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

, a clergyman of the church of Scotland, who long kept an academy for the education of young men for the ministry among the class called Seceders in that country, was born in 1722, in a village called Kerpoo, in the county of Perth. His parents died when he was very young, leaving him almost destitute, but by some means he contrived to obtain books, if not regular education, and by dint of perseverance acquired a considerable knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, with which last he was critically conversant. He could also read and translate the French, Italian, German, Arabic, Persian, Syriac, and Ethiopic, but his favourite studies were divinity, and history both ecclesiastical and civil. His principles being Calvinistic, his reading was much confined to writers of that stamp, but he appears to have studied every controversy in which the church has been involved, with much attention. At what time he was ordained, does not appear, but his extensive* learning pointed him out to the associate synod, or synod of seceders, as a fit person to be their professor of divinity, and train up young men, who had had a previous education, for the office of the ministry within their pale. His residence was at Haddington, where he was preacher to a numerous congregation of the seceders. At one time he received a pressing invitation from the Dutch church in the province of New York, to be their tutor in divinity, which he declined. He died June 19, 1787. His principal works are, 1. An edition of the Bible, called “The Self-interpreting Bible,” from its marginal references, which are far more copious than in any other edition, London, 1791, 2 vols. 4to, and since reprinted. 2. “Dictionary of the Bible, on the plan of Calmet, but principally adapted to common readers; often reprinted, 2 vols. 8vo. 3.” Ex-> plication of Scripture Metaphors,“' 12mo. 4.” History of the Seceders,“eighth edition, 1802, 12mo. 5.” The Christian Student and Pastor,“1781, an abridgment of the Lives of Pious Men. 6.” Letters on the Government of the Christian Church.“7.” General History of the Church,“1771, 2 vols. 12mo, a very useful compendium of church history, partly on the plan of Mosheim, or perhaps rather of Lampe. After his death appeared a volume entitled” Select Hemains," with some account of his life.

, M. D. author of what has been called the Brunonian system in medicine, was born in the parish of Buncle, in the county of Berwick, in the year 1735, of parents in a mean situation in life, but, in common with the children of other villagers in Scotland, he received his education at a grammar-school. As his mind was much above the rank he was born in, his progress in literature was proportionably superior to the rest of his school-fellows. He there imbibed a taste for letters, so that when he was afterwards put apprentice to a weaver, instead of attending to Ms business, his whole mind was bent on procuring books, which he read with great eagerness. Finding this disposition could not be conquered, his father took him from the loom, and sent him to the grammarschool at Dunse, where, under the tuition of Mr. Cruickshanks, he made such progress that he was soon regarded as a prodigy. He read all the Latin classics with the greatest facility, and was oo mean proficient in the knowledge of the Greek language. “His habits,” we are told, “were sober, he was of a religious turn, and was so strongly attached to the sect of Seceders, or Whigs as tlrey are called in Scotland, in which he had been bred, that he would have thought his salvation hazarded, if he had attended the meetings of the established church. He aspired to be a preacher of a purer religion.” An accident, however, disgusted him with this society, before he was of art age to be chosen a pastor, for which it appears he was intended. Having been prevailed on by some of his schoolfellows to attend divine service at the parish church of Dunse, he was summoned before the session of the seceding congregation to answer for this offence; but his high spirit not brooking to make an apology, to avoid the censures of his brethren, and the ignominy of being expelled their community, he abdicated his principles, and professed himself a member of the established church. As his talents for literature were well known, he was taken, at the age of twenty, to the house of a gentleman in the neighbourhood of Dunse, as tutor to his son. Here he did not long reside, but went the same year, 1755, to Edinburgh, where he applied to the study of divinity, in which he proceeded so far as to deliver, in the public hall, a discourse upon a prescribed portion of scripture, the usual step preliminary to ordination. But here his theological studies appear to have ended, and he suddenly left Edinburgh, returned to Dunse, and officiated as an usher in the school where he had been educated. He now exhibited himself as a free-liver and free-thinker, his discourse and manners being equally licentious and irregular, which accounts for his dereliction of the study of theology. At Dunse he continued about a year. During this time, a vacancy happening in one of the classes in the high school at Edinburgh, Brown appeared as a candidate, but was not successful. Soon after he was applied to by a student in medicine, at Edinburgh, to put his inaugural thesis into, Latin. This he performed in so superior a manner, that it gained him great reputation; it opened to him a path which he had not probably before thought of, for turning his erudition to profit. On the strength of the character procured him by this performance, he returned to 'Edinburgh, and determined to apply to the study of medicine. “He had now,” he said, “discovered his strength, and was ambitious of riding in his carriage as a physician.” At the opening of the session he addressed Latin letters to each of the professors, who readily gave him tickets of admission to their lectures, which he attended diligently for several years; in the interim, teaching Latin to such of the pupils as applied, and assisting them in, writing their theses, or turning them into Latin. The price, when he composed the thesis, was ten guineas; when he translated their compositions into Latin, five. If he had been now prudent, or had not indulged in the most destructive excesses, he might, it is probable, in a few years, have attained the eminence he promised himself; but he marred all by his intemperance. In no long time after this, his constitution, which had been hardy and robust, became debilitated, and he had the face and appearance of a worn-out debauchee. His bad habits had not, however, prevented his getting the friendship or assistance of Dr. Cullen, who, desirous of availing himself of his talents, employed him as a tutor to his sons, and made use of him as an assistant in his lectures; Brown repeating to his pupils in the evening, the lecture they had heard in the morning, and explaining to them such parts as were abstruse and difficult. In 1765 he married, and took a house, which was soon filled with boarders; but, continuing his improvident course, he became a bankrupt at the nd of three or four years. He now became a candidate for one of the medical chairs, but failed; and as he attributed his missing this promotion to Dr. Cullen, he very unadvisedly broke off his connection with him, and became the declared enemy to him and his system; which he had always before strenuously defended. This probably determined him to form a new system of medicine, doubtless meaning to annihilate that of his former patron. As he had read but few medical books, and was but little versed in practice, his theory must have been rather the result of contemplation than of experience. That in forming it, he was influenced by his attachment to spirituous liquors, seems probable from internal evidence, and from the effects he attributed to them of diminishing the number as well as the severity of the fits of the gout, under which he suffered. He always found them more severe and frequent, he says, he lived abstemiously. One of his pupils informed Br; Beddoes, “that he was used, before he began to read his lecture, to take fifty drops of laudanum in a glass of whisky; repeating the dose four or five times during the lecture. Between the effects of these stimulants, and voluntary exertions, he soon waxed warm, and by degrees his imagination was exalted into phrenzy.” His intention seems to have been to simplify medicine, and to render the knowledge of it easily attainable, without the labour of studying other authors. All general or universal diseases were therefore reduced by him to two great families or classes, the sthenic and the asthenic; the former depending upon excess, the latter upon deficiency of exciting power. The former were to be removed by debilitating, the latter by stimulant medicines, of which the most valuable and powerful are wine, brandy, and opium. As asthenic diseases are more numerous y and occur much more frequently than those from an opposite cause, his opportunities of calling in the aid of these powerful stimuli were proportionately numerous. “Spasmodic and convulsive disorders, and even hemorrhages,” he says, “were found to proceed from debility; and wine, and brandy, which had been thought hurtful in these diseases, he found the most powerful of all remedies in removing them.” When he had completed his plan, 'he published his theory or system, under the title of “Elementa Medicinse,” from his preface to which the preceding quotations have been principally taken. Though he had been eleven or twelve years at Edinburgh, he had not taken his degree of doctor; and as he was now at variance with all the medical professors, not thinking it prudent to offer himself there, he went to St. Andrew’s, where he was readily admitted to that honour. He now commenced public teacher of medicine, making his “Elementa” his text book; and convinced, as it seems, of the soundness of his doctrine, he exultingly demands (preface to a new edition of the translation of his “Elementa,” by Dr. Beddoes), whether the medical art, hitherto conjectural, incoherent, and in the great body of its doctrines false, was not at last reduced to a science of demonstration, which might be called the science of life? His method in giving his lectures was, first to translate the text book, sentence by sentence, and then to expatiate upon the passage. The novelty of the docfeine procured him at first a pretty numerous class of pupilsj but as he was irregular in his attendance, and his habits of drinking increased upon him, they were soon. reduced in number, and he became so involved in his circumstances, that it became necessary for him to quit Edinburgh; he therefore came to London in the autumn of the year 1786. Here, for a time, he was received with favour, but his irregularities in living increasing upon him, he came to his lodgings, in the evening of the 8th of October, in 1788, intoxicated, and taking, as it was his custom, a large dose of laudanum, he died in the course of the night, before he had entered on his career of lecturing, for which he was making preparations. He had the preceding year published “Observations on the Old Systems of Physic,” as a prelude to the introduction of his own; but it was little noticed. His opinions have, however, ' met with patrons in Germany and Italy, as well as in this country, and several volumes have been Written on the subject of them; but they are now pretty generally, and deservedly, abandoned.

, an eminent horticulturist, and, from a word often employed by him in laying out gardens, called Capability Brown , was born at Kirkharle, in Northumberland, Aug. 1715. Of his education we have no account, but he came early in life to the metropolis, and was employed by lord Cobham in improving the grounds at Stowe; and afterwards at Richmond, Blenheim, Luton, Wimbledon, Nuneham, &c. where he improved ornamental gardening in a very high degree, and approached more nearly to nature than his predecessors. In these operations he frequently discovered a very highly cultivated taste, and may be said to have led the fashion in horticulture for nearly half a century. He associated also with familiarity with many of his noble and opulent employers, and realized a handsome fortune. In 1770 he served the office of high sheriff for the counties of Huntingdon and Cambridge. He died suddenly in Hertfordstreet, May-fair, Feb. 6, 1783, being at that time head gardener to his majesty, at Hampton-court.

, an English divine of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, from whom the sect of the Brownists derived its name, was descended of an ancient and worshipful family, says Fuller, (one whereof founded a fair hospital in Stamford), and was nearly allied to the lord-treasurer Cecil. He was the son of Anthony Brown, of Tol thorp, in Rutlandshire, esq. (though born at Northampton, according to Mr. Collier), and grandson of Francis Brown, whom king Henry VIII. in the eighteenth year of his reign, privileged by charter to wear Jiis cap in the presence of himself, his heirs, or any of his nobles, and not to uncover but at his own pleasure; which charter was confirmed by act of parliament. Robert Brown studied divinity at Cambridge, in Corpus Christi college, and was afterwards a schoolmaster in Southwark. He was soon discovered by Dr. Still, master of Trinity-college, to have somewhat extraordinary in him that would prove a great disturbance to the church. Brown soon verified what the doctor foretold, for he not only jm^ bibed Cartwright’s opinions, but resolved to refine upon his scheme, and to produce something more perfect of his own. Accordingly, about the year 1580, he began to inveigh openly against the discipline and ceremonies of the church of England, and soon shewed that he intended to go much farther than Cartwright had ever done. In his discourses the church government was antichristian; her sacraments clogged with superstition; the liturgy had a mixture of Popery and Paganism in it; and the mission of the clergy was no better than that of Baal’s priests in the Old Testament. He first preached at Norwich, in 1581, where the Dutch having a numerous congregation, many of them inclined to Ahabaptism; and, therefore, being the more disposed to entertain any new resembling opinion, he made his first essay upon them; and having made some progress, and raised a character for zeal and sanctity, he then began to infect his own countrymen; for which purpose he called in the assistance of one Richard Harrison, a country schoolmaster, and they formed churches out of both nations, but mostly of the English. He instructed his audience that the church of England was no true church; that there was little of Christ’s institution in the public ministrations, and that all good Christians were obliged to separate from those impure assemblies; that their only way was to join him and his disciples, among whom all was pure and unexceptionable, evidently inspired by the Spirit of God, and refined from all alloy and prophanation. These discourses prevailed on the audience; and his disciples, now called Brownists, formed a society, and made a total defection from the church, refusing to join any congregation in any public office of worship. Brown being convened before Dr. Freake, bishop of Norwich, and other ecclesiastical commissioners, he maintained his schism, to justify which he had also written a book, and behaved rudely to the court, on which he was committed to the custody of the sheriff of Norwich; but his relation, the lord treasurer Burghley, imputing his error and obstinacy to zeal, rather than malice, interceded to have him charitably persuaded out of his opinions, and released. To this end he wrote a letter to the bishop of Norwich, which procured his enlargement. After this, hisjordship ordered Brown up to London, and recommended him to archbishop Whitgift for his instruction and counsel, in order to his amendment; but Brown left the kingdom, and settled at Middleburgh in Zealand, where he and his followers obtained leave of the states to form a church according to their own model, which was drawn in a book published by Brown at Middleburgh in 1582, and called “A treatise of Reformation, without staying for any man.” How long he remained at Middleburgh, is not precisely known; but he was in England in 1585, when he was cited to appear before archbishop Whitgift, to answer to certain matters contained in a book published by him, but what this was, we are not informed. The archbishop, however, by force of reasoning, brought Brown at last to a tolerable compliance with the church of England; and having dismissed him, the lord treasurer Burgh.­Jey sent him to his father in the country, with a letter to recommend him to his favour and countenance, but from another letter of the lord treasurer’s, we learn that Brown’s errors had sunk so deep as not to be so easily rooted out as was imagined; and that he soon relapsed into his former opinions, and shewed himself so incorrigible, that his good old father resolved to own him for his son no longer than his son owned the church of England for his mother; and Brown chusing rather to part with his aged sire than his new schism, he was discharged the family. When gentleness was found ineffectual, severity was next practised; and Brown, after wandering up and down, and enduring great hardships, at length went to live at Northampton, where, industriously labouring to promote his sect, Lindsell, bishop of Peterborough, sent him a citation to come before him, which Brown refused to obey; for which contempt he was excommunicated. This proved the means of his reformation; for he was so deeply affected with the solemnity of this censure, that he made his submission, moved for absolution, and received it; and from that time continued in the communion of the church, though it was not in his power to close the chasrn^ or heal the wound he had made in it. It was towards the year 1590 that Brown renounced his principles of separation, antl was soon after preferred to the rectory of Achurch, near Thrapston in Northamptonshire. Fuller does not believe that Brown ever formally recanted his opinions, either by word or writing, as to the main points of his doctrine; but that his promise of a general compliance with the church of England, improved by the countenance of his patron and kinsman, the earl of Exeter, prevailed upon the archbishop, and procured this extraordinary favour for him. He adds, that Brown allowed a salary for one to discharge his cure; and though he opposed his parishioners in judgment, yet agreed in taking their tithes. He was a man of good parts and some learning, but was imperious and uncontroulable; and so far from the Sabbatarian strictness afterwards espoused by some of his followers, that he led an idle and dissolute life. In a word, says Fuller, he had a wife with whom he never lived, and a church in which he never preached, though he received the profits thereof: and as all the other scenes of his life were stonny and turbulent, so was his end: for the constable of his parish requiring, somewhat roughly, the payment of certain rates, his passion moved him to blows, of which the constable complaining to justice St. John, he rather inclined to pity than punish him but Brown behaved with so much insolence, that he was sent to Northampton gaol on a feather-bed in a cart, being very infirm, and aged above eighty years, where he soon after sickened and died, anno 1630, after boasting, “That he had been committed to thirty-two prisons, in some of which he could not see his hand at noon-day.” He was buried in his church of Achurch in Northamptonshire.

, a celebrated general of the eighteenth century, was the son of Ulysses, baron de Brown, colonel of a regiment of cuirassiers in the service of the emperors Leopold and Joseph, created in 1716, by the emperor Charles VI. a count of the holy Roman empire, his younger brother George receiving the like dignity at the same time, who was general of foot, counsellor of war, and a colonel of a regiment of infantry, under Charles -VI. They were of an ancient and noble family in Ireland. The subject of the present memoir was born at Basle, Oct. 24, 1705-. After having passed through the lessons of a school at Limerick in Ireland, he was called to Hungary at ten years of age, by count George de Brown, his uncle, and was present at the famous siege of Belgrade in 1717; about the close of the year 1723, he became captain in his uncle’s regiment, and then lieutenant-colonel in 1725. He went to the island of Corsica in 1730, with a battalion of his regiment, and contributed greatly to the capture of Callansana, where he received a wound of some consequence in his thigh. He was appointed chamberlain to the emperor in 1732, and colonel in 1734. He distinguished himself in the war of, Italy, especially in the battles of Parma and Guastalla, and burnt, in presence of the French army, the bridge which the marechal de Noailles had thrown across the Adige. Being appointed general in 1736, he favoured, the year following, the retreat of the army, by a judicious manoeuvre, and saved all the baggage at the memorable day of Banjaluca in Bosnia, Aug. 3, 1737. This signal piece of service procured him a second regiment of infantry, vacant by the death of count Francis de Wallis. On his return to Vienna in 1739, the emperor Charles VI. raised him to the dignity of general-neld-marechal-lieute.^ nanr, and gave him a seat in the Aulic council of war. After the death of that prince, the king of Prussia having entered Silesia, count de Brown, with but a small body oi troops, disputed with him every foot of ground for the space of two months. He commanded in 1741 the infantry of the right wing of the Austrian army at the battle of Molvitz; and, though wounded, made a handsome retreat. He then went into Bavaria, where he commanded the van of the same army, made himself master of Deckendorf, an4 took much of the enemy’s baggage, and forced the French to quit the banks of the Danube, which the Austrian army afterwards passed in perfect safety; in commemoration of which, a marble pillar was erected on the spot, with the following inscription: “Theresise Austriacae Augustse Duce Exercitus Carolo Alexandro Lotharingico, septemdecirn superatis hostilibus VilHs, captoque Deckendorfio, renitentibus undis, resistentibus Gallis, Duce Exercitus Ludovico Borbonio Contio, transivit hie Danubium Ulysses Maximilianus, S. R. I. Comes de Brown, Locumtenens Campi Marashallusj Die 5 Junii, A. D. 1743.” The queen of Hungary sent him the s^me year to Worms, in quality of her plenipotentiary to the king of Great Britain: where he put the finishing Hand to the/ treaty of alliance between the courts of Vienna, London, and Turin, and she declared him her actual privy counsellor at her coronation qf Bohemia. The count de Brown, in 1744, followed prince Lobkovitz jnto Italy, took the city of Veletri the 4th of August, notwithstanding the great superiority of the enemy in numbers, penetrated into their camp, defeated several regiments, and took a great many prisoners. Being recalled to Bavaria, he performed several military exploits, and returned to Italy in 1746. He drove the Spaniards out of the Milanese; and, having joined the army of the prince de Lichtenstein, he commanded the left wing of the Austrian troops at the battle of Placentia, the 15th of June 1746; and routed the right wing of the enemy’s army, commanded by the marechal de Maillebois. After this famous battle, the gaining of which was due to him, he commanded in chief the army ordered against the Genoese, made himself master of the pass of la Bochetta, though defended by 4000 men, and took possession of the city of Genoa. Count Brown then went to join the troops of the king of Sardinia, and, in conjunction with him, took Montalbano and the territory of Nice. He passed the Var the 30th of November, in opposition to the French troops, entered Provence, and captured the isles of Saint-Marguerite and Saint-Honorat. He had nearly made himself master of all Provence, when the revolution at Genoa and the army of the marechal de Belleisle obliged him to make that fine retreat which acquired him the admiration of all good judges of. military tactics. He employed the rest of the year 1747 in defending the states of the house of Austria in Italy. The empress-queen of Hungary, in reward of his signal campaigns in Italy, made him governor of Transylvania in 1749. In 1752 he had the government of the city of Prague, with the general command of the troops of that kingdom; and the king of Poland, elector of Saxony, honoured him in 1755 with the order of the white eagle. The king of Prussia having invaded Saxony in 1756, and attacked Bohemia, count Brown marched against him; he repulsed that prince at the battle of Lobositz the 1st of October, although he had but 26,800 men, and the king of Prussia was at the head of at least 40,000. Within a week after this engagement, he undertook that celebrated march into Saxony, for delivering the Saxon troops shut up between Pirna and Konigstein: an action worthy of the greatest general whether ancient or modern. He afterwards obliged the Prussians to retreat from Bohemia; for which service he obtained the collar of the golden fleece, with which he was honoured by the empress March 6, 1757. Shortly after this count Brown went into Bohemia, where he raised troops with the utmost expedition, in order to make head against the king of Prussia, who had entered it afresh at the head of his whole army. On May 6th was fought the famous battle of Potshernitz, or of Prague, when count Brown was dangerously wounded. Obliged to retire to Prague, he there died of his wounds, the 26th of June 1757, at the age of 52. The count was not only a great general, he was an equally able negotiator, and well skilled in politics. He married, Aug. 15, 1726, Maria Philippina countess of Mar tinitz, of an illustrious and ancient family in Bohemia, by whom he had two sons. The life of this excellent commander was published in two separate volumes, one in German, the other in French, printed at Prague in 1757.

, D.D. provost of Queen’s-college, Oxford, was born at a place called the Tongue, in Watermillock, Cumberland, in 1700, and was baptised Dec. 19, of that year. His father, George Browne, was a reputable yeoman, who was enabled to give his son a classical education at Barton school, and afterwards sent him to Queen’s-college, where he was admitted a member March 22, 1716-17. Here his good behaviour and rapid progress in knowledge, procured him many friends that were of great service to him. In due time he was elected taberdar upon the foundation; and having gone through that office with honour, he took the degree of M. A. Nov. 4th, 1724, and was chosen one of the chaplains of the college. In 1726 he published, from the university press, a most beautiful edition of cardinal Barberini’s Latin poems, with notes and a life of the author, (who was afterwards pope Urban VIII.) and a dedication to his friend Edward Hassel, esq. of Dalemain* his friend and patron. In April 1731, he was elected fellow, and became an eminent tutor, having several young noblemen of the first rank intrusted to his care. In this useful and important station he continued many years, exercising strict discipline, and assiduously studying to promote the prosperity of the college. He took the degree of D. D. July 9, 1743, and was presented by the provost and society to the rectory of Bramshot, in Hampshire, May 1, 1746, The university also conferred upon him the professorship of natural philosophy in 1747, which he held till his death. At his living at Bramshot, he resided more than ten years, during which time he was collated to the chancellorship of Hereford, and was made a canon-residentiary by the right rev. lord James Beauclerk, bishop of that diocese, who had formerly been his pupil.

In 1754 Mr. Browne published what may be called his. great work, his Latin poem “I}e Aiumi Immortalitate^ in two books, the reception of which was such as its merit deserved. It immediately excited the applause of the most polite scholars, and has been praised by some of the most eminent and ingenious men of the age, by archbishop Herring, Dr. E. Barnard, R. O. Cambridge, Mr. Upton, bishop Hoadly, bishop Green, Mr. Harris, Dr. Beattie, &c. &c. Its popularity was so great, that several English translations of it appeared in a little time. The first was by Mr. Hay, author of an” Essay on Deformity,“and other pieces; and the second in blank verse, by Dr. Richard Grey, a learned clergyman, well known by his” Memoria Technica,“and his publications in scripture criticism. A third translation was published without a name, but with a laboured preface, containing some quotations from sir John Davies’s” Nosce Teipsum,“which were supposed to be analogous to certain passages in Mr. Browne. All these versions made their appearance in the course of a few months; and there was afterwards printed, by an unknown hand, a translation of the first book. Some years after Mr. Browne’s death, the” De Animi Immortalitate“was again translated by the rev. Mr. Crawley, a clergyman in Huntingdonshire, and more recently Dr. John Lettice published a translation in blank verse, with a commentary and annotations, 1795, 8vo. A close and literal version, of it in prose was inserted by Mr. Highmore the painter in his publication which appeared in 1766, entitled” Essays moral, religious, and miscellaneous," But the best translation is that by Soame Jenyns, esq. printed in his Miscellanies, and since published in Mr. Browne’s poems. These testimonies and attentions paid to our ingenious author’s principal production, are striking evidences of the high sense which was justly entertained of its merit. Not to mention the usefulness and importance of the subject, every man of taste must feel that the poem is admirable for its perspicuity, precision, and order; and that it unites the philosophical learning and elegance of Cicero, with the numbers, and much of the poetry, of Lucretius and Virgil. Mr. Browne intended to have added a third book. In these three books he proposed to carry natural religion as far as it would go, and in so doing, to lay the true foundation of Christianity, of which he was a firm believer. But he went no farther than to leave a fragment of the third book, enough to make us lament that he did not complete the whole.

, vicar of Olney in Buckinghamshire, and chaplain of Morden college, was born in 1703, and was originally a pen-cutter. Early in life he distinguished himself by his, poetical talents, and when only twenty years of age, published a tragedy called “Polidus,” and a farce called “All-bedevilled,” which were played together at a private theatre in St. Alban’s-street, neither of much merit. He became afterwards a frequent contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine, and carried off several of the prizes which Cave, the printer and proprietor of that Magazine, then offered for the best compositions. When, Cave published a translation of Du Halde’s China, he inscribed the different plates to his friends, and one to “Moses Browne,” with which familiar designation Browne thought proper to be offended, and Cave, to pacify him, directed the engraver to introduce Mr. with a caret under the line. In 1729, he published his “Piscatory Eclogues,” without his name, which were reprinted in 1739, among his “Poems on various subjects,” 8vo, and again in an extended form, with notes, in 1773. For along time, however, even after his abilities were known, he remained in poverty, and in 1745, when it appears he had a wife and seven children, we find him applying to Dr. Birch for the situation of messenger, or door-keeper, to the royal society. In 1750, he published an edition of Walton and Cotton’s Angler, with a preface, notes, and some valuable additions, which was republished in 1759 and 1772, and in the former year drew him into a controversy with sir John Hawkins, who happened to be then publishing an improved edition of the same work. From his poems, as well as from the scattered observations in the “Angler,” he appears to have been always of a religious turn; and in 1752 published in verse, a series of devout contemplations, entitled “Sunday Thoughts,” which went through a second edition in 1764, and a third in 1781. In 1753, having some prospect of encouragement in the church, he took orders, and soon after his ordination was presented by the earl of Dartmouth to the vicarage of Olney in Buckinghamshire, on the cession of Mr. Wolsey Johnson. In 1754 he published a sermon, preached at Olney, on Christmas day, entitled “The Nativity and Humiliation of Jesus Christ, practically considered.” In 1755, he published a small quarto poem, entitled “Percy Lodge,” a seat of the duke and duchess of Somerset, written by command of their late graces, in 1749. In what year he was presented to the vicarage of Sutton, in Lincolnshire, we are not informed; but in 1763, he was elected to the chaplainship of Morden college in Kent, and some time after appointed the late rev. John Newton for his curate at Olney. In 1765 he published a sermon “preached to the Society for the Reformation of Manners,” and a few years after, a “Visitation Sermon,” delivered at Stony Stratford. Besides these, Mr. Browne is said to have published one or two political tracts; and in 1772, a translation of a work of John Liborius Zimmerman, entitled “The Excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ,” London, 12mo. He died at Morden college, Sept. 13, 1787, aged eighty-four. His wife died in 1783. Mr. Browne was a man of some learning and piety, but as a poet, we fear he cannot be allowed to rank higher than among versifiers.

The reputation of Browne encouraged some low writer to publish, under his name, a book called “Nature’s cabinet unlocked,” translated, according to Wood, from the physics of Magirus, but Browne advertised against it. In 1658, the discovery of some ancient urns in Norfolk gave him occasion to write “Hydriotaphia, Urn -burial, or a discourse of Sepulchral Urns,” 8vo, in which he treats with his usual learning, on the funeral rites of the ancient nations; exhibits their various treatment of the dead; and examines the substances found in these Norfolk urns. There is, perhaps, none -of his works which better exemplifies his reading or memory. To this treatise was added “The Garden of Cyrus, or the Quincunxial lozenge, or net-work plantation of the ancients, artificially, naturally, mystically considered.” This is a more fanciful performance than the other, but still it exhibits the fancy of a man of learning. Besides these, he left some papers prepared for the press, of which two collections have been published, the first by Dr. Thomas Tennison, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, in 1684, 8vo, entitled, “A Collection of Miscellaneous Tracts,” and these, with what had been published in his life-time, were printed in one vol. fol. in 1686. In 1690 his son, Dr. Edward Browne, of whom we have already spoken, published a single tract, entitled “A Letter to a friend upon occasion of the death of his intimate friend,” 8vo. The second collection was of the “Posthumous Works,” edited in 1722 by Owen Brigstock, esq. his grandson by marriage.

“When you see Dr. Heberden, pray communicate to him. an unexpected honour I have lately received. The other day, word was brought me from below, that one sir William Browne sent up his name, and should be glad to kiss my hand. I judged it to be the famous physician, whom I had never seen, nor had the honour to know. When I came down into the drawing-room, I was accosted by a little, round, well-fed gentleman, with a large muff in one hand, a small Horace, open, in the other, and a spying-glass dangling in a black ribbon at his button. After the first salutation, he informed me that his visit was indeed to me; but principally, and in. the first place, to Prior-Park, which had so inviting a prospect from below; and he did riot doubt but, on examination, it would sufficiently repay the trouble he had given himself of coming up to it on foot. We then took our chairs; and the first thing he did or said, was to propose a doubt to me concerning a passage in Horace, which all this time he had still open in his hand. Before I could answer, he gave me the solution of this long-misunderstood passage; and, in support of his explanation, had the charity to repeat his own paraphrase of it in English verse, just come hot, as he said, from the brain. When this and chocolate were over, having seen all he wanted of me, he desired to see something more of the seat, and particularly what he called the monument, by which I understood him to mean the Prior’s tower. Accordingly, I ordered a servant to attend him thither, and when he had satisfied his curiosity, either to let him out from the Park above, into the Down, or from the garden below into the road. Which he chose, I never asked; and so this honourable visit ended. Hereby you will understand that the design of all this was to be admired. And indeed he had my admiration to the full; but for nothing so much, as for his being able at past eighty to perform this expedition on foot, in no good weather, and with all the alacrity of a boy, both in body and mind.” This portrait is correct in every thing but the age, sir William being only then (1767) seventy-five.

On a controversy for a raker in the parish where he lived in London, carried on so warmly as to open taverns for men, and coffee-house breakfasts for ladies, he exerted himself greatly; wondering a man bred at two universities should be so little regarded. (He had been expelled one, and therefore taken degrees at another.) A parishioner answered: “he had a calf that sucked two cows, and a prodigious great one it was.” He used to frequent the annual ball at the ladies’ boarding-school, Queen-square, merely as a neighbour, a good-natured man, and fond of the company of sprightly young folks. A dignitary of the church being there one day to see his daughter dance, and finding this upright figure stationed there, told him he believed he was Hermippus redivivus, who lived anhelitu puellarum. At the age of eighty, on St. Luke’s day, 1771, he came to BaU son’s coffee-house in hisjaced coat and band, and fringed white gloves, to shew himself to Mr. Crosby, then lord-mayor. A gentleman present observing that he looked very well, he replied, “he had neither wife nor debts.” He next published, “Fragmentum I. Hawkins completum,” 1769, 4to. 7. “Appendix ad Opuscula;” six Odes, 1770, 4to, comprising: I. De senectute. Ad amicum D. Roger um Long, apud Cantabrigienses, aulse custodem Pembrokianae, theologum, astronomum, doctissimum, jucundissimum, annum nonagesimum agentem, scripta. Adjecta versione Anglica. Ab amico D. Gulielmo Browne, annum agente fere octogesimum. IL De choreis, et festivitate. Ad nobilissimum ducem Leodensem, diem Walliae principis natalem acidulis Tunbrigiensibus celebrantem, scripta. A theologo festivo, D. Georgio Lewis. Adjecta versione Anglica ab amico, D. Gulielmo Browne. III. De ingenio, et jucunditate. Ad Lodoicum amicum, sacerdotem Cantianum, ingeniosissimum, jucundissimum, scripta. Adjecta versione Anglica. A. D. Gulielmo Browne, E. A. O. M. L. P. S. R. S. IV. De Wilkesio, et libertate. Ad doctorem Thomarn Wilson, theologum doctissimum, liberrimum, tarn mutui amici, Wilkesii, amicum, quam suum, scripta. V. De otio medentibus debito. Ad Moysseum amicum, medicum Bathoniac doctissimum, humanissimum, scripta. VI. De potiore metallis libertate: et omnia vincente fortitudine. Ad eorum utriusque patronum, Gulielmum ilium Pittium, omni et titulo et laude majorem, scripta. 8. Three more Odes, 1771, 4to. 9. “A Proposal on our Coin, to remedy all present, and prevent all future disorders. To which are prefixed, preceding proposals of sir John Barnard, and of William Shirley, esq. on the same subject. With remarks,” 1774, 4to, dedicated “To the most revered memory of the right honourable Arthur Onslow, speaker of the house of commons during thirty-three years; for ability, judgement, eloquence, integrity, impartiality, never to be forgotten or excelled; who sitting in the gallery, on a committee of the house, the day of publishing this proposal, and seeing the author there, sent to speak with him, by the chaplain; and, after applauding his performance, desired a frequent correspondence, and honoured him with particular respect, all the rest of his life, this was, with most profound veneration, inscribed.” 10. A New-Y.ear’s Gift. A problem, and demonstration on the XXXIX Articles,“1772, 4to.” This problem and demonstration,“he informs us,” though now first published, on account of the present controversy concerning these articles, owe their birth to my being called upon to subscribe them, at an early period of life. For in my soph’s year, 1711, being a student at Peter-house, in the university of Cambridge, just nineteen years of age, and having performed all my exercises in the schools (and also a first opponency extraordinary to an ingenious pupil of his, afterwards Dr. Barnard, prebendary of Norwich) on mathematical qusestions, at the particular request of Mr. proctor Laughton, of Clare-hall, who drew me into it by a promise of the senior optime of the year), I was then first informed that subscribing these articles was a necessary step to taking my degree of B. A. as well as all other degrees. I had considered long before at school, and on my admission in 1707, that the universal profession of religion must much more concern me through life, to provide for rny happiness hereafter, than the particular profession of physic, which I proposed to pursue, to provide for my more convenient existence here: and therefore had selected out of the library left by my father (who had himself been a regular physician, educated under the tuition of sir J. Ellis, M. D. afterwards master of Caius college), Chiilingworth’s Religion of a Protestant; the whole famous Protestant and Popish controversy; Commentaries on Scripture; and such other books as suited my purpose. I particularly pitched upon three for perpetual pocket-companions; Bleau’s Greek Testament; Hippocratis Aphoristica, and Elzevir Horace; expecting from the first to draw divinity, from the second physic, and from the last good sense and vivacity. Here I cannot forbear recollecting my partiality for St. Luke, because he was a physician; by the particular pleasure I took in perceiving the superior purity of his Greek, over that of the other Evangelists. But I did not then know, what I was afterwards taught by Dr. Freind’s learned History of Physic, that this purity was owing to his being a physician, and consequently conversant with our Greek fathers of physic. Being thus fortified, I thought myself as well prepared for an encounter with these articles, as so young a person could reasonably be expected. I therefore determined to read them over as carefully and critically as I could; and upon this, met with so many difficulties, utterly irreconcileable by me to the divine original, that I almost despaired of ever being able to subscribe them. But, not to be totally discouraged, I resolved to re-consider them with redoubled diligence; and then at last had the pleasure to discover, in article VI. and XX. what appeared to my best private judgement and understanding a clear solution of all the difficulties, and an absolute defeazance of that exceptionable authority, which inconsistently with scripture they seem to assume. I subscribe my name to whatever I offer to the public, that I may be answerable for its being my sincere sentiment: ever open, however, to conviction, by superior reason and argument.

, an eminent physician, a native of Cumberland, was born in 1711, and educated in medical science at Leyden, under Albinus, Euler, and Boerhaave. Having taken his medical degree in 1737, he returned to his native country, and settled at Whitehaven, where his practice became very extensive. About twenty years before his death, he retired to Ormathwaite, where he died, Jan. 7, 1800, in his eighty-ninth year, regretted as a man of amiable and endearing virtues, and a most skilful physician. His principal publications were, 1. His inaugural thesis, “De Praxi medica ineunda,” Leyden, 1737, 4to. 2. “A treatise on the art of making common Salt,” Lond. 1748, 8vo, which procured him the honour of being chosen a fellow of the royal society. This work, which has long been out of print, was praised by Chaptal and bishop Watson for the profound knowledge of the subject displayed in it. 3. “An enquiry concerning the mineral elastic spirit contained in the water of Spa in Germany,” printed in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. LV. 4. A treatise, “On the means of preventing the communication of pestilent contagion.” A trip to the Spas of Germany suggested to him the idea of analizing the properties of the Pyrmont springs, and of some others, and led him into that train of nice and deep disquisition, which terminated in the de-elementizing one of our elements, and fixing its invisible fluid form into a palpable and visible substance. All this he effected by producing the various combinations of gases and vapours which constitute atmospheric air, and separating into many forms this long-supposed one and indivisible, whilst he solidified its fluid essence into a hard substance. That Dr. Brownrigg was the legitimate father of these discoveries was not only known at the time to his intimate and domestic circle, but also to the then president of the royal society, sir John Pringle; who, when called upon to bestow upon Dr. Priestley the gold medal for his paper of “Discoveries of the Nature and Properties of Air,” thus observes, “And it is no disparagement to the learned Dr. Priestley, that the vein of these discoveries was hit upon, and its course successfully followed up, some years ago, by my very learned, very penetrating, very industrious, but too modest friend, Dr. Brownrigg.” To habits, indeed, of too much diffidence, and to too nice a scrupulosity of taste, the world has to attribute the fewness of his publications. One of his literary projects was a general history of the county of Cumberland, but it does not appear that he had made much progress. He assisted Mr. West, however, in his entertaining.“Tour to the Lakes,” forming the plan of that popular work.

, called Old Brueghel, to distinguish him from his son, was the first of a family of eminent artists. He was born at Brueghel, a village near Breda, in 1510, and acquired the first principles of his art from Peter Cock, or Koeck-van-Aelst, whose daughter he married. He afterwards travelled in France and Italy; studied nature, amidst the mountains of Tyrol, and the scenery of the Alps; and availed himself of the works of the greatest masters in Italy. On his return from Italy, he resided for some time at Antwerp, and from thence he removed to Brussels. Whilst he was employed by the magistrates of this city, in taking views of the canal which fails into the Scheldt, he sickened, and died in 1570; after having caused to be burned in his presence, all his licentious and satirical designs. He chiefly excelled in landscapes, and droll subjects, re sembling those of Jerom Bosche; and he was particularly fond of representing the marches of armies, robberies, skirmishes, sports, dances, weddings, and drunken quarrels; and in order to acquire greater skill and accuracy in this kind of representations, he often assumed the habit of a peasant, and joined the meaner boors at their feasts and. amusements. His figures were correct, and their draperies well chosen; the heads and hands were touched with spirit; and his expression, though not elegant, was true. Sir Joshua Reynolds says, that “he was totally ignorant of all the mechanical art of making a picture;” hut there is in his “Slaughter of the Innocents” (which sir Joshua saw in his travels), a great quantity of thinking, a representation of variety of distress, enough for twenty modern pictures. His principal performance is in the emperor’s collection at Vienna, which is the “Representation of the building of the tower of Babel, by Nimrod.” Several of his paintings are in the cabinets of the emperor and elector palatine, and dispersed through various parts of Europe. For his amusement he engraved some few landscapes and grotesque subjects.

, the younger, and sometimes Called " Hellish Brueghel 17 froni the nature of his subjects, was the son of the preceding artist, born at Brussels, and became the disciple of Gelles Coningsloo. His compositions rather excite disgust than satisfaction; and his human figures, though freely pencilled, and not ill coloured, are not much more elegant than those of the infernal kind. In his historical subjects he generally introduced witches and devils; such as Orpheus charming Pluto and Proserpine to procure the deliverance of Eurydice, surrounded with horrible forms and appearances; Saul and the Witchof Endor; or St. Anthony’s temptations. He is also enumerated by Strutt among the engravers. He died 1642.

, or Robert Mannyng, the first English poet who occurs in the fourteenth century, was born probably before 1270, as he was received into the order of black canons at Brunne, about 1288. Malton appears to have been his birth-place, but what Malton is doubtful. He was, as far as can be discovered, merely a translator. His first work, says Warton, was a metrical paraphrase of a French book, written by Robert Grosthead, bishop of Lincoln, called “Manuel Pecche” (Manuel des Péchés), being a treatise on the decalogue, and on the seven deadly sins, which are illustrated with many legendary stories. It was never printed, but is preserved in the Bodleian library, Mss. No. 415, and in the Harleian Mss. No. 1701. His second and more important work is a metrical chronicle of England, in two parts, the former of which (from Æneas to the death of Cadwallader) is translated from Wace’s “Brut d'Angleterre,” and the latter (from Cadwallader to the end of the reign of Edward I.) from a French chronicle written by Peter de Langtoft, an Augustine canon of Bridlington in Yorkshire, who is supposed to have died in the reign of Edward II. and was therefore contemporary with his translator. Hearne has edited Robert de Brunne, but has suppressed the whole of his translation from Wace, excepting the prologue, and a few extracts which he found necessary to illustrate his glossary. Mr. Ellis, to whom we are indebted for this article, has given some specimens of de Brunne’s work.

After St. Bruno had governed this infant society for six years, he was invited to Rome by pope Urban II. who had formerly been his scholar at Rheims, and now received him with every mark of respect and confidence, and pressed him to accept the archbishopric of Reggio. This however he declined, and the pope consented that he should withdraw into some wilderness on the mountains of Calabria. Bruno found a convenient solitude in the diocese of Squiiiaci, where he settled in 1090, with some new disciples, until his death, Oct. 6. 1101. There are only two letters of his remaining, one to Raoul le Verd, and the other to his monks, which are printed in a folio volume, entitled “S. Brunonis Qpera et Vita,” 1524, but the other contents of the volume belong to another St. Bruno, first a monk of Soieria in the diocese of Ast, and hence called Astiensis. He distinguished himself at the council of Rome in 1079 against Berenger, and was consecrated bishop of Segni by Gregory VII. He died in 1125, and is reckoned among the fathers of the church. He is reputed to have written with more elegance, clearness, and erudition, than most authors of his time, and there are several editions of his works. The Carthusian Bruno wrote on the Psalms and on some of St. Paul’s epistles. He followed the system of Augustine concerning grace, but it seems doubtful if any genuine works of his remain, unless what we have mentioned.

, founder of the sect, if it may be so called, of the Petrobrussians, in the twelfth century, appears to have propagated his doctrines chiefly in Languedoc and Provence, and after a laborious ministry of twenty years, during which he had collected a great number of followers, was burnt at St. Gilles in 1130, by the populace instigated by the popish clergy. His chief tenets were, that no persons ought to be baptised unless adults; that it was an idle superstition to build churches, as God will accept sincere worship wherever it is offered, and that such churches as had been erected were to be destroyed; with all crucifixes or instruments of superstition; that the real body and blood of Christ were not exhibited in the eucharist, but were represented only by figures and symbols, and that the oblations, prayers, &c. of the living were of, no use to the dead.

, an eminent engraver, was born in 1528, at Leige, but resided chiefly at Francfort, where he carried on a considerable commerce in prints. It does not appear to what master he owed his instructions in the art, but the works of Sebast Beham were certainly of great service to him. He copied many of the plates engraved by that artist, and seems to have principally formed his taste from them. He worked almost entirely with the graver, and seldom called in the assistance of the point. He acquired a neat, free style of engraving, well adapted to small subjects in which many figures were to be represented, as funeral parades, processions, &c. which he executed in a charming manner. He also drew very correctly. His heads, in general, are spirited and expressive, and the other extremities of his figures well-marked. His backgrounds, though frequently very slight, are touched with a masterly hand. He died, as his sons inform us (in the third part of Boissard’s collection of portraits), March 27, 1598. The two first parts of that collection were engraved by De Brye, assisted by his sons, who afterwards continued it.

, an eminent German reformer, was born in 1491, at Schelestadt, a town of Alsace. At the age of seven he took the religious habit in the order of St. Dominic, and with the leave of the prior of his convent, went to -Heidelberg to learn logic and philosophy. Having applied himself afterwards to divinity, he made it his endeavour to acquire a thorough knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew. About this time some of Erasmus’s pieces came abroad, which he read with great avidity, and meeting afterwards with certain tracts of Luther, and comparing the doctrine there delivered with the sacred scriptures, he began to entertain doubts concerning several things in the popish religion. His uncommon learning and his eloquence, which was assisted by a strong and musical voice, and his free censure of the vices of the times, recommended him to Frederick elector palatine, who made him one of his chaplains. After some conferences with Luther, at Heidelberg, in 1521, he adopted most of his religious notions, particularly those with regard to justification. However, in 1532, he gave the preference to the sentiments of Zuinglius, but used his utmost endeavours to re-unite the two parties, who both opposed the Romish religion. He is looked upon as one of the first authors of the reformation at Strasburg, where he taught divinity for twenty years, and was one of the ministers of the town. He assisted at many conferences concerning religion; and in 1548, was sent for to Augsburg to sign that agreement betwixt the Protestants and Papists, which was called the Interim. His warm opposition to this project exposed him to many difficulties and harships; the news of which reaching England, where his fame had already arrived, Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, g av e him an invitation to come over, which he readily accepted. In 1549 an handsome apartment was assigned him in the university of Cambridge, and a salary to teach theology. King Edward VI. had the greatest regard for him; being told that he was very sensible of the cold of this climate, and suffered much for want of a German stove, he sent him an hundred crowns to purchase one. He died of a complication of disorders, in 1551, and was buried at Cambridge, in St. Mary’s church, with great funeral pomp. Five years after, in the reign of queen Mary, his body was dug up and publicly burnt, and his tomb demolished; but it was afterwards set up again by order of queen Elizabeth. He married a nun, by whom he had thirteen children. This woman dying of the plague, he married another, and, according to some, upon her death, he took a third wife. His character is thus given by Burnet: “Martin Bucer was a very learned, judicious, pious, and moderate person. Perhaps he was inferior to none of all the reformers for learning; but for zeal, for true piety, and a most tender care of preserving unity among the foreign churches, Melancthon and he, without any injury done to the rest, may be ranked apart by themselves. He was much opposed by the Popish party at Cambridge; who, though they complied with the law, and so kept their places, yet, either in the way of argument, as if it had been for dispute’s sake, or in such points as were not determined, set themselves much to lessen his esteem. Nor was he furnished naturally with that quickness that is necessary for a disputant, from which they studied to draw advantages; and therefore Peter Martyr wrote to him to avoid all public disputes.” His writings were in Latin and in German? and so numerous, that it is computed they would form eight or nine folio volumes. His anxiety to reconcile the Lutherans and Zuinglians led him to use many general and perhaps ambiguous expressions in his writings. He seems to have thought Luther’s notion of the sacrament too strong, and that of Zuinglius too weak. Verheiclen in Latin, and Lupton in English, have given a list of his works, but without size or dates.

, the foundress of a set of modern fanatics, and the daughter of John Simpson, the keeper of an inn at Fitmy-Can, the half-way house between Banff and Portsoy, in the north of Scotland, was born in 1738; and, when she had completed her one-andtwentieth year, was sent to Glasgow, where she entered into the service of Mr. Martin, one of the principal proprietors of the Delft-work there. In this situation she had remained but a short time, when she accepted proposals of marriage from Robert Buchan, one of the workmen in the service of the same Mr. Martin. For some years, Robert and Elspeth Buchan lived happily together, having many children, whom they educated in a manner suitable to their station in life. At the time of her marriage, Mrs. Buchan was of the episcopal persuasion, but the husband being a burgher-seceder, she adopted his principles, and entered into communion with that sect. She had always been a constant reader of the scriptures; and taking a number of passages in a strictly literal sense, she changed her opinions about the year 1776, became the promulgator of many singular doctrines, and soon brought over to her notions Mr. Hugh Whyte, a dissenting minister at Irvine, and connected with Mr. Bell in Glasgow, and Mr. Bain in Edinburgh; and who, upon Mr. Whyte’s abdication of his charge, settled Mr. Robertson in his place at Irvine. She went on continually making new converts till April 1790, at which time the populace in Irvine rose, assembled round Mr. Whyte’s house, and broke all the windows; when Mrs. Buchan and the whole of her converts, of whom the above-mentioned were a part, to the number of fortysix persons, left Irvine. The Buchanites (for so they were immediately called) went through Mauchlin, Cumnock old and new, halted three days at Kirconnel, passed through Sanquhar and Thornhill, and then settled at a farm-house, the out-houses of which they had all along possessed, paying for them, as well as for whatever they wanted.

During his residence in England, he wrote some encomiastic verses in honour of queen Elizabeth, and several English ladies of rank, from whom he received presents. He appears to have been very ready to receive favours of that kind; and, like Erasmus, not to have been at all backward in making his, wants known, or taking proper measures to procure occasional benefactions from the great. In 1571 he published his “Detectio Marise Reginae,” in which he very severely arraigned the conduct and character of queen Mary, and expressly charged her with being concerned in the murder of her husband lord Darnly. At the beginning of 1570, his pupil, the earl of Murray, regent of Scotland, was assassinated, which, Mackenzie says, “was a heavy stroke to him, for he loved him as his own life.” He continued, however, to be in favour with some of those who were invested with power in Scotland; for, after the death of the earl of Murray, he was appointed one of the lords of the council, and lord privy seal. It appears also that he had a pension of one hundred pounds a year, settled on him by queen Elizabeth. In 1579 he published his famous treatise “De Jure Regni apud Scotos;” which he dedicated to king James. In 1582 he published at Edinburgh, his “History of Scotland,” in twenty books, on which he had chiefiy employed the last twelve or thirteen years of his life. He died at Edinburgh the same year, on the 5th of December, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. Towards the close of his life, he had sometimes resided at Stirling. Ife is said, that when he was upon his death-bed, he was informed that the king was highly incensed against him for writing his book “De Jure Regni,” and his “History of Scotland;” to which he replied, that “he was not much conterned about that; for he was shortly going to a place where there were few kings.” We are also told, that when he was dying, he called for his servant, whose name was Young, and asked him how much money he had of his; and finding that it was not sufficient to defray the expences of his burial, he commanded him to distribute it amongst the poor. His servant thereupon asked him: “Who then would be at'the charge of burying him?” Buchanan replied, “That he was very indifferent about that; for if he were once dead, if they would not bury him, they might let him lie where he was, or throw his corpse where they pleased.” Accordingly, he was buried at the expence of the city of Edinburgh. Archbishop Spotswood says of Buchanan, that “in his old age he applied himself to write the Scots History, which he renewed with such judgment and eloquence, as no country can shew a better: only in this he is justly blamed, that he sided with the factions of the time, and to justify the proceedings of the noblemen against the queen, he went so far in depressing the royal authority of princes, and allowing their controulment by subjects; his bitterness also in writing of the queen, and of the times, all wise men have disliked; but otherwise no man hath merited better of his country for learning, nor thereby did bring to it more glory. He was buried in the common burial-place, though worthy to have been laid in marble, and to have had some statue erected to his memory; but such pompous monuments in his life he was wont to scorn and despise, esteeming it a greater credit, as it was said of the Roman Cato, to have it asked, Why doth he lack a statue? than to have had one, though never so glorious, erected.”

, or Bude’ (William), an eminent scholar and critic, the descendant of an ancient and illustrious family in France, lord of Marli-la-ville, king’s counsellor, and master of requests, was born at Paris in 1467. He was the second son of John Budé, lord of Yere and Villiers, secretary to the king, and one of the grand officers of the French chancery. In his infancy he was provided with masters; but such was the low state of Parisian education at that time, that when sent to the university of Orleans to study law, he remained there for three years, without making any progress, for want of a proper knowledge of the Latin language. Accordingly, on his return home, his parents had the mortification to discover that he was as ignorant as when he went, disgusted with study of any kind, and obstinately bent to pass his time amidst the gaieties and pleasures of youth, a coarse which his fortune enabled him to pursue. But after he had indulged this humour for some time, an ardent passion for study seized him, and became irresistible. He immediately disposed of his horses, dogs, &c. with which he followed the chace, applied himself to study, and in a short time made very considerable progress, although he had no masters, nor either instruction or example in his new pursuit. He became, in particular, an excellent Latin scholar, and although his style is not so pure or polished as that of those who formed themselves in early life on the best models, it is far from being deficient in fluency or elegance. His knowledge of the Greek was so great that John de Lascaris, the most learned Grecian of his time, declared that Budé might be compared with the first orators of ancient Athens. This language is perhaps complimentary, but it cannot be denied that his knowledge of Greek was very extraordinary, considering how little help he derived from instructions. He, indeed, employed at a large salary, one Hermonymus, but soon found that he was very superficial, and had acquired the reputation of a Greek scholar merely from knowing a little more than the French literati, who at that time knew nothing. Hence Budé used to call himself ανἶομαθης & οψιμαϑης i. e. self-taught and late taught. The work by which he gained most reputation, and published under the title “De Asse,” was one of the tirst efforts to clear up the difficulties relating to the coins and measures of the ancients; and although an Italian, Leonardus Portius, pretended to claim some of his discoveries, Budé vindicated his right to them with spirit and success. Previously to this he had printed a translation of some pieces of Plutarch, and “Notes upon the Pandects.” His fame having reached the court, he was invited to it, but was at first rather reluctant. He appears to have been one of those who foresaw the advantages of a diffusion of learning, and at the same time perceived an unwillingness in the court to entertain it, lest it should administer to the introduction of what was called heresy. Charles VIII. was the first who invited him to court, but died soon after: his successor Louis XII. employed him twice on embassies to Italy, and made him his secretary. This favour continued in the reign of Francis I. who sent for Budé to court when it was held at Arches at the interview of that monarch with Henry VIII. the king of England. From this time Francis paid him much attention, appointed him his librarian, and master of the requests, while the Parisians elected him provost of the merchants. This political influence he employed in promoting the interests of literature, and suggested to Francis I. the design of establishing professorships for languages and the sciences at Paris. The excessive heats of the year 1540 obliging the king to take a journey to the coast of Normandy, Budé accompanied his majesty, but unfortunately was seized with a fever, which carried him off Aug. 23/1540, at Paris. His funeral was private, and at night, by his own desire. This circumstance created a suspicion that he died in the reformed religion; but of this there is ho direct proof, and although he occasionally made free with the court of Rome and the corruptions of the clergy in his works, yet in them likewise he wrote with equal asperity of the reformers. Erasmus called him porttntum Gallic, the prodigy of France. There was a close connection between these two great men. “Their letters/' says the late Dr. Jortin,” though full of compliments and civilities, are also full of little bickerings and contests: which shew that their friendship was not entirely free from some small degree of jealousy and envy; especially on the side of Budé, who yet in other respects was an excellent person." It is not easy to determine on which side the jealousy lay; perhaps it was on both. Budé might envy Erasmus for his superior taste and wit, as well as his more extensive learning; and perhaps Erasmus might envy Budé for a superior knowledge of the Greek tongue, which was generally ascribed to him.

Mr. Budgell’s great and noble friend lord Halifax, to whom in 1713 he had dedicated a translation of “Theophrastus’s Characters,” was dead, and lord Orrery, who held him in the highest esteem, had it not in his power to serve him. Addison had indeed got a promise from lord Sunderland, that, as soon as the present clamour was a little abated, he would do something for him; but that gentleman’s death, happening in 1719, put an end to all hopes of succeeding at court: where he continued, nevertheless, to make several attempts, but was constantly kept down by the weight of the duke of Bolton. One case seems peculiarly hard. The duke of Portland, who was appointed governor of Jamaica, made Budgell his secretary, who was about to sail, when a secretary of state was sent to the duke, to acquaint him “that he might take any man in England for his secretary, excepting Mr. Budgell, but that he must not take him” In 1720, the fatal year of the South Sea, he was almost ruined, having lost abdve 20,000l. in it. He tried afterwards to get into parliament at several places, and spent 3000l. more in unsuccessful attempts, which completed his ruin. And from this period he began to behave and live in a different manner from what he had done before; wrote libellous pamphlets against sir Robert Walpole and the ministry, and did many unjust things in regard to his relations, being distracted in his own private fortune, as indeed he waa judged to be in his senses. In 1727 he had 1000l. given him by the duchess of Marlborough, to whose husband, the famous duke, he was related by his mother’s side, with a view to his getting into parliament. She knew that he had a talent for speaking in public, that he was acquainted with business, and would probably run any lengths against the ministry. But this scheme failed, for he could never get chosen. In 1730 he joined the band of writers against the administration, and published many papers in the “Craftsman.” He published also, about the same time, many other pieces of a political nature. In 1733, he began a weekly pamphlet called “The Bee,” which he continued for about a hundred numbers, making seven or eight volumes, 8vo. During the progress of this work, which was entirely filled with his own disputes and concerns, and exhibited many proofs of a mind deranged by oppression, or debased by desperate efforts to retrieve his character, Dr. Tindal died, by whose will Mr. Budgell had 2000l. left him; and the world being surprised at such a gift from a man entirely unrelated to him, to the exclusion of the next heir, a nephew, and the continuator of Rapin’s History of England, immediately imputed! it to his making the will himself. Thus the satirist:

, the most eminent French naturalist of the eighteenth century, the son of a counsellor of the parliament of Dijon, was born at Moytbard in Burgundy, September the 7th, 1707. Having manifested an early inclination to the sciences, he gave up the profession of the law, for which his father had designed him. The science which seems to have engaged his earliest attachment was astronomy; with a view to which he applied with such ardour to the study of geometry, that be always carried in his pocket the elements of Euclid. At the age of twenty he travelled into Italy, and in the course of his tour he directed his attention to the phenomena of nature more than to the productions of art: and at this early period he was also ambitious of acquiring the art of writing with ease and elegance. In 1728 he succeeded to the estate of his mother, estimated at about 12,000l. a year; which by rendering his circumstances affluent and independent, enabled him to indulge his taste in those scientific researches and literary pursuits, to which his future life was devoted. Having concluded his travels, at the age of twenty-five, with a journey to England, he afterwards resided partly at Paris, where, in 1739, he was appointed superintend ant of the royal garden and cabinet, and partly on his estate at Montbard. Although he was fond of society, and a complete sensualist, he was indefatigable in his application, and is said to have employed fourteen hours every day in study; he would sometimes return from the suppers at Paris at two in the morning, when he was young, and order a boy to call him at five; and if he lingered in bed, to drag him out on the floor. At this early hour it was his custom, at Montbard, to dress, powder, dictate letters, and regulate his domestic concerns. At six he retired to his study, which was a pavilion called the Tower of St. Louis, about a furlong from the house, at the extremity of the garden, and which was accommodated only with an ordinary wooden desk and an armed chair. Within this was another sanctuary, denominated by prince Henry of Prussia “the Cradle of Natural History,” in which he was accustomed to compose, and into which no one was suffered to intrude. At nine his breakfast, which consisted of two glasses of wine and a bit of bread, was brought to his study; and after breakfast he wrote for about two hours, and then returned to his house. At dinner he indulged himself in all the gaieties and trifles which occurred at table, and in that freedom of conversation, which obliged the ladies, when any of character were his guests, to withdraw. When dinner was finished, he paid little attention either to his family or guests; but having slept about an hour in his room, he took a solitary walk, and then he would either converse with his friends or sit at his desk, examining papers that were submitted to his judgment. This kind of life he passed for fifty years; and to one who. expressed his astonishment at his great reputation, he replied, “Have not I spent fifty years at my clesk?” At nine he retired to bed. In this course he prolonged his life, notwithstanding his excessive indulgences with women, and his excruciating sufferings occasioned by the gravel and stone, which he bore with singular fortitude and patience, to his 81st year; and retained his senses till within a few hours of his dissolution, which happened on the 16th of April, 1788. His body was embalmed, and presented first at St. Medard’s church, and afterwards conveyed to Mont-bard, where he had given orders in his will to be interred in the same vault with his wife. His funeral was attended by a great concourse of academicians, and persons of rank, and literary distinction; and a crowd of at least 20,000 spectators assembled in the streets through which the hearse was to pass. When his body was opened, 57 stones were found in his bladder, some of which were as large as a small bean: and of these 37 were crystallized in a triangular form, weighing altogether two ounces and six drams. All his other parts were perfectly sound; his brain was found to be larger than the ordinary size; and it was the opinion of the gentlemen of the faculty who examined the body, that the operation of the lithotomy might have been performed without the least danger; but to this mode of relief M. Buffon had invincible objections. He left one son, who fell a victim to the atrocities under Robespierre. This son had erected a monument to his father in the gardens of Montbard; which consisted of a simple column, with this inscription:

, one of the German reformers, sometimes, from his native country, called Pomeranus, was born at Julin, or Wollin, near Stetin, in Pomerania, June 24, 1485, and his parents being of some rank in the state were enabled to give him a very liberal education. He was sent early to the university of Grypswald, where he employed his time so assiduously in classical learning, that, at the age of twenty, he taught school at Treptow, and raised that school to a very high degree of reputation. The first impressions he appears to have received of the necessity of a reformation was from a tract of Erasmus: this induced him to look with more attention into the sacred volume, and he proceeded to instruct others by lecturing in his school on various parts of the Old and New Testament. As a preacher he likewise became very popular, and chiefly on account of his learning, in which he exceeded many of his contemporaries. His knowledge extending also to history and antiquities, prince Bogislaus engaged him to write a “History of Pomerania,” furnishing him with money, books, and records, and this was completed in two years, but it was long unpublished, the prince reserving it in manuscript, for the use of himself and his court. It appeared at last in 1727, 4to. He was still, however, attached to the religious principles in which he had been brought up, until in 1521 Luther’s treatise on the Babylonish captivity was published. Even when he began first to read this, he declared the author to be “the most pestilent heretic that ever infested the church of Christ;” but after a more attentive perusal, he candidly recanted this unfavourable opinion, in the following strong terms, “The whole world is blind, and this man alone sees the truth.” It is probable that he had communicated this discovery to his brethren, for we find that the abbot, two aged pastors of the church, and some other of the friars, began to be convinced of the errors of popery about the same time. Bugenhagius now avowed the principles of the reformation sa openly, that he found it necessary to leave Treptow, and being desirous of an interview with Luther, went to Wittemberg, where he was chosen pastor of the reformed ^church. Here he constantly taught the doctrines of the reformation, both by preaching and writing, for thirty-six years. He always opposed the violent and seditious practices of Carlostadt, and lived on the most friendly terms with Luther and Melancthon. At first he thought Luther had been too.violent in his answer to Henry VIII. of England, but he changed his opinion, and declared that the author had treated that monarch with too much lenity.

, an English divine, wa<s born at Woodhill, in Bedfordshire, 1582, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he obtained a fellowship. He had an estate left to him by his father, whom he succeeded in the living of Woodhill. Here he remained for twenty-one years, until he was silenced for non-conformity by archbishop Laud. On this he converted his estate into money, and went to New England in 1635, and carrying with him some planters, they settled at a place which they called Concord, and where they succeeded better than Mr. Bulkley did, who sunk his property in improvements. He died there March 9, 1658—9. His only publication was entitled “The Gospel Covenant opened,” 1651, 4to, which passed through several editions, and was one of the first books published in that country.

A little occurrence, soon after his coining to this living, contributed greatly to establish his reputation as a preacher. One Sunday, when he had begun his sermon, as he was turning over his Bible to explain some texts of scripUm which he had quoted, his notes, which were wrote on several small pieces of paper, flew out of his Bible into the middle of the church: many of the congregation fell into laughter, concluding that their young preacher would be non-plussed for want of materials; but some of the more sober and better-natured sort, gathered up the scattered notes, and carried them to him in the pulpit. Mr. Bull took them; and perceiving that most of the audience, consisting chiefly of sea-faring persons, were rather inclined to triumph over him under that surprize, he clapped them into his book again, and shut it, and then, without referring any more to them, went on with the subject he had begun. Another time, while he was preaching, a quaker came into the church, and in the middle of the sermon, cried out “George, come down, thou art a false prophet, and a hireling;” whereupon the parishioners, who loved their minister exceedingly, fell upon the poor quaker with such fury, as obliged Mr. Bull to come down out of the pulpit to quiet them, and to save him from the effects of their resentment; after which he went up again, and finished his sermon. The prevailing spirit of those times would not admit of the public and regular use of the book of common-prayer; but Mr. Bull formed all his public devotions out of the book of common prayer, and was commended as a person who prayed by the spirit, by many who condemned the common-prayer as a beggarly element and carnal performance. A particular instance of. this v happened to him upon his being sent for to baptize the child of a dissenter in his parish. Upon this occasion, he made use of the office of baptism as prescribed by the church of England, which he had got entirely by heart, and which he went through with so much readiness, gravity, and devotion, that the whole company were extremely affected. After the ceremony, the father of the child returned him a great many thanks, intimating at the same time, with how much greater edification those prayed, who entirely depended upon the spirit of God for his assistance in their extempore effusions, than they did who tied themselves up to premeditated forms; and that, if he had not made the sign of the cross, the badge of popery, as he called it, nobody could have formed the least objection to his excellent prayers. Upon which Mr. Bull shewed him the office of baptism in the liturgy, wherein was contained every prayer he had used on that occasion; which, with other arguments offered by Mr. Bull in favour of the common prayer, wrought so effectually upon the good old man, and his whole family, that from that time they became constant attendants on the public service of the church.

, bart. a judge of the court of king’s-bench and common-pleas, the son of James Buller, esq. member of parliament for the county of Cornwall, by Jane, his second wife, one of the daughters of Allen earl Bathurst, was born in 1745, and educated at a private school in the west of England. After this he removed ta London, and was admitted of the Inner Temple, Feb. 1763, and became a pupil of sir William Ashurst, who was at that time a very eminent spe'cial-pleader, but whom, it has been thought, he excelled. He was always ranked among the most eminent of the profession in this branch, and his business, as a common -law draughtsman, was immediate, and immense. His practice also at the bar, to which he was called by the honourable society of the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1772, was at first considerable, and in a very short period, became equal to that of almost any of his brethren. Devoting himself entirely to it, he never came into parliament. On Nov. 24, 1777, he was appointed king’s-counsel, and on the 27th of the same month, second judge of the Chester circuit. In Easter term, May 6, 1778, by the patronage of lord Mansfield, who had a high opinion of his talents, he was made a judge of the king’s-bench, in the room of sir Richard Aston. During the indisposition of lord Mansfield, for the last three or four years that he held the office of chief justice, sir Francis Buller executed almost all the business at the sittings ap nisi prius, with great ability, and lord Mansfield left him 2000l. in his will, which, it is said, Mr. justice Buller declined receiving of his lordship, when offered as a compensation for his trouble. On the resignation of lord Mansfield, his expectations were directed to the succession to the high office so long and ably filled by that venerable lawyer, but, for various reasons, sir Lloyd Kenyon was preferred. In 1794, in consequence of his declining state of health, which rendered him unequal to the laborious duties of that court, he was, on the death of judge Gould, removed to the court of common-pleas, but his health still continuing to decay, he was about to have obtained his majesty’s leave to resign, when he died suddenly, at his house in Bedford-square, June 4, 1800, and was interred in a vault in St. Andrew’s burying-ground. He was created a baronet in 1789, and was succeeded in titles and estate by his son sir F. Buller Yarde, which last name he took for an estate. Sir Francis Buller was allowed to be ably and deeply versed in the law, and was certainly more distinguished for substantial than showy talents. His eloquence at the bar was seldom admired, but his addresses from the bench were perspicuous, dignified, and logical. He possessed great quickness of perception, saw the consequences of a fact, and the drift of an argument at its first opening, and could immediately reply to an unforeseen objection, but was on some occasions thought rather hasty. He seldom, however, formed his opinions without due ^consideration, and was particularly tenacious of what he had thus considered.

, a celebrated astronomer and scholar, was born of protestant parents, at Houdun in France, September the 28th, 1605; and having finished his studies in philosophy at Paris, and in civil law at Poictiers, he applied to mathematics, theology, sacred and profane history, and civil law, with such assiduity, that he became eminent in each of these departments, and acquired the reputation of an universal genius. As he had travelled for his improvement into Italy, Germany, Poland, and the Levant, he formed an extensive acquaintance with men of letters, and maintained a correspondence with the most distinguished persons of his time. Although he had been educated a protestant, he changed his profession at the age of 27 years, and became a catholic priest. His life was prolonged to his 89th year; and having retired to the abbey of St. Victor at Paris in 1689, he died there November the 25th, 1694. Besides his pieces concerning ecclesiastical rights, which excited attention, and the history of Ducas, printed at the Louvre, in 1649, in the original Greek, with a Latin version and notes, he was the author of several other works, chiefly mathematical and philosophical. His “Treatise on the Nature of Light” was published in 1638; and his work entitled, “Philolaus, sive de vero Systema Mundi,” or his true system of the world, according to Philolaus, an ancient philosopher and astronomer, in the same year, and republished in 1645, under the title of “Astronomia Philolaica,” grounded upon the hypothesis of the earth’s motion, and the elliptical orbit described by the planet’s motion about a cone. To which he added tables entitled “Tabulæ Philolaicæ:” a work which Riccioli says ought to be attentively read by all students of astronomy. He considered the hypothesis, or approximation of bishop Ward, and found it not to agree with the planet Mars; and shewed in his defence of the Philolaic astronomy against the bishop, that from four observations made by Tycho on the planet Mars, that planet in the first and third quarters of the mean anomaly, was more forward than it ought to be according to Ward’s hypothesis; but in the 2d and 4th quadrant of the same, the planet was not so far advanced as that hypothesis required. He therefore set about a correction of the bishop’s hypothesis, and made it to answer more exactly to the orbits of the planets, which were most eccentric, and introduced what is called by Street, in his “Caroline Tables,” the Variation: for these tables were calculated from this correction of Bullialdus, and exceeded all in exactness that went before. This correction is, in the judgment of Dr. Gregory, a very happy one, if it be not set above its due place; and be accounted no more than a correction of an approximation to the true system: For by this means we are enabled to gather the coequate anomaly a priori and directly from the mean, and the observations are well enough answered at the same time; which, in Mercator’s opinion, no one had effected before. It is remarkable that the ellipsis which he has chosen for a planet’s motion, is such a one as, if cut out of a cone, will have the axis of the cone passing through one of its foci, viz. that next the aphelion.

, one of the reformers, was born, at Bremgarten, “a village near Zurich, in Switzerland, July 18, 1504. At the age of twelve he was sent by his father to Emmeric, to be instructed in grammar-learning, and here he remained three years, during which his father, to make him feel for the distresses of others, and be more frugal and modest in his dress, and temperate in his diet, withdrew that money with which he was wont to supply him; so that Bullinger was forced, according to the custom of those times, to subsist on the alms he got by singing from door to door. While here, he was strongly inclined to enter among the Carthusians, but was dissuaded from it by an elder brother. At fifteen years of age he was sent to Cologn, where he studied logic, and commenced B. A. at sixteen years old. He afterwards betook himself to the study of divinity and canon law, and to the reading of the fathers, and conceived such a dislike to the schooldivines, as in 1520, to write some dialogues against them; and about the same time he began to see the errors of the church of Rome, from which, however, he did not immediately separate. In 1522, he commenced M. A. and returning home, he spent a year in his father’s house, wholly employing himself in his studies. The year after, he was called by the abbot of La Chapelle, a Cistercian abbey near Zurich, to teach in that place, which he did with great reputation for four years, and was very instrumental in causing the reformation of Zuinglius to be received. It is very remarkable that while thus teaching and changing the sentiments of the Cistercians in this place, it does not appear that he was a clergyman in the communion of the see of Rome, nor that he had any share in the monastic observances of the house. Zuinglius, assisted by Oecolampadius and Bucer, had established the reformed doctrines at Zurich in 1523; and in 1527, Bullinger attended the lectures of Zuinglius in that city, for some months, renewed his acquaintance with Greek, and began the study of Hebrew. He preached also publicly by a licence from the synod, and accompanied Zuinglius at the famous disputation held at Bern in 1528. The year following, he was called to be minister of the protestant church, in his native place at Bremgarten, and married a wife, who brought him six sons and five daughters, and died in 1564. He met with great opposition from the papists and anabaptists in his parish, but disputed publicly, and wrote several books against them. The victory gained by the Romish cantons over the protestants in a battle fought 1531, forced him, together with his father, brother, and colleague, to fly to Zurich, where he was chosen pastor in the room of Zninglius, slain in the late battle. He was also employed in several ecclesiastical negociations, with a view to reconcile the Zuiuglians and Lutherans, and to reply to the, harsh censures which were published by Luther against the doctrine of the Swiss churches respecting the sacrament. In 1549, he concurred with Calvin in drawing up a formulary, expressing the conformity of belief which subsisted between the churches of Zurich and Geneva, and intended on the part of Calvin, for obviating any suspicions that he inclined to the opinion of Luther with respect to the sacra, ment. He greatly assisted the English divines who fled into Switzerland from the persecution raised in England by queen Mary, and ably confuted the pope’s bull excommunicating queen Elizabeth. The magistrates of Zurich, by his persuasion, erected a new college in 1538. He also prevailed with them to erect, in a place that had formerly been a nunnery, a new school, in which fifteen youths were trained up under an able master, and supplied with food, raiment, and other necessaries. In 1549, he by his influence hindered the Swiss from renewing their league with Henry It. of France; representing to them, that it was neither just nor lawful for a man to suffer himself to be hired to shed another man’s blood, from whom himself had never received any injury. In 1551 he wrote a book, the purport of which was to shew, that the council of Trent had no other design than to oppress the professors of sound religion; and, therefore, that the cantons should pay no regard to the invitations of the pope, which solicited their sending deputies to that council. In 1561 he commenced a controversy with Brentius concerning the ubiquity of the body of Christ, zealously maintained by Brentius, and as vehemently opposed by Bullinger, which Continued till his death, on the 17th of September, 1575. His funeral oration was pronounced by John Stukius, and his life was written by Josias Simler (who had married one of his daughters), and was published at Zurich in 1575, 4to, with Stukius’s oration, and the poetical tributes of many eminent men of his time. Bullinger' s printed works are very numerous, doctrinal, practical, and controversial, but no collection has ever been made of them. His high reputation in England, during the progress of the reformation, occasioned the following to be either translated into English, or published here: 1.” A hundred Sermons upon the Apocalypse,“1561, 4to. 2.” Bullae papisticae contra reginam Elizabetham, refutatio,“1571, 4to. 3.” The Judgment of Bullinger, declaring it to be lawful for the ministers of the church of England to wear the apparel prescribed by the laws, &c.“Eng. and Lat. 1566, 8vo. 4.” Twenty-six Sermons on Jeremiah,“1583. 5.” An epistle on the Mass, with one of Calvin’s,“1548, 8vo. 6.” A treatise or sermon, concerning Magistrates and Obedience of Subjects, also concerning the affairs of War,“1549, 8vo. 7,” Tragedies of Tyrants, exercised upon the church of God from the birth of Christ unto this present year 1572,“translated by Tho. Twine, 1575, 8vo. 8.” Exhortation to the ministers of God’s Word, &c.“1575, 8vo. 9.” Two Sermons on the end of the World,“1596, 8vo. 10.” Questions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the adversaries of the same, and answered by M. H. Bullinger of Zurich, reduced into seventeen common places,“1572, 8vo. 11.” Common places of Christian Religion,“1572 and 158J, 8vo. 12.” Bullinger’s Decades, in Latin,“1586. 13.” The Summe of the Four Evangelists,“1582, 8vo. 14.” The Sum or Substance pf St. Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians,“1538, 8vo. 15.” Three Dialogues between the seditious Libertine or rebel Anabaptist, and the true obedient Christian,“1551, 8vo. 16.” Fifty godly and learned Sermons, divided into five decades, containing the chief and principal points of Christian religion," a very thick 4to vol. 1577, particularly described by Ames. This book was held in high estimation in the reign of queen Elizabeth. In 1586, archbishop Whitgift, in full convocation, procured an order to be made that every clergyman of a certain standing should procure a copy of them, read one of the sermons contained in them every week, and make notes of the principal matters.

, a lawyer of some note during the usurpation, was the second son of Edward Buistrode of Hughley or Hedgley, near Beaconsfield in Buckinghamshire, and was born in 1588. 'In 1603 he became a commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford, but left it without a degree, and removed to the Inner Temple, London, where he studied law, under the patronage of sir James Whitlock, whose learning Bulstrode celebrates in high terms. After being called to the bar, he was in 8 Car. I. Lent-reader, and taking part with the presbyterians in the rebellion, was promoted to be one of the justices of North Wales in 1649, by the interest of his nephew the celebrated Bulstrocle Whitlock. He was also an itinerant justice, particularly at Warwick in 1653, in which county he had an estate at Astley. He died at the Inner Temple, of which he was a bencher, in April 1659, and was buried in the Temple church. He published “A Golden Chain, or Miscellany of divers sentences of the sacred scriptures, and of other authors, &c.” London, 1657, 8vo, but what he is best known by is his “Reports of Cases in B. R. regn. Jac. 1. & Car. I.” which were first published in 1657, 1658, and 1659, in three parts, fol. Mr. Bridgman remarks that in 2 Bulstrode, 1658, there is a chasm in the paging from 99 to 109. In 1688 a second edition was published, in which there is also a chasm from 104 to 114; yet there are the same number of pages in both editions, and the book is perfect. Wood mentions an edition of 1691. Biilstrode is said to have adopted the method of Plowden in his reports, than which there cannot be a stronger recommendation.

, eldest son of the preceding, was educated at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, whence he went to London, and after studying law became a barrister; but being of very different principles from his father, joined the forces of his unhappy sovereign Charles I. and was quarter-master general until the forces were disbanded at Truro. At the restoration, he was sent to reside as agent at Brussels, and on his return in 1675, Charles II. knighted and made him resident, and James II. made him his envoy. Disapproving of the revolution, he adhered to the abdicated monarch, and accompanied him to St. Germains, where he remained twenty-two years. We know not if this be meant as the period of his life, but he is said to have died aged 101, which brings him to the year 1782, contrary to all probability, or even fact, for his great age at the time of his death is mentioned in a panegyric upon him, inserted in 1715, in the ninth volume, or what is called the spurious volume of the Spectator, and if he died much before 1715, he could not have attained the vast age attributed to him, consistently with the dates of his father’s age.

, descended from an ancient family in Yorkshire, was born at a house called the Vache, near Chalfont St. Giles’s, in Buckinghamshire, in 1540, and when sixteen years old was sent to Oxford, and having taken his bachelor’s degree, was elected probationer fellow of Magdalen college. He was at this time distinguished for his knowledge of logic and philosophy, and soon after went to Staple’s Inn, and then to Gray’s Inn, where he spent about two years in the study of the law, which profession his father wished him to follow. His own inclination, however, was for the study of divinity, which displeased his father so much, that, to use his own words, he “cast him off,” although a man of piety himself, and one that had fled for his religion in queen Mary’s days. He returned accordingly to Oxford, and took his master’s degree in 1564. In, the year following he was elected fellow of Merton college, an irregular act of the society, which, however, Wood says was absolutely necessary, as there was no person then in Merton college able to preach any public sermon in the college turn; and not only there, but throughout the university at large, there was a great scarcity of theologists. In 1570 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and about the same time became chaplain to 'archbishop Grindall, who gave him a prebend in that church, and the rectory of Bolton-Percy about six miles distant. This rectory he held twenty-five years, and then resigned it, but retained his prebend. In 1570 we also find that he was subdean of York, which he resigned in 1579. In 1585 he was collated, being then B. D. to a prebend in Carlisle, and had likewise, although we know not at what period, a prebend in St. Paul’s. It appears that he preached and catechised very frequently, both in Oxford and in many other places, travelling over a considerable part of the kingdom, and preaching wherever there appeared a want of clergy. This zeal, his being a Calvinist, and his preaching extempore, brought him under the imputation of being too forward and meddling, against which he vindicated himself in “A Defence of his labours in the work of the Ministry,” written Jan. 20, 1602, but circulated only in manuscript. He died at Cawood in Yorkshire, Feb. 26 (on his monument, but 27 in archbishop Matthews’s ms diary) 1617, and was buried in York cathedral. He published, 1. “The Sum of Christian Religion,” Lond. 1576, 8vo. 2. “Abridgment of Calvin’s Institutions,” from May’s translation, ibid. 1580, 8vo. 3. “Sceptre of Judah,” &c. ibid. 1584, 8vo. 4. “The Coronation of King David, &c.” 4to, 1588. 5. Three or four controversial pamphlets with Parsons, the Jesuit. 6. “The Corner Stone, or a form of teaching Jesus Christ out of the Scriptures,” ibid. 1611, fol.

Of all his works, the “Pilgrim’s Progress” has attained the greatest popularity, and greater than any other human composition. It w.as remarked by the learned Dr. Samuel Johnson, that the Pilgrim’s Progress has had the best evidence of its merit, namely, the general and continued Approbation of mankind. No work of human composition can certainly be compared with it in universality and extent of popularity. Besides having been translated into several European languages, scarce a year has passed, since its first appearance, in which the public has not called for a new edition. For many years, however, this work was confined to the serious part of the world for whom it was intended, and was seldom noticed by others but as the production of an illiterate man, calculated only to please illiterate people: an objection which, if it had been just, could not be said to militate very strongly against its merit. However necessary learning may be to guard the outworks of Christianity against the attacks of infidels, pure and undefiled religion requires so little literature to inculcate it in the case of others, or to receive it ourselves, that we find it had no hand in the first promulgation of the gospel, nor much in the various means that have been taken to perpetuate it. But Banyan’s want of education is the highest praise that can be given. Such a defect exhibits the originality of his genius in the strongest light: and since more attention has been paid by men of critical taste to his “Pilgrim’s Progress,” he has been admitted into a higher rank among English writers, and it seems universally acknowledged that nothing was wanting to advance him yet higher but the advantages of education, or of an intimacy with the best writers in his own language.

Mr. Granger’s opinion of the probable advancement he might have made in poetry, has been opposed by the late Dr. Kippis in the Biographia Britaunica. but in a manner which evinces that the learned doctor was a very incompetent judge. He says Bunyan “had the invention, but not the other natural qualifications which are necessary to constitute a great poet.” Now, we believe it is the universal opinion of all critics, since criticism was known, that invention is the first qualification of a poet, and the only one which can be called natural, all others depending upon the state of refinement and education in the age the poet happens to live. Hence it is that our early poets are in general so exceedingly deficient in the graces of harmony, and that many of our modern poets have little else. With respect to Patrick’s Pilgrim, mentioned above, it is necessary to observe that (besides its being doubtful which was first published, Bunyan’s or Patrick’s) the question is not, whether Bunyan might not have been preceded by authors who have attempted something like the Pilgrim’s Progress: far less is it necessary to inquire, whether he be entitled to the merit of being the first who endeavoured to convey religious instruction in allegory. It is sufficient praise that when his work appeared, all others which resembled it, or seemed to resemble it, became forgotten; and the palm of the highest merit was assigned to him by universal consent. It was, therefore, to little purpose that a small volume was lately published, entitled “The Isle of Man, or the legal proceedings in Man-shire against Sin,” by the rev. R. Bernard, from which Bunyan was “supposed” to have taken the idea of his Pilgrim. Bunyan’s work so far transcends that and every similar attempt, that he would have been very much to blame (allowing, what cannot be proved, that he took the idea from Bernard) had he not adopted a plan which he was qualified to execute with such superior ability.

Tranquillity being restored in Italy, Michel Angelo was again called upon by the duke of Urbino, to complete the monument of Julius II, agreeable to the last design, and was again interrupted by the pope, who wished to employ him at Florence, and Afterwards ordered him to paint the two end walls of the Sistine chapel. Our artist being unable openly to oppose the will of the pope, procrastinated the work as much as possible, and while he was engaged in making a cartoon for the chapel, secretly employed as much of his time as circumstances would allow, in forwarding the monument to Julius II. But this was again interrupted by the next pope, Paul III. although at length, after much riegociation, and after changing the design three times, he was permitted to complete, his task, which was placed, not in St. Peter’s, as originally intended, but in the church of S. Pietro, in Vincoli.

Near to the Sistine chapel, in the Vatican, Antonio de San Gallo built another by the order of Paul III. which is called after its founder the Paoline chapel, and the pope being solicitous to render it more honourable to his name, desired Michel Angelo would paint the walls in fresco. Although he now began to feel he was an old man, he undertook the commission, and on the sides opposite to each other painted two large pictures, representing the martyrdom of St. Peter, and the conversion of St. Paul. These pictures, he said, cost him great fatigue, and in their progress declared himself sorry to find fresco painting was not an employment for his years; he therefore petitioned his holiness that Perino del Vaga might finish the ceiling from his designs, which was to have been decorated with painting and stucco ornaments; but this part of the work was not afterwards carried into execution. The pope often consulted Michel Angelo as an architect, although Antonio de San Gallo was the architect df St. Peter’s church, and promoted to that situation by his interest when cardinal Farnese, and now employed in his private concerns. The Farnese palace in Rome was designed by San Gallo, and the building advanced by him during his life; yet Michel Angelo constructed the bold projecting cornice that surrounds the top, in conjunction with him, at the express desire of the pope. He also consulted Michel Angelo in fortifying the Borgo, and made designs for that purpose; but the discussion of this subject proved the cause of some enmity between these two rivals in the pope’s esteem. In 1546 San Gallo died, and Michel Angelo was called upon to fill his situation as architect of St. Peter’s: he at first declined that honour, but his holiness laid his commands upon him, which admitted neither of apology nor excuse; however he accepted the appointment upon those conditions, that he would receive no salary, and that it should be so expressed in the patent, as he undertook the office purely from devotional feelings; and that, as hitherto the various persons employed in all the subordinate situations had only considered their own interest to the extreme prejudice of the undertaking, he should be empowered to discharge them, and appoint others in their sjead; and lastly, that he should be permitted to make whatever alterations he chose in San Gallo’s design, or entirely supply its place with what he might consider more simple, or in a better style. To these conditions his holiness acceded, and the patent was made out accordingly: vi

After this discussion, the time left to Michel Angelo for the enjoyment of his uncontrolled authority was short, for in the month of February 1563, he was attacked by a slow fever, which exhibited symptoms of his approaching death, and he desired Daniello da Volterra to write to his nephew Leonardo Buonarroti to come to Rome; his fever, however, increased, and his nephew not arriving, in the presence of his physician and others who were in his house, whom he ordered into his bed-room, he made this short nuncupative will: “My soul I resign to God, my body to the earth, and my worldly possessions to my nearest of kin;” then admonished his attendants: “In your passage through this life, remember the sufferings of Jesus Christ,” and soon after delivering this charge, he died, Feb. 17, 1563, aged eighty-eight years, eleven months, and fifteen days, which yet was not the life of his father, who attained the age of ninety-two. Three days after his death, his remains were deposited with great funeral pomp in the church of S. Apostoli, in Rome, but afterwards, at the request of the Florentine academy, were removed to the church of Santa Croce at Florence, and again with great solemnity finally deposited in the vault by the side of the altar, called the Altare de Cavalcanti.

He continued as a pastor over this congregation for thirty years, during which a new place of worship was built by them in Carey-street, and when much injured, or as it is called, gutted, by Dr. Sacheverell’s mob, was repaired at the expence of government. He died January 1712-13, in the sixty-eighth year of his age, and was buried in St. Clement Danes, Strand. It has escaped the notice of his biographers, that the celebrated lord Bolingbroke* was once his pupil, and the world has perhaps to regret that his lordship did not learn what Daniel Burgess might have taught him, for Daniel, with all his oddities, which made him for so many years the butt of Swift, Steele, and the other wits of the time, was a man of real piety. Unfortunately, like his successor Bradbury, he had a very considerable portion of wit, which he could not restrain, and where he thought an argument might be unsuccessful, he tried a pun. One of his biographers has furnished us with two instances that may illustrate the general character of his preaching. When treating on “the robe of righteousness,” he said, “If any of you would have a good and cheap suit, you will go to Monmouth-street; if you want a stiit for life, you will go to the court of chancery; but if you wish for a suit that will last to eternity, you must go to the Lord Jesus Christ, and put on his robe of righteousness.” In the reign of king William, he assigned a new motive for the people of God who were the descendants of Jacob, being called Israelites; namely, because God did not choose that his people should be called Jacobites! His works were numerous, but principally single sermons, preached on funeral and ether occasions, and pious tracts. One of his sermons is entitled “The Golden Snuffers,” and was the first sermon preached to the societies for the reformation of manners. It is a fair specimen of Daniel’s method and style, being replete with forced puns and quaint sayings, and consequently, in our opinion, better adapted to amusement than edification.

Mr. Burgh having, for many years, led a very laborious life, and having acquired also a competem, though not a large fortune (for his mind was always far raised above pecuniary views), he determined to retire trona business. In embracing this resolution, it was by no means his intention to be unemployed. What he had particularly in contemplation was, to complete his “Political Disquisitions,” for which he had, during ten years, been collecting suitable materials. Upon quitting his school at Newrngton-greenj which was in 1771, he settled in a house at Colebrooke-row, Islington, where he continued till his decease. He had not been long in his new situation before he became convinced (of what was only suspected before) that he had a stone in his bladder. Witn this dreadful malady he was deeply afflicted the four latter years of his life; and for the two last of these years his pain was exquisite. Nevertheless, to the astonishment of all who were witnesses of the misery he endured, he went on with his “Political Disquisitions.” The two first volumes were published in 1774, and the third volume in 1775. Their title is, “Political Disquisitions: or, an enquiry into public errors, defects, and abuses. Illustrated by, and established upon, facts and remarks extracted from a variety of authors ancient and modern. Calculated to draw the timely attention of government and people to a due consideration of the necessity and the means of reforming those errors, defects, and abuses; of restoring the constitution, and saving the state.” The first volume relates to government in general, and to parliament in particular; the second treats of places and pensions, the taxation of the colonies, and the army; and the third considers manners. It was our author’s intention to have extended his Disquisitions to some other subjects, if he had not been prevented by the violence of his disease, the tortures of which he bore with uncommon patience and resignation, and from which he was happily released, on the 26th of August, 1775, in the sixty-first year of his age. Besides the publications already mentioned, and a variety of manuscripts which he left behind him, he wrote, in 1753 and 1754, some letters in the General Evening Post, called “The Free Enquirer;” and in 1770, a number of papers entitled “The Constitutionalist,” in the Gazetteer; which were intended to recommend annual parliaments, adequate representation, and a place bill. About the same time he also published another periodical paper in the Gazetteer, under the title of “The Colonist’s Advocate;” which was written against the measures of government with respect to the colonies. He printed likewise for the sole use of his pupils, “Directions, prudential, moral, religious, and scientific;” which were pirated by a bookseller, and sold under the title of “Youth’s friendly Monitor.”

Mr. Burke’s biographers are not agreed as to his birthplace. Some say he was born in the city of Dublin; others, in a little town in the county of Cork; but all are agreed in the date, Jan. 1, 1730. His father was an attorney of considerable practice, who had married into the ancient and respectable family of the Nagles, and besides the results of his practice, possessed a small estate of 150l. or 200l. a year. Edmund was his second son, and at a veryearly age, was sent to Balytore school; a seminary in the North of Ireland, well known for having furnished the bar and the pulpit of Ireland with many eminent characters. This school has been kept by quakers for near a century; and the son of Mr. Abraham Shackleton, to whom Mr. Burke was a pupil, has been for these many years past the head-master. It has been creditable to both parties (viz. the present preceptor and the quondam pupil of his father), that the strictest friendship has always subsisted between them; not only by a constant correspondence, but by occasional visits. At this school young Burke soon distinguished himself by an ardent attachment to study, a prompt command of words, and a good taste. His memory unfolded itself very early, and he soon became distinguished as (what was called) the best capper of verses in the school; but as this phrase is not so generally known in England as in Ireland, it may be necessary to explain it: What is called capping of verses is repeating any one line out of the classics, and following it up by another, beginning with the same letter with which the former line ended; for instance,

This was carried on, in the way of literary contest, between two boys, which begat an emulation for reading above the ordinary line of duty, and at the same time called out and strengthened the powers of memory. Burke not only took the lead in this, but in all general exercises: he was considered as the first Greek and Latin scholar; to these he added the study of poetry and belles lettres; and, before he left the school, produced a play in three acts, founded on some incidents in the early part of the history of England, of which little is now remembered, unless that Alfred formed the principal character, and that this part contained many sublime sentiments on liberty.

An administration, of which he had this opinion, was not likely to proceed uncensured; particularly, when his favourite repealing act “began to be in as bad an odour in the house as the stamp act had the session before.” Other revenue acts following this, called out the force and variety of his talents; and the house began to perceive, that to whatever side this young statesman threw in his weight, it must add consideration and respect to his party.

In 1772, he took a trip to France, and while he remained in that country his literary and political eminence made him courted by all the anti-monarchical and infidel philosophers of the time. That he saw in the religious scepticism and political theories of Voltaire, Helvetius, Rousseau, and D'Alembert, even at that period, the probable overthrow of religion and government, is not surprising, for these consequences were foreseen, about the same time, by a man of much less discernment, and of no religion, the late Horace Walpole, lord Orford, Burke, however, was so impressed with the subject, that on his return he could not avoid introducing his sentiments in the house of commons, and pointing out the conspiracy of atheism to the watchful jealousy of government. He professed he was not over-fond of calling in the aid of the secular arm to suppress doctrines and opinions; but if ever it were to be raised, it should be against those enemies of their kind who would take from us the noblest prerogative of our nature, that of being a religious animal. About the same time he supported a motion for the relief of dissenters, and in the course of his speech* called the toleration which they enjoyed by connivance “a temporary relaxation of slavery,” a sort of liberty “not calculated for the meridian of England.”

By this change Mr. Burke fell once more into the ranks of opposition, and continued in that situation until after the general peace of 1783, when Mr. Fox, joining his parliamentary interest with that of lord North, gained a majority in the house of commons, which after some ineffectual struggles on the part of Mr. Pitt, terminated in what was called the coalition administration, composed of the duke of Portland first lord of the treasury, lord John Cavendish chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Burke, as before, paymaster of the forces, and Mr. Fox and lord North joint secretaries of state. As this union of political interest was the most unpopular measure adopted in the present reign, and that which it has, above all others, been found most difficult to reconcile with purity and consistency of principle, it may be necessary to state what has been offered in apology, at least as far as Mr. Burke is concerned. It is well known to those in the least, conversant in the politics which immediately preceded this period, how uniformly lord North was upbraided for his conduct throughout the whole course of the American war: every thing that could attach to a bad ministry was laid to his charge, except perhaps the solitary exception of corruption in his own person, which was not much, while he was continually accused of being the mover of a mass of corruption in others; and as Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke were the two leading champions of the house of commons, in their several speeches will be found invectives of such a nature, as to men judging of others in the ordinary habits of life, perhaps would be thought insurmountable barriers to their coalition. But we are told, that forming an administration upon a broad bottom of political interest is quite a different thing from contracting a private friendship; in the former many things are to be conceded, in regard to times and circumstances, and the opinions of others; in the latter the question of right and wrong lies in a narrower compass, and is more readily judged of by the parties and their friends. Mr. Burke, therefore, may say, “that in his several attacks on lord North, he considered him as a principal promoter and encourager of the American war, a war which he held destructive of the interests and constitutional rights of this country. As a minister, therefore, he reprobated his conduct; but the American contest being over, and other measures about to be pursued, which, in his opinion, might heal the bruises of this war, he coalesced with him as a man, who (benefiting himself by his former mistakes) might still render important services to his country.”

The next and last sera of his history is, perhaps, the most important of all, as it is that concerning which the opinions of the world are still divided. We allude to his interference, for such it may be called, with the conduct and progress of the French revolution. Many of his friends in parliament, as well as numbers of wise and good men out of it, augured from the meeting of the states-general of France, great benefit to that nation, of which the government was considered as despotic and oppressive; and some were sanguine enough to predict a new and happy order of things to all the nations connected with France, when its government should become more free. These sentiments, we can well remember, were not only general, but perhaps universal, although they might not always proceed from the same sources. There were some who loved liberty, and would hail its dawn in any country. There were others who hated the French government as the perpetual enemy of Great Britain. Mr. Burke saw nothing in the proceedings of the French which was favourable either to liberty or peace. He was well acquainted with the genius of the French people, and with the principles of those philosophers, as they called themselves, by whom a total revolution in church and state had long been projected; and from the commencement of their career in the constituent assembly, when they established, as the foundation of all legal government, the metaphysical doctrine of the “rights of man,” he predicted that torrent of anarchy and infidelity which they have since attempted to pour over all Europe. Mr. Fox, and some of the other leading men in opposition, considered this as a vain fear, and a coolness took place between them and Mr. Burke, although they continued for some time to act together in parliament. In the mean time he published his celebrated “Reflections on the French Revolution,” the instantaneous effect of which was to reduce the nation, hitherto unanimous or indifferent on the subject, to two distinct parties, the one admiring the glorious prospects arising from the French revolution, the other dreading its consequences to this nation in particular, and to the world at large. Many able writers of the former class took up their pens on this occasion, in what were called “answers” to Mr. Burke, and some of them were certainly written with great ability. The controversy was long and obstinate, and cannot be said to have terminated until the commencement of the war in 1793, when the changes of government and practice in France rendered most of the points discussed with Mr. Burke no longer of immediate importance. France, as he had predicted, was plunged into barbarous and atrocious anarchy, and the friends of her projected liberty, dearly as they clung to the idea, were obliged to confess themselves disappointed in every hope, while Mr. Burke’s predictions were erroneous in one only, namely, that France was now blotted out of the map of Europe.

After some members of his own party had called Mr. Burke to order, Mr. Fox, after declaring his conviction that the British Gonstitution, though defective in theory, was in practice excellently adapted to this country, repeated his praises of the French revolution; he thought it, on the whole, one of the most glorious events in the history of mankind; and proceeded to express his dissent from Mr. Burke’s opinions on the subject, as inconsistent with just views of the inherent rights of mankind. These, besides, were, he said, inconsistent with Mr. Burke’s former principles. Mr. Burke, in reply, said: “Mr. Fox has treated me with harshness and malignity; after having harassed with his light troops in the skirmishes of order, he brought the heavy artillery of his own great abilities to bear on me.” He maintained that the French constitution and general system were replete with anarchy, impiety, vice, and misery; that the discussion of a new polity for a province that had been under the French, and was now under the English government, was a proper opportunity of comparing the French and British constitutions. He denied the charge of inconsistency; his opinions on government, he insisted, had been the same during all his political life. He said, Mr. Fox and he had often differed, and that there had been no loss of friendship between them; but there is something in the “cursed French revolution” which envenoms every thing. On this Mr. Fox whispered: “There is no loss of friendship between us.” Mr. Burke, with great warmth, answered: “There is! I know the price of my conduct; our friendship is at an end.” Mr. Fox was very greatly agitated by this renunciation of friendship, and made many concessions; but in the course of his speech still maintained that Mr. Burke had formerly held very different principles. It would be difficult, says one of his biographers, to determine with certainty, whether constitutional irritability or public principle was the chief cause of Mr. Burke’s sacrifice of that friendship which he had so long cherished, and of which the talents and qualities of its object rendered him so worthy. It would perhaps be as difficult to prove that uch a sacrifice was necessary, and we fear that his reconciliation with lord North and his quarrel with Mr. Fox must, even by the most favourable of his panegyrists, be placed among the inconsistencies of this otherwise truly eminent character. From this time, Messrs. Burke and Fox remained at complete variance, nor have we ever heard that any personal interview took place afterwards between them.

As a writer he is still higher; and judging of him from his earliest to his latest productions, he must be considered as one of those prodigies which are sometimes given to the world to be admired, but cannot be imitated; he possessed all kinds of styles, and gave them to the head and heart in a most exquisite manner: pathos, taste, argument, experience, sublimity, were all the ready colours of his palette, ani from his pencil they derived their brightest dyes. He was one of the few whose writings broke the fascinating links of party, and compelled all to admire the brilliancy of his pen. He was a firm professor of the Christian religion, and exercised its principles in its duties; wisely considering, “That whatever disunites man from God, disunites man from man.' 7 He looked within himself for the regulation of his conduct, which was exemplary in all the relations of life; he was warm in his affections, simple in his manners, plain in his table, arrangements, &c. &c. and so little affected with the follies and dissipations of what is called” the higher classes," that he was totally ignorant of them; so that this great man, with all his talents, would be mere lumber in a modern drawing-room; not but that he excelled in all the refinements as well as strength of conversation, and could at times badinage with great skill and natural ease; but what are these to a people where cards and dice constitute their business; and fashionable phrases, and fashionable vices, their conversation?

He had already extended to distant parts his reputation for knowledge of ancient history, by a treatise “De Vectigalibus populi Romani,” on the revenues of the Romans; and for his skill in Greek learning, and in ancient coins, by a tract called “Jupiter Fulgurator,” and after his return from Paris, he published “Phsedrus,” first with the notes of various commentators, and afterwards with his own. He printed also many poems, and made many orations upon different subjects, and procured an impression of the epistles of Gudius and Sanavius. While he was thus employed, the professorships of history, eloquence, and the Greek language, became vacant at Leyden, by the death of Perizonius, which Burman’s reputation incited the curators of the university to offer him upon very liberal terms, which, after some demur, he accepted, and on entering on his office, in 1715, pronounced an oration upon the duty and office of a professor of polite literature, “De publici humanioris discipline professoris proprio officio et munere.” He was twice rector of the university, and discharged that important office with ability. Indeed, by his conduct in every station he gained so much esteem, that when the professorship of history of the United Provinces became vacant, it was conferred on him, as an addition to his honours and revenues which he might justly claim; and afterwards, as a proof of the continuance of their regard, they made him chief librarian, an office which was the more acceptable to him, as it united his business with his pleasure, and gave him an opportunity at the same time of superintending the library, and carrying on his studies.

, called the second, or the younger, was son to Francis Burman and nephew to the first Francis Burman, whose life* we have given above, and was celebrated for philosophical knowledge. He was born at Amsterdam in 1713, and educated principally by his uncle, He rose to the offices of professor of history and eloquence atFraneker; and in 1742 removed to Amsterdam, where he died June 24, 1778, of an apoplexy. A year before, he had resigned his professorship, and had retired to a country house between Leyden and the Hague. He published editions, 1. of “Aristophanes,” properly Bergler^s edition, but under the care of Burman, Leyden, 1760, 2 vols. 4to, 2. “Claudian,” Amst. 1760, 4to. 3. “Anthologia,” of the Latin poets, Amst. 1759, 2 vols. 4to. 4. “Propertius,” Utrecht, 1780, 4to, a posthumous work superintended by Santenius, by far the best edition of Propertius ever published. 5. “Poematum Libri Quatuor,” Leyden, 1774, 4to.

, the celebrated bishop of Salisbury, was born at Edinburgh, Sept. 18, 1643. His father was the younger brother of an ancient family in the county of Aberdeen, and was bred to the civil law, which he studied for seven years in France. His excessive modesty so far depressed his abilities, that he never made a shining figure at the bar, though he was universally esteemed to be a man of judgment and knowledge in his profession. He was remarkably generous in his practice, never taking a fee from the poor, nor from a clergyman, when he sued in the right of his church; and bestowing great part of his profits in acts of charity and friendship. In 1637, when the troubles in Scotland were breaking out, he was so disgusted at the conduct of the governing bishops there, whom he censured with great freedom, and was, at the same time, so remarkable for his strict and exemplary life, that he was generally called a Puritan. But when he saw, that instead of reforming abuses in the episcopal order, the order itself was struck at, he adhered to it with great zeal and constancy, as he did to the rights of the crown, not once complying with that party which afterwards prevailed in both nations. For though he agreed with Barclay and Grotius (with the latter of whom he had been intimately acquainted) as to their notions of resistance where the laws are broken through by a limited sovereign, yet he did not think that was then the case in Scotland. He married the sister of the famous sir Archibald Johnstoun, called lord Warristoun; who, during the civil wars, was at the head of the presbyterian party, and so zealously attached to that interest, that neither friendship nor alliance could dispose him to shew favour to those who refused the solemn Jeague and covenant. Our author’s father, persisting in this refusal, was obliged, at three several times, to quit the kingdom; and, when his return was afterwards connived at, as his principles would not permit him to renew the practice of the law, much less to accept the preferments in it offered him by Oliver Cromwell, he retired to his own estate in the country, where he lived till the restoration, when he was made one of the lords of the session by the title of lord Cramond. His wife, our author’s mother, was very eminent for her piety and virtue, and a warm zealot for the presbyterian discipline, in which way she had been very strictly educated.

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.

, the third and youngest son of the bishop, had an education equally advantageous with that of his two elder brothers. When he had acquired a sufficient preparation of grammatical learning, he was sent to the university of Oxford, where he becam^a commoner of Merton-college. After this, he studied two years at Leyden, from whence he seems to have made a tour through Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Having chosen the profession of the law, he was entered at the Temple, where he appears to have contracted wildness of disposition, and irregularity of conduct. To this part of his character there are frequent allusions in the satirical publications of the times; and particularly in Dr. Arbuthnol’s notes and memorandums of the six days preceding the death of a right reverend prelate. Mr. Thomas Burnet was even suspected of being one of the Mohocks mentioned in the Spectator, whose extravagant and cruel exploits made much noise, and excited no small degree of terror at that period. Swift, in one of his letters to Stella, has the following passage: “Young Davenant was telling us, how he was set upon by the Mohocks, and how they ran his chair through with a sword. It is not safe being in the streets at night. The bishop of Salisbury’s son is said to be of the gang. They are all whigs. A great lady sent to me, to speak to her father, and to lord treasurer, to have a care of them, and to be careful likewise of myself; for she heard they had malicious intentions against the ministry and their friends. I know not whether there be any thing in this, though others are of the sante opinion.” The report concerning Mr. Burnet might be groundless; but it is certain that his time was not wholly spent in dissipation; for, being warmly devoted to the cause of the whigs, he commenced political writer against the administration of the four last years of queen Anne. No less than seven pamphlets of this kind, though without his name, were written by him, in 1712 and 1713. His first was entitled “A Letter to the People, to be left for them at the Booksellers; with a word or two of the Bandbox Plot.” This small tract is drawn up in short paragraphs, after the manner of Mr. Asgill; but not in ridicule of that author, who is spoken of in terms of high commendation. Another piece of Mr. Burnet’s was: “Our Ancestors as wise as we, or ancient Precedents for modern Facts, in answer to a Letter from a noble Lord;” which was followed by “The History of Ingratitude, or a second Part of ancient Precedents for modern Facts,” wherein many instances are related, chiefly from the Greek and Roman histories, of the ungrateful treatment to which the most eminent public characters have been exposed; and the whole is applied to the case of the duke of Marlborough. A subsequent publication, that had likewise a reference to the conduct of the ministry towards the same great general, and which was dedicated to him, was entitled “The true Character of an honest Man, especially with relation to public Affairs.” Another of Mr. Burnet’s tracts, which was called “Truth, if you can find it; or a Character of the present Ministry and Parliament,” was entirely of an ironical nature, and sometimes the irony is well supported. But our author’s principal political pamphlet, during the period we are speaking of, was, “A certain Information of a certain Discourse, that happened at a certain Gentleman’s House, in a certain County: written by a certain Person then present; to a certain Friend now at London; from whence you may collect the great Certainty of the Account.” This is a dialogue in defence of the principles and conduct of the whigs; and it gave such offence to queen Anne’s Tory ministry, that on account of it, Mr. Burnet was taken into custody in January 1712—13. He wrote, also, “Some new Proofs by which it appears that the Pretender is truly James the Third;” in which, from the information, we suppose, of his father, he gives the same account, in substance, of the Pretender’s birth, that was afterwards published in the bishop’s History of his own Time. What Mr. Burnet endeavours to make out is, that three supposititious children Vol. VII. C c were introduced; and consequently, that the “Pretender was James the Third;” or, to put it more plainly, “the third pretended James.” Whilst our young author, notwithstanding his literary application and engagements, still continued his wild courses, it is related, that his father one day seeing him uncommonly grave, asked what he was meditating. “A greater work,” replied the son, “than your lordship’s History of the Reformation.” “What is that, Tom?” “My own reformation, my lord.” “I shall be heartily glad to see it,” said the bishop, “but almost despair of it.” This, however, was happily accomplished, though, perhaps, not during the life of the good prelate, and Mr. Burnejt became not only one of the best lawyers of his time, but a very respectable character. After the accession of king George the First, he wrote a letter to the earl of Halifax, on “the Necessity of impeaching the late Ministry,” in which he urges the point with great zeal and warmth, and shews the utmost dislike of treating with any degree of lenity, a set of men whose conduct, in his opinion, deserved the severest punishment. He insists upon it, that the makers of the treaty of Utrecht ought to answer for their treasons with their heads. The letter to the earl of Halifax, which appeared with Mr. Burnet’s name, was followed by an anonymous treatise, entitled “A second Tale of a Tub; or the History of Robert Powel the Puppet-Showman.” This work, which is a satire on the earl of Oxford and his ministry, and is far from being destitute of wit and humour, hath never had the good fortune (nor, indeed, did it deserve it,) of being read and admired like the original “Tale of a Tub.” The author himself, in the latter part of his life, wished it to be forgotten; for we are well informed that he sought much for it, and purchased such copies as he could meet with, at a considerable price. Soon after his father’s death, he published “A Character of the right reverend father in God, Gilbert lord bishop of Sarum; with a true copy of his last Will and Testament.” In ridicule of this publication, was printed in Hudibrastic verse, and with a very small portion of merit, “A certain dutiful Son’s Lamentation for the Death of a certain right reverend; with the certain Particulars of certain Sums and Goods that are bequeathed him, which he will most certainly part with in a ctrtain time.” In 1715, Mr. Burnet, in conjunction with Mr. Ducket, wrote a truvestie of the first book of the Iliad, under the title of “Homerides;” which exposed him to the lash of Mr. Pope, and occasioned that great poet to give him a place, though not with remarkable severity, in the Dunciad. He was likewise concerned in a weekly paper, called “The Grumbler.” He was, however, soon, taken from these literary occupations, by being appointed his majesty’s consul at Lisbon, where he continued several years. Whilst he was in this situation, he had a dispute with lord Tyrawley, the ambassador, in which the merchants sided with Mr. Burnet. During the continuance of the dispute, the consul took an odd method of affronting-' his antagonist. Employing the same taylor, and having learned what dress his lordship intended to wear on a birthday, Mr. Burnet provided the same dress as liveries for his servants, and appeared himself in a plain suit. It is said, that in consequence of this quarrel (though how truly, may, perhaps, be doubted), the ambassador and consul were both recalled. Upon Mr. Burnet’s return to his country, he resumed the profession of the law. In 1723, he published, with a few explanatory notes, the first volume of his father’s “History of his own Time;” and, in 1732, wrote some remarks in defence of that history, in answer to lord Lansdowne’s letter to the author of the “Reflections historical and political.” When Mr. Burnet gave to the public, in 1734, the second volume of the bishop’s history, he added to it the life of that eminent prelate. In Easter term 1736 he was called to the degree of serjeant at law; and, in May 1740, was appointed king’s serjeant, in the room of serjeant Kyre > deceased. When, in 1741, judge Fortescue was raised to the mastership of the rolls, Mr. Burnet, in the month of October in that year, succeeded him as one of the justices of the court of common-pleas. On the 23d of No-/ vember, 1745, when the lord chancellor, the judges, and the associated gentlemen of the law, waited on the king, with their address on occasion of the rebellion, his majesty conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. He was also a member of the royal society. Sir Thomas Burnet continued in the court of common -pleas, with great reputation, to his death, which happened on the 5th of January, 1753. He died of the goat in his stomach, and left behind nim the character of an ab<e and upright judge, a sincere friend, a sensible and agreeable companion, and a munificent benefactor to the poor. Dr. Ferdinando Warner, in his dedication of sir Thomas More’s Life to the then lord keeper Henley, haying mentioned that Mr. justice Burnet recommended to him the translation of the Utopia, adds: “of whom I take this opportunity to say with pleasure, and which your lordship, I am sure, will allow me to say with truth, that for his knowledge of the world, and his able judgment of things, he was equalled by few, and excelled by none of his contemporaries.” The following clause in our learned judge’s will was the subject of conversation after his decease, and was inserted in the monthly collections, as being somewhat extraordinary. “I think it proper in this solemn act to declare, that as I have lived, so I trust I shall die, in the true faith of Christ as taught in the Scriptures; but not as taught or practised in any one visible church that I know of; though I think the church of England is as little stuffed with the inventions of men as any of them; and the church of Rome is so full of them, as to have destroyed all that is lovely in the Christian religion.” This clause gave occasion to the publication of a serious and sensible pamphlet, entitled: “The true Church of Christ, which, and where to be found, according to the Opinion of the late judge Burnet; with an Introduction concerning divine worship, and a caution to gospel preachers; in which are contained, the Reasons for that Declaration in his last Will and Testament.” A judgment may be formed of his abilities in his profession, from his argument in the case of Ryal and Rowls. In 1777 were published in 4to, “Verses written on several occasions, between the years 1712 and 1721.” These were the poetical productions of Mr. Burnet in his youth, of whom it is said by the editor, that he was connected in friendship and intimacy with those wits, which will for ever signalise the beginning of the present century; and that himself shone with no inconsiderable lustre amidst the constellation of geniuses which then so illustriously adorned the British hemisphere.

The vacations of the court of session afforded him leisure to retire every year, in spring and in autumn, to the country; and he used then to dress in a style of simplicity, as if he had been only a plain farmer, and to live among the people upon his estate, with all the kind familiarity and attention of an aged father among his grown-up children. It was there he had the pleasure of receiving Dr. Samuel Johnson, when upon his well-known tour through the islands of Scotland. Johnson admired nothing in literatureso much as the display of a keen discrimination of human character, a just apprehension of the principles of moral action, and that vigorous common-sense, which is the most happily applicable to the ordinary conduct of life. Monboddo delighted in the refinements, the subtleties, the abstractions, and what may be called the affectations of literature; and in comparison with these, despised the grossness of modern taste and of common affairs. Johnson thought learning and science to be little valuable, except so far as they could be made subservient to the purposes of living usefully and happily with the world on its own terms. Monboddo’s favourite science taught him to look down with contempt upon all sublunary, and especially upon all modern things; and to fit tife to literature and philosophy, not literature and philosophy to life.

, a most ingenious and learned writer, was born at Croft, in Yorkshire, about the year 1635. His first education was at the free-school of North-­Alverton, in that county, from whence he was removed in June 1651, to Clare-hall in Cambridge, where he had Dr. Tillotson for his tutor. Dr. Cud worth was at that time master of Clare-hall, but removed from it to the mastership of Christ’s college, in 1654; and thither our author followed him. Under his patronage he was chosen fellow in 1657, commenced M. A. in 1658, and became senior proctor of the university in 1661; but it is uncertain how long after ward she continued his residence there. He was afterwards governor to the young earl of Wiltshire, son of the marquis of Winchester, with whom he travelled abroad ^ and gave such satisfaction, that, soon after his return to England, he was invited and prevailed on by the first duke of Ormond, to travel in the same capacity with the young earl of Ossory, his grace’s grandson and heir-apparent. These honourable connections introduced him into what may properly be called the world: in which he afterwards confirmed the reputation he already had for talents ad learning, by the publication of his “Telluris theoria sacra, orbis nostri originem & mutationes generales, quas olim subiit et subiturus est, complectens.” This Sacred Theory of the Earth was originally published in Latin, in 2 vols. 4to, the two first books concerning the deluge, and paradise, 1681; the two last, concerning the burning of the world, and the new heavens and new earth, in 1689. The uncommon approbation this work met with, and the particular encouragement of Charles II. who relished its beauties, induced the author to translate it into English. Of this translation he published the two first books in 1684, folio, with an elegant dedication to the king; and the two last in 1689, with a no less elegant dedication to queen Mary. “The English edition,” he tells us, “is the same in substance with the Latin, though, he confesses, not so properly a translation, as a new composition upon the same ground, there being several additional chapters in it, and several new moulded.”

It has already been noticed, that Burns very fondly cherished those notions of independence, and those feelings of an independent spirit that are dear to the young and ingenuous, and were, perhaps, not less so to him, because so often sung by the greatest of our poets. But he had not matured these notions by reflection; and he was now to learn, that a little knowledge of the world will overturn many such airy fabrics. If we may form any judgment, however, from his correspondence, his expectations were not very extravagant, since he expected only that some of his illustrious patrons would have placed him, on whom they had bestowed the honours of genius, in a situation where his exertions might have been uninterrupted by the fatigues of labour, and the calls of want. Disappointed in this, be now formed a design of applying for the office of exciseman, as a kind of resource in case his expectations from the farm should be baffled. By the interest of one of his friends, this object was accomplished; and after the usual forms were gone through, he was appointed exciseman, or, as it is vulgarly called, ganger, of the district in which he lived. It soon appeared, as might naturally have been expected, that the duties of this office were incompatible with his previous employment. “His farm,” says Dr. Currie, “was, in a great measure, abandoned to his servants, while he betook himself to the duties of his new appointment. He might still, indeed, be seen in the spring, directing his plough, a labour in which he excelled, or with a white sheet, containing his seed-corn, slung across his shoulders, striding with measured steps along his turned-up furrows, and scattering the grain in the earth. But his farm no longer occupied the principal part of his care or his thoughts. It was not at Ellisland that he was now in general to be found: Mounted on horse-back, this high: minded poet was pursuing the defaulters of the revenue among the hills and vales of Nithsdale, his roving eye wandering over the charms of nature, and muttering his wayward fancies as he moved along.”

In April 1625, he presented a letter to king Charles, remonstrating against Dr. Neile and Dr. Laud, his majesty’s continual attendants, as popishly affected; and for this was forbidden the court. Soon after he was presented to the rectory of -St, Matthew’s, in Friday-street, London. In Dec. 1636, he was summoned to appear before Dr. Duck, one of the commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, who tendered to him the oaths ex officio, to answer to certain articles brought against him, for what he had advanced in two sermons preached in his own church on the preceding 5th of November . Burton, instead of answering, appealed to the king: but a special high-commission court, which was called soon after at Doctors’ Commons, suspended him, in his absence, from both his office and benefice; on which he thought fit to abscond, but published his two sermons under the title of “For God and the King;” together with an apology justifying his appeal. February 1, a serjeant at arms, with other officers, by virtue of a warrant from the star-chamber, broke open his doors, seized his papers, and took him into custody. Next day, he was, by an order of the privy-council, committed to the Fleet prison; from which place he dated one epistle to his majesty, another to the judges, and a third to the “truehearted nobility.” March 1!, he was proceeded against in the star-chamber, for writing and publishing seditious, schismatical, and libellous books, against the hierarchy of the church, and to the scandal of the government. To this information he (and Bastwick and Prynne who were indicted with him) prepared answers . In the end of May 1637, a person came to the Fleet to examine Burton upon his answer; but hearing that the greatest part of it had been expunged, he refused to be examined, unless his answer might be admitted as it was put in, or he permitted to put in a new answer. June 2, it was ordered by the court, that if he would not answer to interrogatories framed upon his answer, he would be proceeded against pro confesso. Accordingly, June 14, Burton, and the two others, being brought to the bar, the information was read; and no legal answer having been put in in time, nor filed on record, the court began for this contempt to proceed to sentence. The defendants cried out for justice, that their answers might be read, and that they might not be condemned unheard, but because their answers were not filed on record, the court proceeded to pass sentence: which was, that Burton, Prynne, and Bastwick pay a fine of 50OO/. each, and that Burton in particular be deprived of his ecclesiastical benefice, degraded from his ministerial function and degrees in the university, be set on the pillory, have both his ears cut off there, confined to perpetual close imprisonment in Lancaster-castle, debarred the access of his wife or any other except his keeper, and denied the use of pen, ink, and paper: all which, except the fine and the solitary part of the confinement, was executed accordingly, and the cutting off his ears with circumstances of great cruelty, they being pared so close, that the temporal artery was cut. During his twelve weeks imprisonment in the common gaol at Lancaster, great crowds pitying his misfortunes resorted to him, and some of his papers being dispersed in London, he was removed, by an order of council, to Cornet-castle in the isle of Guernsey, October 1637, where he was shut up almost three years; till in November 1640, the house of, commons, upon his wife’s petition, complaining of the severity of his sentence, ordered that he should be brought to the parliament in safe custody. Burton, on his arrival at London, presented a petition to the house of commons, setting forth his sufferings, and there was now a house of commons willing enough to listen to more trifling complaints. In consequence of this, the house resolved that the sentence against him was illegal, and ought to be reversed; that he be freed from the fine of 5000l. and from imprisonment, and restored to his degrees in the university, orders in the ministry, and to his ecclesiastical benefice in Friday-street, London; also have recompense for his imprisonment, and for the loss of his ears, which they fixed at six thousand pounds; but owing to the ensuing confusions in the kingdom, he never received that sum. He was, however, restored to his living of St. Matthew’s, after which he declared himself an Independent, and complied with all the alterations that ensued; but, according to Wood, when he saw to what extravagant lengths the parliament went, he grew more moderate, and afterwards fell out with his fellow-sufferers Prynne and Bastwick, and with Mr. Edmund Calamy. He died Jan. 7, 1648. Besides the tracts mentioned above, he wrote several others, which are thus enumerated. 1. “A Censure of Simony,” Loud. 1624. 2. “A Plea to an Appeal, traversed Dialoguewise,” Lond. 1626. 3. “The baiting of the Pope’s Bull,” Lond. 1627. 4. “A Tryal of private Devotions, or a Dyal for the Hours of Prayer,” Lond. 1628. 5. “Israel’s Fast; or, Meditations on the 7th Chapter of Joshua,” Lond. 1628. 6. “Seven Vials, or an Exposition on the loth and 16th Chapters of the Revelations,” Lond. 1628. 7. “Babel no Bethel; i. e. The Church of Rome no true visible Church of Christ, being an Answer to Hugh Cholmeley’s Challenge, and Robert Butterfield’s Maschil.” 8. “Truth’s Triumph over Trent, or the great Gulph between Sion and Babylon,” Lond. 1629. 9. “The Law and the Gospel reconciled against the Antinomians,” Lond. 1631^ 4to. 10. “Christian’s Bulwark, or the Doctrine of Justification,” Lond. 1632, 4to. 11. “Exceptions against a passage in Dr. Jackson’s Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes.” 12. “The sounding of the two last Trumpets; or, Meditations on the 9th, 10th, and llth Chapters of the Revelations,” Lond. 1641, 4to. 13. “The Protestation protested, or a short Remonstrance, shewing what is principally required of all those that have or do take the last Parliamentary Protestation,” London, 1641, 4to. 14. “Relation of Mr. Chillingworth.” 15. “A Narration of his own Life,” Lond. 1643, 4to. J6. “A Vindication of Independent Churches, in answer to Mr. Prynne’s two books of Church-Government, and of Independency,” Lond. 1644, 4to. 17. “Parliament’s Power for Laws in Religion,” 1645, 4to. 18. “Vindiciae Veritatis: Truth vindicated against Calumny: In a brief Answer to Dr. Bastwick’s two late books, entitled, Independency not God’s Ordinance,” Lond. 1645, 4to. 19. “Truth shut out of Doors; or, A brief Narrative of the Occasion and Manner of Proceeding of Aldermanbury Parish, in shutting their Church-Door against him,” Lond. 1645, 4to. 20. “Conformity’s Deformity, in a Dialogue between Conformity and Conscience,” Lond. 1646, 4to.

Dr. Burton had some peculiarities of character, which wit or envy were accustomed to magnify; even his style, which is rather precise and pedantic, has been considered as peculiar, and called the Burtonian style; but his acknowledged virtues and talents were such as to entitle him to the serious regard of the majority of his contemporaries^ His works, some of which we have already noticed, consist of two volumes of occasional “Sermons,” 1764, and 1766, 8vo; his “Opuscula Miscellanea Theologica,” and his “Opuscula Miscellanea Metrico-prosaica.” Of these a very elegant poem, entitled “Sacerdos Parrecialis Rusticus,” has been recently (1800) translated by the Rev. Dawson Warren, under the title “The Parish Priest, a poem,” 4to. One of the most useful of Dr. Burton’s separate publications appeared in 1744, entitled “The Genuineness of Lord Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion printed at Oxford vindicated;” in which he clearly and fully refutes the slander that bad been advanced by Oldmixon, in his Critical History of England. In 1758, appeared the doctor’s “Dissertatio et Notae criticae spectantes ad Tragoedias quasdam Graecas editas in Pentalogia.” The publication. of the five select tragedies which constitute the “Pentalogia r” first begun, but interrupted by the death of Mr. Joseph Bingham, one of his pupils, took place in 1758, with a preface, dissertations, index, and additional notes, and has lately been reprinted at the university press. In 1766, he published a discourse, entitled “Papists and Pharisees compared; or, Papists the corrupters of Christianity;” occasioned by Philips’s Life of cardinal Pole. About the same time, he delivered at Oxford a set of sermons, still in manuscript, the design of which was to refute the articles of the council of Trent.

Dr. Burton is understood to have been the author, under the name of “Phileleutherus Londinensis,” of “Remarks on Dr. King’s Speech before the University of Oxford, at the Dedication of Dr. Radcliff’s Library, on the 13th of April, 1749.” This produced from Dr. King, “Elogium Famæ inserviens Jacci Etonensis, sive Gigantis; or, The Praises of Jack of Eton, commonly called Jack the Giant; collected into English metre, after the manner of Thomas Sternhold, John Hopkins, John Burton, and others. To which is added, a dissertation on the Burtonian style. By a Master of Arts.” Dr. Burton’s Life was written in Latin by Dr. Edward Bentham, his relation, and canon of Christ church, under the title “De Vita et moribus Johannis Burtoni,” 1771, addressed to Dr. Lowth, then bishop of Oxford, afterwards of London; and was translated the same year in the Gentleman? s Magazine.

“Burton upon Melancholy,” says archbp. Herring (Letters, 1777, 12mo), is an author, the pleasantest, the most learned, and the most full of sterling sense. The wits of queen Anne’s reign, and the beginning of George I. were, he adds, not a little beholden to him:“but for nearly a century, the perusal of it was confined to those readers who are called” The Curious;“and within our memory it was usually rejected from the catalogues of eminent booksellers, as a work fitter for the stalls. Of late years, however, its reputation has revived in an uncommon degree, partly by incidental notices of it by Dr. Johnson, Messrs. Steevens and Malone, and the other annotators of Shakspeare, and partly by the attention paid to it by Dr. Ferriar of Manchester, who, in his” Illustrations of Sterne,“has ingeniously pointed out how much that writer owes to Burton. Mr. T. Warton, in his History of Poetry, had also frequently referred to the” Anatomy." All this not only raised the price of the old editions, but encouraged the publication of a new one in 1800, which sold rapidly; yet Burton is a writer so much above the common level, that we suspect that, even now, he has acquired more purchasers than readers.

was a name placed in the titlepages of a numerous set of popular volumes printed about the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century, and sold by Nath. Crouch, a bookseller of that period, who is supposed to have composed them. In the Bodleian Catalogue, Burton is called “alias Nat Crouch,” of whom Dunton says, “I. think I have given you the very soul of his character, when I have told you that his talent lies at * Collections.' He has melted down the best of our English histories into Twelve-penny-Books, which are filled with Wonders, Rarities, and Curiosities, for you must know his title-pages are a little swelling.” Of his brother Samuel Crouch, Dunton speaks more favourably: “He is just and punctual in all his dealings; never speaks ill of any man; has a swinging soul of his own; would part with all he has to serve a friend; and that’s enough for one bookseller.” These Burton’s books were formerly confined to the perusal of the lowest classes of readers, and were long called chapmen’s books, and sold only by the petty booksellers, and at fairs, &c. But of late years they have become a favourite object with collectors, and their price has risen accordingly; and more completely to gratify the trifling taste of the age, some of them have been reprinted in a pompous and expensive manner. Being, therefore, from whatever cause, the subjects of modern attention, we shall subjoin a list of them, for which we are indebted to Mr. Malone. 1. “Historical Rarities in London and Westminster,” 1681. 2. “Wars in England, Scotland, and Ireland,” 1681. 3. “Wonderful prodigies of Judgment and Mercy,” 1681. 4. “Strange and prodigious religious Customs and Manners of sundry Nations,” 1683. 5. “English Empire in America,” 1685, 6. “Surprising Miracles of Nature and Art,” 1685, probably the same with “Admirable Curiosities of Nature,” 1681. 7. “History of Scotland,” 1685. 8. History of Ireland,“1685. 9.” Two Journies to Jerusalem,“1685. 10.” Nine Worthies of the World,“1687. 11.” Winter’s Evening’s Entertainments,“1687. 12.” The English Hero, or the Life of Sir Francis Drake,“1687. 13.” Memorable Accidents, and unheard-of Transactions,“1693. 14.” History of the House of Orange,“1693. 15. Martyrs in flames,” 1695. 16. “Curiosities of England,” 1697. 17. “History of Oliver Cromwell,” 1698. 18. “Unparalleled Varieties,” 1699. 18. “Unfortunate Court Favourites of England,” 1706. 20. “History of the Lives of English Divines,” 1709. 21. “Ingenious Riddles.” 22. “Unhappy Princesses, or the history of Anne Boleyn, and Lady Jane Grey,” 1710. 23. “Esop’s Fables in prose and verse,” 1712. 24. “History of Virginia,” 1722. 25. “English acquisitions in Guinea and the East Indies,” 1726. 26. Female Excellency, or the Ladies’ Glory,“1728. 27.” General History of Earthquakes,“1736. 8.” The English Heroine, or the Life and Adventures of Mrs. Christian Davis, commonly called Mother Ross.“29.” Youth’s Divine Pastime."

, author of the “History of Leicestershire,” and eldest son of Ralph Burton, esq. of Lindley in Leicestershire, was born August 24, 1575, educated at the school of Nuneaton in Warwickshire, and while there distinguished himself by no common taste and skill in Latin poetry. He was admitted of Brazen-nose college, Oxford, 1591, and of the Inner Temple May 20, 1593, B. A. June 22, 1594, and was afterwards a barrister and reporter in the court of common pleas. But “his natural genius,” says Wood, “leading him to the studies of heraldry, genealogies, and antiquities, he became excellent in those obscure and intricate matters; and, look upon him as a gentleman, was accounted by all that knew him to be the best of-his time for those studies, as may appear by his description of Leicestershire.” The author himself says, he began his History of Leicestershire in 1597, not many ): ears after his coming into the Inner Temple. In 1602 he corrected Saxton’s map of that county, with the addition of eighty towns. His weak constitution riot permitting him to follow his business, he retired into the country; and his great work, the “Description of Leicestershire,” was published in folio, 1622. He tells his patron, George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, that “he has undertaken to remove an eclipse from the sun without art or astronomical dimension, to give light to the county of Leicester, whose beauty has long been shadowed and obscured;” and in his preface declares himself one of those who hold that “gloria totius res est vanissima mundi;” and that he was unfit and unfurnished for so great a business: “unfit,” to use his own words, “for that myself was bound for another study, which is jealous, and will admit no partner; for that all time and parts of time, that could possibly be employed therein, were not sufficient to be dispensed thereon, by reason of the difficulty of getting, and multiplicity of kinds of learning therein. Yet if a partner might be assigned or admitted thereto, there is no study or learning so fit or necessary for a lawyer, as the study of antiquities.” He was assisted in this undertaking by his kinsmen John Beaumont of Gracedieu, esq. and Augustus Vincent, rougecroix; but the church notes were taken by himself. He drew up the corollary of Leland’s life, prefixed to the “Collectanea,” with his favourite device, the sun recovering from an eclipse, and motto “Rilucera,” dated Faledi 1612, from Falde, a pleasant village near Tutbury, Staffordshire, and a great patrimony belonging to his family, and then to him. The County History was dated from the same village, Oct. 30, 1622. He also caused part of Leiand’s Itinerary to be transcribed 163), and gave both the transcript and the seven original volumes to the Bodleian library 1632; as also Talbot’s notes. To him his countryman Thomas Purefoy, esq. of Barwell, bequeathed Leland’s Collectanea after his death 1612. Wood charges him with putting many needless additions and illustrations into these Collectanea, from which charge Hearne defends him. Wood adds, he made a useful index to them; which, Hearne says, was only of some religious houses and some authors. In 1625 he resided at Lindley, where, among other works, he compiled a folio volume (which still remains in ms.) under the title of “Antiquitates de Dadling-­ton, manerio com. Leic, sive exemplificatio scriptorum, cartarum veterum, inquisitionum, rotulorum curiarum, recordorum, et evidentium probantium antiquitates dicti manerii de Dadlingtori, et hsereditatem de Burton in dicto manerio de Dadlington, quoe mine sunt penes me Will'mum Burton de Lindley com. Leic. modernum dominum dicti manerii de Dadlington. Lahore et studio mei Will 1 mi Burton de Lindley, apprenticii legum Angliae, et socii Interioris Templi Londini; nuper habitatitis apud Falde com. Staff, nunc apud Lindley, 25 Aug. 1625, set, 50.” He died at Falde, after suffering much in the civil wars April 6, 1645, and was buried in the parish church thereto belonging, called Hanbury. He left several notes, collections of arms and monuments, genealogies, and other matters of antiquity, which he had gathered from divers churches and gentlemen’s houses. Derby collections are mentioned in Gascoigne’s notes, p. 53, probably by himself. In Osborne’s Catalogue, 1757, was “Vincent on Brooke,” with ms notes by William Burton, probably not more than those on Cornwall, which Dr. Rawlinson had. He was one of sir Robert Cotton’s particular friends, and had the honour to instruct sir William Dugdale. He was acquainted with Somner; and Michael Drayton, esq. was his near countryman and acquaintance, being descended from the Draytons of Drayton, or Fenny Drayton, near Lindley. He married, 1607, Jane, daughter of Humphry Adderley, of Wedington, Warwickshire; by whom he had one son, Cassibelan, born 1609, heir of his virtues as well as his other fortunes, who, having a poetical turn, translated Martial into English, which was published 1658. He consumed the best part of his paternal estate, and died Feb. 28, 1681, having some years before given most, if not all, his father’s collections to Mr. Walter Chetwynd, to be used by him in writing the antiquities of Staffordshire. Several printed copies of Burton’s Leicestershire, with ms notes by different persons, are existing in various collections *. “The reputation of Burton’s book,” as Mr. Gough justly observes, “arises from its being written early, and preceded only by Lambarde’s Kent 1576, Carew’s Cornwall 1602, and Norden’s Surveys; and it is in comparison only of these, and not of Dugdale’s more copious work, that we are to understand the praises so freely bestowed on it, and because nobody has treated the subject more remotely and accurately; for Dugdale, says Burton, as well as Lambarde and Carevv, performed briefly. The present volume, though a folio of above 300 pages, if the unnecessary digressions were struck out, and the pedigrees reduced into less compass, would shrink into a small work. The typographical errors, especially in the Latin, are so numerous, and the style, according to the manner of that time, so loose, that the meaning is often doubtful. The description is in alphabetical order, and consists chiefly of pedigrees and moot-cases.” The author, sensible of its defect, greatly enlarged and enriched it with the addition of Roman, Saxon, and other antiquities, as appears from his letter to sir Robert Cotton, dated Lindley, June 9, 1627, still extant among Cotton’s correspondences, in his library, Jul. C. iii. This book, thus augmented, was, with other Mss. by the same author, in the possession of Mr. Walter Chetwynd, of Ingestry, in Staffordshire, whom Camden in Staffordshire calls “venerandae antiquitatis cultor maximus;” and afterwards came to, or was borrowed by, Mr. Charles King, tutor to Mr. Chetwynd, in whose hands Brokesby mentions it, and says Mr. Chetwynd made considerable additions to it. He died in 1693. Lord Chetwynd lent it to sir Thomas Cave, in whose hands Mr. Ashby saw it in 1763 f. It is continued to 1642. It is not necessary to say more of a work now so totally eclipsed, and rendered useless, by the more elaborate, accurate, and satisfactory “History of Leicestershire” lately published by Mr. Nichols, to which we may refer for many curious particu­* These are particularized in the History of Hinckley, p. 131. A new edition of the Description of Leicestershire was absurdly printed in 1777, without the least improvement. lars of Burton’s life, and especially an account by himself in the form of a diary.

, founder of the society of the priests, or fathers, of the Christian doctrine, was born of a noble family at Cavaillon, Feb. 3, 1544. He at first cultivated poetry, and gave himself up to a life of pleasure, but afterwards reformed, lived in a most exemplary manner, went into holy orders, and travelled from place to place, confessing and catechising. His zeal having procured him many disciples, he formed them into a society, whose principal duty was to teach what they called the Christian doctrine. He was appointed general of this society in 1598, the institution having been first approved by pope Clement VIII. in the preceding year. That which goes by the same name in Italy was founded by Mark Cusani, a Milanese knight, and was established by the approbation and authority of Pius V. and Gregory XIII. Caesar de Bus had also some concern in establishing the Ursulines of France. He lost his sight about fourteen years before his death, which happened at Avignon, April 15, 1607. He left only a book of instructions, drawn up for his society, called “Instructions familieres sur les quatre parties de la Doctrine Chretienne,” 1666, 8vo. His life was written by James Beauvais, 4to.

, first bishop of Bristol, was born in 1490, and became a student at the university of Oxford aboiU 1513, and five years after took the degree of B. A. being then, Wood says, numbered among the celebrated poets of the university. He afterwards became a brother of the order called Bonhoms, and after studying some time among the friars of St. Austin (now Wadham college) he was elected provincial of his order at Edington in Wiltshire, and canon residentiary of Sarum. In that station he lived many years, till at length king Henry VIII. being informed of his great knowledge in divinity and physic, made him his chaplain, and advanced him to the newly erected see of Bristol, to which he was consecrated June 25, 1542, at Hampton. Pits very erroneously says he was made bishop of Bristol by Edward VI. partly with a design to draw him from the ancient religion, and partly because they could not find among the reformers any other person of sufficient erudition. This author, however, allows that he denied the true faith by taking a wife, whom, as an excuse, Pits turns into a concubine. In consequence of this connection he was, on the accession of queen Mary, deprived of his dignity, and spent the remainder of his life in a private station at Bristol, where he died in 1558. He was buried on the north side of the choir of the cathedral, and a monument was afterwards erected to his memory; his wife was also buried here in 1553. Pits, and after him a congenial lover of popery, the late Mr. Cole, says, that he dismissed her of his own accord; but that is improbable, as there could be no necessity for such dismission till queen Mary’s accession, which happened in July 1553, and the bishop’s wife died in October following. Dr. Bush wrote, 1. “An exhortation to Margaret Burges, wife to John Burges, clothier, of Kingswuod, in the county of Wilts,” London, printed in the reign of Edward VI. 2. “Notes on the Psalms,” London, 1525. 3. “Treatise in praise of the Crosse.” 4. “Answer to certain queries concerning the abuses of the Mass,” in Burnet’s History of the -Reformation, Records, No. 25. 5. “Dialogues between Christ and the Virgin Mary.” 6. “Treatise of salves and curing remedies,” 8vo. printed by Redman, no date. 7. “A little Treatise in English, called the Extirpation of Ignorancy, &c.” in verse, printed by Pinson, without date, 4to, and dedicated to the lady Mary. 8. “Carmina diversa.”

, a man once of considerable eminence for his philosophical pursuits, was born about 1594, of a good family at Cleve Prior, in Worcestershire, and was educated at Oxford, as Wood thinks, in Baliol college. He was afterwards taken into the service of sir Francis Bacon, who, when lord chancellor, made him seal-bearer, and in other respects patronized him liberally. He afterwards travelled, directing his attention chiefly to mineralogy, some curious experiments in which he made at Enston in Oxfordshire, where he constructed a curious cistern, erected a banquetting house, &c. which in 1636, he exhibited to king Charles 1. and his queen, who gave orders that the place should be called after her, Henrietta. Here likewise he entertained the royal visitors with a kind of mask, poetical addresses, &c. which were afterwards published under the title of “The several Speeches and Songs at the presentment of the Rock at Enston, to the queen’s most excellent majesty,” Oxon. 1636, 4to. Soon after Mr. Bushel became farmer of his majesty’s mines in Wales, which he worked with great skill and indefatigable labour; and having obtained his majesty’s grant to coin silver, he supplied the army at Oxford, when the parliament had got possession 6f the Tower mint. When the parliament army reached Wales, he was obliged to make his escape with other men of known loyalty. Aubrey informs us that about the time Cromwell was made protector, Mr. Bushel concealed himself in a house in Lambeth marsh, and he constantly lay in a long garret, hung with black baize; at one end was painted a skeleton extended on a mattress; at the other, was a small pallet bed; and the walls were covered with various emblems of mortality. Here he continued above a year, till his friends had made his peace with the protector. After the restoration he obtained an act of parliament for working certain mines in Somersetshire, but what progress he made we are not told. He died in 1674. Besides the pamphlet already noticed, he published “A just and true remonstrance of his Majesty’s Mines Royal in Wales,” Lond. 1642, 4to; and an “Extract, or Abstract of the lord chancellor Bacon’s Philosophical Theory of Mineral Prosecutions,” Lond. 1660.

, a native of Arlon in Luxemburgh, in the sixteenth century, owed his success in life to his brother Francis, who died archbishop of Besangon in 1500. By his interest he became master of requests, a member of the sovereign council of Mechlin, and held several ecclesiastical benefices. His genius and learning recommended him to the friendship and correspondence of many of the learned men of his time, particularly Erasmus and sir Thomas More. He was employed in embassies to pope Julius II. Francis I. of France, and Henry VIII. of England; and in 1517, he was sent into Spain by Charles V. but falling sick at Bourdeaux, he died August 26 of that year. He left a considerable property to found three professorships at Louvain for Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, which composed what was called the Collegium Trilingue. Erasmus says this institution gave much disgust to the illiterate members of the church there, who, he adds, were vexed that three tongues should be in request. Several verses, speeches, and epistles written by Buslidius, were found after his death, but the only piece published is a letter prefixed to sir Thomas More’s Utopia.

, a French Jesuit, was born in 1607, either at Villa Franca in Beaujolais, or at Lyons, and became a very frequent and admired writer, although little of his fame has reached modern times. He died in 1678. His French poetry is now forgot, but his Latin poetry published at Lyons in 1675, 8vo, still has some admirers; and in his “Scanderbeg,” an epic poem, and his “Rhea,” are some animated passages. He published also an abridgment of the History of France, and another, in Latin, of the universal history, called “Floscoli Historiarum,” which he afterwards translated into French, under the title “Parterre historique,” Lyons, 1672, 12nio; the ridiculous dedication of which to the Virgin Mary may be seen in Seward’s Anecdotes. He wrote also “Memoires de Ville Tranche en Beaujolais,” 1671, 4to; and a history of Spain, still in manuscript.

Dr. Butler published some occasional sermons and charges, nearly the whole of which he collected and republished in 1801, under the title of “Select Sermons: to which are added, Two Charges to the Clergy of the Diocese,” 8vo, and styles them “posthumous,” nor did he survive the publication above a year. He assigns as a motive for preparing this volume for the press, that “being permitted to survive his capacity of paying due attention to clerical duty as a preacher, he became weary at last of being totally useless.” Of his political tracts it may, perhaps, be difficult to procure a list, as they were published without his name. Some of those hi defence of lord North’s measures are said to have appeared under the name Vindtx. If Almon may be credited, his first publications, while connected with the whigs, and in opposition to lord Bute, were, 1. “An Answer to the Cocoa-Tree (a pamphlet so called), from a Whig,” 1762. 2. “A consultation on the subject of a Standing Army, held at the King’s Arms tavern, on the 28th of February, 1763.” 3. “Serious Considerations on the Measures of the present Administration,” i. e. the administration of lord Bute. 4. “Account of the Character of the right hon. Henry Bilson Legge.” He must, however, have changed his sentiments when he afterwards supported the measures of lord North’s administration: yet we find his name among the list of persons suspected to have written Junius’s Letters, for which there seems, in his case, very little foundation.

, a prelate of the most distinguished character and abilities, was born at Wantage in Berkshire, in 1692. His father, Mr. Thomas Butler, who was a reputable shopkeeper in that town, observing in his son Joseph an excellent genius and inclination for learning, determined to educate him for the ministry, among the protestant dissenters of the presbyterian denomination. For this purpose, after he had gone through a proper course of grammatical literature, at the free grammarschool of his native place, under the care of the rev. Mr. Philip Barton, a clergyman of the church of England, he was sent to a dissenting academy, then kept at Gloucester, but which was soon afterwards removed to Tewkesbury, the principal tutor of which was Mr. Jones, a man of uncommon abilities and knowledge. At Tewkesbury, Mr. Butler made an extraordinary progress in the study of divinity; of which he gave a remarkable proof in the letters addressed by him, whilst he resided at Tewkesbury, to Dr. Samuel Clarke, laying before him the doubts that had arisen in his mind concerning the conclusiveness of some arguments in the doctor’s “Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God.” The first of these letters was dated November the 4th, 1713; and the sagacity and depth of thought displayed in it immediately excited Dr. Clarke’s particular notice. This condescension encouraged Mr. Butler to address the doctor again upon the same subject, which, ^likewise, was answered by him; and the correspondence being carried on in three other letters, the whole was annexed to the celebrated treatise before mentioned, and the collection has been retained in all the subsequent editions of that work. The management of this correspondence was entrusted by Mr. Butler to his friend and fellow-pupil Mr. Seeker, who, in order to conceal the affair, undertook to convey the letters to the post-office at Gloucester, and to bring back Dr. Clarke’s answers. When Mr. Butler’s name was discovered to the doctor, the candour, modesty, and good sense with which he had written, immediately procured him his friendship. Our young student was not, however, during his continuance at Tewkesbury, solely employed in metaphysical speculations and inquiries. Another subject of his serious consideration was, the propriety of his becoming a dissenting minister. Accordingly, he entered into an examination of the principles of non-conformity; the result of which was, such a dissatisfaction with them, as determined him to conform to the established church. This intention was at first very disagreeable to his father, who endeavoured to divert him from his purpose; and with that view called in the assistance of some eminent presbyterian divines; but finding his son’s resolution to be fixed, heat length suffered him to be removed to Oxford, where he was admitted a commoner of Oriel college, on the 17th of March, 1714. At what time he took orders is uncertain, but it must have been soon after his admission at Oxford, if it be true, as is asserted, that he sometimes assisted Mr. Edward Talbot in the divine service, at his living of Hendred near Wantage. With this gentleman, who was the. second son of Dr. William Talbot, successively bishop of Oxford, Salisbury, and Durham, Mr. Butler formed an intimate friendship at Oriel college, which laid the foundation of all his subsequent preferments, and procured for him a very honourable situation when he was only twentysix years of age. In 1718, at the recommendation of Mr. Talbot and Dr. Clarke, he was appointed by sir Joseph Jekyll to be preacher at the Rolls. This was three years before he had taken any degree at the university, where he did not go out bachelor of law till the 10th of June, 1721, which, however, was as soon as that degree could statutably be conferred upon him. Mr. Butler continued at the Rolls till 1726, in the beginning of which year he published, in one volume 8vo, “Fifteen Sermons preached at that Chapel.” In the mean time, by the patronage of Dr. Talbot, bishop of Durham, to whose notice he had been recommended (together with Mr. Benson and Mr. Seeker) by Mr. Edward Talbot on his death-bed, our author had been presented first to the rectory of Haughton, near Darlington, in 1722, and afterwards to that of Stanhope in the same diocese, in 1725, At Haughton there was a necessity for rebuilding a great part of the parsonagehouse, and Mr. Butler had neither money nor talents for that work. Mr. Seeker, therefore, who had always the interest of his friends at heart, and had acquired a very considerable influence with bishop Talbot, persuaded that prelate to give Mr. Butler, in exchange for Haughton, the rectory of Stanhope, which was not only free from any such incumbrance, but was likewise of much superior value, being indeed one of the richest parsonages in England. Whilst our author continued preacher at the Rolls chapel, he divided his time between his duty in town and country; but when he quitted the Rolls, he resided, during seven years, wholly at Stanhope, in the conscientious discharge of every obligation appertaining to a good parish priest. This retirement, however^ was too solitary for his disposition, which had in it a natural cast of gloominess: and though his recluse hours were by no means lost either to private improvement or public utility, yet he felt at times very painfully the want of that select society of friends to which he had been accustomed, and which could inspire him with the greatest chearfulness. Mr. Seeker, therefore, who knew this, was extremely anxious to draw him out into a more active and conspicuous scene, and omitted no opportunity of expressing this desire to such as he thought capable of promoting it. Having himself been, appointed king’s chaplain in 1732, he took occasion, in a conversation which he had the honour of holding with queen Caroline, to mention to her his friend Mr. Butler. The queen said she thought he had been dead. Mr. Seeker assured her he was not. Yet her majesty afterwards asked archbishop Blackburne if he was not dead? His answer was, “No, madam, but he is buried.” Mr. Seeker, continuing his purpose of endeavouring to bring his friend out of his retirement, found means, upon Mr. Charles Talbot' s being made lord chancellor, to have Mr. Butler recommended to him for his chaplain. His lordship accepted and sent for him; and this promotion calling him to town, he took Oxford in his way, and was admitted there to the degree of doctor of law, on the 8th of December, 1733. The lord chancellor, who gave him also a prebend in the church of Rochester, had consented that he should reside at his parish of Stanhope one half of the year.

Dr. Butler being thus brought back into the world, his merit and talents soon introduced him to particular notice, and paved the way for his rising to those high dignities which he afterwards enjoyed. In 1736, he was appointed clerk of the closet to queen Caroline; and, in the same year, he presented to her majesty a copy of his celebrated treatise, entitled “The Analogy of Religion, natural and revealed, to the constitution and course of Nature.” His attendance upon his royal mistress, by her especial command, was from seven to nine in the evening every day; and though this was interrupted by her death in 1737, yet he had been so effectually recommended by her, as well as by the late lord chancellor Talbot, to his majesty’s favour, that, in the next year, he was raised to the highest order of the church, by a nomination to the bishopric of Bristol; to which see he was consecrated on the 3d of December, 1738. King George II. not being satisfied with this proof of his regard to Dr. Butler, promoted him, in 1740, to the deanry of St. Paul’s London; into which he was installed on the 24th of May in that year, and finding the demands of this dignity to be incompatible with his parish duty at Stanhope, he immediately resigned that rich benefice. Besides our prelate’s unremitted attention to his peculiar obligations, he was called on to preach several discourses on public occasions, which were afterwards separately printed, and have since been annexed to the later editions of the Sermons at the Rolls chapel. In 1746, upon the death of Dr. Egerton, bishop of Hereford, Dr. But> ler was made clerk of the closet to the king; and in 1750, he received another distinguished mark of his majesty’s favour, by being translated to the see of Durham on the 16th of October in that year, upon the decease of Dr. Edward Chandler. Our prelate, being thus appointed to preside over a diocese with which he had long been connected, delivered his first, and indeed his last charge to his clergy, at his primary visitation in 1751. The principal subject of it was, “External Religion.” The bishop having observed, with deep concern, the great and growing neglect of serious piety in the kingdom, insisted strongly on the usefulness of outward forms and institutions, in fixing and preserving a sense of devotion and duty in the minds of men. In doing this, he was thought by several persons to speak too favourably of pagan and popish ceremonies, and to countenance, in a certain degree, the cause of superstition. 'Under that apprehension, an able and spirited writer, who was understood to be a clergyman of the church of England, published in 1752, a pamphlet, entitled “A serious inquiry into the use and importance of External Religion: occasioned by some passages in the right reverend the lord bishop of Durham’s Charge to the Clergy of that diocese; humbly addressed to his lordship.” Many persons, however, and, we believe, the greater part of the clergy of the diocese, did not think our prelate’s charge so exceptionable as it appeared to this author. The charge, which was first printed at Durham, was afterwards annexed to Dr. Butler’s other works, by Dr. Halifax. By his promotion to the see of Durham, our worthy bishop was furnished with ample means of exerting the virtue of charity, the exercise of which was his highest delight. But this gratification he did not long enjoy. He had been but a short time seated in his new bishopric, when his health began visibly to decline; and having been complimented, during his indisposition, upon account of his great resignation to the divine will, he is said to have expressed some regret, that he should be taken from the present world so soon after he had been rendered capable of becoming much more useful in it. In his last illness, he was carried to Bristol, to try the waters of that place; but, these proving ineffectual, he removed to Bath, where, being past recovery, he died on the 16th of June, 1752. His corpse was conveyed to Bristol, and interred in the cathedral there, where a monument, with an inscription, is erected to his memory. On the greatness of bishop Butler’s intellectual character we need not enlarge; for his profound knowledge, and the prodigious strength of his mind, are amply displayed in his incomparable writings. His piety was of the most serious and fervent, and perhaps somewhat of the ascetic kind. His benevolence was warm, generous, and diffusive. Whilst he was bishop of Bristol, he expended, in repairing and improving the episcopal palace, four thousand pounds, which is said to have been more than the whole revenues of the bishopric amounted to, during his continuance in that see. Indeed he used to say that the deanery of St. Paul’s paid for it. Besides his private benefactions, he was a contributor to the' Infirmary at Bristol, and a subscriber to three of the Hospitals at London. He was, likewise, a principal promoter, though not the first founder, of the Infirmary at Newcastle, in Northumberland. lu supporting the hospitality and dignity of the rich and powerful diocese of Durham, he was desirous of imitating the spirit of his patron, bishop Talbot. In this spirit, he set apart three clays every week for the reception and entertainment of the principal gentry of the country. Nor were even the clergy who had the poorest benefices neglected by him. He not only occasionally invited them to dine with him, but condescended to visit them at their respective parishes. By his will, he left five hundred pounds to the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, and some legacies to his friends and domestics. His executor was his chaplain, the rev. Dr. Nathaniel Forster, a divine of distinguished literature, who was especially charged to destroy all his manuscript sermons, letters, and papers. Bishop Butler was never married. The bishop’s disposition, which had in it a natural ca’st of gloominess, was supposed to give a tincture to his devotion. As a proof of this, and that he had even acquired somewhat of a superstitious turn of mind, it was alleged, that he had put a. cross in his chapel at Bristol. The cross was a plain piece of marble inlaid. This circumstance, together with the offence which some persons had taken at his charge delivered at Durham, might possibly give rise to a calumny, that, almost fifteen years after his death, was advanced concerning him, in an obscure and anonymous pamphlet, entitled “The Root of Protestant Errors examined.” It was there said, that our prelate died in the communion of the church of Rome. Of this absurd and groundless charge, we shall take no other notice, than to transcribe what the worthy and learned Dr. Porteus has written concerning it, in his Life of Archbishop Seeker. “This strange slander, founded on the weakest pretences and most trivial circumstances that can be imagined, no one was better qualified to confute than the archbishop; as well from his long and intimate knowledge of bishop Butler, as from the information given him at the time by those who attended his lordship in his last illness, and were with him when he died. Accordingly, by an article in a newspaper, signed Misopseudes, his grace challenged the author of that pamphlet to produce his authority for what he had advanced; and in a second article defended the bishop against him; and in a third (all with the same signature) confuted another writer, who, under the name of ‘A real Protestant,’ still maintained that ridiculous calumy. His antagonists were effectually subdued, and his superiority to them was publicly acknowledged by a sensible and candid man, who signed himself, and who really was ‘A dissenting Minister.’ Surely, it is a very unwise piece of policy, in those who profess themselves enemies to popery, to take so much pains to bring the most respectable names within its pale; and to give it the merit of having gained over those who were the brightest ornaments and firmest supports of the protestant cause.”

, a poet of a very singular cast, was born at Strensham in Worcestershire, and baptized Feb. 8, 1612. His father’s condition is variously represented. Wood mentions him as competently wealthy; but the author of the short account of Butler, prefixed to Hudibras, who, Dr. Johnson erroneously says, was Mr. Longueville, asserts he was an honest farmer with some small estates who made a shift to educate his son at the grammar-school of Worcester, under Mr. Henry Bright, from whose care he removed for a short time to Cambridge; but, for want of money, was never made a member of any college. Wood leaves us rather doubtful whether he went to Cambridge of Oxford; but at last makes him pass six or seven years at Cambridge, without knowing in what hall or college: yet it can hardly be imagined that he lived so long in either university, but as belonging to one house or another; and it is still less likely that he could have so long inhabited a place of learning with so little distinction as to leave his residence uncertain. Dr. Nash has discovered that his father was owner of a house and a little land, worth about eight pounds, a year, still called Butler’s tenement. Wood had his information from his brother, whose narrative placed him at Cambridge, in opposition to that of his neighbours, which sent him to Oxford. The brother’s seems the best authority, till, by confessing his inability to tell his hall or college, he gives reason to suspect that he was resolved to bestow on him an academical education, but durst not name a college, for fear of detection. Having, however, discovered an early inclination for learning, his father placed him at the free-school of Worcester; whence he was sent, according to the above report, for some time to Cambridge. He afterwards returned to his native country, and became clerk to one Mr. Jefferys of Earl’s Croomb, an eminent justice of the peace for that county, with whom he lived some years in an easy and reputable station. Here he found sufficient leisure to apply himself to whatsoever learning his inclinations led him; which was chiefly history and poetry; adding to these, for his diversion, music and painting. He was afterwards recommended to that great encourager of learning, Elizabeth countess of Kent; in whose house he had not only the opportunity of consulting all kinds of books, but of conversing with Mr. Seldeo, who often employed him to write letters beyond sea, and translate for him. He lived some time also with sir Samuel Luke, a gentleman of an ancient family in Bedfordshire, and a famous commander under Oliver Cromwell. Whilst he resided in this gentleman’s family, it is generally supposed that he planned, if he did not write, the celebrated Hudibras; under which character it is thought he intended to ridicule that knight. After the restoration of Charles II. he was made secretary to Richard earl of Carbury, lord president of the principality of Wales, who appointed him. steward of Ludlow-castle, when the Court was revived there. In this part of his life, he married Mrs. Herbert, a gentlewoman of a good family; and lived, says Wbod^ upon her fortune, having studied the common law, but never practised it. A fortune she had, says his biographer, but it was lost by bad securities. In 1663 was published the first part, containing three cantos, of the poem of “Hudibras,” which, as Prior relates, was made known at court by the taste and influence of the earl of Dorset, and when known, it was necessarily admired: the king quoted, the courtiers studied, and the whole party of the royalists applauded it. Every eye watched for the golden shower which was to fall upon the author, who certainly was not without his share in the general expectation. In 1664 the second part appeared; the curiosity of the nation was rekindled, and the writer was again praised and elated. But praise was his whole reward. Clarendon, says Wood, gave him reason to hope for “places and employments of value and credit;” but no such advantages did he ever obtain. It is reported, that the king once gave him 300 guineas; but of this temporary bounty we find no proof. Wood relates that he was secretary to Villiers duke of Buckingham, when he was chancellor of Cambridge: this is doubted by the other writer, who yet allows the duke to have been his frequent benefactor. That both these accounts are false there is reason to suspect, from a story told by Pack, in his account of the life ef Wycherley, and from some verses which Mr. Thyer has published in the author’s Remains. “Mr. Wycherley,” says Pack, “had always laid hold of any opportunity which offered of representing to the duke of Buckingham how well Mr. Butler had deserved of the royal family, by writing his inimitable Hudibras; and that it was a reproach to the court, that a person of his loyalty and wit should suffer in obscurity, and under the wants he did. The duke always seemed to hearken to him with attention enough; and, after some time, undertook to recommend his pretensions to his majesty. Mr. Wycherley, in Jiopes to keep him steady to his word, obtained of his grace to name a day, when he might introduce that modest and unfortunate poet to his new patron. At last an appointment was made, and the place of meeting was agreed to be the Roebuck. Mr. Butler and his friend attended accordingly: the duke joined them; but, as the devil would have it, the door of the room where they sat was open, and his grace, who had seated himself near it, observing a pimp of his acquaintance (the creature too was a knight) trip by with a brace of ladies, immediately quitted his engagement, to follow another kind of business, at which he was more ready than in doing good offices to men of desert; though no one was better qualified than he, both in regard to his fortune and understanding, to protect them; and, from that time to the day of his death, poor Butler never found the least effect of his promise!” Such is the story. The verses are written with a degree of acrimony, such as neglect and disappointment might naturally excite; and such as it would be hard to imagine Butler capable of expressing against a man who had any claim to his gratitude. Notwithstanding this discouragement and neglect, he still prosecuted his design; and in. 1678 published the third part, which still leaves the poem imperfect and abrupt. How much more he originally intended, or with what events the action was to be concluded, it is vain to conjecture. Nor can it be thought strange that he should stop here, however unexpectedly. To write without reward is sufficiently unpleasing. He had now arrived at an age when he might think it proper to be in jest no longer, and perhaps his health might now begin to fail. He died Sept. 25, 1680; and Mr. Longueville, having unsuccessfully solicited a subscription for his internment in Westminster abbey, buried him at his own cost in the chureb-yard of Covent Garden. Dr. Simon Patrick read the service. About sixty years afterwards, Mr. Barber, a printer, lord mayor of London, bestowed on him a monument in Westminster abbey.

His perpetual application to figures prevented him from making the smallest acquisition in any other branch of knowledge; for, beyond mere calculation, his ideas were as confined, perhaps, as those of a boy at ten years of age in the same class of life. The only objects of Jedediah’s curiosity, next to figures, were the king and royal family; and his desire to see them was so strong, that in the beginning of spring, 1754, he walked up to London for that purpose, but was obliged to return disappointed, as his majesty had removed to Kensington just as he arrived in town. He was however introduced to the royal society, whom he called the volk of the siety court. He was likewise taken to see the tragedy of Richard III. at Drury-lane, and it was expected that the novelty of every thing in this place, together with the splendour of the surrounding objects, would have fixed him in astonishment, or that his passions would in some degree have been roused by the action of the performers, even if he did not fully comprehend the dialogue. Instead of this, during the dances his attention was engaged in reckoning the number of steps. After a fine piece of music, he declared that the innumerable sounds produced by the instruments perplexed him beyond measure, but he counted the words uttered by Mr. Garrick in the whole course of the entertainment, and affirmed that in this he had perfectly succeeded. He lived to about seventy years of age, but the exact time of his death we cannot learn. He was married, and had several children.

During the summer of 1705, he commanded in chief a squadron in the channel, and blocked up the French fleet in Brest, with a much inferior strength. In 1706, king Charles of Spain, the late emperor, being closely beseiged in Barcelona, by sea and land, by the duke of Anjou, and the place reduced to great extremity, and our fleet in the Mediterranean being too weak to relieve it, sir George Byng was appointed to command a strong squadron fitting out in England; in the hastening of which service, he used such diligence and activity, and joined our fleet with such unexpected dispatch, that the saving of that city was entirely owing to it. He assisted at the other enterprizes of that campaign, and commanded the ships detached for the reduction of Carthagena and Alicant, which he accomplished. In 1707 he served in the second post under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, at the seige of Toulon: and the year following was made admiral of the blue, and commanded the squadron which was fitted out to oppose the invasion designed against Scotland by the pretender with a French army from Dunkirk; which he fortunately prevented, by arriving off the Frith of Edinburgh before their troops could land, and obliged them to betake themselves to flight. On his return from this expedition, he was offered by the queen the place of one of the prince of Denmark’s council in the admiralty, which he then declined. He continued to command all that summer in the channel, and upon the marriage of the queen of Portugal, had the honour of conducting her majesty to Lisbon, where a commission was sent to him to be admiral of the white. In 1709 he commanded in chief her majesty’s fleet in the Mediterranean; and, after his return to England, was made one of the commissioners of the admiralty, and continued so till some time before the queen’s death; when, not falling in with the measures of the court, he was removed, but upon the accession of George I. he was restored to that station. In 1715, upon the breaking out of the rebellion which was at first secretly supported with arms "and warlike stores from France, he was appointed to command a squadron, with which he kept such a watchful eye along the French coast, by examining ships even in their ports, and obtaining orders from the court of France to put on shore at Havre de Grace great quantities of arms and ammunition shipped there for the pretender’s service; that, in reward for his services, the king on Nov. 15, 1715, created him a baronet, and gave him a ring of great value, and other marks of his royal favour. In 1717, upon the discovery of some secret practices of the ministers of Sweden against this kingdom, he was sent with a squadron into the Baltic, and prevented the Swedes appearing at sea. In 1718 he was made admiral and commander in chief of the fleet, and being sent with a squadron into the Mediterranean for the protection of Italy, according to the obligation England was under by treaty, against the invasion of the Spaniards, who had the year before surprized Sardinia, and had this year landed an army in Sicily, he gave a total defeat to their fleet near Messina: for which action he was honoured with a letter from the king, written with his own hand, and received congratulatory letters from the emperor and the king of Sardinia; and was further honoured by his imperial majesty with his picture set in diamonds. He remained for some time in these seas, for composing and adjusting the differences between the several powers concerned, being vested with the character of plenipotentiary to all the princes of Italy; and that year and the next he supported the German arms in their expedition to Sicily; and enabled them, by his assistance, to subdue the greatest part of that island. After performing so many signal services, he attended his majesty, by his command, at Hanover, who made him rear-admiral of England, and treasurer of the navy, and, on his return to England, one of his most honourable privy-council; and on Sept 19, 1721 he was called to the peerage by the title of baron Byng, of Southill, in the county of Bedford, and viscount Torrington, in Devonshire; and 1725 was made one of the knights of the bath on the revival of that order. In 1727, his late majesty, on his accession to the crown, placed him at the head of his naval affairs, as first lord of the admiralty, in which station he died, Jan. 17, 1732-3; and was interred at Southill, in Bedfordshire. Lord Torrington married, in 1691, Mary, daughter of James Master, of East Langdon, in the county of Kent, esq. by whom (who died in 1756) he had eleven sons and four daughters. His fourth son, was the unfortunate John Byng, admiral of the blue, who was condemned by the sentence, of a court-martial in 1757, and shot at Portsmouth March 14th of that year, for a breach of the twelfth article of war. From the best accounts published on this affair, it may be concluded that he was a sacrifice to popular clamour artfully directed to the wrong object.

, an able linguist, was a native of Poland, who came to Oxford when somewhat advanced in life, was matriculated, and read a Hebrew lecture for many years in the hall of Christ Church, and before the rebellion in 1642 instructed many scholars in that language. Even after being disturbed by the revolutionary confusions, he published some works for the use of his pupils. After leaving Oxford he went to Cambridge, and thence to London, and Wood thinks, returned to Oxford. About 1664 he retired into Cornwall, and practised physic, but the time of his death has not been ascertained. He wrote, 1. “Lethargy of the Soul, &c.” 1636, 8vo. 2. “Tabula directoria: in qua totum Totexnikon Linguae Sanctae, ad amussim delineator,” Ox. 1637. 3. “Lingua eruditorum,” usually called his Hebrew Grammar, Ox. 1638, 8vo, and reprinted. 4. “Manipulus messis magnae, sive Grammat exemplaris,” Lond. 1639, 8vo. 5. “Clavis Linguæ Sanctæ,” Camb. 1648, 8vo. 6. “Lyra prophetica Davidis regis: sive Analysis Critico-Practica Psal morum,” Lond 1650, 4to, and 1645. To this is added an introduction to the Chaldaic.

John Cabot, attended by his son Sebastian, set sail with this fleet in the spring of the year 1497. They sailed happily on their north west course, till the 24th of June, jn the same year, about five in the morning, when they discovered the island of Baccalnos, now much better known by the name of Newfoundland. The very day on which they made this important discovery, is known by a large? map, drawn by Sebastian Cabor, and cut by Clement Adams, which hung in the privy gallery at Whitehall; whereon was this inscription, under the author’s picture “Eftigics Seb. Caboti, Angli, Filii Jo. Caboti, Venetian!, 'IMilitis Aurati, &c.” and on this map was likewise the following account of the discovery, the original of which was in Latin: “In the year of our Lord 1497, John Cabot, a Venetian, and his son Sebastian, with an English fleet, set out from Bristol, and discovered that island which no man before had attempted. This discovery was made on the four and twentieth of June, about five o'clock in the morning. This land he called Prima Vistu. (or First Seen), because it was that part of which they had the first sight from the sea. The island, which lies out before the land, he called the island of St. John, probably because it was discovered on the festival of St. John the Baptist. The inhabitants of this island wore beasts’ skins, and esteemed them as the finest garments.” To this Purchas adds, “In their wars they used bows, arrows, pikes, darts, wooden clubs, and slings. They found the soil barren in some places, and yielding little fruit; but it was full of white bears and stags, far larger than those of Europe. It yielded plenty of fish, and those of the larger kind, as seals and salmon. They found soles there above a yard in length, and great abundance of that kind of fish which the savages called baccalaos. They also observed there partridges, as likewise hawks and eagles; but what was remarkable in them, they were all as black as ravens.”

It was this disappointment which is supposed to have induced Sebastian Cabot to leave England, and go over into Spain. There he was treated with great respect, and appointed pilot-major, or chief pilot of Spain; and by his office entrusted with the reviewing of all projects for discovery; which at that period were numerous and important. His great capacity and reputation as a navigator, induced many opulent merchants to treat with him, in 1524, about a voyage to be undertaken at their expence by the new-found passage of Magellan to the Moluccos; and Cabot accordingly agreed to engage in the voyage. He set sail from Cadiz, with four ships, about the beginning of April 1525, first to the Canaries, then to the Cape Verd islands, and from thence to Cape St. Augustine, and the island of Patos, or Geese; and near Bahia de Todos los Santos, or the bay of All Saints, he met a French ship. When he came to the island just mentioned, he was in great want of provisions; but the Indians treated him with much kindness, and supplied him with provisions for all his ships. This he returned by an act of base ingratitude, carrying off with him by force four sons of the principal persons of the island. He then proceeded to the river of Plate, having left ashore, on a desert island, Martin Mendez, his vice-admiral, captain Francis do Rojas, and Michael de Rojas, because they censured his conduct. He was now prevented from prosecuting his original design of going to the Spice Islands, both by a scarcity of provisions, and a mutiny among his men. He sailed, however, up the river of Plate; and about thirty leagues above the mouth he found an island, which he called St. Gabriel, about a league in compass, dnd half a league from the continent towards Brazil. There he anchored; and, rowing with the boats three leagues higher, discovered a river he called San Salvador, or St. Saviour, very deep, and a safe harbour for the ships on the same side; whither he brought up his vessels, and unloaded them, because there was not much water at the mouth of the river. Having built a fort, and left some men in it, he determined to proceed up that river with boats, and a flat-bottomed caravel, in order to make discoveries; for he thought his voyage might thereby be rendered beneficial, though he did not pass through the Straits to the Spice Islands. When he had advanced thirty leagues, he came to a river called Zarcarana; the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of which he found to be intelligent, and not unfriendly; and here he erected another fort, calling it Santi Spiritus, i. e. of the Holy Ghost, and his followers by another name, viz. Cabot’s Fort. He then discovered the shores of the river Parana, where he found several islands and rivers, and at length came to the river Paraguay, in the neighbourhood of which he found people tilling the ground; a circumstance which had not occurred to him before in that part of the world. But here the natives opposed him with so much vigour, that he advanced no farther, though he had killed many of the Indians; but they slew twenty-five of his Spaniards, and took three of them, who went out to gather palmetos.

, grand nephew of the preceding, and second son of Charles Sloan Cadogan, third baron, and first earl Cadogan of the new creation (1800), was born Jan. 22, 1751, at his father’s house in Bruton-street, and was educated at Westminster-school, whence he was removed to Christ church college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. At this university, he distinguished himself by obtaining several prizes for classical learning, and by a diligent application to the study of the holy scriptures. In 1774, the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Reading, became vacant, by the death of the rev. William Talbot, a very popular preacher of Calvinistic principles, and was conferred on Mr. Cadogan, unsolicited, in the following manner. Lord Bathurst, who was then chancellor, called at lord Cadogan’s house in Privy Gardens, and desired to see him. Lord Cadogan was not at home; and the servants, seeing lord Bathurst plainly dressed, admitted him no farther than the hall, on the table of which he wrote a note, requesting lord Cadogan to accept the vicarage of St. Giles’s for his son. The offer of so valuable a preferment, and so near to the family seat at Caversham, was peculiarly acceptable to lord Cadogan: but his son not being in priest’s orders, it was held by sequestration till he was ordained priest in 1775. Soon after, he was presented by lord Cadogan to the rectory of Chelsea, but as he could not hold two livings without being a master of arts, that degree was conferred upon him by archbishop Cornwallis and in the following year, being then of sufficient standing in the university, he was regularly admitted to the same degree of Oxford.

, or, as some have called him, Lucius Cælius Arianus, an ancient physician, and the only one of the sect of the methodists of whom we have any remains, is supposed to have been a native of Sicca, a town of Numidia, in Africa. This we learn from the elder Pliny; and we might almost have collected it, without any information at all, from his style, which is very barbarous, and much resembling that of the African writers. It is half Greek, half Latin, harsh, and difficult; yet strong, masculine, and his works are valuable for the matter they contain. He is frequently very acute and smart, especially where he exposes the errors of other physicians and always nervous. What age Cælius Aurelianus flourished in we cannot determine, there being so profound a silence about it amongst the ancients; but it is very probable that he lived before Galen, since it is not conceivable that he should mention, as he does, all the physicians before him, great as well as small, and yet not make the least mention of Galen. Le Clerc places him in the fifth century. He was not only a careful imitator of Soranus, but also a strenuous advocate for him. He had read over very diligently the ancient physicians of all the sects and we are obliged to him for the knowledge of many dogmas, which are not to he found but in his books “De celeribus et tardis passionibus.” The best edition of these books is that published at Amsterdam, 1722, in 4to. He wrote, as he himself tells us, several other works; but they are all perished. This, however, which has escaped the ruins of time and barbarism, is highly valued, as being the only monument of the Medicina methodica which is extant. He is allowed by all to be judicious in the history and description of diseases

, a celebrated artist, called Paul Veronese, the great master of what is called the ornamental style, was born at Verona in 1530, and was the disciple of Antonio adile. When young, in concurrence with Batista del Moro, Domenico Brusasorci, and Paol Farinato, he painted at the summons of cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, in the cathedral of Mantua, and left no doubt of his superiority in the. contest. He then went to Venice, and with the procurator Grimani to Rome, where, from the frescos of M. Angelo and Raffael, he acquired the idea of that breadth which distinguishes him in all his allegorical and mythologic pictures; and though the simplicity inseparable from real grandeur vras not a principle to be courted by him who aimed at captivating the debauched Venetian eye, he gave proofs, that, if he did not adopt, he had a sense for its beauties. The Apotheosis of Venice in the ducal palace, in magnificence of combination, loftiness, splendor, variety, offers in one picture the principles and the elemental beauties of his style. It was, however, less to this work, than to his Cene, or convivial compositions, that Paolo owed his celebrity. He painted four at Venice, for four refectories of convents, all of enormous dimensions and equal copiousness of invention. The first, with the Nuptials of Cana, once in the refectory of*St. Giorgio Maggiore, now in the Louvre, and known by numerous copies, is thirty palms long, comprizes 130 figures, with a number of distinguished portraits; and yet was painted, says Lanzi, for no more than ninety ducats. The second, better preserved, was painted for the convent of S. Giovanni and Paolo, and represents the call of St. Matthew; it is chiefly praised for the character of the heads, which Ricci copied for his studies at an advanced age. The third, at St. Sebastian, is the Feast of Simon, which is likewise the subject of the fourth, painted for the refectory o/ the Servi, but sent to Lewis XIV. and placed at Versailles. This, perhaps, is the master-piece of the four, though placed in an unfavourable light, and greatly injured by neglect, and the dampness of the place.

No painter ever was hurried along by a greater torrent of commissions, and no painter ever exerted himself with greater equality of execution. Light grounds and virgin tints have contributed to preserve the freshness of his pictures: the family of Darius presented to Alexander, in the Pisani palace at Venice, and the S. Giorgio, once at Verona, now in the Louvre, have, without the smallest loss of the bloom that tones them, received from time that mellowness, that sober hue, which time alone can give. More fixed in a system, and consequently nearer to manner than Titian, with less purity and delicacy; greyer, not so warm, so sanguine, or so juicy as Tintoretto, Paolo excels both in fascinating breadth of bland and lucid demi-tints; and in his convivial scenes, though thronged with pomp, gorgeous attire, and endless ornament, never once forgets that they were admitted to shew and not to eclipse the actors. The actors were not, indeed, those of the historian, no more than the costume that of the times, or the ornaments and architecture those of the country. The ostentation of ornamental painting is not to be arraigned at the tribunal of serious history. The humble guests of Cana, the publican forsaking his till, Magdalen at the feet of Christ, travestied into Venetian patriarchs, belles, or nobles, were only called upon to lend their names, and by their authority to palliate or flatter the reigning taste or vice of a debauched and opulent public.

This great artist was highly esteemed by all the principal men of his time; and so much admired by the great masters, as well his contemporaries as those who succeeded him, that Titian himself used to say, he was the ornament of his profession. And Guido Reni being asked, which of the masters his predecessors he would choose to be, were it in his power, after Raphael and Corregio, named Paul Veronese, whom he always called his Paolino. He died of a fever at Venice in 1588, and had a tomb and a statue of brass erected in the church of St. Sebastian.

It is impossible by any means to contract the numberless tricks and stratagems of this grand impostor, in almost every part of Europe, within the limits prescribed to the articles of this work. His astonishing ingenuity in every species of fiction and deceit, exceeds all that has been recorded in the annals of ancient or modern roguery, insomuch that he was held for a real prodigy by every one to whose ears his fame had reached. His impostures in each of the places he visited would fill a considerable volume; and we must content ourselves with adding, that, for some enormities committed at Rome, he was thrown into the castle of St. Angelo, where he died towards the latter end of 1794; referring such readers as would wish to know more of him to the Italian original, published at Rome by the apostolical chamber, under the title of “Compendium of the Life and Actions of Giuseppe Balsamo, otherwise called count Cagliostro, extracted from the documents of the process carried on against him at Rome in the year 1790,” &c.

Sixtus Senensis tells us, that he was a most subtle logician, an admirable philosopher, and an incomparable divine. He wrote commentaries upon Aristotle’s philosophy, and upon Thomas Aquinas’ s theology; the latter, however, by no means calculated to give us a favourable idea of his logic, or his perspicuity, He gave a literal translation of all the books of the Old and New Testaments from the originals, excepting Solomon’s Song and the Pro-' phets, which he had begun, but did not live to proceed far in; and the Revelations of St. John, which he designedly omitted, saying, that to explain them, it was necessary for a man to be endued, not with parts and learning, but with the spirit of prophecy. Father Simon’s account of him, as a translator of the Bible, is critical and historical: “Cardinal Cajetan,” says he, “was very fond of translations of the Bible purely literal; being persuaded, that the Scripture could not be translated too literally, it being the word of God, to which it is expressly forbid either to add or diminish any thing. This cardinal, in his preface to the Psalms, largely explains the method he observed in his translation of that book; and he affirms, that although heknew nothing of the Hebrew, yet he had translated part of the Bible word for word from it. For this purpose he made use of two persons, who understood the language well, the one a Jew, the other a Christian, whom he desired to translate the Hebrew words exactly according to the letter and grammar, although their translation might appear to make no sense at all. I own, says he, that my interpreters were often saying to me, this Hebrew diction Is literally so; but then the sense will not be clear unless it is changed so: to whom I, when I heard all the different significations, constantly replied, Never trouble yourselves about the sense, if it does not appear to you; because is not your business to expound, but to interpret: do you interpret it exactly as it lies, and leave to the expositors the care of making sense of it.” Cardinal Pullavicini, who looked upon this as too bold, says, that Cajetan, “who has succeeded to the admiration of the whole world in his other works, got no reputation by what he did upon the Bible, because he followed the prejudices of those who stuck close to the Hebrew grammar.” But father Simon is of opinion that he “may in some measure be justified: for he did not, says he, pretend to condemn the ancient Latin translator, or the other translators of the Bible; but would only have translations of the Bible to be made from the original as literally as can be, because there are only these originals, which can be called the pure word of God; and because in translations, which are not literal, there are always some things which do not thoroughly express the original.” These “Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures,” if they deserve the name, were published at Lyons in 5 vols. fol. 1639.

Having gone through a seven years series of astronomical observations in his own observatory in the Mazarjne college, he formed the project of going to observe the southern stars at the Cape of Good Hope. This expedition being countenanced by the court, he set out in 1750, and in the space of two years he observed there the places of about ten thousand stars in the southern hemisphere that are not visible in our latitudes, as well as many other important elements, viz. the parallaxes of the sun, moon, and some of the planets, the obliquity of the ecliptic, the refractions, &c. Having thus executed the purpose of his voyage, and no present opportunity offering for his return, he thought of employing the vacant time in another arduous attempt; no less than that of taking the measure of the earth, as he had already done that of the heavens. This indeed had been, done before by different sets of learned men both in Europe and America; some determining the quantity of a degree at the equator, and others at the arctic circle: but it had not as yet been decided whether in the southern parallels of latitude the same dimensions obtained as in the northern. His labours were rewarded with the satisfaction he wished for; having determined a distance of 410,814 feet from a place called Klip-Fontyn to the Cape, by means of a base of 38,802 feet, three times actually measured: whence he discovered a new secret of nature, namely, that the radii of the parallels in south latitude are not the same length as those of the corresponding parallels in north latitude. About the 23d degree of south latitude he found a degree on the meridian to contain 342,222 Paris feet. The court of Versailles also sent him an order to go and fix the situation of the Isles of France and of Bourbon. While at the Cape too he observed a wonderful effect of the atmosphere in some states of it although the sky at the Cape be generally pure and serene, yet when the south-east wind blows, which is pretty often, it is attended with some strange and even terrible effects: the stars look larger, and seem to dance; the moon has an undulating tremor; and thr planets have a sort of beard like comets.

, an eminent nonconformist divine in the seventeenth century, was the sou of a citizen of London, and born there in February 1600. July 4, 1616, he was admitted of Pembroke-hall 5 in the university of Cambridge. In 1619, he took, the degree of bachelor of arts and in 1632, that of bachelor of divinity. He shewed himself very early no friend, to the Arminian party, which was the reason that he could not obtain a fellowship in that society, even when he seemed to be entitled to it from his standing, as well as from his learning and unblemished character. At last, however, he so far conquered all prejudices, that he was elected Tanquam Socius of that hall, which entitled him to wear the cap, and take pupils, but he had no share in the government of the house. Dr. Felton, the pious and learned bishop of Ely, had so great a regard to his diligence in study, and unaffected zeal for religion, that he made him his chaplain, and paid him, during his residence in his family, uncommon marks of respect. His lordship gave him likewise, as a farther mark of his favour, the vicarage of St. Mary’s in Swaffham- Prior, in Cambridgeshire, in which capacity he did much good, though he diid not reside on his cure by reason of its small distance from the episcopal place. But after the death of the bishop in 1626, Mr. Calamy being chosen one of- th$; lecturers of St. Edmund’s-Bury, in Suffolk, he resigned his vicarage, and applied himself wholly to the discharge of his function at Bury. He continued there ten years, and, as some writers say, was during the greatest part of that time a strict conformist. Others, and indeed himself, say the contrary. The truth seems to be, that he was unwilling to oppose ceremonies, or to create a disturbance in the church about them, so long as this might, in, his opinion, be avoided with a safe conscience; but when bishop Wren’s articles, and the reading of the book of sports, came to be insisted on, he thought himself obliged to alter his conduct, and not only avoid conforming for the future, but also to apologize publicly for his former behaviour. He caine now to be considered as an active nonconformist, and being in great favour with the earl of Essex, he presented him to the living of Rochford in Essex, a rectory of considerable value, and yet it proved a fatal present to Mr. Calamy; for, removing from one of the best and wholesomest airs in England, that of St. Edmund’sbury, into the hundreds of Essex, he contracted such an illness as broke his constitution, and left behind it a dizziness in his head, which he complained of as long as he Jived. Upon the death of Dr. Stoughton, he was chosen minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury, which brought him tip to London, 1639. The controversy concerning churchgovernment was tlu n at its greatest height, in which Mr. Calainy had a very large share. In the month of July 1639, he was incorporated of the university of Oxford, which, however, did not take him off from the party in which he was engaged. In 1640 he was concerned in writing that famous book, called Smectymnuus, which himself says, gave the first deadly blow to episcopacy, and therefore we find frequent references to it in all the defences and apologies for nonconformity which have been since published. In 1641 he was appointed by the house of lords a member of the sub-committee for religion, which consisted of very eminent divines, whose conduct, however, has been differently censured. He made a great figure in the assembly of divines, though he is not mentioned in Fuller’s catalogue, and distinguised himself both by his learning and moderation. He likewise preached several times before the house of commons, for which his memory has been very severely treated. He was at the same time one of the Cornhill lecturers, and no man had a greater interest in the city of London, in consequence of his ministerial abilities. He preached constantly in his own parish church for twenty years to a numerous audience, composed of the most eminent citizens, and even persons of great quality. He steadily and strenuously opposed the sectaries, and gave many pregnant instances of his dislike to those violences which were committed afterwards, on the king’s being brought from the Isle of Wight, He opposed the beheading of his sovereign king Charles I. with constancy ^ncl courage. Under the usurpation of Cromwell he was passive, and lived as privately as he could; yet he gave no reason to suspect that he was at all a well-wisher to that government. When the times afforded a favourable opportunity, he neglected not promoting the return of king Charles II. and actually preached before the house of commons on the day they voted that great question, which, however, has not hindered some from suggesting their suspicions of his loyally. After this step was taken, he, Mr. Ash, and other eminent divines were sent over to compliment the king in Holland, by whom they were extremely well received. When his majesty was restored, Mr. Calainy retained still a considerable share in his favour, and in June 1660, was appointed one of his chaplains in ordinary, and was offered the bishopric, of Coventry and Litchfield, which he refused. When the convocation came to be chosen, he and Mr. Baxter were elected, May 2, 1661, for London; but the bishop of that diocese having the power of chusing two out of four, or four out of six, elected within a certain circuit, Dr. Sheldon, who was then bishop, was so kind as to excuse both of them; which, perhaps, was owing to the share they had in the Savoy conference. After the miscarrying of that design, Mr. Calamy made use of all his interest to procure the passing of an act agreeable to the king’s declaration at Breda: but when this was frustrated, and the act of uniformity passed, he took a resolution of submitting to ejection, and accordingly preached his farewel sermon at Aldermanbury, August 17, 1662. He made, however, a last effort three days afterwards, by presenting a petition to his majesty to continue in the exercise of his ministerial office. This petition was signed by many of the London clergy, and Dr. Man ton and Dr. Bates assisted at the presenting it, when Mr; Calamy made a long and moving speech; but neither it nor the petition had any good effect, though the king expressed himself in favour of toleration. He remained, however, in his parish, and came constantly to church, though another was in the pulpit, which proved an occasion of much t;rouble to him for on December 28, 1662, the expected preacher not coming in time, some of the principal persons in the parish prevailed upon Mr. Calamy to supply his place, which, with some importunity, he did; but delivered himself with such freedom, that he was soon after, by the lord mayor’s warrant, committed to Newgate for his sermon. But the case itself being thought hard, and some doubt arising how far the commitment was legal, his majesty in a few days discharged him. He lived to see London in ashes, the sight of which broke his heart. He was driven through the ruins in a coach to Enfield, and was so shocked at the dismal appearance, that he could never wear off the impression, but kept his chamber ever after, and died October 29, 1666, within two naonths after this accident happened. He was, though a very learned man, yet a plain and practical preacher, and one who was not afraid to speak his sentiments freely of and to the greatest; men . He was twice married. By his first wife he had a son and daughter; and by his second seven children, some of whom we shall have occasion to mention in succeeding articles.

, a famous divine of the church of Scotland, and a distinguished writer in behalf of the presbyterians, was descended of a good family in that kingdom, and born in 1575. Being early designed for the ministry, he applied with great diligence to the study of the scriptures in their original tongues, the works of the fathers, the councils, and the best writers of church history. He was settled, about 1604, at Crailing, not far from Jedburgh, in the south of Scotland. James VI. of that country, and the first of Great Britain, being desirous of bringing the church of Scotland to a near conformity with that of England, laboured earnestly to restore the episcopal authority, and enlarge the powers of the bishops in that kingdom; but this design was very warmly opposed by many of the ministers, and particularly by David Calderwood, who, when James Law, bishop of Orkney, came to visit the presbyteries of the Merse and Teviotdale, declined his jurisdiction, by a paper under his hand, dated May 5, 1603. The king, however, having its success much at heart, sent the earl of Dunbar, then high-treasurer of Scotland, Dr. Abbot, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, and two other divines, into that kingdom, with instructions to employ every method to persuade both the clergy and the laity, of his majesty’s sincere desire to promote the good of the church, and of his zeal for the Protestant religion, in which they succeeded. Calderwood, however, did not assist at the general assembly held at Glasgow, June 8, 1610, in which lord Dunbar presided as commissioner; and it appears from his writings, that he looked upon every thing transacted in it as null and void. Exceptions were also taken by him and his party, against a great part of the proceedings of another general assembly > held with much solemnity at Aberdeen, Aug. 13, 1616. In May following, king James went to Scotland, and in June held a parliament at Edinburgh; at the same time the clergy met in one of the churches, to hear and advise with the bishops; which kind of assembly, it seems, was contrived in imitation of the English convocation. Mr. Calderwood was present at it, but declared publicly that he did not take any such meetings to resemble a convocation; and being opposed by Dr. Whitford and Dr. Hamilton, who were friends to the bishops, he took his leave of them in these words: “It is absurd to see men sitting in silks and satins, and to cry poverty in the kirk, when purity is departing.” The parliament proceeded mean while in the dispatch of business; and Calderwood, with several other ministers, being informed that a bill was depending to empower the king, with advice of the archbishops, bishops, and such a number of the ministry as his majesty should think proper, to consider and conclude, as to matters decent for the external policy of the church, not repugnant to the word of God; and that such conclusions should have the strength and power of ecclesiastical laws: against this they protested for four reasons: 1. Because their church was so perfect, that, instead of needing reformation, it might be a pattern to others. 2. General assemblies, as now established by law, and which ought always to continue, might by this means be overthrown. 3. Because it might be a means of creating schism, and disturb the tranquillity of the church. 4. Because they had received assurances, that no attempts should be made to bring them to a conformity with the church of England. They desired, therefore, that for these and other reasons, all thoughts of passing any such law may be laid aside; but in case this be not done, they protest, for themselves and their brethren who shall adhere to them, that they can yield no obedience to this law when it shall be enacted, because it is destructive of the liberty of the church; and therefore shall submit to such penalties, and think themselves obliged to undergo such punishments, as may be inflicted for disobeying that law. This protest was signed by Archibald Simpson, on behalf of the members, who subscribed another separate roll, which he kept for his justification. It was delivered to Peter Hewet, who had a seat in parliament, in order to be presented; and another copy remained in Simpson’s hands, to be presented in case of any accident happening to the other. The affair making a great noise, Dr. Spotswood, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, asked a sight of the protest from Hewet, one day at court and, upon some dispute between them, it was torn. The other copy was actually presented by Simpson to the clerk register, who refused to read it before the states in parliament. However, the protest, though not read, had its effect; for although the bill before-mentioned, or, as the Scottish phrase is, the article, had the consent of parliament, yet the king thought fit to cause it to be laid aside; and not long after called a general assembly at St. Andrew’s. Soon after, the parliament was dissolved, and Simpson was summoned before the high commission court, where the roll of names which he had kept for his justification, was demanded from him; and upon his declaring that he had given it to Harrison, who had since delivered it to Calderwood, he was sent prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh; and Calderwood was summoned to appear before the high commission court at St. Andrew’s, on the 8th of July following, to exhibit the said protest, and to answer for his mutinous and seditious behaviour.

July 12, the king came to that city in person, and soon after Hewet and Simpson were deprived and imprisoned. After this, Calderwood was called upon, and refusing to comply with what the king in person required of him, James, after haranguing at some length on his disobedience, committed him to prison; and afterwards the/ privy-council, according to the power exercised by them at that time, directed him to banish himself out of the king’s dominions before Michaelmas following, and not to return without licence; and upon giving security for this purpose, he was discharged out of prison, and suffered to return to his parish, but forbid to preach. Having applied to the king for a prorogation of his sentence without success, because he would neither acknowledge his offence, nor promise conformity for the future, he retired to Holland in 1619, where his publications were securely multiplied, and diffused through Scotland, particularly one entitled “The Perth Assembly,” which was condemned by the council. In 1623 he published his celebrated treatise entitled “Altare Damascenum, seu ecclesiae Anolicanse politia, ecclesiae Scoticanae obtrusa a formalista quodam delineata, illustrata, et examinata,” The writer of the preface prefixed to Calderwood’s “True history of the church of Scotland” telis us, that “the author of this very learned and celebrate 1 treatise (which is an answer to Lin wood’s ‘ Description of the Policy of the church of England’) doth irrefragably and unanswerably demonstrate the iniquity of designing and endeavouring to model and conform the divinely simple worship, discipline, and government of the church of Scotland to the pattern of the pompously prelatic and ceremonious church of England; under some conviction whereof it seems king James himself was, though implacably displeased with it, when, being after the reading of it somewhat pensive, and being asked the reason by an English prelate standing by and observing it, he told him he had seen and read such a book; whereupon the prelate telling his majesty not to suffer that to trouble him, for they would answer it he replied, not without some passion, < What would you answer, man There is nothing here but scripture, reason, and the fathers’.” This work was in fact an enlargement, in Latin, of one which he wrote in English, and published in 1621, under the title of “The Altar of Damascus,” and which is uncommonly rare. It concludes with noticing a rumour spread by bishop Spotswood, that Mr. Calderwood had turned Brownist, which rumour it denies in strong language, and with the following intemperate and unbecoming threat: “If either Spotswood, or his supposed author, persist in their calumny after this declaration, 1 shall try if there be any blood in their foreheads.” Calderwood having in 1624 been afflicted with a long fit of sickness, and nothing having been heard of him for some time, one Patrick Scot (as Calderwood himself informs us), took it for granted that he was dead; and thereupon wrote a recantation in his name, as if before his decease he had changed his sentiments. This imposture being detected, Scot went over to Holland, and staid three weeks at Amsterdam, where he made diligent search for the author of “Altare Damascenum,” with a design, as Calderwood believed, to have dispatched him: but Calderwood had privately returned into his own country, where he remained for several years. Scot gave out that the king furnished him with the matter for the pretended recantation, and that he only put it in order.

, or Chaldwell, an English physician, was born in Staffordshire about 1513, and was admitted into Brazen-nose college in Oxford, of which he was in due season elected fellow. In 1539 he took his degree of M. A. and became one of the senior students of Christ Church in 1547, which was a little after its last foundation by king Henry VIII. Afterwards he studied physic and took the degrees in that faculty, and became so highly esteemed for his learning and skill, that he was examined, approved, admitted into, and elected censor of, the college of physicians at London in the same day. Six weeks after, he was chosen one of the elects of the said college, and in 1570 made president of it. Wood tells us, that he wrote several pieces upon subjects relating to his profession; but does not say what they were. He mentions a book written by Horatio Moro, a Florentine physician, and called “The Tables of Surgery, briefly comprehending the whole art and practice thereof;” which Caldwall translated into English, and published at London in 1585. We learn from Camden, that Caldwall founded a chirurgical lecture in the college of physicians, and endowed it with a handsome salary. He died in 1585, and was buried at the church of St. Bennet near Paul’s wharf.

, a literary gentleman of Ireland, was the son of Charles Caldwell, esq. an eminent solicitor, and was born in Dublin, 1732. He received part of his education in one of the universities in Scotland, from whence he removed to London; and after a residence of about five years at the Temple, returned to Dublin, where he was admitted to the bar in 1760; but his father being possessed of a good estate, fully adequate to his son’s wishes, he never paid much attention to the profession of the law, and for several years before his death had entirely quitted it. His studious disposition, and taste for the tine arts, always afforded him sufficient employment, and he was a liberal patron of those who excelled in any of the various branches of art. He had studied architecture with particular attention; and about the year 1770, published, anonymously, some very judicious “Observations on the public buildings of Dublin,” and on some edifices, which at that time were about to be erected in that city at the expence of the state. The only other known production of his pen that has been published, is a very curious “Account of the extraordinary escape of James Stewart, esq. (commonly called Athenian Stewart) from being put to death by some Turks, in whose company he happened to be travelling;” the substance of which had been communicated to Mr. Caldwell by the late Dr. Percy, bishop of Dromore, as related to his lordship by Stewart himself. Of this narrative, of which only a small number was printed at London in 1304, for the use of the author’s friends, it is believed not more than a dozen copies were distributed in this country. Mr. Cald well’s love of literature naturally led him to collect an ample library, which was particularly rich in natural history. His manners were gentle and pleasing, and his benevolence, various knowledge, and cultivated taste, endeared him to a very numerous circle of friends. He died at the house of his nephew, major-general Cockburn, near Bray in the county of Wicklow, July 2, 1808, in the seventy-sixth year of his age.

, called IL Cremonese, an eminent artist of Ferrara, where he was born about 1600, studied and imitated, beyond all others, the tones of Titian, and carried the illusion to such a degree, that his half-figures, bacchanals, and small histories, entered the best galleries of Rome and Bologna as originals: nor is he easily discovered by the best eye or taste, but from the admission of some more modern conceit, or carelessness of execution. That he possessed talents superior to what mere mimickry can confer, is evident from his St. Mark, in the church of S. Benedetto at Ferrara, a majestic, correct, expressive figure, girt by a profusion of volumes, whose picturesque arrangement and truth of touch procured him the name of the Book-Painter (Pittor da' Libri). Immediately after the execution of this work, some say that he disappeared, and was heard of no more: whilst others, with less probability of conjecture, extend the date of his death to 1660.

, an eminent Lutheran divine, was born at Medelbui, in Holstein, Dec. 14, 1586. His father, who was also a minister, intended him for the same profession, and sent him to study at Helmstadt, Jena, and Giessen, and most of the protestant schools of Germany. He travelled also with Matthias Overbeck, a rich Lutheran, who resided in Holland, and conceiving a high opinion of Calixtus, became his liberal patron, as he had been to Herman Conringius and many others. After travelling also in France and England, Calixtus returned to Germany, and was appointed professor of theology at Helmstadt in 1614, and there he died, March 18, 1656, after a long theological warfare, both with his brethren and the Roman catholic, excited by his endeavours to effect a comprehension between the Roman and the Lutheran and Calvinist churches. According to Mosheim, Calixtus was the first person that reduced theology into a regular system, and gave it a truly scientific and philosophical form. As he had imbibed the spirit of the Aristotelian school, he arranged the substance of Christianity according to the method of the Stagirite; and divided the whole science of divinity into three parts, viz. the end, the subject, and the means. He was also the first who separated the objects of faith from the duties of morality, and exhibited the latter under the form of an independent science. These innovations rendered him the object of much censure and opposition. In his attempt to reunite the several bodies of Christians, and to comprehend " the different churches in one profession of religion, he was a principal promoter of that system which was called syncretism. The controversy which was thus occasioned, subsisted long after his death; and though he seemed, in his efforts for comprehension, to give advantage to the Romish church, no one attacked its tyranny and corruption with greater vigour. Mosheim has entered largely into his system and the consequence of it, but it appears to us to be in some parts inconsistent; and experience has shewn that all plans of comprehension are impracticable, without such sacrifices as the respective parties either cannot or will not make. His writings, which are extremely numerous, on various subjects of controversy, are enumerated by Freher, but without the necessary appendages of size, dates, &c.

, an ancient Greek poet, was born at Cyrene, a town in Africa, and flourished under the Ptolemies Philadelphus and Euergetes; Berenice, queen of the latter, having consecrated her locks in the temple of Venus, ad a flattering astronomer having translated them from thence into a constellation in the heavens, gave occasion to the fine elegy of this poet, which we have now only in the Latin of Catullus. He may be placed, therefore, about 280 B. C. His common name Battiades has made the grammarians usually assign one Battus for his father; but perhaps he may as well derive that name from king Battus, the founder of Cyrene, from whose line, as Strabo assures us, he declared himself to be descended. But whoever was his father, the poet has paid all his duties and obligations to him in a most delicate epitaph, which we find in the Anthologia; and which shews that Martial had good reason to assign him, as he has done, the crown among the Grecian writers of the epigram. He was educated under Hermocrates, the grammarian; and before he was recommended to the favour of the kings of Egypt, he taught a school at Alexandria; and had the honour of educating Apollonius, the author of the Argonautics. But Apollonius making an ungrateful return to his master for the pains he had taken with him, Callimachus was provoked to revenge himself in an invective poem, called Ibis; which, it is known? furnished Ovid with a pattern and title for a satire of the same nature. Suidas relates, that Callimachus wrote above 800 pieces; of which we have now remaining only a few hymns and epigrams, Quintilian is very justifiable in having asserted, that Callimachus was the first of all the elegiac poets. He has the credit of having first spoken the proverbial saying, “a great book is a great evil,” which critics have been fonder of repeating than authors.

This artist engraved in several styles; the first of which was an imitation of his master Canta Gallina. He afterwards worked altogether with the graver; but without success. His next style was the mixture of the point and the graver, with coarse broad hatchings in the shadows. But his best manner, is that which appears to have been executed with the greatest freedom, by which he has- expressed, as we may say, with a single stroke, variety of character, and correctness of design. He is said to have been the first who used hard varnish in etching, which has been found much superior to that which was before adopted. The fertility of invention, and the vast variety, found in the works of this excellent artist, are astonishing. It could Jiarclly have been supposed possible to combine so great a number of figures together as he has done, and to vary the attitudes, without forced contrast, so that all of them, whether single figures or groupes, may be easily distinguished from each other, even in the masses of shadow; more especially when it is considered that they are often exceedingly minute. On a cursory view of some of his most admired pieces, the whole appears confused, and without harmony; but a careful examination discovers the richness, the beauty, the taste, and the judgment which are bestowed on the disposition of the figures, the management of the groupes, and the variety and propriety of the attitudes. The works of this master are very numerous and various. In representation of all the varieties of human life, from beggars and peasants to knights and nobles, he excelled; characterising all with the nicest touches of nature. Of his subjects, many are of the most painful and shocking kind, such as public executions, the miseries of war, and the like; many are grotesque and fanciful, and exhibit a strong imagination. Among his most admired prints, Strutt enumerates: “The Murder of the InnocentSjJ' of which that engraved at Florence is most rare; a fine impression of it being found with difficulty;” The Marriage of Cana in Galilee,“from Paolo Veronese;” The Passion of Christ,“the first impressions of which are very scarce” St. John in the island of Palma;“” The Temptation of St. Anthony;“”The Punishments,“exhibiting the execution of several criminals;” The Miseries of War;“” The great Pair of Florence;“The little Fair,” otherwise called “The Players at Benti,” one of the scarcest of Callot’s prints;“” The Tilting, or the New Street at Nancy;“The Garden of Nancy;” “View of the Pont Neuf;” “View of the Louvre;” and “Four Landscapes.”

, an eminent but unfortunate French minister, was born at Douay in 1734. His father was president of the parliament of Flanders, and descended from a noble family, originally of Tournay, and well known in the history of that city, which makes honourable mention of his ancestors in the remotest times. Having finished his studies at the university of Paris with extraordinary success, young Calonne was appointed, in histwenty-third year, advocate or solicitor- general of the superior council of Artois and before he had attained the age of twenty -five, was promoted to the office of procurator-general of the parliament of Flanders, the duties of which he performed with distinguished ability for six years. He was then called as rapporteur to the king’s council, to report to his majesty the most momentous affairs of administration, of which arduous and laborious task he acquitted himself in a manner that evinced his profound knowledge of the government, constitution, history, and jurisprudence of France, and established his reputation as a writer of no less perspicuity and judgment, than elegance and energy of diction.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine, and one of the ablest opponents of the Socinians of his time, was born Aug. 16, 1612, at Morungen in the duchy of Brunswick, where his father was a man of some consequence. Having finished his studies, and especially distinguished himself by his knowledge in oriental languages, he came to Rostock, where, in 1637, he took his doctor’s degree in divinity, and some time after was made professor of that faculty. He was very rigid in adhering to the Lutheran tenets, and the firmness he displayed in a controversy with John Bergius, a protestant divine, on the subject of the Lord’s supper, occasioned his being appointed visitor of the churches and schools of the circle of Samlande in Prussia, and counsellor in the court of justice. In 1643 he was invited to Dantzic, and made rector of the college. He carried on several controversies, especially with Martin Statins, a Lutheran deacon, with Henry Nicolai, professor of philosophy, and with John Cæsar, a protestant minister of Dantzic. In 1650 he was appointed professor of divinity at Wittemberg, and became one of the warmest opponents of the comprehending system proposed by Calixtus (see Calixtus), and the partizans of the respective combatants were called Calixtins and Calovians. This dispute, conducted with much intemperance on both sides, lasted until his death, Feb. 20, 1686. His principal works, exclusive of those he wrote against Bergius, Nicolai, and Calixtus, were, 1. “Metaphysica divina, etaliascriptaphilosopbica.” 2. “Criticus sacer Biblicus.” 3. “Socinianismus profligatus.” 4. “Systema locorum theologicorum.” 5. “Conlideratio Arminianismi.” 6. “Biblia iilustrata,” a German Bible with Luther’s notes. His “Historia Syncretistica,” first published in 1682, was suppressed by order of the elector of Saxony, as calculated to revive the dispute with Calixtus, but was republished in 1685.

, an artist, remarkable for longevity as well as skill, a native of Genoa, was a son of Agostino Calvi, one of the most tolerable painters and reformers of the old style, and was with Pantaleo Calvi, his eldest brother, among the first pupils, of Perino del Vaga. Pantaleo was content to ^end his assistance and his name to Lazzaro, without pretending to share the praise due to his numerous ornamental works at Genova, Monaco, and Napoli; among which, none excels the facade of the palace Doria (now Spinola) with prisoners in various attitudes, and stories in colour and chiaroscuro, considered as a school of design and models of taste. In the palace Pallavicini‘al Zerbino they represented the story commonly called the Continence of Scipio, and a variety of naked figures, which, in the opinion of Mengs himself, might be adjudged to Penno. Whether or not he assisted them with his hand,* as he had with his cartoons, is matter of doubt: certain it is, that Lazzaro, giddy with self-conceit, fell into excesses unknown to other artists, if we except Corenzio. At the least appearance of rival merit, jealousy and avidity prompU ed him to have recourse to the blackest arts. Of Giacomo Bargone he rid himself by poison, and’ others he depressed by the clamour of hired ruffians. Such were his cabals when he painted the Birth of John the Baptist in the chapel Centurioni, in concurrence with Andrea Semini and Luca Cambiaso, which, though one of his best works and most in the style of his master, fell short of the powers of Luca, to whom prince Doria gave the preference in the ample commission of the frescos for the church of S. Matteo. This so enraged Calvi that he turned sailor, and touched no brush for twenty years: he returned at last to the art, and continued in practice to his eighty-fifth year, but with diminished powers: his works of that period are cold, laboured, and bear the stamp of age. The death of Pantaleo still farther depressed him, and the only remaining mark of his vigour was to have protracted life to one hundred and five years. He died at that very uncommon age in 1606, or 1607, leaving only a daughter, whom he had married to an opulent gentleman. Whatever his talents, we see nothing but what is -atrocious in his personal character.

, one of the chief reformers of the church, was born at Noyon in Picardy, July 10, 1509. He was instructed in grammar at Paris under Maturinus Corderius, to whom he afterwards dedicated his Commentary on the first epistle of the Thessalonians, and studied philosophy in the college of Montaigu under a Spanish professor. His father, uho discovered many marks of hitf early piety, particularly in his reprehensions of the vices of his companions, designed him for the church, and got him presented, May 21, 1521, to the chapel of Notre Dame de la Gesine, in the church of Noyon. In 1527 he was presented to the rectory of Marteville, which he exchanged in 1529 fortlie rectory of Pont I‘Eveque near Noyon. His father afterwards changed his resolution, and would have him study law; to which Calvin, who, by reading the scriptures, had conceived a dislike to the superstitions of popery, readily consented, and resigned the chapel of Gesine and the rectory of Pont l’Eveque in 1534. He had never, it must here be observed, been in priest’s orders, and belonged to the church only by having received the tonsure. He was sent to study the law first under Peter de l'Etoile (Petrus Stella) at Orleans, and afterwards under Andrew Alciat at Bourges, and while he made a great progress in that science, he improved no less in the knowledge of divinity by his private studies. At Bourges he applied to the Greek tongue, under the direction of professor Wolmar. His father’s death having called him back to Noyon, he staid there a short time, and then went to Paris, where he wrote a commentary on Seneca’s treatise “De dementia,” being at this time about twenty- four years of age. Having put his name in Latin to this piece, he laid aside his surname Cauvin, for that of Calvin, styling himself in the title-page “Lucius Calvinus civis Romanus.” He soon made himself known at Paris to such as had privately embraced the reformation, and by frequent intercourse with them became more confirmed in his principles. A speech of Nicholas Cop, rector of the university of Paris, of which Calvin furnished the materials, having greatly displeased the Sorbonne and the parliament, gave rise to a persecu^ tion against the protestants; and Calvin, who narrowly escaped being taken in the college of Forteret, was forced to retire to Xaintonge, after having had the honour to be introduced to the queen of Navarre, who allayed this first storm raised against the protestants. Calvin returned to Paris in 1534. This year the reformed met with severe treatment, which determined him to leave France, after publishing a treatise against those who believe that departed souls are in a kind of sleep. He retired to Basil, where he studied Hebrew; at this time he published his “Institutions of the Christian Religion,” a work well adapted to spread his fame, though he himself was desirous of living in obscurity. It is dedicated to the French king, Francis I. This prince being solicitous, according to Beza, to gain the friendship of the Protestants in Germany, and knowing that they were highly incensed by the cruel persecutions which their brethren suffered in France, he, by advice of William de Bellay, represented to them that he had only punished certain enthusiasts, who substituted their own imaginations in the place of God’s word, and despised the civil magistrate. Calvin, stung with indignation at this wicked evasion, wrote this work as an apology for the Protestants who were burnt for their religion in France. The dedication to Francis I. is one of the three that have been highly admired: that of Thuanus to his history, and Casaubon’s to Polybius, are the two others. But this treatise, when first published in 1555, was only a sketch of a larger work. The complete editions, both in Latin and in French, with the author’s last additions and corrections, did not appear till 1558. After the publication of this work, Calvin went to Italy to pay a visit to the duchess of Ferrara, a lady of eminent piety, by whom he was very kindly received. Prom Italy he came back to France, and having settled his private affairs, he purposed to go to Strasbourg, or Basil, in company with his sole surviving brother Antony Calvin; but as the roads were not safe on account of the war, except through the duke of Savoy’s territories, he chose that road. “This was a particular direction of Providence,” says Bayle; “it was his destiny that he should settle at Geneva, and when he was wholly intent on going farther, he found himself detained by an order from heaven, if I may so speak.” William Farel, a man of a warm enthusiastic temper, who had in vain used many entreaties to prevail with Calvin to be his fellow-labourer in that part of the Lord’s vineyard, at last solemnly declared to him, in the name of God, that if he would not stay, the curse of God would attend him wherever he went, as seeking himself and not Christ. Calvin therefore was obliged to comply with the choice which the consistory and magistrates of Geneva made of him, with the consent of the, people, to be one of their ministers, and professor of divinity. It was his own wish to undertake only this last office, but he was gbliged to take both upon him in August 1536. The year following he made all the people declare, upon oath, their assent to a confession of faith, which contained a renunciation of Popery: and because this reformation in doctrine did not put an entire stop to the immoralities that prevailed at Geneva, nor banish that spirit of faction which had set the principal families at variance, Calvin, in concert with his colleagues, declared that they could not celebrate the sacrament whilst they kept up their animosities, and trampled on the discipline of the church. He also intimated, that he could not submit to the regulation which the synod of the canton of Berne had lately made *. On this, the syndics of Geneva summoned an assembly of the people; and it was ordered that Calvin, Farel, and another minister, should leave the town in two days, for refusing to administer the sacrament. Calvin' retired to Strasbourg, and established a French church in that city, of which he was the first minister; he was also appointed to be professor of divinity there* During his stay at Strasbourg, he continued to give many marks of his affection for the church of Geneva; as appears, amongst other things, by the answer which he wrote in 1539, to the beautiful but artful letter of cardinal Sadolet, bishop of Carpentras, inviting the people of Geneva to return into the bosom of the Romish church. Two years after, the divines of Strasbourg being very desirous that he should assist at the diet which the emperor had appointed to be held at Worms and at Ratisbon, for accommodating religious differences, he went thither with Bucer, and had a conference with Melancthon. In the mean time the people of Geneva (the syndics who promoted his banishment being now some of them executed, and others forced to fly their country for their crimes), entreated him so earnestly to return to them, that at last he consented. He arrived at Geneva, Sept. 13, 1541, to the great satisfaction both of the people and the magistrates; and the first measure ha adopted after his arrival, was to establish a form of church, discipline, and a consistorial jurisdiction, invested with, the power of inflicting censures and canonical punishments,

The character of Calvin, like that of Luther, and the other more eminent reformers, has been grossly calumniated by the adherents of popery, but the testimonies in its favour are too numerous to permit us for a moment to doubt that he was not only one of the greatest, but one of the best men of his time, and the deduction which necessarily must be made from this praise, with respect to his conduct towards Servetus and others, must at the same time in candour be referred to the age in which he lived, and in which the principles of toleration were not understood . On the other hand his uncommon talents have been acknowledged not only by the most eminent persons of his age, but by all who have studied his works, or have traced the vast and overpowering influence he possessed in every country in Europe, where the work of reformation was carrying on. Every society, every church, every district, every nation that had in any degree adopted the principles of the reformers, were glad to consult and correspond with Calvin on the steps they were to pursue. The court of England in particular, Edward VI. queen Elizabeth, archbishop Cranmer, and the leading prelates and reformers here, expressed their high respect for him, and frequently asked and followed his advice. In France perhaps he was yet more consulted, and at Geneva he was an ecclesiastical dictator, whose doctrines and discipline became the regular church establishment, and were afterwards adopted and still remain in full force in Scotland. Calvinism was also extensively propagated in Germany, the United Provinces, and England. In France it was abolished, as well as every other species of protestantism, by the revocation of the edict >f Nantz in 1685. During the reign of Edward VI. it entered much into the writings of the eminent divines of that period; in queen Elizabeth’s time, although many of her' divines were of the same sentiments, it was discouraged as far as it showed itself in a dislike of the ceremonies, habits, &c. of the church. In the early part of Charles Ts time it was yet more discouraged, Arminiamsm being the favourite system of Laud; but during the interregnum it revived in an uncommon degree, and was perhaps the persuasion of the majority of the divines of that period, all others having been silenced and thrown out of their livings by the power of parliament. How far it now exists in the church of England, in her articles and homilies, has recently been the subject of a very long and perhaps undecided controversy, into which it is not our intention to enter, nor could we, indeed, make the attempt within any moderate compass. One excellent effect of this controversy has been to inform those of the real principles of Calvinism, who have frequently used that word to express a something which they did not understand. Perhaps it would be well if the word itself were less used, and the thing signified referred to the decision of more than human authority. It may be added, however, that the distinguishing theological tenets of Calvinism, as the term is now generally applied, respect the doctrines of Predestination, or particular Election and Reprobation, original Sin, particular Redemption, effectual, or, as some have called it, irresistible Grace in Regeneration, Justification by faith, Perseverance, and the Trinity. Besides the doctrinal part of Calvin’s system, which, so far as it differs from that of other reformers of the same period, principally regarded the absolute decree of God, whereby the future and eternal condition of the human race was determined out of mere sovereign pleasure and free-will; it extended likewise to the discipline and government of the Christian church, the nature of the Eucharist, and the qualification of those who were entitled to the participation of it. Calvin considered every church as a separate and independent body, invested with the power of legislation for itself. He proposed that it should be governed by presbyteries and synods, composed of clergy and laity, without bishops, or any clerical subordination; and maintained, that the province of the civil magistrate extended only to its protec-r tion and outward accommodation. In order to facilitate an union with the Lutheran church, he acknowledged a Vol. VIII. H renl, though spiritual, presence of Christ in the Eucharist; that true Christians were united to the man Christ in this ordinance; and that divine grace was conferred upon them, and sealed to them, in the celebration of it: and he confined the privilege of communion to pious and regenerate believers. In France the Calvinists are distinguished by the name of Huguenots; and, among the common people, by that of Parpaillots. In Germany they are confounded with the Lutherans, under the general title Protestants; only sometimes distinguished by the name Reformed.

, a learned German chronologist, the son of a Lutheran peasant, was born at Gorschleben, a village of Thuringia, in 1556. Being very poor in his youth, he got his livelihood by his skill in music, which he learned very early, and was so liberally encouraged at Magdeburgh, that he was enabled to study for some time at the university of Helmstadt, where he made great progress in the learned languages, and in chronology and astronomy. He died at Leipsic, where he held the office of chantor, in 1615. His “Opus Chronologicum” appeared first in 1605, on the principles of Joseph Scaliger, for which he was not a little commended by Scaliger. Isaac Casaubon, also, a better judge in this case than Scaliger, as being under less temptation to be partial, has bestowed high praises on Calvisius. In 1611, Calvisius published a work against the Gregorian calendar, under the title of “Elenchus calendarii a papa Gregorio XIII. comprobati;” or, a “Confutation of the calendar, approved and established by pope Gregory XI 11.” Vossius tells us, that he not only attempts in this work to shew the errors of the Gregorian calendar, but offers also a new and more concise, as well as truer method of reforming the calendar. He was the author also of “Enodatio duarum questionum, viz. circa annum Nativitatis et Tempus Ministerii Christi,” Ertbrd, 1610, 4to. His “Chronology” was often reprinted. Of his musical talents, he has left ample proofs to posterity in his short treatise called “Μελοποια, sive Melodiæ condendæ ratio, quam vulgò musicam poeticam vocant, ex veris fundamentis extracta et explicata,” 1592. This ingenious tract contains, though but a small duodecimo volume, all that was known at the time concerning harmonics and practical music; as he has compressed into his little book the science of most of the best writers on the subject; to which he has added short compositions of his own, to illustrate their doctrines and precepts. With respect to composition, he not only gives examples of concords and discords, and their use in combination, but little canons and fugues of almost every kind then known. He composed, in 1615, the 150th psalm in twelve parts, for three choirs, as an Epithalamium on the nuptials of his friend Casper Ankelman, a merchant of Hamburgh, and published it in folio at Leipsic the same year. Several of his hymns and motets appear in a collection of Lutheran church music, published at Leipsic, 1618, in eight volumes 4to, under the following title: “Florilegium portens CXV. selectissimas Cantiones, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, voc. prsBstantissimorum Auctorum.” Some of these which Dr. Burney had the curiosity to score, have the laws of harmony and fugue preserved inviolate.

From this time he seems to have lived in retirement at Chiselhurst, declining the solicitations of his friend Saville, to make his house at Eton his own, and to have amused himself with entering memoranda of events as they happened,- which have been printed at the end of his epistles by Dr. Smith, and called “Apparatus annalium regis Jacobi I.” These are called by Wood “A skeleton of a history of James I. or bare touches to put the author in mind of greater matters,” or rather memoranda for private use. He adds, bishop Hacket stole, and Dugdale borrowed and transcribed them, as did sir Henry St. George, Clarencieux, both incorrectly. The original is in Trinity college, Cambridge, and Dr. Smith printed these and parts of an English Diary.

In 1525, when there was an insurrection among the common people through all Germany, commonly called the war of the peasants, Camerarius went into Prussia, but he returned very soon, and was made professor of the belies lettres in an university which the senate of Nuremberg had just founded under the direction and superintendency of Melancthon. In 1526, when the diet of Spires was held, Albert earl of Mansfelt was appointed ambassador to Charles V. of Spain, and Camerarius to attend him as his Latin interpreter; but this embassy being suspended, Camerarius went no farther than Sslirigen, whence he returned home, and was married the year after to Anne Truchses, a lady of an ancient and noble family, with whom he lived forty-six years very happily, and had four daughters and five sons by her, who all did honour to their family. In 1530, the Senate of Nuremberg sent him with some other persons to the diet of Augsburgh, and four years after offered him the place of secretary; but, preferring the ease and freedom of a studious life to all advantages of a pecuniary nature, he refused it. In 1538, Ulric prince of Wittemberg sent him to Tubingen, to restore the discipline and credit of that university and in 1541, Henry, duke of Saxony, and afterwards Maurice his son, invited him to Leipsic, to direct and assist in founding an university there.

, a very celebrated Portuguese poet, and from his much-admired poem the “Lusiadas,” called the Virgil of Portugal, was descended from an illustrious, and originally, Spanish family, and was born at Lisbon about the year 1524. His father Simon Vaz de Camoens is said to have perished by shipwreck in the year which gave being to his son, although this is somewhat doubtful. It appears, however, that our poet was sent to the university of Coimbra, and maintained there by his surviving parent. On his arrival in Lisbon, he became enamoured of Donna Catarina de Ataide, whom he addressed with all the romantic ardour of youth and poetry, but according to the prescribed reserve, or prudery of the age, obtained no higher mark of her favour, after many months of adoration, than one of the silken fillets which, encircled her head. His impatience, however, hurried him into some breaches of decorum, while pursuing his coy mistress, who was one of the queen’s ladies, and her parents took this opportunity to terminate an intercourse which worldly considerations rendered, on her part, of the highest imprudence. This interference produced its usual effect. Camoens was banished the court, and on the morning of his departure, Catarina confessed to him the secret of her long-concealed affection. Thus comforted, he removed to Santarem, the place of his banishment, but is said to have speedily returned to Lisbon, where he was again detected, and again sent into exile.

, an Italian poet and prelate, was born in 1427 at Cavelli, a village of Campania, of parents so obscure that he bore no name but that of his country, and was employed in his early years as a shepherd, in which situation an ecclesiastic discovering some promise of talents in him, sent him to Naples, where he studied under Laurentius Valla. He went afterwards to Perugia, where he rose to be professor of eloquence, and filled that chair with so much reputation, that when, in 1459, pope Pius II. happened to pass through Perugia in his way to the council of Mantua, he bestowed his patronage on him, and made him bishop of Crotona, and secondly of Teramo. Enjoying the same favour under pope Paul II. this pontiff sent him to the congress of Ratisbon, which assembled for the purpose of consulting on a league of the Christian princes against the Turks. Sixtus IV. who had been one of his scholars at Perugia, made him successively governor of Todi, of Foligno, and of Citta di Castello; but the pope having thought proper to besiege this last named city, because the inhabitants made some scruple about receiving his troops, Campano, touched with the hardships they were likely to suffer, wrote to the pope with so much freedom and spirit as to enrage his holiness, and provoke him to deprive him of his government, and banish him from the ecclesiastical states. Campano on this went to Naples, but not rinding the reception he expected, he retired to his bishopric at Teramo, where he died July 15, 1477, of chagrin and disappointment. His works, which were first printed at Rome in 1495, fol. consist of several treatises on moral philosophy, discourses, and funeral orations, and nine books of letters, in which there is some curious information with respect both to the political and literary history of his times. This volume contains likewise, the life of pope Pius II. and of Braccio of Perugia, a famous military character, and lastly, of eight book of elegies and epigrams, some of which are rather of too licentious a nature to accord with the gravity of his profession. These, or part of them, were reprinted at Leipsic in 1707, and in 1734. Campano was at one time a corrector of the press to Udalric, called Gallus, the first printer of Rome, and wrote prefaces to Livy, Justin, Plutarch, and some other of the works which issued from that press.

When the late Mr. Dodsley formed the design of “The Preceptor,” which appeared in 1748, Mr. Campbell was requested to assist in the undertaking, and the parts written by him were, the Introduction to chronology, and the Discourse on trade and commerce, both of which displayed an extensive fund of knowledge upon these subjects. In 1750 he published the first separate edition of his “Present state of Europe;” a work which had been originally begun in 1746, in the “Museum,” a very valuable periodical performance, printed for Dodsley. There is no production of our author’s that has met with a better reception. It has gone through six editions, and fully deserved this encouragement. The next great undertaking which called for the exertion of our author’s abilities and learning, was “The modern Universal History.” This extensive work was published irom time to time in detached parts, till it amounted to 16 vols. tol. and a 2d edition of it in 8vo, began to make its appearance in 1759. The parts of it written by Campbell, were the histories of the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, French, Swedish, Danish, and Ostend settlements in the East Indies; and the histories of the kingdoms of Spain, Portugal, Algarve, Navarre, and that of France, foin Clovis to 1656. As our author had thus distinguished himself in the literary world, the degree of LL. D. was very properly and honourably conferred upon him, June 18, 1754, by the university of Glasgow. With regard to his smaller publications, there are several, Dr. Kippis apprehends, that have eluded his most diligent inquiry; but the following account, we believe, is tolerably accurate: In early life, he wrote: 1. “A Discourse on Providence,” 8vo, the third edition of which was printed in 1748. In 1742 he published 2. “The Case of the Opposition impartially stated,” 8vo. Mr. Reed had a copy of this pamphlet, with various corrections and additions in Dr. Campbell’s own hand, evidently written with a view to a second impression. He published in 1746, 3. “The Sentiments of a Dutch patriot; being the speech of Mr. V. H***n, in an august assembly, on the present state of affairs, and the resolution necessary at this juncture to be taken for the safety of the republic,” 8vo. The history of this little tract, the design of which was to expose the temporising policy of the states of Holland, is somewhat amusing. His amanuensis, when he was going to write the pamphlet, having disappointed him, he requested, after tea in the afternoon, that Mrs. Campbell, when she had ordered a good fire to be made, would retire to bed as soon as possible, with the servants; and, at the same time, leave him four ounces of coffee. This was done, and he wrote till 12 o‘clock at night, when, finding his spirits flag, he took two ounces. With this assistance he went on till six in the morning, when again beginning to grow weary, he drauk the remainder of the coffee. Hence he was enabled to proceed with fresh vigour till nine or ten o’clock in the morning, when he finished the pamphlet, which had a great run, and was productive of considerable profit. Mr. Campbell having succeeded so well in a performance hastily written, expected much greater success from another work, about which he had taken extraordinary pains, and which had cost him a long time in composing. But when it came to be published, it scarcely paid the expence of advertising. Some years afterwards, a book in French was brought to him that had been translated from the German; and he was asked whether a translation of it into English would not be likely to be acceptable. Upon examining it, he found that it was his own neglected work, which had made its way into Germany, and had there been translated and published, without any acknowledgement of the obligation due to the original writer. But it is rather singular that his biographers have not told us what work this was.

, an ingenious Roman catholic writer, was born in London in 1540, and educated at Christ’s hospital. Being a boy of great parts, he was selected while at school, to make an oration before queen Mary at her accession to the crown; and from thence elected scholar of St. John’s college in Oxford by Thomas White, the founder of it, in 1553. He took his degrees of B. and M. A. regularly, and afterwards went into orders. In 1566, when queen Elizabeth was entertained at Oxford, he made an oration before her, and also kept an act in St. Mary’s church, with very great applause from that learned queen. In 1568, he went into Ireland, where he wrote a history of that country in two books; but being then discovered to have embraced the popish religion, and to labour for proselytes, he was seized and detained for some time. He escaped soon after into England; but in 1571 transported himself into the Low Countries, and settled in the English college of Jesuits at Doway, where he openly renounced the protestant religion, and had the degree of B. D. conferred upon him. From thence he went to Rome, where he was admitted into the society of Jesuits in 1573; and afterwards sent by the general of his order into Germany. He lived for some time in Brune, and then at Vienna where he composed a tragedy, called “Nectar and Ambrosia,” which was acted before the emperor with great applause. Soon after he settled at Prague in Bohemia, and taught rhetoric and philosophy for about six years in a college of Jesuits, which had been newly erected there. At length being called to Rome, he was sent by the command of pope Gregory XIII. into England, where he arrived in June 1580. Here he performed all the offices of a zealous provincial, and was diligent in propagating his religion by all the arts of conversation and Writing. He seems to have challenged the English clergy to a disputation, by a piece entitled “Rationes decem oblati certaminis in causa fidei, redditse academicis Angliae,” which was printed at a private press in 1581; and many copies of which, as Wood tells us, were dispersed that year in St. Mary’s church at Oxford, during the time of an act. It was afterwards printed in English, and ably refuted by the English divines. In short, Campian, though nobody knew where he was, was yet so active as to fall under the cognizance of Walsingham, secretary of state; and Walsingham employed a person to find him out. He was at last discovered in disguise at the house of a private gentleman in Berks, from whence he was conveyed iiv great procession to the Tower of London, with a paper fastened to his hat, on which was written “Edmund Campian, a most pernicious Jesuit.” Afterwards, having been found guilty of high treason in adhering to the bishop of Rome, the queen’s enemy, and in coming to England todisturb the peace and quiet of the realm, he was hanged and quartered, with other Romish priests, at Tyburn, December 1, 1581.

, or Cambiaso, called Luchetto, an eminent Genoese painter, was born at Oneglia, near Genoa, in 1527, and became a most expeditious painter, working with both his hands, by which unusual power he executed more designs, and finished more great works with his own pencil in a much shorter time than most other artists could do with several assistants. It is mentioned as a memorable circumstance in his life, that at the age of seventeen he was employed in painting the front of a house in fresco; but whilst he was commencing his work, some Florentine painters who were actually engaged, conceived him to be a mere grinder of colours, and when he took up his pallet and pencils they wished to have prevented his proceeding with it, lest he should spoil the work, but after a few strokes of his pencil they were convinced of their mistake, and respected his singular abilities. Of Cangiagi, it is remarked, that he practised three different modes of painting at three different periods of his life. His first manner was gigantic and unnatural, which he corrected in consequence of the remonstrances of his friend Alessi, the celebrated architect, for his best style, in forming which he consulted nature with attention, and digested his thoughts in sketches, before he began to paint. His third manner was distinguished by a more rapid execution, to which he recurred in order to make more ample provision for his wife and family, and had a great deal of the mannerist. His works at Genoa are very numerous, and he was employed by the king of Spain to adorn part of the Escurial.

, by some called Marbres, an English Franciscan monk, and an able Aristotelian of the fourteenth century, studied some time at Oxford, from which he removed to Paris, where he became a pupil of Duns Scotus, whom, says Pits, he long attended, and always imitated. He returned afterwards to Oxford, and there taught theology to the time of his death, which, according to Dupin, happened about the year 1340. Dupin also says that he was a doctor of divinity of Paris. He was particularly learned in the Aristotelian philosophy, and in civil and canon-law. In Lincoln college library, Oxford, is one of his manuscripts, to which are prefixed many verses in honour of him, and in one of them he is styled “Alter Aristoteles.” His published works are, 1. “In Aristotelis Physica, Lib. VIII.' 7 printed at St. Alban’s in 1481, 8vo, and reprinted at Venice 1431, 1492, and 1505. 2.” Lecturae magistrales; Lib. I. Questiones disputatae, Lib. I. Qusestiones dialectices, Lib. I." printed with the former at Venice, 1492 and 1516.

, a painter and engraver, called often from his native place Da Pesaro, was born in 1612, and was a pupil of Pandolfi. After proving himself, by the picture of St. Peter at Fano, less an imitator of Guido than his equal, he entered his school at Bologna more as a rival than as a pupil: the humility which he had affected at his entrance, soon dissolved in a proud display of his powers; and the modest student became the supercilious censor of his companions, and of the master himself. From the general disgust, which the insolence of this conduct had excited, Cantarini fled to Rome, and for some time studied Raffaello and the antiques. When he returned to Bologna, where he taught, and from thence to the court of Mantua, his powers seemed to smooth the road to new success; but fear of those whom he had provoked by arrogance or invective, with the mortification of having failed in the portrait of the duke, impaired his health and drove him to Verona, where he died in 1648, in his thirtysixth year, not without suspicion of having being poisoned by a painter of Mantua, whom he had reviled. Cantarini is not equal to Guido, because the most perfect imitator of a style cannot be called equal to its inventor: but the original beauties which he added, of conception and execution, raise him above all the pupils of that school. If his ideas have less dignity, they are, perhaps, more graceful than those of Guido: if he has less compass of knowledge, he has more accuracy, and no rival in the finish of the extremities. The heads of his saints have been called prodigies of beauty and expression. Sir Robert Strange had a picture of Cantarini’s, “Our Saviour standing on the Globe, attended by Cherubims,” which, he says, is nothing inferior to Guido, inimitably coloured; the composition extremely agreeable, and the whole apparently painted with great facility. Cantarini etched with great spirit. Strutt enumerates some of his works in this manner.

, son of Christopher Capel, an alderman of Gloucester, was born 1586 in that city, and after being educated there in grammar, became a commoner of Aiban hall, Oxford, in 1601, and soon after was elected demy of Magdalen-college. In 160.9 he was made perpetual fellow, being then M. A. the highest degree which he took at the university. While there, Wood says, “his eminence was great, and he was resorted to by noted men, especially of the Calvinist persuasion,” and was tutor to several young men who afterwards rose to high reputation, particularly Accepted Frewen, archbishop of York, Will. Pemble, &c. He left college on obtaining the rectory of Eastington in Gloucestershire, and became highly popular as a plain and practical preacher, and a man of exemplary life and conversation. In 1633, when the Book of Sports on the Lord’s day was ordered to be read in all churches, he refused, and resigned his rectory. He then obtained licence from the bishop of Gloucester to practise physic, which he did with much success for some years, residing at Pitchcomb, near Stroud, where he had an estate. In the commencement of the rebellion, he was called to be one of the assembly of divines, but did not accept the offer. Wood thinks he was restored to his benefice at this time, or had another conferred upon him, which we believe was Pitchcomb, where he died Sept. 21, 1656, and was buried in the church there. Clarke informs us that for some time he attended the court of James I. until the death of sir Thomas Overbury, who was his particular friend. His principal works are, 1. “Temptations, their nature, danger, and cure, &c.” Lond. 1650, 8vo, and an “Apology” against some exceptions, 1659, 8vo. 2. “Remains, being an useful Appendix to the former,” 1658, 8vo. His son Daniel Capel was also a divine, and, according to Walker, ejected from his living in Gloucestershjre by the Oxford visitors. He then practised physic at Stroud, where he died in 1679. He wrote, “Tentamen medicum de variolis,” and some other tracts.

Besides the works already mentioned, Mr. Capell was the editor of a volume <pf ancient poems called “Prolusions;” and the alteration of Anthony and Cleopatra, as acted at Drury-lane in 1758. He died Jan. 24, 1781.

The fame of the Caracci reaching Rome, the cardinal Farnese sent for Hannibal thither, to paint the gallery of his palace. Hannibal was the more willing to go, because he had a great desire to see Raphael’s works, with the antique statues and bas-reliefs. The gusto which he took there from the ancient sculpture, made him change his Bolognian manner for one more learned, but less natural in the design and in the colouring. Augustine followed Hannibal, to assist him in his undertaking of the Farnese gallery; but the brothers not rightly agreeing, the cardinal sent Augustine to the court of the duke of Parma, in whose service he died in 1602, being only forty-five years of age. His most celebrated piece of painting is that of the Communion of St. Jerom, in Bologna: “a piece,” says a connoisseur, “so complete in all its parts, that it was much to be lamented the excellent author should withdraw himself from the practice of an art, in which his abilities were so very extraordinary, to follow the inferior profession of a graver.” Augustine had a natural son, called Antonio, who was brought up a painter under his uncle Hannibal; and who applied himself with so much success to the study of all the capital pieces in Home, that it is thought he would have surpassed even Hannibal himself, if he had lived hut he died at the age of thirty- five, in 1618.

, often called Hobertus de Licio, from Leze“or Lecce”, where he was born in 1425, descended probably from the illustriou; family of Caraccioli, and became one of the most celebrated preachers of his time. Having an early inclination to the church, he entered the order of the Franciscans, but finding their discipline too rigid, he removed to the Conventuals, and according to Erasmus, lived with more iVi-eJoin. He was. however, distinguished for talents, and occupied some honourable offices, and was appointed professor oi divinity. His particular bias was to preaching, which he cultivated with such success, as to incline all his brethren to imitate one who, throughout all Italy, was bailed as a second St. Paul. He displayed his pulpit eloquence not only in the principal cities of Italy, Assisa, Florence, Venice, Ferrara, Naples, &c. but before the popes, and is said to have censured the vices and luxury of the Roman court with great boldness and some quaint humour. This, however, appears not to have given serious offence, as he was employed by the popes, as well as by the king of Naples, in several negotiations of importance, and was made successively bishop of Aquino, of Lecce*, and of Aquila. After more than fifty years’ exercise of his talent as a preacher, he died at his native place May 6, 14-y 5. Of his sermons eight volumes have been often printed. 1. “Sermones de adventu,” Venice, 1496, 8vo. 2. “De Quadragesima,” Cologne, 1475, fol. 3. “De Quadragesima, seu Quadragesimale perutilissimum de Pcenitentia,” Venice, 1472, 4to. There are Italian translations of some of these. 4. “De Tempore, &c. Sanctorum,” Naples, 1489, 4to. 5. “De Solemnitatibus totius anni,” Venice, 1471. 6. “De Christo,” &c. Venice, 1489, 4to. 7. “De timorejudiciorum Dei,” Naples, 1473, fol. 8. “De amore divinorum officiorum,” ibid. 1473. There is another volume under the title “Roberti de Licio Sermones,” Leyden, 1500, 4to. He wrote also some theological works, of which a catalogue may be seen in our authority. Domenico de Angelis wrote his life, which was published at Naples in 1703, 4to.

, Marquis, was a native of Paris, where he was born in 1723, and having embraced the military life, became a colonel in the Polish service. Having quitted that, he travelled in Italy, and afterwards returned to his own country, where he passed a considerable part of his time in writing and publishing, and where he died May 29, 1803. His works, which are rather numerous than valuable, are of the moral or historic kind. Of the first, we have, 1. “Charactere de l'Amitié,” 2. “Conversation avec Soi- meme.” 3. “Jouissance de Soi-meme.” 4. “Le Veritable Mentor,” &c. &c. and of the historic or biographical kind, are the lives of cardinal de Berulle, Benedict XIV. Clement XIV. madame de Maintenon, &c. these are each comprized in a duodecimo volume, a quantity and form for which he appears to have had a predilection. Above twenty other works are enumerated in the Diet. Hist, of which the only one worthy of notice is “Ganganelli’s Letters,” which were translated into English some years ago, and had considerable success in raising the opinions of the public in favour of that pontiff; but it is now generally acknowledged that they were the composition of Caraccioli. His life of Ganganeili, which was translated into English in 1770, is esteemed more authentic. There was another Caraccioli in this country some years ago, who called himself Charles Caraccioli, gent, and published a confused jumble under the title of a Life of Lord Clive, and, if we mistake not, some novels.

When Annibal Caracci came to Rome, Caravagio was so forcibly struck with his colouring, that, in spite of his vanity, he exclaimed, “God be thanked, at last I have found one painter in my life-time!” Caravagio used to say of his works, that the merit of every stroke of the pencil he made belonged to nature, and not to him. Without genius, without reading, without the study of his art, she was his only assistant and guide. He was therefore usually called “The naturalist;” a name given likewise to all the painters who, like him, adhered slavishly to nature.

Rome possesses few pictures of this great master. There yet remains at the Spada palace, in half figures, a St. Anna with the Virgin by her side, busied in female work: vulgarity discriminates their features; both are dressed in the vulgar Roman dress. Another picture, an altar-piece of entire figures, is our Lady of Loretto, with two Pilgrims, in the church of St. Augustine. What Shakspeare would have called “a dying ray,” imbrowns rather than illuminates the silent scenery, and consecrates the whole. In the palace of the Borghesi there was the Supper at Emaus; a S. Sebastian in theCampidoglio; and in the Pamphili collection, Hagar with Ishmael dying, and a Fruit-girl. But the master-piece of all his works, the Intombing of Christ, formerly in the Chiesa Nuova, before which the rival altarpieces of Baroccio, Guido, and Rubens, with all their bloom, their suavity, and colour, remained unobserved; this work, the knot of Caravagio’s powers, is now transported to the Louvre.

, an Italian physician, mathematician, and philosopher, was born at Pa via, Sept. 24, 1501. It appears that his father and mother were not married, and the latter, a woman of violent passions, endeavoured to destroy him by procuring abortion. He was, however, safely born, and his father who was a lawyer by profession, at Milan, and a man well skilled in what were then called secret arts, instructed him very early in the mysteries of numbers, and the precepts of astrology, He taught him also the elements of geometry, and was desirous to have engaged him in the study of jurisprudence. But his own inclination being rather to medicine and mathematics, at the age of twenty he went to the university of Pavia, where, two years after, he explained Euclid. He then went to Padua, and, in 1524, was admitted to the degree of master of arts, and in the following year to that of doctor in medicine. In 1529, he returned to Milan, where although he obtained little fame as a physician, he was appointed professor of mathematics, for which he was better qualified; and in 1539, he became one of the medical college in Milan. Here he attempted to reform the medical practice by publishing his two first works, “De malo recentiorurn medicorum medendi usu,” Venice, 1536; and “Contradicentium Medicorum libri duo,” Lyons, 1548; but he was too supercilious and peevish to profit by the kindness of his friends, who made repeated efforts to obtain an advantageous establishment for him; and he had, in 1531, formed a matrimonial connection of which he bitterly complained as the cause of all his subsequent misfortunes.

, called also Cigoli and Civolt, an eminent painter, was born in 1559, at the castle of Cigoli, in Tuscany, and became the scholar of Santi di Titi, but after travelling into Lombardy, studied the works of the first masters, and particularly Correggio. He had some taste, also, for poetry and music, but soon became exclusively attached to his particular art. He was employed by the grand duke in the palace Pitti, and afterwards at Rome and Florence exhibited some excellent specimens of his genius. He gave a new style to the Florentine school; but to say that perhaps he was superior to all his contemporaries, that he approached nearer than any other the style of Correggio, are expressions of Baldinucci, which none will believe who has seen the imitations of that master by Baroccio, the Caracci, or Schidone. Cardi, to judge from his pictures as they are now, availed himself with success of Correggio’s chiaroscuro, joined it to learning in design, and set it off by judicious perspective and a far livelier colour than that of the Tuscan school; but his pictures do not exhibit that contrast of tints, that impasto, that splendour, that graceful air, those bold fore-shortenings, which constitute the character of the. heads of Lombard art. In short, he was the inventor of an original but not a steady style; that which he adopted at Rome differs from his former one. If the general tone of his colour be Lembardesque, his draperies resemble those of Paolo Veronese, and sometimes he approaches the depth of Guercino.

, brother to Richard, hereafter mentioned, and second son of Thomas Carew, esq. and Elizabeth his wife, was probably born at his father’s seat at East Anthony, but in what particular year we are not able to ascertain. He was educated in the university of Oxford, after which he studied law in the inns of court, and then set out on his travels. On his return to his native country he was called to the bar, and after some time was appointed secretary to sir Christopher Hatton, lord chancellor of England, by the especial recommendation of queen Elizabeth, who gave him a pro thonotary ship in the chancery, and conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. In 1597, being then a master in chancery, he was sent ambassador to the king of Poland. In the next rei.gn, he was one of the commissioners for treating with the Scotch concerning an union between the two kingdoms; after which he was appointed ambassador to the court of France, where he continued from the latter end of the year 1605 till 1609. During his residence in that country, he was regarded by the French ministers as being too partial to the Spanish interest, but probably ttoeir disgust to him might arise from his not being very tractable in some points of his negotiation, and particularly in the demand of the debts due to the king his master. Whatever might be, his political principles, it is certain, that he sought the conversation of men of letters; and formed an intimacy with Thuanus, to whom he communicated an account of the transactions in Poland, whilst he was employed there, which was of great service to that admirable author in drawing up the 12lst book of his History. After sir George Caret’s return from France, he was advanced to the post of master of the court of wards, which honourable situation he did not long live to enjoy; for it appears from a letter written by Thuanus to Camden, in the spring of the year 1613, that he was then lately deceased. In this letter, Thuanus laments his death as a great misfortune to himself; for he considered sir George’s friendship not only as a personal honour, but as very useful in his work, and especially in removing the calumnies and misrepresentations which might be raised of him in the court of England. Sir George Carew married Thomasine, daughter of sir Francis Godolphin, great grandfather of the lord treasurer Godolphin, and had by her two sons and three daughters. Francis, the elder son, was created knight of the bath at the coronation of king Charles the First, and Attended the earl of Denbigh in the expedition for the relief of ilochelle, where he acquired great reputation by his courage and conduct; but, being seized with a fit of sickness in his voyage homeward, he died in the Isle of Wight, on the 4th of June, 1628, at the age of twenty-seven.

“In Lloyd’s Worthies, Carew is likewise called ‘elaborate and accurate.’ However the fact might be, the internal evidence of his poems says no such thing. Hume has properly remarked, that Waller’s pieces ‘aspire not to the sublime, still less to the pathetic.’ Carew, in his beautiful masque, has given us instances of the former; and, in his Epitaph on Lady Mary Villiers, eminently of the latter.”

Though Carey had but little skill in music, he had a prolific invention, and very early in his life distinguished himself by the composition of songs, being the author both of the words and music. One of these, beginning “Of all the girls that are so smart,” and since its late revival, known by the name of “Sally in our alley,” he set to an air so very pleasant and original, as still to retain its popular character. Addison praised it for the poetry, and Genii niani for the tune. In 1715 he produced two farces, one of which, “The Contrivances,” had considerable success. In 1720 he published a small collection of “Poems;” and in 1722, a farce called “Hanging and Marriage.” In 1732 he published six “Cantatas,” written and composed by himself; and about the same time composed several songs for the “Provoked Husband” and other modern comedies. In 1729, he published, by subscription, his poems much enlarged, with the addition of one entitled “Namby Pamby,” in ridicule of Ambrose Phillips’s lines on the infant daughter of lord Carteret. Carey’s talent lay in broad, burlesque humour; and in ridicule of the bombast of modern tragedies, he produced his “Chrononhotonthologos,*' in 1734, which will always be in season, as long as extravagance and bombast are encouraged on the stage. He also wrote a farce called the” Honest Yorkshireman,“which was very successful: two interludes,” Nancy,“and 46 Thomas and Sally,” and two serious operas, “Amelia,” set to music by John Frederic Lampe, and “Teraminta,” by John Christopher Smith, Handel’s disciple, friend, and successor, in superintending the performance of oratorios. The year 1737 was rendered memorable at Coventgarden theatre by the success of the burlesque opera of the “Dragon of Wantley,” written by Carey, and set by Lampe, “after the Italian manner.” This excellent piece of humour had run twenty-two nights, when it was stopped, with all other public amusements, by the death of her majesty queen Caroline, November 20, but was resumed again on the opening of the theatres in January following, and supported as many representations as the Beggar’s Opera had done, ten years before. And if Gay’s original intention in writing his musicaldrama was to ridicule the opera, the execution of his plan was not so happy as that of Carey; in which the mock heroic, tuneful monster, recitative, splendid habits, and style of music, all conspired toremind the audience of what they had seen and heard at the lyric theatre, more effectually than the most vulgar street tunes could do; and much more innocently than the tricks and transactions of abandoned thieves and prostitutes. Lampe’s music to this farcical drama, was not only excellent fifty years ago, but is still modern and in good taste. In 1738, “Margery, or the Dragoness,” a sequel to the “Dragon of Wantley,” written with equal humour, and as well set by Lampe, came out; but had the fate of all sequels. When the novelty of a subject is faded away, and the characters have been developed, it is difficult to revive the curiosity of the public about persons and things of which opinions are already formed. The “Dragoness” appeared but few nights, and was never revived.

, son of the above, inherited a considerable portion of his father’s taste and spirit, and much of his misfortunes. He was intended for a printer, but his “stage-struck mind' 7 led him to the theatres, in which he had little success, yet enough to give him a wandering unsettled disposition. For forty years, he employed himself in composing and singing a vast number of popular songs, chiefly of the patriotic kind, in which there was not much genuine poetry, or cultivated music. These he performed from town to town, in what he called 4t Lectures.” He wrote also from 1766 to 1792, several farces, a list of which may be seen in the Biographia Dramatica, and by the performance of which he earned temporary supplies. Like his father, he excluded every thing indecent or immoral from his compositions. Besides these dramatic pieces, he wrote, 1. “Analects in prose and verse,” 1771, 2 vols. 2. “A Lecture on Mimickry,” a talent in which he excelled, 1776. 3. “A Rural Ramble,” 1777 and 4. '< Balnea, or sketches of the different Watering-places in England," 1799. He died July 14, 1807, aged sixty-four, being born the year his father died, and was buried by a subscription among his friends, having never realized any property, or indeed having been ever anxious but for the passing hour.

In December 1625, soon after his return to England, he was appointed vice chamberlain of his majesty’s household, and at the same time was joined with earl Holland in an embassy to France, respecting the restitution of the ships, which had been lent to Louis XIII. and were employed against the Rochellers; to obtain a peace for the French protestants agreeably to former edicts, and to obtain the French accession to the treaty of the Hague. Although all these objects were not attained in the fullest intention, yet the ambassadors were thought entitled to commendation for their firm and prudent management of the various conferences. On their return in March 1625-6, they found the parliament sitting, and the nation inflamed to the highest degree at the mismanagement of public affairs. At this crisis, sir Dudley Carleton, who represented Hastings in Sussex, endeavoured to mitigate the violence of the commons in their impeachment of the duke of Buckingham; but his arguments, although not well suited to the humour of the time, were acceptable at court, and immediately after he was called up to the house of peers by the style and title of Baron Carleton of Imbercourt in the county of Surrey: and his next employment was more fully adapted to his talents. This was an embassy-extraordinary to France to justify the sending away of the queen of England’s French servants, which he managed with his usual skill.

It was the doctrine of the new academy, that the senses, the understanding, and the imagination, frequently deceive us, and therefore cannot be infallible judges of truth; but that, from the impressions which we perceive to be produced on the mind, by means of the senses, we infer appearances of truth, or probabilities. These impressions Carneades called phantasies, or images. He maintained, that they do not always correspond to the real nature of things, and that there is no infallible method of determining when they are true or false, and consequently that they afford no certain criterion of truth. Nevertheless, with respect to the conduct of life, and the pursuit of happiness, Carneades held, that probable appearances are a sufficient guide, because it is unreasonable not to allow some degree of credit to those witnesses who commonly give a true report. Probabilities he divided into three classes; simple, uncontradicted, and confirmed by accurate examination. The lowest degree of probability takes place, where the mind, in -the casual occurrence of any single image, perceives in it nothing contrary to truth and nature; the second degree of probability arises, when contemplating any object in connection with all the circumstances associated with it, we discover no appearance of inconsistency, or incongruity, to lead us to suspect that our senses have given a false report; as, when we conclude, from comparing the image of any individual man with our remembrance of that man, that he is the person we supposed him to be. The highest degree of probability is produced, when, after an accurate examination of every circumstance which might be supposed to create uncertainty, we are able to discover no fallacy in the report of our senses. The judgments arising from this operation of the mind are, according to the doctrine of the new academy, not science, but opinion, which is all the knowledge that the human mind is capable of attaining. Carneades, as Cicero has related at large, strenuously opposed the doctrine of the Stoics concerning the gods, and was likewise desirous of refuting their doctrine concerning fate. On this subject, he assumed on the ground of experience, the existence of a self-determining power in man, and hence inferred that all things did not happen, as the stoics maintained, in a necessary series of causes and effects, and consequently, that it is impossible for the gods to predict events dependent on the will of man. As" the foundation of morals, he taught, that the ultimate end of life is the enjoyment of those things, towards which we are directed by the principles of nature. Such, according to Brucker, is the general idea which the ancients have left us concerning the doctrine of Carneades: but after all, it must be owned, that his real tenets are not certainly known. Even his immediate successor, Clitomachus, confessed that he was never able to discover them.

Thus far Carolostadt appears in a light which was acceptable at least to the friends of the reformation; but about 1521, when Luther was in retirement, he betrayed a violence of temper which has been equally censured by catholics and protestants. Not content with promoting in a legal and quiet way the auspicious beginnings of reformation which had already appeared at Wittemberg, in the gradual omission and rejection of the private mass and other popish superstitions, he headed a multitude of unthinking impetuous youths, inflamed their minds by popular harangues, and led them on to actions the most extravagant and indefensible. They entered the great church of All Saints, broke in pieces the crucifixes and other images, and threw down the altars. He also went so far as to assert that human learning was useless, if not injurious to a student of the scriptures; frequented the shops of the lowest mechanics, and consulted them about the meaning of the scriptures. He would be called no longer by the appellation of Doctor, or any other honourable title, but employed himself in rustic occupations, and maintained that thinking persons stood in no need of learning, and had better labour with their hands. In consequence of such example and conversation, the young academics of Wittemberg left the university, and ceased to pursue their studies, and even the schools of the boys were deserted. Such was his pride at the same time, that he avowed to Melancthon that he wished to be as great and as much thought of as Luther.

Carolostadt now wandered from place to place through the higher Germany, and at length made a pause at Rotenburgh, where, as usual, he soon raised tumults, and incited the people to pull down the statues and paintings. When the seditious faction of the peasants, with Munzer their ringleader, was effectually suppressed, he became in the greatest difficulties, and even in danger of his life from his supposed connection with these enthusiastic rebels, and he narrowly escaped, through being let down by the wall of the town in a basket. Thus reduced to the last extremities, he and his wife incessantly intreatedboth the elector and Luther that they might be allowed to return into their own country. He said, he could clear himself of having had any concern in the rebellion; and if not, he would cheerfully undergo any punishment that could be inflicted upon him. With this view he wrote a little tract, in which he takes much pains to justify himself from the charge of sedition: and he sent a letter likewise to Luther, in which he earnestly begs his assistance in the publishing of the tract, as well as in the more general design of establishing his innocence. Luther immediately published Carolostadt’s letter, and called on the magistrates and on the people to give him a fair hearing. In this he succeeded; and Carolostadt was recalled about -the autumn of 1525, and then made a public recantation of what he had advanced on the sacrament, a condescension which did not procure a complete reconciliation between him and the other reformers, and indeed affords but a sorry proof of his consistency. We find Carolostadt, after this, at Zurich and at Basil, where he was appointed pastor and professor of divinity, and where he died with the warmest effusions of piety and resignation, ijec. 25, 1541, or 1543. He was a man of considerable learning, hut his usefulness both as a reformer and writer was perpetually obstructed by the turbulence of his temper, and his misguided zeal in endeavouring to promote that by violence which the other reformers projected only through the medium of reason and argument. That he should be censured by Moreri, Bossuet, and other Roman catholic writers, is not surprising, for he afforded too much ground of accusation; but it is more inexcusable in Mosheim, Beausobre, and some other ecclesiastical historians, to throw the blame of his banishment and restless life on Luther, and highly absurd to insinuate that the latter was jealous of his fame. The comparative merits of the conduct of Luther and Carolostadt throughout their whole connection, have been examined with great candour and perspicuity by Milner. One singularity in Carolostadt’s character still remains to be noticed, namely, that he was the first protestant divine who took a wife. His works were numerous, but are now fallen into oblivion. His followers, who for some time retained the name of Carolostadtians, were also denominated Sacramentarians and agree in most things with the Zuinglians.

He published the following sermons: 1. “The perfect Law of God, being a sermon and no sermon, preached and yet not preached,” 1652, 8vo. 2. “Astrology proved harmless, useful, pious; on Gen. i. 14. 'And let them be for signs’,” Lond. 1657, 4to; dedicated to Elias Ashmole. At the end of the epistle dedicatory is Richard Carpenter’s picture, with a face looking towards him, out of the mouth of which issues a serpent, and out of the serpent’s mouth fire. Underneath are written these words: “Ricardus Carpenterus porcello cuidam Gerasenorum, scilicet in omnia præcipiti, fluctibusque devoto, eidem porco loquaci pariter et minaci mendacique indicit silentium, et obmutescit.” 3. “Rome in her fruits,” preached the 1st of November 1662, near the Standard in Cheapside; in ansuer to a pamphlet entitled Reasons why the Roman Catholics should not be persecuted,“Lond. 1663, 4to, on Matth. vii. 16. There is extant by the same author, a treatise entitled” Experience, History, and Divinity, in five books,“Lond. 16'I2, 8vo, dedicated to the parliament then, sitting; with his picture before it. This book was republished in 1648, under the title of” The Downfall of Antichrist.“It contains several particulars of his personal history, and exposes many of the practices of the Romish missionaries, but the style, as in all his works, is quaint and extravagant. Granger thinks he must have studied the Spanish romances to produce the following beauty, prefixed to the list of errata:” I humbly desire all cleanhearted and right-spirited people, who shall readc this book (which because the prosse was oppressed, seems to have been suppressed, when it was by little and little impressed; but now at least hath pressed through the presse into the publicke) first to restore it by correcting the following errata.“His comedy, called” The pragmatical Jesuit,“came out after the Restoration. The picture before it represents him in.a very genteel lay-habit; whereas that before his” Experience," &c. exhibits him in the dress of a formal clergyman, with a mortified countenance. Mr. Langbainc speaks with some commendation of this play.

, an artist who from the place of his nativity was called Pontormo, had great natural ingenuity, and was in his earliest works admired by Raphael and Michel Angelo. He had had a few lessons from Lionardo da Vinci; after him from Albertinelli made some progress under Pier di Cosimo; and finished by entering the school of Andrea del Sarto, whose jealousy and ungenerous treatment, from a scholar, soon turned him into a rival. With such talents he became the victim of inconstancy, roaming from style to style. The Certosa of Florence exhibits specimens of the three different manners commonly ascribed to him. The first is correct in design, vigorous in colour, and approaches the style of Andrea del Sarto. The second, with good drawing combines a languid tone, and became the model of Bronzino and the subsequent epoch. The third is a downright imitation of Albert Durer, aod at present can only be found in some histories from the Passion in the cloister of that monastery, which are neither more nor less than copies from the prints of Albert. To these, perhaps, a fourth manner might be added, if the frescos of the General Deluge and Universal Judgment, on which he spent eleven years in S. Lorenzo, and his last work, had not been whitewashed, with the tacit acquiescence of all contemporary artists. In this labour he strove to emulate Michel Angelo, and to exemplify, like him, anatomic skill, which was then becoming the favourite pursuit of Florentine art. He died in 1558, aged sixty-five.

, a political character of considerable fame in Scotland, was the descendant of an ancient family, and born in 1649 at Cathcart in Glasgow. He was educated in divinity and philosophy at Edinburgh and Utrecht, to which his father sent him that he might avoid the political contests which disturbed the reign of Charles II. but he had a zeal which prompted him to interfere in what regarded his country, although removed from it, and he must have given some proofs of a talent for political affairs at a very early period. When England was alarmed about the popish succession, Carstares was introduced to the pensionary Fagel, and afterwards to the prince of Orange, and entrusted with his designs relating to British affairs. During his residence in Holland, his principles both in religion and politics, were strongly confirmed; and upon his return to his native country he entered with zeal into the counsels and schemes of those noblemen and gentlemen who opposed the tyrannical measures of government; and although about this time he took orders in the Scotch church, his mind seemed to have acquired such a decided bias towards towards politics, that he determined to revisit Holland. On his way thither he passed through London, and was employed by Argyle, and the other Scots patriots, in treating with the English, who were for excluding the duke of York from succession to the crown. Towards the close of 1682, he held various conferences with the heads of that party, which terminated in his being privy to what has been called the “Rye-house plot.” Accordingly, he was committed to close custody in the Gate-house, Westminster. After several examinations before the privy council, he was sent for trial to Scotland; and as he refused to give any information respecting the authors of the exclusion scheme, he was put to the torture, which he endured with invincible firmness, but yielded to milder methods of a more insidious nature, and when a pardon was proposed, with an assurance that no advantage should be taken of his answers as evidence against any person, he consented to answer their interrogatories. The privy-council immediately caused to be printed a paper, entitled, “Mr. Carstares’s Confession,” which contained, as he said, a false and mutilated account of the whole transaction; and in direct violation of their promise, they produced this evidence in open court against one of his most intimate friends. This treachery and its conquences very deeply affected him; but as soon as he was cleared, he obtained permission to retire to Holland, towards the close of 1684, or the beginning of 1685, where he was kindly received by the prince of Orange, who appointed him one of his chaplains, caused him to be elected minister of the English protestant congregation at Leyden; and when the prince determined to transport an army to England, Carstares accompanied him as his chaplain, and continued about his person till the settlement of the crown. During the whole of this reign he was the chief agent between the church of Scotland and the court, and contributed by his influence with the king to the establishment of presbytery in Scotland, to which his majesty was disinclined, and to a degree of coalescence or accommodation on the part of the presbyterian clergy with the episcopalians. When an act was passed in 1693, by the Scots parliament, obliging all officers, civil and ecclesiastical, to take an oath of allegiance, and also to sign an assurance (as it was called) declaring William to be king dejure, as well as de facto, the ministers refused to sign the declaration, and appealed to the privy council, who recommended to the king to enforce the obligation. Accordingly, measures were adopted for this purpose; and the body of the clergy applied to Carstares, requesting his interference in their favour. The king persisted in his resolution; orders were renewed in peremptory terms, and dispatches were actually delivered to the messenger to be forwarded next morning. In these critical circumstances Carstares hastened to the messenger at night, demanded the dispatches, which had been delivered to him in the king’s name, and instantly repaired to Kensington, where he found his majesty gone to bed. Having obtained admission into his chamber, he gently waked him, fell on his knees, and asked pardon for the intrusion, and the daring act of disobedience of which he had been guilty. The king at first expressed his displeasure; but when Carstares further stated the case, his majesty caused the dispatches to be thrown into the fire, and directed him to send such instructions to the royal commissioners of the general assembly as he thought most conducive to the public good. In consequence of this seasonable interposition, the oath and assurance were dispensed with on the part of the clergy. By this timely service Carstares acquired the confidence of the presbyterian party to such a degree, and so successfully cultivated the friendship of the earl of Portland, and other men of influence about the court, that he was regarded in the management of Scotch affairs, as a kind of viceroy for Scotland, though he possessed no public character. All applications passed through his hands, all employments, honours, and offices of state, were left to his disposal; and without public responsibility, he engrossed the secret direction of public affairs. Few Scotchmen obtained access to the king, unless through his intervention; and in his correspondence with every department, says a late historian, it is curious to remark how the haughty nobility condescended to stoop and truckle to a presbyterianx clergyman, whom their predecessors in office had tortured and deceived. His moderation, secrecy, and a prudence apparently disinterested, recommended him to king William, who once said of him, in the presence of several of his courtiers, “that he had long known Mr. Carstares; that he knew him well, and knew him to be an honest man” He is represented on the other hand, as a cunning, subtle, insinuating priest, whose dissimulation was impenetrable; an useful friend when sincere; but, from an air of smiling sincerity, a dangerous enemy.

Besides the works mentioned, he was the author of the following publications: 1. “A collection of original letters and papers, concerning the affairs of England, from 1641 to 1660,” 1739, 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “The History of the Revolutions of Portugal, from the foundation of that kingdom to the year 1567, with letters of sir Robert Southwell, during his embassy there, to the duke of Ormonde; giving a particular account of the deposing don Alphonso, and placing don Pedro on the throne,” 1740, 8vo. 3. “A full Answer to the Letter from a bystander,” a pamphlet, 1742, 8vo. 4. “A full and clear vindication of the full answer to a Letter from a bystander,” ditto, 1743. The letter from a bystander, was written by the late Corbyn Morris, esq. 5. “Catalogue des rolles Gascons, Normans, et Francois, conserves dans les archives de la Tour de Londres; tire* d‘apres celui du Garde* desdites archives; & contenant la precis & le sommaire de tous les titres qui s’y trouvent concernant la Guienne, la Normandie, & les autres provinces de la France, sujettes autres fois auX rois d’Angleterre, &c.” Paris, 1743, 2 vols. folio, with two most exact and correct indexes of places and persons. This valuable collection, being calculated for the use of the French, is introduced with a preface in that language. 6. “A preface to a translation, by Mrs. Thompson, of the history of the memorable and extraordinary calamities of Margaret of Anjou, queen of England, &c. by the chevalier Michael Baudier,” London, 1736, 8vo. 7. “Advice of a Mother to her son and daughter,” translated from the French of the marchioness de Lambert. This has gone through several editions. 8. “Farther reasons, addressed to parliament, for rendering more effectual an act of queen Anne, relating to the vesting in authors the right of copies, for the encouragement of learning, by R. H.” about 1737. Mr. Carte wrote, also, a paper (the ms. of which is in Mr. Nichols’s possession), recommending a public library to be formed at the Mansion-house, and that the twelve great companies of the city of London should each of them subscribe 2,000l. for that purpose. No notice appears to have been taken of this proposal at the time, but very lately, 1806, in the mayoralty of sir James Shaw, bart. and at the suggestion of that magistrate, the foundation of a library at the Mansion-house was laid, and a fine collection of English classics deposited there, by a vote of the court of aldermen, under the direction of John Nichols, esq. then a member of the corporation, who was assisted in the selection by the late very learned professor Porson. A translation, of Mr. Carte’s General History of England into French, was undertaken by several gentlemen in conjunction, but was never completed. Some parts of the translation were in Dr. Ducarel’s possession. Mr. Carte left behind him, in ms. a Vindication of Charles I. with regard to the Irish massacre. In 1758 was published a book, partly upon the same subject, entitled “The case of the royal martyr considered with candour,” in 2 vols. 8vo, the author of which acknowledges his obligations to Mr. Carte. It was written by the rev. J. Boswell, M. A. a clergyman and a schoolmaster, at Taunton, in Somersetshire, and the author of a “Method of Study, or a useful library,” printed in 1738, in 8vo, a work of no distinguished merit; and of two pamphlets, called “Remarks on the Free and Candid Disquisitions,” which appeared in 1750 and 1751.

In 1782 an event occurred, which once more disturbed the uniformity of Mrs. Carter’s life: she had been under great obligations to sir William Pulteney, who very liberally settled on her an annuity of 150l. a year, which it had been expected by her friends that lord Bath would have done. She therefore complied with his wishes to accompany his daughter to Paris, though she was now in her sixty-fifth year. She was only absent sixteen days, of which one week was spent at Paris. Mrs. Carter was not insensible to the fatigues and inconveniencies of her journey, but her sense of them yielded to her friendship. At home, however, she was able to enjoy summer tours, which doubtless contributed to her health and amusement. In 1791, she had the honour, by the queen’s express desire, of being introduced to her majesty at lord Cremorne’s house at Chelsea, an incident which naturally reminds us of a similar honour paid to her friends, Dr. Johnson at Buckingham-house, and Dr. Beattie at Kew. Afterwards, when the princess of Wales occupied lord Keith’s house in the Isle of Thanet, she called on Mrs. Carter at her house at Deal and the duke of Cumberland, when attending his regiment at Deal, also paid her a visit. Such was her reputation many years after she had ceased to attract public notice as an author, and when the common mass of readers scarcely knew whether such a person existed.

, a loyalist in the time of Charles f. of uncommon firmness and bravery, the descendant of an ancient family, originally from Normandy, but afterwards settled at Guernsey and Jersey, was born at Jersey in 1599, his father Ilelier Carteret, esq. being at that time deputy governor of the island. He entered early into the sea service, and had acquired the character of an experienced officer, when king Charles I. ascended the throne. This circumstance recommending him to the notice and esteem of the duke of Buckingham, he was appointed, in 1626, joint governor of Jersey, with Henry, afterwards lord Jermyn and, in 1C '6 9, he obtained a grant of the office and place of comptroller of all his Majesty’s ships. At the commencement of the civil war, when the parliament resolved to send out the earl of Warwick as admiral of the fleet, they also resolved, that captain Carteret should be vice-ad miral. But he, thinking that he ought not to accept the command without knowing the royal pleasure, addressed himself to the king for direction, who ordered him to decline the employment; and captain, Batten, surveyor-general, was substituted in his place. His Majesty was probably mistaken in this advice; for, if captain Carteret had accepted of the charge, he might probably have prevented the greater part of the fleet from engaging in the cause of the parliament. Captain Carteret, however, likewise quitted the post of comptroller, and retired, with his family, to the island of Jersey, the inhabitants of which were confirmed by him in their adherence to the king; and desirous of more active service, he transported himself into Cornwall, with the purpose of raising a troop of horse. When he arrived in that country, finding there was a great want of powder, he went into France to procure that and other necessary supplies; and was so successful, that, through the remainder of the war, the Cornish army was never destitute of ammunition. This was so important and seasonable a service, that the king acknowledged it by particular approbation; and by conferring upon him, at Oxford, the honour of knighthood, which was speedily followed by his being advanced, on the 9th of May 1645, to the dignity, of a baronet. Returning the same year into Jersey, he found that several of the inhabitants had been induced to embrace the cause of the parliament, on which account he threw some of them into confinement. This was so alarming and offensive to the members at Westminster, that an order was made, that if, for the future, he should put to death any of the island whom he should take prisoners, for every one so slain, three of the king’s men should be hung up. From the words here used, it seems implied that sir George Carteret had actually executed some one or more of the people of Jersey who had appeared for the Parliament; a step highly injudicious, whence, in all the subsequent propositions for peace with the king, sir George was excepted from pardon. When the prince of Wales, and many persons of distinction with him, came into Jersey in 1646, and brought with them very little for their subsistence, they were all chear fully entertained, and at a large expence, by sir George Carteret who, being sensible how much it behoved him to take care for supplies, equipped about half a score small frigates and privateers, which soon struck a terror through the whole channel, and made a number of captures. Upon the prince’s leaving the island, at the positive command of the queen, several of the council chose to stay with sir George; au<=! the chancellor of the exchequer (afterwards earl of Clarendon) resided with him above two years. After the death of the king, sir George Carteret, though the republican party was completely triumphant, and though Charles II. was at the Hague in a very destitute condition, immediately proclaimed him at Jersey, with all his titles. Some months afterwards his Majesty determined to pay a second visit to the island of Jersey, and arrived in the latter end of September 1649, accompanied by his brother the duke of York, with several of the nobility. Here they were supplied by sir George with all necessaries. The king, when prince of Wales, had procured his father’s leave for making sir George Carteret his vice-chamberlain, and he now appointed him treasurer of his navy; which however, at this time, chiefly consisted of the privateers that sir George hue! provided, and of the men of war with prince Rupert. Charles II. staid in the island till the latter end of March 1650, when he embarked for Holland, in order to be more commodiously situated for treating with the Scots, who had invited him into that kingdom. This defiance of sir George Carteret in harbouring the king, and taking many of their trading vessels, enraged the republicans so much, that they determined to exert every nerve for the reduction of Jersey. A formidable armament being prepared, it put to sea in October 1651, under the command of admiral Blake, and major-general Holmes, to the last of whom the charge of the forces for the descent was committed. In this crisis, sir George Carteret prevented the landing of the republican army as long as possible; and when that was effected, and the remaining forts of the island were taken, he retired into Elizabeth castle, resolving to hold it out to the last extremity. The king being safely arrived in France, after the, fatal battle of Worcester, sir George informed him of the state of the garrison, but the king not being able to assist him, he advised sir George Carteret, rather to accept of a reasonable composition, than, by too obstinate a defence, to bring himself and the loyal gentlemen who were with him into danger of being made prisoners of war. Sir George was ambitious that Elizabeth castle should be the last of the king’s garrisons (as was in fact the case) which should yield to the prevailing powers. He determined, therefore, to conceal his majesty’s permission to treat, that the knowledge of it might not renew the cry for a surrender. But, at length, provisions growing scarce, the number of defenders lessening daily by death and desertion, and there being no possibility of supplies or recruits, Elizabeth castle was surrendered in the? latter end of December, and sir George went first to St. Maloes, and afterwards travelled through several parts of Europe. To facilitate his reception at the different courts and places he might be disposed to visit, he obtained from his royal master a very honourable and remarkable certificate of recommendation. In 1657, sir George had given such offence to Oliver Cromwell, by some hostile design or attempt against the English vessels trading to the French ports, that, by the Protector’s interest with cardinal Mazarine, he was committed prisoner to the Bastile from which he was, after some time, released by the intercession of his friends, upon condition of his quitting France. In 1659, however, we find him at Rheims, from whence, he repaired to the king at Brussels, and followed him to Breda. Upon his majesty’s being restored to his kingdoms, sir George Carteret rode, with him in his triumphant entry into the city of London, on the 2<nh of May 1660, and next day he was declared vice-chamberlain of the hoiishold, an-d sworn of the privy council. He was also constituted treasurer of the navy; and at the coronation of the king, he had the honour of being almoner for the day. In the first parliament called by Charles II. in May, 1661, sir George Carteret was elected representative for the corporation of Portsmouth; and it appears, that he was au active member of the house. When the duke of York, 1673, resigned the office of high admiral of England, sir George was constituted one of the commissioners of the admiralty; and“in 1676, he was appointed one of the lords of the committee of trade. He was also vice-treasurer of Ireland, and treasurer of the military forces there. At length, in consequence of his merit and services, the king determined to raise him to the dignity of a peerage; but before the design could be accomplished, he departed this life, on the 14th of January, 1679, being nearly eighty years of age. On the 11th of February following, a royal warrant was issued, in which it is recited,” That whereas sir George Carteret died before his patent for his barony was sued out, liis Majesty authorizes Elizabeth, his widow, and her youngest children, James Carteret, Caroline, wife of sir Thomas S<:ot, kut. and Louisa, wife of sir Robert Atkins, knt. to enjoy their precedency and pre-eminency, as if the said sir George Carterei hail actually been created a baron." Sir George’s rldest son, by his jady Elizabeth, who was his cousin-gr nnan, being the daughter of sir PhiUp Carteret, was ijained Philip after his grandfather. This gentleman eminently distinguished himself in the civil wars, and was khighted by Charles II on his arrival in Jersey. After the king’s restoration, sir Philip Carteret married Jemima, daughter of Edward Montague, the first earl of Sandwich, and perished with that illustrious nobleman, in the great sea-fight with the Dutch, in Solbay, on the 28th of May, 1672. Sir Philip determined, whilst many others left the ship, to share the fate of his father-in-law. His eldest son George was the first lord Carteret, and father to the subject of the following article.

, earl Granville, one of the most distinguished orators and statesmen of the last century, was born on the 22d of April, 1690. His father was George lord Carteret, baron Carteret, of Hawnes in the county of Bedford, having been so created on the 19th of October 1681, when he was only fifteen years of age and his mother was lady Grace, youngest daughter of John earl of Bath. He succeeded his father when only in his fifth year. He was educated at Westminster school, from which he was removed to Christ-church Oxford in both which places he made such extraordinary improvements, that he became one of the most learned young noblemen of his time; and he retained to the last his knowledge and love of literature. Dr. Swift humorously asserts, that he carried away from Oxford, with a singularity scarcely to be justified, more Greek, Latin, and philosophy, than properly became a person of his rank; indeed, much more of each, than most of those who are forced to live by their learning will be at the unnecessary pains to load their heads with. Being thus accomplished, lord Carteret was qualified to make an early figure in life. As soon as he was introduced into the house of peers, which was on the 25th of May, 1711, he distinguished himself by his ardent zeal for the protestant succession, which procured him the eariy notice of king George 1. by whom he was appointed, in 1714, one of the lords of the bed-chamber in 1715, bailiff of the island of Jersey and in 1716, lord lieutenant and custis rotulorum of the county of Devon which last office he held till August 1721, when he resigned it in favour of Hugh lord Clinton. His mother also, lady Grace, was created viscountess Carteret and countess Grai>ville, by letters patent, bearing date on the first of January, 1714-15, with limitation of these honours to her son John lord Carteret. His lordship, though still young, became, from the ea.ly part of king George the First’s reign, an eminent speaker in the house of peers. The first instance of the display of his eloquence, was in the famous debate on the bill for lengthening the duration of Parliaments, in which he supported the duke of Devonshire’s motion for the repeal of the triennial act. On the 18th of February, 17 t 7- 18, he spoke in behalf of the bill for punishing mutiny and desertion; and in the session of parliament which met on the llth of November following, he moved, for the address of thanks to the king, to congratulate his majesty on the seasonable success of his naval forces; and to assume him, that the house would support him in the pursuit of those prudent and necessary measures he had taken to secure the trade and quiet of his dominions, and the tranquillity of Europe. In Jan. 1718-19 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the queen of Sweden, with whom his first business was to, remove the difficulties which the British subjects had met with* Jo their commerce in the Baltic, and to procure satisfaction for the losses they had sustained; and in both he completely succeeded. On the 6th of November, 1719, lord Carteret first took upon him the character of ambassador extraordinary ana plenipotentiary; at which time, in a private audience, he offered his royal master’s mediation t<v make peace between Sweden and Denmark, and between Sweden and the Czar; both of which were readily accepted by the queen. A peace between Sweden, Prussia, and Hanover, having been concluded by lord Carteret, it was proclaimed at Stockholm on the 9th of March, 1719-L'O. This was the prelude to a reconciliation between Sweden and Denmark, which he also effected, and the treaty was signed July 3, 1720. In August his lordship was appointed, together with earl Stanhope and sir Robert Siutcm, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at the congress of Cambray but whether he acted in this capacity does not appear. From Denmark, however, he arrived in England Dec. 5, and a few weeks after took a share in the debates on the state of the national credit, occasioned by the unfortunate and iniquitous effects of the South-Sea scheme, maintaining that the estates of the criminals, whether directors or not directors, ought to be confiscated. Whilst this affair was in agitation, he was appointed ambassador extraordinary to the court of France, and was on the point of setting out, when the death of secretary Craggs induced his majesty to appoint lord Carteret his successor, May 4, 1721, and next day he was admitted into office, and sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy council. Whilst lord Carteret was secretary of state, he not only discharged the general duties of his employment to the satisfaction of his royal master, but ably defended in parliament the measures of administration. This he did in the debate concerning Mr. Law, the famous projector of the Mississippi scheme, whose arrival in England, in 1721, by the connivance, as it was thought, and even under the sanction of the ministry, excited no small degree of disgust; and he also took a part on the side of government, in th debate on the navy debt, and with regard to the various other motions and bills of the session. In the new parliament, which met on the llth of October, 1722, his lordship, on occasion of Layer’s plot, spoke in favour of suspending the habeas corpus act for one year; acquainted the house with the bishop of Rochester’s, lord NortU and Grey’s, and the earl of Orrery’s commitment to the Tower; and defended the motion for the imprisonment of the duke of Norfolk. In all the debates concerning this conspiracy, and particularly with regard to Atterbury, lord Carteret vindicated the proceedings of the tectart; as he did, likewise, in the case of the act for laying an extraordinary tax upon papists. On the 26th of May, 1723, when the king’s affairs called him abroad, his lordship was appointed one of the lords justices of the kingdom; but notwithstanding this, he went to Hanover, in conjunction with lord Townshend, the other secretary; and both these noblemen, in their return to England, had several conferences at the Hague, with the principal persons of the Dutch administration, on subjects of importance. In the session of parliament, January, 1723-4, lord Carteret, in the debate on the mutiny bill, supported the necessity of eighteen thousand men being kept up, as the number of land- forces, in opposition to lord Trevor, who had moved that the four thousand additional men, who had been raised the year before, should be discontinued., Not many days after this debate, several alterations took place at court. Lord Carteret quitted the office of secretary of state, in which he was succeeded by the duke of Newcastle; and on the same day, being the third of April, 1724, he was constituted lord -lieutenant of Ireland, and in October arrived at Dublin, where he was received with the usual solemnity. The Irish were at that time in a great ferment about the patent for Wood’s halfpence, which makes so signal a figure in the life and writings of Dr. Swift. One of the first things done by the lord-lieutenant was to publish a proclamation, offering a reward of three hundred pounds for a discovery of the author of the Drapier’s Letters. When he was asked, by Dr. Swift, howhe could concur in the prosecution of a poor honest fellow, who had been guilty of no other crime than that of writing three or four letters for the good of his country, his excellency replied, in the words of Virgil,

His lordship, however, kept on good terms with Swift, and obliged him by conferring preferment on Dr. Sheridan, and others of his friends. Even in the Drapier’s Letters, the dean expressed a very high opinion of the lord- lieutenant. Besides revoking Wood’s patent, lord Carteret’s administration was, in other respects, very acceptable and beneficial to the Irish. He discharged the duties of his high station, in general, with wisdom and fidelity, and the people were happy under his government. After the close of the session in March, 1725-6, his lordship having constituted lords justices during his absence, embarked for England, where he arrived in May, 1726, and received his majesty’s approbation of his prudent conduct. On the 24th of January, 1726-7, lord Carteret ably defended the king’s speech, which had been warmly animadverted upon by the opposition. On the 31st of May, 1727, he was appointed one of the chief justices during his majesty’s absence, and upon the decease of George I. who died suddenly at Osnabrug, in his way to Hanover, on the llth of June, 1727, lord Carteret was one of the old privy council who assembled at Leicester house, where the new king was proclaimed. This was on the 14th of June, and the same day he was sworn of his majesty’s privy council. On the 29th of July following, he was again appointed lord lieutenant and chief governor of the kingdom of Ireland, and having arrived there, the parliament was opened, by his excellency, Nov. 28, and the session continued till the 6th of May, 1728, when he gave the royal assent to twenty public acts, and concluded with a speech, expressive of his high regard for the welfare of the kingdom. After this, he embarked for England, but in 1729, returned again to Ireland, and held another session of parliament, which began on the 23d of September, and on the 15th of April, 1730. His lordship’s second vicegerency over the Irish nation was as popular, if not more so, as the first. His polite and sociable manners were highly acceptable to all ranks of people. What particularly recommended him was, his being above the little distinctions of party. He maintained a good correspondence with several of those who were called or reputed tories, and occasionally distributed a few preferments, of no great significance, in that line. This having excited the complaint of some of the bigotted whigs, gave occasion to a facetious and sensible tract of Dr. Swift’s, entitled, “A Vindication of his excellency John lord Carteret, from the charge of favouring none but Tories, Highchurch-men, and Jacobites.” With Dr. Swift the lordlieutenant appears to have maintained a strict friendship; and he was solicitous to act agreeably to the dean’s views of the interest of the kingdom. In one of his letters, written to the dean some years afterwards, he thus expresses himself; “When people ask me how I governed Ireland? I say, that I pleased Dr. Swift.” The preferments which his excellency bestowed, at the instance of the dean of St. Patrick’s, were conferred on learned and worthy men, who did not disgrace their recommender; and whatever may be thought of the pride, petulance, and peculiarities of Swift} it cannot rationally be denied, that he was sincerely devoted to the welfare of the Irish nation. His lordship, having continued the usual time allotted to his high office, quitted it in 1730, and was succeeded by the duke of Dorset.

, whose proper name was Forteguerra, an eminent Italian scholar, was born of a good family at Pistoia in Tuscany, Feb. 4, 1467. He was at first educated at a college in Pistoia called “la Sapienza de' Forteguerri,” from a cardinal of that name who founded it for the benefit of twelve students, three of whom should he of the family of Forteguerra. He studied afterwards at Rome and Florence, where Politian was his Greek preceptor. In 1500, the senate of Venice appointed him to teach Greek in that city, and his reputation for knowledge of that language was most extensive. He was afterwards invited to Rome by pope Julius II. who appointed him preceptor to his nephew, the cardinal Galeotto and Leo X. is said to have chosen him in the same capacity for his cousin Julius de Medici; but whatever benefits might have accrued from this or other instances of Leo’s favour, were prevented by Carteromachus’s death, Oct. 1G, 1513. He is indebted for his literary reputation rather to the numerous commendations of his contemporaries and friends than to his own writings, many of which are said to have been dispersed at his death, and usurped by others into whose hands they had fallen. Among those which remain is his “Oratio de laudibus literarum Graecarum,” Venice, 1504, 4to, Basil, 1517, and prefixed to Stephens’ s “Thesaurus Linguae Grasctf.” Several epigrams of his also are extant in Greek and Latin in the publications of the times. During his residence at Venice, he frequently acted as corrector of the Ahline press, and had a considerable hand in the edition of Ptolomy’s Geography printed at Rome in 1507, folio.

Very severe measures had now been adopted for several years against the puritans; on whose behalf a piece was published, intituled, “An admonition to the parliament;” to which were annexed, A letter from Beza to the earl of Leicester, and another from Gualter to bishop Parkhurst, recommending a reformation of church discipline. This work contained what was called the “platform of a church;” the manner of electing ministers; their several duties; and arguments to prove their equality in government. It also attacked the hierarchy, and the proceedings of the bishops, with much severity of language. The admonition was concluded with a petition to the two houses, that a discipline more consonant to the word of God, and agreeing with the foreign reformed churches, might be established by law. Mr. Field and Mr. Wilcox, authors of the admonition, and who attempted to present it to parliament, were committed to Newgate on the second of October 1572. Notwithstanding which, Mr. Cartwright, after his return to England,“wrote” a second admonition to the parliament,“with an humble petition to the two houses, for relief against the subscription required by the ecclesiastical commissioners. The same year Dr. Whitgift published an answer to the admonition: to which Mr. Cartwright published a reply in 1573; and aboat this time a proclamation was issued for apprehending him. In 1574 Dr. Whitgift published, in folio,” A defence of the answer to the admonition, against the reply of T. C.“In 1575 Mr. Cartwright published a second reply to Dr. Whitgift; and in 1577 appeared,” the rest of the second reply of Thomas Cartwright, against master Doctor Whitgift’s answer, touching the church discipline.“This seems to have been printed in Scotland; and it is certain, that before its publication Mr. Cartwright had found it necessary to leave the kingdom, whilst his opponent was raised to the bishopric of Worcester. Mr. Cartwright continued abroad about five years, during which time he officiated as a minister to some of the English factories. About the year 1580 James VI. king of Scotland, having a high opinion of his learning and abilities, sent to him, and offered him a professorship in the university of St. Andrew’s; but this he 'thought proper to decline. Upon his return to England, officers w.e re sent to apprehend him, as a promoter of sedition, and he was thrown into prison. He probably obtained his li­* berty through the interest of the lord treasurer Burleigh, and the earl of Leicester, by both of whom he was favoured: and the latter conferred upon him the mastership of the hospital which he had founded in Warwick. In 1583 he was earnestly persuaded, by several learned protestant divines, to write against the Rhemish translation of the New Testament. He was likewise encouraged in this design by the earl of Leicester and sir Francis Walsingham: and the latter sent him a hundred pounds towards the expences of the work. He accordingly engaged in it; but after some time received a mandate from archbishop Whitgift, prohibiting him from prosecuting the work any farther. Though he was much discouraged by this, he nearly completed the performance; but it was not published till many years after his death in 1618, fol. under the title” A Confutation of the Rhemish Translation, Glosses, and Annotations on the New Testament.“It is said, that queen Elizabeth sent to Beza, requesting him to undertake a work of this kind; but he declined it, declaring that Cartwright was much more capable of the task than himself. Notwithstanding the high estimation in which he was held, and his many admirers, in the year 1585 he was again committed to prison by Dr. Aylmer, bfshop of London; and that prelate gave some offence to the queen by making use of her majesty’s name on the occasion. When he obtained his liberty is not mentioned: but we find that in 1590, when he was at Warwick, he received a citation to appear in the starchamber, together with Edmund Snape, and some other puritan ministers, being charged with setting up a new discipline, and a new form of worship, and subscribing their names to stand to it. This was interpreted an opposition and disobedience to the established laws. Mr. Cartwright was also called upon to take the oath ex officio; but this he refused, and was committed to the Fleet. In May 1591 ije was sent for by bishop Ay liner to appear before him, and some others of the ecclesiastical commissioners, at that prelate’s house. He had no previous notice given him, to prevent any concourse of his adherents upon the occasion. The bishop threw out some reproaches against him, and again required him to take the oath ex officio. The attorney general did the same, and represented to him” how dangerous a thing it was that men should, upon the conceits of their own heads, and yet under colour of conscience, refuse the things that had been received for laws for a long time.“Mr. Cartwright assigned sundry reasons for refusing to take the oath; and afterwards desired to be permitted to vindicate himself from some reflections that had been thrown out against him by the bishop and the attorney general. But to this bishop Aylmer would not consent, alleging,” that he had no leisure to hear his answer,“but that he might defend himself from the public charges that he had brought against him, by a private letter to his lordship. With this Mr. Cartwright was obliged to be contented, and was immediately after again committed to the Fleet. In August 1591 he wrote a letter to lady Russel, stating some of the grievances under which he laboured, and soliciting her interest with lord Burleigh to procure him better treatment. The same year king James wrote a letter to queen Elizabeth, requesting her majesty to shew favour to Mr. Cartwright and his brethren, on account of their great learning and faithful labours in the gospel. But he did not obtain his liberty till about the middle of the year 1592, when he was restored to his hospital at Warwick, and was again permitted to preach: but his health appears to have been much impaired by his long confinement and close application to study. He died on the 27th of December 1603, in the 68th year of his age, having preached a sermon ou mortality but two days before. He was buried in the hospital at Warwick. He was pious, learned, and laborious; an acute disputant, and an admired preacher; of a disinterested disposition, generous and charitable, and particularly liberal to poor scholars. It is much to be regretted that such a man should have incurred the censure of the superiors either in church or state; but inuovations like those he proposed, and adhered to with obstinacy, could not be tolerated in the case of a church establishment so recently formed, and which required every effort bf its supporters to maintain it. How far, therefore, the reflections which have been cast on a the prelates who prosecuted him are just, may be safely left to the consideration of the reader. There is reason also to think, that before his death Cartwright himself thought differently of his past conduct. Sir Henry Yelverton, in his epistle to the reader, prefixed to bishop Moreton’s” Episcopacy justified,“says that the last words of Thomas Cartwright, on his death-bed, were, that he sorely lamented the unnecessary troubles he had caused in the church, by the schism, of which he had been the great fomenter; and that be wished he was to begin his life again, that he might testify to the world the dislike he had of his former ways In tnis opinion, says sir Henry, he died; and it appears certain, that he abated something of the warmth of his spirit towards the close of his days. When he had obtained his pardon, of the queen, which, as sir George Paule asserts, was at the instance of aichbishop Whitgilt, Cartwright, in his letters of acknowledgment to that prelate, vouchsafed to stile him a” Right Reverend Fatner in God, and his Lord the Archbishop’s Grace of Canterbury.“This title of Grace he often yielded to Whitgift in the course of their correspondence. Nay, the archbishop was heard to say, that if Mr. Cartwright had not so far engaged himself as he did in the beginning, he verily thought tnat he would, in his letter time, have been drawn to conformity: for when he was freed from his troubles, he often repaired to the archbishop, who used him kindly, and was contented to tolerate his preaching at Warwick for several years, upon his promise that he would not impugn the laws, orders, and government of the church of England, but persuade and procure, as much as he could, both publicly and privately, the estimation and peace of the same. With these terms he complied; notwithstanding which, when queen Elizabeth understood that he preached again, though in the temperate manner which had been prescribed, she would not permit him to do it any longer without subscription; and was not a little displeased with the archbishop, for his having connived at his so doing. Sir George Paule farther adds, that, by the benevolence and bounty of his followers, Mr Cartwright was said to have died rich. Besides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Cartwright was author of the following works: 1.” Commentaria practica in totam historiam evangelicam, ex quatuor evangelistis harmonice concinnatam,“1630, 4to. An elegant edition of this was printed at Amsterdam, by Lewis Elzevir, in 1647, under the following title:” Harmonia evangelica commentario analytico, metaphrastico, practice, illustrata,“&c. 2.” Commentarii succincti & dilucidi in proverbia Salomonis,“Amst. 1638, 4to. 3.” Metaphrasis & homiliae in librum Salomonis qui inscribitur Ecclesiastes,“Amst. 1647, 4to. 4.” A Directory of Church Government,“1644, 4to. 5.” A Body of Divinity," Lond. 1616, 4to.

, an English poet of the seventeenth century, was born at Northway near Tewkesbury, in Gloucestershire, Sept. 1611. His father, after spending a good estate, was reduced to keep an inn at Cirencester; at the free-school of which town his son was educated under Mr. William Topp. Being chosen a king’s scholar, he was removed to Westminster school, under Dr. Osbaldiston, and thence elected a student of Christ church, Oxford, in 1628. After pursuing his studies, with the reputation of an extraordinary scholar and genius, he took his master’s degree in 1635, and in 1638 went into holy orders, becoming “a most florid and seraphical preacher in the university.” One sermon only of his is in print, from which we are not able to form a very high notion of his eloquence; but whdn Mr. Abraham Wright, of St. John’s, Oxford, compiled that scarce little book, entitled “Five Sermons in five several styles, or ways of Preaching,” it appears that Dr. Maine and Mr. Cartwright were of consequence enough to be admitted as specimens of university preaching. The others are bishop Andrews’, bishop Hall’s, the presbyterian and independent “ways of preaching.” In 1642, bishop Duppa, with whom he lived in the strictest intimacy, bestowed on him the place of succentur of the church of Salisbury. In the same year he was one of the council of war or delegacy, appointed by the university of Oxford, for providing for the troops sent by the king- to protect the colleges. His zeal in this office occasioned his being imprisoned by the parliamentary forces when they arrived at Oxford, but he was bailed soon after. In 1643, he was chosen junior proctor of the university, and was also reader in metaphysics. “The exposition of them,” says Wood, “was never better performed than by him and his predecessor Thomas Barlow, of Queen’s college.” Lloyd asserts that he studied at the rate of sixteen hours a day. From such diligence and talents much might have been expected, but he survived the last- mentioned appointments a very short time, dying on December 23, 1643, in the thirty-second year of his age, of a malignant fever, called the camp disease, which then prevailed at Oxford. He was honourably interred towards the upper end of the south aile of the cathedral of Christ church.

ing before the battle, he called for a no call to it, and being no military

Lord Falkland wrote, 1. “A Speech on ill Counsellors about the king.” 2. “Speech against the Lord Keeper Finch and the Judges.” 3. “A Speech against the Bishops, Feb. 9, 1640.” 4. “A draught of a speech concerning Episcopacy,” found among his papers, printed at Oxford 1644. 5. “A Discourse on the Infallibility of the Church of Rome,” 1645, written in an easy and familiar style, without the least affectation of learning. Swift, in his “Letter to a young gentleman lately entered into holy orders,” informs us, that lord Falkland, in some of his writings, when he doubted whether a word were perfectly intelligible, used to consult one of his lady’s chambermaids, and by her judgment was guided whether to receive or reject it. 6. “A View of some exceptions made against the preceding discourse,” 1646. This objector was one George Holland, a popish priest. 7. “A Letter to F. M. anno 1636,” printed at the end of Charles Gataker’s (his chaplain’s) “Answer to five captious questions, propounded by a factor for the Papacy,” &c. 1673, 4to. 8. “A Letter to Dr. Beale, master of St. John’s College, Cambridge.” From bishop Barlow’s Remains, p. 329, we learn that he assisted Chillmgworth in his “Religion of Protestants;” and he wrote some verses on the death of Ben Jonson, published in the collection called “Jonsonus Virbius.” Some other verses are mentioned by Mr. Park, but they cannot be allowed much praise.

, a Spaniard, and the illustrious bishop of Chiapa, was born at Seville in 1474; and, at the age of nineteen, attended his father, who went with Christopher Columbus to the Indies in 1493. Upon his return he became an ecclesiastic, and a curate in the isle of Cuba; but quitted his cure and his country -in order to devote himself to the service of the Indians, who were then enslaved to the most ridiculous superstitions, as well as the most barbarous tyranny. The Spanish governors had long since made Christianity detested by their unheardof cruelties, and the Indians trembled at the very name of Christian. This humane and pious missionary resolved to cross the seas, and to lay their cries and their miseries at the feet of Charles V. The affair was discussed in council; and the representations of Casas so sensibly affected the emperor, that he made ordinances, as severe to the persecutors as favourable to the persecuted. But these ordinances were never executed the Spanish governors, or rather tyrants, continued to plunder and murder; and they had a doctor, one Sepulveda, who undertook even to justify these outrages by human and divine laws, and by the examples of the Israelites who conquered the people of Canaan. This horrible book was printed at Rome, but proscribed in Spain; and Casas, now become bishop of Chiapa, refuted this apology for tyranny and murder. His treatise, entitled, “The Destruction of the Indians,” and translated into most European languages, is full of details which shock humanity. Soto, the emperor’s confessor, was appointed arbiter of the difference between Casas, a bishop worthy of the first ages of the church, and Sepulveda, a doctor and advocate for principles which would not have been adopted by an heathen: and the result of all this was laid before Charles V. who, however, had too many affairs upon his hands to pay a due attention to it; and the governors continued to tyrannize as usual. Casas employed above fifty years in America, labouring with incessant zeal, that the Indians might be treated with mildness, equity, and humanity: but, instead of succeeding, he drew upon himself endless persecutions from the Spaniards; and, though he escaped with his life, might properly enough be called a martyr to the liberty of the Indians. After refusing several bishoprics in America, he was constrained to accept that of Chiapa in 1544. He reided there till 1551, when the infirm state of his health obliged him to return to his native country; and he died at Madrid in 156G, aged ninety-two. Besides his “Destruction of the Indians,” and other pieces on the same subject, there is a very curious Latin work of his upon this question “Whether kings or princes can in conscience, by any right, or by virtue of any title, alienate citizens and subjects from their natural allegiance, and subject them to a new and foreign jurisdiction?” Ail his writings shew a solid judgment, and profound learning and piety.

The sufferings that come from God, ought not to be called afflic­ tions

, a German divine, who flourished in the sixteenth century, and died Aug. 1, 1607, aged fortyfive, was president of the college of Stade, and one of the first of those writers who were called Scriptural philosophers. They supposed all philosophy to be derived from divine revelation, and despairing of being able to arrive at any true knowledge of nature, by the light of reason, had recourse to the sacred oracles, and particularly to the Mosaic history of the creation, and endeavoured upon this foundation to raise a new structure of philosophy. Gasman was also dissatisfied with the unprofitable subtleties of the Aristotelian philosophy, and determined, in the study of nature, rather to rely upon the decision of the sacred writings, than upon the doctrine of the ancient heathen philosophers. Even in his explanation of scripture he refused to call in the assistance of philosophical rules of interpretation. In a work entitled “Cosmopceia,” on the formation of the world, he derives his physical doctrine from the scriptures; ard in his “Modesta Assertio Philosophise et Christianas et Verae,” he professes to write Christian institutes of grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, &c. Henry Alsted, Dr. Dickinson, and Dr. Burnett, &c. are also ranked among scriptural philosophers.

, called Nicoletto, a Venetian, artist, was born at Venice in 1659, and was the eldest son, and disciple of John Francis Cassana, a Genoese, who had been taught the art of painting by Bernardino Strozzi, and under his direction became an eminent portraiupainter; and the grand duke of Tuscany invited him to his court, where he painted the portraits of that prince and the princess Violante his consort. Of the historical subjects painted by this master while he resided at Florence, perhaps the most considerable was the Conspiracy of Catiline it consisted of nine figures as large as life, down to the knees; and the two principal figures were represented, as with one hand joined in the presence of their companions, and in their other hand holding a cup of blood. Nicoletto was invited to England, with strong assurances of a generous reception; and on his arrival, painted the portrait of queen Anne, in which he succeeded so happily, that the queen distinguished him by many marks of favour and of honour; but he had not the happiness to enjoy his good fortune for any length of time, dying in London, universally regretted, in the year 1713. He had a younger brother, G. Augustine Cassana, who, though a good portrait- painter, preferred the representation of animals and various fruits his pictures of that class are frequent in the collections of Italy, and sometimes ascribed to Castiglione. He had a sister, Maria Vittoria Cassana, who painted images of devotion for private amateurs, and died at Venice in the beginning of the last century.

, a man of eminence in many respects, and called by way of distinction “the senator,” was born at Squillace, in Calabria, about the year 4i>7. He had as liberal an education as the growing barbarism of his times afforded; and soon recommended himself by his eloquence, his learning, and his wisdom, to Theodoric king of the Goths in Italy. Theodoric first made him governor of Sicily; and when he had Sufficiently proved his abilities and prudence in the administration of that province, admitted him afterwards to his cabinet-councils, and appointed him to be his secretary. After this he had all the places and honours at his command, which Theodoric had to bestow; and, having passed through all the employments of the government, was raised to the consulate, which he administered alone, in the year 514. He was continued in the same degree of confidence and favour by Athalaric, who succeeded Theodoric, about the year 524; but afterwards, in the year 537, being discarded from all his offices by king Vitiges, he renounced a secular life, and retired into a monastery of his own founding in the extreme parts of Calabria. Here he led the life of a man of letters, a philosopher, and a Christian. He entertained himself with forming and improving several curious pieces of mechanism, such as sun-dials, water clocks, perpetual lamps, &c. He collected a very noble and curious library, which he enlarged and improved by several books of his own composing. About the year 556, he wrote two books “De Divinis Lectionibus;” and afterwards a book “De Orthographia,” in the preface to which he tells us, that he was then in his ninety-third year. There are extant of his twelve books of letters, ten of which he wrote as secretary of state, in the name of kings Theodoric and Athalaric, and two in his own. He composed also twelve books “De rebus gestis Gothorum,” which are only extant in the abridgment of Jornandes; though it has been surmised that a manuscript of Cassiodorus is still remaining in some of the libraries in France. He wrote also a commentary upon the Psalms, and several other pieces, theological and critical. Father Simon has ?poken of him thus “There is no need,” says he, “of examining Cassiodorus’s Commentaries on the Psalms, which is almost but an abridgment of St. Augustin’s Commentaries, as he owns in his preface. But besides these commentaries, we have an excellent treatise of this author’s, entitled < De institutione ad Divinas Lectiones,' which shews, that he understood the criticism of the scriptures, and that he had marked out what were the best things of this nature in the ancient doctors of the church. In the same book Cassiodorus gives many useful rules for the criticism of the scriptures; and he takes particular notice of those fathers who have made commentaries upon the Bible, &c.” It seems generally agreed that he was in all views a very extraordinary man; and we think that those have done him no more than justice, who have considered him as a star, which shone out amidst the darkness of a barbarous age. When he died we cannot precisely determine, but most writers seem to be of opinion this happened in the year 575. His works have been collected and printed several times; the best edition is that of Rohan, 1679, 2 vols. fol. with the notes and dissertations of John Garret, a Benedictine monk. In 1721, Signer Scipio Maffei published a work of Cassiodorus, which had long been missing; and in the following year the same was published at London, by Mr. Samuel Chandler, entitled “Complexions, or short Commentaries upon the Epistles, the Acts, and the Revelation,” which Dr. Lardner has enumerated among the testimonies to the credibility of the gospel history.

, an eminent historical painter, was born at a small village called Castagno, belonging to Tuscany, in 1409, and being deprived of his parents when young, was employed by his uncle to attend the herds of cattle in the fields. His singular talents, which were first manifested in surprising efforts to imitate an ordinary painter, whom he accidentally observed at work, became the common topic of discourse in Florence, and excited the curiosity of Bernardetto de Medici, who perceiving that he had promising talents, placed him under the tuition of the best masters at that time in Florence. Andrea, assiduously improving his advantages, became particularly eminent in design, and found full employment. At first he painted only in distemper and fresco, with a manner of colouring that was not very agreeable, being rather hard and dry; but at length he learned the secret of painting in oil from Domenico Venetiano, who had derived his knowledge of it from Antonella da Messina. He was the first of the Florentine artists who painted in oil but envying the merit of Domenico, from whom he obtained the secret, and whose works were more admired than his own, he determined, with the basest ingratitude, to assassinate his friend and benefactor. At this time Domenico and Andrea lived together, and were partners in business. Insensible, however, of every obligation, and combining treachery with ingratitude, he way -laid Domenico in the corner of a street, and stabbed him with such secrecy, that he escaped unobserved and unsuspected to Jiis own house, where he sat down with apparent composure to work; soon after Domenico was conveyed thither to die in the arms of his assassin. The real author of this atrocious act was never discovered, till Andrea, through remorse of conscience, disclosed it on his death-bed, in 1480. Andrea finished several considerable works at Florence, by which he gained great wealth and reputation; but as soon as his complicated villainy became public, his memory was afterwards held in the utmost detestation. The most noted of his works is in the hall of justice at Florence, and represents the execution of the conspirators against the house of Medici.

, was born in 1515, in Dauphmy, according to some authors, but according to others in Savoy. Spon and Leti mention Chatillon as the place of his birth; of his early life we have little information. We are told that Calvin conceived such an esteem and friendship for him, during the stay he made at Strasbourg in 154-0 and 1541, that he lodged him for some days at his house, and procured him a regent’s place in the college of Geneva. Castalio, after continuing in this office near three years, was forced to quit it in 1544, on account of some peculiar opinions which he held concerning Solomon’s song and Christ’s descent into hell. He retired to Basil, where he was made Greek professor, and died in that place, Dec. 29, 1563, in extreme poverty. He incurred the displeasure of Calvin and Theodore Beza, from whom he differed concerning predestination and the punishment of heretics, and they called him a papist, which appears to have been an unreasonable accusation, although it is certain he did not embrace the opinions of the reformers on many points. Beza is accused of having said that he had translated the Bible into Latin at the instigation of the devil. Another story is his stealing wood, which is thus related: when rivers overflow, they frequently carry down several pieces of wood, which any body may lawfully get and keep for his own use. Castalio, who was very poor, and had a wife and eight children, got with a harping-iron some wood floating upon the Rhine. When Calvin and Beza heard of it, they proclaimed every where that he had stolen some wood belonging to his neighbour.

, an eminent artist, the companion of Luca Cambiaso, is commonly called il Bergamasco, in contradistinction of Gio. Bat. Castelli a Genoese, scholar of Cambiaso, and -the most celebrated miniature-painter of his time. This, born at Bergamo in 1500, and conducted to Genoa by Aurelio Buso of Crema, a scholar of Polidoro, was at his sudden departure left by him in that city. In this forlorn state, he found a Maecenas in the Pallavicini family, who assisted him, sent him to Rome, and received in him at his return an architect, sculptor, and painter not inferior to Cambiaso. At Rome, Palomino numbers him with the scholars of Michael Angelo. Whatever master he may have had, his technic principles were those of Luca; which is evident on comparison in the church of S. Matteo, where they painted together. We discover the style of Raffaello verging already to practice, but not so mannered as that which prevailed at Rome under Gregory and Sixtus. We recognize in Cambiaso a greater genius and more elegance of design, in Castello more diligence, deeper knowledge, a better colour, a colour nearer allied to the Venetian than the Roman school. It may however be supposed^ that in such fraternal harmony each assisted the other, even in those places where they acted as competitors, where each claimed his work, and distinguished it by his name. Thus at the Nunziata di Portoria, Luca on the panneis represented the final doom of the blessed and the rejected in the last judgment; whilst G. Batista on the ceiling, expressed the judge in an angelic circle, receiving the elect. His attitude and semblance speak the celestial welcome with greater energy than the adjoined capitals of the words, “Venite Benedicti.” It is a picture studied in all its parts, of a vivacity, a composition, and expression, which give to the pannels of Luca, the air of a work done by a man half asleep. Frequently he painted alone; such are the S. Jerome surrounded by monks frightened at a lion, in S. Francesco di Castello, and the crowning of St, Sebastian after martyrdom, in his own church, a picture as rich in composition as studied in execution, and superior to all praise. That a man of such powers should have been so little known in Italy, rouses equal indignation and pity, unless we suppose that his numerous works in fresco at Genoa prevented him from painting for galleries.

, called Grechktto, an admired artist, was born at Genoa, in 161h, and in that city was at Hrst a disciple of Battisca Pagi, and afterwards studied in the academy of Joan Andrea de Ferrara; but his principal improvement was derived from the instructions of Vandyck, who at that time came to reside in Genoa. He formed to himself a very grand manner of design in every branch of his art, and succeeded equally well in all; in sacred and profane history, landscape, cattle, and portrait; executing every one of them with an equal degree of truth, freedom, and spirit. But, although his genius was so universal, his predominant turn was to rural scenes and pastoral subjects, markets, and animals, in which he had no superior. He had great readiness of invention, a bold and noble tint of colouring, and abundance of nature in all his compositions. His drawing is elegant, and generally correct, his touch judicious, and his pencil free and firm. And still to add to his accomplishments, he had a thorough knowledge of the chiaroscuro, which he very happily applied through all his works. In a chapel of St. Luke’s church at Genoa, is an excellent picture by this master. The composition and design are good, the heads of the figures extremely fine, the draperies well chosen and judiciously cast, the animals lively and correct; and the manner through the whole is grand, and yet delicate; though it must be observed, that the colouring is a little too red. In the Palazzo Brignole* is a grand composition, the figures being eighteen or twenty inches high, which is admirably finished, though perhaps a little too dark. And at the Palazzo Caregha, in the same city, is an historical picture of Rachel concealing the Teraphim from Luba*i, in which the figures and animals are exceedingly fine.

, one of the most eminent lawyers of the fifteenth century, was so called from Castro his native place. He taught law at Florence, Bologna, Sienna, and JPadua, with such high reputation, that it was commonly said of him, “Si Bartolus non esset, esset Paulus.” He died in a very advanced age, 1437, leaving a son a professor of canon law. There are several editions of his works, in 8 vols. folio.

, Queen Of England, and first consort of Henry VIII. was the fourth daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Castile and Arragon. She was born in 1485. In the sixteenth year of her age, Nov. 14, 1501, she was married to Arthur, prince of Wales, son of Henry VII. who died a few months after. The king, either from political reasons, or, as some think, because he was unwilling to restore Catherine’s dowry, which was 200,000 ducats, obliged his second son Henry, whom he created prince of Wales, and who was then in his twelfth year, to be contracted to the infanta. The prince resisted this injunction to the utmost of his power; but the king was invincible, and the espousals were at length, by means of the pope’s dispensation, contracted between the parties. Immediately after the accession of Henry VIII. to the crown, in 1509, the king began to deliberate on his former engagements, to which he had many objections, but his privy council, though contrary to the opinion of the primate, gave him their advice for celebrating the marriage. Even the prejudices of the people were averse to an union betwixt such near relations as Henry and his brother’s widow; and the late king is thought to have had an intention to avail himself of a proper opportunity of annulling the contract. In 1527 several circumstances occurred which combined to excite scruples in the king’s mind concerning the lawfulness of his marriage, but probably the chief were what arose from his own passions. The queen was six years older than the king; and the decay of her beauty, together with particular infn-mities and diseases, had contributed, notwithstanding her blameless character and deportment, to render her person unacceptable to him. Though she had borne him several children, they all died in early infancy, except one daughter, Mary; and it was apprehended, that if doubts of Mary’s legitimacy concurred with the weakness of her sex, the king of Scots, the next heir, would advance his pretensions, and might throw the kingdom into confusion. But most of all, Anne Boleyn had acquired an entire ascendant over his affections, and he was now determined on a divorce, and upon consulting them, all the prelates of England, except Fisher, bishop of Rochester, unanimously declared that they deemed his marriage unlawful. In this they were supported by cardinal Wolsey, who had political purposes to answer in breaking off the match with Catherine, although he was no friend to Anne Boleyn. Accordingly Henry determined to apply to the pope, Clement VII. for a divorce, who, though at first disposed to favour Henry’s application, and had actually concerted measures for its successful issue, was overawed by the interference of the emperor, Charles V. Catherine’s nephew; and when the negociation was protracted to such a length as to tire Henry’s patience, the pope, importuned by the English ministers, put into their hands a commission to Wolsey, as legate, in conjunction with the archbishop of Canterbury, or any other English prelate, to examine the validity of the king’s marriage, and of the late pope’s dispensation. He also granted them a provisional dispensation for the king’s marriage with any other person; and promised to issue a decretal bull, annulling the marriage with Catherine; but he enjoined secrecy, and conjured them not to publish these papers, or to make any farther use of them, till his afflxirs with regard to the emperor were in such a train as to secure his liberty and independence. After considerable hesitation and delay, the legates, Campeggio and Wolsey, to whom the pope had granted a new commission for the trial of the king’s marriage, opened their court in London, May 31, 1529, and cited the king and queen to appear before it. They both presented themselves, and the king answered to his name, when called; but the queen, instead of answering to her’s, threw herself at the king’s feet, and appealed to his justice, declaring that she would not submit her cause to be tried by the members of a court who depended on her enemies; and making the king a low reverence, she departed, and never would again appear in that court.

Peter’s conduct, on the other hand, was mere infatuation. He permitted his mistress the countess Woronzoff to have the most complete ascendancy over him, and this woman had the hardihood to claim the performance of a promise which he had made when grand duke, to marry her, place her, in the room of Catherine, on the throne, and bastardize his son Paul, whose place he was to supply by adopting prince Ivan, who had been dethroned by the empress Elizabeth. Whatever ground he might have for expecting success to this wild project, he had not the sense to conceal it; and his mistress openly made her boast of it. Such indiscretion was, no doubt, in favour of Catherine^ but still the part she had to play required all her skill. It was no less than a plot to counteract that of her husband, and dethrone him. The minute details of this would extend too far in a sketch like the present; her conspirators were numerous, secret, and well prepared, and by their means she, who had been confined at Peterhof by her husband, was enabled to enter Petersburgh July 9, 1762, where she was received as empress, and where, while the enthusiasm was fresh in the minds of her troops and subjects, she was crowned in the church of Kazan, by the archbishop of Novogorod, who proclaimed her with a loud voice, sovereign of all the Russias, by the title of Catherine II. and declared at the same time the young grand duke, Paul Petrovitch, her successor. But of all this Peter III. had yet no suspicion. Such was his security, that he set out, after having received some intimations of the conspiracy, from Oranienbaum in a calash with his mistress, his favourites, and the women of his court, for Peterhof; but in the way, Gudovitch, the general aidede-camp, met one of the chamberlains of the empress, by whom he was informed of her escape from Peterhof; and upon his communicating the intelligence to Peter, he turned pale, and appeared much agitated. On his arrival at Peterhof, his agitation and confusion increased, when he found that the empress had actually left the palace, and he soon received the certain tidings of the revolution that had been accomplished; and the chancellor Worouzof offered his services to hasten to Petersburgh, engaging to bring the empress back. The chancellor, on entering the palace, found Catherine surrounded by a multitude of people in the act of doing homage; and forgetting his duty, he took the oath with the rest. He was permitted, however, at his earnest request, to return to his house, under the guard of some trusty officers; and thus secured himself from the vindictive spirit of the partisans of Catherine, and from the suspicions of the czar. After the departure of the chancellor, Peter became a prey to the most distressing anxieties, and he every instant received some fresh intelligence of the progress of the revolution, but knew not what steps to pursue. Although his Holstein guards were firmly attached to him, and the veteran marshal Munich offered to risk every thing for his service, he remained hesitating and undetermined; and after some fruitless attempts, he found it absolutely necessary to submit unconditionally to her will, in consequence of which he was compelled to sign a most humiliating act of abdication, in which he declared his conviction of his inability to govern the empire, either as a sovereign, or in any other capacity, and his sense of the distress in which his continuance at the head of affairs would inevitably involve it, and in the evening an officer with a strong escort came and conveyed him prisoner to Ropscha, a small imperial palace, at the distance of about 20 versts from Peterhof. He now sent a message to Catherine, requesting, that he might retain in his service the negro who had been attached to him, and who amused him with his singularities, together with a dog, of which he was fond, his violin, a Bible, and a few romances; assuring her, that, disgusted at the wickedness of mankind, he would henceforward devote himself to a philosophical life. Not one of these requests was granted. After he had been at Ropscha six days without the knowledge of any persons besides the chiefs of the conspirators, and the soldiers by whom he was guarded, Alexius Orlof, accompanied by Teplof, came to him with the news of his speedy deliverance, and asked permission to dine with him. While the officer amused the czar with some trifling discourse, his chief rilled the wine-glasses, which are usually brought in the northern countries before dinner, and poured a poisonous mixture into that which he intended for the prince. The czar, without distrust, swallowed the potion; on which he was seized with the most excruciating pains; and on his being offered a second glass, on pretence of its giving him relief, he refused it with reproaches on him that offered it. Being pressed to take another glass, when he called for milk, a French valet-de-chamhre, who was greatly attached to him, ran in; and throwing himself into his arms, he said in a faint tone of \oice, “It was not enough, then, to prevent me from reigning in Sweden, and to deprive me of the crown of Russia! I must also be put to death.” The valet-dechamhre interceded in his behalf; but the two miscreant forced him out of the room, and continued their ill treatment of him. In the midst of the tumult, the younger of the princes Baratinsky, who commanded the guard, entered; Orlof, who in a struggle had thrown down the emperor, was pressing upon his breast with both his knees, and firmly griping his throat with his hand. In this situation the two other assassins threw a napkin with a running knot round his neck, and put an end to his life by suffocation, July 17th, just one week after the revolution; and it was announced to the nation, that Peter had died of an haemorrhoidal colic. When Catherine received the news of Peter’s death, she appeared at court, whither she was going, with a tranquil air; and afterwards shut herself up with Orlof, Panin, Rasumofsky, and others who had been concerned in her counterplot, and resolved to inform the senate and people next day of the death of the emperor. On this occasion she did not forget her part, but rose from her seat with her eyes full of tears, and for some days exhibited all the marks of profound grief. The best part of her conduct was, that she showed no resentment to the adherents of Peter, and even pardoned the countess Woronzoff.

In the following year, 1783, she augmented the splendour of her court, by instituting the new order of St. Wolodimir, or Vladimir, and this year, having acquired, without a war, the sovereignty of the Crimea, of the isle of Taman, and a great part of the Kuban, she called the former of these countries Taurida, and the other Caucasus. Thus Catherine gained a point of much importance towards the main object of her ambition, i. e. the destruction of the Turkish empire in Europe; in the view of which she had named the grand duke’s second son Constantine, and had put him into the hands of Greek nurses, that he might be thoroughly acquainted with the language of his future subjects. Instigated by Potemkin, the empress formed a design in 1787 of being splendidly crowned in her new dominions “queen of Taurida;” but the expence being objected to by some of her courtiers, she contented herself with making a grand progress through them. At her new city of Cherson, she had a second interview with the emperor Joseph. She then traversed the Crimea, and returned to Moscow, having left traces in her progress of her munificence and condescension. This ostentatious tour was probably one cause of the new rupture with the Turkish court, in which the emperor of Germany engaged as ally to Russia, and the king of Sweden as ally to the Porte. The latter prevented the empress from sending a fleet into the Mediterranean; and even endangered Petersburgh itself by a sudden incursion into Finland. The danger, however, was averted by the empress’s own vigorous exertions, by the desertion of some of Gustavus’s troops, who would not fight against the Russians, and by an attack of Sweden, on the part of the prince of Denmark, who proceeded as far as Gottenburgh. The Turkish army, though superior to that of the empress, could not resist the efforts of the Russian generals. Potemkin at the head of a numerous army, and a large train of artillery, laid siege to Otchakof, and it was at length taken by storm, with the loss of 25,000 Turks and 12,000 Russians, but the issue of the war was upon the whole unfavourable, and all parties consented to the peace signed in 1792, by which the Dniester was declared to be in future the limit of the two empires. Mr. Pitt at this time had a strong desire to compel Russia to restore Otchakof to the Turks, but not being supported by the nation, this point was conceded. When the French revolution took place, the empress finding Prussia and Austria engaged in opposing it by force of arms, turned her attention to Poland, marched an army thither, overturned the new constitution the Poles had formed, and finally broke the spirit of the Poles by the dreadful massacre made on the inhabitants of the suburbs of Warsaw by her general Suvarof: a new division took place of this illfated country, between Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and afforded precedents for other divisions which the two latter powers little suspected.

, one of the ablest generals under Louis XIV. the son of the dean of the counsellors of parliament, was born at Paris, Sept. 1, 1637, and began his career at the bar; but having lost a cause that had justice on its side, he renounced the profession for that of arms. He first served in the cavalry, where he never omitted an opportunity of distinguishing himself. In 1667, in the presence of Louis XIV. at the attack on the counterscarpe of Lisle, he performed an action so honourable both to his judgment and his courage, that it procured him a lieutenantcy in the regiment of guards. Gradually rising to the first dignities in the army, he signalized himself at Maestricht, at Besangon, at Senef, at Cambray, at Valenciennes, at St. Omer’s, at Ghent, and at Ypres. The great Comic“set a proper value on his merit, and wrote to him, after the hattle of Senef, where Catinat had been wounded:” No one takes a greater interest in your wound than I do; there are so few men like you, that in losing you our loss would be too great.' 7 Having attained to the rank of lieutenant-general, in 1688, he beat the duke of Savoy at Staffarde and at the Marsaille, made himself master of all Savoy and a part of Piedmont; marched from Italy to Flanders, besieged and took the fortress of Ath in 1697. He had been marechal of France from 1693, and the king, reading the list of the marechals in his cabinet, exclaimed, on coming to his name: “Here valour has met with its deserts!” The war breaking out again in 1701, he was put at the head of the French army in Italy against prince Eugene, who commanded that of the emperor. The court, at the commencement of this war, was undecided on the choice of the generals, and hesitated between Catinat, Vendome, and Villeroi. This circumstance was talked of in the emperor’s council. “If Villeroi has the command,” said Eugene, “I shall beat him; if Vendome be appointed, we shall have a stout struggle; if it be Catinat, 1 shall be beaten.” The bad state of the army, the want of money for its subsistence, the little harmony there was between him and the duke of Savoy, whose sincerity he suspected, prevented him from fulfilling the prediction of prince Eugene. He was wounded in the atfair of Chiari, and forced to retreat as far as behind the Oglio. This retreat, occasioned by the prohibition he had received from the court to oppose the passage of prince Eugene, was the source of his subsequent mistakes and misfortunes. Catinat, notwithstanding his victories and his negociations, was obliged to serve under Villeroi; and the last disciple of Turenne and Conde was no longer allowed to act but as second in command.' He bore this injustice like a man superior to fortune. “I strive to forget my misfortunes,” he says in a letter to one of his friends, “that my mind may be more at ease in executing the orders of the marechal de Villeroi.” In 1705 the king named him to be a chevalier; but he refused the honour intended him. His family testifying their displeasure at this procedure, “Well, then,” said he to his relations, “strike me out of your genealogy” He increased as little as possible the crowd of courtiers. Louis XIV. once asking him why he was never seen at Marli; and whether it was some business that prevented his coming? “None at all,” returned the marechal; “but the court is very numerous, and I keep away in order to let others have room to pay their respects to you.” He died at his estate of St. Gratian, Feb. 25, 1712, at the age of 74, with the same sedateness of mind that had accompanied him through life. Numberless anecdotes are related of him, which shew that this calmness of temper never forsook him. After an ineffectual attack at the unfortunate affair of Chiari, rallying his troops, an officer said to him: “Whither would you have us to go? to death?” “It is true,” replied Catinat, “death is before us; but shame is behind.” He had qualities yet more estimable than bravery. He was humane and modest. The part of his labours most interesting to humanity, was a regular correspondence with marechal Vauban, on the administration of the revenues of the various countries which they had visited during their military expeditions. They did not seek for means of increasing the revenues of their sovereign beyond measure; but they endeavoured to find the most equitable repartition of the taxes, and the cheapest way of collecting them. Catinat, on account of his cautiousness and judgment, was, by the soldiers under his command, significantly called Pere la Pensee, “Father Thought,” a sirname which he appears to have deserved in his peaceable retreat, not less than in his military expeditions.

, commonly called Cato Minor, or Cato of Utica, was great-grandson of Cato the censor. It is said, that from his infancy he discovered an inflexibility of mind, and a disposition to go through whatever he undertook, even though the task was ill-suited to his strength. He was rough towards those that flattered him, and quite intractable when threatened; was rarely seen to laugh, or even to smile; was not easily provoked to anger, but, if once incensed, hard to be pacified. Sylla, having had a friendship for the father of Cato, sent often for him and his brother, and talked familiarly with them. Cato, who was then about fourteen years of age, seeing the heads of great men brought there, and observing the sighs of those that were present, asked his preceptor, “Why does no body kill this man?” “Because,” said the other, “he is more feared than he is hated.” The boy replied, “Why then did you not give me a sword when you brought me hither, that I might have stabbed him, and freed my country from this slavery?”

On one occasion, to keep out a very bad man, he was a candidate for the tribunate. He afterwards laboured to bring about an agreement between Cæsar and Pompey, but seeing it in vain, he sided with the latter. When Pompey was slain, he fled to Utica, and being pursued by Cæsar, he advised his friends to leave him, and throw themselves on Cæsar’s mercy. They complied, and his son only, and a young man, Statilius, who was remarkable for his hatred of Cæsar, remained with him. The execution of the purpose which Cato had formed with regard to himself has furnished Addison with the story of his interesting tragic poem, called Cato, which has particularly familiarized the history of Cato to English readers. Notwithstanding the interference of his friends, and particularly of his son, who by every method endeavoured to dissuade him from the resolution he had taken to dispatch himself rather than fall into Cæsar’s hands, he committed suicide in the fortyeighth year of his age, after some deliberation, and after twice reading Plato’s dialogue on the immortality of the soul an instance which has been imitated since in too many cases of political disappointment, and in the absence of all moral and religious principle. But, as Brucker has observed, it should be remembered, that the situation of Cato, in concurrence with his stoical principles, strongly impelled him to the fatal deed; and that whatever censure he may deserve on this account, he supported, through his whole life, a character of inflexible integrity and uncorrupted public spirit. Whilst he lived, he held up before his fellow-citizens a pattern of manly virtue; and when he died, he taught the conquerors of the world that the noble mind can never be subdued.

, baron Ogle, viscount Mansfield, earl, marquis, and duke of Newcastle, one of the most accomplished persons, as well as one of the most able generals and most distinguished patriots of the age, was son of sir Charles Cavendish, youngest son of sir William Cavendish, and younger brother of the first earl of Devonshire, by Catherine, daughter of Cuthbert lord Ogle. He was born in 1592, and discovering great capacity in his infancy, his father had him educated with such success, that he early acquired a large stock of solid learning, to which he added the graces of politeness. This soon made him be taken notice of at the court of James I. where he was quickly distinguished by the king’s favour; and in 1610, was made knight of the bath, at the creation of Henry prince of Wales. In 1617, his father died, by which he came to the possession of a very large estate and having a great interest at court, he was by letters- patent, dated November 3, 1620, raised to the dignity of a peer of the realm, by the style and title of baron Ogle and viscount Mansfield; and having no less credit with Charles I. than with his father king James, was in* the third year of the reign of that prince advanced to the higher title of earl of Newcastle upon Tyne, and at the same time he was created baron Cavendish of Bolesover. Our genealogists and antiquaries give us but a very obscure account of these honours, or at least, of the barony of Ogle, to which, in the inscription upon his own and his grandmother the countess of Shrewsbury’s tomb, he is said to have succeeded in right of his mother. His attendance on the court, though it procured him honour, brought him very early into difficulties; and there is some reason to believe that he was not much liked by the great duke of Buckingham, who perhaps was apprehensive of the large share he had in his master’s favour. However, he did not suffer, even by that powerful favourite’s displeasure, but remained in full credit with his master; which was notwithstanding so far from being beneficial to him, that the services expected from him, and his constant waiting upon the king, plunged him very deeply in debt, though he had a large estate, of which we find him complaining heavily in his letters to his firm and steady friend the lord viscount Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford. But th&e difficulties never in the least discouraged him from doing his duty, or from testifying his zeal and loyalty, when the king’s service required it. In 1638, when it was thought requisite to take the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II. from the nursery, the king made choice of the earl of Newcastle, as the person in his kingdom most fit to have the tuition of his heir-apparent and accordingly declared him governor to the prince. In the spring of 1639, the first troubles in Scotland broke out, which induced the king to assemble an army in the north; soon after which, he went down thither to put himself at the head of it; and in his way, was most splendidly entertained by the earl of Newcastle, at his noble seat at Welbeck, as he had been some years before when he went into that kingdom to be crowned; which though in itself a very trivial matter, yet such was the magnificence of this noble peer, that from the circumstances attending them, both these entertainments have found a place in general histories. But this was not the only manner in which he expressed his warm affection for his master. Such expeditions require great expences, and the king’s treasury was but indifferently provided, for the supply of which, the earl contributed ten thousand pounds, and also raised a troop of horse, consisting of about two hundred knights and gentlemen, who served at their own charge; and this was honoured with the title of the Prince’s troop. These services, however, rather heightened than lessened that envy borne to him by some great persons about the court, and the choice that had been made of his lordship for the tuition of the prince, which was at first so universally approved, began now to be called in question by those who meant very soon to call every thing in question. On this the earl desired to resign his office, which he did; and in June 1640, it was given to the marquis of Hertford. As his lordship took this step from the knowledge he had of the ill-will borne him by the chief persons amongst the disaffected, so he thought he could not take a better method to avoid the effects of their resentment, than to retire into the country; which accordingly. he did, and remained there quietly till he received his majesty’s orders to visit Hull; and though these came at twelve o'clock at night, his lordship went immediately thither, though forty miles distant, and entered the place with only two or three servants, early the next morning. He cffered his majesty to have secured for him that important fortress, and all the magazines that were there: but instead of receiving such a command as he expected, his majesty sent him instructions to obey whatever directions were sent him by the parliament; upon the heels of which, came their order for him to attend the service of the house; which he accordingly did, when a design was formed to have attacked him, but his general character was so good, that this scheme did not succeed. He now again retired into the country, but soon after, upon the king’s coming to York, his lordship was sent for thither; and in June 1642, his majesty gave him directions to take upon him the care of the town of Newcastle, and the command of the four adjacent counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham. These orders were easily issued, but they were not so easily to be carried into execution; for at this time, the king had not either money, forces, or ammunition; and yet there never was more apparent necessity, for at that juncture his majesty had not a single port open in his dominions; and if either the order had been delayed a few days, or had been^ sent to any other person, the design had certainly miscarried. But, as soon as he received his majesty’s commands, he repaired immediately to the place, and by his own interest there secured it: he raised also a troop of one hundred and twenty horse, and a good regiment; of foot, which secured him from any sudden attempts. Soon after, the queen, who was retired out of the kingdom, sent a supply of arms and ammunition, which being designed for the troops under the king’s command, the earl took care they should be speedily and safely conducted to his majesty under the escdVt of his only troop, which his majesty kept, to the great prejudice of his own affairs in the nor x th. The parliament, in the mean time, had not forgotten the earl’s behaviour towards them, but as a mark of their resentment excepted him by name; which was so far from discouraging, that it put his lordship upon a more decided part: and having well considered his own influence in those parts, he offered to raise an army in the north for his majesty’s service. On this the king gave him a commission, constituting him general of all the forces raised north of Trent; and likewise general and commander in chief of such as might be raised in the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Lancaster, Chester, Leicester, Rutland, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex; with power to confer the honour of knighthood, coin money, and to print and set forth such declarations as should seem, to him expedient; of all which extensive powers, though freely conferred, and without reserve, his lordship made a very sparing use. But with respect to the more material point of raising men, his lordship prosecuted it with such diligence, that in less than three months he had an army of eight thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, with which be marched directly into Yorkshire; and his forces having defeated the enemy at Fierce-bridge, his lordship advanced to York, where sir Thomas Glen ham, the governor, presented him with the keys, and the earl of Cumberland and many of the nobility resorted thither to compliment and to assist his lordship. He did not long remain there; but, having placed a good garrison in the city, marched on towards Tadcaster, where the parliament forces were very advantageously posted. The design which the earl had formed, not only for reducing that 'place, hut for making the troops that were there prisoners, tailed, through the want of diligence in some of his officers; hut notwithstanding this, his lordship attacked the place so vigorously, that the enemy thought fit to retire, and leave him in possession of the hest part of Yorkshire. This advantage he improved to the utmost, hy estahiishing garrisons in proper places, particularly at Newark upon Trent, by which the greatest part of Nottinghamshire, and some part of Lincolnshire, were kept in obedience. In the beginning of 1643, his lordship gave orders for a great convoy of ammunition to be removed from Newcastle to York, under the escort of a body of horse, commanded by lieutenantgeneral King, a Scotch officer, whom his majesty had lately created lord Ethyn. The parliament forces attempted to intercept this convoy at Y arum-bridge, but were beaten on the 1st of February with a great loss. Soon after this, her majesty landing at Burlington, the earl drew his forces that way to cover her journey to York, where she safely arrived on the 7th of March, and having pressing occasions for money, his lordship presented her with three thousand pounds, and furnished an escort of fifteen hundred men, under the command of lord Percy, to conduct a supply of arms and ammunition to the king at Oxford, where he kept them for his own service. Not long after, sir Hugh Cholmondley and captain Brown Bushel were prevailed upon to return to their duty, and give up the important port and castle of Scarborough. This was followed by the routing Ferdinando lord Fairfax on Seacroft, or as some call it Bramham-moor, by lord George Goring, then general of the horse under the earl, when about eight hundred of the enemy were taken prisoners; and this again made way for another victory gained on Tankersly-moor. In the month of April, the earl marched to reduce Rotherham, which he took by storm, and soon after Sheffield; but in the mean time, lord Goring and sir Francis Mackworth were surprised, on the 2 1st of May, at Wakefield, where the former and most of his men were made prisoners, which was a great prejudice to the service. In the same month her majesty went from York to Pomfret under the escort of the earPs forces; and from thence she continued Jier journey tp Oxford, with a body of seven thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, detached for that service by the earl; and those forces, likewise, the king kept about him. In the month of June the earl reduced Howly-house by storm; and on the 30th gained a complete victory over Ferdinando lord Fairfax, though much superior to him in numbers, on Adderton- heath, near Bradford, where the enemy had seven hundred men killed, and three thousand taken prisoners; and on the 2d of July following Bradford surrendered. The earl advanced next into Lincolnshire, where he took Gainsborough and Lincoln; but was then recalled by the pressing solicitations of the gentlemen of Yorkshire into that country, wherq Beverley surrendered to him on the 28th of August, and in the next month, his lordship was prevailed on to besiege Hull, the only place of consequence then held for the parliament in those parts. Notwithstanding these important successes obtained by an army raised, and in a great measure kept up by his lordship’s personal influence and expence, there have not been wanting censures upon his conduct; of which, however, his majesty had so just a sense, that by letters-patent dated the 27th of October, he advanced him to the dignity of marquis of Newcastle; and in the preamble of his patent all his services are mentioned with suitable encomiums. That winter the earl marched into Derbyshire, and from thence to his own house at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire, where he received the news of the Scots intending to enter England, which brought him back into Yorkshire, from whence he sent sir Thomas Glenham to Newcastle, and himself for some time successfully opposed the Scots in the bishopric of Durham: but, the forces he left behind under the command of lord Bellasis at Selby being routed, the marquis found himself obliged to retire, in order, if possible, to preserve York; and this he did with so much military prudence, that he arrived there safely in the month of April 1644, and retaining his infantry and artillery in that city, sent his horse to quarter in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Leicestershire, for the sake of subsistence. The city was very soon blocked up by three armies, who quickly commenced a regular siege, and were once very near taking the place by storm; and at last, having lain before it three months, brought the garrison into great distress for want of provision; and if the marquis had not very early had recourse to a short allowance, had infallibly reduced it by famine. For though sir Charles Lucas, who commanded the marquis’s horse, importuned the king for relief, yet it was the latter end of June before his majesty could send a sufficient body, under the command of prince Rupert, to join sir Charles Lucas, and attempt the forcing the enemy to raise the siege; which, however, upon their approach, they did, remaining on the west side of the Owse with all their forces, while the king’s army advanced on the east side of the same river. By this quick and vigorous march, prince Rupert had done his business; but, as is very well observed by a most judicious historian of these times, he would needs overdo it; and not content with the honour of raising the siege of York by a confederate army much superior to his own, he was bent upon having the honour to beat that army also; and this brought on the fatal battle of Hessom, or, as it is more generally called, Marston-moor, which was fought July 2, 1644, against the consent of the marquis of Newcastle, who, seeing the king’s affairs totally undone thereby, made the best of his way to Scarborough, and from thence, with a few of the principal officers of his army, took shipping for Hamburgh. After staying about six months at Hamburgh, he went by sea to Amsterdam, and from thence made a journey to Paris, where he continued for some time; and where, notwithstanuing the vast estate he had when the civil war broke out, his circumstances were now so bad, that himself and his young wife were reduced to the pawning their cloaths for a dinner. He removed afterwards to Antwerp, that he might be nearer his own country; and there, though under very great difficulties, he resided for several years; while the parliament in the mean time levied prodigious sums upon his estate, insomuch that the computation of what he lost by the disorders of those times, though none of the particulars "can be disproved, amount in the whole to a sum that is almost incredible. It has been computed at 733,579l. All these hardships and misfortunes never broke his spirit in the least, which his biographer somewhat fondly says was chiefly owing to his great foresight; for as he plainly perceived after the battle of Marston-moor, that the affairs of Charles I. were irrecoverably undone, so he discerned through the thickest clouds of Charles lid’s adversity, that he would be infallibly restored: and as he had predicted Hie civil war to the father before it began, so he gave the strongest assurance to the son of his being called home, by addressing to him a treatise upon Government and the Interests of Great Britain with respect to the other powers of Europe; which he wrote at a time when the hopes of those about his majesty scarcely rose so high as the marquis’s expectations. During this long exile of eighteen years, in which he suffered so many and so oreat hardships, this worthy nobleman wanted not some consolations that were particularly such to one of his high and generous spirit. He was, notwithstanding his low and distressed circumstances, treated with the highest respect, and with the most extraordinary marks of distinction, by the persons entrusted with the government of the countries where he resided. He received the high compliment of having the keys of the cities he passed through in the Spanish dominions offered him: he was visited by don John of Austria, and by several princes of Germany. But what comforted him most was the company very frequently of his royal master, who, in the midst of his sufferings, bestowed upon him the most noble order of the garter. On his return to England at the restoration, he was received with all the respect due to his unshaken fidelity and important services was constituted chief justice in Eyre of the counties north of Trent, and, by letters- patent dated the 16th of March 1664, was advanced to the dignity of earl of Ogle, and duke of Newcastle. He spent the remainder of his life, for the most part, in a country retirement, and in reading and writing, in which he took singular pleasure. He also employed a great part of his time in repairing the injuries which his fortune had received, and at length departed this life December 25, 1676, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. His grace was twice married, but had issue only by his first lady. His body lies interred, with that of his duchess, under a most noble monument at the entrance into Westminster-abbey, with an inscription suitable to his merits. His titles descended to his son Henry, earl of Ogle, who was the last heir male of this family, and died July 26, 1691, in whom the title of Newcastle, in the line of Cavendish, became extinguished, but his daughters married into some of the noblest families of this kingdom.

, son of lord Charles Cavendish (who was brother to the third duke of Devonshire), and the lady Anne Grey, third daughter of Henry duke of Kent, was born at Nice, whither his mother had gone for her health, on Oct. 10, 1731, and after an education befitting his rank, partly at Newcombe’s school at Hackney, and partly at Cambridge, devoted his life to scientific pursuits, and became one of the most eminent chemists and natural philosophers of the age. He had studied and rendered himself particularly conversant with every part of sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy, the principles of which he applied near forty years ago to an investigation of the Jaws on which the phenomena of electricity depend. Pursuing the same science on the occasion of Mr. Walsh’s experiments with the torpedo, he gave a satisfactory explanation of'the remarkable powers of the electrical fishes; pointing out that distinction between common and animal electricity, which has since been amply confirmed by the discoveries in galvanism. Having turned his attention very early to pneumatic chemistry, he ascertained, in 1760y the extreme levity of in flammable air, now called hydrogen gas. On this discovery many curious experiments, and particularly that of aerial navigation, have been founded. In the same paths of science, he made the important discovery of the composition of water by union of two airs; and that laid the foundation of the modern system of chemistry, which rests principally on this fact, and that of the decomposition of water, announced soon afterwards by Mons. Lavoisier.

None of his works did him more honour in his day, than that which he entitled “La cour sainte,” or “The holy court,” a moral work, illustrated by stories well known once to the readers of old folios in this country. It has been often reprinted and translated into Latin, Italian, Spanish, Portugueze, German, and English. He published several other books, both in Latin and French particularly, 1. “De Kloquentia sacra et humana,” 1619, 4to, which* was several times reprinted. It exhibits numerous examples of different styles in writing. 2. “Klectorum Symbolorum et Parabolarum historicarum Syntagmata,” 1618, 4to. 3. “Disputes sur les quatre livres des Hois, touchant l'Education des Princes,” fol. 4. “Tragedise Sacra,” 1620. 5. “Apologie pour les Religieux de la Compagnie de Jesus,” 1644, 8vo. 6. “La Vie neutre des Filles devotes,” &c. 1G44-. 7. “Symbolica ^gyptiorum Sapientia,” 1647, 4to; and some other works of devotion and controversy, of which his “Christian Diary” was printed in English, 1648, 12mo. There is a strange singularity related of father Caussin by one of his eulogists, which was, that he had a very extraordinary sympathy with the heavens, especially with the sun, which he called his star; and which had very remarkable effects both upon his body and mind, according as it was more or less distant, or as it shined bright or was covered with clouds. The effects of the sun upon him were not transient, but appeared constantly by the sparkling of his eyes, and the lively colour of his face, in which there was something that made a very strong impression upon Henry IV. of France. Caussin, when very young, attended father Gonteri, a famous preacher of his time, to court, and there that king observed him very attentively. He had never seen him before, nor heard of him; but as soon as he perceived him, he went to him, took him by the hand, and treated him with so much kindness, that Caussin was as much ashamed as the by-standers were astonished. But the king said, that he had distinguished this youth among the crowd, and expected that he would serve him and his family very faithfully. Then, turning to father Gonteri, he spoke with a loud voice, “Father, you have here an attendant, who, if I am not mistaken, will become in time one of the greatest ornaments in your society.”

, a puritan clergyman of the church of England, exiled for his loyalty during the rebellion, was born at Rainham in Norfolk in 1605, of parents who were not in circumstances to give him an education suited to his capacity and their wishes, but were so much respected as to procure the patronage of sir Roger Townsend, knt. who not only sent him to school, but took the pains to assist him in his tasks, particularly in the Greek. By the same interest he was sent to Cambridge, and entered of Queen’s college, and made a distinguished figure, not only in the usual studies preparatory to the ministry, but in that of the languages, acquiring an uncommon acquaintance with the oriental languages, the Saxon, high and low Dutch, and the Italian, French, and Spanish. His religious principles he imbibed from Drs. Preston and Sibbs, and Mr. Herbert Palmer, puritans of great reputation at that time. After taking orders, he resided for four years in the house of sir William Armine of Orton in Huntingdonshire; and his old patron sir Roger Townscncl, just before his death in r presented him to the living of \V ivcnhoc in Essex. Alter he had been on this living about seven years, a violent and long continued tit of ague rendered it necessary to try a change of air, and in compliance with the advice of his physicians, he removed to London, where, by the interest of sir Ilai bottle Grirnston, he was promoted to the valuable rectory of St. Bartholomew, Exchange. He had not been here above five years when Charles I. was put to death. A few weeks after, Mr. Gawton was called upon to preach before the lord mayor and aldermen of London, at Mercers’ chapel, when he delivered himself in such plain terms against the hypocrisy of the predominant powers, that he was first sent for to Westminster, and then committed to the Gatehouse. This served only to raise his character among the loyal presbyterians, who, when Charles II. had thoughts of entering England, and asserting his right, intrusted him, with Mr. Christopher Love, and some other worthy persons, with the money raised by them for his majesty’s service, for which Mr. Love was imprisoned, and afterwards executed. Mr. Cawton then betook himself to a voluntary exile, and retiring to Rotterdam, became minister of the English church there, and died Ang. 7, 1659. His son, th.e subject of our next article, took care to preserve a just account of his merits and sufferings by writing “The Life nnd Death of that holy and reverend man of God Mr. Thomas Cawton, some time minister of St. Bartholomew,” &c. To which is added, his father’s Sermon, entitled “God’s Rule for a godly Life, from Philippians i. 27.” which is the sermon for the preaching of which he was imprisoned, London, 1662, 8vo. This account is an artless picture of a man who did great honour to his profession, and was a pattern of virtue in every social relation. His life is important in another respect, as proving that the ambition of civil power was as much the cause of the trpu-f bles of that time, as any want of liberty of conscience in matters of religion. Cawton knew how to unite the puritan with the loyalist. His biographer informs us that when he first received the sacrament, he ever afterwards expressed the profoundest reverence, and the most elevated devotion at that solemnity.

There is no account whatever of the typographical labours of Caxton from the year 1471 to 1474; although it is extremely probable that a curious and active mind like his, just engaged in the exercise of a newly-discovered and important art, would have turned its attention to a variety of objects for publication. Of the exact period of his return to his native country no information has yet been obtained, and what Oldys and Lewis have advanced on this subject amounts to mere conjecture: still less credit is to be given to the fabricated story of Henry VI. paving sent a person to Holland who brought si way Frederick Corsellis, a vorkxnan, and that Caxton had a hand in this seduction. All that is certainly known is, that previously to the year 1477, Caxton, after printing there the three works nentioncd, had quitted the Low Countries, and taken up his residence in the vicinity of Westminster-abbey, vhen Thomas Milling, bishop of Hereford, held the abbctship of St. Peter’s in commendam; and he had no doubt brought over with him all the necessary implements and materials of his trade. The particular spot where Caxton first sxercised his business, if we may credit Stowe, was an old chapel about the entrance of the abbey, and Oldys, somewhat whimsically, concludes that the name of chapel, which is sometimes given to a printing room, is derived from this circumstance; but what is called a chapel, in a printing-office, is not a building, but a convocation of journeymenprinters, to inquire into and punish certain faults in each other. Where the place occurs in any of Caxton’s publications, Westminster is mentioned generally, but the greater number of the productions of his press specify only the. date of their execution. According to Bagford, Caxton’s ofHce was afterwards removed into King-street, but whereabouts is not known; and we have yet to regret, as of more importance, that the precise period of his first essay in the art of printing is a matter of conjecture. Mr, Dibdin has summed up the evidence with precision and judgment; and to his valuahle work we must refer the reader, as well as for a chronological detail of the works which issued from the Caxton press. Exclusive of the labours attached to the working of Caxton’s press, as a new art, he contrived, though “well stricken in years,” to translate no fewer than 5000 closely printed folio pages; and, as Oldys expivsses it, “kept preparing copy for the press to the very last.” From the evidence of Wynkyn de Worde, in the colophon of his edition of the “Vitas Patrum,” 1495, it appears that these lives of the fathers were “translated out of French into English by William Caxton, of Westminster, late dead,” and that he finished it “at the last day of his life.” He might have chosen this work as his final literary effort, from a consideration, according to Oldys, that “from the examples of quiet and solemn retirement therein set forth, it might farther serve to wean his mind from all worldly attachments, exalt it above the solicitudes of this life, and inure him to that repose and tranquillity with which he seems to have designed it.”

It will be difficult, however, to give Caxton praise for the general strength and soundness of his judgment; not so much from the selection of such pieces as he has printed (for these were published in conformity with the prevailing studies of the day), as from the promptitude and prodigality of his praises towards objects not always deserving of commendation. Nor can we admire him for his unqualified belief of all the marvellous stones recorded in Godfrey of Boulogne; although the admiration with which he speaks of, and his uniform attachment to, this kind of composition, may dispose us to forgive him for the plenitude of his faith. In a word, if Caxton does not enjoy the intellectual reputation of an Aldus, a Stephens, a Turnebus, a Plantin, or a Bowyer, it must be remembered with what a slender stock of materials, and in what an uncivilized period, he commenced his career; that our land was then yet moist with the blood that had flowed in the civil wars of the houses of York and Lancaster; and that the education of youth, and the encouragement of what is called the belles lettres, were confined within the narrowest boundaries. The most illustrious patrons of which our printer could boast, were the earl Rivers and the earl of Worcester; but even the rank and accomplishment of these noblemen, especially of the latter, were insufficient to protect them from insult, persecution, and a premature end.

The count was only twelve years of age when his father died at Brussels, in Nov. 1704. After finishing his exercises, he entered into the corps of the Mousquetaires; and in his first campaign in 1709, he distinguished himself by his valour in such a manner, that Louis XIV. commended him in the presence of all the court; and rewarded his merit with an ensigncy in the gendarmerie. In 1711 he commanded a regiment of dragoons, which was called by his own name; and he signalized himself at the head of it in Catalonia. lu 1713, he was at the siege of Fribourg, where he was exposed to imminent danger in the bloody attack of the covered way. Had he been disposed to enter into the views of his family, the favour of madame de Maintenon, and his own personal merit, could not fail to have raised him to the highest honours; but the peace of Rastade left him in a state of inactivity ill-suited to his natural temper.

The queen’s regard to lord Burleigh, though sincere and permanent, was occasionally intermixed with no small degree of petulance and ill humour. He was severely reproached by her in 1594, on account of the state of affairs in Ireland; and, on another occasion, when he persisted, against her will, in a design of quitting the court for a few days, for the purpose of taking physic, she called him “a froward old fool.” He fell also under her majesty’s displeasure because he disagreed with her in opinion concerning an affair which related to the earl of Essex. Having supported the earl’s claim, in opposition to the queen, her indignation was so much excited against the treasurer, that she treated him as a miscreant and a coward. Lord Burleigh being in the latter part of his life much subject to the gout, sir John Harrington observes, in a letter to his lordship, that he did not invite the stay of such a guest by rich wines, or strong spices. It is probable that the frequent return of this disorder, in conjunction with the weight of business, and the general infirmities of age, contributed to the peevishness into which he was sometimes betrayed. In a conversation which he had with Mons. de Fouquerolles, an agent from Henry the Fourth, king of France, he lost himself so much, as to yeflect in the grossest terms upon that monarch. This was, indeed, an astonishing act of imprudence, in a man of his years and experience; and affords a striking instance of the errors and inadvertencies to which the wisest and best persons are liable. When the lord treasurer died, queen Elizabeth was so much affected with the event, that she took it very grievously, shed tears, and separated herself, for a time, from all company.

Besides these lesser failings of this great man, he has been accused of illiberality to the poet Spenser, which perhaps may be attributed to his dislike of Leicester, under whose patronage Spenser had come forward, but perhaps more to his want of relish for poetry. On the other hand, our historians are generally agreed in their praises of his high character. Smollett only has endeavoured to lessen it, but as this is coupled with a disregard for historical truth, the attempt is entitled to little regard, and the advocates for Mary queen of Scots cannot be supposed to forgive the share he had in her fate. Lord Orford has given lord Burleigh a place among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” but at the same time justly observes, that he is one of those great names, better known in the annals of his country than in those of the republic of letters. Besides lord Burleigh’s answer to a Latin libel published abroad, which he entitled “Slanders and Lies,” and “A Meditation of the State of England, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth,” lord Orford mentions “La Complainte de PAme pecheresse,” in French verse, extant in the king’s library; “Car mina duo Latina in Obitum Margaretae Nevillee, Reginoe Catherine a Cubiculis;” “Carmen Latinum in Memoriain Tho. Challoneri Equitis aurati, prsefixum ejusdem Libro de restaurata Republica;” “A Preface to Queen Catherine Parr’s Lamentation of a Sinner.” When sir William Cecil accompanied the duke of Somerset on his expedition to Scotland, he furnished materials for an account of that war, which was published by William Patten, under the title of “Diarium Expeditions Scoticae,” London, 1541, 12mo. This is supposed to be the reason why lord Burleigh is reckoned by Holinshed among the English historians. “The first paper or memorial of sir William Cecil \ anno primo Eliz.” This, which is only a paper of memorandums, is printed in Somers’s tracts, from a manuscript in the Cotton library. “A Speech in Parliament, 1592.” This was first published by Strype in his Annals, and has since been inserted in the Parliamentary History. “Lord Burleigh’s Precepts, or directions for the well-ordering and carriage of a man’s life,” 1637. “A Meditation on the Death of his Lady.” Mr. Ballard, in his Memoirs of British Ladies, has printed this Meditation from an original formerly in the possession of James West, esq. but now in the British Museum. Lord Burleigh was supposed to be the author of a thin pamphlet, in defence of the punishments inflicted on the Roman catholics in the reign of queen Elizabeth: it is called “The Execution of Justice in England, for maintenance of public and Christian peace, against certain stirrers of sedition, and adherents to the traitors and enemies of the realm, without any persecution of them for questions of religion, as it is falsely reported, &c.” London, 1583, second edition. Other political pieces were ascribed to him, and even the celebrated libel, entitled “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” It was asserted, that the hints, at least, were furnished by him for that composition. But no proof has been given of this assertion, and it was not founded on any degree of probability. His lordship drew up also a number of pedigrees, some of which are preserved in the archbishop of Canterbury’s library at Lambeth. These contain the genealogies of the kings of England, from William the Conqueror to Edward the Fourth; of queen Anne Boleyn; and of several princely houses in Germany.

In 1597 he was constituted cbancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. In February 1597-8 he went to France with Mr. Herbert and sir Thomas Wylkes, to endeavour to divert Henry IV. from the treaty at Vervins; and in May 1599, succeeded his father in the office of master of the court of wards, for which he resigned a better place, that of chancellor of the duchy, being so restrained in the court of wards, by new orders, that he was, as he expressed it, a ward himself. He succeeded his father likewise in the post of principal minister of state, and from that time public affairs seem to have been entirely under his direction. During the last years of his queen, he supported her declining age with such vigour and prudence as at once enabled her to assist her allies the States General, when they were ingloriously abandoned by France, and to defeat a dangerous rebellion in Ireland, which was cherished by powerful assistance from Spain. But though he was a faithful servant to his mistress, yet he kept a secret correspondence with her successor king James, in which he was once in great danger of being discovered by the queen. As her majesty was taking the air upon Blackheath, near her palace at Greenwich, a post riding by, she inquired from whence it came; and being told from Scotland, she stopped her coach to receive the packet. Sir Robert Cecil, who attended her, knowing there were in it some letters from his correspondents, with great presence of mind, called immediately for a knife toopen it, that a delay might not create suspicion. When he came to cut it open, he told the queen that it looked and smelt very ill, and therefore was proper to be opened and aired before she saw what it contained; to which her majesty consented, having an extreme aversion to bad smells. Upon her decease he was the first who publicly read her will, and proclaimed king James; and his former services to that prince, or the interest of sir George Hume, afterwards earl of Dunbar, so effectually recommended him to his majesty, that he took him into the highest degree of favour, and continued him in his office of principal minister; and though in that reign public affairs were not carried on with the same spirit as in the last, the fault cannot justly be charged on this minister, but on the king, whose timid temper induced him to have peace with all the world, and especially with Spain at any rate. But though sir Robert Cecil was far from approving, in his heart, the measures taken for obtaining that inglorious peace, yet he so far ingratiated himself with his sovereign that he was raised to greater honours; being on May 13, 1603, created baron of Essenden, in Rutlandshire; on the 20th of August, 1604, viscount Cranborne, in Dorsetshire (the first of that degree who bore a coronet), and on May 4, 1605, earl of Salisbury.

, the reputed patroness of music, was a Roman virgin of distinguished birth, who lived in the second century. She was eminent for her piety, and had vowed virginity, but contrary to her inclinations-, was espoused by her parents to a heathen nobleman of the name of Valerian, whom she is said to have kept from her bed, by informing him that she had an angel appointed to protect her, and she engaged that Valerian should see this angel, in case he would prepare himself for such a favour by becoming a Christian. Valerian consented, saw the angel, abstained from Cecilia as a wife, and was converted along with his brother Tiburtius. Valerian and Tiburtius suffered martyrdom, and Cecilia was honoured with the same death some days after. These martyrdoms are variously placed under M. Aurelius, between 176 and 180, and under Alexander Severus, about 231. The body of St. Cecilia was found by pope Pascal I. in the cemetery of a church called by her name, which occurs as early as the sixth century; and her body and her husband’s, found in the same place, were translated in 821 to a monastery founded by pope Pascal in honour of the martyrs Tiburtius and Maximus, near the church of St. Cecilia in Rome, usually called in Trastevere, to distinguish it from two others dedicated to the sama saint.

Musical and other historians have not been able to assign any better reason for honouring St. Cecilia as the patroness of music, than what may be found in her “Acts,” which still exist in Surius, but are now considered as of no authority. Yet as they were credited in more credulous times, painters fixed upon organs as the appropriate emblem of this saint; musicians chose her for their patroness, and poets have described her as the in ven tress of the organ, and as charming angels to leave their celestial spheres, in order to listen to her harmony. The earliest notice of her as the tutelar saint of music seems to have been in the works of the great painters of the Italian school; some representing her as performing on the harp, and others on the organ. Raphael, in his celebrated portrait of the saint, has placed in her hands a column of organ pipes, or rather the front of a portable instrument called the regals, which in Roman catholic times used to be carried by one person and played by another in processions. But of the celebration of her birth-day by assemblies of musicians, we have been able to discover no instance earlier than the latter end of the seventeenth century, when there was a rage among the votaries of music for celebrating the birth-day of this saint, November 22, not only in London, but in all the considerable cities and provincial towns in the kingdom, where music was cultivated. Dryden’s Ode to St. Cecilia has led Mr. Malone into a prolix and probably very accurate history of this saint, and into a chronological account of all the great Cecilian festivals held in London from 1683 to 1740, with a list of all the odes written expressly for the celebration of St. Cecilia, by whom written, and by whom set to music.

, an eminent critic and geographer, was born 1638, at Smalcalde, a little town in Franconia, where his father was minister. His mother, Mary Zehners, was daughter of the famous divine, Joachim Zehners. He came of a family in which learning seems to have been hereditary. When three years old, he had the misfortune to lose his father, but his mother took care of his education. He began his studies in the college of Smalcalde, and at eighteen was removed to Jena, to finish his studies in that university. During a residence of three years in this place, he applied to classical learning under Bosius, to philosophy under Bechman, to the Oriental languages under Frischmuth, and to mathematics under Weigelius. In 1659 he quitted Jena to go to Giessen, to study divinity under Peter Haberkorn. He afterwards returned to Jena, and took a doctor’s degree there in 1666. The year following he was made professor of Hebrew and morai philosophy at Weissenfels, in which office he continued for seven years. In 1673 he was called to Weimar, to be rector of the college there, which, at the end of three years, he exchanged for a similar rank at Zeits. After two years stay here, the college of Mersbourg was offered to him, which he accepted. His learning, his abilities, and his diligence, soon rendered this college famous, and drew a great number of students; and the place was so agreeable to him, that he determined to end his days there; but Providence disposed of him otherwise. For the king of Prussia, having founded an university at Halle in 1693, prevailed upon him to be professor of eloquence and history in it, and here he composed a great part of his works. His great application shortened his days, and hastened on the infirmities of old age. He was a long time afflicted with the stone, but never could be persuaded to seek assistance from medicine. He died, 1707, in his sixty-ninth year.

, a Latin poet, called also Protucius and Meissel, was born at Sweinfurt near Wetrtzburg in 1459, and died at Vienna in 1508, after having gained the poetic laurel. He has left, 1. “Odes,” Strasburg, 1513, 8vo. 2. “Epigrams,” and a poem on the manners of the Germans, 1610, 8vo. 3. “An historical account of the city of Nuremberg,” Strasburg, 1513, 4to; and various other works, enumerated by Moreri, all in Latin. He was not deficient in the sallies of imagination, though not exempt from the defects of the age in which he wrote. He is censurable for negligence in point of style, and with preferring sentiments more for their brilliancy than their solidity. His four books in elegiac verse, on the same number of mistresses he boasts to have had, were published at Nuremberg in 1502, 4to. This volume is scarce. The emperor Maximilian made him his librarian, and granted him the privilege of conferring the poetic crown on whomsoever he judged worthy of it.

It was at this period of her life that she commenced dramatic author; to which she was probably in some degree induced by the narrowness of her circumstances. Some of her earlier pieces were published under the name of Carrol. Her first attempt was in tragedy, in a play called “The Perjured Husband,” which was performed at Drurylane Theatre in 1700, and published in 4to the same year. In 1703, she produced “The Beau’s Duel, or a Soldier for the Ladies, a comedy;” and “Love’s Contrivances,” which is chiefly a translation from Moliere; and the following year another comedy, entitled “The Stolen Heiress, or the Salamanca Doctor outwitted.” In 1705, her comedy of “The Gamester” was acted at Lincoln’sinn-fields, which met with considerable success, and has since been revived at Drury-lane. The plot of this piece “was chiefly borrowed from a French comedy, called” Le Dissipateur." The Prologue was written by Mr. Rowe.

, whose family name was Teyng, which he exchanged for Ceratinus, from xsfag, horn, an allusion to Horn or Hoorn in Holland, was born there in the beginning of the sixteenth century. It appears from Erasmus’s letters, that he thought Ceratinus one of the most profound scholars in Greek and Latin which the age afforded; yet, when he came to be ordained priest at Utrecht, he was rejected for ignorance of the rules of grammar; but when the examiners understood that he had given superior proofs of learning, they re-called him, pleaded that they were obliged to certain forms in their examination, and granted him letters of ordination. On the recommendation of Erasmus, George, elector of Saxony, appointed him to succeed Mosellanus in his professorship at Leipsic; and on this occasion Erasmus declared that he was worth, in point of learning, ten such as Mosellanus. He was also offered the Greek professorship in the college of three languages at Louvain. At Leipsic he did not meet with the reception he deserved, owing to its being suspected that he had imbibed Lutheran principles. He died at Louvain April 10, 1530, in the flower of his age. His works were, A very elegant translation of Chrysostom’s “Treatise concerning the Priesthood” an improved edition of the “Graeco- Latin Lexicon,” printed by Froben, in 1524, with a preface by Erasmus; and a treatise “De Sono Graecarum Literarum,” printed in 1529, 8vo, with a dialogue from the pen of Erasmus on pronunciation. These were reprinted ' by Havercamp in his “Sylloge Scriptorum,” or collection of commentators on the pronunciation of the Greek, Leyden, 1736.

, an eminent painter, called M. A. DI Battague, from his excellence in painting battles, and Bambocciate, from his turn for painting markets, fairs, &c. was born at Rome in 1600, or 1602. His father, a jeweller, perceiving his disposition to the art, placed him with James d'As6, a Flemish painter, then in credit at Rome; after three years study with him, he went to the school of P. P. Cortonese, whom he quitted to become the disciple and imitator of Bamboccio. He surpassed all his fellow-students in taste, and had a manner of painting peculiar to himself. His chearful temper appeared in his pictures, in which ridicule was strongly represented. The facility of his pencil was such, that on the recital of a battle, a shipwreck, or any uncommon figure, he could express it* directly on his canvas. His colouring was vigorous, and his touch light. He never made designs or sketches, but only re-touched his pictures until he hud brought them to all the perfection of which he was capable. Such was his reputation that he could hardly supply the commissions he received, and he became so rich that the cares of wealth began to perplex him. He on one occasion took all his wealth to a retired place in order to bury it, but when he arrived, was so alarmed lest it should be found, that he brought it back, with much trouble, and having been two nights and a day without sleep or sustenance, this, it is said, injured his health, and brought on a violent fever which proved fatal in 1660. His personal character is highly praised. Mr. Fuseli says, that he differs from Bamboccio in the character and physiognomy of his figures; instead of Dutch or Flemish mobs, he painted those of Italy. Both artists have strongand vivid tints; Bamboccio is superior to him in landscape, and he excelis Bamboccio in the spirit of his figures. One of his most copious works is in the palace Spada at Rome, in which he has represented an arrny df fanatic Lazzaroni, who shout applause to Masaniello.

, the author of Don Quixote, was born at Alcala de Henares in 1547. He was the son of Rodrigo de Cervantes and Donna Leonora de Cortinas, and baptised Sunday, Oct. 9 of that year, as appears from the parish register of Santa Maria la Mayor in Alcala. Several concurring testimonies furnished the clue for this discovery, although six other places, Seville, Madrid, Esquivias, Toledo, Lucena, and Alcazar de San Juan, called him their son, and each had their advocates to support their claims, in which respect his fame resembles that of Homer’s. His parents designed him for the profession of letters, and although he had at home the opportunity of instruction in the university, he studied Latin in Madrid. He afterwards resided there in 1568, but two years afterwards we find him at Rome in the service of cardinal Aquaviva in the capacity of chamberlain. Some time after this, pope Pius V. Philip IL of Spain, and the republic of Venice, united in a league, which was concluded May 29, 1571, against Selim the grand Turk. Cervantes, not satisfied with an idle court life, desirous of military renown, determined to commence soldier. Marco Antonio Colonna being appointed general of the pope’s galleys, Cervantes went with him, and was present in the famous battle of Lepanto, where he was so wounded in his left hand by a gun-shot as totally to lose the use of it; but he thought this such an honour, that he afterwards declared he would rather have been present in this glorious enterprise, than to be whole in his limbs, and not to have there at all. Colonna returned to Rome in the end of 1572, and it is probable that Cervantes was with him,; as he tells us that for some years he followed his conquering banners. He was ordered to join his regiment at Naples, notwithstanding his being maimed. In his “Viage del Parnaso,” he tells us that he walked its streets more than a year: and in the copy of his ransom, it appears that he was there a long time. Don J. A. Pellicer supposes that in this city he employed his leisure hours in cultivating his knowledge of the Italian tongue, and in reading of its good writers, with whom he appears conversant in his works. As he was going from Naples to Spain on board the galley of the Sun, Sept. 26, 1575, he had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Moors, who carried him captive to Algiers. The several hardships he underwent in his five years’ captivity are noticed by a contemporary writer: and though the events mentioned in the story of “The Captive,” in the first part of Don Quixote, cannot strictly be applied to himself, yet they could hardly have been so feelingly described but by one who had been a spectator of such treatment as he relates. Several extraordinary and dangerous attempts were made by him and his companions to obtain their liberty, which was effected at last by the regular way of ransom, which took place Sept. 19, 1580. The price was 500 escudos; towards which his mother, a widow, contributed 250 ducats, and his sister 50.

, a gallant soldier, an able statesman, and a very learned writer in the sixteenth century, was descended from a good family in Wales, and born at London about 1515. His quick parts discovered themselves even in his infancy; so that his family, to promote that passionate desire of knowledge for whidh he was so early distinguished, sent him to the university of Cambridge, where he remained some years, and obtained great credit, as well by the pregnancy of his wit as his constant and diligent application, but especially by his happy turn for Latin poetry, in which he exceeded most of his contemporaries. Upon his removing from college he came up to court, and being there recommended to the esteem and friendship of the greatest men about it, he was soon sent abroad into Germany with sir Henry Knevet, as the custom was in the reign of Henry VIII. when young men of great hopes were frequently employed in the service of ambassadors, that they might at once improve and polish themselves by travel, and gain some experience in business. He was so well received at the court of the emperor Charles V. and so highly pleased with the noble and generous spirit of that great monarch, that he attended him in his journies, and in his wars, particularly in that fatal expedition against Algiers, which cost the lives of so many brave men, and was very near cutting short the thread of Mr. Chaloner’s; for in the great tempest by which the emperor’s fleet was shattered on the coast of Barbary in 1541, the vessel, on board of which he was, suffered shipwreck, and Mr. Chaloner having quite wearied and exhausted himself by swimming in the dark, at length beat his head against a cable, of which laying hold with his teeth, he was providentially drawn up into the ship to which it belonged. He returned soon after into England, and as a reward of his learning and services, was promoted to the office of first clerk of the council, which he held during the remainder of that reign. In the beginning of the next he came into great favour with the duke of Somerset, whom he attended into Scotland, and was in the battle of Mussleburgh, where he distinguished himself so remarkably in the presence of the duke, that he conferred upon him the honour of knighthood Sept. 28, 1547, and after his return to court, the duchess of Somerset presented him with a rich jewel. The first cloud that darkened his patron’s fortune, proved fatal to sir Thomas Chaloner’s pretensions; for being a man of a warm and open temper, and conceiving the obligation he was under to the duke as a tie that hindered his making court to his adversary, a stop was put to his preferment, and a vigilant eye kept upon his actions. But his loyalty to his prince, and his exact discharge of his duty, secured him from any farther danger, so that he had leisure to apply himself to his studies, and to cultivate his acquaintance with the worthiest men of that court, particularly sir John Cheke, sir Anthony Coke, sir Thomas Smith, and especially sir William Cecil, with whom he always lived in the strictest intimacy. Under the reign of queen Mary he passed his time, though safely, yet very unpleasantly; for being a zealous protestant, he could not practise any part of that complaisance which procured some of his friends an easier life. He interested himself deeply in the affair of sir John Cheke, and did him all the service he was able, both before and after his confinement. This had like to have brought sir Thomas himself into trouble, if the civilities he had shewn in king Edward’s reign, to some of those who had the greatest power under queen Mary, had not moved them, from a principle of gratitude, to protect him. Indeed, it appears from his writings, that as he was not only sincere, but happy in his friendships, and as he was never wanting to his friends when he had power, he never felt the want of them when he had it not, and, which he esteemed the greatest blessing of his life, he lived to return those kindnesses to some who had been useful to him in that dangerous season. Upon the accession of Elizabeth, he appeared at court with his former lustre; and it must afford us a very high opinion of his character as well as his capacity, that he was the first ambassador named by that wise princess, and that also to the first prince in Europe, Ferdinand I. emperor of Germany. In this negociation, which was of equal importance and delicacy, he acquitted himself with great reputation, securing the confidence of the emperor and his ministers, and preventing the popish powers from associating against Elizabeth, before she was well settled on the throne, all which she very gratefully acknowledged. After his return from this embassy, he was very soon thought of for another, which was that of Spain; and though it is certain the queen could not give a stronger proof than this of her confidence in his abilities, yet he was very far from thinking that it was any mark of her kindness, more especially considering the terms upon which she then stood with king Philip, and the usage his predecessor, Chamberlain, had met with at that court. But he knew the queen would be obeyed, and therefore undertook the business with the best grace he could, and embarked for Spain in 1561. On his first arrival he met with some of the treatment which he dreaded. This was the searching of all his trunks and cabinets, of which he complained loudly, as equally injurious to himself as a gentleman, and to his character as a public minister. His complaints, however, were fruitless; for at that time there is great probability that his Catholic majesty was not over desirous of having an English minister, and more especially one of sir Thomas’s disposition, at his court, and therefore gave him no satisfaction. Upon this sir Thomas Chaloner wrote home, set out the affront that he had received in the strongest terms possible, and was very earnest to be re-called; but the queen his mistress contented herself with letting him know, that it was the duty of every person who bore a public character, to bear with patience what happened to them, provided no personal indignity was offered to the prince from whom they came. Yet, notwithstanding this seeming indifference on her part, the searching sir Thomas Chaloner’s trunks was, many years afterwards, put into that public charge which the queen exhibited against his Catholic majesty, of injuries done to her before she intermeddled with the affairs of the Low Countries. Sir Thomas, however, kept up his spirit, and shewed the Spanish ministers, and even that haughty monarch himself, that the queen could not have entrusted her affairs in better hands than his. There were some persons of very good families in England, who, for the sake of their religion, and no doubt out of regard to the interest to which they had devoted themselves, desired to have leave from queen Elizabeth to reside in the Low Countries or elsewhere, and king Philip and his ministers made it a point to support their suit. Upon this, when a conference was held with sir Thomas Chaloner, he answered very roundly, that the thing in itself was of very little importance, since it was no great matter where the persons who made this request spent the remainder of their days; but that considering the rank and condition of the princes interested in this business, it was neither fit for the one to ask, nor for the other to grant; and it appeared that he spoke the sense of his court, for queen Elizabeth would never listen to the proposal. In other respects he was not unacceptable to the principal persons of the Spanish court, who could not help admiring his talents as a minister, his bravery as a soldier, with which in former times they were well acquainted, his general learning and admirable skill in Latin poetry, of which he gave them many proofs during his stay in their country. It was here, at a time when, as himself says in the preface, he spent the winter in a stove, and the summer in a barn, that he composed his great work of “The right ordering of the English republic.” But though this employment might in some measure alleviate his chagrin, yet he fell into a very grievous fit of sickness, which brought him so low that his physicians despaired of his life. In this condition he addressed his sovereign in an elegy after the manner of Ovid, setting forth his earnest desire to quit Spain and return to his native country, before care and sickness forced him upon a longer journey. The queen granted his petition, and having named Dr. Man his successor in his negociation, at length gave him leave to return home from an embassy, in which he had so long sacrificed his private quiet to the public conveniency. He accordingly returned to London in the latter end of 1564, and published the first five books of his large work before-mentioned, which he dedicated to his good friend sir William Cecil; but the remaining five books were probably not published. in his life-time. He resided in a fair large house of his own building in Clerkenwell-close, over-against the decayed nunnery; and Weever has preserved from oblivion an elegant fancy of his, which was penciled on the frontispiece of his dwelling. He died Oct. 7, 1565, and was buried in the cathedral church of St. Paul with great funeral solemnity, sir William Cecil, then principal secretary of state, assisting as chief mourner, who also honoured his memory with some Latin verses, in which he observes, that the most lively imagination, the most solid judgment, the quickest parts, and the most unblemished probity, which are commonly the lot of different men, and when so dispersed frequently create great characters, were, which very rarely happens, all united in sir Thomas Chaloner, justly therefore reputed one of the greatest men of his time. He also encouraged Dr. William Malim, formerly fellow of King’s college in Cambridge, and then master of St. Paul’s school, to collect and publish a correct edition of our author’s poetical works; which he accordingly did, and addressed it in an epistle from St. Paul’s school, dated August 1, 1579, to lord Burleigh. Sir Thomas Chaloner married Ethelreda, daughter of Edward Frodsham of EJton, in the county palatine of Chester, esq. by whom he had issue his only son Thomas, the subject of the next article. This lady, not long after sir Thomas’s decease, married sir * * * Brockett, notwithstanding which the lord Burleigh continued his kindness to her, out of respect to that friendship which he had for her first husband. Sir Thomas’s epitaph was written by one of the best Latin poets of that age, Dr. Walter Haddon, master of requests to queen Elizabeth.

, a Scotch historian, priest, and lawyer, was born in the shire of Ross about the year 1530, and educated in the university of Aberdeen. From thence he went to France and Italy, and continued some time, particularly at Bologna, where in 1556 he was a pupil of Marianus Sozenus. After his return to Scotland he was appointed by queen Mary, parson of Suddy, and chancellor of Ross. He was soon after employed in digesting the laws of Scotland, and was principally concerned in publishing the acts of parliament of that kingdom by authority in 1566, which, from the type, were commonly called the “Black Acts.” Not long after this he was appointed one of the lords of session, by the title of lord Ormond, and continued attached to the queen until the decline of her power, when he and her other adherents were obliged to go abroad. He then went into Spain, and to France, in both which countries he was kindly received by their respective sovereigns, Philip and Charles IX. to which last in 1572 he presented his “Abridgment of the History of Scotland, France, and Ireland.” He died at Paris in 1552, much regretted by all who knew him. His works, which were published in one vol. 8vo, Paris, 1579, and which relate to the succession to the crown, the right of Mary to that of England, &c. consist of, 1. “Histoire abrege de tous les Roys c'e France, Angleterre, et Escosse.” 2. “La recherche des singularitez plus remarkables concernant le estat d'Ecosse.” 3. “Discours de la legitime succession des femmes aux possessions de leurs parens, et du government des princesses aux empires et royaumes.” Machenzie gives a full analysis of all these, but bishop Nicolson has not so high an opinion of the soundness of the author’s principles. Dempster and others highly extol his learning and character.

, author of the scientific dictionary which goes under his name, was born at Kendal in the county of Westmorland, the youngest of three brothers. His parents were dissenters of the presbyterian persuasion; and not quakers, as has been reported; and their occupation was that of farming. He was sent early to Kendal school, where he received a good classical education. But his father, who had already placed his eldest son at Oxford, and could not afford the same expence a second time, determined to bring up Ephraim to trade. He was accordingly, at a proper age, sent to London, and spent some time in the shop of a mechanic in that city; but, having an aversion to the business, he tried another, to which he was equally averse, and was at last put apprentice to Mr. Senex the globe-maker, a business which is connected with literature, and especially with astronomy and geography. It was during Mr. Chambers’s residence with this skilful mechanic, that he contracted that taste for science and learning which accompanied him through life, and directed all his pursuits, and in which his master very liberally encouraged him. It was even at this time that he formed the design of his grand work, the “Cyclopaedia;” and some of the first articles of it were written behind the counter. Having conceived the idea of so great an undertaking, he justly concluded that the execution of it would not consist with the avocations of trade; and, therefore, he quitted Mr. Senex, and took chambers at Gray’s-inn, where he chiefly resided during the rest of his days. The first edition of the “Cyclopædia,” which was the result of many years intense application, appeared in. 1728, in 2 vols. folio. It was published by subscription, the price being 4l. 4s.; and the list of subscribers was very numerous. The dedication, to the king, is dated Oct. 15, 1727. The reputation that Mr. Chambers acquired by his execution of this undertaking, procured him the honour of being elected F. R. S. Nov. 6, 1729. In less than ten years’ time, a second edition became necessary; which accordingly was printed, with corrections and additions, in 1738. It having been intended, at first, to give a new work instead of a new edition, Mr. Chambers had prepared a considerable part of the copy with that view, and more than twenty sheets were actually printed off. The purpose of the proprietors, according to this plan, was to have published a volume in the winter of 1737, and to have proceeded annually in supplying an additional volume, till the whole was completed. But from this design they were diverted, by the alarm they took at an act then agitated in parliament, in which a clause was contained, obliging the publishers of all improved editions of books to print the improvements separately. The bill, which carried in it the appearance of equity, but which, perhaps, might have created greater obstructions to the cause of literature than a transient view of it could suggest, passed the house of commons, but was rejected in the house of lords. In an advertisement prefixed to the second edition of the “Cyclopaedia,” Mr. Chambers endeavoured to obviate the complaints of such readers as might have been led to expect (from a paper of his published some time before) a newwork, instead of a new edition. So favourable was the public reception of the second edition of Chambers’s dictionary, that a third was called for in the very next year, 1739; a fourth two years afterwards, in 1741; and a fifth in 1746. This rapid sale of so large and expensive a work, is not easily to be paralleled in the history of literature: and must be considered, not only as a striking testimony of the general estimation in which it is held, but likewise as a strong proof of its real utility and merit.

His personal character had many peculiarities. What we record with most regret is that his religious sentiments leaned to infidelity, although it has been said in excuse that he avoided propagating his opinions, and certainly did not introduce them in his writings. His mode of life was reserved, for he kept little company, and no table. An intimate friend who called on him one morning, was asked by him to stay and dine. “And what will you give me, Ephraim?” said the gentleman, “I dare engage you have nothing for dinner;” to which Mr. Chambers calmly replied, “Yes, I have a fritter; and if you‘ll stay with me, I’ll have two.” Yet, though thus inattentive to himself, he was very generous to the poor. He was likewise sufficiently conscious of his defects in social qualities, and when urged to marry that he might then have a person to look after him, which his health required, he replied somewhat hastily, “What! shall 1 make a woman miserable, to contribute to my own ease? For miserable she must be the moment she gives her hand to so unsocial a being as myself.”

, was born at Paris in 1717, and destined to supply his father’s place in the parliament of that city as a judge, as well as that of his uncle in the same situation. He made choice of the one of them that would give him the least trouble, and afford him the most leisure for his benevolent projects. Medicine was his favourite study. This he practised on the poor only, with such an ardour and activity of mind, that the hours which many persons give to sleep, he bestowed upon the assistance of the sick. To make himself more useful to them, he had learned to bleed, which operation he performed with all the dexterity of the most experienced surgeon. His disposition to do good appeared so early that when he was a boy, he used to give to the poor the money which other boys spent in general in an idle and unprofitable manner. He was once very much in love with a young lady of great beauty and accomplishment; but imagining that she would not make him a suitable assistant in his attendance upon the poor, he gave over all thoughts of marriage; not very wisely, perhaps, sacrificing to the extreme delicacy of one woman only his attachment to that sex, in whose tenderness of disposition, and in whose instinctive quickness of feeling, he would have found tluufc reciprocation of benevolence he was anxious to procure. He was so forcibly struck with the wretched situation of the great hospital of Paris (the Hotel Dieu, as it is called), where the dead, the dying, and the living, are very often crowded together in the same bed (five persons at a time occasionally occupying the same bed), that he wrote a plan of reform for that hospital, which he shewed in manuscript to the famous John James Rousseau, requesting him to correct it for him. “What correction,” replied Rousseau, “can a work want, that one cannot read without shuddering at the horrid pictures it represents? What is the end of writing if it be not to touch and interest the passions?” M. de Chamousset was occasionally the author of many benevolent and useful schemes; such as the establishment of the penny post at Paris; the bringing good water to that city; a plan for a house of association, by which any man, for a small sum of money deposited, may be taken care of when he is sick; and many others; not forgetting one for the abolition of begging, which is to be found in “Lesvues d'uncitoyen.” M. de Chamousset was now so well known as a man of active and useful benevolence, that M. de Choiseul (when he was in the war department) made him, in 1761, intendant-general of the military hospitals of France, the king, Louis XV. telling him, “that he had never, since he came to the throne, made out an appointment so agreeable to himself;” and added, “I am sure I can never make any one that will be of such service to my troops.” The pains he took in this employment were incredible. His attention to his situation was so great, and conducted with such good sense and understanding, that the marshal de Soubise, on visiting one of the great military hospitals at Dusseldorf, under the care of M. de Chamousset, said, “This is the first time I have been so happy as to go round an hospital without hearing any complaints.” Another marshal of France told his wife: “Were I sick,” said he, “I would be taken to the hospital of which M. de Chamousset has the management.” M. de Chamousset was one day saying to the minister, that he would bring into a court of justice the peculation and rapine of a particular person. “God forbid you should!” answered the minister, “you run a risk of not dying in your bed.” “I had rather,” replied he, “die in any manner you please, than live to see my country devoured by scoundrels.”

, born in Saintonge, was sent by Henry IV. on a voyage to the newly-discovered continent of America, in quality of captain of a man of war. In this expedition he signalized himself not less by his courage than his prudence, and may be considered as the founder of New France. It was he who caused the town of Quebec to be built; he was the first governor of that colony, and greatly exerted himself in the settling of a new commercial company at Canada. This company, established in 1628, was called the company of associates, and the cardinal de Richelieu put himself at their head. He published: “Voyages de la Nouvelle France, dite Canada,” 1632, 4to. He goes back to the first discoveries made by Verazani, coming down to the year 1631. This work is excellent in regard to material points, and the simple and natural manner in which they are exhibited. If he is censurable for any thing, it is for rather too much credulity. The author seems to be a person of sound judgment and strong resolution; disinterested, and zealous for the religion and interests of his country. He was expelled, with the French, from the colony in 1631, but when restored at the peace, he returned again in 1634, and was appointed governor-general. He died about 1635. Lake Champlain in North America had its name from him, He discovered it in 1608, and before his time it was called Corlaer’s lake.

Dr. Chandler’s other works were: 1. “Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists, in their late writings against Christianity,” 1727. 2. “A Vindication of the Antiquity and Authority of Daniel’s Prophecies,” 1728, 3. A translation of Limborch’s “History of the Inquisition,” 1731, 2 vols. 4to. To this he prefixed “A large introduction, concerning the rise and progress of persecution, and the real and pretended causes of it.” This was attacked by Dr. Berriman, in a pamphlet entitled “Brief Remarks on Mr. Chandler’s Introduction to the History of the Inquisition.” Our author published, in the form of a letter, an answer to these “Remarks,” which engaged Dr. Berriman to write “A Review of his Remarks,” to which Mr. Chandler replied in “A second Letter to William Berriman, D. D. &c. in which his Review of his Hemarks on the Introduction to the History of the Inquisition is considered, and the Characters of St. Athanasius, and Martyr Laud, are farther stated and supported.” This publication was soon followed by another, entitled “A Vindication of a passage of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, in his second Pastoral Letter, against the misrepresentations of William Berriman, D. D. in a Letter to his Lordship;” and here the controversy ended. 4. “The Dispute better adjusted about the proper time of applying for a repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts,” &c.“1732, 8vo. 5.” A Paraphrase and critical Commentary on the prophecy of Joel,“1735, 4to. This was part of a commentary on the whole of the prophets, which he did not live to finish. 6.” The History of Persecution,“1736, 8vo. 7.” A Vindication of the History of the Old Testament,“in answer to Morgan’s” Moral Philosopher,“1741, 8vo. 8.” A Defence of the Prime Ministry and Character of Joseph,“1742, 8vo. 9.” The Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ re-examined, and their Testimony proved consistent,“1744, 8vo. 10.” The Case of Subscription to explanatory articles of faith, &c. calmly considered,“1748, 8vo. 11.” A Letter to the rev. Mr. John Guyse, occasioned by his two sermojis on Acts ix. 20. in which the scripture notion of preaching Christ is stated and defended, and Mr. Guyse’s charges against his brethren are considered and proved groundless,“1729, 8vo. 12.” A second Letter to the rev. Mr. John Guyse, in which Mr. Guyse’s latitude and restrictive ways of preaching Christ are proved to be entirely the same; the notion of preaching Christ is farther cleared and defended; the charge alledged against 'him of defaming his brethren is maintained and supported; and his solemn arts in controversy are considered and exposed,“1730, 8vo. 13.” A Letter to the right hon. the Lord Mayor; occasioned by his lordship’s nomination of five persons, disqualified by act of parliament, as fit and proper persons to serve the office^ of Sheriffs, in which the nature and design of the corporation act is impartially considered and stated,“1738, 8vo. 14.” An Account of the Conferences held in Nicholas-lane, Feb. 13, 1734, between two Romish priests and some protestant divines; with some remarks on a pamphlet entitled The Conferences, c. truly stated/ 7 1735, 8vo. 15. “Cassiodori Senatoris Complexiones in Epistolas, Acta Apostolorum, & Apocalypsin, e vetustissimis Canonicorum Veronensium membranis nuper erutee. Editio altera ad Florentinam fideliter expressa, opera & cura Samuelis Chandleri,” 1722, 12mo. 16. “A short and plain Catechism, being an explanation of the Creed, Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer, by way of question and answer,” 1742, 12mo. 17. “Great Britain’s Memorial against the Pretender and Popery; to which is annexed, the method of dragooning the French protestants after the revocation of the edict of Nantes,” 1715, 12mo. This piece was thought so seasonable at the time of the rebellion, that it passed through ten editions. 18. “Many occasional sermons.” Dr. Chandler also wrote about fifty papers in the weekly publication called “The Old Whig, or Consistent Protestant.” In 1768, 4 vols. of his sermons were published by Dr. Amory, according to his own directions in his last will; to which was prefixed a neat engraving of him, from an excellent portrait by Mr. Chamberlin. He also expressed a desire to have some of his principal pieces, reprinted in 4 vols. 8vo; proposals were accordingly published for that purpose, but did not meet with sufficient encouragement. But in 1777, another work of our author was published, in 1 vol. 4to, “A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, with doctrinal and practical Observations; together with a critical and practical Commentary on the two Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians.” In this there are some valuable criticisms, but all are not entitled to that praise. Dr. Chandler also left in his interleaved Bible, a large number of critical notes, chiefly in Latin, and which were intended to be published; but the design has not yet been executed, and the four gentlemen to whom they were intrusted, Dr. Kippis, Mr. Farmer, Dr. Price, and Dr. Savage, are all dead, nor have we heard in what manner they disposed of the copy.

His next publication arose from his connection with the Dilletanti, a society so called, composed originally (in 1734) of some gentlemen who had travelled in Italy, and were desirous of encouraging at home a taste for those objects which had contributed so much to their entertainment abroad. On a report of the state of this society’s finances in 1764, it appeared that they were in possession of a considerable sum above what their current services required. Various schemes were proposed for applying part of this money to some purpose which might promote taste, and do honour to the society; and after some consideration it was resolved, that persons properly qualified should be sent, with sufficient appointments, to certain parts of the east, to collect information relative to the former state of those countries, and particularly to procure exact descriptions of the ruins of such monuments of antiquity as are yet to be seen in those parts. Three persons were accordingly selected for this undertaking; Mr. Chandler was appointed to execute the classical part of the plan; the province of architecture was assigned to Mr. Revett; and the choice of a proper person for taking views and copying bas-reliefs, fell upon Mr. Pars, a young painter of promising talents.

, a celebrated French poet, was born at Paris Dec. 4, 1595, and having been educated under Frederic Morel, Nicholas Bourbon, and other eminent masters, became tutor to the children of the marquis de la Trousse, grand marshal of France, and afterwards steward to this nobleman. During an abode of seventeen years in this family, he translated “Guzman d'Alfarache,” from the Spanish, and directed his particular attention to poetry. He wrote odes, sonnets, the last words of cardinal Richelieu, and other pieces of poetry; and at length distinguished himself by his heroic poem called “La Pucelle,” or “France delivree.” Chapelain was thought to have succeeded to the reputation of Malherbe, and after his death was reckoned the prince of the French poets. Gassendi, who was his friend, has considered him in this light; and says, that “the French muses have found some comfort and reparation for the loss they have sustained by the death of Malherbe, in the person of Chapelain, who has now taken the place of the defunct, and is become the arbiter of the French language and poetry.” Sorbiere has not scrupled to say, that Chapelain “reached even Virgil himself in heroic poetry;” and adds, that “he was a man of great erudition as well as modesty.” He possessed this glorious reputation for thirty years; and, perhaps, might have possessed it now, if he had suppressed the “Pucelle:” but the publication of this poem in 1656, ruined his poetical character, in spite of all attempts of his friends to support it. He had employed a great many years about it; the expectation of the public was raised to the utmost; and, as is usual in such cases, disappointed. The consequence of this was, that he was afterwards set as much too low in his poetical capacity as perhaps before he was too high.

Chapelain died at Paris, Feb. 22, 1674, aged seventynine. He was of the king’s counsellors; very rich, and had some amiable qualities, but was covetous. “Pelisson and I,” says Menage, “had been at variance a long time with Chapelain; but, in a fit of humility, he called upon me and insisted that we should go and offer a reconciliation to him, for that it was his intention,” as much as possible, to live in peace with all men.“We went, and I protest I saw the very same billets of wood in the chimney which I had observed there twelve years before. He had 50,Ooo crowns in ready cash by him; and his supreme delight was to have his strong box opened and the bags taken out, that he might contemplate his treasure. In this manner were his bags about him when he died; which gave occasion to a certain academician to say,” there is our friend Chapelain just dead, like a miller among his bags.“He had no occasion therefore to accept of cardinal Richelieu’s offer. Being at the height of his reputation, Richelieu, who was fond of being thought a wit as well as a statesman, and was going to publish something which he would have pass for an excellent performance, could not devise a better expedient than prefixing Chapelain’s name to it.” Chapelain,“says he,” lend me your name on this occasion, and I will lend you my purse on any other.“The learned Huet endeavoured to vindicate his great poem, but could not succeed against the repeated attacks of Boileau, Racine, and Fontaine. Chapelain, however, was a man of learning, and a good critic, and he has found an able defender in the abbe cT Olivet, in his History of the French Academy, It was at the desire of Malherbe and Vaugelas that Chapelain wrote the famous preface to the” Adone“of Marino; and it was he who corrected the very first poetical composition of Racine, his” Ode to the Queen," who introduced Racine to Colbert, and procured him a pension, for which Racine repaid him by joining the wits in decrying his poem.

, a celebrated French poet, called Chapelle from the place of his nativity, a village between Paris and St. Denys, was born in 1621. He was the natural son of Francis Lullier, a man of considerable rank and fortune, who was extremely tender of him, and gave him a liberal education. He had the celebrated Gassendi for his master in philosophy; but he distinguished himself chiefly by his poetical attempts. There was an uncommon ease in all he wrote; and he was excellent in composing with double rhymes. We are obliged to him for that ingenious work in verse and prose, called “Voyage de Bachaumont,” which he wrote in conjunction with Bachaumont. Many of the most shining parts in Moliere’s comedies it is but reasonable to ascribe to him: for Moliere consulted him upon all occasions, and paid the highest deference to his taste and judgment. He was intimately acquainted with all the wits of his time, and with many persons of quality, who used to seek his company: and we learn from one of his own letters to the marquis of Chilly, that he had no small share in the favour of the king, and enjoyed, probably from court, an annuity of 8000 livres. He is said to have been a very pleasant, but withal a very voluptuous man. Among other stories in the Biographia Gallica, we are told that Boileau met him one day; and as he had a great value for Chapelle, ventured to tell him, in a very friendly manner, that “his inordinate love of the bottle would certainly hurt him.” Chapelle seemed very seriously affected; but this meeting happening unluckily by a tavern, “Come,” says he, “let us turn in here, and I promise to attend with patience to all that you shall say.” Boileau led the way, in hopes of converting him, but both preacher and hearer became so intoxicated that they were obliged to be sent home in separate coaches. Chapelle died in 1686, and his poetical works and “Voyage” were reprinted with additions at the Hague in 1732, and again in 1755, 2 vols. 12mo.

, a dramatic poet, and translator of Homer, was born in 1557, as generally supposed, in Kent, but we have no account at what school he was educated: he was, however, sent to the university when he was about seventeen years of age, and spent about two years at Trinity college, Oxford, where he paid little attention to logic or philosophy, but was eminently distinguished for his knowledge in the Greek and Roman classics. About the year 1576 he quitted the university, and repaired to the metropolis, where he commenced a friendship with Shakspeare, Spenser, Daniel, Marlow, and other celebrated wits. In 1595 he published, in 4to, a poem entitled “Ovid’s Banquet of Sauce, a coronet for his mistress philosophy, and his amorous zodiac:” to which he added, a translation of a poem into English, called “The amorous contention of Phillis and Flora,” written in Latin by a friar in 1400. The following year he published in 4to, “The Shield of Achilles,' 7 from Homer; and soon after, in the same year, a translation of seven books of the Iliad, in 4to. In 1600, fifteen books were printed in a thin folio; and lastly, without date, an entire translation of the Iliad, in folio, under the following title:” The Iliads of Homer, Prince of Poets. Never before in any language truly translated. With a comment upon some of his chief places: done according to the Greek by George Chapman. At London, printed by Nathaniel Butter."

In 1598 he produced a comedy entitled “The Blind Beggar of Alexandria, most pleasantly discoursing his various humours in disguised shapes, full of conceit and pleasure,” 4to, but not divided either into acts or scenes, and dedicated to the earl of Nottingham, lord high admiral. The following year he published another comedy in 4to, called “Humorous Day’s Mirth,” which was acted by the earl of Nottingham’s servants. He is said to have been much countenanced and encouraged by sir Thomas Walsingham, who, as Wood informs us, had a son of the same name, “whom Chapman loved from his birth.” Henry, prince of Wales, and Carr, earl of Somerset, also patronized him; but the former dying, and the latter being disgraced, Chapman’s hopes of preferment by their means were frustrated. His interest at court was likewise probably lessened by the umbrage taken by king James at some reflections cast on the Scotch nation in a comedy _ called “Eastward Hoe,” written by Chapman, in conjunction with Ben Jonson and John Marston. He is supposed, however, to have had some place at court, either under king James, or his queen Anne.

In 1605 he published a comedy in 4to, called “All Fools,” the plot of which is founded on Terence’s Heautontiniorumenos, and which was performed at Black Friars. Jacob says that “it was accounted an excellent play in those days, and was acted before king James.” The following year he produced two other comedies one called “The Gentleman Usher,” and the other “Monsieur D'Olive.” They were both printed in quarto it is uncertain whether the first was ever performed but the latter was often acted with success at Black Friars. In 1607 he published in 4to, “Bussy d'Amboise, a Tragedy,” which was often exhibited at St. Paul’s in the reign of James I. ad after the Restoration was revived with success. The same year he published in 4to, “Caesar and Pompey, a lloman Tragedy, declaring their wars, out of whose events is evicted this proposition, Only a just man is a free man.” The following year he produced “The Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, duke of Biron, marshal of France,” 4to, performed at Black Friars, in two parts. In 1611 he published in 4to, “May-day,” which is styled a witty comedy, and which was acted at Black Friars; and in 1612 another comedy, called “The Widow’s Tears;” acted both at Black and White Friars. It has been observed, that “some parts of this play are very fine, and the incidents affecting and interesting:” but the catastrophe is thought exceptionable.

, an eminent French astronomer, was born at Mauriac, a town in Upper Auvergne, on the 23d of May, 1728, of John Chappe, lord of the barony of Auteroche, and Magdalen de la Farge, daughter of Peter de la Farge, lord of larPierre. From his birth he enjoyed the valuable advantage of not being under the necessity of struggling, like many men of genius, with adversity and penury. The distinguished rank which his parents held in their province, added to their wealth and opulence, enabled them to bestow upon their son an excellent education, the foundation of which was laid at Mauriac, where he began his studies. Having made considerable progress here, he went afterwards to finish them at the college de Louis le Grand. M. Chappe, from his earliest infancy, shewed a surprising turn for drawing and the mathematics. Descartes was scarcely eight years of age when he was styled a philosopher, and Chappe at that age might have been called a mathematician. An irresistible impulse, and singular disposition, as if innate, led him to draw plans and make calculations; but these pursuits, quite forojgn to the studies in which he was then engaged, occupied no part of that time which was allotted for them. He applied to the former only at those moments which the regulations. of the college suffered him to call his own.

, a protestant writer, born at Geneva, whose family were originally of Poitiers, was preceptor to William III. king of England; afterwards governor of the pages to George duke of Brunswick Lunen burg, which post he held till his death, August 31, 1701, at Zell. Three days before his death he wrote a sonnet, in which he complains of being old, blind, and poor. He collected and printed “Tavernier’s Voyages,” 1675, 4to. Jurieu having written against what is there said of the Dutch, in his book entitled “L'Esprit de M. Arnauld,” Chapuzeau answered him in 1691, by a work called “Defense du Sieur Samuel Chapuzeau contre l'Esprit de M. Arnauld.” He wrote, besides, “Eloge de la Ville de Lyons,” 4to. Une Relation de Savoye; l‘Europe vivante, ou relation nouveile, historique, politique, et de tous les Etats, tels qu’ils etoient en 1666,“Paris, 1667, 4to. He also published” Traite de la maniere de Pre'cher, suivi de quatre Sermons prononcées a Cassel.“Chapuzeau tried every kind of writing, even comedies, the greatest part of which have been collected under the title of” La Muse enjouee, ou le Theatre Comique.“In 1694 he published the plan of an” Historical, Geographical, and Philological Dictionary," on which he employed many years, but it was not finished at his death. He complains, however, of Moreri having availed himself of his manuscripts, but does not inform us where he found them.

She then applied to the stage, apparently from inclination as well as necessity; and opened with the little part of Mademoiselle in the “Provoked Wife,” in which she met with all the success she could expect. From this she rose in her second and third attempts to the capital characters of Alicia in “Jane Shore,” and Andromache in the “Distressed Mother;” in which, notwithstanding the remembrance of Mrs. Porter and Mrs. Oldfield, she met with great indulgence from the audience; and being remarkable for reading well, was suffered upon sudden emergencies to read characters of no less importance than those of Cleopatra and queen Elizabeth. She was after this engaged at a good salary and sufficient supply of very considerable parts, at the Haymarket, and after that at Drury-lane. She now seemed well settled, and likely to have made no inglorious figure in theatrical life; but that ungovernable impetuosity of passions, which ran through all her actions, induced her to quarrel with Fleetwood, the then manager; whom she not only left on a sudden without any notice given, but even vented her spleen against him in public, by a little dramatic farce, called “The Art of Management;” and though Fleetwood forgave that injury, and restored her to her former station, yet she acknowledges that she afterwards very ungratefully left him a second time, without any blame on his part.

Thus perished Charles and all his projects: for he was meditating designs which would have changed the face of Europe. The tzar was uniting with him to re-establish Stanislaus, and dethrone Augustus. He was about to furnish ships to drive the house of Hanover from the throne of England, and replace the pretender in it; and land-forces at the same time to attack George I. in his states of Hanover, and especially in Bremen and Verden, which he had taken from Charles. “Charles XII.” says Montesquieu, ic was not Alexander, but he would have been Alexander’s best soldier.“Heriaut observes,” that Charles in his projects had no relish for the probable: to furnish gout to him, success must lie beyond the bounds of probability." Doubtless he might be called the Quixote of the north. He carried, as his historian says, all the virtues of the hero to an excess, which made them as dangerous and pernicious as the opposite vices. His firmness was obstinacy, his liberality profusion, his courage rashness, his severity cruelty: he was in his last years less a king than a tyrant, and more a soldier than an hero. The projects of Alexander, whom he affected to imitate, were not only wise, but wisely executed; whereas Charles, knowing nothing but arms, never regulated any of his movements by policy, according to the exigencies of the conjuncture, but suffered himself to be borne along by a brutal courage, which often led him into difficulties, and at length occasioned his death. He was a singular man, rather than a great man.

Though Charles lived hardily himself, a soldier did not fear to remonstrate to him against some bread, which was very black and mouldy, and which yet was the only provision the troops had. Charles called for a piece of it, and calmly ate it up; saying, “that it was indeed not good, but that it might be eaten.” From the danger he was in in Poland, when he beat the Saxon troops in 1702, a comedy was exhibited at Marienburg, where the combat was represented to the disadvantage of the Swedes, “Oh,” says Charles, hearing of it, “J am far from envying them in this pleasure. Let them beat me upon the theatres as long as they will, provided I do but beat them in the field.”

, a very learned physician, and voluminous writer, the son of the rev. Walter Charleton, M. A. some time vicar of Ilminster, and afterwards rector of Shepton Mallet, in the county of Somerset, was born at Shepton Mallet, February 2, 1619, and was first educated by his father, a man of extensive capacity, though but indifferently furnished with the goods of fortune. He was afterwards sent to Oxford, and entered of Magdalen Hall in Lent term 1635, where he became the pupil of the famous Dr. John Wilkins, afterwards bishop of Chester, under whom he made great progress in logic and philosophy, and was noted for assiduous application and extensive capacity, which encouraged him to aim at the accomplishments of an universal scholar. But as his circumstances confined him to some particular profession, he made choice of physic, and in a short time made as great a progress in that as he had done in his former studies. On the breaking out of the civil war, which brought the king to Oxford, Mr. Charleton, by the favour of the king, had the degree of doctor of physic conferred upon him in February 1642, and was soon after made one of the physicians in ordinary to his majesty. These honours made him be considered as a rising character, and exposed him to that envy and resentment which he could never entirely conquer. Upon the declension of the royal cause, he came up to London, was admitted of the college of physicians, acquired considerable practice, and lived in much esteem with the ablest and most learned men of the profession; such as sir Francis Prujean, sir George Ent, Dr. William Harvey, and others. In the space of ten years before the Restoration, he wrote and published several very ingenious and learned treatises, as well on physical as other subjects, by which he gained great reputation abroad as well as at home; and though they are now less regarded than perhaps they deserve, yet they were then received with almost universal approbation. He became, as Wood tells us, physician in ordinary to king Charles II. while in exile, which honour he retained after the king’s return; and, upon the founding of the royal society, was chosen one of the first members. Among other patrons and friends were William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, whose life Dr. Cliarleton translated into Latin in a very clear and elegant style, and the celebrated Hobbes, but this intimacy, with: his avowed respect for the Epicurean philosophy, drew some suspicions upon him in regard to his religion, notwithstanding the pains he had taken to distinguish between the religious and philosophical opinions of Epicurus in his own writings against infidelity. Few circumstances seem to have drawn more censure on him than his venturing to differ in opinion from the celebrated Inigo Jones respecting Stonehenge, which Jones attributed to the Romans, and asserted to be a temple dedicated by them to the god Coelus, or Coelum; Dr. Charleton referred this antiquity to later and more barbarous times, and transmitted Jones’s book, which was not published till after its author’s death, to Olaus Wormius, who wrote him several letters, tending to fortify him in his own sentiment, by proving that this work ought rather to be attributed to his countrymen the Danes. With this assistance Dr. Charleton drew up a treatise, offering many strong arguments to shew, that this could not be a Roman temple, and several plausible reasons why it ought rather to be considered as a Danish monument; but his book, though learned, and enriched with a great variety of curious observations, was but indifferently received, and but coldly defended by his friends. Jones’s son-in-law answered it with intemperate warmth, and many liberties were taken by others with Dr. Charleton’s character, although sir William Dugdale and some other eminent antiquaries owned themselves to be of our author’s opinion; but it is now supposed that both are wrong. Notwithstanding this clamour, Dr. Charleton’s fame was advanced by his anatomical prelections in the college theatre, in the spring of 1683, and his satisfactory defence of the immortal Harvey’s claim to the discovery of the circulation of the blood, against the pretence that was set up in favour of father Paul. In 1689 he was chosen president of the college of physicians, in which office he continued to the year 1691. A little after this, his circumstances becoming narrow, he found it necessary to seek a retreat in the island of Jersey; but the causes of this are not explained, nor have we been able to discover how long he continued in Jersey, or whether he returned afterwards to London. All that is known with certainty is, that he died in the latter end of 1707, and in the eighty-eighth year of his age. He appears from his writings to have been a man of extensive learning, a lover of the constitution in church and state, and so much a lover of his country as to refuse a professor’s chair in the university of Padua. In his junior years he dedicated much of his time to the study of philosophy and polite literature, was as well read in the Greek and Roman authors as any man of his time, and he was taught very early by his excellent tutor, bishop Wilkins, to digest his knowledge so as to command it readily when occasion required. In every branch of his own profession he has left testimonies of his diligence and his capacity; and whoever considers the plainness and perspicuity of his language, the pains he has taken to collect and produce the opinions of the old physicians, in order to compare them with the moderns, the just remarks with which these collections and comparisons are attended, the succinctness with which all this is dispatched, and the great accuracy of that method in which his books are written, will readily agree that he was equal to most of his contemporaries. As an antiquary, he had taken much pains in perusing our ancient historians, and in observing their excellencies as well as their defects. But, above all, he was studious of connecting the sciences with each other, and thereby rendering them severally more perfect; in which, if he did not absolutely succeed himself, he had at least the satisfaction of opening the way to others, of showing the true road to perfection, and pointing out the means of applying and making those discoveries useful, which have followed in succeeding times. There is also good reason to believe, that though we have few or none of his writings extant that were composed during the last twenty years of his life, yet he was not idle during that space, but committed many things to paper, as materials at least for other works that he designed. There is now a large collection of his ms papers and letters on subjects of philosophy and natural history in the British Museum. (Ayscough’s Catalogue.) His printed works are, 1 . “Spiritus Gorgonicus vi sua saxipara exutus, sive de causis, signis, et sanatione Lithiaseos,” Leyden, 1650, 8vo. This book is usually called De Lithiasi Diatriba. 2. “The darkness of Atheism discovered by the light of nature, a physicotheological treatise,” London, 1651, 4to. 3. “The Ephesian and Cimmerian Matrons, two remarkable examples of the power of Love and Wit/ 7 London, 1653 and 1658, 8vo. 4.” Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charletoniana: or a fabric of natural science erected upon the most ancient hypothesis of atoms,“London, 1654, in fol. 5.” The Immortality of the human Soul demonstrated by reasons natural,“London, 1657, 4to. 6.” Oeconomia Animalis novis Anatomicorum inventis, indeque desumptis modernorum Medicorum Hypothesibus Physicis superstructa et mechanice explicata,“London, 1658, 12mo; Amsterdam, 1659, 12mo; Leyden, 1678, 12mO; Hague, 1681, 12mo. It is likewise added to the last edition of” Gulielmi Cole de secretione animali cogitata.“7.” Natural history of nutrition, life, and voluntary motion, containing all the new discoveries of anatomists,“&c. London, 1658, 4to. 8.” Exercitationes Physico-Anatomicse de Oeconomia Animali,“London, 1659, 8vo printed afterwards several times abroad. 9.” Exercitationes Pathologicæ, in quibus morborum pene omnium natura, generatio, et causae ex novis Anatomicorum inventis sedulo inquiruntur,“London, 160, and 1661, 4to. 10.” Character of his most sacred Majesty Charles II. King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,“London, 1660, one sheet, 4to. 11.” Disquisitiones duae Anatomico-Physica? altera Anatome pueri de ccelo tacti, altera de Proprietatibus Cerebri humani,“London, 1664, 8vo. 12.” Chorea Gigantum, or the most famous antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called Stonehenge, standing on Salisbury Plain, restored to the Danes,“London, 1663, 4to. 13.” Onomasticon Zoicon, plerorumque animalium differentias et nomina propria pluribus linguis exponens. Cui accedunt Mantissa Anatomice, et quiedam de variis Fossilium generibus,“London, 1668 and 1671, 4to; Oxon. 1677, fol. 14.” Two Philosophical Discourses the first concerning the different wits of men the second concerning the mystery of Vintners, or a discourse of the various sicknesses of wines, and their respective remedies at this day commonly used, &c. London, 1663, 1675, 1692, 8vo. 15. “De Scorbuto Liber singularis. Cui accessit Epiphonema in Medicastros,” London, 1671, 8vo; Leyden, 1672, 12mo. 16. “Natural History of the Passions,” London, 1674, 8vo. 17. “Enquiries into Humane Nature, in six Anatomy-prelections in the new theatre of the royal college of physicians in London,” London, 1680, 4to. 18. “Oratio Anniversaria habita in Theatro inclyti Collegii Medicorum Londinensis 5to Augusti 1680, in commemorationem Beneficiorum a Doctore Harvey aliisque præstitorum,” London, 1680, 4to. 19. “The harmony of natural and positive Divine Laws,” London, 1682, 8vo. 20. “Three Anatomic Lectures concerning, l.The motion of the blood through the veins and arteries. 2. The organic structure of the heart. 3. The efficient cause of the heart’s pulsation. Read in the 19th, 20th, and 21st day of March 1682, in the anatomic theatre of his majesty’s royal college of Physicians in London,” London, 1683, 4to. 21. “Inquisitio Physlca de causis Catameniorum, et Uteri Rheumatismo, in quo probatur sanguinem in animali fermentescere nunquam,” London, 1685, 8vo. 22. “Gulielmi Ducis Novicastrensis vita,” London, 1668, fol. This is a translation from the English original written by Margaret, the second wife of William duke of Newcastle. 23. “A Ternary of Paradoxes, of the magnetic cure of wounds, nativity of tartar in wine, and image of God in man,” London, 1650, 4to. 24. “The errors of physicians concerning Defluxions called Deliramenta Catarrhi,” London, 1650, 4to, both translations from Van Helmont. 25. “Epicurus his Morals,” London, 1655, 4to. This work of his is divided into thirty-one chapters, and in these he fully treats all the principles of the Epicurean philosophy, digested under their proper heads; tending to prove, that, considering the state of the heathen world, the morals of Epicurus were as good as any, as in a former work he had shewn that his philosophic opinions were the best of any, or at least capable of being explained in such a manner as that they might become so in the hands of a modern philosopher. This work was translated into several modern languages. 26. “The Life of Marcellus,” translated from Plutarch, and printed in the second volume of “Plutarch’s Lives translated from the Greek by several hands,” London, 1684, 8vo.

In the beginning of October 1768, the completion of the new bridge at Bristol suggested to him a fit opportunity for playing off the first of his public deceptions. This was an account of the ceremonies on opening the old bridge, said to be taken from an ancient manuscript, a copy of which he sent to Farley’s Bristol Journal, in a short letter signed Dunhelmus Bristoliensis. Such a memoir, at so critical a time, naturally excited attention; and Farley, who was called upon to give up the author, after touch inquiry, discovered that Chatterton had sent it. Chatterton was consequently interrogated, probably without much ceremony, where he had obtained it. And here his unhappy disposition shewed itself in a manner highly affecting in one so young, for he had not yet reached his sixteenth year, and according to all that can be gathered, had not been corrupted either by precept or example. “To the threats,” we are told, “of those who treated him (agreeably to his appearance) as a child, he returned nothing but haughtiness, and a refusal to give any account. By milder usage he was somewhat softened, and appeared inclined to give all the information in his power.”

“Over the north porch of St. Mary Redcliffe church, which was founded, or at least rebuilt, by Mr. W. Canynge (an eminent merchant of Bristol, in the fifteenth century, and in the reign of Edward the Fourth), there is a kind of muniment room, in which were deposited six v or seven chests, one of which in particular was called Mr. Canynge’s cofre: this chest, it is said, was secured by six keys,- two of which were entrusted to the minister and procurator of the church, two to the mayor, and one to each of the church-wardens. In process of time, however, the six keys appear to have been lost: and about the year 1727, a notion prevailed that some title deeds, and other vyrjtings of value, wtrje contained in Mr. Ciniynge’s cofre. In consequence of this opinion an order of vestry was made, that the chest should be opened under the inspection of an attorney; and that those writings which appeared of consequence should be removed to the south porch of the church. The locks were therefore forced, and not only the principal chest, but the others, which were also supposed to contain writings, were all broken open. The deeds immediately relating to the church were removed, and the other manuscripts were left exposed as of no value. Considerable depredations had, from time to time, been committed upon them by different persons: but the most insatiate of these plunderers was the father of Chatterton. His uncle being sexton of St. Mary Redcliffe gave him free access to the church. He carried off, from time to time, parcels of the parchments, and one time alone, with the assistance of his boys, is known to have filled a large basket with them. They were deposited in a cupboard in the school and employed for different purposes, such as the covering of copy-books, &c. in particular, Mr. Gibbs, the minister of the parish, having presented the boys with twenty Bibles, Mr. Chatterton, in order to preserve these books from being damaged, covered them with some of the parchments. At his death, the widow being under a necessity of removing, carried the remainder of them to her own habitation. Of the discovery of their value by the younger Chatterton, the account of Mr. Smith, a very intimate acquaintance, which he gave to Dr. Glynn of Cambridge, is too interesting to be omitted. When young Chatterton was first articled to Mr. Lambert, he used frequently to come home to his mother, by way of a short visit. There one day his eye was caught by one of these parchments, which had been converted into a thread-paper. He found not only the writing to be very old, the characters very different from common characters, but that the subject therein treated was different from common subjects. Being naturally of an inquisitive and curious turn, he was very much struck with their appearance, and, as might be expected, began to question his mother what those threadpapers were, how she got them, and whence they came. Upon further inquiry, he was led to a full discovery of all the parchments which remained; the bulk of them consisted of poetical and other compositions, by Mr. Canynge, and a particular friend of his, Thomas Rowley, whom Chatterton at first called a monk, and afterwards a secular priest of the fifteenth century. Such, at least, appears to be the account which. Chatterton thought proper to give, and which he wished to be believed. It is, indeed, confirmed by the testimony of his mother and sister. Mrs. Chatterton informed a friend of the dean of Exeter (Dr. Milles), that on her removal from Pyle-street, she emptied the cupboard of its contents, partly into a large long deal box, where her husband used to keep his clothes, and partly into a square oak box of a smaller size; carrying both with their contents to her lodgings, where, according to her account, they continued neglected and undisturbed till her son first discovered their value; who having examined their contents, told his mother ‘ that he had found a treasure, and was so glad nothing could be like it.’ That he then removed all these parchments out of the large long deal box in which his father used to keep his clothes, into the square oak box: that he was perpetually ransacking every corner of the house for more parchments; and from time to time, carried away those he had already found by pockets full. That one day happening to see Clarke’s History of the Bible covered with one of those parchments, he swore a great oath, and stripping the book, put the cover into his pocket, and carried it away; at the same time stripping a common little Bible, but finding no writing upon the cover, replaced it again very leisurely. Upon being informed of the manner in which his father had procured the parchments, he went himself to the place, and picked up four more.”

His first literary attempts by which he was to realize the dreams of presumption, were of the political kind, chiefly satires against the members and friends of administration. In March 1770, he wrote a poem called “Kew Gardens,” part of which only has been published, but enough to show that he had been supplied by some patriotic preceptor with the floating scandal of the day against the princess dowager, lord Bute, and other statesmen. It is highly improbable that a boy who had spent the greater part of his time since he left school, in fabricating or deciphering the -poetry, heraldry, and topography of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, should on a sudden become well acquainted with the intrigues of political men and their families. In all this, his materials must have been supplied by some persons who lived by propagating the calumnies of personal and political history, and who would rejoice in the dauntless spirit of their new associate. Another poem, of the same description, was entitled “The Whore of Babylon.” Of both these there are specimens in his works, but it does not appear that the whole of them were printed.

When public attention was at length called to Chattertori’s history, his admirers took every step to excite compassion in his favour. It became the fashion to repeat that he was starved by an insensible age, or suffered, by the neglect of patrons, to perish in want of the common necessaries of life. But of this there is no satisfactory evidence. On the contrary, he appears to have been fully employed by his literary friends almost up to the day of his death, and from one of them he solicited money a very little before that catastrophe, and received it with an assurance that he should have more if he wanted it. This benefactor was the late Mr. Hamilton senior, the proprietor of the Critical Review, a man of well-known liberality, both of mind and purse. One who knew him well, when in London, and who wrote under the inspection of Mr. Hamilton in the Critical Review, gives it as a probable conjecture, that “he wished to seal his secret with his death. He knew that he and Rowley were suspected to be the same; his London friends spoke of it with little scruple, and he neither confessed nor denied it. He might fear somewhat from himself; might dread the effects of increasing obligations, and be struck with horror at the thought of a public detection. He sometimes seemed wild, abstracted, and incoherent; at others he had a Settled gloominess in his countenance, the sure presage of his fatal resolution. In short, this was the very temperament and constitution from which we should, in similar circumstances, expect the same event. He was one of those irregular meteors which astonish the universe for a moment, and then, disappear for ever.” This is at least plausible; but the immediate cause of his death must perhaps yet remain a mystery. He had written so recently to his Bristol friends (about a month before), without a syllable indicating discontent or despair, that it was wholly unexpected on their part; but suicide, at one time or other, his biographers have proved, was his fixed purpose, and the execution of it was probably to depend on his disappointment in whatever wild or impracticable scheme he might meditate. He got enough in London by his literary labours, to supply the decent necessaries of life, but his dreams of affluence were over, and had probably left that frightful void in his mind at which despair and disappointed pride entered.

His biographers have provided him with education both at Oxford and Cambridge, a circumstance which we know occurred in the history of other scholars of that period, and is not therefore improbable. But in his “Court of Love,” which was composed when he was about eighteen, he speaks of himself under the name of” Philogenet, of Cambridge, clerk.” Mr. Tyrwhitt, while he does not think this a decisive proof that he was really educated at Cambridge, is willing to admit it as a strong argument that he was not educated at Oxford. Wood, in his Annals (vol. I. book I. 484.) gives a report, or rather tradition, that “when Wickliff was guardian or warden of Canterbury college, he had to his pupil the famous poet called Jeffry Chaucer (father of Thomas Chaucer, of Ewelme in Oxfordshire, esq.) who following the steps of his master, reflected much upon the corruptions of the clergy.” This is something like evidence if it could be depended on; at least it is preferable to the conjecture of Leland, who supposes Chaucer to have been educated at Oxford, merely because he had before supposed that he was born either in Oxfordshire or Berkshire. Those who contend for Cambridge as the place of his education, fix upon Solere’s hall, which he has described in his story of the Miller of Trompington; but Solere’s hall is merely a corruption of Soler hall, i.e. a hall with an open gallery, or solere window. The advocates for Oxford are inclined to place him in Merton college, because his contemporaries Strode and Occleve were of that college. It is equally a matter of conjecture that he was first educated at Cambridge, and afterwards at Oxford. Wherever he studied, we have sufficient proofs of his capacity and proficiency. He appears to have acquired a very great proportion of the learning of his age, and became a master of its philosophy, poetry, and such languages as formed the intercourse between men of learning. Leland says he was “acutus Dialecticus, dulcis Rhetor, lepidus Poeta, gravis Philosophus, ingeniosus Mathematicus, denique sanctus Theologus.” It is equally probable that he courted the muses in those early days, in which he is said to have been encouraged by Gower, although there are some grounds for supposing that his acquaintance with Gower was of a later date.

It appears from the historians of Richard II. that the duke of Lancaster, about the third or fourth year of that monarch’s reign, began to decline in political influence, if not in popularity, owing to the encouragement he had given to the celebrated reformer Wickliffe, whom he supported against the clergy, to whose power in state affairs he had long looked with a jealous eye. Chaucer’s works show evidently that he concurred with the duke in his opinion of the clergy, and have procured him to be ranked among the few who paved the way for the reformation. Yet when the insurrection of Wat Tyler was imputed to the principles of the Wicklevites, the duke, it is said, withdrew his countenance from them, and disclaimed their tenets. Chaucer is likewise reported to have altered his sentiments, but the fact, in neither case, is satisfactorily confirmed. The duke of Lancaster condemned the doctrines of those followers of Wickliff only, who had excited public disturbances; and Chaucer was so far from abandoning his former notions, that in 1384, he exerted his utmost interest in favour of John Comberton, commonly called John of Northampton, when about to be re-chosen mayor of London. Comberton was a reformer on WicklifFs principles, and so obnoxious on that account to the clergy, that they stirred up a commotion on his re-election, which the king was obliged to quell by force. The consequence was, that some lives were lost, Comberton was imprisoned, and strict search was made after Chaucer, who contrived to escape first to Hainault, then to France, and finally to Zealand. The date of his flight has not been ascertained, but it was no doubt upon this occasion that he lost his place in the customs.

But the king’s favour did not end with the offices just mentioned. In the seventeenth year of his reign, 1394, he granted to Chaucer a new annuity of twenty pounds; in 1398, his protection for two years; and in 1399, a pipe of wine annually. From the succeeding sovereign Henry IV. he obtained, in the year last mentioned, a confirmation of his two grants of 20l. and of the pipe of wine, and at the same time an additional grant of an annuity of forty marks. Notwithstanding this dependent state of his affairs, some of his biographers represent him as possessed of Dunnington castle in Berkshire, which he must have purchased at the time he received the above annuity of twenty pounds; for up to that date (1394) it was in the possession of sir Richard Abberbury. Mr. Tyrwhitt remarks that the tradition which Evelyn notices in his Sylva, of an oak in Dunnington park called Chaucer’s oak, may be sufficiently accounted for, without supposing that it was planted by Chaucer himself, as the castle was undoubtedly in the hands of Thomas Chaucer for many years. During his retirement in 1391, he wrote his learned treatise on the Astrolabe, for the use of his son Lewis, who was then ten years old; and this is the only circumstance respecting his family which we have on his own or any authority that deserves credit. Leland, Bale, and Wood place this son under the tuition of his father’s friend Nicholas Strode (whom, however, they call Ralph) of Merton college, Oxford; but if Wood could trace Strode no farther than the year 1370, it is impossible he could have been the tutor of Chaucer’s son in 1391.

Although Chaucer has been generally hailed as the founder of English poetry and literature, the extent of the obligations which English poetry and literature owe to him has not been decidedly ascertained. The improvement he introduced in language and versification has been called in question, not only by modern but by ancient critics. The chief faults attributed to him, are the mixture of French in all his works, and his ignorance of the laws of versification. With respect to the mixture of French words and phrases in Chaucer’s writings, it must be observed that the French language was prevalent in this country several centuries before his time. Even previously to the conquest, the Normans had made it a fashion to speak French in the English court, and from thence it would naturally be adopted by the people; but after the conquest this became the case in a much greater proportion. It was a matter of policy in the conqueror to introduce his own language, and it would soon become a matter of interest in the people to acquire it. We uniformly find that where new settlers appear, even without the superiority of conquerors, the aborigines find it convenient to learn their language. The history of king William’s conquest and policy shows that his language must soon extend over a kingdom which he had parcelled out among his chiefs as the reward of their valour and attachment. One step which he took must above all others have contributed to naturalize the French language. He supplied all vacancies in the ecclesiastical establishment with Norman clergy; and if, with all this influence, the French language did not universally prevail, it must at least have interfered in a very considerable degree with the use of the native tongue. At schools, French and Latin were taught together in the reign of Edward III. and it was usual to make the scholars construe their Latin lessons into French, a practice which must have greatly retarded the progress of the native tongue towards refinement. Some check, indeed, appears to have been given to this in the reign of the same sovereign; but the proceedings in parliament and the statutes continued to be promulgated in French for a far longer period.