a discourse; nor did he employ that studied elocution which frequently enervates the style by an excess of polish.” The best composition in these volumes is the funeral oration on Mary of Austria. As a trait of his humility, it is related, that on being told by a person in a large company, that they had been fellow-students; he replied, “I cannot easily forget it, since you not only lent me books, but gave me clothes.”

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Fuseli have spoken less respectfully of Hussey. The latter says, that “disdaining portraiture, discountenanced in history, Hussey was reduced to the solitary patronage of the then duke of Northumberland, who, says Edwards, * offered to receive him into his family, and to give him a handsome pension, with the attendance of a servant, upon condition that he should employ his talents chiefly,‘ though not exclusively, ’ for the duke. This offer he rejected, because the duke did not comply with the further request of keeping a priest for him in the house.' Hussey, a bigot in religion, was attached to the creed of Rome; but had he not been so, commis. sions and patronage, almost confined to drawing copies, ven from the antique, was certainly sufficiently provoking for a man of an original turn, to be rejected.” It is not strictly true, however, that the duke of Northumberland was his only patron. Mr. Duane was another, who possessed many of his works. Mr. West bought some penciled heads at Mr. Duane’s sale, and said of one of them, that “he would venture to show it against any head, ancient or modern; that it was never exceeded, if ever equalled; and that no man had ever imbibed the true Grecian character Vid art deeper than Giles Hussey.”

, a late venerable and pious divine of the church of England, was born at Lowick in Northumberland, July 30, 1726. His father was Morgan Jones, a Welsh gentleman, a descendant of Colonel Jones (but of very different principles) who married a sister of Oliver Cromwell. His mother was Sarah, the daughter of the Rev. Mr. Lettin, of Lowick. He was remarkable from his childhood for unwearied industry and ingmium versatile. As soon as he was of the proper age, he was admitted, on the nomination of the duke of Dorset, a scholar at the Charterhouse, where he made a rapid progress in Greek and Latin, and laid the foundation of that knowledge which has since given him a distinguished name in the Christian world. His turn for philosophical studies soon began to shew itself; for meeting, when at the Charter- house, with Zachary Williams, author of a magnetical theory, which is now lost, he copied some of his tables and calculations, was shewn the internal construction of his instrument for finding the variation of the compass in all parts of the world; and saw all the diagrams by which his whole theory was demonstrated and explained. At this school, too, he commenced an acquaintance with the late earl of Liverpool, which was farther cultivated at the university, where they were of the same college, and continued to the last, notwithstanding the great difference in their future destination, to entertain a respect for each other. When about eighteen years of age, he left the school, and went to University college, Oxford, on a Charterhouse exhibition. Among the several companions of his studies whom he loved and respected, there was no one dearer to him than Mr. George Home, afterwards bishop of Norwich. Between them “there was a sacred friendship a friendship made up of religious principles, which increased daily, by a similitude of inclinations, to the same recreations and studies.” Having taken the degree of B. A. in 1749, he was ordained a deacon by Dr. Thomas, bishop of Peterborough; and in 1751 was ordained a priest by another Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, at Bugden. On leaving the university, his first situation was that of curate of Finedon in Northamptonshire. There he wrote “A full Answer to bishop Clayton’s Essay on Spirit,” published in 1753. In this tract, many curious and interesting questions are discussed, and several articles in the religion and learning of heathen antiquity explained, particularly the Hermetic, Pythagorean, and Platonic Trinities. In 1754 he married Elizabeth, daughter of the Rev. Brook Bridges, and went to reside at Wadenhoe in Northamptonshire, as curate to his brother-in-law, the Rev. Brook Bridges, a gentleman of sound learning, singular piety, and amiable manners.

The account Jonson gave of himself to Drummond is jiot uninteresting. It was first published in the folia editiort of Drummond’s Works, 1711. “He,” Ben Jonson, "said that his grandfather came from Carlisle, to which he had come from Annandale in Scotland that he served king Henry VIII. and was a gentleman. His father lost his estate under queen Mary, having been cast in prison and forfeited; and at last he turned minister. He was posthumous, being born a month after his father’s death, and was put to school by a friend. His master was Camden. Afterwards he was taken from it, and put to another craft, viz. to be a bricklayer, which he could not endure, but went into the Low Countries, and returning home he again betook himself to his wonted studies. In his service in the Low Countries, he had, in the view of both the armies, killed an enemy, and taken the opima spolia from him; and since coming to England, being appealed to in. a duel, he had killed his adversary, who had hurt him in the arm, and whose sword was ten inches longer than his. For this crime he was imprisoned, and almost at the gallows. Then he took his religion on trust of a priest, who visited him in prison. He was twelve years a papist; but after this he was reconciled to the church of England, and left off to be a recusant. At his first communion, in token of his true reconciliation, he drank out the full cup of wine. He was master of arts in both universities. In the time of his close imprisonment under queen Elizabeth, there were spies to catch him, but he was advertised of them by the keeper. He had an epigram on the spies. He married a wife, who was a shrew, yet honest to him. When the king came to England, about the time that the plague was in London, he (Ben Jonson) being in the country at sir Robert Cotton’s house, with old Camden, saw in a vision his eldest son, then a young child, and at London, appear unto him with the mark of a bloody cross on his forehead, as if it had been cut with a sword; at which, amazed, he prayed unto God, and in the morning he came to Mr. Camden’s chamber to tell him, who persuaded him it was but an apprehension, at which he should not be dejected. In the mean time came letters from his wife, of the death of that boy in the plague. He appeared to him, he said, of a manly shape, and of that growth he thinks he shall be at the resurrection.

, or Josephus Iscanus, a writer of considerable taste and elegance, in an age generally reputed barbarous, was a native of Devonshire, and flourished in the close of the twelfth, and the commencement of the thirteenth centuries. He was an ecclesiastic, and patronized by Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury. Some say that he was a priest of the cathedral of Exeter, from which he took his name. According to Camden, he accompanied Richard I. of England into the Holy Land, and was a great favourite with that prince. By archbishop Baldwin’s interest he was made archbishop of Bourdeaux, where he is supposed to have died in the reign of Henry III. and to have been buried in the cathedral of that city. He was author of two epic poems in Latin heroics. The first, in six books, is on the Trojan war the other is entitled “Antiochesis,” the war of Antioch, or the Crusade; of this last only a fragment remains, in which the heroes of Britain are celebrated. His style is not only for the most part pure, but rich and ornamented, and his versification approaches the best models of antiquity. His diction is compounded chiefly of Ovid, Statius, and Claudian, the favourite poets of the age, and wants only Virgilian chastity. “Italy,” says Warton in his History of English Poetry, “had at that time produced no poet comparable to him.” He was also author of love verses, epigrams, and miscellaneous poems. His “De Bello Trojano, lib. V.” was published at Basil, 1541, 8vo; Lond. 1675, 8vo Francfcnt, 1620, 4to, and ibid. 1623; Amst. 1702, 4to. All that remains of his “Antiochesis” is printed in Warton’s “Ftistory of English Poetry.” His love-verses, &c. are lost.

, son of the rev. Peregrine King, was born at Stepney, in Mfddlesex, in 1685; and, after a school-education at Salisbury, was entered of Baliol-college, Oxford, July 9, 1701. Proceeding on the law line, he took his doctor’s degree in 1715; was secretary to the duke of Ormond and the earl of Arran, when chancellors of the university; and was made principal of St. Maryhall, in 1718. When he was candidate for the university, in 1722, he resigned his office of secretary; but his other preferment he enjoyed (and it was all he did enjoy) to the time of his death. Dr. Clarke, who opposed him, carried his election; and, after this disappointment, 1727, he went over to Ireland. With what design he went thither is to us unknown; but his enemies say, it was for the purposes of intrigue, and to expose himself to sale. But he says himself, and there are no facts alleged to disprove it, “At no time of my life, either in England or Ireland, either from the present or any former government, have I asked, or endeavoured by any means to obtain, a place, pension, or employment, of any kind. 1 could assign many reasons for my conduct; but one answer I have always ready: I inherited a patrimony, which I found sufficient to supply all my wants, and to leave me at liberty to pursue those liberal studies, which afforded me the most solid pleasures in my youth, and are the delight and enjoyment of my old age. Besides, I always conceived a secret horror of a state of servility and dependence: and I never yet saw a placeman or a courtier, whether in a higher or lower class, whether a priest or a layman, who was his own master.” During his stay in Ireland, he is said to have written an epic poem, called “The Toast,” bearing the name of Scheffer, a Laplander, as its author, and of Peregrine O' Donald, esq. as its translator; which was a political satire, and was printed and given away to friends, but never sold. Dr. Warton says that the countess of Newburgh was aimed at in this satire.

Dr. Robertson, in describing this business, says, “While their minds were in that ferment which the queen’s perfidiousness and their own danger occasioned, Knox mounted the pulpit, and, by a vehement harangue against idolatry, inflamed the multitude with the utmost rage. The indiscretion of a priest, who, immediately after Knox’s discourse, was seen preparing to celebrate mass, and began to decorate the altar for that purpose, precipitated them into immediate action. With tumultuous, but irresistible violence, they fell upon the churches in that city, overturned the altars, defaced the pictures, broke in pieces the images, and proceeding next to the monasteries, laid those sumptuous fabrics almost level with the ground. This riotous insurrection was not the effect of any concert, or previous deliberation. Censured by the reformed preachers, and publicly condemned by the persons of most power and credit with the party, it must be regarded merely as an accidental eruption of popular rage.” From this time Mr. Knox continued to promote the reformation by every means in his power, sparingno pains, nor fearing any danger. Mr. Knox, by his correspondence with secretary Cecil, was chiefly instrumental in establishing those negotiations between “The Congregation” and the English, which terminated in the march of an English army into Scotland to assist the protestants, and to protect them against the persecutions of the queen-regent. This army, being joined by almost all the great men of Scotland, proceeded with such vigour and success, that they obliged the French forces, who had been the principal supports of the tyranny of the regent, to quit the kingdom, and restored the parliament to its former independency. Of that body, a great majority had embraced the protestant opinions, and encouraged by the zeal and number of their friends, they improved every opportunity in overthrowing the whole fabric of popery. They sanctioned the confession of faith presented to them by Knox, and the other reformed teachers: they abolished the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, and transferred the causes to the cognizance of the civil courts; and they prohibited the exercise of religious worship, according to the rites of the Romish church. In August 1561, the queen arrived from France, and immediately set up a private mass in her own chapel; which afterwards, by her protection and countenance, was much frequented. This excited the zeal of Knox, who expressed great warmth against allowing it: and, an act of the privy-council being proclaimed at Edinburgh the 25th of that month, forbidding any disturbance to be given to this practice, under pain of death, Knox openly, in his sermon the Sunday following, declared, that “one mass was more frightful to him than ten thousand armed enemies, landed in any part of the realm.' 1 This freedom gave great offence to the court, and the queen herself had a long conference with him upon that and other subjects. In 1563, he preached a sermon, in which he expressed his abhorrence of the queen’s marrying a papist; and her majesty, sending for him, expressed much passion, and thought to have punished him; but was prevailed on to desist at that time. The ensuing year, lord Darnley, being married to the queen, was advised by the protestants about the court, to hear Mr. Knox preach, as thinking it would contribute much to procure the good-will of the people he accordingly did so but was so much offended at his sermon, that he complained to the council, who silenced Knox for some time. His text was Isaiah xxiv. 13 and 17,” O Lord, our God, other lords than Thou have reigned over us.“From these words he took occasion to speak of the government of wicked princes, who, for the sins of the people, are sent as tyrants and scourges to plague them; and, among other things, he said, that” God sets over them, for their offences and ingratitude, boys and women."

, an English lawyer, was a native of Somersetshire, and educated at Oxford, in St. John’s college, as Wood was informed, where, he adds, he made considerable proficiency in literature. Afterwards he removed to the Middle Temple, but being of a delicate habit, does not appear to have practised as a barrister. Some years before his death, he had embraced the Roman catholic religion, influenced by the artifices of a priest or Jesuit who prevailed on him to leave his estate to the society of Jesuits. He died at Hayes in Middlesex, in August 1655. He was the reporter of certain “Cases in the first three years of K. Car. I.” which were published in French, by Edward Walpole, 1662, folio.

, an eminent French historian and bibliographer, was born at Paris, April 19, 1665. His mother dying while he was very young, his father married again, and entrusted his education to one of his relations, a priest, who was director of the religious at Estampes. After he had been taught grammar and Latin for two or three years under this ecclesiastic, his father sent him to Malta, with a view to procure him admission among the clerks of the order of St. John of Jerusalem. He had scarcely arrived here when the plague broke out, to which he incautiously exposed himself; but although he escaped the contagion, he fancied that the air of Malta did not agree with him, and obtained leave of his superiors to return to Paris, where he might prosecute his studies in the classics, philosophy, and divinity. As he had not taken the vows in the order of St. John, he had no sooner completed his studies at home, than he entered into the congregation of the oratory. His year of probation being passed, he was sent to the college of Jully, where he taught mathematics, and went afterwards to the seminary of Notre Dame des Vertus, where he employed his leisure time in study, particularly of philosophy, which brought him acquainted with father Malbranche. On his return to Paris he was appointed to the care of the library belonging to the fathers of the oratory, a place for which he was admirably qualified, as he was not only acquainted with Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and the Chaldean, but with the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and English languages, and had a very extensive knowledge of literary history, of books, editions, and printing. The continual pains, however, which he bestowed on this library, and on his own publications, undermined his constitution, which was originally delicate, and brought on a complaint in the chest, which proved fatal, Aug. 13, 1721, in the fifty. sixth year of his life. His time for many years had been divided between devotion and study; he allowed very little to sleep, and less to the table. Although a man of extensive knowledge, and often consulted, he was equally modest and unaffected. In all his researches he shewed much acuteness and judgment, but the course of his studies had alienated him from works of taste and imagination, for which he had little relish. His principal object was the ascertaining of truth in matters of literary history; and the recovery of dates and other minutiae, on which he was frequently obliged to bestow the time that seemed disproportionate, was to him a matter of great importance, nor was he to be diverted from such accuracy by his friend Malbranche, who did not think philosophy concerned in such matters. “Truth,” said Le Long, “is so valuable, that we ought not to neglect it even in trifles.” His works are, 1. “Methode Hebraique du P. Renou,” 1708, 8vo. 2. “Bibliotheca Sacra, sive syllabus omnium ferme Sacrse Scripture eclitionum ac versionum,” Paris, 1709, 8vo, 2 vols. Of this a very much enlarged edition was published at Paris in 1723, 2 vols. fol. by Desmolets. Another edition was begun by Masch in 1778, and between that and 1790, 5 vols. 4to were published, but the plan is yet unfinished. 3. “Discours historique sur les principales Editions des Bibles Polyglottes,” Paris, 1713, 8vo, a very curious work. 4. “Histoire des demelez du pape Boniface VIII. avec Philippe Le Bel, roi de France,” 1718, 12mo, a posthumous work of M. Baillet, to which Le Long added some documents illustrating that period of French history. 5. “Bibliotheque Historique de France,” 1719, fol. a work of vast labour and research, and perhaps the greatest of all his undertakings. It has since been enlarged by Ferret de Fontette and others, to 5 vols. fol. 1768—78, and is the most comprehensive collection of the kind in any language. The only other publication of M. Le Long was a letter to M. Martin, minister of Utrecht, with whom he had a short controversy respecting the disputed text in 1 John, v. 7.

In October 1524, Luther threw off the monastic habit; which, though not premeditated and designed, was yet a very proper preparative to a step he took the year after; we mean, his marriage with Catherine de Bore. Catherine cie Bore was a gentleman’s daughter, who had been a nun, and was one of those whom we mentioned as escaping from tue nunnery in 1523. Luther had a design to marry her to Glacius, a minister of Ortamuncien; but she did not like Glacius, and Luther married her himself, June 13, 1525. This conduct of his was blamed not only by the catholics, but, as Melancthon says, by those of his own party. He was even for some time ashamed of it himself; aud owns, “that his marriage had made him so despicable, that he hoped his humiliation would rejoice the angels, and vex the devils.” Melancthon found him so afflicted with what he had done, that he wrote some letters of consolation to him: he adds, however, that “this accident may possibly not be without its use, as it tends to humble him a little: for it is dangerous,” says he, “not only for a priest, but for any man, to be too much elated and puffed up; great success giving occasion to the sin of a high mind, not only, as the orator says, in fools, but sometimes even in wise men.” It was not so much the marriage, as the circumstances of the time, and the precipitation with which it was done, that occasioned the censures passed upon Luther. He married very suddenly, and at a time when Germany was groaning under the miseries of war, which was said at least to be owing to Lutheranism. It was thought also an indecent thing in a man of forty-two years of age, who was then, as he declared, restoring the gospel and reforming mankind, to involve himself in marriage with a woman of six and twenty, upon any pretext. But Luther, as soon as he had recovered himself a little from this abashment, assumed his former air of intrepidity, and boldly supported what he had done with reasons. “I took a wife,” says he, “in obedience to my father’s commands, and hastened the consummation, in or 1 r to prevent impediments, and stop the tongues of slanderers.” It appears from his own confessions, that,this reformer was very fond of Mrs. de Bore, and used to call her his Catherine; which occasioned some slanderous reflections and therefore, says he, “I married of a sudden, not only that J might not be obliged to hear the clamours which I knew would be raised against me, but to stop the mouths of those who reproached me with Catherine de Bore.” Luther also gives us to understand, that he did it partly as concurring with his grand scheme of opposing the catholics. “See,” says he, “because they are thus mad, I have so prepared myself, that, before I die, I may be found by God in the state in which I was created, and, if possible, retain nothing of my former popish life. Therefore let them rave yet more, and this will be their last farewell; for my mind presages, that I shall soon be called by God unto his grace: therefore, at my father’s commands, I have taken a xtife.” In another letter he speaks thus: “1 hope I shall live a little longer, and I would not deny this last obedience to my father, who required it in hopes of issue, and also to confirm the doctrines I have taught.”

, an ancient English poet, is recorded as one of the immediate successors of Chaucer. The few dates that have been recovered of his history are, that he was ordained a sub-deacon in 1339; a deacon in 1393, and a priest in 1397; from these it has been surmised that he was born about 1375, that is, twenty-five years before the death of Chaucer. There is a note of Wanley’s in the Harleian Catalogue (2251. 3.) which insinuates as if Lydgate did not die till 1482. This Dr. Percy thinks too long a date; he was, however, living in 1446, since in his “Philomela” he mentions the death of Henry duke of Warwick, who died that year. Some authorities place his death in 1461, and this date Mr. Ellis thinks is not improbable.

By this time Magliabechi was become so famous for the vast extent of his reading, and his amazing retention of what he had read, that he was frequently consulted by the learned, when meditating a work on any subject. For example, and a curious example it is, if a priest was going to compose a panegyric on any saint, and came to consult Magliabechi, he would immediately tell him, who had said any thing of that saint, and in what part of their works, and that sometimes to the number of above an hundred authors. He would tell not only who had treated of the subject designedly, but point out such as had touched upon it only incidentally; both which he did with the greatest exactness, naming the author, the book, the words, and often the very number of the page in which they were inserted. All this he did so often, so readily, and so exactly, that he came at last to be looked upon as an oracle, on account of the ready and full answers that he gave to all questions, that were proposed to him in any faculty or science whatever. The same talent induced the grand duke Cosmo III. to appoint him his librarian, and no man perhaps was ever better qualified for the situation, or more happy to accept it, He was also very conversant with the books in the Laurentian library, and the keeping of those of Leopold and Francis Maria, the two cardinals of Tuscany. Yet all this, it is said, did not appease his voracious appetite; he was thought to have read all the books printed before his time, and all in it. Doubtless this range, although very extensive, must be understood of Italian literature only or principally. Crescembini paid him the highest compliment on this. Speaking of a dispute whether a certain poem had ever been printed or not, he concluded it had not, “because Magliabechi had never seen it.” We learn farther that it was a general custom for authors and printers to present him with a copy of whatever they printed, which must have been a considerable help towards the very large collection of books which he himself made. His mode of reading in his latter days is said to have been this. When a book first came into his hands, he would look over the title-page, then dip here and there in the preface, dedication and advertisements, if there were any; and then cast his eyes on each of the divisions, the different sections, or chapters, and then he would be able to retain the contents of that volume in his memory, and produce them if wanted. Soon after he had adopted this method of what Mr. Spence calls “fore-shortening his reading,” a priest who had composed a panegyric on one of his favourite saints, brought it to Magliabechi as a present. He read it over in his new way, the title-page and heads of the chapters, &c. and then thanked the priest very kindly “for his excellent treatise.” The author, in some pain, asked him, “whether that was all that he intended to read of his book?” Magliabechi coolly answered, “Yes, for I know very well every thing that is in it.” This anecdote, however, may be explained otherwise than upon the principles of memory. Magliabechi knew all that the writers before had said of this saint, and he knew this priest’s turn and character, and thence judged what he would chuse out of them and what he would omit. Magliabechi had even a local memory of the place where every book stood, as in his master’s shop at first, and in the Pitti, and several other libraries afterwards; and seems to have carried this farther than only in relation to the collections of books with which he was personally acquainted. One day the grand duke sent for him after he was his librarian, to ask him whether he could get him a book that was particularly scarce. “No, sir,” answered Magliabechi; “for there is but one in the world; that is in the grand signior’s library at Constantinople, and is the seventh book on the second shelf on the right hand as you go in.” Though this extraordinary man must have lived a sedentary life, with the most intense and almost perpetual application to books, yet he arrived to a good old age. He died in his eighty-first year, July 14, 1714. By his will he left a very fine library of his own collectionfor the use of the public, with a fund to maintain it and whatever should remain over to the poor. By the funds which he left, by the addition of several other collections, and the bounty of some of the grand dukes, his library was so much augmented as to vie with some of the most considerable in Europe. Of this collection, a catalogue and description of the works printed in the fifteenth century was published by Fossi, under the tide “Catalogus codicum sseculo XV impressorum in Bibliotheca Magliabechiana, Florentiae adservantur,” Florence, 3 vols. fol. 1793—1795.

This poet was a man of a very singular humour; and many anecdotes are related of his peculiarities, by Racan, his friend and the writer of his life. A gentleman of the law, and of some distinction, brought him one day some indifferent commendatory verses on a lady; telling him at the same time, that some very particular considerations had induced him to compose them. Malherbe having run them over with a supercilious air, asked the gentleman bluntly, as his manner was, “whether, he had been sentenced to be hanged, or to make those verses?” His manner of punishing his servant was likewise characteristic, and partook not a little of the caprice of Swift. Besides twenty crowns a year, he allowed this servant ten-pence a day board wages, which in those times was very considerable; when therefore he had done any thing amiss, Malherbe would very gravely say: “My friend, an offence against your master is an offence against God, and must be expiated by prayer, fasting, and giving of alms; wherefore I shall now retrench five-pence out of your allowance, and give them to the poor on your account.” From other accounts it may be inferred that his impiety was at least equal to his wit. When the poor used to promise him that they would pray to God for him, he answered them, that “he did not believe they could have any great interest in heaven, since they were left in so bad a condition upon earth; and that he should be better pleased if the duke de Luyne, or same other favourite, had made him the same promise.” He would often say, that “the religion of gentlemen was that of their prince.” During his last sickness he was with great difficulty persuaded to confess to a priest; for which he gave this reason, that “he never used to confess but at Easter.” And some few moments before his death, when he had been in a lethargy two hours, he awaked on a suddea to reprove his landlady, who waited on him, for using a word that was not good French; saying to his confessor, who reprimanded him for it, that “”he could not help it, and that he would defend the purity of the French language to the last moment of his life."

In consequence of a disagreement with the viceroy, who had occasioned the recall of general Stuart, colonel Moore arrived in England in Nov. 1795, and was immediately appointed a brigadier-general in the West Indies, and attached to a brigade of foreign corps, which consisted of Choiseul’s hussars, and two corps of emigrants. On Feb. 25, 1796, he received an order to take charge of, and embark with general Perryn’s brigade, going out with the expedition to the West Indies, under sir Ralph Abercrombie; that officer having unexpectedly sailed in the Vengeance, 74, and left his brigade behind. General Moore, although he had no previous intimation that he was to embark, hurried to Portsmouth, and having time only to prepare a few necessaries, sailed for the West Indies with the fleet at day-light on the 28th, with no other baggage than a small portmanteau, and not one regiment of his own brigade was in the fleet. On his arrival at Barbadoes, on the 13th of April, 1796, having had an opportunity of waiting on the commander-in-chief, sir Ralph Abercrombie, that sagacious and attentive observer very soon distinguished him, and in the course of the operations against St. LuciCj wjiich immediately followed, employed him in very arduous and difficult service which occurred. He had, in particular, opportunities, during the siege of Morne Fortunée at St. Lucie, which lasted from the 26th of April to the same day in May, of eminently distinguishing himself; and his conduct, as sir Ralph expressed in his public orders, was the admiration of the whole army. Sir Ralph, immediately on the capitulation, bestowed the command and government of the island on general Moore, who did all he could to induce sir Ralph to keep him with the army, and employ him in the reduction of the other islands, but without effect. Sir Ralph, in a manner, forced this important command upon him, at the same time giving him the most flattering reasons for wishing him to accept of it. The admiral and general sailed from St. Lucie on the 3d of June, leaving brigadier-general Moore in a situation which required, from what remained to be done in such a climate, perhaps more military talent, and a greater degree of exertion and personal risk, than even there had been occasion for during the reduction of the island; for, although the French commanding officer, and the principal post in the island, had surrendered, numerous bands of armed negroes remained in the woods; yet he at length succeeded in completely reducing these. Having, however, had two narrow escapes from violent attacks of yellovr fever, the last rendered it necessary that he should be relieved from the command of the island, and he returned to England in the month of July or August 1797. In Nov. following, sir Ralph Abercrombie having been appointed commander of the forces in Ireland, desired that brigadier-­general Moore might be put upon the staff in that country, which was done, and he accompanied sir Ralph to Dublin on the 2ddayof December 1797. During the period immediately preceding the rebellion in 1798, Moore had an important command in the south of Ireland, which was very disaffected, and was also the quarter where the enemy were expected to make a landing. His head-quarters were at Bandon, and his troops, amounting to 3000 men, were considered as the advanced corps of the south. When the rebellion broke out, he was employed first under major-general Johnstone, at New Ross, where the insurgents suffered much, and immediately afterwards was detached towards Wexford, at that time in the hands of the rebels. He had on this occasion only the 60th yagers, or sharp shooters, 900 light infantry, 50 of Hompesch’s cavalry, and six pieces of artillery. With these he had not marched above a mile before a large body of rebels appeared on the road, marching to attack him. He had examined the ground, as well as the short time would allow, in the morning, and thus was able to form his men to advantage. The rebels attacked with great spirit, but, after an obstinate contest, were driven from the field, and pursued with great loss. They amounted to about 6000 men, and were commanded by general Roche, a priest. After the action, the two regiments under lord Dalhousie arrived from Duncannon fort. It then being too late to proceed toTaghmone, which was his intention, the brigadier took post for the night on the ground where the action began. Next day on his march he was met by two men from Wexford with proposals from the rebels to lay down their arms, on certain conditions. As general Moore had no power to treat, he made no answer, but proceeded on to Wexford, which he delivered from the power of the rebels, who had piked or shot forty of their prisoners the day before, and intended to have murdered the rest if they had not been thus prevented.

Of his private character few particulars have been preserved: his temper was warm, but not hasty; and though. Fuller has accused him of using his scholars too harshly, we may make some allowance when we find he was educated under the same master with Ascham, Dr. Nicholas Udall, whose severity he perhaps imbibed. Like Ascham, he was fond of archery, a science once of national concern, and was a member of a society of archers, called Prince Arthur’s Knights, from that prince (brother of Henry VIII.), who was so fond of this amusement that his name became the proverbial appellation of an expert bowman. Mulcaster was an adherent of the reformed religion, a man of piety, and “a priest in his own house, as well as in the temple.” As a scholar he ranks high. His English productions boast an exuberance of expression not often found in the writers of his day; and his Latin works, not inelegant, were celebrated in their times. He enjoyed, likewise, very high reputation as a Greek and Oriental scholar, and on this last account was much esteemed by the celebrated Hugh Broughton.

He went on however in his career, and it is to be deeply regretted that the proceeding which immediately followed, has been thought to detract from the glories of his former life. He now set sail for Sicily, and on his arrival at Naples, was received as a deliverer by their majesties and the whole kingdom. But soon after the subjects of that monarch, discontented at his conduct, and supported by the French, drove him from his capital, after which they established, or rather proclaimed, “The Parthenopean Republic.” The zeal of cardinal Ruffo, however, who successfully mingled the character of a soldier with that of a priest, proved signally efficacious towards the restoration of the exiled monarch. Having marched to Naples at the head of a body of Calabrians, he obliged “the patriots,” as they were termed, who were in possession of all the forts, to capitulate; and to this treaty the English, Turkish, and Russian commanders acceded. On the appearance of lord Nelson, however, Ferdinand publicly disavowed “the authority of cardinal Ruffo to treat with subjects in rebellion,” and the capitulation was accordingly violated, with the exception of the prisoners in Castella Mare alone, which had surrendered to the English squadron under commodore Foote. For this part of lord Nelson’s conduct much has been pleaded, but the general opinion was that it could not be justified.

, a priest and monk of Mount Athos, flourished in the thirteenth century. He refused the patriarchate of Constantinople from his partiality to the Latin church, and being more inclined to peace than any of the Greeks of his time, la this spirit he composed two treatises concerning “The Procession of the Holy Ghost;” one addressed to James patriarch of Bulgaria, and the other to the emperor Theodore Lascaris, in both which he refutes those who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. These two tracts are printed in Greek and Latin, by Aliatius, who has also given us a letter, written by Blemmides on his expelling from the church of her convent the mistress of the emperor John Ducas. There are several other pieces of our author in the Vatican library.

, an eminent Russian prelate, was born in a village under the government of Nishnei Novogorod, in 1613. His parents were so obscure that neither their names nor stations are known. He was educated under the care of a monk in the convent of St. Macarius, and here he imbibed a strong and increasing prejudice in fa*­vour of the monastic life. In compliance, however, with the wishes of his family, he married, and was ordained a secular priest. The loss of his children by death disgusted him with the world, and he persuaded his wife to take the veil, whilst he became a monk. He retired into an island in the White Sea, and instituted a society in this solitude remarkable for its great austerities. He had not been in this place many years before he was made, after a series of ecclesiastical dignities, archbishop of Novogorod; and, finally, patriarch of Russia. He was not only eminent as a priest, but discovered the great and energetic talents of a statesman; and to them he fell a victim. In 1658 he was compelled to abdicate his dignity of patriarch, on which he returned to his cell, and lived over his former austerities; but his degradation did not satisfy the malice of his enemies, who procured his imprisonment. He obtained, after a number of years, his release, with permission to return to his favourite cell; but, whilst on the road to this spot, he expired in his 66th year, in 1681. Nicon did not spend his whole time in the performance of useless austerities, but occasionally employed himself in compiling a regular series of Russian annalists from Nestor, the earliest historian of that country, to the reign of Alexey Michaelovitch. This collection is sometimes called, from its author, “The Chronicle of Nicon,” and sometimes, from the place where it was begun and deposited, “The Chronicle of the Convent of Jerusalem.” It is considered as a work of authority.

, or Novatus, a priest of the church of Carthage, flourished in the third century, and was the author of a remarkable schism called after his name, or rather after the name of his associate Novatian, who, however, is also called Novatus by many ancient writers. He is represented by the orthodox as a person scandalous and infamous for perfidy, adulation, arrogance, and so sordidly covetous, that he even suffered his own father to perish with hunger, and spared not to pillage the goods of the church, the poor, and the orphans. It was in order to escape the punishment due to these crimes, and to support himself by raising disturbances, that he resolved to form a schism; and to that end entered into a cabal with Felicissimus, an African priest, who opposed St. Cyprian Novatus was summoned to appear before the prelate in the year 249; but the persecution, begun by Decius the following year, obliging that saint to retire for his own safety, Novatus was delivered from the danger of that process; and, not long after associating himself with Felicissimws, then a deacon, with him maintained the doctrine, that the lapsed ought to be received into the communion of the church without any form of penitence. In the year 2.51, he went to Rome, about the time of the election of pope Cornelius. There he met with Novatian, a priest, who had acquired a reputation for eloquence, and presently formed an alliance with him; and, although their sentiments with regard to the lapsed were diametrically opposite, they agreed to publish the most atrocious calumnies against the Roman clergy, which they coloured over so artfully, that many were deceived and joined their party. This done, they procured a congregation consisting of three obscure, simple, and ignorant bishops; and, plying them well with wine, prevailed upon them to elect Novatian bisuop of Rome. After this irregular election, Novatian addressed letters to St. Cyprian of Carthage, to Fabiuu of Antioch, and to Dionysius of Alexandria; but St. Cyprian refused to open his letter, and excommunicated his deputies: he had likewise sent to Rome before, ia order to procure the abolition of the schism. Fabius made himself pleasant at Novatian’s expence; and Dionysius declared to him, that the best way of convincing the world, that his election was made against his consent, would be to quit the see, for the sake of peace. On the contrary, Novatian now maintained his principal doctrine, that such as had fallen into any sin after baptism ought not to be re*­ceived into the church by penance; and he was joined in the same by Novatus, although he had originally maintained the contrary while in Africa. Novatian had been a Pagan philosopher before his conversion to Christianity, and it does not appear that he and his party separated from the church, on any grounds of doctrine, but of discipline, and it is certain, from some writings of Novatian still extant, that he was sound in the doctrine of the Trinity. He lived to the time of Valerian, when he suffered martyrdom. He composed treatises upon the “Paschal Festival, or Easter,” of -the “Sabbath,” of “Circumcision,” of the “Supreme Pontiff,” of “Prayer,” of the “Jewish Meats,” and of “the Trinity.” It is highly probable, that the treatise upon the “Trinity,” and the book upon the “Jewish Meats,” inserted into the works of Tertullian, were written by Novatian, and they are well written. There is an edition of his works by Whiston, 1709; one by Welchman; and a third, of 1728, with notes, by Jackson. With respect to the followers of Novatian, at the first separation, they only refused communion with those who had fallen into idolatry: afterwards they went farther, and excluded, for ever, from their communion, all such as had committed crimes for which penance was required; and at last they took away from the church the power of the keys, of binding and loosing offenders, and rebaptised those who had been baptised by the church. This sect subsisted a long time both in the east and west; but chiefly became considerable in the east, where they had bishops, both in the great sees and the small ones, parish-churches, and a great number of followers. There were also Novatians in Africa in the time of St. Leo, and in the east some remains continued till the eighth century.

It was about this time, in the beginning of Caracalla’s reign, that he went to Rome, under the pontificate of Zepherinus; and began that great celebrated work, called the “Tetrapla.” This was a Bible, in which, by the side of the Hebrew text, he had transcribed in different columns four translations, distinguished by verses; namely, the translation of the Seventy, that of Aquila, that of Symmachus, and that of Theodotion. He afterwards added two other versions, without any author’s name, and a seventh upon the Psalms only, which he found at Jericho: and these versions, with the Hebrew, which is written in Greek as well as Hebrew characters, make up what is called Origen’s “Hexapla,” which was the first attempt to compile those Polyglots to which the Christian world has been so much indebted. He had frequent occasion afterwards to leave Alexandria, first in consequence of the invitation of an Arabian prince to come and instruct him. A little while after, the city of Alexandria being miserably harassed by the emperor Caracalla for some affront put upon him, he retired into Palestine; and, settling in the city of Caesarea, the bishops of that province desired him, though he was not yet a priest, to expound the Scriptures publicly in that church, and to instruct the people in their presence; with which request he complied. But whether his bishop Demetrius secretly envied him this honour, or was really persuaded that they had violated the rules of the church, he wrote to these prelates, and told them, “it was a thing unheard of, and had never been practised till then, that laymen should preach in the presence of bishops:” to which Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus wrote back that “this had been often practised.” Demetrius, however, ordered Origen home, who obeyed, and betook himself to his first employment. Some time after, he was again diverted from it by order of the princess Mammira, who invited him to Antioch, that she might see and discourse with him: but he shortly returned to Alexandria, where he continued till the year 228. He then went again to Csesarea about some ecclesiastical affairs; and, as he passed through Palestine, was ordained priest by Alexander and Theoctistus. This ordination of Origen by foreign bishops so extremely incensed his diocesan Demetrius, that from this time his conduct towards Origen was marked by the most determined enmity. However, Origen returned to Alexandria, where he continued, as he had long ago begun, to write “Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures;” and he then published five books of “Commentaries upon St. John’s Gospel,” eight upon “Genesis,” “Commentaries upon the first 23 Psalms,” and upon the “Lamentations of Jeremiah” his books “De Principiis,” and his “Stromata;”

, a learned English divine, was born in Derbyshire in 1625, and in 1641 was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1645, and according to his epitaph, seems to have been fellow of that college, as he was afterwards of Christ’s. In this last he took the degree of M. A. in 1649, and that of D. D. in 1660. His first preferment was in Lincolnshire, and he appears to have succeeded Dr. Josias Shute in the rectory of St. Mary Woolnoth, which he resigned in 1666. On July 30, 1669, he was installed archdeacon of Leicester, to which he was collated by Dr. William Fuller, bishop of Lincoln. In July 1670 he was also installed prebendary of Westminster, and was some time rector or minister of St. Margaret’s, Westminster. He died August 23, 1679, aged fifty-four, and was interred in Westminster abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory, with a Latin inscription. In this he is recorded as “a complete divine in all respects, a nervous and accurate writer, and an excellent and constant preacher.” It is also noticed that intense application to study brought on the stone, which at last proved fatal to him. He was an accomplished scholar in the Oriental languages, as appears by his excellent work “De Sacrifices,” Loud. 1677. This is divided into two books: in the first he treats of the origin of sacrifices; the places for sacrificing, and the tabernacle and temple of the Jews. His object is to defend the doctrine of vicarious punishment, and of piacular or expiatory sacrifices, in opposition to the Socinian notions. In the second book he treats of the priesthood of Christ; proves that Christ is a priest properly so called; that his sacrifice is an expiatory sacrifice, which takes away the sins of mankind; that his death is a vicarious punishment, or, that he suffered for, and in the stead of, sinful men, &c. &c. Some of his sermons having been surreptitiously printed, his relations selected twenty from his Mss. which were published by Dr. James Gardiner, afterwards bishop of Lincoln. Of these a second edition appeared in 1697, 8vo, with a preface by the editor, in which he gives a high character of Dr. Ovvtram. Baxter also speaks highly of him, Peck has published, in his “Desiderata,” a fragment of one of Dr. Owtram’s sermons.

Having received deacon’s orders, he became curate to Dr. Hinchliffe, then vicar of Greenwich, and afterwards bishop of Peterborough; and when he left the academy above-mentioned, continued to officiate in the church. In June 1766 he was elected a fellow on the foundation of Christ’s college, and at the ensuing commencement took his degree of M. A. He did not, however, return to his residence in college until Oct. 1767, when he engaged in the business of private tuition, which was soon followed by his appointment to the office of one of the college tutors. On the 21st of December 1767, he was ordained a priest by bishop Terrick.

, a worthy ecclesiastic of the Romish church, was born April 24, 1576, and studied at Toulouse, where he was ordained a priest in 1600. On his return to Narbonne from Marseilles, his ship was taken by the Turks, and he remained for a considerable time in slavery, under three masters, the last of whom he converted. Returning at length to France, Louis XIII. made him abbot of St. Leonard de Chaulme, and he had afterwards the care of the parish church of Clichy, which he completely repaired and furnished at his own expence. Towards the end of 1609, he went to reside in the house of Emmanuel de Goudy, as tutor to his children, but does not appear to have remained here long. He then obtained the curacy of Chatillon-les-Dombes, which he kept only five months. Compelled by the solicitations of numberless persons of the highest distinction, to return, to the Goudy family, he resigned himself wholly to his natural desire of relieving the poor and afflicted. Louis XIII. being made acquainted with his zeal, appointed him almonergeneral of the gall ies, 1619; and the following year, St. Francis de Sales, because, as he says, he “knew not a worthier priest in the church,”made him superintendant of the nuns of the visitation. On niadame de Goudy’s decease, M. Vincent retired to the college des Bon Knfans, cf which he, wasprincipal, and which he never quitted, but to perform the oftie of a missionary. Some years after, he accepted the house de St. Lazare, though with great reluctance. His life was a continued series of good works, and it is scarcely to be conceived how one man could plan so many, still less, how he could execute them. Among these were missions in all parts of France, as well as in Italy, Scotland, Barbary, Madagascar, &c. ecclesiastical conferences, at which the most eminent bishops of the kingdom were present spiritual retirements, as they were called, which were also gratuitous; an Hospital for Foundlings, for which his humane applications procured an income of 40,000 livres; the foundation of the Charitable Virgins, for the relief of sick poor; to which we may add, the hospitals de Bicetre, de la Salpetriere, de la Piti; those of Marseilles for galley-slaves; of St. Reine for pilgrims, and of le Saint Nom de Jesus, for old men, which are principally indebted to him for their establishment. In times of the greatest distress, he sent above two millions of livres into Lorraine in money and effects; nor did Picardy and Champagne experience much less of his bounty, when the scourges of heaven had reduced those provinces to the most deplorable indigence. During ten years that M. Vincent presided in the council of conscience, under Anne of Austria, he suffered none but the most worthy to be presented to benefices. Being a zealous patron of nunneries, he supported the establishment of the nuns de la Providence, de Sainte Genevieve, and de la Croix. He laboured with success for the reform of Grammorit, Premontre, and the abbey of St. Genevieve, as welt as for the establishment of the great Seminaries. Even those, who have doubted whether his talents were very extensive, have openly acknowledged that he was one of the most pious priests in the kingdom, and more useful to the poor and to the church, than most of those who are considered as great geniuses. This excellent man died loaded with years, labour, and mortifications, Sept.27,1660, aged near 85. He was canonized by Clement XII. on July 16, 1737. Those who wish to know more of St. Vincent de Paul, may consult his Life by M. Collet, 2 vols. 4to, and “PAvocat.du Diable,” 3 vols. 12mo.

, an ecclesiastical writer of the fifth century, was descended from an illustrious family of Roman senators, and born at Bourdeaux about the year 253. He was directed in his studies by the famous Ausonius; and applied himself so earnestly to the best Latin authors, that he acquired a style not unlike theirs. He was advanced afterwards to the most considerable offices of the empire. Ausonius says, that Paulinus was consul with him; but his name not being found in the Fasti Consulares, it is probable he obtained that dignity only in the room of some other person, who died in the office, and perhaps in the year 378, after the death of Valens. He married Therasia, an opulent Spar nish lady, who proved instrumental in converting him to Christianity; and he was baptized in the year 389. He dwelt four years in Spain, where he embraced voluntary poverty; selling his goods by degrees, and giving them to the poor. The inhabitants of Barcelona, where he resided, conceived such an esteem for him, that they would have him ordained a priest to which, after a long resistance, he consented, upon condition that he should not be obliged to remain in Barcelona, because his design was to withdraw to Nola. This ordination was performed in the year 393, and the next year he left Spain to go into Italy. In his way he saw St. Ambrose at Florence, who shewed him marks of respect; and was kindly received at Rome both by the quality and the people: but the clergy there growing jealous of him, he left that city quickly, and went to Nola, where he dwelt in a country-house about half a league from the town. He lived there sixteen years with his wife Therasia, in the study and exercises of a monastic life; and then, in the year 409, was chosen and ordained bishop of Nola. The beginning of his episcopate was disturbed by the incursions of the Goths, who took that city; but the assault being over, he enjoyed it peaceably to his death, which happened in the year 431.

, patriarch of Aquileia in the eighth century, and one of the best bishops of his time, owes his fame in a great measure to his zeal in behalf of the doctrine of the Trinity. He was born near Friuli, in the year 726, and became greatly distinguished by his laborious application, and zeal for the advancement of learning and science. The emperor Charlemagne bestowed on him various substantial marks of his favour, and, towards the close of the year 776, promoted him to the patriarchate of Aquileia, where he died in the year 804. A complete edition of all his works, with learned notes and commentaries, was published at Venice, in 1713—7, by John Francis Madrisi, a priest of the congregation of the Oratory.

, or Ap Henry, commonly known by his assumed name of Martin Mar-prelate, or Alar-priest, was born in 1559 in Wales, and studied first at Peterhouse, Cambridge, of which he was A. B. in 1584, and afterwards at Oxford, in which latter university he took the degree of master of arts, and was ordained a priest. Afterwards, meeting with some dissatisfaction, as it is said, and being very warm in his temper, he changed his religion, and became an Anabaptist, or rather a Brownist. He was henceforward a virulent enemy to the church of England, and the hierarchy of that communion, as appears sufficiently by his coarse libels, in which he has shewn his spleen to a great degree. At length, after he had concealed himself for some years, he was apprehended at Stepney, and tried at the King’s-Bench, before sir John Pophain, chief-justice, and the rest of the judges, where he was indicted and condemned for felony, for papers found in his pocket, purporting to be a petition to the queen; and was executed, according to Fuller, at St. Thomas Waterings, in 1593. It appears, that some violence was put upon the laws, even as they then stood, to form a capital accusation against him. For his libels be could not be accused, the legal time for such an accusation having elapsed before he was taken: the papers upon which he was convicted, contained only an implied denial of the queen’s absolute authority to make, enact, decree, and ordain laws; and implied, merely by avoiding to use those terms, according to the very words of the lordkeeper Puckering. His execution was therefore in a high degree unjust. His chief publications are, 1. “Martin Mar-prelate,” the tract that gave so much offence. 12. “Theses Martinianae,” 8vo. 3. “A view of publicke Wants and Disorders in the service of God, in a Petition to the high court of Parliament,” 1588, 8vo. 4. “An Exhortation to the Governors and People of Wales, to labour earnestly to have the preaching of the Gospel planted among them,” 1588, 8vo. 5. “Reformation no Enemy to her Majesty and the State,” 1590, 4to. 6. “Sir Simon Synod’s Hue and Cry for the Apprehension of young Martin Mar-priest, with Martin’s Echo,” 4to. Most of these, and some others, were full of low scurrility and petulant satire. Several tracts, equally scurrilous, were published against him; as, “Pappe with a Hatchet, or a Country Cuffe for the Idiot Martin to hold his Peace;” “X A Whip for an Ape, or Martin displaied;” and others of the same kind. In the composition of these pamphlets, he is said to have had the assistance of John Udall, John Field, and Job Throckmorton, who published their joint effusions at a private printing press. Penry was a man of some learning and zeal for religion, but in his notions of government, both of church and state, appears to have adopted more wild theories than ever his successors, when in power, attempted to carry into practice. His sentence, however, was unjust, and the enemies of the hierarchy have therefore found it no difficult matter to place John Penry at the head of their list of martyrs.

, a native of Italy, was the author of “A short and true Account of the Inquisition and its Proceedings, as it is practised in Italy, set forth in some particular Cases. Whereunto is added, an Extract out of an authentic Book of Legends of the Roman Church. By Hierom Bartholomew Piazza, an Italian born; formerly a Lector of Philosophy and Divinity, and one of the delegate Judges of that Court, and now by the grace of God, a Convert to the Church of England.” London, printed by Wm. Bowyer, 1722. He taught Italian and French for many years at Cambridge, where he died about 1745. He had been once a Dominican friar, and a priest, but married here, to prove the sincerity of his conversion. He was regarded as an honest man, but never esteemed as having abilities, even in the two modern languages which he taught.

, the conqueror of Peru, celebrated rather for his abilities than for his virtues, his glory being tarnished by the cruelties which he practised towards those whom he had conquered, was the illegitimate son of a gentleman, by a very low woman, and apparently destined by his ungenerous parent not to rise above the condition of his mother, being put to the mean employment of keeping hogs. The genius of young Pizarro disdained this low occupation. He enlisted as a soldier, served some time in Italy, and then embarked for America, which offered at that period a strong allurement to every active adventurer. Distinguished by his utter disdain of every hardship and danger, he was soon regarded, though so illiterate that he was unable to read, as a man formed for command; and being settled in Panama, where the Spanish emigrants had found their sanguine expectations wholly disappointed, he united in 1524 with Diego de Almagro, another military adventurer, and Hernando Lucque, a priest, to prosecute discoveries to the eastward of that settlement. This attempt had frequently been made, but had failed through the inability of the persons concerned in it; it had now fallen into such hands as were calculated to make it successful, and their confederacy was sanctioned by the governor of Panama. The enterprise was begun in a very humble manner. Pizarro set sail with a single vessel, and, from universal ignorance of the climate, at the very worst season of the year, in November, when the periodical winds were precisely against his course. He had no success, nor was his colleague Almagro, who followed, more fortunate. After undergoing extreme hardships, and obtaining only a glimpse of a better country, the utmost they could do was to establish themselves in an island near the coast. Nothing could deter Pizarro from his enterprise; the refusal of further sanction from the governor, the desertion of all his associates, except thirteen, all was in vain. He remained with his small band, till, in spite of all obstacles, they obtained another vessel, with some reinforcements. They set sail again in 1526, and on the twentieth day after their departure, discovered the fertile coast of Peru. They were yet too weak to attempt the invasion of an empire so populous, and Pizarro contented himself with carrying back, by means of an amicable intercourse, such specimens of the wealth and civilization of the country as might invite others to accede to the enterprise. Unable to bring the governor of Panama to adopt his views, he returned to Spain, and explaining to that court the magnitude of the object, obtained every grant of authority he could wish, but no other assistance; and being left to his own resources, could have effected nothing had he not been assisted with money by Cortez, just then returned from Mexico. It was February 1531, before he and his associates were again able to sail from Panama on their great undertaking; and then their whole armament consisted only of three small vessels and 180 soldiers, thirty-six of whom were horsemen. When they landed in Peru, as they had the imprudence to attack the natives, instead of conciliating them, they were at first exposed to famine, and several other calamities. Pizarro, however, had the good fortune to enter Peru when the forces of the empire were divided by an obstinate civil war between Huascar the legitimate monarch, and Atahualpa (commonly called Atabalipa), his half brother. By degrees understanding the state of the country, Pizarro engaged to be the ally of Atahualpa, and under that pretence was permitted to penetrate unmolested to Caxamalca, twelve days’ journey within the country. He was received pacifically and with state, as the ambassador of a great monarch but, perfidiously taking advantage of the unsuspecting good faith of Atahualpa, he made a sudden attack, and took him prisoner. The exaction of an immense ransom, the division of which served to invite new invaders; the disgraceful breach of faith by which the king was kept a prisoner after his ransom was paid; and the detestable murder of him, a short time after, under the infamous mockery of a trial; with the insults superadded by bigotry, to make him die a Christian, without being able to comprehend that faith; all contribute to accumulate disgrace upon the head of the treacherous and unfeeling conqueror, and form such odious additions to the reproachful scenes acted by the Spaniards in America, as nothing can palliate or obliterate. Pizarro, favoured by the distracted state of Peru, which now increased, though Huascar had been put to death by order of his brother, and reinforced by more soldiers from Spain, proceeded in his conquests, and on Jan. 18, 1535, laid the foundation of Lima, called by him and his countrymen Ciudad de los Reyes. In 1537 he found a new enemy in his original associate Almagro, who claiming Cuzco, the ancient capital of Peru, as belonging to his jurisdiction, got possession of it. This, and other advantages gained by him, at once distressed and roused Pizarro. They came to an engagement in 1538, in which Almagro was defeated and taken prisoner; and, after an interval of confinement, was tried and executed. This was the last of the successes of Pizarro; the son and friends of Almagro conspired against him, and on June 26, 1541, he was assassinated by them in his palace, making a most resolute defence, well worthy of his long-tried courage. He was at this time advanced in years, though his exact age is not known. The glory he justly acquired by military talents, courage, and sagacity, would have placed him in the rank of heroes, had not his character been disgraced by the indelible stains of perfidy and cruelty.

As the statutes required that he should take orders within a certain time, he applied to the study of divinity and while employed in perusing the fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical writers, he found leisure to exhibit a specimen of his progress in the oriental languages by preparing for the press those parts of the Syriac version of the New Testament which had never yet been published. Ignatius, the patriarch of Antioch, had in the sixteenth century sent Moses Meridinseus, a priest of Mesopotamia, into the West, to get the Syriac version of the New Testament printed, for the use of his churches. It was accordingly printed by the care and diligence of Albertus Widmanstad, at Vienna in 1555. But the Syriac New Testament, which was followed in this edition, wanted the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the whole book of the Revelations, because, as Lewis de Dieu conjectures, those parts of holy Scripture, though extant among them, were not yet received into the Canon by those Oriental Churches. This defect no one had thought of supplying until De Dieu, on the encouragement, and with the assistance of Daniel Heinsius, set about the Revelation, being furnished with a copy of it, which had been given, with many other manuscripts, to the university of Leyden by Joseph Scaliger. That version of the Apocalypse was printed at Leyden, in 1627, but still the four Epistles were wanting, and those Mr. Pocock undertook, being desirous that the whole New Testament might at length be published in that language, which was the vulgar tongue of our Saviour nimself and his apostles. A very fair manuscript for this purpose he had met with in the Bodleian Library, containing those Epistles, together with some other parts of the New Testament. Out of this manuscript, following the example of De Dieu, he transcribed those epistles in the Syriac character: the same he likewise set down in Hebrew letters, adding the points, not according to the ordinary, but the Syriac rules, as they had been delivered by those learned Maronites, Amira and Sionita. He also made a new translation of these epistles out of Syriac into Latin, comparing it with that of Etzelius, and shewing on various occasions the reason of his dissent from him. He also added the original Greek, concluding the whole with a number of learned and useful notes. When finished, although with the utmost care and exactness, yet so great was his modesty and distrust of himself, that he could not be persuaded to think it fit for publication, till after it had lain by him about a year, when he was induced to consent to its publication by Gerard John Vossius, who was then at Oxford, and to whom it had been shown by Rouse, the public librarian, as the production of a young man scarcely twenty-four years old. Vossius not only persuaded him to allow it to be printed, but promised to take it with him to Leyden for that purpose. It was accordingly published there in 1630, 4to, after some few corrections and alterations in the Latin version, in which Mr. Pocock readily acquiesced, from the pen of Lewis de Dieu, to whom Vossius committed the care of the work.

* It has’so*:“and added,” I never in my life knew a man that had so tender a heart for his particular friends, or more general friendship for mankind.“At another time he said,” I have known Pope these thirty years, and value myself more in his friendship than“-his grief then suppressed his voice. Pope expressed undoubting confidence of a future state. Being asked by his friend Mr. Hooke, a papist, whether he would not die like his father and mother, and whether a priest should not be called he answered,” I do not think it is essential, but it will be very right: and I thank you for putting me in mind of it.“In the morning, after the priest had done his office, he said,” There is nothing that is meritorious but virtue and friendship, and indeed friendship itself is only a part of virtue." He died in the evening of May 30, 1744, so placidly, that the attendants did not discern the exact time of his expiration. He was buried at Twickenham, near his father and mother, where a monument was afterwards erected to him by Warburton.

The site chosen for his new foundation was at this time occupied by Durham college, which Edward VI. granted to George Owen, of Godstowe, the king’s physician, a man of great learning and eminence, and William Martyn, gentleman, in 1552; and sir Thomas purchased the premises of these gentlemen by indenture dated Feb. 20, 1554. On March 8, and March 28, he obtained from Philip and Mary a royal licence and charter to create and erect a college within the university of Oxford, under the title of Collegium Sanctæ Et Individuæ Trinitatis In Universitate Oxon. Ex Fundatione Thomæ Pope Militis. The society was to consist of a president, a priest, twelve fellows, four of whom should be priests, and eight scholars (afterwards increased to twelve) and the whole to be liberally and amply endowed with certain manors, lands, and revenues. They were to be elected out of the diocese and places where the college has benefices, manors, or revenues, more particularly in Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and Kent. The same charter empowered him to found and endow a school at Hokenorton, in Oxfordshire, to be called Jesus Scholehouse; and to give statutes both to the college and to the first and second masters of the said school. And by deed, dated March 28, 1555, he declared his actual erection and establishment df the said college, and the same day delivered possession, before a large concourse of witnesses, to the president, fellows, and scholars. In May following he supplied his college with necessaries and implements of every kind, books, furniture for the chapel, of the most costly kind; and next year he transmitted a body of statutes to the society, dated May 1, 1556. These statutes he had submitted to the revision of cardinal Pole, from whom he received some valuable hints. On the 8th of the same month, May, he gave them one hundred pounds as a stock for immediate purposes; and the endowment, by thirty-five manors, thirteen advowsons, besides impropriations and pensions, was completed before, or upon the feast of Annunciation, in the same year; and the first president, fellows and scholars, nominated by himself, were formally admitted within the chapel, May 30, on the eve of Trinity Sunday. During his life-time, the founder nominated the fellows and scholars, and afterwards delegated the power to his widow, dame Elizabeth, of nominating the scholars, and presenting to the advowsons, and this she continued to exercise during her long life, but with some interruptions, and some opposition. On one occasion the college rejected her nomination to a scholarship, and chose another candidate; but on an appeal to the visitor, he decided in her favour. She sometimes also nominated the fellows, and once a president. But both she and her husband, sir Hugh Powlett, were so liberal and punctual in fulfilling the founder’s intentions, and in contributing to the prosperity of the college, that she was in general obeyed with respect and gratitude.

a priest of the oratory, son of a Serjeant at Chalons-sur-Saone, was born in 1648. He went to Paris early in life, and, having finished his studies there, entered into the service of father Malebranche, who, finding he had a genius for the sciences, taught him mathematics, in which the young pupil made so rapid a progress, that, at the age of seventeen he published the first edition of his “Elemens de Mathematiques.” In the same year, 1675, he entered the congregation of the oratory, and taught mathematics with distinguished reputation, particularly at Angers. He died June 8, 1690, at Mechlin. The best edition of his “Elements,” is that of 1689, 2 vols. 4to. They contain many curious problems.

The learned have been much divided, nor are they yet agreed, about the religion of Procopius some contending that he was an Heathen, some that he was a Christian, and some that he was hoth Heathen and Christian: of which last opinion was the learned Cave. Le Vayer declares for the Paganism of Procopius, and quotes the following passage from his first book of the “Wars of the Goths,” which, he says, is sufficient to undeceive those who considered him as a Christian historian. “I will not trouble myself,” says he, speaking of the different opinions of Christians, “to relate the subject of such controversies, although it is not unknown to rne because I hold it a vain desire to comprehend the divine nature, and understand what God is. Human wit knows not the things here below; how then can it be satisfied in the search after divinity I omit therefore such vain matter, and which only the credulity of man causes to he respected; content with acknowledging, that there is one God full of bounty, who governs us, and whose power stretches over the universe. Let every one therefore believe what he thinks fit, whether he be a priest and tied to divine worship, or a man of a private and secular condition.” Fabricius sees nothing in this inconsistent with the soundness of Christian belief, and therefore is not induced by this declaration, which appeared to Le Vayer, and other learned men, to decide against Procopius’s Christianity. This, however, whatever the real case may be, seems to have been allowed on all sides, that Procopius was at least a Christian by name and profession; and that, if his private persuasion was not with Christians, he conformed to the public worship, in order to be well with the emperor Justinian.

, a French writer of considerable, but temporary celebrity, was born at St. Genies in the Rovergue, in 1713. He was educated among the Jesuits, and became one of their order. The learning of that society is universally known, as well as the happy talents which its superiors possessed, of assigning to each member his proper employment. Raynal, after having acquired among them a taste for literature and science, and being ordained a priest, displayed such talents in the pulpit, that his preaching attracted numerous audiences. Hi* love of independence, however, induced him, in 1748, to dissolve his connexion with the Jesuits, and to take up his’ residence at Paris. Such is the account given by our principal authority; but, according to the abbe Barruel, he was expelled the society for his impiety. With this circumstance Barruel may be much better acquainted than we can be: but it seems probable that his impieties had not then reached much farther than to call in question the supreme authority of the church; for Raynal himself assures us, that he did not utter his atrocious declarations against Christianity till he had ceased to be a member of the order of Jesuits. He then associated himself with Voltaire, D'Alembert, and Diderot, and was by them employed to furnish the theological articles for the “Encyclopedic.” But though his religious opinions were certainly lax, he could not even then be what, in a Protestant country, would be deemed a man remarkable for impiety; for he employed the abbe Yvon, whom Barruel calls an old metaphysician, but an inoffensive and upright man, to write the articles which he was engaged to furnish. In this transaction, indeed, he shewed that he possessed not a proper sense of honour, for he paid poor Yvon with twentyrive louis d'ors for writing theological articles, for which he received himself six times that sum; and the trick being discovered, Raynal was disgraced, and compelled to pay up the balance to the abbe Yvon; but though he had thus shewn himself to be without honour, it is difficult to believe he had yet proceeded so far as blasphemy, of which he has been accused, since he had employed a Christian divine to supply his place in the “Encyclopedic.”

Lord Hay had introduced Mn Robertson to bishop Hoadly, who mentioned him to archbishop Wake, and he was entertained with much civility by those great prelates. As he was then too young to be admitted into orders, he employed his time in London in visiting the public libraries, attending lectures, and improving himself as opportunities offered. He had the honour to be introduced to lord-chancellor King, by a very kind letter from Dr. Hort, bishop of Kilmore, and was often with his lordship. In 1727 Dr. John Hoadly, brother to the bishop of Salisbury, was nominated to the united bishoprics of Ferns and Leighlin in Ireland. Mr. Robertson was introduced to him by his brother; and, from a love of the natale solum, was desirous to go thither with him. Mr. Robertson then informed the archbishop of Canterbury of his design; and his Grace gave him a letter of recommendation to Dr. Goodwin, archbishop of Cashel, who received him in a most friendly manner, but died soon after. The first person whom Dr. Hoadly ordained, after he was consecrated bishop of Ferns, was Mr. Robertson, whose letters of deacon’s orders bear date January 14, 1727; and in February the bishop nominated him to the cure of Tullow in the county of Carlow: and here he continued till he was of age sufficient to be ordained a priest, which was done November 10, 1729; and the next day he was presented by lord Carteret, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to the rectory of Ravilly in the county of Carlow, and to the rectory of Kilravelo in the county of Widow; and soon after was collated to the vicarages of the said parishes by the bishop of Ferns. These were the only preferments he had till 1738, when Dr. Synge, bishop of Ferns, collated him to the vicarages of Rathmore and Straboe, and the perpetual cure of Rahil, all in the county of Carlow. These together produced art income of about 200l. a-year. But, as almost the whole lands of these parishes were employed in pasture, the tithes would have amounted to more than twice that sum if the herbage had been paid for black cattle, which was certainly due by law. Several of the clergy of Ireland had,, before him, sued for this herbage in the Court of Exchequer, and obtained decrees in their favour. Mr. Robertson, encouraged by the exhortations and examples of his brethren, commenced some suits in the Exchequer for this herbage, and succeeded in every one of them. But when he had, by this means, doubled the value of his benefices, the House of Commons in Ireland passed several severe resolutions against the clergy who had sued, or would sue, for this “nexv demand,” as they called it, which encouraged the graziers to oppose it so obstinately as to put a period to that demand. This proceeding of the Commons provoked Dean Swift to write “The Legion- Club.” Mr. Robertson soon after published a pamphlet, entitled “A Scheme for utterly abolishing the present heavy and vexatious Tax of Tithe;” the purport of which was, to pay the clergy and impropriators a tax upon the land in lieu of all tithes. This went through several editions: but nothing farther was done in it.

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

II. Charles IX. and Henry III. had a particular esteem for him, and became his liberal patrons. In 1562 he put himself at the head of some soldiers in Vendomois, and fought against the protestants, which occasioned the publication of some very satirical pieces against him at Orleans, in which he was represented as a priest: but he defended himself in verse, and denied his being an ecclesiastic. He had, however, some benefices in commendam; and, among others, the priory of St. Cosmas near Tours, where he died in 1585. Du Perron, afterwards cardinal, made his funeral oration; and a noble monument was erected there to his memory some years after. He was much afflicted with the gout, which, it is said, was owing to his debauched way of life. His poems consist of odes, hymns, elegies, sonnets, epigrams, and pieces of amatory poetry, not of the most chaste description. He was considered in his day as possessing great talents for poetry; but these are not so visible to the eye of modern criticism. His style is extremely harsh and obscure, which, it is said^ would have been more excusable, had he not been preceded by Marot. What learning he had appears in a pedantic affectation of allusions, examples, and words, drawn from Greek and Latin, which increase the obscurity of his style. Boileau justly says “It is the approbation of posterity alone which must establish the true merit of works. Whatever eclat a writer may make during his life, whatever eloges he may receive, we cannot conclude infallibly from this, that his works are excellent. False beauties, novelty of style, and a particular taste or manner of judging, which happens to prevail at that time, may raise a writer into high credit and esteem; and, in the next age, when the eyes of men are opened, that which was the object of admiration, shall be the object of contempt. We have a fine example of this in Ronsard, and his imitators, Du Bellay, Du Bartas, Desportes, who in the last age were admired by all the world, in this are read by nobody.” The best editions of Ronsard’s works are those by Binet, Paris, 1587, or 1604, 5 vols. 12mo, and by Richelet, 1623, 2 vols. fol.

, a celebrated Icelandic writer, was the son of a priest named Sigfus, and was born about the middle of the eleventh century, between 1050 and 1060. He travelled at a very early period into Italy and Germany, in order to improve himself in knowledge, and for a considerable time his countrymen were not at all aware ipf what had become of him. At length Jonas, the son of Ogmund, who was afterwards a bishop, found him at Paris, and carried him back to Iceland. Here he took the order of priesthood, and succeeded his father as priest of Odda, He also established a school, and contributed with others to induce the Icelanders to pay tithes, and took a considerable part with regard to the formation of the ecclesiastical code of laws. He died in 1133 or 1135, being about eighty years of age. At the age of seventy he wrote a History of Norway, from the time of Harold Haarfager to that of Magnus the Good. He is generally allowed the merit of having collected the poetical Edda, by which means he preserved these curious and valuable remains of the ancient Scandinavian mythology, poetry, and morality, from being lost. They were printed at Copenhagen, 1787, 4to, with a Latin translation, the editors of which, in their preface, give a full account of the supposed authors, and the claim of Saemund to be considered as the principal collector.

, or Salvianus, an elegant and beautiful writer, was one of those who are usually called fathers of the church, and began to be distinguished about 440. The time and place of his birth cannot be settled with any exactness. Some have supposed him to have been an African, but without any reasonable foundation: while others have concluded, with more probability, that he was a Gaul, from his calling Gallia his “solum patrium;” though perhaps this may prove no more than that his family came from that country. His editor Baluzius infers from his first epistle, that he was born at Cologne in Germany; and it is known, that he lived a long time at Triers, where he married a wife who was an heathen, but whom he easily brought over to the faith. He removed from Triers into the province of Vienne, and afterwards became a priest of Marseilles. Some have said, that he was a bishop; but this is a mistake, which arose, as Baluzius very well conjectures, from this corrupt passage in Gennadius, “Homilias scripsit Episcopus multas:” whereas it should be read “Episcopis” instead of “Episcopus,” it being known that he did actually compose many homilies or sermons for the use of some bishops. He died very old towards the end of the fifth century, after writing and publishing a great many works; of which, however, nothing remains but eight books “De Providentia Dei” four books “Adverstis avaritiam, praesertim Clericorum et Sacerdotum” and nine epistles. The best edition of these pieces is that of Paris 1663, in 8vo, with the notes of Baluzius; re-printed elegantly in 1669, 8vo. The “Commonitorium” of Vincentius Lirinensis is published with it, with notes also by Baluzius.

* The first edition was patronized originally written with a view to pubiiby a subscription not known since the cation. She declared, therefore, “that days of the Spectator. The work was no such idea was ever expressed by published for the benefit of the author’s Mr. Sancho; and that not a single letfamily, by Miss Crewe, an amiable ter was printed from any duplicate young lady, to whom many of the let- preserved by himself, but all were co!­ter< are addressed, and who is since lected from the various friends 10 whom married to John Phillips, esq. surgeon they were addressed.” Her reasons of the household to the Prince of Wales, for publishing them were “the desire From the profits of the first edition, and of shewing that an untutored African a sum paid by the booksellers for li- may possess abilities equal to an Euberty to print a second edition, Mrs. ropean and the still superior motive Sancho, we are well assured, received of wishing to serve his worthy family, more than 500l. The editor did not And she was happy,” she declared, venture to give them to the public till “in publicly acknowledging phe had she had obviated an objection which not found the world inattentive to the had been suggested, that they were voice of obscure merit.” and of great reputation for diligence and faithfulness. He is said to have collected out of the most authentic records he could procure, the “Antiquities of Phoenicia,” with the help of some memoirs which came from Hierombaal, [Hierobaal, or Gideon,] a priest of the God Jeuo or Jao. He wrote several things also relating to the Jews. These “Antiquities of the Phoenicians,” Philo-Byblius, in the same Phoenicia, in the days of Adrian, translated into Greek; and Athenseus soon afterward reckoned him among the Phoenician writers. A large and noble fragment of this workj Eusebius has given us, verbatim, in his first book of “Evangelical Preparation,” cap. ix. x. and has produced the strong attestation of Porphyry, the most learned heathen of that age, to its authenticity. Upon these authorities, many learned men have concluded that the genuine writings of Sanchoniathon were translated by Philo-Byblius, and that Sanchoniathon derived a great part of his information from the books of Moses, nay, some have supposed that Thoth, called by the Greeks, Hermes, and by the Romans, Mercury, was only another name for Moses; but the inconsistencies, chiefly chronological* which the learned have detected in these accounts, and especially the silence of the ancients concerning this historian, who, if he had deserved the character given him by Porphyry > could not have been entirely over-looked, create a just ground of suspicion, either against Porphyry or PhiloByblius. It seems most probable, that Philo-Byblius fabricated the work from the ancient cosmogonies, pretending to have translated it from the Phoenician, in order to provide the Gentiles with an account of the origin of the world, which might be set in opposition to that of Moses. Eusebius and Theodoret, indeed, who, like the rest of the fathers, were too credulous in matters of this kind, and after them some eminent modern writers, have imagined, that they have discovered a resemblance between Sanchoniathon’s account of the formation of the world and that of Moses. But an accurate examination of the doctrine of Sanchoniathon, as it appears in the fragment preserved by Eusebius, will convince the unprejudiced reader, that the Phoenician philosophy, if indeed it be Phoenician, is directly opposite to the Mosaic. Sanchoniathon teaches, that, from the necessary energy of an eternal principle, active but without intelligence, upon an eternal passive chsiptic mass, or Mot, arose the visible world; a doctrine, of which there are some appearances in the ancient cosmogonies, and which was not without its patrons among the Greeks. It is therefore not unreasonable to conjecture, that the work was forged in opposition to the Jewish cosmogony, and that this was the circumstance which rendered it so acceptable to Porphyry. Such is the opinion of Brucker on this history; and Dodwell and Dupin, the former in an express treatise, have also endeavoured to invalidate its authenticity.

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

, a priest and poet, either Irish or Scotch, of the fifth century, is recorded as the writer of an heroic poem, called “Carmen Paschale,” divided into five books. The first begins with the creation of the world, and comprehends the more remarkable passages of the Old Testament. The next three describe the life of Jesus Christ. This performance has been highly commended by Cassiodorus, Gregorius Turrinensis, and others. Sedulius afterwards wrote a piece on the same subjects in prose. The poem was printed by Aldus in the collection of sacred poets, in 1502. It is also in Maittaire’s “Corp. Poet.” and has since been published by itself, with learned notes, by Arntzenius, 1761, 8vo, and by Arevale at Rome, 1794, 4-to.

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

, an ingenious Spanish writer, was of an ancient and illustrious family, and born at Placenza in Old Castile, July 18, 1610. He was sent to Salamanca to study law; but, having a natural turn for poetry, gave it the preference, and cultivated it with a success which did him great honour. He was but seventeen, when he wrote an ingenious comedy, called “Amor y Obligacion:” and he afterwards composed others, which were received with the highest applause. Antonio affirms him to have been the best comic poet Spain has ever seen. At six and twenty, he applied himself to ethics and politics. His great merit procured him a patron in the count d'Oropesa, viceroy then of Navarre, and afterwards of the kingdom of Valence, who appointed him his secretary. In 1642, when he wrote his comedy of “Orpheus and Eurydice,” for representation at Pampeluna, upon the birth of the count’s son, Philip IV. of Spain made him one of his secretaries; and, after Philip’s death, the queen regent made him first historiographer of the Indies, a place of great profit as well as honour. His “History of the Conquest of Mexico” was thought to justify this honour, and was much praised. But it is evident that his object was to celebrate the glories of Ferdinand Cortez, his hero, to whom he has imputed many strokes of policy, many reflections, and many actions, of which he was not capable; and he has very wisely closed his account with the conquest of Mexico, that he might not have occasion to introduce the cruelties afterwards committed. Nevertheless, the history is reckoned upon the whole very interesting, and has been translated into several languages; and he is better known for it, out of his own country, than for his poetry and dramatic writings, although they are said to be excellent. After living many years in the busy and gay world, he resolved to dedicate himself to the service of God, by embracing the ecclesiastical state; and accordingly was ordained a priest at fifty- seven. He now renounced all profane compositions, and wrote nothing but some dramatic pieces upon subjects of devotion, which are represented in Spain on certain festivals. He died April 19, 1686. His comedies were printed at Madrid in 1681, 4to; his sacred and profane poems, at the same place, 1716, 4to; his “History of Mexico” often, but particularly at Brussels in 1704, folio; with his life prefixed by D. Juan de Goyeneche. There is also a collection of his “Letters” published at Madrid in 1737.

, an English Jesuit and poet, was born in 1560, and is said to have descended from an ancient family, either in Norfolk or Suffolk. Being sent abroad for education, he became a Jesuit at Rome, Oct. 1578. In 1585, he was appointed prefect of studies in the English college there, and not long after was sent as a missionary into England. His chief residence was with Anne countess of Arundel, who died in the Tower of London. After carrying on his mission for some time, he was, in July 1592, apprehended and examined with the strictest rigour, but having evaded the questions put to him, was imprisoned for three years, and as he affirmed, underwent the torture several times. He owned that he was a priest and a Jesuit, that he came into England to preach the truths of the catholic religion, and was prepared to lay down his life for it. In Feb. 1595, he was tried at the bar of the King’s Bench, Westminster, and executed the next day at Tyburn. He was a man of singular parts, says Dodd, and happy in a peculiar talent of expressing himself in the English language, both in prose and verse. Edmund Bolton, whom Warton calls a sensible critic, speaks of Southwell’s works in the same strain of panegyric “Never must be forgotten St. Peter’s complaint, and those other serious poems said to be father Southwell’s: the English whereof, as it is most proper, so the sharpness and light of wit is very rare in them.” Mr. Headley seems first to have revived the memory of Southwell, as a poet, by some curious specimens, in which he has been followed by Mr. Ellis. “There is a moral charm,” says Headley, “in the little pieces of Southwell, that will prejudice most readers of feeling in their favour.” Unless, however, there were encouragement for republication, which is not very probable, Southwell’s fame must principally rest on these specimens, as his works are rarely to be met with; yet Mr. Ellis remarks that the few copies known to exist, are the remnant of at least twenty-four different editions, of which eleven were printed between 1593 and 1600.

Walter de Stapledon was not more eminent for the judgment and firmness which he displayed as a statesman, in times of peculiar difficulty, than for his love of learnia<r. After he had engaged Hart, or Hart-hall, for the accommodation of his scholars, he purchased a tenement on the scite of the present college, called St. Stephen’s hall, in 1315, and having purchased also some additional premises, known then by the names of Scot-hall, Leding- Park-Hall, and Baltaye-Hall, he removed the rector and scholars of Stapledon, or Hart-hall to this place, in pursuance of the same foundation charter which he had obtained of the king for founding that hall in the preceding year. According to the statutes which he gave to this society, the number of persons to be maintained appears to have been thirteen, one to be instructed in theology or canon law, the rest in philosophy. Eight of them were to be of the archdeaconries of Exeter, Totness, and Barnstaple, four of the archdeaconry of Cornwall, and one, a priest, might be nominated by the dean and chapter of Exeter from any other part of the kingdom. In 1404, Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, a great benefactor, changed the name from Stapledon to Exeter Hall, but it did not rise to the consequence of a corporate body until the time of sir William Petre, who, in 1565, procured a new body of statutes, and a regular deed of incorporation, increasing also the number of fellowships, &c.

, an ecclesiastical writer, who flourished about the beginning of the fifth century, was a disciple of St. Martin of Tours, whose life he has written; and friend of Pauliims, bishop of Nola, with whom he held a constant and intimate correspondence. He was illustrious for his birth, his eloquence, and still more for his piety and virtue. After he had shone with great lustre at the bar, he married very advantageously; but, losing his wife soon after, he quilted the world, and became a priest. He was born at Agen, in the province of Aquitain, which at that time produced the best poets, the best rhetoricians, and the best orators of the Roman empire, of those at least who wrote in Latin. He lived sometimes at Elisso, and sometimes at Toulouse. Some have affirmed, that he was bishop of the Bitu rices; but they have erroneously confounded him with another Severus Sulpicius, who was bishop of that people, and died at the end of the sixth century. Sulpicius lived till about the year 420. He is said to have been at one time seduced by the Pelagians; and that, returning to his old principles, he imposed a silence upon himself for the rest of his days, as the best atonement he could make for his error; but some think that this silence meant only his refraining from writing or controversy. The principal of his works was his “Historia Sacra,” in two books; in which he gives a succinct account of all the reroaikible things that passed in the Jewish or Christian churches, from the creation of the world to about the year 400. He wrote, also, the “Life of St. Martin,” as we have said already; “Three Letters upon the death and virtues of this saint;” and “Three Dialogues;” the first upon the miracles of the Eastern monks, and the two last upon the extraordinary qualities and graces of St. Martin. These, with seven other epistles never before printed with his works, were all revised, corrected, and published with notes, in a very elegant edition, by Le Clerc, at Leipsic, in 1709, 8vo. There is another by Jerom de Prato, printed at Venice in 1741—54, 2 vols. 4to, the text of which is thought the most correct. Sulpicius has a purity in his style, far beyond the age in which he lived. He has joined a very concise manner of expressing himself to a remarkable perspicuity, and in this has equalled even Sallust himself, whom he always imitates and sometimes quotes. He is not, indeed, correct throughout in his “History of the Church;” and is very credulous upon the point of miracles. He admits also several opinions, which have no foundation in Scripture; and he is in some instances defective, taking no notice, for example, of the reign of Julian, &c. His “Dialogues” contain many interesting particulars, respecting the manners and singularities of the Eastern monks; the disturbances which the books of Origen had occasioned in Egypt and Palestine, and other matters of some curiosity.

, the first of a literary family of considerable note in France, was the eldest of the four sons of Peter Terrasson, a lawyer of Lyons, and became a priest of the oratory, preacher to the king, and afterwards preacher to the court of Lorrain. His pulpit services were much applauded, and attended by the most crowded congregations. His exertions during Lent in the metropolitan church at Paris threw him into an illness of which he died April 25, 1723. His “Sermons” were printed in 1726, 4 vols. 12mo, and reprinted in 1736.

, the iirst Latin writer of the primitive church whose writings are come clown to us, was an African, and born at Carthage in the second century. His father was a centurion in* the troops which served under the proconsul of Africa. Tcrtullian was at first an heathen, and a man, as he himself owns in various parts of his works, of loose manners; but afterwards embraced the Christian religion, though it is not known when, or upon what occasion. He flourished chiefly under the reigns of the emperor Severus and Caracalla, from about the year 194 to 216 and it is probable that he lived several years, since Jerome mentions a report of his having attained to a decrepit old age. There is no passage in his writings whence it can be concluded that he was a priest; but Jerome affirms it so positively, that it cannot be doubted. He had great abilities and learning, which he employed vigorously in the cause of Christianity, and against heathens and heretics; but towards the latter part of his life quitted the church to follow the Montanists, which is the reason why his name has not been transmitted to us with the title of saint. The cause of his separation is not certainly known. Baronius has attributed it to jealousy, because Victor was preferred before him to the see of Rome; Pamelius hints at his disappointment, because he could not get the bishopric of Carthage; and Jerome says, that the envy which the Roman clergy bore him, and the outrageous manner with which they treated him, exasperated him against the church, and provoked him to quit it. What perhaps had as much weight as any of these reasons was the extraordinary austerity, which the sect of Montanus affected, which suited his monastic turn of mind. Whatever the cause, he not only joined them, but wrote in their defence, and treated the church from which he departed, with unbecoming contempt. Error, however* says a modern ecclesiastical historian, is very inconstant; for Tertullian afterwards left the Montanists, or nearly so, and formed a sect of his own, called Tertullianists, who continued in Africa till Augustine’s time, by whose labours their existence, as;i distinct body, was brought to a close. The character of Tertullian is very strongly delineated by himself in his own writings if there bad been any thing peculiarly Christian, which he had learned from the Montanists, his works must have shown it; but the only change discoverable is, that he increased in his austerities. He appears to have been married, and lived all his life, without separating from his wife upon his commencing priest, if, indeed, he did not marry her after. The time of his death is no where mentioned.

In 1796 he appeared again as a candidate for Westminster, in opposition to sir Alan Gardner, but not in conjunction with Mr. Fox, and although not successful, polled 2819 votes, without expence, or any other solicitation than the speeches he delivered from the hustings. At length, however, in 1801 he obtained what appeared to have been his fond aim, a seat in the House of Commons, an antipathy against which assembly, it has been said, was one of his earliest, strongest, and most enduring feelings. The errors of representation had been long a standing topic with him, and rotten boroughs and corruption his never-failing accusations. But, like others, he seemed at last to think that there was no harm in taking advantage of the present system as long as it lasted. The borough of Old Sarum, offered to him by a young and almost insane nobleman, and which had been a bye-word among parliamentary reformers, had the singular honour of returning him to parliament, and he took his seat, apparently, without any scruple as to the number or quality of his constituents; nor did his dislike to the present order of things reach its utmost height, till all the doors of the House had been finally barred against him by an act of the legislature. In the mean time the expectations excited by his election were completely disappointed. He made no figure in parliament that answered either the hopes or wishes of his friends; and he bad not sat long before his incapacity, as being a priest, was called in question, and it was proposed to expel him. The then minister, Mr. Addington, now lord Sidmouth, was of opinion that a milder course would be more proper, and therefore brought in a declaratory act, effectually preventing a repetition of the abuse; and Mr. Tooke was permitted to sit till the dissolution of parliament in 1802, and then to retire without the renown of martyrdom. His last appearance as the busy, meddling politician, was in the case of a Mr. Paull, a man without birth, property, education, or public services, who offered himself as a candidate for Westminster. This man he first supported, and afterwards deserted. The consequences to this unhappy candidate are well known, but as they involve the characters of persons yet living and perhaps reclaimable, we shall pass them over in silence.

, an Italian poet, who endeavoured to reform the style of his country, was born at Vicenza, July 3, 1478, and was descended from one of the most ancient families of that place. It has been said that it was late in life before he began his studies, but as the same writer who gives us this information, adds that upon his father’s death, when he was only seven years old, he applied to them with spirit, it is evident he could not have lost much time. He was first educated at Vicenza, under a priest named Francis Gragnuola, and afterwards at Milan under the celebrated Demetrius Cbalcondylcs. To the memory of this last master, who died in 1511, Trissino erected a monument in the church of St. Mary at Milan, or us others say, in that of San Salvador, with an inscription. From the Greek and Latin language, he proceeded to the' study of mathematics, architecture, natural philosophy, and other branches which form a liberal education. In 1503 he married; and with a view to domestic happiness and literary retirement, went to reside on one of his estates, for he was left very opulent, at Criccoli on the Astego. Herv he built a magnificent house, from his own design, on which he employed one of his pupils in architecture, the afterwards justly celebrated Paliadio.

, the first of a considerable family of learned men in Geneva and France, was born at Geneva, April 17, 1582, whither his father had fled on account of religion, and narrowly escaped from the massacre of the protestants in 1572. He was then at Troyes, in Champagne, and escaped by means of a priest, his friend and neighbour, who concealed him in his house. He intended to go into Germany, and only to pass through Geneva; but he remained there by the advice of an acquaintance, obtained the freedom of the city, and soon after was admitted into the council of two hundred in acknowledgment of 'some services which he had done the State during the war with the Duke of Savoy.

In 1590 he returned a second time to Madrid, and soon after married again. In 1598, on the canonization of St. Isidore, a native of Madrid, he entered the lists with several authors, and overpowered them all with the number if not with the merit of his performances. Prizes had been assigned for every style of poetry, but above one could not be obtained by the same person. Lope succeeded in the hymns; but his fertile muse, not content with producing a poem of ten cantos in short verse, as well as innumerable sonnets and romances, and two comedies on the subject, celebrated by an act of supererogation both the saint and the poetical competition of the day, in a volume of sprightly poems under the feigned name of Tom6 de Burguiilos. This success raised him, no doubt, in the estimation of the public, to whom he was already known by the number and excellence of his- dramatic writings and this was probably the most fortunate period of his life, and that in which he derived most satisfaction from his pursuits. About this time, however, we must fix the short date of his domestic comforts. Of three persons who formed his family, the son died at eight years, and was soon followed by his mother; the daughter alone survived our poet. He now resolved to seek consolation in the exercises of devotion; and, having been secretary to the Inquisition, he shortly after became a priest, and in 1609 an honorary member of the brotherhood of St. Francis.

The sensation produced by his death was, if possible, more astonishing than the reverence in which he was held while living. The splendour of his funeral, which was conducted at the charge of the most munificent of his patrons, the duke of Sesa, the number and language of the sermons on that occasion, the competition of poets of all countries in celebrating his genius and lamenting his loss, are unparalleled in the annals of poetry, and perhaps scarcel) equalled in those of royalty itself. The ceremonies attending his interment continued for nine days. His biographers, however, have been less careful to convey a just idea of this extraordinary man to posterity, and there is little in them that can throw any light upon his character as a man, or his history as an author. His intimate friend Montalvan praises him in general as a person of a mild and amiable disposition, of very temperate habits, of great erudition, singular charity, and extreme good breeding. His temper, he adds, was never ruffled but with those who took snuff before company; with the grey who dyed their locks; with men who, born of women, spoke ill of the sex; with priests who believed in gypsies; and with persons who, without intentions of marriage, asked others their age. These antipathies, which are rather quaint sallies of wit, than traits of character, are the only peculiarities which his intimate friend has t' >ught proper to communicate. We have already noticed his unreasonable complaints of illusage, neglect, and even poverty, which appear to have constituted the greatest blemish in his character. As an author, he is most known, as indeed he is most wonderful, for the prodigious number of his writings. Twenty-one million three hundred thousand of his lines are said to he actually printed; and no less than eighteen hundred plays of his composition to have been acted on the stage. Lord Holland has calculated that according to these accounts, allowing him to begin his compositions at the age of thirteen, we must believe that upon an average he wrote more than nine hundred lines a day; a fertility of imagination, and a celerity of pen, which, when we “consider the occupations of his life as a soldier, a secretary, a master of a family, and a priest; his acquirements in Latin, Italian, and Portuguese; and his reputation for erudition, become not only improhable, but absolutely* and, one may almost say, physically impossible. Yet although there does not now exist the fourth part of the works which he and his admirers mention, enough remains to render him one of the most voluminous authors that ever put pen to paper. Such was his facility, that he informs us himself, that more than an hundred times he composed a play and produced it on the stage in twentyfour hours. To this evidence we may add tins of Montalvan, that he wrote a comedy in two days, which it would not be very easy for the most expeditious amanuensis to copy out in the time. At Toledo he wrote fifteen acts in fifteen days, which, Montalvan adds, make five comedies. He also asserts that Lope wrote 1800 plays and 400 autos sacramentales, a species of dramatic composition” resembling' our old mysteries. That in all this there must be some exaggeration, cannot be doubted.

, or Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus, a Christian poet of the sixth century, was a native of Italy, and studied at Ravenna. He applied himself to grammar, rhetoric, poetry, and jurisprudence, but was most attached to rhetoric and poetry, and was honoured by Hilduinus, the abbot of St. Denis, with the title of Scholasticissimus. It sems uncertain what was the cause of his leaving Italy for France, but the step was peculiarly fortunate for him, as his poetical genius procured him the most honourable reception. Princes, bishops, and persons of the highest ranks, became eager to confer on him marks of their esteem. He arrived in France during the reign of Sigebert, king of Austrasia, who received him with great respect. This being about the time of the king’s marriage with Brunehaut, in the year 566, Venantius composed an epithaiamium, in which he celebrated the graces and perfections of the new queen. It is also said, that he gave the king lectures on politics. The following year he went to Tours to perform a vow to St. Martin, whose image had cured him of a complaint in his eyes. He then went to Poictiers, and was invited by St. Radegonda, the foundress of a monastery there, to reside in the capacity of her secretary; and afterwards, when he became a priest, she appointed him her chaplain and almoner. He resided here for some years, employing his time in study and writing, and edifying the church as much by his example as by his works. He was much esteemed by Gregory of Tours and other prelates, and was at last himself raised to be bishop of Poictiers, which dignity, it is said, he did not long enjoy. He died about the commencement of the seventh century, some say in the year 609. His works consist of eleven books of poetry, mostly of the elegiac kind, and generally short: hymns adapted to the services of the church: epitaphs, letters to several bishops, and some to Gregory of Tours: courtly verses addressed to queen Radegonda, and her sister Agnes, usually sent with presents of flowers, fruit, &c. four books of the “Life of St. Martin,” in heroic verse: several lives of the saints. Editions of his works were published at Cagliari in 1573, 1574, and 1584, and at Cologne in 1600: but all these are said to be incomplete and incorrect, yet they shew the respect paid to him as the best Latin poet of his time. In 1603 Christopher Brower, a German Jesuit, produced a very correct edition, with notes, printed at Fulda, and reprinted at Mentz, in 1617, 4to; but this contains only his poems. His other works are in the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” of Lyons, 1677. The most complete edition is that of Rome, published under the title of “Venantii opera omnia quae extant, post Browerianam editionetn mine recens novis addiiamentis aucta, not. et scholiis illustr. opera Mich-Ange Luchi,” 1786—87, 2 vols. 4to.

, a saint of the fifth century, was a native of France, and originally a soldier; but determining to forsake the world, retired to the monastery of Lerins in Provence, and became a priest. The time of his death is uncertain, but after that event he was canonized, He wrote a work to which he is supposed to have owed this honour, entitled “Commonitorium adversus Hsereticos,” in which he proposes to confute heretics by two authorities: first, that of the Holy Scriptures; and secondly, that of the church, and he advances many arguments that have at least the appearance of ingenuity. There have been many editions of this work abroad, and one at Cambridge, in 1687, 12mo. Mosheim calls it an excellent treatise, but his translator says he sees nothing in it but that blind veneration for ancient opinions, which is so fatal to the discovery and progress of truth, and an attempt to prove that nothing but the voice of tradition is to be consulted in fixing the sense of the holy scriptures.

Among these are, 1. “A Letter to the author of the late Letter out of the country, occasioned by a former Letter to a member of the House of Commons, concerning the bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension.” 2. “An Answer to a late pamphlet entitled Obedience and Submission to the present Government demonstrated from bishop Overall’s Convocation Book: with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance,” London, 1690. 3. “An Answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Vindication of the Case of allegiance due to sovereign powers, which he made in reply to an Answer to a late pamphlet entitled Obedience and Submission to the present government demonstrated from bishop Overall’s Convocation book, with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance, &c,” London, 1692. 4. “An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Sherlock written in vindication of that part of Josephus’s History, wtiicb gives the account of Jaddas’s submission to Alexander, against the Answer to the piece entitled Obedience and Submission to the present Government,” Lond. 1692. 5. “A Letter out of Suffolk to a friend in London, giving some account of the late sickness and death of Dr. William Sancroft late lord archbishop of Canterbury,” London, 1694. 6. “A Letter out of Lancashire to a friend in London, giving some account of the tryals there. Together with some seasonable and proper remarks upon it; recommended to the wisdom of the Lords and Commons assembled in parliament,” London, 1694. 7. “A Letter to a gentleman elected a knight of the shire to serve in the present parliament,” London, 1694. 8. “Remarks on some late Sermons, and in particular on Dr. Sherlock’s sermon at the Temple December the 30th, 1694, in a letter to a friend. The second edition, with additions. Together with a letter to the author of a pamphlet entitled A Defence of the archbishop’s Sermon, &c. and several other Sermons, &c.” London, 1695. 9. “An account of the proceedings in the House of Commons, in relation to the recoining the clipped money, and falling the price of guineas. Together with a particular list of the names of the members consenting and dissenting; in answer to a Letter out of the country,” London, 1696. 10. “A Vindication of king Charles the Martyr; proving that his majesty was the author of ' Eixav BawiAjw, against a memorandum said to be written by the earl of Anglesey, and against the exceptions of Dr. Walker and others. To which is added a preface, wherein the bold and insolent assertions published in a passage of Mr.JBayle’s Dictionary relating to the present controversy are examined and confuted. The third edition, with large additions together with some original letters of king Charles the First, &c.” Lond. 1711, in 4to. The two former editions were in 8vo, the first printed in 1693, and the second in 1697. 11. “A Defence of the Vindication of king Charles the Martyr; justifying his majesty’s title to Efxcuv 'BacriMw, in answer to a late pamphlet entitled Amyntor,” London, 1699. Mr. Wagstaffe also wrote prefaces before, I. “Symmons’s Restitutus: containing two epistles, four whole sections or chapters, together with a postscript, and some marginal observations, &c. which were perfectly omitted in the first edition of Mr Symmons’s book, entitled” A Vindication of king Charles I. and republished by Dr Hollingworth,“London, 1693. 2.” The devout Christian’s Manual, by Mr. Jones,“London, 1703. 3.” A Treatise of God’s Government, and of the justice of his present dispensations in this world. By the pious, learned, and most eloquent Sulvian, a priest of Marseilles, who lived in the fifth century. Translated from the Latin by R. T. presbyter of the church of England,“London, 1700. These two pamphlets are also of Mr. Wagstaffe’s writing, 1.” The present state of Jacobitism in England,“ibid. 1700;” A second part in answer to the first“which was written by the bishop of Salisbury, &c. &c. Wagstaflfe derived most credit from his endeavours to prove the” Eikon Basilike“to be the genuine production of king Charles; but on this subject we must refer our readers to the life of bishop Gauden, and especially the authorities there quoted. Mr. Wagstaffe had a son who resided at Oxford in the early part of his life, but afterwards went abroad, and resided at Rome many years in the character of protestant chaplain to the chevalier St. George, and afterwards to his son. He was there esteemed a man of very extensive learning. Dr. Townson was acquainted with him at Rome, both on his first and second tour in 1743 and 1768. He lived in a court near a carpenter’s shop, and upon Dr. Townson’s inquiring for him, the carpenter knew of no such person.” He did live somewhere in this yard some years ago.“” I have lived here these thirty years, and no person of such a name has lived here in that time.“But on farther explanation, the carpenter exclaimed,” Oh, you mean // Predicatore; he lives there,“pointing to the place. This Mr. Wagstaffe died at Rome, Dec. 3, 1770, aged seventy-eight. Mr. Nichols has preserved some jeux d‘esprits, and some epitaphs written by him, and there is a letter of his to Tom Hearne, in the ’.' Letters written by Eminent Persons,” lately published at Oxford, 1813, 3 vols. 8vo.

, an eminent Puritan divine, was born at Hawkshead in Lancashire, in 1581, and was educated at St. John’s-college, Cambridge. After completing his studies there he went to London, and in 1614 became rector of St. John’s the Evangelist in Watling-street, where he continued nearly forty years, refusing every other offer of preferment. About the same time he became chaplain to Dr. Felton, bishop of Ely, who made choice of him the very morning of his consecration. He distinguished himself in the popish controversy; and, in 1623, held a public disputation with a priest of the name of Smith, before a very large assembly, and by consent of both parties, an account of it was afterwards published. He had likewise some encounters with Fisher, the celebrated Jesuit, and others who were deemed the most able disputants on the side of the church of Rome. In 1635 he was brought into trouble, for having preached a sermon in favour of the sacred observance of the Sabbath; archbishop Laud was so unwise as to admonish him for thjs, and afterwards had hitn prosecuted in the Star-chamber, fined and imprisoned. The parliament reversed this sentence, and condemned the whole proceedings against Mr. Walker, and he was restored to his living of St. John’s. In 1643, he was chosen one of the assembly of divines, and was also one of the witnesses against archbishop Laud, and one of those who took upon them to swear that the unfortunate prelate had endeavoured to introduce popery. In his sermons, too, before the parliament, he made use of those expressions, which tended to lessen the king in the eyes of the people; and although he was one of those who afterwards petitioned against his majesty’s death, he was also one of those who did not reflect how much their violent harangues and sermons had contributed to that event. He died in 1651, aged seventy years, and was interred in his own church in Watling-street. Fuller gives him a high character, as a man “well skilled in the Oriental languages, and an excellent logician and divine. He was a man of a holy life, an humble spirit, and a liberal ham!, who well deserved of Zion college library and who, by his example and persuasion, advanced a thousand pounds for the maintenance of preaching ministers in his native country.” He published, 1. “The sum of a Disputation between Mr. Walker, pastor of St. John the Evangelist, and a Popish priest, calling himself Mr. Smith, but indeed Norris,” 1623. 2. “Fisher’s folly unfolded, or the vaunting Jesuit’s challenge answered,” 1624. 3. “Socinianism in the fundamental point of Justification discovered and confuted.” 4. “The doctrine of the Holy Weekly Sabbath,” 1641. 5. “God made visible in all his Works,” 1644; besides several sermons preached before the parliament. We shall have occasion to mention another publication of Mr. Walker’s, when we come to speak of Anthony Wotton.

, the historian of Halifax, was eldest son of Legh Watson by Hester daughter and at last heiress of John Yates, of Svvinton in Lancashire, and was born at Lyrne-cum-Hanley, in the parish of Prestbury, in Cheshire, March 26, 1724. Having been brought up at the grammar-schools of Eccles, Wigan, and Manchester, all in Lancashire, he was admitted a commoner in BrazenNose-college, Oxford, April 7, 1742. In Michaelmasterm, 1745, he took the degree of B. A. June 27, 1746, he was elected a fellow of Brazen-Nose college, being chosen into a Cheshire fellowship, as being a Prestburyparish man. On the title of his fellowship he was ordained a deacon at Chester by bishop Peploe, Dec. 21, 1746. After his year of probation, as fellow, was ended, and his residence at Oxford no longer required, he left the college; and his first employment in- the church was the curacy of Runcorn, in. Cheshire here he stayed only three months, and removed thence to Ardwick, near Manchester, where he was an assistant curate at the chapel there, and private tutor to the three sons of Samuel Birch, of Ardwick, esq. During his residence here, he was privately ordained a priest at Chester, by the above bishop Peploe, JMay 1, 1748, and took the degree of M. A. at Oxford, in act- term the same year. From Ardwick he removed to Halifax, and was licensed to the curacy there, Oct. 17, 1750, by Dr. Matthew Hutton, archbishop of York. June 1, 1752, he married Susanna, daughter and heiress of the late rev. Mr. Allon, vicarof Sandbach, in Cheshire, vacating thereby his fellpwship at Oxford. Sept. 3, 1754, he was licensed by the above Dr. Hutton, on the presentation of George Legh, LL. D. vicar of Halifax, to the perpetual curacy of Ripponden, in the parish of Halifax. Here he rebuilt the curate’s house, at his own expence, laying out above 400l. upon the same, which was more than a fourth part of the whole sum he there received; notwithstanding which, his unworthy successor threatened him with a prosecution in the spiritual court, if he did not allow him ten pounds for dilapidations, v^hich, for the sake of peace, he complied with. Feb. 17, 1759, he was elected F. S. A. After his first wife’s death, he was married, July 11, 1761, at Ealand, in Halifax parish, to Anne, daughter of Mr. James Jaques, of Leeds, merchant. August 17, 1766, he was inducted to the rectory of Meningsby, Lincolnshire, which he resigned in 1769, on being promoted to the rectory of Stockport, in Cheshire, worth about 1500l. a year. His presentation to this, by sir George Warren^ bore date July 30, 1769, and he was inducted thereto August the 2d following. April 11, 1770, he was appointed one of the domestic chaplains to the right hon. the earl of Dysart. April 24, 1770, having received his dedimus for acting as a justice of the peace in the county of Chester, he was sworn into that office on that day. Oct. 2, 1772, he received his dedimus far acting as a justice of peace for tfie county of Lancaster, and was sworn in accordingly. His principal publication was “The History of Halifax,” 1775, 4to, whence these particulars are chiefly taken. He died March 14, 1783, after finishing for the press, in 2 vols. 4to, “A History of the ancient earls of Warren and Surrey,” with a view to represent his patron sir George Warren’s claim to those ancient titles; but it is thought by a very acute examiner of the work and judge of the subject, that he has left the matter in very great doubt.

, a learned abbot of St. Albans, was ordained a priest in 1382, and died in 1464, when he had been eighty-two years in priest’s orders, and above an hundred years old. He wrote a chronicle of twenty years of this period, beginning in 1441 and ending in 1461. It contains many original papers, and gives a very full account of some events, particularly of the two battles of St. Alban’s. More than one half of his chronicle is filled with the affairs of his own abbey, to which he was a great benefactor, particularly to the altar of the patron saint, which he adorned with much magnificence. About 1430 he employed Lydgate to translate the Latin legend of St. Alban’s life into English rhymes, for the purpose of familiarising the history of that saint to the monks of his convent. He enriched the library by procuring transcripts of useful books, and was on account of such pursuits in high favour with duke Humphrey, who, when about to found his library at Oxford, often visited St. Alban’s, and employed Whethamstede to collect valuable books for him.

, a statesman and divine in the reign of queen Elizabeth, celebrated for the politeness of his style and the extent of his knowledge, was the son of Thomas Wilson of Stroby in Lincolnshire, by Anne daughter and heir of Roger Comberwortb, of Comberworth in the same county. He was educated at Eton, and atKing’scollege, Cambridge; and went thence into the family of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, who intrusted him with the education of his two sons. During the reign of Mary, to whose persecution many fugitives owed their qualifications for future honours, he lived abroad, received the degree of doctor of laws at Ferrara, and was for some time imprisoned by the inquisition at Rome, on account of his two treatises on rhetoric and logic, which he had published in England, and in the English language, several years before. He is said to have suffered the torture, and would have been put to death, on refusing to deny his faith, had not a fire happened, which induced the populace to force open the prison, that those confined there might not perish > by which means he escaped; and, returning to England, after queen Mary’s death, was appointed one of the masters of requests, and master of St. Katherine’s hospital near the Tower. This was in the third year of queen Elizabeth, at which time he was her majesty’s secretary; but finding his patent for the mastership of St. Catherine’s void, because he was not a priest, according to queen Philippa’s charter, he surrendered the office, and had a new patent, with a non obstante, Dec. 7, 1563. According to Dr. Ducarel, his conduct in this office was somewhat objectionable, as he sold to the city of London the fair of St. Katherine’s, for the sum of 700 marks, surrendered the charter of Henry VI. and took a new one 8. Elizabeth, leaving out the liberty of the aforesaid fair; and did many other things very prejudicial to his successors. In 15lhe had been admitted a civilian; and in 1576 he was sent on an embassy to the Low Countries, where he acquitted himself so well, that in the following year he was named to succeed sir Thomas Smith as secretary of state; and in 1579 obtained a deanery of Durham. He died in 1581, and was buried in St. Katherine’s church. He was endowed with an uncommon strength of memory, which enabled him to act with N remarkable dispatch in his negociations. Yet he was more distinguished as a scholar than as a minister, and was perhaps unfortunate in having served jointly with the illustrious Walsingham, whose admirable conduct in his office admitted of no competition. Sir Thomas Wilson married Anne, daughter of sir William Winter, of Lidney in Gloucestershire, and left three children: Nicholas, who settled at Sheepwash in Lincolnshire; Mary, married, first, to Robert Burdett, of Bramcote in Warwickshire, secondly to sir Christopher Lowther, of Lowther in Westmoreland; and Lucretia, wife of George Belgrave, of Belgrave in Leicestershire.

, an eminent statesman and patron of literature, was born in 1437, at Torrelaguna, in Old Castille, and was the son of Alphonso de Cimeros de Ximenes, procurator of that city. He was educated for the church, at Alcala and Salamanca, and then went to Rome, but having been robbed on his journey home, brought nothing back with him, except a bull for the first prebend which should be vacant. This the archbishop of Toledo refused to grant, and confined him in the tower of Uceda, where it is said a priest, who had long been prisoner there, foretold to him that he should, one day, be archbishop of Toledo. Having recovered his liberty, he obtained a benefice in the diocese of Siguenza, and cardinal Gonsalez de Mendoza, who was bishop there, made him his grand vicar. Ximenes entered soon after among the Franciscans of Toledo, and took the vows; but finding himself embarrassed by visits, he retired to a solitude called Castauel, where he studied the Oriental languages and divinity. On his return to Toledo, queen Isabella of Castille appointed him her confessor, and nominated him to the archbishopric of Toledo, 14.95, without his knowledge. When Ximenes received the bulls from the hand of this princess, he only kissed them, returned them to her, unopened, saying, “Madam, these letters are not addressed to me,” and went immediately back to his convent at Castanel, being determined not to accept the archbishopric. The queen was much pleased with this refusal; but when Ximenes still persisted in his refusal, an express command from the pope became necessary to overcome his resolution. Nor would he even then yield but upon the following conditions: “That he should never quit his church of Toledo; that no pension should be charged on his archbishopric (one of the richest in the world); and that no infringement of the privileges and immunities of his church should ever be attempted.” He took possession of it in 1498, being received with unusual magnificence at Toledo. This prelate’s first care was to provide for the poor, visit the churches and hospitals, and clear his diocese from usurers and licentious houses. Those judges who neglected their duty, he degraded, supplying their places with persons whose probity and disinterestedness were known to him. He held a synod afterwards at Alcala, and another at Talavera, where he made very prudent regulations for the clergy of his diocese, and laboured at the same time to reform the Franciscans throughout Castille and Arragon, in which he happily succeeded, notwithstanding the obstacles he had to encounter. Ximenes established a celebrated university at Alcala, and founded there in 1499, the famous college of St. Ildephonsus, built by Peter Gumiel, one of the best architects of that time. Three years after he undertook the great plan of a Polyglot Bible, for the execution of which he invited many learned men from Alcala to Toledo, who were skilled in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and other languages necessary for the perfect understanding the holy scriptures. This Bible, though began in 1502, was not printed till 1517, 6 vols. folio, at Alcala. It contains the Hebrew text of the Bible, the version of the LXX. with a literal translation, that of St. Jerome, and the Chaldee paraphrases of Onkelos on the Pentateuch only. In the original preface, addressed to pope Leo X. the learned archbishop says, “It is doing great service to the church to publish the scriptures in their original language, both because no translation cati give a perfect idea of the original, and because, according to the opinion of the holy fathers, we should refer to the Hebrew text for the Old Testament, and to the Greek for the New Testament.” The work was above fifteen years in finishing. Ximenes himself assisted in it with great assiduity, and paid the whole expence, which amounted to an immense sum. He purchased seven Hebrew copies, that cost four thousand crowns, and gave vast prices for ancient Mss. To the above-mentioned Bible, which is called the Polyglot of Ximenes, he added a dictionary of the Hebrew and Chaldee words in the Bible. In 1507 pope Julius II. gave him a cardinal’s hat; and Ferdinand the catholic entrusted him with the administration of state affairs, from which moment cardinal Ximenes became the soul of all that was done in Spain. He began his ministry by delivering the people from an oppressive tax, which had been continued on account of the war of Grenada; and he laboured so zealously and successfully in the conversion of the Mahometans, that he made near three thousand proselytes, among whom was the prince of the blood royal of Grenada. This great multitude he baptized in a spacious square, awd ordering all the copies of the Koran to be brought thither, set them on fire; which memorable day was afterwarda kept as a festival in Spain. Cardinal Ximenes extended Ferdinand’s dominion over the Moors, 1509, by the conquest of Oran, a city in the kingdom of Algiers. He undertook this conquest at his own expence, and marched himself at the head of the Spanish army in his pontifical habit, accompanied by a great number of ecclesiastics and monks, and at his return was met within four leagues of Seville by Ferdinand, who alighted to embrace him. Foreseeing afterwards an uncommon dearth, he ordered public granaries to be built at Toledo, Alcala, and Torrelaguna, and stored them with corn at his own cost; which made him so generally beloved, that his eulogy was engraved in the senate-house at Toledo, and in the public square, to perpetuate the memory of this noble action. King Ferdinand dying in 1516, appointed him regent of his dominions, and the archduke Charles (afterwards the emperor Charles V.) confirmed this appointment. No sooner was cardinal Ximenes established in the regency, than he became intent on exerting his authority. He introduced a reformation among the officers of the supreme council, and those of the court, ordered the judges to repress all extortions of the rich and of the nobility, and dismissed prince Ferdinand’s two favourites. These changes excited murmurs among the grandees, and some officer’s asked the cardinal, by what authority he thus acted? Ximenes immediately showed them the soldiers who composed his common guard, and replied, that his power consisted in their strength; then shaking his cord of St. Francis, said, “This suffices me to quell my rebellious subjects.” At the same time he ordered the cannon, which he kept behind his palace, to be fired, and concluded with these words: “Haec est ratio ultima regis;” i. e. This is the decisive argument of kings. He opposed the reformation of the inquisition; devoted himself, with indefatigable ardour, to the affairs of the church and state; and omitted nothing that he thought could contribute to the glory of religion, and the advantage of his sovereigns. At length, after having governed Spain twenty -two years, in the reigns of Ferdinand, Isabella, Jane, Philip, and Charles of Austria, he died November 8, 1517, as some think, by poison, in the eighty-first year of his age. His remains were interred in the college of Ildephonsus, at Alcala, where his tomb may be seen. This cardinal had settled several excellent foundations; among others, two magnificent female convents; one for the religious education of a great many young ladies of high rank, but destitute of fortune the other to be an asylum; for such poor maidens as should be found to have a real call to the monastic life. He also founded a chapel in his cathedral for the performance of divine service according to the Mozarabic rites. If we add the fountain of springwater, which he conveyed to the town of Torrelaguna, for public use, to the other sums he expended there, it will appear that he laid out nearly a million in that one place.

, an eminently learned Italian Jesuit, was born in Venice, March 27, 1714, the son of an eminent Tuscan lawyer, settled in the Venetian states. He received his education in the schools of the Jesuits in that metropolis, and, as early as the age of fifteen, evinced such uncommon powers and attainments as to be introduce'd into that society, already proverbial for its sagacity and conduct in discovering juvenile talents of every kind. In October 1731, he took the habit, went through his noviciate in Vienna, and became soon after professor of belles lettres in the college of his order at Govitz. It was not long before he was called by his superiors to Rome, ordained a priest in 1740, attached to the Roman province, and sent on a mission to the Marche of Ancona. He exercised similar functions also in Tuscany, Lombardy, and almost the whole of northern Italy, with extraordinary success and fame, and without the least diversion from his favourite pursuit the study of ecclesiastical, civil, and literary history. He availed himself of these peregrinations through the several capitals of Italy, in cultivating the friendship of all the eminent literary characters he met with, and in making every where those deep researches in literature, antiquities, -bibliography, and history, which have supplied him with a great part of his literary history of Italy, his annals of literature, and his several historical and diplomatic collections.

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."